Paul Davis Ryan

Research Report July 19, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 2 Top Hit ................................................................................................................................. 13 Personal Biography ............................................................................................................... 14
Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Childhood .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Education .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Career ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Lifestyle........................................................................................................................................................ 16

The Ryan Budgets ................................................................................................................ 18
Ryan Plan Timeline ..................................................................................................................................... 18
2012 Budget ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 2013 Budget ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

2010 “Roadmap” ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Ends Medicare As We Know It ................................................................................................................... 21
Raises Retirement Age While Leaving No Safety Net ..................................................................................................................... 22 Reduces Beneficiary Spending By As Much As 42% ....................................................................................................................... 22 Opt-out For New Enrollees Would Jeopardize Benefits For Current Recipients ...................................................................... 23 Reopens The Prescription Drug Doughnut Hole ............................................................................................................................ 23 Public Reception .................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Kept Subsidies For Oil Companies While Cutting Alternative Energy ..................................................... 23
Ryan Budget Protected Tax Breaks And Subsidies For Oil Companies ...................................................................................... 23 Ryan Plan Slashes Alternative Energy Funding ................................................................................................................................ 24

Social Security ............................................................................................................................................. 26
2010 Budget Proposal ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Slashes Medicaid ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Destroys Jobs .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Reduces Federal Spending On Health Care Programs By 75% ................................................................ 28
Repeals The Affordable Care Act ....................................................................................................................................................... 28

Hurts The Most Vulnerable ....................................................................................................................... 28 Makes College Less Affordable .................................................................................................................. 29
Double Interest Rate For Student Loans ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Slashes Pell Grants ................................................................................................................................................................................. 29

Middle / Low Income ................................................................................................................................. 31 Raises Taxes On The Poor To Pay For Tax Breaks For The Rich ............................................................ 31
2

Does Not Balance The Budget .................................................................................................................. 32
Violated Proposed Balanced Budget amendments ........................................................................................................................... 33

Ryan On His Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Ryan Plan In Presidential Politics .............................................................................................................. 35 Editorial Reactions ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Ryan-Wyden Proposal ................................................................................................................................ 38
Medicaid .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Social Security ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Spending Programs ................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Taxes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40

Other Budget Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 41
2007 Budget Alternative ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Ethics and Style .................................................................................................................... 43
Personal ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Ethical Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 45
Private Travel .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Troha Fee Deal....................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Influence ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 Rhetoric ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 Ideology ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Occupy Wall Street ................................................................................................................................................................................ 53

ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 54 Abortion ................................................................................................................................ 54
Access ......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Contraception Mandate .............................................................................................................................. 55 Criminalization ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Federal Funding Ban .................................................................................................................................. 55 Fetal Protection .......................................................................................................................................... 56 Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 57 Notification ................................................................................................................................................. 57 Partial Birth Abortion ................................................................................................................................. 58 Planned Parenthood ................................................................................................................................... 58 Roe v Wade ................................................................................................................................................. 58 Stupak Amendment .................................................................................................................................... 59 Stem Cell Research ..................................................................................................................................... 59
3

Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 61
Children’s Food ........................................................................................................................................... 61 Disaster Relief.............................................................................................................................................. 61 Farm Bill ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 Farm Subsidies ........................................................................................................................................... 62 FDA............................................................................................................................................................. 63 Food Safety ................................................................................................................................................. 63 Food Stamps ............................................................................................................................................... 65 Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 65

Arts and Humanities ............................................................................................................. 67 Auto Industry ........................................................................................................................ 68
Auto Bailout ................................................................................................................................................ 68 Alternative Fuels ......................................................................................................................................... 68 Cash for Clunkers ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Fuel Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Gas .............................................................................................................................................................. 70

Banking and Finance ............................................................................................................ 71
Bailouts ........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Banking........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Dodd Frank.................................................................................................................................................. 71 Executive Pay .............................................................................................................................................. 71 Committee Chairman ................................................................................................................................. 72
Committee Hearings .............................................................................................................................................................................. 72

Consumer Protection .................................................................................................................................. 75 Credit Cards ................................................................................................................................................ 76 Monetary Policy And The Federal Reserve ................................................................................................ 76 Regulation................................................................................................................................................... 78 Stock Market ............................................................................................................................................... 80 TARP .......................................................................................................................................................... 80

Budget ................................................................................................................................... 82
Balanced Budget Amendment ................................................................................................................... 82 Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission ......................................................................................................... 82
4

Budget Votes .............................................................................................................................................. 83 Congressional Pay ...................................................................................................................................... 85 Cut, Cap, and Balance ................................................................................................................................ 87 Debt Limit Fight......................................................................................................................................... 87 Earmarks..................................................................................................................................................... 89 Entitlement Reform .................................................................................................................................... 90 Federal Pay .................................................................................................................................................. 91 Federal Surplus ............................................................................................................................................ 91 Government Shutdown ............................................................................................................................... 92 International Debt Relief ............................................................................................................................ 93 Local Projects ............................................................................................................................................. 93 Spending ..................................................................................................................................................... 93
Congressional Spending ........................................................................................................................................................................ 98

Spending Criticism ..................................................................................................................................... 98

Business ............................................................................................................................... 101
Small Businesses........................................................................................................................................ 101 Regulation.................................................................................................................................................. 102

Civil Rights and Liberties .................................................................................................... 103
Affirmative Action...................................................................................................................................... 103 Flag Burning .............................................................................................................................................. 104 Pledge of Allegiance .................................................................................................................................. 104 Privacy........................................................................................................................................................ 104 Religion ...................................................................................................................................................... 105 Terror Suspects .......................................................................................................................................... 106 Voting ........................................................................................................................................................ 106

Crime and Safety .................................................................................................................. 108
Child Abuse ............................................................................................................................................... 108 Domestic Violence ..................................................................................................................................... 108 Drugs ......................................................................................................................................................... 108
Marijuana ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 109

Guns ........................................................................................................................................................... 109
Gun Safety............................................................................................................................................................................................. 110 Background Checks ............................................................................................................................................................................. 110 5

Gun Bans............................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Conceal Carry Laws ............................................................................................................................................................................. 111 Hunting History ................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 National Rifle Association .................................................................................................................................................................. 111

Prisons ....................................................................................................................................................... 112

Defense ................................................................................................................................ 114
DOD Budgeting and Defense Spending................................................................................................... 114 Intelligence ................................................................................................................................................ 119 Military ....................................................................................................................................................... 120 Military Pay ................................................................................................................................................ 121
Civilian Defense Employees .............................................................................................................................................................. 122

Missile Defense.......................................................................................................................................... 123 Non-Nuclear Proliferation ........................................................................................................................ 123

Economy and Jobs ............................................................................................................... 124
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................................................... 124 Economic Development ............................................................................................................................ 124 Bush Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 124 Jobs ............................................................................................................................................................ 125

Education ............................................................................................................................. 126
Affordability ............................................................................................................................................... 127 For-Profit Colleges..................................................................................................................................... 127 Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 127 Head Start .................................................................................................................................................. 129 Higher Education ...................................................................................................................................... 130 No Child Left Behind ................................................................................................................................ 130 Public Schools............................................................................................................................................ 131 Pell Grants ................................................................................................................................................. 131 Teachers..................................................................................................................................................... 132 Student Loans ............................................................................................................................................ 133 Vouchers .................................................................................................................................................... 134

Energy and the Environment .............................................................................................. 135
Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................. 135 Alternative Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 136
6

Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................... 136 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................ 137
Reformulated Gas Requirement ........................................................................................................................................................ 138 Gas Prices .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 138

Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................................ 139 Green Jobs.................................................................................................................................................. 139 Land Management .................................................................................................................................... 140 Mining ....................................................................................................................................................... 141 Nuclear Energy.......................................................................................................................................... 142 National Parks and Preservation ............................................................................................................... 142 Oil .............................................................................................................................................................. 146
Oil Spills ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 148 Drilling ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 148 Keystone Pipeline ................................................................................................................................................................................ 150

Pollution..................................................................................................................................................... 150 Water .......................................................................................................................................................... 151 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................... 152

Ethics and Lobbying............................................................................................................ 154
Campaign Finance .................................................................................................................................... 154 Election Laws ............................................................................................................................................ 155 Ethics Votes ............................................................................................................................................... 155
Insider Trading ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 155 Ethics ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 Lobbying................................................................................................................................................................................................ 156 Congressional Investigations.............................................................................................................................................................. 157

Transparency ............................................................................................................................................. 157

Foreign Policy ...................................................................................................................... 159
Foreign Aid ................................................................................................................................................ 159 Afghanistan ................................................................................................................................................ 160 Africa .......................................................................................................................................................... 161 China .......................................................................................................................................................... 162 Cuba ........................................................................................................................................................... 163 Europe ....................................................................................................................................................... 163 Iran ............................................................................................................................................................. 164 Iraq ............................................................................................................................................................. 164
7

Israel .......................................................................................................................................................... 170 Korea .......................................................................................................................................................... 171 Kosovo........................................................................................................................................................ 171 Libya .......................................................................................................................................................... 171 Pakistan ..................................................................................................................................................... 172 Russia......................................................................................................................................................... 172 Worldwide Organizations .......................................................................................................................... 172

GLBT ................................................................................................................................... 174
Hate Crimes ............................................................................................................................................... 174 Marriage, Civil Unions .............................................................................................................................. 174 DADT ........................................................................................................................................................ 174 DOMA ....................................................................................................................................................... 174

Health Care .......................................................................................................................... 176
Affordable Care Act ................................................................................................................................... 176
Repeal Effort ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 176 Criticism ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 178 Tax Language ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 179

Health Care Reform................................................................................................................................... 179 Health Insurance ....................................................................................................................................... 181
Health Savings Accounts .................................................................................................................................................................... 182

Children’s Health....................................................................................................................................... 183 General Health Care .................................................................................................................................. 184
Preventative Care ................................................................................................................................................................................. 186 Health Fund .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 186

Medicaid/Medicare ................................................................................................................................... 186
Medicaid ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 186 Medicare ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 187 Ryan-Wyden.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 190

Patient’s Choice Act .................................................................................................................................. 190 Patients’ Rights.......................................................................................................................................... 191 Prescription Drugs..................................................................................................................................... 192 Wisconsin Health Costs ............................................................................................................................ 194

Housing ............................................................................................................................... 195
Foreclosure ................................................................................................................................................ 195 Housing and Urban Development ............................................................................................................ 196
8

Mortgage Reform ...................................................................................................................................... 196

Homeland Secuirty .............................................................................................................. 199
9/11 Commission ....................................................................................................................................... 199 Bin Laden Death ....................................................................................................................................... 199 Cybersecurity ............................................................................................................................................. 199 Detainees and Terror Suspects .................................................................................................................. 199 Disasters ....................................................................................................................................................200 Funding .....................................................................................................................................................202 National Security .......................................................................................................................................204 Patriot Act ..................................................................................................................................................206 Terrorism ...................................................................................................................................................208 Torture .......................................................................................................................................................208

Immigration ........................................................................................................................ 209
Amnesty .....................................................................................................................................................209 Border Security ..........................................................................................................................................209 Criminalization .......................................................................................................................................... 210 Driver’s License and Passports ................................................................................................................. 210 DREAM Act............................................................................................................................................... 211 Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 211 Guest Work ................................................................................................................................................ 212 Local Enforcement .................................................................................................................................... 212

Labor .................................................................................................................................... 213
Executive Compensation........................................................................................................................... 213 Federal Employees .................................................................................................................................... 213 Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 213 Minimum Wage and Fair Wage ................................................................................................................ 214
Minimum Wage .................................................................................................................................................................................... 214 Paycheck Protection ............................................................................................................................................................................ 214 Wage Discrimination ........................................................................................................................................................................... 215

National Labor Relations Board ............................................................................................................... 215 Unions ........................................................................................................................................................ 216 Unemployment .......................................................................................................................................... 217 Pensions ..................................................................................................................................................... 219
9

Workers Comp and Safety ......................................................................................................................... 219 Workers’ Rights .........................................................................................................................................220

Legal Issues ......................................................................................................................... 221
Tort Reform ............................................................................................................................................... 221

Other ................................................................................................................................... 224
Census ........................................................................................................................................................224 Community Service....................................................................................................................................224 Gambling ...................................................................................................................................................224 Native Americans ......................................................................................................................................225

Science and Technology ..................................................................................................... 227
Communication .........................................................................................................................................227 Funding .....................................................................................................................................................228 Internet ......................................................................................................................................................229 NASA .........................................................................................................................................................230

Social Security ...................................................................................................................... 231
Benefits ...................................................................................................................................................... 231 Bush Social Security Plan .......................................................................................................................... 231 Fraud ..........................................................................................................................................................232 Privatization ...............................................................................................................................................232 Solvency .....................................................................................................................................................237 Stock Market Investment ..........................................................................................................................238 Tax Cuts.....................................................................................................................................................238 Trust Fund .................................................................................................................................................239
“Lockbox” Legislation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 242

Taxes ................................................................................................................................... 244
Alternative Minimum Tax .........................................................................................................................245 Bush Tax Cuts ...........................................................................................................................................247 Capital Gains .............................................................................................................................................248 Corporate Taxes.........................................................................................................................................249 Estate Tax ..................................................................................................................................................250 Flat Tax ...................................................................................................................................................... 251 IRS ............................................................................................................................................................. 251
10

Payroll Tax .................................................................................................................................................252 Tax Code....................................................................................................................................................253 Tax Cuts.....................................................................................................................................................253 Tax Increases .............................................................................................................................................258

Transportation .................................................................................................................... 259
Amtrak and High Speed Rail ....................................................................................................................259 Aviation ......................................................................................................................................................260 Funding ..................................................................................................................................................... 261 Highways ...................................................................................................................................................262

Trade ................................................................................................................................... 264
Trade Agreements .....................................................................................................................................264
Asia ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 264 Central America.................................................................................................................................................................................... 265 Middle East ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 266 South America ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 266

World Trade Organization ........................................................................................................................266

Veterans .............................................................................................................................. 268
Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................268 Funding .....................................................................................................................................................270 GI Bill.........................................................................................................................................................270

Welfare ................................................................................................................................. 271 Women And Children ......................................................................................................... 272
Child Support .............................................................................................................................................272

POLITICS ........................................................................................................................... 273
2012 Election ..............................................................................................................................................273
Congressional Reelection Campaign ................................................................................................................................................. 273 Governorship Speculation .................................................................................................................................................................. 273 Presidential Draft Efforts ................................................................................................................................................................... 273 Vice Presidential Speculation ............................................................................................................................................................. 274 Wisconsin Senate Seat ......................................................................................................................................................................... 275

2010 Election ..............................................................................................................................................275 2008 Election..............................................................................................................................................275 2004 Election..............................................................................................................................................276 2000 Election..............................................................................................................................................276 1998 Election ..............................................................................................................................................276
11

Redistricting ..............................................................................................................................................277 Campaign Finance ....................................................................................................................................278
Fundraising............................................................................................................................................................................................ 279 Bad Donations...................................................................................................................................................................................... 280

Campaign Staff ..........................................................................................................................................283 Relationships .............................................................................................................................................284
Mitt Romney ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 284 Barack Obama ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 284 American Farm Bureau Federation................................................................................................................................................... 285 Anthony Weiner ................................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Newt Gingrich ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Gabby Giffords .................................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Jeff Flake ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Marco Rubio ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 287 Mark Neumann .................................................................................................................................................................................... 287 Mitch Daniels ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 287 National Federation Of Republican Women .................................................................................................................................. 287 John Kerry............................................................................................................................................................................................. 287 Pete Hoekstra ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 288 Scott Walker .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 288 Sean Duffy ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 288 Tea Party................................................................................................................................................................................................ 288 Tommy Thompson.............................................................................................................................................................................. 289 John Shadegg ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 289 Bill Clinton ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 289 J.C. Watts ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 290

12

TOP HIT
Wall Street Journal: Ryan Plan Would “Essentially End Medicare.” According to Naftali Bendavid at the Wall Street Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11] Paul Ryan’s Plan Would “End Medicare As We Know It” By Replacing It With Private Plans. According to Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, “The result is that Americans of limited means get pounded under Ryan’s plan. At a time when wages for the average American are dropping and salaries for the rich are skyrocketing, Ryan would deepen the divide. He would end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a menu of private plans. New enrollees would get help paying the premiums, but Washington’s contribution would be capped at a rate that is unlikely to keep up with rising health costs. The modest costcontainment provisions in Obama’s health reform would be rescinded.” [Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 4/7/11] The Ryan Plan Would Double Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Seniors While Cutting Spending On Medicaid. According to Sun-Sentinel, “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” [SunSentinel, 4/16/11] Ryan Plan Would Set Off A Spiral Of Increased Premiums For Traditional Medicare As Healthy Individuals Abandoned It For Private Plans. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “Second, Chairman Ryan claims that his proposal ‘ensur[es] that traditional Medicare remains an option.’ Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Under premium support, traditional Medicare would tend to attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, while private plans would attract healthier enrollees (as occurs today with Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans). Although the proposal calls for ‘risk adjusting’ payments to health plans — that is, adjusting them to reflect the average health status of their enrollees — the risk adjustment process is highly imperfect and captures only part of the differences in costs across plans that stem from differences in the health of enrollees. Inadequate risk adjustment would mean that traditional Medicare would be only partially compensated for its higher-cost enrollees, which would force Medicare to raise beneficiary premiums to make up the difference. The higher premiums would lead more of Medicare’s healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result. Ryan also would allow private plans to tailor their benefit packages to attract healthier beneficiaries and deter sicker ones, which only makes this outcome more likely.” [Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]

13

PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY
Overview
Name: Born: Home: Education: Career: Paul Davis Ryan Jan. 29, 1970 Janesville, Wisconsin BA, Economics/Political Science, Miami University, Ohio, 1992 Janesville Craig High School, 1988 Legislative Director, United States Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, 1995-1997 Aide, United States Senator Robert Kasten of Wisconsin, 1992 Economic Adviser, Speechwriter, Empower America, 1993 - 1995 Former Speechwriter, Jack Kemp Vice Presidential Campaign Former Speechwriter, Office of the Director of National Drug Control Policy Former President, Ryan Incorporated Representative, United States House of Representative, 1998-present Member, Community Solutions and Initiatives Coalition Co-Chair, Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Member, Ducks Unlimited Member, Janesville Bowmen, Incorporated Board Member, Rock County Junior Achievement Member, Saint John Vianney’s Parish Member, Saint Mary’s Parish

Elected Office: Organizations:

Childhood
Ryan’s Allowance Was Cut For Bad Grades. According to CNN Money, “Ryan’s parents put the kids on an incentive system for allowances -- if they got just one B on their report cards, their allowance was cut from $4 to $2, and a C meant no allowance at all.” [CNN Money, 3/4/10] Ryan Is A Fifth Generation Resident Of Janesville, Wisconsin. According to US News and World Report, “Paul Davis Ryan, the youngest of Paul Sr. and Betty Ryan’s four children, was born in Janesville, Wis., on Jan. 29, 1970. Ryan is the fifth generation of his family to live in Janesville.” [US News and World Report, 7/23/08] Ryan’s Childhood Nickname Was ‘P.D.’ According to US News and World Report, “Sharing the same first name as his father, Paul had a childhood nickname: ‘P. D.’ (Paul Davis). It was often mistaken for ‘Petey,’ which caused Ryan to dislike the nickname.” [US News and World Report, 7/23/08]

Education
Ryan Attended Joseph A. Craig High School In Janesville. According to his House Biography, “Paul is a graduate of Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville and earned a degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio.” [Congressman Paul Ryan, Biography, accessed 7/16/12] Ryan Earned An Economics Degree From Miami University. According to his campaign biography, “He also earned a degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio.” [Paul Ryan for Congress, Biography, accessed 7/16/12] Ryan Wanted To Attend The University Of Chicago To Follow In The Footsteps On Milton Friedman. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “An economics major at Miami of Ohio, Ryan says his dream was to go to the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman had taught, and become an economist.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] 14

Ryan Used Social Security Benefits To Pay For His Education. According to US News and World Report, “Ryan’s father died when Paul was only 16. Using the Social Security survivor’s benefits he received until his 18th birthday, he paid for his education at Miami University in Ohio, where he completed a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science in 1992.” According to the Chicago Tribune, “Ryan’s late father was a lawyer who died when Ryan was 16. He has said his father’s death made him grow up fast. Until he was 18, Ryan, the youngest of four children, collected Social Security survivor’s benefits, which he said he socked away for college.” [US News and World Report, 7/23/08; Chicago Tribune, 4/17/11] Ryan Enrolled At Miami University, Switched To Economics After Taking Courses In Physics And Chemistry. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “After high school, Ryan enrolled in Miami University of Ohio to study medicine. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of his cardiologist grandfather. But he disliked physics and chemistry and kept being drawn to economics.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Former Econ Professor Described Ryan As An Intellectually Curious Student. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “By the time Ryan entered the classroom of Richard Hart, a Miami economics professor, the young conservative had already read works by Milton Friedman and Friedrich August von Hayek, advocates of free-market capitalism. ‘He had one characteristic you don’t see much these days in college students: That is intellectual curiosity,’ Hart said of Ryan. ‘He was always probing, asking questions, challenging conventional views.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan Had Planned To Pursue A Ph.D. In Economics Before Career In Politics. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan intended to pursue a doctorate in economics when he took a detour to the nation’s capital to work for Kasten. In Washington, he found he could use his economics knowledge to influence public policy. ‘I was writing amendments that were making it into law as a staff guy,’ Ryan said. ‘I learned early on you could make a difference.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan Received Honorary Law Degree From Carthage College. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Carthage College will award 524 bachelor’s degrees and 30 master’s degrees during graduation ceremonies today. U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will deliver the commencement address, and Milwaukee Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan will deliver the baccalaureate address. Ryan will receive an honorary doctorate of law degree, and Dolan will receive an honorary doctorate of divinity degree.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/21/06]

Career
Ryan Worked At Family Construction Company Before He Was Elected To Congress. According to his campaign biography, “Prior to his election to Congress, Paul worked at Ryan Inc., Central – a construction firm that was founded by Ryan’s great-grandfather in 1884.” [Paul Ryan for Congress, Biography, accessed 7/16/12] Ryan Began His Career Working For Supply Side Advocate Senator Bob Kasten. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “He worked his way from mailroom intern to the policy staff of the Senate small business committee under former Wisconsin Sen. Bob Kasten. Kasten was close to former congressman and cabinet secretary Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.). Both men were ardent proponents of ‘supply-side,’ ‘pro-growth’ economics, centered on the use of tax cuts to spur growth. ‘The whole idea was to reward investment and savings, and particularly to encourage risk-taking,’ says Kasten. According to Cesar Conda, who worked for Kasten at the time, ‘Paul was more than a willing student’ when it came to the ‘power of low tax rates, limited government and individual freedom.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Was A Speechwriter For Empower America. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “When Kasten was defeated by Democrat Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter and an analyst at Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Worked As A Tortilla Coast Waiter. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In his early years as a D.C. staffer, Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health Club, among various side jobs.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] 15

Ryan Was Once An Oscar Mayer Salesman, Drove The Wienermobile. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “One of his summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line called ‘Lunchables’ to supermarkets. He drove the Wienermobile once.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Was A Staffer For Senator Sam Brownback Of Nebraska. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan’s last D.C. staff job was with Republican Sam Brownback, House member and then U.S. senator from Kansas.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Turned Down Offer To Be Budget Director For George W. Bush. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In the course of researching this story, a reporter learned from a GOP source that Ryan had turned down a chance to be budget director in President George W. Bush’s second term. Ryan sounded surprised when asked about it, but confirmed it. ‘You asked. I can’t lie to you,’ he said. ‘Obviously I didn’t take the offer.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/25/09] Ryan Was A Marketing Consultant For His Family’s Construction Business. According to US News and World Report, “Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family’s construction business before being elected to Congress. Ryan Incorporated Central began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.” [US News and World Report, 7/23/08] Ryan Worked For Family Construction Business After Senator Kasten Lost Reelection Bid. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Then a Democratic state senator, Feingold defeated Kasten in 1992 and put Ryan out of a job. Ryan returned to Janesville and worked for the construction and excavation company started by his great-grandfather and still run by his cousins.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan Worked At The Conservative Think Tank Empower America. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “In Washington, a trio of powerful Republicans, including former education secretary William Bennett and former housing secretary Jack Kemp, created a conservative think tank. They asked Ryan to join their staff to work on economic issues. ‘He had a passion for the ideas of empowerment and personal ownership and for an economy as a tide that will lift all boats,’ Kemp said of Ryan.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan’s Family Construction Business Was Founded In 1884. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan is a marketing consultant at Ryan Incorporated Central, a Janesville-based construction company that was founded by his greatgrandfather in 1884 and is now owned and operated by his cousins.” Ryan’s Career Path Was An Exception Among His Generation X Peers. According to the Boston Globe, “Young people like Ryan, who chart a course from legislative aide to chief of a Senate staff to congressman, are the exceptions in Generation X. According to ‘The Fourth Turning,’ a book by Neil Howe and William Strauss that explores generational change, the most recently enfranchised Americans - those born between 1961 and 1980 - ‘politically lean toward pragmatism and nonaffiliation and would rather volunteer than vote.’ That is borne out by a University of California at Los Angeles study of recent freshmen that shows only about 6 percent even contemplate a government career. The number was three times higher 30 years ago.” [Boston Globe, 10/30/98] Ryan Worked Part-Time As A Marketing Consultant For His Family Business. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Kemp referred to Ryan as ‘a citizen politician . . . he’s coming from the private sector.’ However, Ryan’s private sector experience is limited. Ryan, 28, has worked as a part-time marketing consultant for his family’s excavation business since returning to Janesville to run for Congress this year.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/2/98]

Lifestyle
Ryan Took Regular Ski Trips To Colorado As A Child. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan’s mother is an outdoors enthusiast who led her husband and four kids on regular trips to hike and ski in the Colorado Rockies.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Said He Regularly Worked Out To P90X. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “‘(My father) died of a heart attack at 55, my grandfather died of a heart attack at 57, my great-grandfather died of heart attack at 59, so I’m into the health 16

thing,’ says Ryan. He is fairly careful about what he eats, performs an intense cross-training routine known as P90X most mornings, and has made close to 40 climbs of Colorado’s ‘Fourteeners’ (14,000-foot peaks).” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Is A Bowhunter. According to US News and World Report, “Ryan’s hobbies include hunting and fishing. He is a bowhunter and belongs to his hometown’s archery association, the Janesville Bowmen.” [US News and World Report, 7/23/08] Ryan Equated Entering Congress As Running A Small Business And Had A Mobile Office That Visits Rural Areas Of His District. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan, a Republican from Janesville in his second term, said entering Congress means running a small business. ‘Our product is constituent service,’ he said. ‘We have a larger federal government that interferes in the lives of people more often,’ he went on, naming Internal Revenue Service miscalculations and Medicare snafus as examples of ‘interference.’ Hence, Ryan staffs three offices in Wisconsin and drops $350 monthly during warm months to lease an old Snap-On Tools truck that visits rural areas as a ‘mobile constituent services center.’ It also visits county fairs.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/27/01] Ryan Loathed The Stereotypes Of His Generation. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Technically speaking, Ryan is a member of Generation X, though he bristles at the characterization. He loathes the notion of his generation as nihilistic snowboarders with chips on their shoulders, watching ‘South Park’ and muttering, ‘Yeah. Right. Whatever.’ ‘I’m an optimist,’ Ryan insists. ‘I believe in forming good, solid principles and sticking to them.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/9/98] When First Elected Ryan Pledged Not To Live In Washington. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan swears he’ll not become one of these detached professional politicians who loses sight of the needs of his district. In fact, he’s not going to really even live in Washington, he says. ‘I’ll get some cheap efficiency apartment,’ he says. ‘I plan to stay right here in the district in my house as much as I can.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/9/98]

17

THE RYAN BUDGETS
The Rise Of The Tea Party And The Global Economic Crisis Has Made Ryan’s Budget Plan A “GOP Litmus Test,” Picking Him As A Running Mate Would Be A Full “Embrace” Of His Budget Idea. According to the Associated Press, “The global economic crisis and the rise of the tea party, with its focused attention on government spending and debt, have made Ryan’s budget plans something of a GOP litmus test. In March, Romney was quick to praise Ryan’s latest proposal to slice trillions from the federal budget. Ryan reciprocated soon after with an endorsement of Romney’s White House bid. Picking Ryan as his running mate would be read as a full embrace of his budget ideas. But that assumes Ryan would return Romney’s interest.” [Associated Press, 6/16/12] Rep. Paul Ryan Said He Created The House GOP Budget Plan To Start Movement For Spending Reform. According to Gawker, “[Bill] Clinton caught Paul Ryan backstage at this morning’s Pete Peterson Foundation forum on the national debt, a gathering of die-hard deficit hawks and associated monsters. ABC News has coverage their brief conversation, which you can check out in the clip. They speak like the oldest of friends: ‘So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York,’ Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, ‘I hope Democrats don’t use this as an excuse to do nothing.’ Ryan told Clinton he fears that now nothing will get done in Washington. ‘My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving,’ Ryan said.” [Gawker, 5/25/11]

Ryan Plan Timeline
2012 BUDGET
April 11, 2011: Ryan Introduced GOP Budget To House Of Representatives. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “House Republicans’ budget plan for fiscal year 2012, slated to be taken up by the full House later this week, aims to roll back nearly half a century of social policy, as well as cut trillions in federal spending. Though it has scant prospect of gaining Senate approval, the plan is nonetheless expected to define partisan fault lines through the 2012 election and beyond. On Wednesday, President Obama will lay out a competing idea for how to go about cutting government spending and reducing the record federal deficit. He, too, is expected to address the social contract with Americans via entitlement programs, after mostly ignoring that issue in his 2012 budget proposal earlier this year. Crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, who is the Budget Committee chairman, the plan would cut $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, targeting some of America’s most popular government programs. He said on April 5 that it’s time to end ‘empty promises to Americans from a government that is going broke.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 4/12/11] April 15, 2011: House Passed Ryan Budget 235 – 193. According to the Boston Globe, “House Republicans yesterday muscled through a budget plan that pares federal spending by an estimated $5.8 trillion over the next decade while reshaping Medicare in a proposal that immediately touched off a fierce clash with Democrats. Just one day after Congress concluded its fight over this year’s spending, the House voted 235-193 to approve the fiscal blueprint for 2012 drafted by Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. Besides reconfiguring the Medicare program that now serves those 65 and older, the proposal would cut the top corporate and personal income tax rates while also overhauling the Medicaid health program for the poor. The vote represents the most ambitious effort yet by the new Republican majority in the House to demonstrate that it intends to aggressively rein in spending and shrink government. It doubles as a challenge to President Obama over which party is more determined to force a sharp shift in the handling of federal dollars. ‘The spending spree is over,’ Ryan said. ‘We cannot keep spending money we don’t have.’” [Boston Globe, 4/16/12] Ryan Authored Republican ‘Path To Prosperity’ Budget. As Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, Paul Ryan authored the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution titled, ‘The Path to Prosperity, Restoring America’s Promise.’ According to the House Committee on the Budget FY 2012 Budget Resolution, “This Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012 intends to recommit the nation fully to the timeless principles of American government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – liberty, limited government, and equality under the rule of law. It seeks to guide policies by those principles, freeing the nation from 18

the crushing burden of debt that is now threatening its future. This budget is submitted, as prescribed by law, to apply these principles, reflect this vision, and provide a framework for the orderly execution of Congress’s constitutional duties for Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond.” [House Committee on the Budget, Path to Prosperity FY 2012 Budget Resolution, 2011] May 2, 2011 – Bill Received By The Senate May 25, 2011: Senate Rejected Ryan Budget 40-57. According to the Detroit Free Press, “The U.S. Senate rejected a House-passed budget plan that would privatize Medicare, a vote aimed at putting Republicans on record on an issue Democrats say could boost them in the 2012 elections. The Democratic-controlled Senate voted, 57-40, not to advance the plan drafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican. On Tuesday, Democrats seized a Republican-held House seat in western New York in a special election that the Democratic candidate turned into a referendum on Ryan’s deficit-cutting Medicare proposal. ‘Last night’s results provide clear evidence that when voters learn about the Republican plan, ending Medicare as we know it, they say, ‘No,’’ said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. ‘This is a red district, and Republicans were expected to win, but everything changed once that conversation turned to Medicare.’” [Detroit Free Press, 5/26/11] After The 2011 August Recess, Ryan’s Policies Regarding Medicare And Medicaid Went “Nowhere” Under The Republican Leadership. According to National Journal, “In terms of policy innovation, Ryan’s ideas on Medicare and Medicaid have gone nowhere. On dollars and cents, Republican leaders took as much as they could get in spending cuts during the debt-ceiling fiasco, but they left the handshake deal with Senate Democrats and the Obama White House far short of Ryan’s original intent.” [National Journal, 9/22/11]

2013 BUDGET
March 23, 2012 - H. Con. Res 112 Introduced In The House March 29, 2012 House Passed Ryan Budget 228-191. According to the New York Times, “A fierce two-day debate over a Republican budget plan portrayed as either a path to prosperity or a road to ruin ended Thursday with House passage of a blueprint that would transform Medicare, cut domestic spending to levels not seen since World War II and order up a drastic overhaul of the tax code. The plan, which passed 228 to 191, with no Democratic votes and 10 Republican defections, will form the template around which much of the 2012 election will be fought. Democrats will try to hang its extensive changes to Medicare around the necks of vulnerable Republican candidates, along with the accusation that Republicans supported a program to punish the poor and elderly while rewarding the rich with still more tax cuts. Republicans will say theirs is the party willing to make the tough choices to tame a soaring federal debt. ‘It is so rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract, but that is exactly where we are today,’ said Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the blueprint, adding, ‘Today’s budget is a vote of confidence for the American experiment.’” [New York Times, 3/30/12] Ryan Crafted GOP’s 2013 Budget. On March 29, 2012, Ryan voted for his fiscal year 2013 budget and recommended budgetary levels for FY2014-FY2022. According to the New York Times, “A fierce two-day debate over a Republican budget plan portrayed as either a path to prosperity or a road to ruin ended Thursday with House passage of a blueprint that would transform Medicare, cut domestic spending to levels not seen since World War II and order up a drastic overhaul of the tax code. The plan, which passed 228 to 191, with no Democratic votes and 10 Republican defections, will form the template around which much of the 2012 election will be fought. […] The budget orders six House committees to draft plans to cut the deficit by $261 billion by early May to help avert automatic cuts to the military that will take place under last summer’s agreement unless a broad deficit reduction plan is passed. Cuts that are relatively abstract now will become concrete in a matter of weeks -- and will hit nutrition, health care and welfare particularly hard […]Under the Ryan plan, […] Medicare would be reduced by $205 billion. Medicaid and other health programs would be cut $770 billion. Other entitlement programs, including welfare, food stamps, agriculture subsidies and transportation, would be cut by nearly $2 trillion. Programs at the discretion of Congress would be cut $352 billion below the levels requested by the president over 10 years. To do that, House spending bills will have to come in well below the caps set last July. In the fiscal year that begins this October, the House plan sets spending on domestic programs $19 billion below the limit in last summer’s Budget Control Act. Medicare would be 19

turned into a subsidized set of private insurance plans, with the option of buying into the existing fee-for-service program. The annual growth of those subsidies would be capped just above economic growth, well below the current health care inflation rate. The Republican budget mandates the repeal of Mr. Obama’s health care law and assumes the elimination of the government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also orders up a sweeping overhaul of the tax code. The six existing personal income tax rates, topping off at 35 percent, would be reduced to two -- 10 percent and 25 percent -- with the revenue loss offset by the elimination of unspecified tax deductions and exemptions.” [Roll Call 151, S 112, 03/29/2012; New York Times, 3/30/12] April 16, 2012 - Bill Received By The Senate May 16, 2012: Ryan Plan Rejected By The Senate 41-58. According to the Associated Press, “Democrats controlling the Senate rejected for the second year in a row Wednesday a budget plan passed by House Republicans. The 58-41 vote against the GOP budget came after a daylong debate in which Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to trillion-dollar deficits, and Republicans in turn attacked Democrats for not offering a budget at all. Republicans launched the debate, which was aimed less at successfully passing a bill than highlighting the failure of Senate Democrats to deal with a budget deficit expected to top $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year. The Senate rejected five separate budget plans, including one based on President Barack Obama’s February budget and offered by Republicans to embarrass Democrats and the White House. It failed on a 99-0 vote. Three GOP senators elected in 2010 with tea party support also offered plans in a competition to see whose budget could cut government the most. The end results were preordained: sweeping rejection of Obama’s budget and a near party-line vote to block the main alternative, the blueprint of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that passed the House in March. The tallies on the Ryan budget and a tougher version offered by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., defeated on a 57-42 vote, were probably inflated since the votes weren’t on the actual budgets themselves but rather on a motion to simply take them up for debate.: [Associated Press, 5/16/12]

2010 “Roadmap”
Ryan’s “Roadmap For America’s Future” Aimed To Erase The Federal Debt By 2063, Simplify The Tax Code, And Alter Medicare And Social Security. According to the New York Times, “In this highly charged election season with both houses of Congress at stake, not a lot of politicians are lining up publicly behind Mr. Ryan. He is, nonetheless, suddenly a rising star in some corners. And like many other politicians whose ideas were once considered extreme, only to later be mainstream -- like Ronald Reagan -- Mr. Ryan is seen as on the leading edge of something. Why? His ‘Roadmap for America’s Future,’ an elaborate (critics say drastic) plan that aims to erase the federal debt by 2063, simplify the tax code and significantly alter (his critics say eviscerate) Medicare and Social Security. When asked to handicap the 2012 Republican presidential field, Sarah Palin called Mr. Ryan “sharp.” Newt Gingrich dubbed him ‘extraordinarily formidable.’ And, in a column, George Will imagined him as vice president to a President Mitch Daniels (now the Republican governor of Indiana).” [New York Times, 8/3/10] In 2010, Only 13 GOP Representatives Endorsed Ryan’s Budget Plan. According to TheStreet.com, “Rep. Paul Ryan (RWis.), is a conservative favorite, brimming with outside-the-box ideas to help revive the economy. While Ryan’s colleagues love him, only 13 GOP House members have dared to endorse his agenda, which includes partial privatization (and some potential benefit cuts) for Social Security. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) made the mistake earlier this summer of stating the obvious -- that eventually Social Security will have to be reformed. But Boehner and Ryan generated disapproval from many of their colleagues, who worry that Democrats are poised to pounce on the issue. Most Republicans question why they should declare now -- before the election -- that Social Security should be reformed. Most politicians want cover, so they prefer to wait until the Deficit Commission issues its report in early December; Social Security reform almost certainly will be a key recommendation.” [TheStreet.com, 8/11/10] Many Republicans Were Hesitant To Embrace Ryan’s “Roadmap” As “Political People” Told His Colleagues It Was Controversial, 13 Out Of The 178 Congressional Republicans Were Co-Sponsors. According to the Washington Post, “Political people always tell their candidates to stay away from controversy,’ said Ryan, 40. ‘They say, ‘Don’t propose anything new or bold because the other side will use it against you.’ ‘While he does not name the ‘political people,’ they no doubt include many Republican colleagues, who, even as they praise Ryan for his doggedness, privately consider the Roadmap a path to electoral disaster. Unlike most politicians of either party, he doesn’t speak generically about reducing spending, but he does acknowledge the very real cuts in popular programs that will be required to bring down the debt. His ideas are 20

provocative, to say the least. They include putting Medicare and Medicaid recipients in private insurance plans that could cost the government less but potentially offer fewer benefits; gradually raising the retirement age to 70; and reducing future Social Security benefits for wealthy retirees. Of the 178 Republicans in the House, 13 have signed on with Ryan as co-sponsors.” Washington Post, 8/2/10] Ryan Unveiled His “Roadmap For America’s Future” In 2008 And Revised In The Winter Of 2010, It Reformed Entitlements, Lower Taxes, And Tame Medical Inflation By Ending Tax Preferences. According to the National Review, “A key exception to Republican fecklessness has been Paul Ryan, ranking Republican member on the House Budget Committee. His ‘Roadmap for America’s Future,’ presented in 2008 and revised this winter, proposes entitlement, health-care, and tax reforms in order to make the federal budget sustainable on tax revenues equaling 19 percent of GDP, a rate close to the post-war average. Ryan gets three fundamental points right: We must reform entitlements (especially Medicare) by slowing their rate of growth and raising retirement ages; we must tame medical inflation by, among other things, ending damaging tax preferences that encourage overspending on health care; and we must broaden the tax base while lowering marginal rates in order to spur investment. In recent months, the Ryan plan has come under both criticism and self-serving praise from the left. When President Obama fielded questions at the House Republicans’ late-January retreat, he went out of his way to call the roadmap ‘a serious proposal,’ and other progressives have similarly praised it as worthy of review -- probably because they expect that the proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security will be unpopular and will undermine the Republicans who attacked the health-care bill for cutting entitlements.” [National Review, 4/19/10] Ryan Said That The “Roadmap” Was Not An Alternative To Obama But A Long-Term Solution To “Address The Country’s Pressing Needs, It Was Not A GOP Bill But His Plan. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan has been pushing his own plan, called ‘A Roadmap for America’s Future.’ The detailed proposal, first unveiled two years ago during the Bush presidency and tweaked since, has captured national attention of late in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, and on various cable and network television shows. As the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Ryan says his plan will ensure health and retirement security for all, address the country’s rising debt and promote a market-driven competitiveness in the economy. Ryan said his plan is not the Republican alternative to President Barack Obama’s budget plan. Rather, he said, it is a long-term plan to address the country’s pressing financial needs. ‘This is not a GOP bill. This is my plan,’ he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/6/10]

Ends Medicare As We Know It
Wall Street Journal: Ryan Plan Would “Essentially End Medicare.” According to Naftali Bendavid at the Wall Street Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11] Paul Ryan’s Plan Would “End Medicare As We Know It” By Replacing It With Private Plans. According to Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, “The result is that Americans of limited means get pounded under Ryan’s plan. At a time when wages for the average American are dropping and salaries for the rich are skyrocketing, Ryan would deepen the divide. He would end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a menu of private plans. New enrollees would get help paying the premiums, but Washington’s contribution would be capped at a rate that is unlikely to keep up with rising health costs. The modest costcontainment provisions in Obama’s health reform would be rescinded.” [Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 4/7/11] The Ryan Plan Would Double Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Seniors While Cutting Spending On Medicaid. According to Sun-Sentinel, “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” [SunSentinel, 4/16/11] Ryan Plan Would Set Off A Spiral Of Increased Premiums For Traditional Medicare As Healthy Individuals Abandoned It For Private Plans. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “Second, Chairman Ryan claims that his proposal ‘ensur[es] that traditional Medicare remains an option.’ Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Under premium support, traditional Medicare would tend to attract a less healthy pool of enrollees, while private plans would attract healthier enrollees (as occurs today with Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans). Although the proposal calls for ‘risk 21

adjusting’ payments to health plans — that is, adjusting them to reflect the average health status of their enrollees — the risk adjustment process is highly imperfect and captures only part of the differences in costs across plans that stem from differences in the health of enrollees. Inadequate risk adjustment would mean that traditional Medicare would be only partially compensated for its higher-cost enrollees, which would force Medicare to raise beneficiary premiums to make up the difference. The higher premiums would lead more of Medicare’s healthier enrollees to abandon it for private plans, very possibly setting off a spiral of rising premium costs and falling enrollment for traditional Medicare. Over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result. Ryan also would allow private plans to tailor their benefit packages to attract healthier beneficiaries and deter sicker ones, which only makes this outcome more likely.” [Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12] The Ryan Medicare Bill Called For Beginning In 2022, Individuals Turning 65 Would No Longer Would Receive A Guaranteed Benefit, The Government Would Provide A “Premium Support” That Would Be Adjusted Annually For Inflation. According to Health and Social Work, “A central component of the Ryan bill is its transformation of Medicare from a defined benefit plan to essentially a defined contribution plan. Beginning in 2022, individuals turning 65 would no longer receive Medicare’s traditional guaranteed benefit. Instead, the government would provide a sum of money ($8,000), or a ‘premium support’ which would be applied toward the purchase of private health insurance. This payment would be ‘adjusted’ on the basis of an individual’s health, age, and income (Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medicare Policy, 2011). Plans would be required to cover all Medicare-eligible individuals and ‘charge the same premiums to individuals in the same age group’ (p. 4). Although plans would have to cover certain benefits, it is unlikely that ‘a uniform or specified defined set of benefits’ (Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medicare Policy, 2011, p. 2) would be required.” [Health & Social Work, 8/1/11]

RAISES RETIREMENT AGE WHILE LEAVING NO SAFETY NET
Ryan Budget Would Raise Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, But Also Repeal Affordable Care Act – Thereby Leaving 65 And 66-Year-Old Individuals Without Any Guarantee Of Health Insurance. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The CBO analysis states that the Ryan plan would raise the age at which people become eligible for Medicare from 65 to 67, even as it repeals the health reform law’s coverage provisions. This means 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer coverage into the individual insurance market, where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be extremely high — thereby leaving many of them uninsured. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, many 65- and 66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition would not be able to purchase coverage at any price.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12]

REDUCES BENEFICIARY SPENDING BY AS MUCH AS 42%
Ryan Budget Would Result In Reduced Federal Spending On Each Medicare Beneficiary By 35-42%, Forcing Beneficiaries To Cover Remaining Cost Out Of Pocket. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan plan would also replace Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage with premium-support payments to seniors (starting with new beneficiaries in 2023) that they would use to buy coverage from private insurance companies or traditional Medicare. The growth in these payments each year would be limited to the percentage increase in per capita GDP plus one-half percentage point. For more than 30 years, however, health care costs per beneficiary in the United States have risen an average of about two percentage points per year faster than GDP per capita. CBO thus projects that under the Ryan budget, federal Medicare expenditures on behalf of an average 67-year-old beneficiary would, by 2050, be 35 percent to 42 percent lower than under current law. Under the Ryan budget, moreover, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals; it would instead provide premium-support vouchers to beneficiaries that they’d use to help buy coverage from private insurance companies or traditional Medicare. Therefore, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the GDP +0.5 percentage-point target would be to limit the annual increase in the government’s premium-support vouchers. That would very likely cause the vouchers to grow more slowly than health care costs — and hence purchase less 22

coverage with each passing year. Over time, more costs would likely be pushed on to beneficiaries.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12]

OPT-OUT FOR NEW ENROLLEES WOULD JEOPARDIZE BENEFITS FOR CURRENT RECIPIENTS
Opt-Option Would Increase Costs For Current Recipients By Reducing Bargaining Power And Making The RiskPool Older And Sicker. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “Third, Chairman Ryan says that his proposal would not affect people age 55 and older, but this claim would likely turn out untrue. As fewer new beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare when they reached the eligibility age, the population in traditional Medicare would gradually get older, sicker, fewer in number, and much more expensive per person to cover. Moreover, as the size of the Medicare population shrank, administrative costs would rise relative to benefit payments, traditional Medicare’s power to demand lower payment rates from providers would erode, and providers would have less incentive to participate in the program. As a result, people now age 55 and older might well face higher premiums and cost sharing for traditional Medicare, a more limited choice of providers, or both.” [Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12] Opt-Out Option For Younger Employees Would Lead To Higher Medicare Premiums Or Reduced Benefits As the Risk-Poll Shrinks. According to the National Journal, “The plan to grandfather traditional Medicare for those older than 55 could also have negative consequences for current seniors: In 2022, when the limited-subsidy program would be introduced, seniors who qualified for traditional Medicare would be allowed to switch to the new program. If healthier or younger beneficiaries make the change to lower their out-of-pocket costs, those still participating in Medicare would be part of an insurance pool that is less healthy and more expensive. To cover those higher per-person costs, Medicare might well be forced to either raise premiums or limit reimbursements to health care providers—which could prompt many to stop taking Medicare patients. [National Journal, 6/6/11]

REOPENS THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DOUGHNUT HOLE
Ryan Plan Would Increase Prescription Drug Costs By Reopening The Doughnut Hole In Drug Coverage. According to the National Journal, “But the proposal would also repeal last year’s health care law, which means reopening a coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug benefit that the statute closed. The gap, commonly called the “doughnut hole,” requires seniors to pay 100 percent of any prescription costs after the annual total reaches $2,840 and until it hits $4,550. Those who spend more or less have at least three-quarters of the costs covered. Under the 2010 health law, Medicare will pay 7 percent of the cost of generic drugs and 50 percent on name-brand pharmaceuticals; by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed.” [National Journal, 6/6/11]

PUBLIC RECEPTION
Bloomberg Poll Found 57 Percent Of Americans Thought They Would Be Worse Off Under Ryan’s Medicare Plan. According to Politico, “Democrats are winning the messaging war on Rep. Paul Ryan’s bid to overhaul Medicare, with a new Bloomberg poll finding 57 percent of Americans believe they would be worse off under his plan. Only 34 percent said they would be better off if Congress replaced ‘traditional Medicare’ with a program to purchase private insurance with government subsidies, as Ryan has proposed.” [Politico, 6/23/11]

Kept Subsidies For Oil Companies While Cutting Alternative Energy
RYAN BUDGET PROTECTED TAX BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES FOR OIL COMPANIES

23

Center For American Progress: Ryan’s Budget Retained $40 Billion In Tax Breaks For Oil. According to the Center for American Progress, “American families have been plagued by higher oil and gasoline prices over the past several years despite a significant increase in domestic oil production and rigs, and decline in consumption. But while high prices threaten the economy and family budgets, they enrich American oil companies with huge profits. Yet it appears that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion. And his budget would cut billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil and help protect middle-class families from volatile energy prices as well as create jobs. In short, the Ryan budget compounds the cost of high oil and gasoline prices on the middle class.” [Center for American Progress, Issues, 3/20/12] Newsweek: Ryan Plan Protects Tax Breaks For The Oil Industry. According to an article by Newsweek’s White House Correspondent Daniel Stone, “When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.” [Newsweek/The Daily Beast, 6/17/11]

Even Though Ryan Said Those Programs Should End…
Ryan Said All Federal Subsidies To Oil Should End. According to Politico, “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan called for ending oil subsidies Thursday, further complicating Republican efforts to stay on message about rising gas prices. The Wisconsin Republican told constituents at a Waterford, Wis., town hall meeting that he agreed that federal oil subsidies ought to end. ‘We’re talking about reforming the safety net, the welfare system; we also want to get rid of corporate welfare. And corporate welfare goes to agribusiness companies, energy companies, financial services companies, so we propose to repeal all that,’ Ryan said in response to a question about oil subsidies.” [Politico, 4/28/11] Ryan: Subsidies For All Energy Companies Need To Be Reduced Or Eliminated. According to Politico, “In a statement to POLITICO, Ryan’s office said the House-passed budget resolution ‘clearly states that as part of an overall corporate tax reform, tax loopholes and deductions for all corporations should be scaled back or eliminated entirely. That obviously includes oil companies. Elsewhere, we state that subsidies for all energy companies need to be reduced or eliminated so that we can get government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the market.’” [Politico, 4/28/11] Ryan Spokesman Said His Budget Included Cut To Subsidies For Oil Companies. According to The Hill, “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) opened the door Thursday to supporting a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks even as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other Republicans have distanced themselves from the proposal. ‘The House-passed FY2012 budget resolution clearly states that as part of an overall corporate tax reform, tax loopholes and deductions for all corporations should be scaled back or eliminated entirely. That obviously includes oil companies,’ Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney told The Hill in an email. Ryan’s budget resolution, Sweeney notes, also calls for eliminating tax breaks for clean energy technologies and expanding domestic oil-and-gas production.” [The Hill, 4/28/11] Ryan Proposal To Eliminate Energy Subsidies Split With GOP. According to The Hill, “Asked about ending the oil industry breaks, Ryan said: ’We’re talking about reforming the safety net, the welfare system. We also want to get rid of corporate welfare. And corporate welfare goes to agribusiness companies, to energy companies, financial services companies. So we propose to repeal all of that.’ Think Progress, a blog run by the Center for American Progress, noted that Ryan had previously voted against two proposals to eliminate the subsidies. Ryan’s possible support for the proposal indicates there is a divide among top House Republicans on the cutting the oil subsidies.” [The Hill, 4/28/11]

RYAN PLAN SLASHES ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FUNDING
Center For American Progress: Ryan Plan Would Spend Only 20% Of Previous Year Funding On Clean Energy. According to the Center for American Progress, “Instead of ending Big Oil tax breaks, Rep. Ryan’s proposed FY 2013 budget would slash funding for investments in clean energy research, development, deployment, and commercialization, along with other energy programs. The plan calls for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone. From 2013 to 2017 the Ryan budget would spend a paltry total of $150 million over these five years on these programs—which is barely 20 percent of what was invested in only 2012.” [Center for American Progress, Issues, 3/20/12] 24

Center For American Progress: Ryan Plan Disregards Economic Benefits Of Clean Energy. According to the Center for American Progress, “Cutting funds for clean energy investments to rely on “greater revenue generation through prosperity, and market based solutions” also ignores the 100 years of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil and gas industry received nearly $500 billion in subsidies over the past 90 years, while investments in renewable technologies were limited to $6 billion. Rep. Ryan’s proposed budget also disregards the economic benefits of a clean energy future to middle-class families. In addition to creating new industries and jobs, clean energy sources that rely on homegrown wind, solar, geothermal energy, or efficiency will insulate Americans from rising and volatile energy prices.” [Center for American Progress, Issues, 3/20/12] Ryan's Budget Eliminates Clean Energy Spending. According to the New York Times, “A long-term Republican budget plan released this week by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin calls for drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies. The plan ‘rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration,’ Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee, wrote on Monday in The Wall Street Journal.” [New York Times, 4/6/11]  Plan Cut Funding For ‘Uncompetitive Energy By $7 Billion Compared To President’s Budget. According to the New York Times, “Under the Republican plan, overall discretionary funding for energy programs would fall to about $1 billion per year. President Obama’s 2012 budget, meanwhile, would provide about $8 billion to support clean energy research and deployment. Mr. Ryan’s proposal calls specifically for ‘eliminating welfare for energy companies.’ The proposal does not include details on which subsidies would be curtailed, but its references to ‘uncompetitive’ energy sources clearly point to wind and solar power, which typically generate electricity at a premium to fossil fuels like coal.” [New York Times, 4/6/11] Budget Plan Would Not Cut Tax Breaks For Oil Companies. According to the New York Times, “Other energy incentives may go unchallenged, however. Questioned on Fox News on Sunday by Chris Wallace on whether multibilliondollar subsidies for oil and gas companies would also be eliminated, Mr. Ryan did not give a direct answer. ‘Do you eliminate tax breaks?’ Mr. Wallace asked. ‘Do you bring in new revenue by eliminating, for instance, tax breaks for oil companies?’ ‘The problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little — the problem with our deficit is because Washington spends too much money,’ Mr. Ryan responded. ‘So we’re not going to go down the path of raising taxes on people.’” [New York Times, 4/6/11]

Center For American Progress: Ryan Plan Is A Recipe For Repeating Mistakes Of Bush Administration. According to the Center for American Progress, “The latest House Republican budget plan asks low-income and middle-class Americans to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while simultaneously delivering massive tax breaks to the richest 1 percent and preserving huge giveaways to Big Oil. It’s a recipe for repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration, during which middle-class incomes stagnated and only the privileged few enjoyed enormous gains.” [Center for American Progress, Issues, 3/20/12] Center For American Progress: Each Component Of The Ryan Budget Threatens The Middle Class. According to the Center for American Progress, “Each component of the new House Republican budget threatens the middle class while doing nothing to add jobs or grow our economy. It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.” [Center for American Progress, Issues, 3/20/12] Center For American Progress: Backward-Looking Plan That Would Benefit Big Oil Companies At The Expense Of Middle-Class Americans. According to the Center for American Progress, “House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s (RWI) proposed FY 2012 budget resolution is a backward-looking plan that would benefit big oil companies at the expense of middle-class Americans. It retains $40 billion in Big Oil tax loopholes while completely eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential for long-term economic growth.” [Center for American Progress, 4/6/11]

25

Center For American Progress: The Ryan Budget Would: Lock Americans Into Paying High, Volatile Energy Price. According to the Center for American Progress, “This budget would lock Americans into paying high, volatile energy prices. It would ensure that millions of clean energy jobs are created oversees–not here in the United States. It is a path backward to Bush-Cheney Big Oil energy policies that cost jobs and harm American competitiveness. In short, the Ryan plan ensures that we lose the high-stakes competition for the $2 trillion worldwide clean tech market.” [Center for American Progress, 4/6/11] Center For American Progress: Ryan Plan Allows Harmful Pollution Attacks Environmental Regulations. According to the Center for American Progress, “The Ryan budget undermines our economy in another way. It goes backward by continuing to allow harmful, costly pollution. Its attacks on “environmental regulations” ignore their economic benefit. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, determined that the Clean Air Act has generated $20 in benefits for every $1 in cleanup costs—a return on investment that would make Warren Buffet proud. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget resolution would keep Big Oil fat and happy while condemning the rest of us to high energy prices, job losses to other nations, and air pollution. Rather than foster innovation and economic growth like President Obama’s proposed budget, it is a path to perdition.” [Center for American Progress, 4/6/11]

Social Security
The Ryan Medicare Plan Had The Potential To Affect Social Security Because Beneficiaries Would Spend Their Social Security On Increased Medical Costs. According to Health And Social Work, “Underlying Ryan’s plan is an assumption that health care inflation can only be restrained through consumer choice and market competition (Klein, 2011a). As an example of how his plan would work, Ryan has pointed to Medicare Part D, ‘in which providers compete against each other for seniors’ business’ (Klein, 2011a). ‘Part D came in 40 percent below cost projections done at the time of enactment,’ an ‘almost unheard of’ accomplishment ‘for a government program’ (Klein, 2011a).However, this unexpected performance seems to have had less to do with choice and competition than with lower than expected enrollment and ‘sectorwide trends in the pharmaceuticals market’--namely, the slow introduction of newer, more expensive medications and the increasing use of generics (Klein, 2011b). According to Park (2011),’there is strong evidence that the use of private plans to deliver the Medicare drug benefit may actually have raised Medicare’s costs.’ In any event, Part D costs rose more rapidly than the CPI, which-under Ryan’s plan--would shift costs to beneficiaries (Klein, 2011b).” [Health & Social Work, 8/1/11]

2010 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Under Ryan’s Budget Proposal, A Worker Born In 1985, With Average Salary Of $43,000 Would Receive 17 Percent Less At Retirement Than Under Current Law. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cited a Wall Street Journal report, which concluded, “Republican proposals to overhaul Social Security would substantially reduce future benefits for people now entering the workforce, according to a new analysis from Social Security Administration’s chief actuary... ‘The new analysis reveals that these proposals result in benefits cuts ranging from 10% to as high as 50%,’ said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.), one of the Democrats who requested the study. ‘That’s not what I’d call ‘saving’ Social Security.’...A worker born in 1985 whose earnings averaged $43,000 would receive 17% less at retirement than current law promises, as a result of Mr. Ryan’s proposal to change the inflation index. His proposed increase in the retirement age would reduce benefits by another 8%, according to the actuary’s analysis. [10/21/10]” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 10/22/10]

Analysis
Social Security Administration: Ryan Plan Would Reduce Social Security Benefits For Seniors By Between 10 and 50 Percent. According to Politico, “Endangered Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) is taking on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) plans to reform Social Security. The chair of the Social Security subcommittee on House Ways and Means got the Social Security Administration to analyze Ryan’s recommended changes, including raising the retirement age above 67, and changing the way benefits are indexed. The SSA’s actuary report, released Wednesday, shows that the changes would reduce benefits between 10 and 50 percent compared with the current rules.” [Politico, 10/20/10]  Ryan Called The Report A “Desperate” Reelection Ploy. According to Politico, “Ryan called the report a ‘desperate’ reelection ploy. ‘Congressman Ryan appreciates Congressman Pomeroy’s effort to contrast Ryan’s invitation for solutions 26

with partisan attacks aimed to exacerbate our uncontrolled fiscal trajectory,’ Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney said in a statement. ‘Congressman Pomeroy’s do-nothing plan will impose painful, across-the-board benefits cuts on current seniors and those nearing retirement. America’s seniors cannot afford desperate attacks on the eve of an election,’ he said.” [Politico, 10/20/10]

Slashes Medicaid
Ryan Plan Slashes Medicaid, Jeopardizing Nursing Home Coverage. According to National Journal, “Perhaps more jolting, the Republican budget would cut spending on Medicaid—health care for the poor—much of which goes to long-term care for the elderly. Some 9 million seniors qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and about two-thirds of all nursing-home residents are covered by Medicaid. The GOP budget proposes cutting some $744 billion from Medicaid over 10 years by turning the system into block grants that limit federal contributions and give states more choice in structuring benefits. No one knows exactly which Medicaid services states would choose to cut back, but senior citizens account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid outlays and would almost certainly bear some of the burden.” [National Journal, 6/6/11] Ryan Plan Slashes Medicaid By Making It A State Block Grant. According to Sun-Sentinel, “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” [Sun-Sentinel, 4/16/11] Ryan Budget Would Force States To Either Increase Spending Or Reduce Scope Of Medicaid And Children’s Health (CHIP). According to the Center For Budget And Policy Priorities, “As CBO explains, the magnitude of the cut in Medicaid and CHIP ‘means that states would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them, or both. Cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries — all of which would reduce access to care.’” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12] Ryan Budget Would Cut Medicaid By $800 Billion Over Next Ten Years, And Steadily More After That Until Cuts Extended To Over Half Of The Program. According to the Center For Budget And Policy Priorities, “The Ryan plan would cut Medicaid by more than $800 billion over the next ten years and steadily larger amounts after that (on top of the Medicaid reductions that would result from Chairman Ryan’s call to repeal health reform). After several decades, Medicaid would be cut by more than half. Yet Medicaid already costs substantially less per beneficiary than private insurance because it pays health providers rock-bottom rates and has low administrative costs. In addition, its per-beneficiary costs have been rising more slowly than private-sector health care costs. Assertions that Medicaid costs are highly inflated and that states can provide comparable health care for much less money may serve as convenient rationales for severe cuts in health care for some of the nation’s most vulnerable people, but they do not reflect reality. Last year, the Urban Institute estimated that a very similar Ryan Medicaid block-grant proposal would likely cause 14 to 27 million low-income Americans to lose coverage by 2021 (in addition to the 17 million people who no longer would gain coverage due to the repeal of health reform and its Medicaid expansion).” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12]

Destroys Jobs
Ryan Budget’s Cuts Would Result In 4.1 Million Jobs Lost Through 2014, As A Result of Shrinking Demand. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, the shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.” [Economic Policy Institute, 3/21/12]

27

CAP: Ryan Budget Would Embrace “An Immediate Swerve Into Severe Austerity,” Undermine Economic Recovery. The Center for American Progress wrote, “Though we’ve recently enjoyed several months of solid job growth, our current economic recovery is by no means assured, and we still have a long way to go to get back to full economic health. Not only does the House Republican budget plan fail to propose even a single new idea for spurring job creation, it would also force an immediate swerve into severe austerity. It’s an economic prescription that, as Europe is finding out, will make matters much worse.” [Center for American Progress, “The 6 Key Failures of the House Republican Budget Plan,” 3/20/12]

Reduces Federal Spending On Health Care Programs By 75%
Ryan Budget Would Cut Spending On Health Care Programs For Low And Middle-Income Individuals By More Than 75% By 2050. “Equally stunning are CBO’s findings about the impacts of the Ryan plan on programs to enable Americans to secure health-care coverage. CBO finds that the Ryan plan would cut programs to help low- and middle-income people afford health insurance — Medicaid, CHIP, and the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies to help near-poor and moderateincome families afford insurance — by more than 75 percent by 2050, with the bulk of the cuts coming from Medicaid. Spending on these programs would be slashed from between 4¼ and 4½ percent of GDP in 2050 under current policies to just 1 percent of GDP.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12] Ryan Budget Would Result In Far More Uninsured Individuals. “CBO also observes that the Ryan plan’s elimination of subsidies to help people with modest incomes purchase health coverage (as part of the plan’s repeal of all coverage expansions under the health reform law) means that ‘the number of people without health insurance would be much higher’ than under current law.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12]

REPEALS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The Ryan Medicare Plan Would Repeal The Affordable Care Act And Independent Payment Advisory Board. According to Health And Social Work, “According to Ryan, his plan, and it ‘alone,’ can save ‘Medicare from a bankrupt future’ (Klein, 2011b).Yet Ryan’s plan repeals most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) (now more commonly known as the Affordable Care Act [ACA]), which takes steps to bring health care costs under control (Orszag, 2009, 2011). For example, Ryan’s bill would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which Aaron (2011) described as ‘Congress’s ‘Good Deed.’ The IPAB is an independent board of experts that would recommend strategies for preventing excess spending growth in Medicare (Aaron, 2011). Unless overridden by a vote of Congress, the IPAB could introduce a wide range of cost-control measures.” [Health & Social Work, 8/1/11]

Hurts The Most Vulnerable
Ryan Budget Would Impose Enormous Cuts To Food Stamps. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan budget reportedly also cuts SNAP (that is, food stamp) benefits by $133 billion over ten years and slices Pell Grants. The former would likely increase hunger and hardship among poor children, while the latter would likely reduce opportunities for promising students from low-income backgrounds to attend college.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12] Ryan Budget Would Slash Funding For Crucial Programs Assisting Vulnerable Individuals, Including Low-Income Housing, Head Start, Child Nutrition Programs, And Home-Delivered Meals For Senior Citizens. “Also striking is Ryan’s slashing of non-defense discretionary spending, which funds everything from veterans’ health care to medical and scientific research, highways, education, national parks, food safety, clean air and clean water enforcement, and border protection and other law enforcement. This part of the budget also funds a number of programs to assist poor or otherwise vulnerable people such as low-income housing; child care for the working poor; Head Start; the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC); and home-delivered meals for seniors. The Budget Control Act of last August substantially cut funding for non-defense discretionary programs by imposing tough annual budget caps, but the Ryan budget would cut these programs nearly $1.2 trillion below the caps. In fact, it would slash funds for non-defense discretionary programs over the 28

coming decade by $800 billion below the level to which that funding would fall if sequestration occurred every year through 2021.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12] Ryan Budget Derived 62% Of Spending Cuts From Programs Assisting Low-Income Individuals. “House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan would get at least 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over ten years (relative to a continuation of current policies) from programs that serve people of limited means. This stands a core principle of President Obama’s fiscal commission on its head and violates basic principles of fairness… Chairman Ryan’s budget proposes $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts (and about $200 billion in defense increases). The $5.3 trillion in cuts includes $1.2 trillion in cuts to nondefense discretionary programs; this $1.2 trillion in cuts is beyond the cuts needed to comply with the strict funding caps that the Budget Control Act established. Several hundred billion dollars of these additional cuts would very likely come from low-income programs. Total cuts in low-income programs (including cuts in both discretionary and entitlement programs) appear likely to account for at least $3.3 trillion — or 62 percent — of Chairman Ryan’s total budget cuts, and probably significantly more than that; as explained below, our assumptions regarding the size of the lowincome cuts are conservative… As noted, our estimates of the size of the cuts in low-income programs — which assume these programs will merely bear a proportionate share of the budget cuts required in each of the relevant budget categories — are conservative. When faced with the choice of which specific programs to cut, policymakers are not likely to cut much from a number of the non-low-income programs in these budget categories that are popular, such as veterans’ disability compensation, veterans’ health, the FBI, and cancer research. That means that other programs — including low-income programs — would have to be cut by more than their proportionate share.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/23/12]

Makes College Less Affordable
DOUBLE INTEREST RATE FOR STUDENT LOANS
Ryan Plan Would Double Interest Rate On Student Loans. According to the Sun Chronicle, “The budget would also double the interest rate charged on loans to 6.8 percent, adding to a debt burden that has reached record highs.” [Sun Chronicle (Attleboro, MA), 4/9/12]

SLASHES PELL GRANTS
Under The New Ryan Plan, 1 Million Students Would Lose Pell Grants. According to the Huffington Post, “More than 1 million students would lose Pell grants entirely over the next 10 years under Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, according to an analysis that the national reform organization Education Trust provided to The Huffington Post. And by the looks of it, the Ryan budget, which is slated to hit the House floor this week, would hit the poorest kids hardest. […] The plan proposed by Ryan (R-Wis.), who chairs the House Budget Committee, would chop away at Pell grant eligibility, thereby reducing total Pell grants by about $170 billion over the next decade; allow the interest rate for federally subsidized Stafford loans to double; end student loan interest subsidies for those still in school; and make Pell spending discretionary -- instead of mandatory -allowing further cuts down the line. Pell grants, the largest source of federal financial aid, currently help more than 9 million students to afford college. Following last year’s budget standoffs, next year’s maximum Pell grant of $5,645 will cover just onethird of the average cost of college -- the smallest share ever.” [Huffington Post, 3/27/12] Education Trust Estimated 400,000 Students Would Lose Grants Under Ryan Plan. According to the Sun Chronicle, “Grants are considered the most helpful form of financial aid based on need because they do not have to be paid back. ‘This money makes the difference to many families between going to school and not going to school,’ she said. She said an estimated 400,000 students will lose their grants next year, while the amount of aid will be lowered for others.” [Sun Chronicle (Attleboro, MA), 4/9/12] Ryan Budget Slashes Pell Grants. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan budget reportedly also cuts SNAP (that is, food stamp) benefits by $133 billion over ten years and slices Pell Grants. The former would likely increase hunger and hardship among poor children, while the latter would likely reduce opportunities for promising students from low-income backgrounds to attend college.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12] 29

Romney Supported Federal Budget Cutting Pell Grants By 25 Percent. According to the New York Times, “That may be because Mr. Romney supports the House Republican budget, which would cut Pell Grants by 25 percent or more at a time when they are needed more than ever.” [New York Times, 3/5/12] 2012 Ryan Budget Plan Would ‘Return Pell Grants To Pre-Stimulus Levels.’ According to the House Committee on the Budget FY 2012 Budget Resolution, “Return Pell grants to their pre-stimulus levels to curb rising tuition inflation and make sure aid is targeted to the truly needy.” [House Committee on the Budget, Path to Prosperity FY 2012 Budget Resolution, 2011] 2012 Ryan Budget: Pell Grants Were ‘On An Unsustainable Path,’ Necessary To Cut And Target To The ‘Truly Needy.’ According to the House Committee on the Budget FY 2012 Budget Resolution, “Congress must do a better job of delivering job training resources in a targeted, accountable way to people who need them, so that more can take advantage of the nation’s network of private and non-profit job training centers. The last Congress did nothing to streamline the nation’s duplicative job-training programs. Instead, it recklessly expanded Pell grants for higher education beyond government’s means to pay, exacerbating an existing trend of spending-driven tuition inflation and endangering the viability of the program for the truly needy. The President’s budget recognizes that Pell spending is on an unsustainable path and recommends a few reforms to start to get control of the program’s costs. This budget takes the necessary next steps to ensure Pell spending is brought under control and targeted to the truly needy instead of being captured in the form of tuition increases. Recent studies have demonstrated that increases in Pell grants appear to be matched nearly one for one by increases in tuition at private universities.” [House Committee on the Budget, Path to Prosperity FY 2012 Budget Resolution, 2011] Ryan Budget Claimed President Was Pushing Pell Grants To ‘Unsustainable Rates.’ According to the House Committee on the Budget FY 2013 Budget Resolution, “The first two years of this administration were marked by a reckless expansion of the federal government’s obsolete approach to education and job training, endangering the viability of advanced education services for those most in need. The administration’s budget pushes Pell Grant spending toward unsustainable rates, contributing to tuition inflation and inhibiting upward mobility and access to better opportunities.” [House Committee on the Budget, Path to Prosperity FY 2013 Budget Resolution, 2012] 2013 Ryan Budget: Pell Grants Were ‘On An Unsustainable Path,’ Necessary To Cut And Target To The ‘Truly Needy. According to the House Committee on the Budget FY 2013 Budget Resolution, “Return Pell Grants to a sustainable funding path to ensure aid is available for the truly needy and to curb tuition inflation for all students. Even the President’s budget acknowledges that college costs are on an unsustainable path. Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that increases in Pell Grants appear to be matched nearly one for one by increases in tuition at private universities. This budget puts Pell on a sustainable path by limiting the growth of financial aid and focusing it on low income students who need it the most. This will force schools to reform and adapt. It will also ensure that Pell spending goes to students who truly need it. Moreover, federal intervention in higher education should increasingly be focused not solely on financial aid, but on policies that maximize innovation and ensure a robust menu of institutional options from which students and their families are able to choose. Such policies should include reexamining the data made available to students to make certain they are armed with information that will assist them in making their postsecondary decisions. Additionally, the federal government should act to remove regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as online coursework.” [House Committee on the Budget, Path to Prosperity FY 2013 Budget Resolution, 2012] Ryan Plan Would Make Paying For College ‘Substantially More Difficult.’ According to the Sun Chronicle, “As student debt soars, the U.S. House is looking to cut college financial aid in a way that critics contend will make it even harder for middle class families to afford higher education. The House has passed a budget plan authored by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, RWisconsin, that slashes Pell Grants for low-income families and doubles the interest rate on unsubsidized Stafford Loans. ‘This will make things substantially more difficult’ for students trying to pay for college, said Kate Tromble with The Education Trust.” [Sun Chronicle (Attleboro, MA), 4/9/12] Education Trust: $200 Billion Would Be Cut From Grant Program Over 10 Years Under Ryan Plan. According to the Sun Chronicle, “Over the next 10 years an estimated $200 billion would be cut from the grant program, leaving about one million students without the aid. The maximum grant would be reduced immediately to $5,550, the lowest level as a percentage of the tuition in the history of the program. Part-time students -often the poorest of college students - would no longer be eligible for the aid.” [Sun Chronicle (Attleboro, MA), 4/9/12] 30

Middle / Low Income
Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts, Along With Defense Budget Increases Would Eliminate Core Government Functions Like Veterans’ Programs, Medical And Scientific Research, Highways, Education, Programs For Low Income Families Other Than Medicaid, National Parks, Food Safety And Water Supple, Etc. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO notes, ‘spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]’ and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of government would largely have to disappear. That includes everything from veterans’ programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families and individuals other than Medicaid, national parks, border patrols, protection of food safety and the water supply, law enforcement, and the like. (In the same vein, CBO also notes that spending for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest “has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12]

Raises Taxes On The Poor To Pay For Tax Breaks For The Rich
Ryan Budget Would Actually Raise Taxes On Many Low-Income Individuals By Not Extending Recent Tax Cuts For Working Poor Enacted Under President Obama. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Many low-income working families would actually see an increase in their tax burdens under the Ryan plan. While the Ryan budget makes permanent all of the Bush tax cuts for high-income households that are slated to expire at the end of 2012, it would not extend the tax cuts for working-poor households that were enacted under President Obama and also are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12] Ryan Budget Is “Robin Hood In Reverse – On Steroids” – Results In Redistribution Of Wealth From The Poor To Rich. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document — one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse — on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history). It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission’s report on its head — that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/21/12] Ryan Budget Would Oversee Massive Tax Cuts For Wealthy Individuals And Corporations. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Despite warning that the nation faces the ‘perils of debt,’ House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan introduced a budget on March 20 whose tax proposals would be extremely costly and would disproportionately favor the nation’s highest-income households and large corporations. His budget would cut the top marginal income tax rate, now 35 percent but scheduled to rise next year to 39.6 percent, to 25 percent. It would cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate taxes on the foreign profits of U.S.-based multinationals. It would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), designed to ensure that high-income people pay at least a minimum level of tax. And it would eliminate health reform’s increase in the Medicare tax for high-income individuals.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/22/12] Ryan Budget Proposed $10 Trillion In Tax Cuts For High-Income Americans Alongside Severe Spending Cuts To Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps And Pell Grants. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “These tax cuts all would come on top of President Bush’s tax cuts, which also are very expensive and tilted toward the nation’s most affluent people and which Chairman Ryan would make permanent. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that extending the Bush and other expiring tax cuts would cost $5.4 trillion over the next decade and that Chairman Ryan’s additional tax cuts would cost another $4.6 trillion. That means Chairman Ryan is proposing nearly $10 trillion in tax cuts (relative to current law) that heavily favor high-income Americans even while claiming that his budget’s severe cuts in basic 31

low-income programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and Pell Grants are needed to rein in unsustainable deficits.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/22/12] Ryan Budget Contained Massive New Tax Cuts For Wealthiest Americans Above And Beyond The Bush Tax Cuts. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Even as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would impose trillions of dollars in spending cuts, 62 percent of which would come from low-income programs, it would enact new tax cuts that would provide huge windfalls to households at the top of the income scale. New analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) finds that people earning more than $1 million a year would receive $265,000 apiece in new tax cuts, on average, on top of the $129,000 they would receive from the Ryan budget’s extension of President Bush’s tax cuts.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12] Ryan Budget Would Raise After-Tax Income Of Millionaires By More Than Six Times As Much As It Would For Middle-Class Households. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The new tax cuts at the top would dwarf those for middle-and lower-income families. After-tax incomes would rise by 12.5 percent among millionaires, but just 1.9 percent for middle-income households (see Figure 1 and footnote 6).” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12] Ryan Budget Would Cut Top Individual Tax Rate To Lowest Level Since Before New Deal. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan budget includes a number of specific tax cuts, on top of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. All of its new tax cuts are both expensive and tilted toward high-income households. It would cut the top individual tax rate to 25 percent, the lowest level since the Hoover Administration more than 80 years ago. It would cut the corporate rate to 25 percent and eliminate both the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Affordable Care Act’s increase in the Medicare tax for high-income people.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12] Ryan Budget Would Offer $265,000 Average Annual Tax Cut To Individuals With Income Over $1 Million, But Individuals Earning Between $50,000 And $75,000 Annually Would Only Receive $1,045 Average Annual Tax Cut. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “A new TPC analysis finds that people with incomes above $1 million would receive a $265,000 average annual tax cut just from the new Ryan proposals (i.e., not counting what they would also receive from extension of the Bush tax cuts). Middle-income taxpayers — those with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 — would receive $1,045, on average.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12] Ryan Budget Would Provide 37% Of Total Proposed Tax Cuts To Individuals Earning More Than $1 Million, Despite Those Individuals Constituting Less Than ½ Of 1% Of All Households. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The new TPC figures show that the Ryan tax cuts are starkly regressive: after-tax incomes of people who make more than $1 million a year would rise by 12.5 percent, on average — six times more than the 1.9 percent average gain for middle-income households. Underscoring how tilted the proposal is toward the top, the TPC figures show that people making more than $1 million a year would receive 37 percent of the new Ryan tax cuts even though they constitute less than one-half of one percent of U.S. households (see Figure 2).” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/27/12]

Does Not Balance The Budget
The Club For Growth Pointed Out That Ryan’s Plan Did Not Balance The Budget Until 2040. According to The American Conservative, “The latest version of Ryan’s budget, we are reminded, reduces spending by $3 trillion and deficits by $5 trillion while avoiding $2 trillion in tax increases. Medicare is gradually transformed from a single-payer program to a premium support system, though seniors will now retain the option of old-fashioned Medicare under a plan co-authored by liberal Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. Marginal tax rates would be slashed, the national debt would cease to gobble up the entire economy, and Obamacare would be repealed, if not exactly replaced. Save Social Security reform for the second Romney term, and what’s not to like? Except many conservative activists didn’t like it. The Club for Growth, one of the most influential fiscal pressure groups on the right, pointed out that the plan didn’t balance the budget until 2040. They also denounced House Republicans for failing to implement all the spending cuts mandated by the failure of the supercommittee. Club president Chris Chocola, himself a former Republican congressman, said in a statement: ‘The Club for Growth urges Republicans to support a budget that balances in the near future and complies with the Budget Control Act.’ A blogger associated with FreedomWorks complained, ‘Unfortunately, the plan doesn’t really try to balance the budget or specify a single cabinet agency for elimination.’ The Tea Party scribe also dinged Ryan for largely leaving defense and Social Security, two of 32

the biggest line items in the federal budget, off the table. The baseline for the $5 trillion in deficit reduction isn’t current law, but President Obama’s budget, which the House rejected by a vote of 414 to 0.” [The American Conservative, 5/1/12]

VIOLATED PROPOSED BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Ryan Acknowledged That His Budget Would Violate A Balanced Budget Amendment. According to a transcript of a House Republican conference call obtained via Fair Disclosure Wire, Ryan was asked, “Representative Ryan, a lot of Republicans, the majority of Republicans, all -- every Senate Republican balanced budget amendment. This budget appears to easily violate that. You’ve got $8 trillion in more debt over the next decade. Do you need to rewrite that amendment? You know, how is this compatible with, you know, $8 trillion in more debt over the next 10 years, compatible with getting rid of the deficit in five years?” Ryan responded, “: I’ve been a supporter of a balanced budget amendment since the days I came to Congress in 1998. Our baseline, our fiscal situation has gotten so bad, this just tells you what kind of work it needs to do to fix it. One of the components of the balanced budget amendment is a cap on government spending. We propose that. I think the key focus for freedom and economic liberty is to bring the size of government down. This does that. This brings the size of government down and forces it with a cap so that our government is limited in scope so that our economy and our people can be free. This is about securing prosperity for the next generation, growing our economy now. If we were to have a balanced budget amendment in law, it’d take probably 7 to 10 years to do that, and so it’s -- it’s pretty crazy to try and speculate what the baseline will look like at that moment. But the key here is, using real numbers, using CBO, we’re putting a path to getting this debt paid off.” [Fair Disclosure Wire, 4/6/11]

Ryan On His Plan
Ryan: “This Is Not A Budget; This Is A Cause.” According to a transcript of a House Republican conference call obtained via Fair Disclosure Wire, Ryan was asked, “Congressman, what do you say to nervous Republicans who say that this is a political kamikaze mission, you’ve just given Democrats a big target that may ultimately cost Republicans your majority here in the Congress?” Ryan responded, “You know, look at these people. Look at these new people who just got here. You know, they didn’t come here for a political career. They came here for a cause. This is not a budget; this is a cause.” [Fair Disclosure Wire, 4/6/11] Ryan Claimed His Budget Would Cut $6 Trillion Over 10 Years. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “As detailed Tuesday, the Ryan plan revamps spending and taxing across the board. It would cut federal spending by roughly $6 trillion over 10 years compared with the president’s budget; slash the federal workforce by 10% through attrition and freeze federal pay; roll domestic programs back to 2008 levels and freeze them there for several years; and cap overall government spending at levels Ryan described as more typical of the past but below today’s levels.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/6/11] Ryan Warned Of “Painful European-Like Austerity” If His Budget Was Not Implemented. According to a transcript of On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, Ryan said, “If we don’t preempt the debt crisis, then we will have painful European-like austerity -- benefit cuts to current seniors, tax increases on everybody that slows down the economy. That’s what we’re trying to prevent from happening.” [Fox News, “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” 3/29/11] FactCheck: Ryan Exaggerates His Claim That The Economy Will Self-Destruct In 2037 Due To Debt. According to the St. Petersburg Times, “Recently, House Budget chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., allowed journalists from CNN to attend a closed-door briefing that he held for fellow Republican lawmakers. One comment Ryan made during his presentation caught our eye. ‘The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are now telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue,’ Ryan said, according to the CNN report, which also included a video clip of the comment. We wondered whether Ryan was accurately describing what the CBO -- Congress’ non-partisan fiscal-analysis office -- was saying. We found that Ryan has a point about the peril facing the economy from the nation’s rapidly growing debt, but we also found that his comment was somewhat exaggerated… Analyzing this status-quo model, the CBO wrote that ‘it is not possible to simulate the effects ... after 2058 because deficits become so large and unsustainable that the model cannot calculate their effects.’ (The CBO went on to write that, compared to the status-quo option, Ryan’s plan did a better job of bringing down the debt and promoting economic output.) Still, the year this economic model essentially blows up, according to CBO, is 2058 -- 21 years later than what Ryan said in the CNN clip.” [St. Petersburg Times, 3/21/11] 33

Ryan Said His Entitlement Plan Would Not “Hurt Grandma Right Now,” But Would Reform Entitlement Programs For People Under 55 Years Old. According to Federal News Service, in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Dylan Ratigan Show,” Ryan said “…if fixing these problems was politically easy, we would have done it already by now. But you just can’t disguise these numbers. I mean, we have a fiscal problem that is just so monumental, Dylan, that we’ve got to attack this, and the sooner, the better. Now, look, you don’t have to hurt grandma right now. The whole point of my plan is that if you are in or near retirement, over 55 years old, we can guarantee your Social Security and Medicare benefits. But for our generation, those of us under 55 and beyond, look, we’re not going to have these programs anyway. They’re going bankrupt. So we’ve got to reform them to make them sustainable for the future. And the way in which I propose to reform them is to give people the same kinds of choices like I have as a member of Congress and a federal employee when I buy my health care and get my retirement benefits.” [Federal News Service, 3/10/10] Ryan Claimed A Plan Showing Nearly 80% Of Americans Opposed His Medicare Plans Was Inaccurate. According to a transcript of “The Ed Show,” David Gregory said to Ryan, “According to our polling, nearly eight in 10 Americans do not want to cut spending for Medicare, even in the name of cutting the debt. You, I assume, are not doing this as an intellectual exercise.” Ryan responded, “First of all, if people are describing this accurately in polls, it`s far more popular than the poll you referenced. Second of all, leaders are elected to lead. I don`t consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be. Leaders change the polls.” [MSNBC, “The Ed Show,” 5/23/11] Ryan Said The Republican Town Meetings Went “Phenomenally Well.” According to a transcript of “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” Candy Crowley said to Ryan, “Because as you know, some of your members went home and took a beating on Medicare. The idea that Medicare, as we know it, would be replaced by a subsidy system that would be capped for those as you get wealthier. And a lot of people said don’t change Medicare, we see this in the polls.” Ryan responded, “OK. So first, I would say our town hall meetings went phenomenally well. Mine in particular. Second of all, Medicare is going broke. The trustees just reminded us of this last week.” [CNN, “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” 5/15/11] Ryan Said His Budget Would Means Test Medicare. According to a transcript of “All Things Considered” obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “So what we propose is to subsidize more low- income care and people as they get sicker. So as a person gets older, obviously their health condition deteriorates so their subsidies will increase. If a person is low income, they get complete out-of-pocket coverage. We subsidize all of their out-of-pocket costs, their co- pays and deductibles. And what we do is we means test Medicare. If you’re a wealthy senior in the future, we’re proposing that you don’t get as much subsidy so that we can put more subsidy to people who have higher health care risks and who are lower income.” [Federal News Service, 4/14/11] Ryan Said His Budget Built Upon The Medicare Plan He Designed With Democrat Alice Rivlin. According to a transcript of a House Republican press conference that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “So this is why Alice Rivlin and I put out a plan in the debt commission to deal with Medicare and Medicaid. Alice Rivlin is a great, proud Democrat -- Brookings Institution, Clinton OMB director. This ‘Path to Prosperity’ builds upon those Rivlin-Ryan plans that we put in here. But the reason we didn’t support the debt commission is it didn’t, in my opinion, deal with the drivers of our debt.” [Federal News Service, 4/5/11]  Rivlin Said She Didn’t Support Ryan’s Plan. According to Politico, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) touted the help of former Clinton advisor Alice Rivlin – ‘a great, proud Democrat’ - in promoting a key Medicare provision in his budget proposal Tuesday. The only problem? Rivlin said she told the Republican she doesn’t support the final version of the measure he wrote into his budget - a provision Ryan referred to generally as the ‘Ryan-Rivlin’ plan when rolling out his sweeping economic blueprint. ‘We talked fairly recently and I said, ‘You know, I can’t support the version that you have in the budget,’ Rivlin said in an interview with POLITICO. ‘I don’t actually support the form in which he put it in the budget.’” [Politico, 4/5/11] Rivlin: Ryan’s Plan “Pushed Too Much Of The Cost Onto The Beneficiaries.” According to Politico, “The other main difference is in the rate of growth in subsidies for beneficiaries entering the new exchange system. ‘In the Ryan version, he has lowered the rate of growth and I don’t think that’s defensible,’ Rivlin said. ‘It pushed too much of the cost onto the beneficiaries.’” [Politico, 4/5/11] 34

Ryan Plan In Presidential Politics
The Ryan Budget Became A Defining Issue Of the 2012 Campaign As Romney Defended It. According to the International Herald Tribune, “After Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, helped Mr. Romney secure a crucial primary victory this week in Mr. Ryan’s home state, Wisconsin, the candidate tightened his embrace of the congressman on Wednesday despite a withering assault a day earlier from Mr. Obama on the Ryan spending plan and what he said it reflected about Republican priorities. In his most direct clash yet with the president, Mr. Romney defended Mr. Ryan before newspaper editors in Washington as a politician who ‘unlike this president, has had the courage to offer serious solutions to the problems we face.’ Other Republicans cast the 42-year-old Mr. Ryan as the intellectual light of the party and the heir to Jack Kemp, the late New York congressman who also specialized in fiscal policy and was Senator Bob Dole’s running mate when he ran for president in 1996.” [International Herald tribune, 4/6/12] Ryan Accepted An Apology From Gingrich’s Over His Statement That His Budget Was “Right-Wing Social Engineering.” According to CNN, “It’s become the mantra of the GOP, including presidential candidates. So when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized Ryan’s plan as ‘right-wing social engineering,’ in a television appearance in May, it created an immediate furor. Gingrich was forced to take the comments back. He called Ryan within days to say he was wrong and misspoke, according to Ryan. Apology accepted. [CNN, 9/26/11] Most Of The 2012 GOP Candidates For President Supported The Budget Plan, However Some Had “Nuances.” According to CNN, “The other GOP candidates have supported his ideas -- although with some nuances, because the notion of changing entitlements is a controversial proposition for a presidential candidate.” [CNN, 9/26/11]

Editorial Reactions
Op-Ed: Ryan’s Budget Went Against The “American Idea” Of Upward Mobility. According to the Washington Post, “In the end, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 62 percent of the cuts come from programs for lowincome Americans and 37 percent of the tax benefits go to the few Americans earning more than $1 million. In other words, Ryan’s budget fails even Ryan’s tests for encouraging social mobility: It focuses its cuts on programs for the poor rather than programs for seniors, and it doesn’t eliminate any tax loopholes. (Ryan’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on this column.) As Ryan argued in his October speech, the government does have a role in encouraging social mobility: It helps close the gap between the children of the poor and the children of the rich. Food stamps and other food-assistance programs help with nutrition. Public education and Pell grants help with skills. Medicaid - which covers more than 25 million children - helps with access to health care. But Ryan’s proposed cuts would hit these programs with particular force.” [Washington Post, Ezra Klein, 4/3/12] Op-Ed: Ryan’s Budget Was Not A Health Care Policy Because It Did Not Leave Any Money For “High-Risk” Pools Because He Did Not Want To Leave Money For It. According to Jonathan Chait of the New York Times, “Contrary to the impression he left at the town hall, Ryan knows full well that his budget plan does nothing for the uninsured. Here he is, earlier in the summer, doing the thing where he pretends his imaginary alternative health-care plan is real: Well, a budget resolution - because of the germaneness of reconciliation - you don’t put all those things in there, but there are a number of things I would do. Insurance reforms - not just inter-state shopping - but high-risk pools that are fully funded that subsidize those with pre-existing conditions. I really believe the tax exclusion is a huge source of health inflation, props up the third-party payment system and subsidizes the wrong people in society. If you’re in the top tax bracket, you get the biggest subsidy; if you’re in the lowest tax bracket, you get the smallest tax subsidy. It’s upside down. So I’ve always believed in refundable tax credits. But you can’t address all those things in a budget resolution. You need more than a budget resolution. So his explanation is that he didn’t budget any money for high-risk pools because you can’t do that in a budget. This is obviously silly. A budget is precisely where you set aside money that you intend to spend. Ryan left no money to subsidize high-risk pools because he didn’t want to leave enough money for it. Meanwhile, the ‘Path to Prosperity’ was a wide-ranging wish list of conservative desire. It repealed the Dodd-Frank financial reform. Does deregulating Wall Street that have any relevance to the budget? No. Much as he wants to pretend otherwise, Ryan has a health-care plan. It’s to repeal the Affordable Care Act and let the uninsured fend for themselves.” [New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait, 11/4/11] 35

The Post Standard: Ryan Plan Would Pay For Tax Cuts On Top Earners And Corporations By Slashing Entitlements, Pell Grants And Benefits For Veterans. According to The Post Standard, “As the GOP continues its war on women, it adds to its victims the weak, disabled, elderly, poor and disadvantaged. Congressman Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity,’ lauded by our representative Ann Marie Buerkle as ‘courageous,’ is in fact downright cowardly. Ryan wishes to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut the top tax rate for individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent. He pays for this by slashing Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, low-income housing subsidies and veterans’ health care.” [The Post Standard, 6/9/11] Post Standard: Ryan’s “Path To Prosperity” Would “Punish The Weak, Reward The Strong.” According to The Post Standard, “The plan is a losing proposition for almost every person who lives long enough to qualify for Medicare benefits. The proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would be particularly hard on women, who make up more than half of the beneficiaries of both programs. The insurance companies, however, will reap phenomenal profits if it goes into effect. Punish the weak, reward the strong. The class bias in this poorly named ‘Path to Prosperity’ offers an open window to the future of this country if Republicans have their way. The concept of ‘shared sacrifice’ apparently does not fit into the GOP playbook, nor does the idea of compassion.” [The Post Standard, 6/9/11] Jackson Sun: Ryan’s Medicare Program Sought Solution To Problem That Doesn’t Exist. According to The Jackson Sun’s Tom Bohs, “The other reason Ryan’s approach to privatizing Medicare to save money surprises me is that it is unnecessary. The system is solvent for many years to come. Shortfalls after that easily can be addressed long before they materialize. Ryan is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, and making seniors and other voters angry in the process. He should focus on problems that are real and on the table right now such as the national debt, high unemployment, mortgage defaults and a host of social, military and international affairs challenges we face.” [The Jackson Sun, 5/29/11]  Ryan Failed To Address Possibility Of Insufficient Coverage Under His Medicare Plan. According to The Jackson Sun’s Tom Bohs, “The final problem with Ryan’s Medicare voucher scheme is that it might not - and I would hazard an educated guess it would not - be sufficient to purchase health insurance that would provide anywhere near the coverage afforded by Medicare. What would people do when their benefits ran out? Ryan doesn’t address that. Again, it would be every man for himself. Of course, there might still be Medicaid available to those brought to penury by uncovered medical expenses. But that only puts the burden on others, to say nothing of the emotional and psychological blow it would inflict on seniors.” [The Jackson Sun, 5/29/11] The Jackson Sun: Ryan’s Claim His Medicare Voucher Plan Would Allow Seniors To Choose Best Suited Health Insurance Was False Hope And “Fallacy.” According to The Jackson Sun’s Tom Bohs, “Republicans shot themselves in the foot by proposing to end traditional Medicare and replace it with vouchers for private insurance. If they don’t drop this scheme, it will cost them dearly in the 2012 election cycle. […]Under the voucher plan proposed by Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, seniors would be allotted money they could spend on health insurance purchased through private insurance companies. The ad-vantage, according to Ryan and other Republicans, is that people would be able to choose the health insurance that best suits their needs. That is the biggest false hope I have ever heard perpetrated on old people. What is the best health insurance policy for anyone? The best policy is the one that pays the bills when you get sick without splitting hairs over whether a particular illness, procedure, service, doctor or medication is excluded in the fine print of the insurance contract. It is a fallacy that different people have different health insurance needs. What health problem don’t you want coverage for? The idea that some people are in better health than others and don’t need as much health insurance is nonsense. No one can predict life’s illnesses and health mishaps, let alone those of old age. It would be like buying car insurance that only covered you on some days of the week.” [The Jackson Sun, 5/29/11]

Newt Gingrich Described Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan As “Radical” And “Right Wing Social Engineering.” According to the Des Moines Register, “What news organizations such as Politico.com are calling a ‘campaign crisis’ started Sunday with Gingrich’s appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’ Gingrich called Ryan’s Medicare plan ‘too big a jump’ and ‘radical change’ and criticized the prospect of ‘right-wing social engineering.’ Critics cried foul, saying his statements discredited the House Republican-backed plan and gave Democrats a sound bite to attack it.” [Des Moines Register, 5/19/11]  Gingrich Later Called Ryan And Apologized For His Comment. According to the Des Moines Register, “Gingrich answered frequent questions about his statements while on his first campaign trip in Iowa Monday and Tuesday, and later called Ryan and apologized for the comments.” [Des Moines Register, 5/19/11] 36

Ryan Said Newt Gingrich Was “Inaccurate” In Describing The GOP Budget Plan As “Right Wing Social Engineering.” According to the Associated Press, “Last week Gingrich called Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal ‘rightwing social engineering.’ Gingrich took his words back a few days later after he was criticized by conservatives. Gingrich also called Ryan to apologize. Ryan, R-Wis., played down the flap when asked about it on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ and played up his proposal. It essentially calls for a voucher system to help older people buy insurance in the future. […]Ryan says it’s time to move beyond the Gingrich comments and focus on dealing with the nation’s fiscal problems.” [Associated Press, 5/22/11]

Rep. Gerry Connolly Of Virginia Said Ryan’s Medicare Plan Lined “The Pockets Of The Private Insurance Companies.” According to the Daily Press, “The debate over health care reform has provided a lot of fodder for people in the fact-checking business, including this recent criticism from Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly: […] Ruling statement: Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan ‘lines the pockets of the private insurance companies,’ increases costs for seniors and does not reduce the deficit.” [Daily Press, 5/7/11] Ryan’s 2010 “Road Map” Which Called For Adding Private Account To Social Security And “Fundamentally” Changing Medicare By Giving Seniors Subsidies To Buy Private Insurance Was Seen As A Political Liability By Some. According to Politico, “He’s not quite a political archvillain on a par with Karl Rove or Nancy Pelosi, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is rapidly emerging as a top Democratic bogeyman on the campaign trail. At issue is his legislative ‘road map,’ which Ryan crafted as the top Republican on the House Budget Committee. Among his specific proposals: eventually adding private accounts to Social Security and fundamentally changing Medicare by giving subsidies to seniors to buy private insurance. Democrats - from President Barack Obama on down - say the plan would devastate the social safety net that their party has crafted over the past 75 years - and they’re pounding GOP opponents with it across the country. Ryan’s plan restates President George W. Bush’s 2005 plan to ‘privatize Social Security and turn it from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble,’ said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman, Nadeam Elshami.” [Politico, 10/1/10] Ryan Refuted Krugman’s Criticism Of His “Roadmap” Said That The CBO Did Not Do A Long Term Study Of His Plan And That Critics Don’t Realize the Debt Situation Was From An Explosion Of Government Growth. According to PA Pundits, “Krugman’s criticisms of the Republican rising star were of course praised by all manner of media member from the shills at MSNBC to the sycophants in the liberal blogosphere. Since then, Ryan has responded and responded well, first at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Saturday: The assertion by Krugman and others that the revenue assumptions in the ‘Roadmap’ are overly optimistic and that my staff directed the Congressional Budget Office not to analyze the tax elements of the ‘Roadmap’ is a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead. I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the ‘Roadmap,’ but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average. What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending ‘not from a lack of tax revenue.’” [PA Pundits, 8/11/10] Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Ryan’s “Roadmap” Would Help The Most Affluent Household and Eliminates Taxes on Capital Gains, Dividends, Interest, And Abolished the Corporate Income Taxes, Estate Tax, And The Alternative Minimum Tax. According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, “The Roadmap for Americas Future, which Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee released in late January, calls for radical policy changes that would result in a massive transfer of resources from the broad majority of Americans to the nations wealthiest individuals.[1] The Roadmap would give the most affluent households a new round of very large, costly tax cuts by reducing income tax rates on high-income households; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. At the same time, the Ryan plan would raise taxes for most middle-income families, privatize a substantial portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid, and terminate the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would erode over time and thus would purchase health insurance that would cover fewer health care services as the years went by.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 7/5/10]  Ryan Accused The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities Of Partisan Demagoguery After Is Oppose His “Roadmap” Plan. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “We are quite disappointed that, in 37

responding to our analysis of his budget plan, Rep. Paul Ryan accuses the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of partisan demagoguery as well as factual errors and misleading statements. Quite the contrary, we applied the same rigorous analytical process to Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap for Americas Future that we do to every issue we study. We worked for more than a month on our analysis, and we believe that, if anything, we bent over backwards to make sure we were fair to the Congressman and his plan. Frankly, based on the attack on our analysis that Rep. Ryan issued yesterday, we took his plan far more seriously than he took our analysis of it. Rep. Ryan accuses us of partisanship, but we relied on the best nonpartisan sources available. The Tax Policy Center, on whose revenue estimates we relied heavily, is a highly respected, nonpartisan institution whose co-director, Rosanne Altshuler, was senior economist for President George W. Bush’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform in 2005.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 3/12/10]

Ryan-Wyden Proposal
Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill With Senator Wyden For Changes In The Medicare FFS Program, Would Create An Exchange, Retain Existing Medicare Insurance Rules, An Institutional Framework For Consumer Protection, And Medicare Spending Would Be Put On A Budget In 2023. According to the Heritage Foundation, “Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) have also outlined a major Medicare reform based on premium support. [ 43] Their plan differs in significant respects from the Ryan proposal embodied in last year’s House Budget Resolution. [44] Traditional Medicare. Like other major proposals, the Wyden-Ryan plan calls for changes in the traditional Medicare FFS program. It would, for example, create a new catastrophic benefit and reform existing cost sharing in Medicare Parts A and B by providing for a uniform deductible. They also call for the replacement of SGR with a new physician-payment-update formula. Ryan and Wyden are not specific, however, beyond these basic descriptions... First, Wyden-Ryan would create a Medicare exchange, a new arena for health plan competition… Second, Wyden-Ryan would retain existing Medicare insurance rules, meaning guaranteed issue of coverage, renewability and community rating, and it would greatly expand coverage options… Third, Wyden and Ryan establish an institutional framework for consumer protection and plan competition… Finally, Medicare spending, no longer on automatic pilot, would be put on a budget, effective in 2023.” [Heritage Foundation, 4/4/12] Ryan’s Second Budget Had The Options For Individuals To Buy A Traditional “Fee –For-Service” Medicare Policy. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “In last year’s GOP budget, people would use those premium subsidies to buy insurance in the private market. In the version unveiled Tuesday, they could also use those premium subsidies to buy a traditional fee-for-service Medicare policy, an approach that borrows from a plan Ryan recently crafted with a Democratic senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. But those recipients choosing the traditional Medicare option would still be subject to the caps Ryan is proposing on the government’s Medicare spending, meaning they might have to pay a lot more down the road than seniors do now for that traditional policy.” [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 3/21/12] Op-Ed: The Wyden-Ryan Plan Allowed Companies With Fewer Than 100 Employees The Options Of Giving Their Workers Vouchers On What They Would Have Instead Spent On Their Healthcare And Called For An Exchange Type Of System Which Sounded Similar To “Obamacare.” According to Matt Miller of the Washington Post, “In this new plan, Mr. Wyden gets Mr. Ryan to sign onto a key component of that earlier reform, although it has nothing to do with Medicare. Wyden-Ryan would allow firms with fewer than 100 employees the option of giving their workers (on a taxadvantaged basis) the cash the firms would have spent on their health coverage; with this, employees can buy, voucher-style, other policies. Since most small firms offer just one health plan, this is a huge victory for choice. It means that as many as a third of U.S. workers could use the new health-care exchanges -- a fantastic expansion of access that was perversely killed by both big business and big labor in the Affordable Care Act endgame. But there’s more. With this new plan, Mr. Ryan has signed onto the idea of subsidizing people to buy coverage from well-regulated health exchanges that must take all comers and charge them similar premiums regardless of health status (provisions that did not exist in Mr. Ryan’s previous plan). If that framework sounds familiar, it should -- it basically describes the dreaded Obamacare!” [Matt Miller, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/16/11] The Wyden-Ryan Plan Kept Medicare But Allowed Seniors To Choose Private Insurance Programs. According to Politico, “Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on Thursday plan to introduce a new Medicare reform plan that would allow seniors to choose between traditional Medicare and new private insurance programs. The plan has some key differences from the Ryan blueprint that Republicans had rallied around earlier this year and which Democrats had been united in pummeling in Congress and on the campaign trail as the beginning of the end of 38

Medicare. The biggest difference is that seniors would have a choice between staying in traditional Medicare, or opting into new private plan alternatives, the two lawmakers said in an interview with POLITICO. Wyden is the first Democrat on Capitol Hill to so strongly embrace a variant of Ryan’s approach. And Ryan has accepted more flexibility than the Medicare approach in the House budget. Wyden insists the plan would be designed in ways that would preserve the safety net for the elderly.” [Politico, 12/14/11]

MEDICAID
Democrats Claimed Ryan’s Budget Proposal Would Cut Medicare By $800 Billion. According to Markey News International, “Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, scorched the Ryan budget, saying it represents a ‘return to the failed economic policies that got America into this mess in the first place.’ ‘We need to come up with a credible plan,’ to cut deficits, Van Hollen said. Such a plan, he declared, should be ‘balanced’ with both spending cuts and revenue increases. The House Republican budget would renew costly tax cuts for the wealthy and would ‘deform’ Medicare, Van Hollen charged. The Ryan budget, he said, ‘takes a hatchet to Medicare’ by cutting it by more than $800 billion over a decade.” [Market News International, 3/28/12]

SOCIAL SECURITY
Ryan Praised Both Rick Perry’s Assertion That Social Security Was A Ponzi Scheme And Mitt Romney’s Opposition To The Statement, Said The System Was Not Working. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, rocked the race on Sept. 7 when, during a nationally televised GOP debate, he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, another front-runner for the Republican nomination, quickly contradicted Perry and has attacked him for equating Social Security with an investment fraud. The debate was still crackling on Sept. 20 when conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham asked House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) where he stood. ‘What about the Social Security description of Rick Perry calling it a Ponzi scheme? Are you closer to what he has to say on that, or closer to Romney’s stance on that?’ Ingraham asked Ryan. ‘No, they’re both right, I would say - which is, it is not working,’ Ryan said. ‘It is going bankrupt and current seniors will be jeopardized the most by the status quo. And so, if you take a look at the technicality of Ponzi - it’s not a criminal enterprise, but it’s a pay-as-you-go system where earlier investors or - say, taxpayers - get a positive rate of return and the most recent investors - or, taxpayers - get a negative rate of return.’ Since the Social Security-Ponzi comparison has come up before, we thought we would provide some perspective on it and see where Ryan stands.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/29/11]  …However, Ryan Believed Social Security Was Not A Criminal Enterprise But Operated Like A Ponzi Scheme. According to CNN, “Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has not backed away from his comments calling Social Security a ‘Ponzi scheme,’ said he and Ryan talked recently about the program and the need to reform it. Speaking at an Iowa event, Perry said he told Ryan, “Thank you for having the courage to stand up and being, talking about this,’ and I said, ‘I am proud to join you in this discussion with America for clearly calling the Social Security program that we have in place today broken.” Last week on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Ryan said he didn’t think the program is a criminal enterprise but is operating like a Ponzi scheme. ‘It’s a pay-as-you-go system where earlier investors, or, say, taxpayers, get a positive rate of return... and later investors, or taxpayers, get a negative rate of return,’ he said, according to a partial transcript. ‘And so ... that is how those schemes work. The point is, unless you fix this problem, it’s going to get much worse.’” [CNN, 9/26/11]

Ryan Would Make Social Security “Sustainable” By Gradually Raising the Eligibility Age, Trying The Benefits For Wealthy Recipients To Inflation And Offering Workers Under the Age Of 55 To Invest Some Of Their Taxes Into Personal Retirement Accounts. According to CNN, “And how would Ryan make Social Security financially sustainable? By gradually raising the eligibility age, tying the benefits for more wealthy recipients to inflation and offering workers under the age of 55 the option of investing some of their taxes into personal retirement accounts.” [CNN, 9/26/11] Ryan Said He Didn’t Put Forth A Social Security Plan Because It “Would Be Just Too Tempting For The Democrats To Attack.” According to a transcript of a speech Ryan gave at the American Enterprise Institute that was obtained via Fair Disclosure Wire, Ryan was asked, “Do you -- have you begun your own plan to address Social Security 39

reform or is it just waiting on others’ proposals?” Ryan responded, “You know, we went back and forth on this and, number one, we thought that, if we put one out there, it would be just too tempting for the Democrats to attack, and that will set us away from actually coming together to talk about this.” [Fair Disclosure Wire, 4/5/11]

SPENDING PROGRAMS
Ryan Said Pell Grants Have Grown “At Unsustainable Rates.” According to a transcript of the E21 Event obtained via States News Service, Ryan said, “Let me go onto Pell Grants. Pell is a program that has grown at unsustainable rates, and we need to bring that program back to sustainability…But what we’ve learned through things like Pell is every time you crank up Pell, what happens is tuition just goes up. So we’re feeding tuition increases, we’re giving more money to education bureaucracies, and so the student is getting money in one pocket, only to lose it in the other pocket. And the taxpayer is worse off.” [States News Service, 4/14/11] Ryan: “Social Safety Net Spending Grows Every Year Under This Budget.” According to a transcript of “Meet the Press” obtained via States News Service, Ryan said, “With respect to the safety net, our goal is to repair the safety net, make it more sustainable. Safety net spending grows every year under this budget. Medicare, Medicaid spending grows every year under this budget. What we’re trying to do here is save Medicare and Medicaid so that they’re sustainable. But also, the safety net is tearing apart at the seams. We want to fix the safety net.” [States News Service, 4/10/11] Ryan’s Budget Reduced Discretionary Non-Security Spending To 2006 Levels. According to CQ Weekly, “Under Ryan’s plan, $360 billion would be allocated for non-security spending, which includes all discretionary spending outside of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. The total would equal non-security spending in fiscal 2006, Budget staff said.” [CQ Weekly, 4/9/11] Ryan’s Budget Cut Food Stamps By $127 Billion Over Ten Years. According to CQ Weekly, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, would be turned into state block grants and cut by $127 billion over 10 years. New eligibility and job-training or work requirements would be established by 2015, when Ryan projects that the U.S. economy will have recovered from the recession.” [CQ Weekly, 4/9/11] Two-Thirds Of The Budget Cuts Detailed In The Ryan Plan Came From Programs For Low And Mid-Income People. According to a transcript of “MSNBC Live with Cenk Uygur,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein said, “The two thirds is a conservative estimates, probably more than two thirds of Ryan`s cuts come from programs that are targeted on lower, moderate- income people. Let`s just right there in the budget. Medicaid alone takes a $1.4 trillion hit, hundreds of millions more taken away from subsidies to help modest income people by health insurance.” [MSNBC, “MSNBC Live with Cenk Uygur,” 4/6/11] Robert Greenstein: Ryan Makes Jesse Helms Look “Like A Liberal By Comparison.” According to a transcript of “MSNBC Live with Cenk Uygur,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein said, “And we learned just this afternoon that he has a $127 billion cut in the food stamp program. I remember when the big food stamp opponent was Jesse Helms. This would make Jesse Helm looks like a liberal by comparison. The cuts in those areas are huge.” [MSNBC, “MSNBC Live with Cenk Uygur,” 4/6/11]

TAXES
PolitiFact: Ryan’s Budget Kept The Bush Tax Cuts And Cut The Top Individual Rate From 35 Percent To 25 Percent. According to the St. Petersburg Times, “Ryan’s plan would keep Bush tax cuts otherwise slated to expire in 2012, reduce the number of tax brackets, and cut the top individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, according to the Path to Prosperity.” [St. Petersburg Times, PolitiFact, 9/7/11] PolitiFact: The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities Highlighted That The Wealthy Would Benefit The Most Under The Ryan Plan, Including His Estate Tax Proposal Which Would Allow People To Inherit The Frist $10 Million In Estate Value Entirely Tax Free. According to the St. Petersburg Times, “Meanwhile, the New Republic piece cites conservative defense of Ryan’s tax changes as self-funding - once you assume the Bush tax cut extensions aren’t a cut - in 40

the Weekly Standard (twice), National Review and Washington Post. The think tank argues that ‘for the wealthy, Ryan’s proposals are pure gold’: - A typical hedge fund manager would benefit from Ryan’s extension of the Bush tax cuts for highincome people; the average person making at least $1 million a year would get $125,000 a year in tax breaks. - Heirs to multimillion-dollar estates would benefit from Ryan’s estate tax proposal, which would let them inherit the first $10 million in estate value entirely tax-free. - High-income investors would benefit from Ryan’s elimination of Medicare taxes on their investment income. - And large numbers of high earners would benefit from Ryan’s call to cut the top rate to 25 percent, the lowest in 80 years.” [St. Petersburg Times, PolitiFact, 9/7/11] Ryan Claimed His Budget Didn’t Cut Taxes. According to a transcript of “Charlie Rose” obtained via Finance Wire, Ryan was asked, “And then finally, [Obama] says ‘This vision that says even though Americans can`t afford to invest in education and clean energy, even though we can`t afford to care for seniors and children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.’ He said ‘That`s not right and it`s not going to happen.’ Is that the core issue?’ Ryan responded, ‘I don`t know what to say about that. First of all, we’re not talking about cutting taxes. We’re talking about keeping tax revenues where they are and cleaning up all the junk in the tax code and getting a fairer and simpler tax system. So we’re not talking about cutting taxes. We’re just not talking about raising taxes like he is imposing.’” [Finance Wire, 4/14/11] Ryan’s Budget Cut The Top Income Tax Rate To 25%; Offset By Eliminating Tax Breaks. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The plan calls for lowering the top tax rates to 25% on businesses and wealthier Americans and stripping many deductions and tax breaks. But its impact on the taxes people pay across income levels is hard to analyze because it doesn’t constitute a detailed tax proposal. As a general matter, Ryan has argued that the tax system should be both simpler and less progressive, contending that lower rates on upper earners and corporations fuel economic growth. Critics argued Tuesday that if his plan is ‘revenue neutral,’ any tax cuts on wealthier Americans would have to be offset by tax increases on the middle class.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/6/11]  Ryan: “When You Broaden The Base, You Have To Get Rid Of Some Loopholes And Deductions, And So We’re Going To Go Through A Bunch Of Hearings To Figure Out Exactly And Precisely How To Do All Of That.” According to a transcript of a speech Ryan gave at the American Enterprise Institute that was obtained via Fair Disclosure Wire, Ryan said, “Now, clearly, when you broaden the base, you have to get rid of some loopholes and deductions, and so we’re going to go through a bunch of hearings to figure out exactly and precisely how to do all of that. So you will see a broader tax base with lower rates on that. The key driving point of tax reform is to not raise taxes on capital, not raise taxes on investment, because we want more of that; we want more capital stock because you get higher wages and more job creation and to have a broader tax base with lower rates.” [Fair Disclosure Wire, 4/5/11]

Ryan Claimed His Road Map Maintained A Progressive Tax Code. According to a transcript of Political Capital with Al Hunt that was obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “We should have a tax code that maximizes competitiveness, job creation, economic growth, and raises the proper amount of revenue for the government. And I do maintain a progressive tax code for individuals; I just don’t do it as much as what we have right now, because I think it’s hurting growth. And we have a very internationally uncompetitive tax system.” [Analyst Wire, 12/10/10]

Other Budget Plans
Ryan Said His Vote Against The House Republican Study Committee Budget Was A Mistake. According to the Philadelphia Tribune, “On the other side of the Hill are some House Republicans joining their vocal Tea Party brethren in the Senate, with the Republican Study Committee proposing deeper cuts than Ryan’s in a frenzied contest over who could eliminate more of the federal budget faster. RSC wants the budget completely balanced in 10 years… Ryan, who claims he was lost in a swirl of House floor amendments, ended up being one of 26 Republicans to vote against it. It was a mistake he’s hoping to make up for in another vote on the bill in the near future. Many Republican colleagues, however, weren’t buying the ‘see what-had-happened-was’ mea culpa. They accused Ryan of wanting to have it both ways, charging it’s a political way to soften any union backlash against him in Wisconsin where there is trench warfare between Gov. Scott Walker and state employees. If he’s not sticking his neck out for them, why should they do the same for him?” [Philadelphia Tribune, 4/17/11] Ryan Claimed Non-Security Discretionary Spending Increased 84% During Obama’s First Two Years In Office. According to a transcript of “Squawk on the Street” obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “Because of health care, because of failure to address entitlements, because of a 24 percent increase in base domestic discretionary spending over the last two 41

years. You throw stimulus on top, it went up 84 percent. So the president has turned the spending spigot on and he has yet to really turn it off.” [Analyst Wire, 2/8/11]

2007 BUDGET ALTERNATIVE
2007: Ryan Budget Alternative Preserved Bush Tax Cuts. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “As top Republican on the House budget panel, Janesville’s Paul Ryan submitted the GOP alternative to the five-year Democratic spending plan passed by the House on Thursday. Among other things, the Ryan budget preserved President Bush’s tax cuts (scheduled to lapse in the coming years), called for cuts in the projected growth of entitlement spending, ratified the increases in defense spending Bush has called for, and froze discretionary spending that isn’t related to security.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/1/07] 2007 Ryan Budget Alternative Left Spending Exceptions ‘Where He Would Spend More Money.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , “Ryan also carved out three exceptions to that freeze, where he’d spend more money, not less: cancer research, Community Development Block Grants and basic research done by places such as the National Science Foundation. ‘Our bottom line as Republicans is we won’t raise taxes,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/1/07] House Rejected Ryan’s 2007 Budget Alternative. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The House rejected Ryan’s budget alternative 160-268. All but one Democrat voted against the Ryan plan, as did 40 mostly moderate Republicans, including Tom Petri of Fond du Lac. Those Republicans also voted against the Democratic budget. ‘We still have some in our party not willing to do what it takes to pay for the tax cuts,’ said Ryan, whose comment wasn’t directed specifically at Petri.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/1/07] 2007 Ryan Alternative Budget Cut $279 Billion From Medicare And Medicaid, Extended Bush Tax Cuts At A Cost Of $450 Billion. According to the Sun Sentinel, “Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years, far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February. The plan, written by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan’s plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote. Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security. ‘If we don’t get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don’t recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you’re going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don’t control spending, if we don’t reform government,’ Ryan said.” [Sun Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), 3/30/07]

42

ETHICS AND STYLE
Personal
Paul Ryan’s Inspiration Was Ayn Rand, Has Reread “Atlas Shrugged” Several Times. According to New York Magazine, “In 2005, Ryan spoke at a gathering of Ayn Rand enthusiasts, where he declared, ‘The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.’ Ryan has listed Rand’s manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, as one of his three most often reread books, and in 2003, he told The Weekly Standard he tries to make his interns read it. Rand is a useful touchstone to understand Ryan’s public philosophy. She centered libertarian philosophy around a defense of capitalism in general and, in particular, a conception of politics as a class war pitting virtuous producers against parasites who illegitimately use the power of the state to seize their wealth. Ludwig von Mises, whom Ryan has also cited as an influence, once summed up Rand’s philosophy in a letter to her: ‘You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: You are inferior and all the improvements in your condition which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.’” [New York Magazine, 5/7/12]  …But Ryan Hinted That He Did Not “Adore The Political Theorists And Author Of “Atlas Shrugged” As Some Suggest. According to the Janesville Gazette, “Ryan fielded the Ayn Rand question, saying he does not adore the political theorist and author of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as some suggest. Aaron Aegerter of Janesville said Rand was a foundation of Ryan’s political philosophy and that she was ‘an outspoken atheist, said altruism is evil, supported abortion and condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor.’ Ryan said the accusation is an ‘urban legend.’ He said he, like many others, read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ when he was young. The book inspired him to shift his career goals from medicine to economics, and it was ‘a great book,’ Ryan said. ‘Just because you like someone’s novels doesn’t mean you agree with their entire world-view philosophy, and she has a world-view philosophy which is completely antithetical to mine. She is an atheist philosopher. So just because you like a person’s novel on economic freedom and liberty doesn’t mean you are an atheist. That’s really kind of ridiculous.’” [Janesville Gazette, 5/5/12]

Ryan’s Wife Was The Cousin Of Oklahoma Congressman Dan Boren. According to the New York Times, “Aside from the occasional night at his sister-in-law’s house in Bethesda, Md., Mr. Ryan sleeps in his office when in Washington. It makes it easier to keep working. Mr. Ryan married into Oklahoma Democratic royalty -- his wife, Janna Little, is a cousin of Representative Dan Boren, the son of a former senator, David Boren. Mr. Ryan admired Ms. Little from afar and asked Mr. Neuman to introduce them. Her sister Dana was throwing her a birthday party, but Mr. Ryan, sick with the flu, almost begged off. ‘I’m introducing you to the woman who is going to have your children,’ Mr. Neuman recalled scolding him.” [New York Times, 4/30/12] Ryan Said The Republican Party Had A “Moral Responsibility” To Offer Alternatives To The Way Government Was Run In Washington. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The Republican Party has a moral responsibility to offer alternatives to the way government is conducted in Washington, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan said Friday. Speaking to members of the Journal Sentinel editorial board, as well as reporters and editors, the Janesville Republican said that the country is in a precarious state economically and that it’s not enough to just win an election. ‘I don’t like the direction the president is taking,’ Ryan said. ‘I should criticize those. I also should offer alternatives. It’s not enough to run against somebody. We have a moral responsibility to offer alternatives. Our country is in a very precarious moment.’ Ryan’s comments came a day after a speech in Washington before the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he sounded the same theme of encouraging conservatives to be bolder and more ambitious.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/12/12] Bill Bennett Said That Ryan Was The “Domestic Churchill” Of Our Time. According to Human Events, “Paul Ryan is our domestic Churchill today. He has alerted the American people of the gathering economic storm longer than most, even at the young age of 41. If enacted, his House budget plan, along with his Ryan-Wyden Medicare proposal, may save America from continuing down its current path to economic disaster.’ - Bill Bennett, Radio show host and former Reagan administration official.” [Human Events, 12/22/11] Ryan Was Named The Human Events Online 2011 Conservative Of The Year. According to Human Events Online, “The editors of HUMAN EVENTS are proud to name Rep. Paul Ryan as ‘Conservative of the Year’ for 2011, and many conservative leaders have stepped forward to congratulate Rep. Ryan and add their own special words of recognition, which 43

we present below. ‘Paul Ryan has three qualities that make him central to the definition of conservatism in America today.’ [Human Events, 12/11/11] Larry Kudlow: Ryan Had An Old-Fashioned American Vision That Was Much Different Than Obama’s. According to Creators Syndicate, Larry Kudlow wrote, “In other words, Rep. Paul Ryan is offering a completely different vision than the one Obama outlined in his Osawatomie, Kan., campaign speech in early December. Ryan wants ‘the right to rise,’ not a third wave of liberal progressivism. He wants to stop Obama’s attempt to add to the New Deal/Great Society with the statist universal health care program called Obamacare and an effective nationalization of the energy and financial sectors. And he completely rejects Obama’s divisive, big-government, punish-wealth, tax-the-rich leftist populism. ‘A ruling system of big business, big government and big-government unions does violence to the notion of entrepreneurial capitalism,’ Ryan told me. ‘Whether it’s TARP, Fannie or Freddie, cap-and-trade, or Obamacare, this must be stopped.’ Ryan stands against what he calls ‘the moral endgame to equalize outcomes.’ He says: ‘No consolidation of power into a permanent political class. Equality of opportunity, not result.’” [Creators Syndicate, Larry Kudlow, 12/21/11] Signs Indicated That Ryan Was Worried About His 2012 Reelection Chances As He Called On Congressman Kind To Support A Congressional Map That Would Shore Up Their Districts. According to Politico, “Ryan recently called Democratic Rep. Ron Kind to his office and floated the idea of both congressmen throwing their support to a redistricting proposal that would strengthen their districts while also providing support to the northern Wisconsin district held by vulnerable freshman GOP Rep. Sean Duffy, according to two Democratic sources familiar with the exchange. Kind returned with a counteroffer, according to one of the sources, proposing a map that would leave both congressmen safer but that wouldn’t shore up Duffy. Ryan’s response: thanks, but no thanks.” [Politico, 7/18/11] Ryan Ordered A $300 Bottle Of Wine While He Was Dining With “Economists.” According to Gawker, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a leading advocate of shrinking entitlement spending and the architect of the plan to privatize Medicare, spent Wednesday evening sipping $350 wine with two like-minded conservative economists at the swanky Capitol Hill eatery Bistro Bis. It was the same night reports started trickling out about President Obama pressing Congressional leaders to consider changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for GOP support for targeted tax increases… Ryan does not dispute most of the details of Feinberg’s account, although he told TPM the two men are economists, not lobbyists, and characterized Feinberg as ‘crazy’ and possibly drunk. For her part, Feinberg said she believes the economist at the table who got out his seat to challenge her was the one intoxicated.” [Gawker, 7/8/11] Ryan And Van Hollen Forged A “Solid Working Relationship.” According to the Hill, “Ryan and Van Hollen, rising stars in their respective parties, have forged a solid working relationship on the Budget Committee that has withstood the partisan and occasionally personal acrimony surrounding the battle over spending. Doing so has been a challenge for both men. Ryan, the panel’s chairman, has had to manage a group of feisty conservative freshmen whose denunciations of Van Hollen and other Democrats have at times crossed the lines of decorum. And Van Hollen has had to make the transition from his party’s top attack dog to policy wonk, even as the White House and other Democrats have made Ryan’s blueprint their No. 1 target.” [The Hill, 6/22/11] Former Senator Bob Kasten Called Ryan ‘The Most Important Leader’ In The GOP. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “But there’s a reason columnists and colleagues in Washington say the First District Republican from Janesville deserves serious consideration for vice president. ‘He, right now, is probably the most influential young leader in the Republican Congress,’ Bob Kasten, the former Wisconsin senator and now a Washington consultant, said of Ryan, who once briefly worked for Kasten. ‘When the Republican Party is clearly struggling in the House and the Senate, Paul is emerging as the most important leader.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan Was An Economic And Fiscal Advisor To McCain In 2008. According to the Wisconsin State Journal in 2008 Ryan, “Become an informal adviser to McCain’s campaign on economic and fiscal policy and on Wisconsin’s electorate.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08] Ryan Was Placed On The House Budget Committee At The Age Of 28. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan was just 28 when he joined Congress. Despite his youth, Republican leaders placed him on the powerful House Budget Committee, which sets spending policy for the government but doesn’t allocate dollars.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/22/08]

44

Ethical Issues
Ryan Was Confronted At Washington D.C. Restaurant Over $700 Wine Purchase. According to Gawker, “Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan’s table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same price tag. Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle. She quickly did the math and figured out that the $700 in wine the trio consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage. […] After ending their meal and paying the check, Feinberg decided to give Ryan a piece of her mind. She approached the table and asked Ryan ‘how he could live with himself’ sipping expensive wine while advocating for cuts to programs for seniors and the poor. Some verbal jousting between Feinberg and the other two men ensued. One of the two men said he had ordered the wine, was drinking it and paying for it. In hearing how much the wine cost, Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?’ The clash became especially heated when Feinberg asked the men if they were lobbyists. ‘F” her,’ one of them replied and stood up in a menacing way, according to Feinberg’s account.” [Gawker, 7/8/11]  Ryan Said The Heckler Was “Crazy” And Possibly Drunk, And Claimed He Did Not Order The Wine Or Know How Much It Cost. According to Gawker, “Ryan does not dispute most of the details of Feinberg’s account, although he told TPM the two men are economists, not lobbyists, and characterized Feinberg as ‘crazy’ and possibly drunk. For her part, Feinberg said she believes the economist at the table who got out his seat to challenge her was the one intoxicated. Ryan said the discussion focused on monetary policy and QE2, the Federal Reserve’s second round of quantitative easing, i.e. efforts to bolster the economy through the purchase of $600 billion in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. TPM caught up with Ryan after a vote outside of the Speaker’s lobby. In further explaining his side of the story, Ryan said he only had one glass of wine out of the two bottles but decided when it came time to pay the bill that he should pay for one of the bottles of wine out of an abundance of caution. He even produced the receipt for the meal, which you can view here. The receipt shows a charge to Ryan’s credit card for $472; $392 for his meal and the bottle of wine and a generous $80 tip. ‘I didn’t order - they ordered,’ Ryan told TPM. ‘I had one glass, uh, with my water, and when [Feinberg] was talking about how expensive it was, I didn’t even know [the price].’” [Gawker, 7/8/11] Ryan Said He Thought It Was “Stupid” To Spend That Much On A Bottle Of Wine ‘Under Any Circumstance.’ According to Gawker, ‘When asked more directly whether he thought it was appropriate to be ordering $350 wine while pushing for cuts to benefits for seniors and the poor, Ryan conceded that it’s ‘stupid’ to pay that much for a bottle of wine and said he wouldn’t do so again. Here’s a partial transcript of the interview. TPM: ...she was saying, is it appropriate for you guys to be ordering that kind of wine $350 dollars-a-bottle? Ryan: ‘A.) I didn’t order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) ...I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals.’ TPM: That was very smart. ... But do you think it’s appropriate now that you know how much the wine cost to be drinking [such expensive wine] when you’re advocating cuts for seniors? Ryan: ‘I think it’s stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance.’ TPM: But you had to pay for it... Ryan: ‘Yeah, I was like this is ridiculous. Who buys wine that expensive? It surprised me, and I think it’s stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine.’” [Gawker, 7/8/11]

PRIVATE TRAVEL
Ryan Banned His Staff From Accepting Private Travel But Still Accepted It For Himself. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville has grounded staffers - but not himself. This year, when it appeared clear that there were going to be congressional reforms, he banned aides from accepting private travel, spokeswoman Kate Matus said. Ryan’s private travel total for the period: nearly $24,000, second after Sensenbrenner. Ryan and his wife went to Israel, Aspen, Colo., Fort Lauderdale and Naples, Fla., and Baltimore.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/20/06] Ryan Flew To PAC Fundraiser In Corporate Jet Owned By Pfizer, Campaign Paid $1,150. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Rep. Paul Ryan boarded a Gulfstream jet last September, flying to a fund-raiser in Los Angeles to benefit his political action committee, the Prosperity PAC. The Janesville Republican flew aboard a corporate jet owned by Pfizer Inc., the New York City-based pharmaceutical giant, and Pfizer had representatives aboard for the trip, according to Jeff 45

Livingston, the treasurer of Ryan’s PAC. The committee later reimbursed the drug company $1,150 for the flight.” Ryan flew commercial back to Wisconsin. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/12/06]

TROHA FEE DEAL
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Father Of Ryan Aide Signed ‘Troha Fee Deal.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Willems - ‘Clete’ to his friends and colleagues - currently works for U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on the House Budget Committee minority staff and previously was Ryan’s legislative director. That made him one of the Wisconsin congressman’s top aides, the guy tracking legislation for the office and a good person to know if you wanted Ryan’s ear. The aide’s father is Cletus Willems Jr., natch. The elder Willems, as anybody in Kenosha can tell you, is the executive vice president and general counsel for trucking conglomerate JHT Holdings. But few know this about the father: He is the guy who signed, on behalf of the company, the secret deal to pay former JHT owner and now-indicted Kenosha powerbroker Dennis Troha on the side through 2010 if Congress passed legislation that benefited the firm by easing federal truck-hauling regulations. Ryan then leaned on fellow congressmen and federal officials in support of this measure.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/25/07]  Ryan Was Aware Of Ties Aide Had To JHT Trucking. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But was Ryan aware that one of his top aides was so closely tied to a top JHT exec? Apparently. In response to a series of questions posed on this issue, Ryan’s office issued a statement Friday that says he has known the elder Willems since 1998, when he was a partner at a Kenosha law firm and before he joined JHT. Campaign records show the Kenosha lawyer, who did not return calls, has given eight contributions totaling $3,750 to Ryan - most recently chipping in $1,250 in 2005. At that time, the younger Willems was working as Ryan’s legislative director. In that job, he kept tabs on the progress of the trucking measure sought by his father’s firm. Now there’s a son going about his father’s business. ‘Clete Willems monitored the issue, along with all other legislative issues, as part of his overall responsibilities,’ the Ryan statement said. ‘According to House Ethics Rules, there was no conflict of interest in him having this role.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/25/07] Troha’s Father Signed A Non-Compete Clause That Hinged On Congress Passing Beneficial Legislation. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “What few knew at the time, however, was that Troha and the aide’s father signed a non-compete agreement on Feb. 18, 2005, under which JHT would pay T Group Consulting, a firm solely owned by Troha, two separate annual fees until June 2010 if Congress passed the trucking measure. Just weeks later, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported out a huge highway bill with the Troha provision. The bill became law in August, and records show that JHT made two wire transfers totaling more than $107,000 to T Group on Sept. 30, 2005.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/25/07]

Ryan’s Office Denied That He Urged The Bill’s Passage Because Of Influence By Aide’s Father. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In 2005, Ryan had the lead signature on a letter urging two other congressmen to fight for the Troha provision in a conference committee. Last year, Ryan wrote then-Acting Transportation Secretary Maria Cino urging her agency to adopt rules based on the legislation that were favored by JHT. But Ryan’s office said he was not acting in response to his aide or his aide’s father - just as he earlier said he wasn’t influenced by Troha’s cash. ‘This relationship had no bearing on Congressman Ryan’s decision on these issues,’ the statement said, pointing out that many staffers come from the district and have relatives working for Wisconsin businesses. ‘According to the House Ethics Rules, these family ties to the District and the work Congressman Ryan does to serve his constituents are not a conflict of interest.’ So Ryan was not pushing special-interest legislation that helped a firm tied to a major donor and the father of a staffer.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/25/07] Ryan Said He Wrote Letter As ‘Routine And Appropriate Constituent Service.’ According to the Capital Times, “Ryan described his role as providing ‘routine and appropriate constituent service to a large employer in my district. I’m as frustrated as anyone to learn that some individuals did not disclose their personal interests, which were unbeknown to me at all.’ He said that he and several colleagues decided to write the letter to the committee in 2005 because they believed the change would be good public policy. Ryan argued that it will improve safety and reduce fuel consumption.” [Capital Times, 3/20/07] Ryan Gave Equivalent Of Troha Donations To Local Boys And Girls Club. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) said Tuesday that he would donate all funds contributed to his campaign by the family of indicted Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha to the Kenosha Boys & Girls Club. Troha faces federal charges accusing him of illegally funneling at least $100,000 in contributions through his children to the campaign of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. Troha’s family has contributed $58,802 to Ryan’s campaign fund since 1998, the year he was first elected, Ryan 46

spokeswoman Susan Jacobson said. Those contributions are not subject to the Troha indictment. Troha had spearheaded efforts for an $808 million Indian casino proposed for a location in Ryan’s district. Members of Troha’s family gave Ryan $31,700 in 2005, and the congressman has acknowledged contacting federal regulators about the progress of the casino’s application.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/7/07] Ryan Pledge To Take Appropriate Action In Troha Investigation. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Overall, Ryan, who has gone to bat for the Kenosha casino proposal with federal regulators, has received more than $50,000 from the family since 2001. ‘The recent indictments surrounding the Troha family contributions to another campaign are very troubling,’ Ryan said in a statement. ‘I am anxious to learn the results of this investigation. Once all of the facts become available, if any contribution to the Ryan for Congress campaign is found to be legally in question, I will take appropriate and corrective action.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/2/07]

Influence
New York Times: Ryan Perhaps “The Most Influential Policy Maker” In The GOP. According to the National Journal’s Hotline, “New York Times’ Weisman profiles Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), writing: Ryan ‘has become perhaps the most influential policy maker’ in the GOP, ‘its de facto head of economic policy, intent on a fundamental transformation’ of the federal gov’t. Outside of Romney, Ryan’ may be the party’s most important figure, said William Bennett, the conservative luminary and a mentor’ of Ryan’s going back to Ryan’s early 20s. Some conservatives say Bennett ‘might have the reality reversed.’ Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): ‘Paul Ryan effectively captured the Republican presidential candidates.’ ‘Ryan has not yet made clear whether he has an interest in compromising or whether his sole goal’ is a GOP victory ‘that is sweeping enough to enact his own vision. Regardless, he is likely to remain near the center of the political tussle. He is among the handful of people most often mentioned’ as both a 2012 VP nominee and a future presidential candidate. Ryan: ‘What I hope happens is we go to the country with a positive agenda to show how we will prevent a debt crisis, how we will get this economy growing again, then win the House, Senate and the White House, and then be magnanimous in that victory and include reformers from the other side of the aisle into a coalition to fix these problems.’ Ryan ‘likes to dispel two ‘urban legends’ around him. First, he said, he is not a disciple’ of Ayn Rand, ‘the strident libertarian. Second, he never drove the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. ...As for the Wienermobile, one summer as he was pressing Oscar Mayer Lunchables and turkey bacon on meat buyers in rural Minnesota, two ‘very nice young ladies’ who were driving the hotdog-shaped vehicle did let him ‘take it for a spin,’ he confessed’ (4/29).” [National Journal, 4/30/12] TIME Magazine Named Ryan One Of The “Most Influential American Politicians.” According to The Janesville Gazette, “Time named Ryan one of four runners-up for its annual person of the year, along with Kate Middleton, who married a prince; Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei; and Adm. William McRaven, who helped plan the assault that led to Osama bin Laden’s death. Time’s person of the year is a composite person: ‘the protester.’ Time calls Ryan ‘the most influential American politician’ in a year when Congress was in gridlock and its approval ratings were rock bottom. Rep. Ryan is the brains behind the Republican focus on the nation’s debt this year, although he’s been working on economic policy since before voters in Wisconsin’s 1st District elected him to Congress in 1998.” [The Janesville Gazette, 12/15/11] The Capital Times: Ryan Was Distracted From District Concerns By National Limelight. According to The Capital Times, “Ryan likes the limelight, and he devotes plenty of time to chasing it. Far more time, it appears, than he does to worrying about the communities he represents in southeast Wisconsin, a region where major auto plants and auto-parts facilities have been closing on a regular basis in recent years. Racine and Janesville - Ryan’s hometown - have some of the highest unemployment rates in the state. And, with few jobs in the offing, southeastern Wisconsinites whose names are on the unemployment rolls are particularly vulnerable. Many of them are among the 800,000 Americans whose unemployment benefits were set to expire at the end of November unless Congress acted to extend those benefits. That number would grow to 2 million by the end of the year. Remarkably, Ryan was not among the 21 Republicans who voted to extend the benefits. He couldn’t be bothered to worry about out-of-work Wisconsinites. Television ‘stars’ don’t have time for working families in towns like Racine and Janesville.” [The Capital Times, 12/1/10] As Budget Chairman Ryan Faced Being In The “Center Of The Storm” And Would Be The Most “Single Important Member” Of Congress In The First Six Months. According to CQ Weekly, “It’s not your ordinary Budget Committee, though. It’s the Budget Committee amid blaring alarms and dire prophecies about a national debt that simply can’t continue. It’s a committee with the potential to be a field of battle only partly about numbers and more about ‘philosophy of 47

government,’ as Ryan says -- about ‘what kind of country you want to have in the 21st century.’ That a high-profile Democrat such as Maryland’s Rep. Chris Van Hollen wants to be the top Democrat on the committee attests to its importance. It’s ‘a central front in this national conversation about how to accelerate job creation and economic growth,’ he wrote in a letter to colleagues, the arena for ‘a debate about who we are and the future direction of our country.’ So if the Budget Committee will be the center, Ryan will be at the center of the center -- the ‘center of the storm,’ in the words of former Rep. Bill Frenzel. ‘My guess is, in the first six months, he’s going to be the single most important member of Congress, the one we see most often, the one who will be spreading the policies on the board, trying to move programs, trying to convince people to move this way or that,’ says Frenzel, a Minnesota Republican who is now a budget expert at the Brookings Institution.” [Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 11/13/10] Union Leader: Ryan Was Newt Gingrich “For The New Century.” According to Union Leader editorial, “Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is giving members of the GOP leadership in Washington indigestion. And they de-serve it. Ryan is a sort of Newt Gingrich for the new century. He’s intellectual and energetic, full of ideas about how to improve the country, but he’s squeaky clean and carries none of the baggage that weighs down Gingrich. Probably because of all that, he is upsetting his own party’s leadership. They want him to stop talking about reforming entitlement programs and eliminating the national debt.” [Union Leader, 8/3/10] Ryan Was Speculated As A Replacement For Josh Bolten As Director Of The Office Of Management And Budget. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville is being mentioned as a possible candidate to lead the powerful Office of Management and Budget. Ryan, 36, who is in his fourth term in Congress, insisted Tuesday that he is staying put. ‘I was flattered to be mentioned, but I love my current job serving the First District, and my family and I love living in Janesville,’ he said. ‘That should put this speculation to rest.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/5/06]  Lawrence Kudlow: Ryan Would Be A Grand Slam Home Run Pick To Lead OMB. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “On his ‘Kudlow’s Money Politic$’ blog March 30, he wrote that ‘a senior White House source suggested to me that the Bush administration may be looking at supply-side Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to replace Josh Bolten.’ Kudlow, the host of CNBC’s ‘Kudlow & Company,’ said Ryan’s appointment would be a ‘grand slam home run.’ He said Ryan’s pro-growth, tough-on-spending, tax-cutting attitude would send the right signals to Congress, the rest of Washington and Wall Street. Ryan, a conservative considered a rising GOP star, sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee and is running for his fifth term in the House. Meantime, he is vying to become chairman of the House Budget Committee.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/5/06]

2005 Poll Said Ryan Was A Potential Future President. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville shows up in National Journal as one of the political figures with the most potential to be president 20 years from now. With 4% of the vote, he trailed fellow Republicans George P. Bush (presidential nephew), U.S. Trade Rep. Rob Portman and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota and Democrats Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee. Ryan tied with Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat. The poll sought views from members of Congress, political strategists and journalists.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/27/05] Capital Times Editorial: Ryan Is A Rigid Ideologue Who Put His Brain On Hold When He Went To Washington. According to a Capital Times editorial, “Rep. Paul Ryan, a cookie-cutter conservative who has represented southeastern Wisconsin in the U.S. House since 1999, could not be bothered to deviate from peddling Washington-insider spin even when his own hometown was facing what could yet turn out to be a serious economic threat. It’s not that Ryan is a bad guy; indeed, he is one of the nicest people in Wisconsin’s congressional delegation. And it is certainly not that he lacks love for Janesville, a community where his family has lived for generations. The problem is that Ryan is a rigid ideologue who put his brain on hold when he went to Washington. He votes exactly as the Bush White House and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay instruct. And he devotes his free time to promoting the agenda of the K Street lobbyists, who set the tone for the inside-the-Beltway Republican Party. As such, he is on precisely the wrong side of the debates that matter to Janesville. For instance, Ryan is the state’s most resolute supporter of a free-trade agenda that has devastated U.S. manufacturing -- especially in states like Wisconsin. While most of the rest of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation is expected to vote against the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, Ryan is seen as the most likely supporter.” [Capital Times, 6/9/05] Chicago Sun-Times Described Ryan As A Protégé Of Jack Kemp. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “A former protégé of Jack Kemp, Ryan is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and the leading supply-sider in the House.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/26/04] 48

2004: Dick Armey Said Ryan Was A Leader In The New ‘Progressive Conservatism.’ According to an opinion piece in the Wisconsin State Journal by Dick Armey, “Indeed, a group of political leaders in Wisconsin continues to build on the state’s progressive tradition with innovative public policy. Wisconsin figures like U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan are out in front of the national debate with new ideas that reinvent the way we think about government and how policy affects our economy and our society. My colleague Jack Kemp calls this general movement ‘progressive conservatism’ and it is at the heart of the great intellectual revolution of our time.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/19/04]

Rhetoric
Ryan Said That Obama Was Using “Class Warfare Arguments.” According to The Fox News, Ryan said, “You know, it’s really disappointing, actually. I don’t enjoy doing this because he gave us a message of hope three years ago of uniting and not dividing. And what we’re getting now are class warfare arguments. We’re getting very polarizing rhetoric that pits class against class, pits people against one another and I would simply say sowing social unrest and class resentment does not make America stronger, it makes America weaker.” [Fox News, 10/26/11] Ryan Said That The Partisan Political Was Not His “Natural Tendency” And That He Was A “Policy Guy.” According to Politico, “Of the partisan political game, Ryan confessed, ‘It’s not my natural tendency. I’m a policy guy. I was always a think tank guy before, so I’ve always been a policy guy and have always seen myself as basically just a policymaker. That’s what I wanted to do when I ran for Congress. So I’ve just come to accept the role for what it is, and if it gives me the opportunity to talk about ideas and solutions, then all the better.’” [Politico, 10/2/11] Ryan Said House Should Have Thrown Out ‘Bad Apples’ In GOP Sooner After Losing Control Of The House In 2006. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “GOP lawmaker Paul Ryan of Janesville contended that the election was not a repudiation of Republican ideas but a ‘repudiation of the fact that Republicans didn’t act and implement their ideas.’ That puts Ryan in the camp of those who say the party’s failure was not in overreaching but in failing to truly advance its principles. ‘We as a party governed by the weakest among us, by our weakest link. We governed at the lowest common denominator on policies and principles,’ said Ryan, who also said the GOP failed to act quickly enough on misconduct by members. ‘We didn’t throw the bad apples out soon enough in our caucus,’ said Ryan, who supports a change in the House GOP leadership.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/9/06] Ryan: The Ultimate Reform For Washington Is To Get Money Back To The States. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The ideological divide: Some conservatives argue that the ‘root cause’ of political corruption in Washington is the size and power of the federal government. As Gingrich put it, as long as the government is as big as it is, ‘no law or regulation can hold back the tide of corrupting influences.’ According to that logic, the final remedy is something Republicans have been unable to do while in power: reduce the size of government. ‘The ultimate reform to clean up Washington is to send power and money out of that city and back to states and individuals,’ Ryan says.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/23/06] Ryan Called Gridlock In Congress Frustrating. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan acknowledges that today’s Congress is a ‘very frustrating’ place. ‘There are so many things (to do): energy, welfare, intelligence reform, Social Security reform, fiscal reform, fiscal restraint. It’s frustrating when you work so hard on these issues and you fall prey to gridlock, because we have to start from scratch next year.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/29/04]

Ideology
Ryan, Who Denied Being Influenced By Atheist Philosopher Ayn Rand, Once Described Rand As The Single Most Influential Philosopher And Required His Staff To Read Rand’s Books. According to the Telegraph Herald, “Recently, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, author of the Republican plan to abolish Medicare, denied that he has been influenced by the ‘atheistic philosophy’ of Ayn Rand. The Atlas Society (named after Rand’s most famous novel) released a tape of Ryan saying that Rand was the single most influential thinker in his life and that Rand makes the moral case for capitalism. Ryan requires his staff to read Rand’s books, including ‘The Fountainhead.’” [Telegraph Herald, 5/5/12] 49

Ryan: “We Want Society That Directs Its Finite Resources To Those Who Need It The Most And Not To Those Who Need It The Least.” According to a transcript of a Bloomberg TV interview obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “And I think that’s more of a caricature narrative. I think that’s totally false. And it’s a narrative of shared scarcity. And we want to have growth. We want an upward mobile society. We want to promote equal opportunity. And we want society that directs its finite resources to those who need it the most and not to those who need it the least.” [Analyst Wire, 5/4/11] Ryan Claimed His Budget Provided “A Safety Net That’s Sustainable” And A Focus On “Equal Opportunity, Not Equal Outcomes.” According to a transcript of a Bloomberg TV interview obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “If you look at what we’re trying to achieve here, it is a safety net that’s sustainable, that’s retooled for the 21st century, and then the money we will spend in our government should be more directed toward those at the bottom end of the income scale. It’s a different opinion on what the role of government is. We believe - as I see it. Granted, I’m giving you my opinion. We believe we should focus on upper mobility and equal opportunity, not an equalization of outcomes. So equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.” [Analyst Wire, 5/4/11] Asked If Income Inequality Was A Problem, Ryan Said “Sure”; He Added, “I Think Let’s Focus Less On The Gap And Focus On Bringing The Bottom Up.” According to a transcript of a Bloomberg TV interview obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan was asked, “Is income inequality a problem?” Ryan responded, “Sure… I think - I think let’s focus less on the gap and focus on bringing the bottom up.” [Analyst Wire, 5/4/11] Ryan Claimed That “Removing The Shackles And The Barriers To Growth…The Disincentives Toward Upward Mobility” Would Increase Income Mobility. According to a transcript of a Bloomberg TV interview obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan was asked, “It’s more difficult for someone in the bottom quintile to move to the upper quintile… And - and more difficult for somebody born into the top quintile to fall to the bottom quintile. So how do you fix that? Is that a problem? And how do you fix that?” Ryan responded, “I do. That is a problem, I think. I think the lack of upward mobility or the static nature of income mobility is what ought to be addressed. And it is not through Washington trying to figure out how to redistribute mobility. It is through removing the shackles and the barriers for growth. It is for removing the disincentives toward upward mobility.” [Analyst Wire, 5/4/11] Ryan’s College Professor Richard Hart Said Ryan Was Attracted To Ayn Rand As A Student. According to the Chicago Tribune, “He was 28 when he entered Congress in 1999, a former House and Senate aide with a degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio. One of his economics professors, Richard Hart, said even as a student Ryan was drawn to adherents of free-wheeling capitalism, Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek, and believed the markets, not government, held better solutions.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/17/11] Ryan Said The President’s 2012 Budget Request Included “So-Called Investments.” According to a transcript of Fox News Sunday, Ryan said, “We’ll see the details of this budget tomorrow, but it looks like to me that it is going to be very small on spending discipline and a lot of new spending so-called investments.” [Fox News, “Fox News Sunday,” 2/13/11] Ryan Said He Was Deeply Committed To Capitalism And Free Market Choice. According to States News Service, in a press release, Rep. Ryan wrote “I write as an unswerving proponent of both free market choice and the natural right to life. [...]I am deeply committed to capitalism, the ‘system of natural liberty,’ as Adam Smith called it. […]As a champion of capitalism, I strongly support every person’s right to make these economic choices and to fight against government efforts to limit them. Freedom and the choice it implies are moral rights which Americans are granted, not from government but from the principles that have made this a great and prosperous society.” [States News Service, 9/20/10] Ryan Said He Would Endorse A Fiscally Conservative Democrat. According to the Janesville Gazette, “Asked if he might endorse a fiscally conservative Democrat, Ryan responded: ‘Sure, but I haven’t found one yet.’ The problem with Democrats is that the first thing they’ll do is vote for Nancy Pelosi to continue as House speaker, and Pelosi, as Ryan sees it, has overseen unprecedented growth in spending, exceeding even that under wartime President George W. Bush.” [The Janesville Gazette, 7/22/10] Ryan Acknowledged Increased Spending, Earmarks, And Corruption Occurred Under Republicans. According to The Janesville Gazette, “Ryan admits Republicans have been big spenders. ‘Under our watch, spending got out of control. Now in the whole scheme of things, we were amateurs com-pared to the big spenders of today,’ he said. But ‘...spending, earmarks, corruption ... we need to acknowledge that happened.’ Asked whether he regrets not opposing any spending 50

measures during the years Republicans held sway in Congress or the White House, Ryan would not go there. But he did say that a legislator has to learn from the past to do better in the future. ‘I fought a lot of this stuff, but obviously not effectively enough,’ Ryan said, mentioning his proposals on earmarking and the line-item veto and his opposition to omnibus spending bills.” [The Janesville Gazette, 7/22/10] Ryan Said The U.S. Reached A “Tipping Point” Where The Majority Of Americans Were Receiving Government Aid. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” Ryan said he worried about that the U.S. was on a “Road to Serfdom.” Ryan: “…I think we’re reaching a tipping point in this country where a majority of Americans are getting their benefits and the livelihoods from the Federal government and from themselves. Were they more worried about their material support from government than they are about their own liberties? And so yes, I am concerned about this… It is serfdom because we’re moving from a position in the society where the goal of government is not equalize opportunity but to equalize the results of our lives. And so, the more we ask government to do for us, the more government can take from us. Look, already, fully, according to the tax foundation, 60 percent of Americans get more benefits than dollar value from the Federal government than they even pay in taxes. So, we are reaching this point where the government is doing so much in our lives that we have less freedom to govern ourselves.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10]  Ryan Said He Thought The Majority Of Americans Did Not Want Government To Take Care Of Them. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” John Stossel said “…I think people want mommy government to take care of them. Congressman Ryan, do you agree…” Ryan replied “No. I think, generally speaking, people believe in the American idea. And the American idea is our rights don’t come from government, according to Declaration of Independence, our rights come from nature and nature’s God. And so, we do not want a government where they give us our rights and therefore they redistribute, regulate and ration our rights…I think the majority -- and take care of us. I think the majority of Americans from doing town halls all across Wisconsin, they don’t want this, they don’t want government to do this. I think, you know, time is of the essence here. And I think, we have one more opportunity in this country with this choice of two futures given our fiscal situation, given the agenda in Washington right now. Where it is not too late to revive and re-apply the American idea but there will come a point where that moment might pass us.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10] Ryan Said The U.S. On A “Road To Serfdom” Would Cause High Unemployment And Inferior Standards Of Living. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” John Stossel asked “… ‘Road to Serfdom’ and what is that mean?” Ryan responded: “The consequences are this: chronically higher unemployment, lower standards of living, we will bequeath to the next generation and inferior standard of living. We already know we’re doing that now statistically and you’ll have a stagnant society where people aren’t really getting up and going, taking risks, reaching their potential, making the most of their lives where they are more complacent and worried about their dependencies and government than really reaching their potential. That I think is the practical outcome of that kind of a society.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10]

Ryan Said The U.S. Was On A Path To “Soft Despotism,” Where The Government Would Keep Everyone In A “Happy State Of Childhood.” According to the Enid News & Eagle, during address for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs’ 2010 citizen dinner, Ryan said “if the United States keeps going down the road it is on, everyone will be living in soft despotism, where everyone is dependent on government to keep them happy. ‘Soft despotism is kind and sympathetic, it’s not cruel or mean,’ Ryan said. He continued to characterize it as the government’s attempt to keep everyone ‘in a happy state of child-hood,’ where the government becomes the sole supplier of everyone’s happiness.” [Enid News & Eagle, 3/31/10] Ryan Said The Affordable Care Act Signaled False View That Government Created Rights Instead Of God. According to The Oklahoman, “During Sunday’s debate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., looked beyond health care’s details to question where it may lead. The Founders believed rights came from ‘nature and nature’s God, not government,’ Ryan said, while Obamacare signals a view that government creates rights and rations them. ‘We are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend upon the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods,’ Ryan warned. He said the country is at a point ‘where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies. This is not who we are or who we should become.’” [The Oklahoman, 3/25/10] Ryan Said Democrat’s “Philosophy” On Health Care Reform Was “Paternalistic And So Arrogant.” According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Transcript of 51

Congressman Ryan’s closing remarks in opposition of the Majority’s health care bill: ‘Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives - or do we now believe that government’s role is to equalize the results of people’s lives? The philosophy advanced on the floor by the Majority today is so paternalistic, and so arrogant. It’s condescending. And it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods - a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies.” [States News Service, 5/21/10] Ryan Believed Health Care Reform Debate Was Less About Policy And More About Ideology. According to Federal News Service, in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Dylan Ratigan Show,” Ryan was asked: “whether it’s you or Ron Wyden, why do you think plans like that have basically been pushed into the ditch?” Ryan responded, “Because I think this is less about health-care policy and more about ideology. I really believe this. And it’s just the conclusion that I have reluctantly come to, which is they could have had good bipartisan deals with many of us to address cost and quality and health insurance for the uninsured, and those are the pre-existing conditions. We could have done that before August. I believe this is really more about political philosophy and agenda, which is an ideological idea to have the government take this whole system over. And that to me is something that is basically having the American idea of promoting equal opportunity being replaced with more of a Western European cradle-to-grave social democracy, welfare state, where the goal of government isn’t promoting equal opportunity but to equalize the results of our lives. And I just think that’s the ideology that dominates the White House and the people running Congress right now.” [Federal News Service, 3/10/10] Ryan Said Robert LaFollette And Progressives Helped Create “The Paramount Political Problem Of Our Time: Centralized Administration.” According to Milwaukee State Journal, “…Rep. Paul Ryan knocked Robert ‘Fighting Bob’ LaFollette and his progressive ideas during a speech Wednesday at a health care forum sponsored by Hillsdale College. Speaking at the Washington Court Hotel on Capitol Hill, Ryan said Wisconsin’s Lafollette and other progressive thinkers ‘sowed the seeds for the paramount political problem of our time: centralized administration.’ ‘The progressives’ program came in on two great waves: the 1930s New Deal and the Great Society of the 1960s,’ the Janesville Republican said. ‘President (Barack) Obama often invokes progressivism and plans to generate its third, and greatest, wave.’ Ryan called health care reform ‘progressivism in action’ and suggested that the debate over health care is an ‘ideological crusade’ by Democrats ‘against the American idea.’” [Milwaukee State Journal, 1/17/10] On Income Inequality, Ryan Said Republicans Wanted To “Lower The Barriers” For Americans And Make “Upward Mobility” Easier. According to Mediaite, “On the issue of income inequality, Ryan argued that the Republican position is to ‘lower the barriers’ for Americans who want to rise and make ‘upward mobility’ easier for everyone, instead of adding new barriers. He argued that taxing the wealthy doesn’t just put a higher burden on millionaires and movie stars, but on people who run small businesses. He was not opposed to looking into subsidies on the wealthy and dealing with corporate welfare, but dismissed the idea of pitting Americans against Americans in a class war of sorts. […] Ryan claimed that he personally isn’t concerned with people who are already rich, but how to make middle-class people richer by removing the economic barriers he referenced earlier.” [Mediaite, 10/10/11] Ryan Described Himself As A Second Generation ‘Supply Sider.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan describes himself as a ‘second-generation’ supply-sider, saying the original supply-siders were focused on incentives, but were ‘agnostic’ about deficits and the size of government - and ‘I’m not.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09] Ryan Developed His Political Philosophy From Ayn Rand And Milton Friedman. According to the American Spectator, “A native of Janesville, Wisconsin, Paul Ryan developed his political philosophy reading the works of free market authors including Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand.” [American Spectator, April 2010] When Elected To The U.S. House In 1988, Ryan Feared His Young Age Would Be A Liability. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Now the sixth youngest member of the House, Paul Ryan worried when he was elected in 1998 that he'd be seen as a ‘young punk.’ A Democrat was in the White House then, the economy sizzled, and Osama bin Laden was not a household name. […]As the Ryans’ world has turned, and in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the country’s as well, the lawmaker has won notice from party elders. Now 34, he still can’t shake the adjective ‘young.’ Ryan says his age has proved an asset, not the liability he initially feared. Older Republicans embraced him as a rare post-baby boomer in Congress with a life marked by, as he remembers, Ronald Reagan, the Cold War, peace-through-strength and stagflation.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/4/04] 52

Ryan Said He Believed In “Individualism Vs. Collectivism.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Today, Ryan, once merely a Capitol Hill staffer, is embracing challenges no smaller than revising the way the U.S. budget is drawn up, salvaging Social Security and trying to alter the tax code to stave off manufacturing job losses. He is a disciple of supply side economics, a deficit hawk and champion of capitalism and free enterprise. His philosophy? ‘I believe in individualism versus collectivism,’ is how he puts it. ‘The individual is the nucleus of our society and our economy, not the government.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/4/04] Ryan: “Money Follows Power.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan, 32, recognizes that incumbency has benefits. ‘People know me, they know what I stand for, they know my track record. If you’re not well-known, it’s harder to get contributions.’ Moreover, he doesn’t disagree with those -- such as Matt Keller, legislative director of the citizens’ lobby Common Cause -- who say incumbents have a knack for raising the big bucks because ‘money follows power.’ From Ryan: ‘I would say money does follow power, and so long as you have such a strong, central government in Washington making so many decisions in our lives, the money will follow.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/20/02] Ryan Promised That He Would Not Become A “Professional Political.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan swears he’ll not become one of these detached professional politicians who loses sight of the needs of his district. In fact, he’s not going to really even live in Washington, he says. ‘I’ll get some cheap efficiency apartment,’ he says. ‘I plan to stay right here in the district in my house as much as I can.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/9/98]

OCCUPY WALL STREET
Ryan Defended “Occupy Wall Street” Protestor’s Rights To Protest Government. According to Mediaite, “On Meet the Press earlier today, Congressman Paul Ryan defended the legitimate rights of the Occupy Wall Street protestors to air their grievances about the government, but criticized President Obama for dividing the country by class with proposals to increase taxes on millionaires. […]David Gregory played a clip of presidential candidate Herman Cain disparaging the protestors, and asked Ryan if this was the official position of the Republican party on the protests, given statements made by fellow Republicans in recent days. Ryan surprisingly bucked the trend and did not immediately take the bait. ‘I don’t disparage anybody who protests their government, for better government, no matter what perspective they come from. Look, I come from Wisconsin, that’s a state where protests are sort of the new normal and I think we’re going to see a lot of it from now through the 2012 election.’” [Mediaite, 10/10/11]

53

ISSUES ABORTION
Ryan Called Pro-Choice Liberals “Deeply Pessimistic” And Accused Them Of Denigrating Life And Promoting Fear. According to the States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote, “At the core, today’s ‘pro-choice’ liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future-fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the ‘pro-choice’ position implies that they are a burden. Despite the ‘pro-choice’ label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.” [States News Service, 9/20/10] Ryan Said Pro-Life Conservatives Were “Natural Optimists.” According to the States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote, “…pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature-the ‘law of the jungle’-the determination of who ‘qualifies’ as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.” [States News Service, 9/20/10] Ryan Said He Would Support “Young Guns” Candidates Who Were Pro-Choice. According to The Janesville Gazette, “Young Guns might differ on social issues, Ryan said. He has endorsed candidates who are pro-choice on abortion, while Ryan is pro-life. ‘The only litmus test is whether they’re going to take on this debt and deficits and entitlement spending when they get here, or are they going to buckle when pressure occurs?’ he said. ‘We’re just going to agree to disagree on those issues like abortion, and we’ll do so with mutual respect,’ he said.” [The Janesville Gazette, 7/22/10]

Access
Ryan Supported Criminalizing Transport of a Minor Across State Lines for an Abortion. In 2006, Rehberg voted in favor of making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. The bill allowed for a fine and up to one year in prison. Also, parents would have been allowed to sue people who helped their daughters across the border. The bill did allow an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor. The bill passed 264-153. [Roll Call 479, S 403, 09/26/2006; CQ Today, 9/26/06] Ryan Supported Restricting Access to Abortion for Military Personnel. Ryan voted against an amendment to the annual Defense Department authorization bill to allow overseas troops and their relatives to get abortions at military hospitals and clinics. The amendment was defeated 194-233 [Roll Call 216, H 1815, 05/25/2005] Ryan Opposed Choice and Family Planning for Federal Employees. Ryan voted against an amendment to allow women covered by the federal employee health benefit program to receive abortion services. The amendment was defeated 184-230 [Roll Call 422, H 4871, 07/20/2000] Ryan Opposed Choice and Family Planning for Federal Employees. Ryan voted in favor of a spending bill that continued the ban on federal employee health insurance from covering abortions and allowed for religious health plans to be exempt from requiring prescription drug coverage to include contraceptives. The measure passed on a vote of 210-209 [Roll Call 305, H 2490, 07/15/1999] Ryan Supported Restricting Access to Abortion for Military Personnel. Ryan voted against an amendment to allow privately funded abortions in overseas military hospitals. The amendment was rejected, 203-225 [Roll Call 184, H 1401, 06/09/1999]

54

Ryan Opposed Providing OTC Status for “Morning-After Pill.” Ryan has been a strong opponent of efforts to legalize the “morning after” pill. Blunt has voted three times to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from approving the drug for use in the United States. In 2000, Blunt voted in favor of an amendment that would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using funds to test, develop or approve any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. In 1999, Blunt voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit the use of any funding for Food and Drug Administration to test, develop, or approve any drugs for the chemical inducement of abortion. In 1998, Blunt voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using funds appropriated in the bill to test, develop or approve any drug for chemically induced abortions. [Roll Call 173, H 1906, 06/08/1999] Ryan Voted To Prohibit FDA From Using Funds To Test Or Approve Morning After Pill. Ryan voted in favor of an amendment aimed at the “morning after pill” that would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using funds to test, develop or approve any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion. [Roll Call 173, H 1906, 06/08/1999]

Contraception Mandate
Ryan Said Health And Human Services Mandate Of The Affordable Care Act Was An Affront To Religious Liberty And A “Teachable Moment” For President Obama. According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Laura Ingraham: ‘Joining us now to talk about his speech at CPAC and also Congressional approval rating and the President’s bump up in the polls with not really an economic agenda to show for it, but nevertheless that’s where it is, Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.’ […] ‘Congressman Ryan: As you know, you and I are both Catholics. This to quote the President is ‘a teachable moment.’ I would say it is not quite the lesson the President is hoping we would learn before the election. It is a lesson of what happens when you apply the progressive philosophy of government. You have ‘ObamaCare’ and it is a philosophy that believes we now have government-granted rights and that the government’s job is to grant us our rights. When those government-granted rights collide or conflict with our constitutional rights, well such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress. So you have this new government granted right, health care, in collision with our First Amendment right of religious freedom and guess what is winning? It kind of surprises me that they are shocked at this backlash because the President and the Administration spoke to Catholic leaders, about this. I remember having long talks with Bart Stupak and other Catholic Democrats back when they were passing this bill about this very issue.’” [States News Service, 2/9/12]

Criminalization
Ryan Denied Advocating Jail For Doctors Who Perform Abortions Or Women Who Get Them, But Added “If It’s Illegal, It’s Illegal.” According to the Associated Press, “Ryan, 28, a former congressional aide from Janesville, denied specifically recommending jail for physicians and women, but he added ‘if it's illegal, it's illegal.’ He also accused Spottswood of altering her position on ‘partial-birth abortion’ to appear politically moderate.” [Associated Press, 9/26/98]

Federal Funding Ban
Ryan Voted to Bar the Use of Federal Funds to Purchase Insurance Plans that Cover Abortion. On October 13, 2011, Ryan voted for a bill that would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to bar the use of federal funds to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion services. The bill also would require that insurance companies offering plans on state exchanges that cover abortion services also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services. Finally, it would bar federal agencies and state or local entities that receive funding under the health care overhaul law from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide abortions or training related to abortions. According to the Orlando Sentinel, “The bill passed 251-172, with 15 Democrats joining the GOP in favor and two Republicans opposed to the Protect Life Act, which also offers legal protection for hospitals that refuse to perform abortions. The Senate blocked similar legislation passed in May and is likely to do the same to this bill. President Barack Obama also threatened to veto any such bill. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, DCalif., called the legislation ‘savage’ and a waste of time when Americans are more concerned about jobs. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, noted that the legislation was promised in the GOP’s Pledge to America in 2010. ‘We’ve done four to five jobs bills this week,’ Boehner said.” [Roll Call 789, H 358, 10/13/2011; Orlando Sentinel, 10/14/11] 55

Paul Ryan Voted To Bar Use of Federal Funds To Pay For Health Insurance That Includes Abortion Coverage. Paul Ryan voted for the Stupak (D-MI) amendment that would bar the use of federal funds authorized in the health care bill to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion coverage, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury or illness that would, as certified by a physician, endanger the woman’s life. Individuals with subsidized policies who also want abortion coverage would have to purchase it separately, using their own money. [Roll Call 884, H 3962, 11/07/2009] Ryan Voted to Prohibit Federal Funding for Abortion Services. On May 04, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would prohibit federal funding for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is endangered. It would modify tax breaks given for health insurance coverage to exclude coverage for abortion, prohibit federal medical facilities from providing abortion services and establish “conscience protections” for health care providers who object to providing abortion services. According to the Washington Post, “The bill would bar women from deducting abortion-related medical expenses from their taxable income. The bill also would bar tax credits that employers receive for the cost of providing employee medical insurance if the insurance covers abortion services. Additionally, the bill makes the Hyde Amendment permanent law rather than one that needs annual renewal […] which bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or to protect a woman’s life.” [Roll Call 292, H 3, 05/04/2011; Washington Post 05/12/2011] Ryan Supported A Block On Aid To The United Nations Population Fund, Which Supported Family Planning And Women’s Reproductive Health Programs In 140 Countries. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “The House on July 15 voted, 216 for and 211 against, to block U.S. aid to the United Nations Population Fund, which supports programs in 140-plus countries on family planning and women's reproductive health. This removed $50 million for the fund from a $32.2 billion foreign affairs budget (HR 1950) for fiscal 2004, which awaits Senate action.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Voted Against Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations Bill, Prohibit Payments Under Federal Employee Health Plans For Abortions. On July 24, 2002, Ryan voted against a Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. Specifically the bill would provide $35.1 billion in fiscal 2003 for the Treasury Department, U.S. Postal Service, various offices of the Executive Office of the President and certain independent agencies, a $1.1 billion increase over fiscal 2002 spending. The total includes $9.9 billion for the Internal Revenue Service and $3.1 billion for the Customs Service. The measure provides that all federal employees would receive a 4.1 percent pay raise. It also would ban bankers from serving as real estate agents. It would prohibit payments under federal employee health plans for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is endangered. The bill would provide funds for anti- drug programs, election administration reform, and $24 million for the Office of Homeland Security. [Roll Call 341, H 5120, 07/24/2002] Ryan Voted To Block Federal Funds For Groups That Offer Abortion Services Overseas. Ryan voted to block funding for overseas groups that offer abortion services. Ryan voted for the adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $15.4 billion in fiscal 2002 for foreign operations, $403 million more than fiscal 2001. The bill would continue a Bush administration policy blocking federal funds to groups that use their own money to offer abortion services overseas. [Roll Call 505, H 2506, 12/19/2001]

Fetal Protection
Ryan Voted Expand The Rights Of A Fetus Over Those Of The Mother. In 2004, Ryan voted to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a federal crime to harm a fetus during an attack on its mother and establishes unprecedented rights to the fetus. In 2002 Peter Rubin, Georgetown University Professor of constitutional law, said, “To suggest in federal law that…a one-cell zygote is a full human being is at variance with the American legal tradition and does ultimately present a threat to women’s reproductive rights -- and not just abortion, but also contraception.” [Roll Call 31, H 1997, 02/26/2004] Paul Ryan Voted for Fetal Protection Act. On February 26, 2004, Paul Ryan voted for HR 1997, legislation making it a criminal offense to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The bill established criminal penalties, equal to those that would apply if the injury or death occurred to the pregnant woman, of those who harmed the fetus. The bill included a statement that its provisions not be interpreted to apply to consensual abortion or to a woman’s actions with 56

respect to her pregnancy. Pro-choice activists and many Democrats opposed the bill because it recognized embryos and fetuses as distinct legal entities. They said the bill could be used to undermine abortion rights as outlined in Roe v. Wade by putting the legal rights of fetuses on par with those of pregnant women. [Roll Call 31, H 1997, 02/26/2004] Ryan Voted to Establish Criminal Penalties for Harming a Fetus. On April 26, 2001, Ryan voted for establishing criminal penalties for harming a fetus while committing a crime against a pregnant woman. According to the New York Times, “Its supporters called it an anti-violence measure intended to ensure that criminals who attack a pregnant woman are charged with murder or manslaughter if the woman survives but her fetus perishes. While the bill says specifically that it does not apply to abortion, opponents said the legislation was a thinly disguised effort to undermine abortion rights by granting a new legal protection to a fetus. The bill, called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, is one of a series of measures put forward by abortion opponents in recent years that sidestep a direct confrontation over the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights. […] The bill approved by the House today establishes criminal punishment for someone who in the course of committing any one of 68 federal crimes causes death or injury to a ‘child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place.’ […] It would not, however, allow the death penalty to be imposed.” [Roll Call 89, H 503, 04/26/2001; New York Times, 04/27/01] Ryan Said He Couldn’t Believe People Defended The Notion That An Unborn Human Being Had No Rights. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote, “after America has won the last century’s hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human.” [States News Service, 9/20/10]  Ryan Said The “Freedom To Choose” Was Pointless For An Unborn Child Who Didn’t Have The Right To Live. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote, “As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.’ The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of ‘choice’ of one human being cannot trump the right to ‘life’ of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom-life-for the most vulnerable human beings?” [States News Service, 9/20/10]

Funding
Ryan Voted for Government Funding Continuing Resolution, Barring DC from Funding Abortions. On April 09, 2011 Ryan voted to advance a bill that would provide continuing appropriations for all government agencies through April 15, 2011. Most spending levels would be based on fiscal 2010 levels, less certain eliminations and reductions totaling $2 billion. According to the Virginia Pilot, the bill would “fund the military through Sept. 30 while funding the rest of the government through April 15 with $12 billion in spending cuts. The bill also barred the District of Columbia from using its own revenue to fund abortions.” [Roll Call 253, H 1363, 04/09/2011; Virginia Pilot 4/11/11]

Notification
Paul Ryan Voted for Requiring Women Seeking Abortions Be Informed of Fetal Pain During Procedure. On December 6, 2006, Paul Ryan voted for the bill that would require women who are at least 20 weeks pregnant and seeking an abortion to be informed that there is “substantial evidence” that the fetus would experience pain during the procedure. The abortion provider would be required to inform women that they can request anesthesia for the fetus. The bill, which required a two-thirds majority, failed 250-162. [Roll Call 526, H 6099, 12/06/2006] Ryan Voted In Favor of Parental Notification Law. On September 26, 2006, Paul Ryan voted for a bill that would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion in order to circumvent state parental notification and consent laws. It would provide an exception for cases in which an abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor. Physicians who perform an abortion on an out-of-state minor would have to provide at least 24 hours notice to the minor’s parent. Violators would be subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison. The bill passed 264-153. [Roll Call 479, S 403, 09/26/2006] 57

Ryan Supported Parental Notification Law. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of final passage of a parental notification law. The law would have made it a federal crime to knowingly transport a minor across state lines with the intent of circumventing parental consent laws. The law would have also required physicians, who perform abortions on minors and reside in other states, to provide 24 hours notice to the pregnant girl’s parents. Critics of the legislation said it was an assault on abortion rights that could endanger vulnerable girls who fear for their safety if they must first get a parent’s permission or who are the victims of incest. The bill passed, 270-157 [Roll Call 144, H 748, 04/27/2005; Detroit Free Press, 4/28/05]

Partial Birth Abortion
Ryan Supported Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Ryan voted in favor of a bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The bill passed 281-142 [Roll Call 530, S 3, 10/02/2003] Ryan Supported Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Ryan voted in favor of a bill to ban the procedure that opponents refer to as “partial birth” abortion. It would have allowed the procedure only when it was necessary to save a woman’s life. Those who performed the procedure for other reasons would face fines and up to two years in prison, although the woman would not be criminally liable. The bill also included congressional findings that established the constitutionality of the measure. The bill passed, 248-177. [Roll Call 104, H 3660, 04/05/2000] Ryan Eventually Voted for GOP Ban on ‘Partial Birth’ Abortions. Ryan voted in favor of the GOP bill that would ban a certain late-term abortion procedure, in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. Anyone convicted of performing such an abortion would be subject to a fine and up to two years in prison. The bill allows the father, if he’s married to the mother, or maternal grandparents, if the mother is under 18, to file a civil lawsuit against the doctor for monetary damages. The penalties would not apply if the abortion were necessary to save the woman’s life. [Roll Call 104, H 3660, 04/05/2000] Ryan Opposed Abortion And Believed Any “Exceptions To A ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion Ban Would Make That Ban Meaningless.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said he opposes abortion, period. He said any exceptions to a ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban would make that ban meaningless.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/8/98]

Planned Parenthood
Ryan Voted To De-Fund Planned Parenthood. On February 18, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of the Pence, R-Ind., amendment to a fiscal year 2011 continuing appropriations bill that would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates. [Roll Call 93, H 1, 02/18/2011]

Roe v Wade
Ryan Compared Roe v. Wade Decision To Dred Scott v. Sandford, Which Denied Africans And Descendants Human Rights. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote “Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Courtcharged with being the guardian of rights-has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it ‘disqualified’ a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results. The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of ‘human’ was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. Like the Dred Scott decision, this opinion has wounded America and solved nothing. It has set good people on all sides against each other, fueled a culture war, split churches, soured politics, and greatly strained civil dialogue.” [States News Service, 9/20/10]  Ryan Said The Supreme Court Did Not “Err On The Side Of Caution” In Its Decision To Prohibit States’ Abortion Restrictions. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote, “Since the Court decided there was no ‘consensus’ on when fetuses become human persons, it struck down abortion restrictions in all 50 states that 58

thought they had reached a ‘consensus.’ Only those already born ‘qualified’ for protection. Moreover, the already born were empowered to deny, at will, the rights of persons still in the womb. The Court did not say that, given the lack of consensus, the matter ought to be left to the states. It did not choose to err on the side of caution, since human lives might be at stake. Nor did it choose not to rule on the matter. These options would seem to be rational courses in light of the Court’s stated agnosticism. Instead, the Court used the lack of consensus to justify prohibiting states from protecting the life of the unborn.” [States News Service, 9/20/10]

Stupak Amendment
Paul Ryan Supported Stupak Amendment to Bar Federal Funds in Health Care Bill to Pay for any Abortion Services. In 2009, Paul Ryan supported Congressman Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act that banned federal funds authorized in the bill from being used to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that included abortion coverage. This excluded elective abortion coverage from the public option and an individual using a subsidy to purchase a private plan cannot purchase one that covers elective abortion. Insurers would be allowed to cover abortions that result from rape or incest or when a pregnancy threatens a mother’s life. An individual with a subsidized policy from the bill would have to purchase coverage for elective abortion separately with their own money. [Roll Call 884, H 3962, 11/07/2009]

Stem Cell Research
Capital Times Editorial: Ryan Played Political Games With Stem Cell Research Votes. According to a Capital Times editorial, “Unfortunately, three members of Wisconsin’s House delegation did, indeed, vote no. Reps. Paul Ryan, Tom Petri and Jim Sensenbrenner are not fools. So we have to assume that they are cynics. Ryan, Petri and Sensenbrenner choose to play political games rather than join the vast mainstream - including conservative Republicans with strong anti-abortion records - in voting to fund essential stem cell research.” [Capital Times (Madison, WI), 6/14/07] Paul Ryan Voted Against Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research. On June 7, 2007, Paul Ryan voted against allowing federal funding of stem cell research. It would lift some restrictions on funding that President Bush put in place on Aug. 9, 2001, and allow research funding on stem cells from surplus embryos discarded by fertility clinics. The bill passed, 247-176. [Roll Call 443, S 5, 06/07/2007; CQ Weekly, 6/11/07] Ryan Opposed Ban On Human Cloning. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill to prohibit reproductive human cloning and transporting human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology intended for human cloning. Under the bill, violators would be subject to fines of up to $10 million and up to 10 years in prison. The bill’s sponsor, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) argued that there is no federal law preventing irresponsible individuals from conducting research in an attempt to achieve human reproductive cloning. “The most effective way to prevent human reproductive cloning in the United States is to pass a federal prohibition on this practice and impose severe penalties for doing so,” DeGette said of the bill. “Our bill would make it illegal to use cloning technology to initiate a pregnancy and thereby create a cloned human being.” According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “Anti-abortion groups opposed the bill because it would not extend the ban to include cloning of human embryos for research purposes. They believe that life begins at conception, which in the case of cloning would occur before the embryo’s placement in a uterus. The National Right to Life Committee said DeGette’s bill would allow the creation and destruction of embryos for research purposes, a process that opponents equate with abortion. The White House issued a policy statement before the June 6 vote that said President Bush strongly opposed the bill and warned that he would veto it.” A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (278 in this case) was required for passage under suspension of the rules. The measure was defeated 204-213. [Roll Call 439, H 2560, 06/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 6/9/07; Congresswoman Diana DeGette press release, 6/6/07] Paul Ryan Voted Against Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research. On January 11, 2007, Paul Ryan voted against bill that would allow the use of federal funds in research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics, but only if donors give their consent and are not paid for the embryos. The bill would authorize the Health and Human Services Department to conduct and support research involving human embryonic stem cells that meet certain 59

criteria, regardless of when stem cells were derived from a human embryo. The bill passed 253-174. [Roll Call 20, H 3, 01/11/2007] Ryan Voted Against Overriding Veto of Bill to Expand Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research. In 2006, Ryan voted against an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The bill would authorize federal funds to be used for research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded. Current policy allows federal funds to be used for research only on those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. This bill attempted to lift that restriction. According to a USA Today editorial, “The bill Congress sent to Bush wouldn’t create embryos solely to destroy them. Rather, it simply would allow federal research on embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded. The families that donated the embryos have given their consent to use them for research…The price of Bush’s threatened veto might well be paid in the suffering of millions of people. It’s hard to believe that he, and those in Congress who support his stance, consider this to be the ‘pro-life’ position.” The attempt to override the veto, which required a two-thirds majority to pass, was defeated 235-193. [Roll Call 388, H 810, 07/19/2006; Leadership Document, “Congress Should Override the President’s Veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,” 7/19/06] Ryan Voted in Favor of Research into Creating Stem Cell Lines without Destroying Human Embryos. On July 18, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. According to the Washington Post, “It would have promoted efforts to conduct stem cell research without destroying human embryos. Bush called it ‘an important piece of legislation,’ but several Democrats called it a political fig leaf intended to distract attention from his veto of the long-debated funding measure for embryonic stem cells. Bush has threatened vetoes on numerous issues over the years, but he and the Republican-controlled Congress had always worked out their differences. On stem cells, however, the president drew a sharp line during his first nationally televised address, on Aug. 9, 2001, banning government funding for research using human embryonic stem cell colonies created after that date.” [Roll Call 380, S 2754, 07/18/2006; Washington Post, 07/20/06] Paul Ryan Voted Against Easing Restrictions on Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. On May 24, 2005, Paul Ryan voted against HR 810, a bill that would allow federal funds to be used in research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics, but only if donors give their consent and if they are not paid for the embryos. The bill would authorize the Health and Human Services Department to conduct and support research involving human embryonic stem cells that meet certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. The House passed the bill 238-194. [Roll Call 204, H 810, 05/24/2005] Ryan Supported Ban on Stem Cell Research for Medical Purposes. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill banning human cloning and punished violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill prohibited cloning, and attempts at cloning, for both medical research and reproductive purposes. The bill passed 241-155. [Roll Call 39, H 534, 02/27/2003] Ryan Opposed Stem Cell Research in 2001. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to prohibit human cloning for either medical research or reproductive purposes. The bill would make it illegal for any person or organization to perform, attempt or participate in human cloning. It also would ban receiving, shipping or importing cloned embryos or products made from them. The bill includes civil and criminal penalties including up to 10 years imprisonment and fines of more than $1 million. While there was virtual agreement in the House that cloning human cells for the purposes of reproducing whole human beings should be outlawed, the bill alarmed scientists, who said the ban would interfere with progress on stem cell research, which involves human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research involves using human or animal embryos to grow various kinds of cells. The cells could then be used to help repair human tissue or aid in finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s and other fatal or disabling diseases. The legislation would impose a fine of at least $1 million and a prison sentence of up to 10 years on anyone who participates in human cloning. The bill did not specifically ban stem cell research, but would prohibit the cloning of human embryos for use in stem cell experiments. The bill passed, 265-162 [Roll Call 304, H 2505, 07/31/2001; Boston Globe, 8/02/01; Boston Globe, 8/01/01; AP, 8/01/01]

60

AGRICULTURE
Children’s Food
Ryan Voted to Strengthen And Improve Child Nutrition Assistance. On March 24, 2004 Ryan voted for the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act. The bill amended “the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide children with access to food and nutrition assistance, simplify program operations, improve children’s nutritional health and restore the integrity of child nutrition programs.” The bill passed 419-5. [Roll Call 82, H 3873, 03/24/2004; Tulsa World, 3/28/04]

Disaster Relief
Ryan Opposed $3.7 Billion in Agriculture Disaster Relief. In 2007, Ryan voted against giving $3.7 billion in agriculture disaster relief. The bill passed 218 – 212 [Roll Call 186, H 1591, 03/23/2007; CQ House Action Reports, No. 110-3, 3/20/07]

Farm Bill
Ryan Voted in Lockstep with Bush on Farm Bill Veto. In 2008, Ryan voted to support Bush’s veto of the Farm Bill reauthorization. The bill authorized a $10 billion increase for nutrition programs, cut direct payment subsidies overall by $313 million, and authorized $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program and reduce the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres. The bill also required country-of-origin labels for all meat by September, 2008, extended the Milk Income Loss Contract program through fiscal 2012 and provided a subsidy for the purchase of excess sugar in the U.S. market to make sugar-based ethanol. Most of the bill was enacted in May 2008, when both the House and Senate easily overrode Bush’s first veto of the legislation. But 34 pages of the bill that would extend foreign aid programs were mistakenly missing from the parchment copy Congress sent to the White House, so that section had not yet become law. Bush said the bill included too many subsidies for wealthy farmers and “budget gimmicks” to hide its most egregious spending. [Roll Call 417, H 6124, 06/18/2008; Associated Press, 6/18/08; New York Times, 5/15/08] Ryan Voted against Override of Veto of Farm Bill Reauthorization. In 2008, Ryan voted to sustain President Bush’s veto of the Farm bill. Among other benefits, the bill authorized a $10 billion increase for nutrition programs, cut direct payment subsidies overall by $313 million, and authorized $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program and reduce the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres. The legislation made historic new investments in food, farm and conservation programs and was supported by a broad, bipartisan coalition. The House Agriculture Committee heralded the passage, saying “while no one got everything they wanted in this Farm Bill, we struck a balance that meets the pressing needs of working American families struggling with high food prices and that supports America’s farmers and ranchers as they continue to provide a safe, abundant, homegrown supply of food and fiber while protecting our natural resources and developing new sources of renewable energy.” In his message to Congress, President Bush defended his decision to veto the bill saying that among his concerns were that it contained a wide range of objectionable provisions, including a limitation on the ability of the U.S. to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use. Some provisions in the bill also raised serious constitutional concerns for the President. The bill was passed, the objections of the President not withstanding. [Roll Call 346, H 2419, 05/21/2008; House Agriculture Committee Release, 5/22/08; White House Release, 5/21/08] Ryan Voted against Reauthorization of Farm Bill. In 2008, Ryan voted against the Farm bill conference report. The bill authorized a $10 billion increase for nutrition programs, cut direct payment subsidies overall by $313 million, and authorized $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program and reduce the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres. The bill also required country-of-origin labels for all meat by September, 2008, extended the Milk Income Loss Contract program through fiscal 2012 and provided a subsidy for the purchase of excess sugar in the U.S. market to make sugar-based ethanol. President Bush threatened to veto the legislation to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain. Critics of the bill countered that it lacked needed reform. The conference report passed, 318-106. [Roll Call 315, H 2419, 05/14/2008; New York Times, 5/15/08] 61

Paul Ryan Voted for Wasteful Farm Bill: Washington Post Says $1.3 Billion Went to Americans Who Don’t Farm. On May 2, 2002, Paul Ryan voted for the conference report on HR 2646, legislation reauthorizing federal agriculture programs for six years. The legislation re- established programs that supplied payments to farmers when commodity prices fell below a specified level. It raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years, provided $243 billion for food stamps, restored benefits for legal immigrants and increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion. The legislation lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000 and authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years. Finally, the legislation required certain goods to be labeled by country origin within two years. The House adopted the report 280-141. [Roll Call 123, H 2646, 05/02/2002; Washington Post, 06/24/2007] Ryan Supported 2002 Farm Bill. In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of a final version of the new farm bill, which reauthorized federal agriculture programs for six years. The bill included the following major provisions: Re-established programs that supply payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below specified levels, raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years, provided $243 billion for food stamps and restore benefits for legal immigrants, increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion, after two years, required certain goods to be labeled by country origin, lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000, and authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years. The bill passed, 280-141. [Roll Call 123, H 2646, 05/02/2002] Ryan Supported 2002 Farm Bill. In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of a final version of the new farm bill, which reauthorized federal agriculture programs for six years. The bill included the following major provisions: Re-established programs that supply payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below specified levels, raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years, provided $243 billion for food stamps and restore benefits for legal immigrants, increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion, after two years, required certain goods to be labeled by country origin, lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000, and authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years. The bill passed, 280-141. [Roll Call 123, H 2646, 05/02/2002] Ryan Voted Against House Farm Bill Which Failed To Include Country-of-Origin Labeling for Meat. Ryan voted against passage of the House farm bill, which did not include country-of-origin labeling for meat. [Roll Call 371, H 2646, 10/05/2001] Ryan Was Frustrated that GOP Leaders Supported A Dairy Policy That Was “Anathema” To Wisconsin Farmers. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “For two freshman Republicans from Wisconsin, the great dairy wars have left a sour taste. Two months ago, Green Bay’s Mark Green and Janesville’s Paul Ryan helped win what they thought was a key delay on the dairy issue from their own GOP House leadership. But the victory was only temporary, and House leaders eventually struck a budget deal with dairy provisions that are anathema to Wisconsin farmers. Green and Ryan said Thursday that GOP leaders had honored their specific promises to them on the issue. Instead, the two directed their criticism at colleagues for supporting an ‘anti-market’ dairy system and at the White House for not fighting hard enough for its own reform plans, supported by Wisconsin lawmakers.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/19/99]

Farm Subsidies
Ryan Offered Amendment To Reduce Farming Subsidies, Would Cap Subsidies Per Farmer. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Direct subsidy payments to farmers would be gradually reduced over a five-year period in an amendment unveiled Tuesday by Wisconsin Reps. Ron Kind and Paul Ryan and a coalition of lawmakers who want to reform the farm bill. Also under the measure, the amount of subsidy money that farmers receive annually would be limited to $250,000 a person, and the ‘counter-cyclical’ system would be replaced by a safety net that protects farmers against drops in income rather than drops in crop prices. Counter-cyclical subsidy programs provide special payments to farmers when commodity prices are below target levels.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/25/07]  Ryan Wanted To Eliminate Subsidies To “Hobby Farmers.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Ryan said, “We should be giving true help to family farmers and not huge payoffs to hobby farmers. The House farm bill is being held together by gimmicks. Not only is it shallow reform, it also breaks the budget. My number one job is to protect and watch over taxpayer money.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/25/07] 62

FDA
Ryan Voted Against the Food Safety Modernization Act. On December 21, 2010, Ryan voted against increasing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for food facilities. The measure would expand the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight authority by increasing the number of required inspections, boosting access to the records of food processors and providing authority to issue mandatory recalls. It also would increase the FDA’s ability to inspect imported foods and create a foreign facility inspection program. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, “The Food Safety Modernization Act is expected to transform the Food and Drug Administration, increasing inspections and giving the agency the power to recall certain foods. Previously, it could only request a voluntary recall. The number of required FDA inspections at all food facilities will be increased, and a national strategy to better protect the country’s food supply from terrorist threats and rapidly respond to food emergencies will be established. The law also requires importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food. The FDA will now be able to deny entry to a food that lacks certification or that is from a foreign facility that has refused U.S. inspectors.” [Roll Call 661, H 2751, 12/21/2010; Chicago Daily Herald, 12/22/10] Ryan Voted Against Prohibiting the FDA from Preventing the Importation of Drugs It Approved and Against Prohibiting the USDA from Paying for Country-of-Origin Meat Labeling Program. On July 14, 2003, Ryan voted against a bill that would provide $77.4 billion in total spending for agriculture, rural development and nutrition programs in fiscal 2004. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, the bill “would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from using funds to prevent the importation of drugs approved by the FDA and prohibit the Agriculture Department from using funds to implement country-of-origin labels for meat and meat products.” Congressional Quarterly Today also reported that, “Farm groups and other supporters say labeling would better inform Americans about where their food is grown and help protect them from imports. […]Despite administration opposition, no amendments were offered on the House floor to strike language that would bar the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from enforcing a ban on the importation of drugs that the agency itself had approved. The White House said it ‘strongly’ opposes the language. ‘This provision could result in unsafe, unapproved, or counterfeit drugs being imported into the United States,’ its policy statement said.” [Roll Call 358, H 2673, 07/14/2003; Congressional Quarterly Today, 07/17/03; Congressional Quarterly Today, 07/18/03]

Food Safety
Paul Ryan Voted Against A Measure To Make Food Safer. Paul Ryan voted against an overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration to make food safer by establishing risk-based inspection schedules for food facilities and impose criminal and civil penalties for violations. The bill required all facilities that served customers to register with the FDA and pay a registration fee. [Roll Call 680, H 2749, 07/30/2009] Ryan Opposed Country of Origin Labeling. In 2008, Ryan voted against the Farm bill conference report. The bill authorized a $10 billion increase for nutrition programs, cut direct payment subsidies overall by $313 million, and authorized $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program and reduce the Conservation Reserve Program to 32 million acres. Farm Bill ensures that consumers will be able to know where the foods they feed their families come from. Specifically, country-of-origin labeling will be provided for fruits, vegetables and peanuts. President Bush threatened to veto the legislation to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain. Critics of the bill countered that it lacked needed reform. The conference report passed, 318-106. [Roll Call 315, H 2419, 05/14/2008; New York Times, 5/15/08; Rep. Salazar Release, 5/14/08] Ryan Voted Against Banning the Slaughter of Horses for Meat. On September 7, 2006 Ryan voted against the bill that would ban the transport and sale of horses to be slaughtered for food. The bill also authorized the Department of Agriculture to detain horses that maybe slaughtered. Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “the American appetite for horse meat is small, but the U.S. plants that slaughter horses for food often send the meat overseas. The issue has stirred an emotional debate on Capitol Hill. Opponents claim that keeping unwanted horses is expensive and that owners should be able to send their horses to slaughter if they want to. Proponents say it is inhumane to kill animals that have been a rich part of American history. [Roll Call 433, H 503, 09/07/2006; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 9/8/06]

63

Ryan Voted For National Food Safety Warning Label Standards, Weakened State Control Of Safety Regulations. In 2006, Ryan voted to establish national standards for food safety warning labeling, effectively preventing states from adding warnings that go beyond federal rules. The vote was for final passage of the National Uniformity for Food Act, a bill which sets national standards for food safety warning labels. Under the bill, the Food and Drug Administration would establish national standards for determining when warnings would be required on packaging, on store shelves and in advertising. States would be prohibited from imposing different rules without federal approval. Attorneys general from about 40 states oppose the measure, as do consumer advocacy groups, because they believe that the measure would weaken pre-existing state laws governing food safety warnings. [Roll Call 32, H 4167, 03/08/2006; Los Angeles Times, 3/9/06] Ryan Supported Bill to Weaken Food Safety. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of final passage of the National Uniformity for Food Act, a bill that set national standards for food safety warning labels. Under the bill, the Food and Drug Administration would establish national standards for determining when warnings would be required on packaging, on store shelves and in advertising. States would be prohibited from imposing different rules without federal approval. Attorneys General from about 40 states opposed the measure, as did consumer advocacy groups; because they believed that the measure would weaken preexisting state laws governing food safety warnings. Opponents of the measure, including the Consumers Union, said that bill would undermine food safety laws. “Proponents of the legislation have been characterizing H.R. 4167 as a pro-consumer bill,” the Consumers Union said. “This simply is not true. The bill could lead to increased food-borne illnesses by handcuffing local and state food safety inspectors and wiping out at least 200 state labeling and food safety laws without guaranteeing strong federal protections.” The bill passed 283-139. [Roll Call 32, H 4167, 03/08/2006; Consumers Union, Myths vs. Truths about H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act; Los Angeles Times, 3/09/06] Ryan Voted for “Cheeseburger Bill.” In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to prohibit lawsuits in federal or state courts against restaurants, food manufacturers and distributors based on claims that the food contributed to the plaintiff’s obesity or weight gain. The bill would allow suits if the defendant knowingly and willfully violated federal or state laws governing the labeling, advertising or selling of food products. Any party bringing a suit, as permitted by the bill, would be required to state the particular federal and state statutes allegedly violated and the facts alleged to have caused the injury claimed. The bill passed 306-120. [Roll Call 533, H 554, 10/19/2005] Ryan Supported Bill Protecting Fast-Food Industry From Government Claims That Its Meals Caused Obesity And Illness. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 276 for and 139 against, the House passed a bill to shield the fastfood industry against state and federal claims that its meals cause obesity and illnesses related to weight gain. The bill, which awaits Senate action, affects present and future claims. It would allow obesity-related suits only when the defendant has broken the law or violated a contract or warranty. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 3/14/04]  Ryan Supported Legal Protection To Restaurants That Sold Beef Of “Downed” Cows, Most Likely To Have Mad Cow Disease. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 141 for and 276 against, the House refused to deny legal protection under the bill above to restaurants that sell beef from the ‘downed’ cattle most likely to have mad cow disease. A yes vote backed the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 3/14/04] Ryan Opposed Amendment To Deny Protection To Restaurants That Failed To Disclose Genetically Altered Ingredients. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 129 for and 285 against, the House rejected an amendment to the bill above concerning genetically altered ingredients such as the cornmeal used in some taco shells. The amendment sought to deny the bill's protection to restaurants that fail to disclose the fact that a food item has been altered and the exact nature of the scientific change. A yes vote backed the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 3/14/04] Ryan Opposed Amendment That Would Prevent Federal Government Involvement, But Allow State’s The Rights To Decide Obesity-Related Lawsuits. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 158 for and 261 against, the House rejected an amendment to limit the bill above to federal cases, leaving with states the right to determine whether to allow obesity-related lawsuits. A yes vote backed the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 3/14/04]

Ryan Voted To Prohibit Lawsuits Based On Health Issues Resulting From Food Consumption. On March 10, 2004 Ryan voted to pass the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. The act prohibited “new and dismisses pending 64

civil actions by any person against a manufacturer or seller of food or a trade association for any injury resulting from a person’s consumption of food and weight gain, obesity, or any associated health condition.” The bill passed 276-139. [Roll Call 54, H 339, 03/10/2004] Ryan Opposed Mandate That U.S. Meat Products Be Labeled By Country Of Origin. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 193 for and 208 against, the House on July 14 defeated a bid to require meat sold in the U.S. to be labeled by country of origin, just as fruits and vegetables may be labeled starting next year. This vote occurred as the House passed the fiscal 2004 agricultural appropriations bill (HR 2673), which awaits Senate action. A yes vote backed mandatory meat labeling.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03]

Food Stamps
Ryan Voted Against Farm Bill that Expanded Food Stamps, Increased Price Guarantees and Closed Tax Loophole. On July 27, 2007, Ryan voted against a $286 billion farm authorization bill that expanded the food stamps program, increased price guarantees for wheat, soybeans and sugar, and closed a tax loophole for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. According to the Washington Post, “The House yesterday passed a far-reaching new farm bill that preserves the existing system of subsidies for commercial farmers and adds billions of dollars for conservation, nutrition and new agricultural sectors. […] The bill, which has a price tag of almost $286 billion, boosts spending on preservation of grasslands and wildlife habitat, and mandates a major study of the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a first step to restoring the bay by reducing agricultural and other wastes. The measure updates the food stamp program, indexing benefits to inflation, increasing the minimum benefit and raising the standard deduction. Youth obesity is addressed by a program to introduce healthful snacks in schools, and more money is authorized for famine relief abroad. In an important victory for consumer organizations, imported meat, including hamburger made from multiple animals, will be labeled by its country of origin starting in October 2008. Pelosi also cited the bill’s emphasis on credits and loan guarantees for new forms of biofuel produced from grasses and biomass. ‘Future farm bills will never look the same,’ she said.” [Roll Call 756, H 2419, 07/27/2007; Washington Post, 07/28/07]

Funding
Ryan Voted Against $121.2 Billion in Agriculture Appropriations for FY 2010. On October 07, 2009, Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $121.2 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Agriculture Department and related agencies, including $23.4 billion in discretionary funding. The bill would provide $20.9 billion in discretionary spending for the Agriculture Department and $2.4 billion for the Food and Drug Administration, excluding user fees. It would fund the food stamp program at $58.3 billion and the child nutrition program at $17 billion. It would provide $7.3 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program and $1.7 billion for the Food for Peace program. It also would repeal a ban on Chinese poultry if the products meet U.S. safety standards. [Roll Call 761, H 2997, 10/07/2009] Ryan Voted Against $96.3 Billion Agriculture Appropriations Bill. In 2006, Ryan voted against the $93.6 billion agriculture appropriations bill. The bill included $17.8 billion in discretionary spending and funds for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Money in the bill was also to go towards entitlement programs such as food stamps and crop subsidies. [Roll Call 193, H 5384, 05/23/2006] Ryan Voted Against the 2005 Agriculture Spending Bill. On October 28, 2005, Ryan voted against the conference report on the 2006 Agriculture spending bill. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “President Bush is expected to sign a $101 billion fiscal 2006 Agriculture spending bill that would provide about $849 million more than he requested. The bill -which funds the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and rural development programs -would boost spending by $15.4 billion over the fiscal 2005 law. The increase is due almost entirely to growth in mandatory programs such as food stamps and crop subsidies. […] The final bill delays until 2008 an Agriculture Department rule for country-of-origin labeling of meat, produce and peanuts -- a victory for meatpackers and retailers who complained the labeling would cost too much money with little benefit for consumers. [Roll Call 555, H 2744, 10/28/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 12/5/05] 65

Paul Ryan Voted for Agriculture Appropriation FY05. On July 13, 2004 Paul Ryan voted for passage of the bill that would appropriate $83.7 billion for agriculture, rural development and nutrition programs in fiscal 2005, including $33.6 billion for food stamp programs, $16.5 billion for the Commodity Credit Corporation, $11.4 billion for child nutrition programs, $2.4 billion for rural development programs and $1.5 billion for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It would prohibit the FDA from using funds to prevent the importation of drugs approved by the FDA. The bill, as amended, also would block funds from being used to implement a federal buyout of tobacco farmers. The House passed the bill 389-31. [Roll Call 370, H 4766, 07/13/2004; Environmental Working Group, Compiled from USDA data, 2003-2004; Environmental Working Group, Compiled from USDA data, numbers reflect 2003-2004 average] Ryan Voted for Funding for Agriculture and Health Programs in 2006. On June 8, 2005, Ryan voted for the bill that would provide $100.3 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill would fund the food stamp program at $40.7 billion and child nutrition program at $12.4 billion. It would provide $25.7 billion for the Commodity Credit Corporation, $5.3 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program and $1.5 billion for the FDA. According to Roll Call, the bill “prohibited outside experts with financial conflicts of interest from sitting on panels that advise the Food and Drug Administration on the safety of drugs and medical devices.” [Roll Call 238, H 2744, 06/08/2005; Roll Call 06/12/2005] Ryan voted against the 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill. On November 13, 2001, Ryan voted against the Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $75.9 billion, including $16 billion in discretionary funds, in fiscal 2002 for agriculture programs, rural development and nutrition programs. The agreement would include $23 billion for the food stamp program, $10.1 billion for child nutrition programs and $1 billion for the Agricultural Research Service. It also would provide $75 million for apple growers hurt by bad weather. [Roll Call 436, H 2330, 11/13/2001]

66

ARTS AND HUMANITIES
Ryan Voted to Defund National Public Radio (NPR). On March 17, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of defunding National Public Radio (NPR). According to the Washington Post, “After a contentious debate and over procedural objections from Democrats, the House voted Thursday to prevent federal funds from going to National Public Radio, the latest move by the Republican majority to target the broadcaster. […] The measure would ban any federal money from going to NPR, including funding through competitive grants from federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR receives about $5 million annually in such funds. The bill would also prohibit NPR’s roughly 600 member stations from using federal funds to purchase programming from NPR or to pay station dues.” [Roll Call 192, H 1076, 03/17/2011; Washington Post, 03/18/11] Ryan Voted Against Increasing the Interior Budget and Arts Spending. On July 17, 2002, Ryan voted against a $19.8 billion dollar Interior appropriations bill that increased arts spending. According to the New York Times, “After a brief rebellion by conservative Republicans, the House […] approved a $19.8 billion spending measure for public lands and cultural programs after increasing spending for a once-divisive arts programs. […] That came after lawmakers agreed […] to give $126 million to the National Endowment for the Arts, a $10 million increase, and $131 million to the National Endowment for the Humanities, an increase of $5 million. […] Consideration of the spending measure to finance the Interior Department and other agencies -- the third of 13 spending measures that will be considered in the House -- was slowed on Tuesday by resistance from conservative Republicans. They were seeking to cut up to $775 million from the measure, saying they did not want it to exceed the requests of President Bush. The group sought to make its point procedurally by offering amendments to cut spending, beginning with a reduction of $162 million for the Bureau of Land Management. […] The bill contains almost $520 million more than last year for the Interior Department and appropriates $2.4 billion for the National Park Service, $39 million more than sought by the president. It also includes $700 million in emergency money for fighting wildfires.” [Roll Call 318, H 5093, 07/17/2002; New York Times, 07/18/02] Ryan Opposed Restoring $100 Million in Cuts to Public Broadcasting Like Sesame Street. In 2005, Ryan voted against an amendment to restore $100 million in proposed cuts to public television and radio, softening a measure that public broadcasters had warned could cripple small stations. The cuts were made to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. While some funding was restored, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrote the production of such PBS children’s programs as “Sesame Street,” “Arthur” and “Postcards From Buster.” The amendment passed 284-140. [Roll Call 305, H 3010, 06/23/2005; Washington Post, 6/24/05]

67

AUTO INDUSTRY
Auto Bailout
Ryan Criticized Obama’s Claim That The Auto Bailout Saved Auto Workers’ Jobs. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “After President Obama’s Town Hall meeting in Racine, WI, First District Congressman Paul Ryan offered the following reaction to the visit: […]The President told Wisconsinites that if the Federal government hadn’t taken over two auto companies, workers at Chrysler and General Motors would have lost their jobs. These comments are hardly a comfort to the thousands of former auto workers in Janesville, Kenosha, and Oak Creek. The disconnect between Wisconsin and Washington couldn’t be wider.’” [Congressional Documents And Publications, 6/30/10] Ryan Said He Supported The Auto Bailout To Prevent Auto Companies From Receiving TARP Funds. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” John Stossel asked whether there was a disconnect between Ryan’s criticism on increased federal aid and his vote in favor of TARP and the auto bailout. Ryan said, “. The auto bail-out, the reason I supported that was because the money that was already spent from this auto companies from the EPA, I said cut those environmental strings, give them that money instead of giving them TARP money. The whole purpose of voting for that auto bill was to prevent the auto companies from getting TARP dollars. What happened? It didn’t get that money and President Bush, followed by President Obama gave them tarp and now TARP has become this revolving government slush fund, never was it was in, never intended to be in the first place.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10] Ryan Said The Government Should Not Have Bailed Out Auto Companies. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” host John Stossel asked: “…in your ideal world, should government have bailed out the auto company?” Ryan replied “No.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10] Ryan Challenged Claim That General Motors Paid Off Federal Bailout Loan. According to The Janesville Gazette, “Rep. Paul Ryan, R-1st District, issued a statement last week, challenging the claim by General Motors and the Obama administration that GM has paid off its bailout loan from the federal government. The $6.7 billion payment leaves about $43 billion of the $50 billion bailout package unpaid, according to news reports. The government holds GM stock--a 61 percent share in GM--to account for the rest of the money. ‘The fact is: The federal government still owns GM,’ Ryan said. ‘The government remains deeply entrenched in the auto industry, and the American people deserve to have transparent information on the financial health of GM.” [The Janesville Gazette, 5/3/10] Ryan Voted in Favor of $14 Billion Auto Bailout. On December 10, 2008, Ryan voted in favor of the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. According to the Washington Post, “The House last night approved an emergency plan to prevent the collapse of the nation’s domestic automobile industry, but the measure faces serious opposition in the Senate, where Republicans are revolting against a White House-brokered deal to speed $14 billion to cash-starved General Motors and Chrysler. […] The measure would speed up to $14 billion in emergency loans to the Detroit automakers, enough to keep GM and Chrysler in business through the end of March. […] In exchange for the cash, the automakers would be required to give the government warrants for stock worth 20 percent of the value of the loans. […] The companies also would be required to submit to the authority of a car czar, who would seek to ‘facilitate an agreement’ for long-term viability in talks with the car companies and their employees, retirees, unions, creditors, suppliers, dealers and shareholders. […]The measure contains a variety of taxpayer protections, including audits of the car companies by the Government Accountability Office and government veto power over transactions worth more than $100 million, a provision intended to block investment overseas.” [Roll Call 690, H 7321, 12/10/2008; Washington Post, 12/11/08]

Alternative Fuels
Ryan Voted Against Expanding Use of Ethanol. In 2007, Ryan voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would expand the use of ethanol sevenfold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 with 21 billion gallons coming from cellulosic feedstock such as wood chips and prairie grass. The bill would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity. Democrats characterized the legislation 68

as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. The motion was agreed to 235-181. [Roll Call 1140, H 6, 12/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly; Associated Press, 12/06/07] Ryan Voted Against Energy Bill That Would Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels. In 2007, Ryan voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity. Democrats characterized the legislation as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. ü The bill would boost corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 40 percent, to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such action since 1975, when Congress first enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements. The bill would expand the use of ethanol sevenfold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 with 21 billion gallons coming from cellulosic feedstock such as wood chips and prairie grass. The bill would require electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 and direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances and building construction. It also would eliminate or reduce $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the five major oil and gas companies to be used for tax incentives for development of renewable energy sources like ethanol from grasses and wood chips and biodiesel and for energy efficiency programs and conservation. The motion was agreed to 235-181. [Roll Call 1140, H 6, 12/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly; Associated Press, 12/06/07]

Cash for Clunkers
Ryan Voted Against the 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” Program. On June 09, 2009, Ryan voted against suspending the rules and passes the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. The bill would authorize $4 billion for the Transportation Department to establish a one-year program to allow individuals to turn certain vehicles over to the government in exchange for vouchers of up to $4,500 for more fuel efficient ones. Trade-ins would be required to have a fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less and be manufactured after model year 1982, with a suggested retail price of less than $45,000 and in drivable condition. Vouchers would be issued for vehicles with a fuel economy of at least 22 miles per gallon for passenger cars, 18 miles per gallon for trucks with a gross weight of 6,000 pounds or less, and 15 miles per gallon for trucks with a gross weight of between 6,000-10,000 pounds. Individuals could receive a $3,500 voucher for a new passenger vehicle with a fuel economy at least 4 miles per gallon higher than their trade-in and $4,500 for one at least 10 miles per gallon higher. Individuals could receive a $3,500 voucher for a new truck or SUV with a value of at least 2 miles per gallon higher than their trade-in and $4,500 for one at least 5 miles per gallon more. According to The Hill, “The House gave new momentum this week to the cash-for-clunkers bill, but concerns over its cost and differences in the Senate between auto-state senators and backers of environmental legislation could scuttle or weaken the bill. Car companies and the United Auto Workers union are pushing a version that passed the House on Tuesday as a way to spur auto sales that have plunged as the economy has fallen into a deep recession.” [Roll Call 314, H 2751, 06/09/2009; Hill, 06/11/2009] Paul Ryan Voted Against Cash For Clunkers. Paul Ryan voted against HR 3435 which established a $2 billion vehicle trade-in program. It offered vouchers up to $4,500 towards purchase of a new vehicle for consumers who trade in older, less efficient vehicles. [Roll Call 682, H 3435, 07/31/2009]

Fuel Standards
Ryan Voted Against Raising Fuel Economy Standards. In 2007, Ryan voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity. The bill would boost corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 40 percent, to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such action since 1975, when Congress first enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements. Democrats characterized the legislation as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. The motion was agreed to 235-181. [Roll Call 1140, H 6, 12/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly; Associated Press, 12/06/07] Ryan Voted Against New CAFE Standards. On December 18, 2007 Ryan voted against requiring new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, and requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be produced and used domestically by 2022. It also would direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency 69

standards. It would include a $2.1 billion tax package to cover the cost of the new CAFE standards. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The bill (HR 6), which the House cleared on Tuesday, 314-100, would mandate a 40 percent increase in industry wide fuel efficiency by 2020 and require billions more gallons of biofuels to be blended into gasoline over the next 15 years.” [Roll Call 1177, H 6, 12/18/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/18/07] Ryan Voted Against CAFE Standards for Cars, including SUVs. Ryan voted against an amendment that would require a combined corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standard for passenger automobiles and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, of 26 miles per gallon in 2005 and 2006 and of 27.5 miles per gallon in 2007 and beyond. It also would offer incentives for alternative fuel vehicles and require the secretary of Transportation to use his authority to ensure automobile and truck safety. [Roll Call 311, H 4, 08/01/2001]

Gas
Ryan Voted in Favor of $19.1 Billion Dollars in Interior Spending, Including Over $600 million in Fossil Fuel Subsidies. On October 17, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the $19.1 billion dollar Interior Appropriations Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “The nominal opposition came largely from conservatives who found the spending too generous -- it is $1 billion more than President Bush requested -- or who opposed certain riders in the bill. […] The bill drew some criticism for its subsidies to energy producers. Environmental lobbying groups, for instance, complained about the $150 million appropriation for a ‘clean coal’ initiative championed by Byrd. The government and industry will each provide half the funds for research into new coal technologies. Overall, funding in the bill for fossil energy research and development totals $616.5 million.” [Roll Call 393, H 2217, 10/17/2001; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/19/01]

70

BANKING AND FINANCE
Bailouts
Ryan Voted to Prevent the Release of the Second Half of the $700 Billion Bailout. In 2009, Ryan voted for the prevention of the release of the second half of the $700 billion provided under the 2008 financial industry bailout law. The resolution was largely a symbolic vote, the Senate rejected its version of the joint resolution previously on January 15th, therefore allowing the Obama administration to tap the S350 billion. [Roll Call 27, S 3, 01/22/2009; CQ Weekly Report, 1/26/09] Ryan Voted For Controversial $700 Billion Bailout For Banking Industry. In October 2008, Ryan sided with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in voting for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). The bill passed 263-171. [Roll Call 681, H 1424, 10/03/2008]

Banking
Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. On May 9, 2012, Ryan voted against extending the ExportImport bank through September 30, 2014. According to the New York Times, “The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, siding with business groups over conservative activists who wanted Republicans to let the bank’s charter lapse at the end of May…. Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, the House majority leader, and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the House minority whip, negotiated a compromise for a three-year reauthorization that would raise the bank’s lending limit to $140 billion over three years, a 40 percent increase from the current $100 billion limit that the bank has almost reached. The agreement also would mandate a series of government audits and report requirements that critics say is necessary to ensure the institution is not exposing taxpayers to great risk, and it requires the Treasury secretary to begin multilateral negotiations with finance ministers around the world aimed at ending government export subsidies internationally.” [Roll Call 224, H 2072, 05/09/2012; New York Times, 5/10/12] Ryan Believed That A Major Congressional Accomplishment Was A Banking Reform Measure That Would Ease Consumers’ Access To Financial Service And Helped Smaller Community Banks. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “He considers one of the Congress’ most important accomplishments of the session to be a banking reform measure that will ease consumers' access to financial services and help smaller community banks.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 11/22/99]

Dodd Frank
Ryan Said Dodd-Frank Was A “Terrible Law” And He Would Support Repealing It. According to CQ Transcriptions, during an interview with David Asman of “Fox Business Network,” Ryan was asked Ryan if he supported repealing Dodd Frank Law, which Asman claimed used “racial profiling.” Ryan replied, “Oh, yes. This was a terrible law. I really think what the finreg bill is going to do is make credit tighter. And what it will do is it will privilege the large established, interconnected financial firms at the expense of all the smaller and medium financial firms. What I call it is crony capitalism. You basically have big government setting up all these rules and regulations and taxes and dictates which large firms can absorb. They will be deemed systemically risky. Therefore, they’ll get cheaper money because they’ll be bailed out if things go down, at the expense of everybody else…We’re erecting barriers to entry in the financial services market against the new competitors, against the small guy who wants to become a big guy one day.’” [CQ Transcriptions, 7/29/10]

Executive Pay
71

Ryan Voted Against Certain Advertising To Disclose Compensation Severance Packages Established For Executive Officers. On November 3, 2011, Ryan voted against a Miller, D-N.C., amendment that would require advertising legalized under the bill to contain disclosures of any bonus compensation structure or “golden parachute” severance package established for executive officers, directors or other principals. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House rejected 190-234 an amendment by Brad Miller, D-N.C., that would require those issuers to disclose bonus compensation and severance agreements arrangements in its advertisements.” The underlying legislation would “allow the use of general advertisements to solicit investors for non-publicly traded securities without having to register with the SEC as long as issuers market to ‘accredited investors.’ Under SEC rules, potential investors must have an existing relationship with the company in order to purchase non-publicly traded securities. Under current law, accredited investors include banks, insurance companies, registered investment companies, corporations and charitable organizations with more that $5 million in assets, and wealthy individuals.” [Roll Call 826, H 2940, 11/03/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/3/11]

Committee Chairman
Badger Democracy: Statements Of Economic Interest From Ryan Showed That His Influence On The Budget Process, So Did His Stake Through His Wife In Oklahoma Mining Interests. According to Badger Democracy, “Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) recently released by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), when compared to previous years SEI show a clear pattern the more influence he has on the Congressional Budget process, the more stake he (through his wife Janna (nee Little)) has gained in Oklahoma mining interests. This family interest is led by Ryan s father-inlaw, Dan Little; and is currently making millions leasing rights to energy giants engaging in extensive natural gas shale fracking. The financial conflicts at work here are direct. Ryan s budget gives $43 Billion in tax breaks to the companies and processes the Little family (and Ryan) profit from. The policy conflict is the expansion of fracking, which the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is promoting through powerful Legislators like Ryan. Ryan s 2011 SEI shows his most significant interests are in four companies, all owned by his father-in-law, Dan Little (according to Oklahoma Secretary of State corporate registration). Little is a prominent oil industry attorney (who refused comment to Badger Democracy). The total value of these interests are $350K $800K, with annual profit of $40K $130K.” [Badger Democracy, 7/6/12]

COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Ryan Held A Congressional Hearing On Government-Induced Barriers To “Upward Mobility.” According to House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “I welcome all to the House Budget Committee for this hearing on one of the key threats posed to our free enterprise system: the growing cronyism in Washington and government-imposed barriers to upward mobility. While we’re dealing with tough economic times, Americans still live in the most prosperous and dynamic country in the world. Our free enterprise system has lifted millions from the grips of poverty, a record of success that is increasingly challenged by the corrosive influence of Washington’s misguided policies. Over the years, both political parties have pursued deficit- driven spending aimed at favored companies, tax carve-outs for the well-connected and regulatory barriers that stack the deck against the average citizen. This creates a rigged game, where success is too often determined not by the quality of service or products that a business provides but by the relationships with those in power in Washington.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 6/1/12] Ryan Held A Congressional Hearing In Which He Discussed How The Budget Committee Passed A Line Item Veto Bill And Other Budget Reform Acts. According to a House Budget Committee hearing transcript, Ryan said, “A budget process reform alone is not a substitute for the political courage and leadership required to address our core spending and entitlement challenges. I don’t think there’s any doubt about the failure of the federal budget process, but there are big differences in opinion on how to tackle these challenges, on how to address these failures. Despite these differences, the ranking member and I were able to work out, on a bipartisan basis, to report out of this committee and pass on the floor, the Expedited Legislative Line Item Veto and Rescissions Act. This committee has also advanced baseline budget reform, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, the Pro-growth Budgeting Act and today, we continue the committee’s efforts to bring greater transparency to the budget process. Mandatory spending, or what we consider autopilot spending, accounts for 60 percent of the federal budget. Through the Budget Control Act, passed last summer, Congress has established statutory limits on discretionary spending with enforceable spending caps.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 5/31/12] 72

Ryan Held A Budget Committee Hearing On The Defense FY 2013 Budget. According to a congressional hearing, Ryan said, “The failure by the administration to deal honestly with the drivers of debt, specifically when it comes to government spending on health care, is a failure that imperils our economic security and now our national security. With his calls for crushing levels of debt and the crowding out of defense by entitlement spending, the president’s budget, in my personal opinion, charts a path to decline. In addition to examining the steep defense reductions in the president’s budget, I hope today’s hearing informs us of the consequences to our security that would result from the disproportionate cuts to defense spending under the Budget Control Act sequester. Congress has a solemn obligation to ensure our troops fighting overseas have the resources that they need to successfully complete their missions and to adhere to our commitment to their service upon their return. Every citizen owes a debt of gratitude to the military families that continue to make untold sacrifices for our security and for the freedoms that we cherish. We are in deep gratitude. We want to make sure that we honor them with the right kind of priorities, with the right kind of defense policy.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 2/29/12] Ryan Held A House Budget Hearing On The FY 2013 Budget Revenue And Economic Policy Proposals, Asked Geithner Why Obama Ducked Away From The “Drivers Of Out Debt.” According to a House Budget Committee hearing, Ryan said to, “Today, we’re facing the most predictable crisis in our nation’s history and yet for a fourth year in a row, you brought us this. This is no plan. This is no plan to restrain spending, to grow the economy and most of all, it’s no plan to save us from a debt fueled crisis, which would be an economic disaster for all of us. If plan beats no plan, then why is the president once again decided to duck from the drivers of our debt? Why, once again, given us more broken promises instead of leadership, excuses instead of accountability? Instead of cooperation where agreement is possible and we’d like to think there is some of that, why have we seen the president turn his back on the bipartisan solutions that have been percolating out there? Why has he decided to base his reelection strategy and dividing Americans for political gain in our estimation? After House Republicans put forward a serious solution in our budget last year, the president had an opportunity to advance plans for meeting our challenges, to advance alternatives, so they didn’t compromise. And if in fact there is a growing bipartisan consensus for the reforms that are needed.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 2/16/12] Ryan Held A House Budget Hearing On Obama’s FY 2013 Budget, Blasted The Budget Because It Did Not Reign In On Government Growth. According to a House Budget Committee hearing, Ryan said to Jeffrey Zients, Acting OMB Director, “The Associated Press -- accurately, in my view -- quotes this budget as, quote, ‘takes a pass on reining in government growth. Instead, it leaves the drivers of the debt -- namely, the unsustainable growth in entitlement programs -largely unchecked. It takes a pass on real reform even though the looming bankruptcy of these programs threatens to end the guarantee of security that they provide for our nation’s seniors. And it breaks the president’s promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.’ As ABC News reported, ‘This budget does not come close.’ We’ve heard a lot of excuses from this administration for why the president broke his promise, but what we have not heard is any semblance of accountability. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the White House has taken responsibility for this failure. Instead, we get a blame game that does not stand up to scrutiny. Jack Lew, your former boss, claimed that the reason the Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over a thousand days is because Republicans had threatened a filibuster. Look, this is simply false. We all know, as I am sure Mr. Lew knows, that budget resolutions cannot be filibustered. They can be passed with a simple majority vote. It’s that the Senate Democrats chose not to do so.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 2/15/12] Ryan Held A House Budget Hearing That Discussed The State Of The US Economy With Ben Bernanke, Was Disillusioned With The Federal Reserve’s Role In Promoting Employment. According to a House Budget Committee hearing, Ryan said, “The prospect of all three is adding to uncertainty and holding our economy back in many of our judgments. And I fear that normalizing monetary policy when the time comes will be incredibly difficult -- not just technically difficult, but politically difficult as well. For instance, I was greatly concerned to hear that the Fed recently announced that it would be willing to accept higher-than- desired inflation in order to focus on the other side of its dual mandate, which is promoting employment. This is not because unemployment is a lesser concern, far from it. It is because the Fed’s tools for promoting employment are limited, imprecise and could have highly undesirable, unintended consequences. By contrast, the Fed is uniquely positioned to protect the currency, the value of our money. And I would find it very disturbing if that role were to be diminished; the inflation dynamic that can be quick to materialize and painful to eradicate once it takes hold.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 2/2/12] Ryan Held A Hearing Regarding CBO’s Outlook On The Budget And Economy, Their Report Showed That 2012 Marked the Fourth Straight Years Of Trillion-Dollar Deficits. According to a House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “There is no question about it, this -- our fiscal and economic outlook is grim. According to CBO’s Outlook, 2012 will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. Trillions more dollars will be added to the debt in the years ahead, 73

putting a chilling effect on job creation today, and committing the next generation to a diminished future. CBO projects economic growth to remain sluggish and the unemployment rate to hover near 9 percent through 2014. This report confirms what too many Americans already painfully are aware of: President Obama’s economic policies simply are not working. The president and his party’s leaders successfully enacted much of their agenda, but they have failed to advance policies that get our economy growing. They have failed to advance solutions that get our fiscal house in order. In the Senate, they have failed to pass a budget in over 1,000 days.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 2/1/12] After The Debt Ceiling Debate Of 2011, Ryan Held A Budget Committee Hearing On The “Broken Budget Process.” According to a House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “After a request from the president to increase the debt limit, Congress was seemingly faced with basically two impossible choices -- either hand the president a blank check to continue these unsustainable spending policies or let America default. Fortunately, Congress was able to chart a middle course that coupled immediate spending restraints with a process to cut at least a dollar’s worth of spending for every dollar increase in the debt limit. But it should not have gotten to this point, and that is the point. Congress created a budget process that was intended to prevent this kind of ad hoc policy making. Clearly, the process isn’t working. The budget proposed by the president in February offered no plan to deal with what he has since acknowledged are the nation’s growing fiscal challenges.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 9/21/11] Ryan Held A Budget Committee Hearing On “Pro Growth” Tax Reform, Advocated For Closing Tax Loopholes And Simplifying The Tax Code. According to a House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “We should extend these reforms to the entire U.S. tax code. A world-class tax system should be fair, simple, and competitive. And right now, the U.S. tax code fails miserably on all three counts. The World Economic Forum recently downgraded the United States from fourth to fifth in its annual competitiveness rankings. The reason? Under the section titled, ‘Most problematic factors for doing business,’ our unfair, complex, and uncompetitive tax code was right at the very top. We need to close loopholes that distort economic activity and those loopholes also reward the politically well-connected at the expense of the hard-working small businessmen and women of America. We need to simplify the tax code by reducing the number of brackets, so that people spend less time and money figuring out how to comply with the tax code. And we need to lower rates, to encourage economic activity, to allow our businesses to compete on a level playing field against those in countries where the corporate rates are much lower. Unfortunately, that list includes every developed country except for Japan.” [Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee Hearing, 9/14/11] Ryan Held A Budget Committee Hearing About Medicare And Social Security’s Fiscal Sustainability, Said That In Order For Programs To Be Saved They Must Be Reformed. According to a House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “We need a clean break from the politics of the past, and that begins with a shared consensus on the facts. So today’s hearing is an effort to unpack the fiscal facts on Medicare and Social Security, two critical programs that represent a solemn commitment to America’s seniors. This is a commitment that cannot be kept unless reforms are made. To help us get our arms around the magnitude of these two programs’ financial health, I can think of no better witnesses than the ones we have today. It is just this simple: These are the most important programs in the federal government, right here, these two. Millions of people rely on them. They’re going bankrupt. They have to be reformed in order to be saved. And it is crystal clear to anybody who looks at these numbers that the sooner we act to shore these programs up, the better off everybody is going to be, the less disruption that occurs in the lives of the people who rely on them the most.” [House Budget Committee Hearing, 7/11/11] Ryan Held A House Budget Hearing On “Budgeting For America’s National Security,” Said That Defense Spending Was Not “Driving Out Unsustainable Fiscal Path,” Blamed It On Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid. According to a House Budget Committee Hearing, Ryan said, “Our fiscal crisis is, above all, a spending crisis driven by the growth of our major entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- critical programs that help provide health and retirement security for millions of Americans. In 1970, these programs consumed about 20 percent of the federal budget. These autopilot spending programs now consume about 40 percent of the federal budget. Over the same period, defense spending has shrunk as a share of the federal budget from about 39 percent to 19 percent, even as we conduct an ambitious global war on terrorism. Clearly, defense spending is not driving our unsustainable fiscal path. There is, of course, considerable waste and inefficiencies at the Pentagon, which Secretary Gates did a great job of identifying. The Housepassed budget builds upon this effort, devoting 100 billion (dollars) of savings to higher-priority defense programs and 78 billions (dollars) of savings to defense -- to deficit reduction.” [House Budget Committee Hearing, 7/7/11] Ryan Held A Budget Committee Hearing About The CBO’s Report On The Long Term Budget Outlook, Stated That The National Debt Would Eclipse The Entire Size Of The U.S. Economy In 2011. According to a House Budget 74

Hearing, Ryan said, “Yesterday the CBO released its long-term budget outlook. This report throws harsh light on the challenges we face and it sounds an alarm that too many in Washington have been ignoring for far too long. The federal government will race across a dangerous tipping point this year. According to CBO, total U.S. debt will reach 100 percent of GDP. Our debt will have eclipsed the size of our entire economy. Economists who have studied sovereign debt tell us that letting total debt rise above 90 percent of GDP creates a drag on economic growth and intensifies the risk of a debt-fueled economic crisis. The CBO is candid about the increasing likelihood of this crisis, and the report states, quote, ‘Such a crisis would confront policy makers with extremely difficult choices and probably have a very significant negative impact on the country,’ unquote.” [House Budget Committee Hearing, 6/23/11]

Consumer Protection
Ryan Voted to Limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Power. On July 21, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would replace the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s director with a five-member commission. It also would lower the vote threshold required for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to override Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules from two-thirds to a simple majority and allow the council to override regulations that threaten the stability of individual institutions. According to the Washington Post, the bill would make “it easier to block the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s regulation of banking and other sectors of the financial-services industry. Under the bill, the Financial Stability Oversight Council in the Treasury Department could stay or veto the bureau’s proposed regulations by simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds majority now required.” [Roll Call 621, H 1315, 07/21/2011; Washington Post, 7/28/11] Paul Ryan Voted Against The Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Paul Ryan voted against HR 4173, which established a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would implement and enforce federal consumer financial laws to ensure consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products and services. [Roll Call 413, H 4173, 06/30/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against The Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Paul Ryan voted against HR 4173, which established a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would implement and enforce federal consumer financial laws to ensure consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products and services. [Roll Call 968, H 4173, 12/11/2009] Ryan Supported Bankruptcy Bill Weakening Consumers’ Rights. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of legislation intended to make it harder for consumers to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. Its passage by Congress, marking the most significant changes to bankruptcy law since 1978, was a victory for executives in the credit card, retail and auto financing industries who had pushed it for nearly a decade. The central feature was to take away much of the discretion bankruptcy judges had in deciding who was eligible to wipe out substantial portions of debt by filing under Chapter 7 and who should be forced into filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which required some repayment of obligations over several years. While supporters argued the bill would force those able to pay debts to pay them, opponents noted that 45 percent of those filing for bankruptcy had skipped a needed doctor’s visit, 25 percent had utilities shut off, and nearly 20 percent went without food. While bankruptcy filings increased 17 percent in the previous eight years, credit card profits increased more than 160 percent, from $11 billion to more than $30 billion. There were 5 billion credit card solicitations a year, many targeted at teenagers with no jobs, no income, and no visible means of support to pay credit card bills. The bill passed 302-126 [Roll Call 108, S 256, 04/14/2005; Washington Post, 4/15/05; Statement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 109th Congressional Record, 4/14/05] Ryan Supported Class Action Reform that Protects Big Business. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of final passage of a legal reform bill that would move more class action lawsuits from state to federal courts where judges have been more conservative with decisions and damages. Specifically, the bill gave federal courts jurisdiction over class action cases involving at least 100 plaintiffs if at least $5 million was at stake and two-thirds of the plaintiffs lived in different states. The nation’s largest bank, Citicorp, admitted, “The practical effect [of the bill] will be that many cases will never be heard. Federal judges, facing overburdened dockets and ambiguities about applying state laws in federal court, often refuse to grant standing to class-action plaintiffs.” The bill passed 279-149. [Roll Call 38, S 5, 02/17/2005; House Committee on Judiciary Minority Press Release, 2/17/05; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2/18/05] Ryan Supported Bankruptcy “Reform” in 2004. In 2004, Ryan also voted in favor of the bankruptcy “reform” measure. The bill was aimed at making it more difficult for Americans to erase debts owed to credit card companies and other 75

businesses. The bill set a higher standard for debtors, requiring those who have median incomes to repay their debts according to a court-approved plan. The bill passed 265-99. [Roll Call 10, S 1920, 01/28/2004; Las Vegas Review Journal, 2/1/04] Ryan Voted To Approve Conference Report Bill Which Sought Prevention Of Abuse In Collection Of Personal Financial Information. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “ Voting 379 for and 49 against, the House on Nov. 21 approved the conference report on renewal of a 1996 law that sets uniform national rules for handling personal financial information. The bill seeks to prevent abuses in the way businesses collect and distribute credit histories, financial records and medical information on individuals. But it drew criticism over its pre-emption of state laws that are more protective of privacy rights. A yes vote was to approve the conference report.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/23/03] Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Force Financial Institutions To Quickly Notify Customers When Their Personal Information Have Been Stolen. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “At the same time, two members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation -- Rep. Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis.) of Milwaukee and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of Janesville have teamed up to sponsor legislation that would force financial institutions to quickly notify customers when their personal information has been stolen. Their effort stems from a case this year in which about 250 customers of Bank One were not notified for eight months after their personal information had been stolen by an employee of the bank’s Pewaukee branch. ‘All this bill does is say, ‘Look, if your security system has been penetrated, either through a hacker hacking from the outside into your bank records or from an employee stealing personal identity and financial information and selling it, you’ve got to tell the customers who are involved what has happened,’ ‘ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/21/02] Ryan Voted to Repeal Depression-Era Prohibitions on the Banking Industry Coupled with Consumer Privacy Measures. Ryan voted for a financial services overhaul bill that would “give people the right to block banks and other financial companies from sharing their personal data with outside firms.” The measure was attached to what the Associated Press called “sweeping legislation that would allow banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge. The overall bill, which would overturn Depression-era prohibitions on the banking industry, was passed late Thursday with a veto-proof vote, 343-86.” Consumer Activists, including Ralph Nader criticized the financial overhaul heavily. Nader called the overhaul “a sellout to the banking and financial services industry, which wants to use the private information of consumers to carry out wide-ranging cross-marketing schemes.” [Roll Call 276, H 10, 07/01/1999; Associated Press, 7/2/99; Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 7/2/99]

Credit Cards
Ryan Voted Against Bill to Reform Credit Card Billing Practices. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would prohibit credit card companies from retroactively increasing interest rates and finance charges. The bill sought to outlaw several credit card practices deemed “unfair and deceptive” by federal regulators. “We see this as truly a historic vote,” Consumer Federation of America Legislative Director Travis Plunkett said. “The credit card industry has been able to stop proposals to rein them in for over a decade.” The bill passed 312-112. [Roll Call 623, H 5244, 09/23/2008; CQ Today, 9/23/08]

Monetary Policy And The Federal Reserve
Ryan Said He Was Concerned The Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing Program Would Create “A Massive Balance-Sheet Expansion.” According to a transcript of a House Budget Committee hearing that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “The Federal Reserve is undertaking another round of quantitative easing, purchasing Treasury bonds in an attempt to lower borrowing costs and stimulate the economy. My concern is that the cost of the Fed’s current monetary policy, the money creation and massive balance- sheet expansion, will come to outweigh the perceived short-term benefits. I hope that’s not the case.” [Federal News Service, 2/9/11] Ryan Warned That “The Inflation Dynamic Can Be Quick To Materialize.” According to a transcript of a House Budget Committee hearing that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “We are already witnessing a sharp rise in a variety of key global commodity and basic material prices, and we know that some producers and manufacturers here in the United States are starting to feel the cost pressure as a result. According to the core price indexes that the Fed closely watches, 76

these cost pressures have not been yet passed along to consumers, but the inflation dynamic can be quick to materialize and painful to eradicate once it takes hold.” [Federal News Service, 2/9/11] Ryan Said The Federal Reserve Was “Printing Money Out Of Thin Air” And Was Worried It Wouldn’t Preempt Inflation. According to a transcript of “Squawk on the Street” obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “First of all, I`d like to get more insight into where they’re - - they think they`re going. We’re halfway through QE2. They had a unanimous FOMC meeting. I thought there would be some dissension. There is no dissension. So it looks like they`re going to keep, you know, printing money out of thin air, money creation. I think the yield curve yesterday was fairly interesting. It’s starting to steepen. Some people would say under normal circumstances, under a routine economy in a cyclical problem, it’s a good thing. I don`t think our problems are routine. They’re extraordinary. And they’re structural… And so I’m worried they’re not going to preempt inflation. I’m worried that they’re gonna – they’re gonna – they’re gonna see it too late, and then we`re going to have a problem.” [Analyst Wire, 2/8/11] Ryan Said The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Was Likely To Be “Excessive And Too Loose.” According to a transcript of “Squawk on the Street” obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “Look, right now, the deficits we`re running here are basically deferred tax increases. It’s bad for jobs. It’s bad for growth. And I think monetary policy is trying to bail out really bad fiscal policy. Let`s get our fiscal policy fixed so we don`t have to lean on this excessive monetary policy, which I think at the end of the day will be excessive and too loose.” [Analyst Wire, 2/8/11] Ryan: The Federal Focus Should Be “Solely Focused On Price Stability, Not All This Other Stuff.” According to a transcript of “Squawk on the Street” obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan was asked about ending the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate on inflation and employment. Ryan said, “I think we need to have sound money, very transparent and accountable Federal Reserve system, solely focused on price stability, not all this other stuff. That`s what other government agencies and fiscal policy authorities in the legislative branch are in charge of. They`ve just got to make sure that our money maintains its reliable store of value and that, in my opinion, is being compromised.” [Analyst Wire, 2/8/11] Ryan Suggested That The Federal Reserve Increase Interest Rates: “Even If We Go To 1%, We Would Still Be Very Loose In Our Monetary Policy.” According to According to a transcript of “Squawk on the Street” obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan was asked, “It sounds like you – you’d be happy if [Ben Bernanke] said, ‘You guys need to cut spending, and I`ll be over here busy raising rates.’ Is that right?” Ryan responded, “Yes, I mean… we`re near zero. And I’m more of a Hoenig, the last Fed guy who went off from Kansas City, who went off. I’m not talking about high interest rates. I’m talking about just not zero. Even if we go to 1 percent, we would still be very loose on our monetary policy.” [Analyst Wire, 2/8/11] Ryan Said The Federal Reserve Had “No Business Cheapening The Nation’s Currency.” According to the National Journal, “Rep. Paul Ryan(R-WI) ‘says’ that the Fed ‘has no business cheapening the nation’s currency’ even if a ‘weaker dollar might provide a short-term elixir for struggling industries’ in his district. Ryan: ‘Inflation is a killer of wealth. It wipes out the middle class. It eviscerates the standard of living for people who have retired or are living on fixed incomes. Name me a nation in history that has prospered by devaluing its currency… ‘I won’t dispute that a cheaper dollar can help boost exports in the short term. But I don’t think it’s a good tradeoff to do so at the expense of inflation.’” [National Journal, 11/22/10] Ryan Accused The Federal Reserve Of Debasing The Currency And Said The U.S. Needed “Sound” And Honest Money To Spur Economic Growth. According to Analyst Wire, in an interview with Joe Kernen, Ryan said “The foundations for growth are not there. And we need low tax rates that are predictable. We need sound and honest money. We’re not getting that right now. We need regulations that are predictable, fair, transparent, reasonable. And we need to cut spending. We need to reform spending and control it. And we’re not doing any of those things. Those are the basic foundations we need for economic growth in this country. And we’re tearing apart at each and everyone of those foundations. We have crony capitalism when it comes to regulations. We have spending that is out of control. We’ve got the Fed debasing the currency. And we’ve got very much tax on -- look, even if we get these tax breaks now, we have a whole another slug of tax increases coming in 2013. So I would simply argue that the basic macroeconomic foundations are going the wrong direction. And that puts us on this path of managed decline where we manage our decline as a superpower, as a growing economy.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10] Ryan Said He Met With Chairman Greenspan To Discuss His Budget Proposal. According to Analyst Wire, in an interview with Joe Kernen, Ryan said “…I was pretty impressed with Chairman Greenspan. He called me like two years ago after I first put this roadmap out there, I wanted to talk about, I went over to his office for breakfast. He had the bill which is 77

like this thick, all documented (ph), page marked, little notations in it. We went through the actually legislative text. And he was asking me, why did you write it this way? Why did you -- he was really into this.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10] Ryan Argued That “Core Inflation” Index Used By The Federal Reserve Under-Measured Inflation. According to Analyst Wire, in an interview, Ryan said “…you look at the dollar, look at the yield curve, look at commodities; those are what I would call the post-cyclical indicators of inflation. But the Fed, they don’t look at that as much. The Fed looks at core inflation. And core inflation, I would argue, has historically undermeasured inflation. That`s what they looked at in the ‘03 to ‘06 period when we had excessively loose monetary policy which, I would argue, helped fuel the inflation that the asset bubble. We’re doing the same thing again. People like me are very concerned that we`re coming untethered with our sound money roots. So I would probably disagree with Alice [Rivlin] on the quantitative easing thing. The upside is very low, but the downside is severe. And this is why people like me are very critical.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10] Ryan Accused The Obama Administration Of Pressuring The Federal Reserve To Debase The U.S. Dollar. According to Analyst Wire, in an interview, Ryan said “The most insidious way a government can cheat its people is by debasing its currency. We’re the world’s reserved currency. It`s an exorbitant privilege which I think the goal (ph) said we’re risking that. And so let`s stop having the monetary authority bail out the fiscal authorities. If you worry about the independence of the Federal Reserve being compromised, this does that because what I would argue, you have our fiscal authorities, the administration pressuring the Fed to basically fill the void.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10] Ryan Called Fiscal Policy “Terrible” And “The Wrong Direction.” According to Analyst Wire, in an interview Ryan said “Fiscal policy is terrible. It`s going in the wrong direction. They’ve shot all their bullets. It didn’t work. All this demand side stuff didn’t work. So they’re now trying to get the monetary authorities to overcompensate. And it is putting our monetary policy on a collision course. Fiscal policy, the wrong way to go. We need to get back to our roots of sound and honest money.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10] Ryan Said He Would Get Rid Of The Federal Reserve’s Dual Mandate, In Favor Of A Single Mandate. According to Analyst Wire, in an interview, Ryan said to stabilize commodity prices and fix U.S. monetary policy he would get rid of the dual mandate, “The dual mandate is a problem and it compromises the independence of the Fed. And we’re to have this single mandate. ECB is a single mandate -- a single mandate which is price stability. The necessary precondition for economic growth is sound and stable money. Let`s protect the value of the dollar and then have the fiscal policy to do the right thing and get growth. And let`s get the basics -- let`s get low and stable and predictable tax rates. Let`s get regulators stop this crony capitalism.” [Analyst Wire, 11/15/10]

Regulation
Ryan Voted In Favor Of Measure To Exempt Derivatives Transactions By Small Banks And Credit Unions. According to Wisconsin State Journal, “Financial deregulation: Members on Wednesday voted, 312-111, to exempt derivatives transactions by credit unions, small banks and rural lenders from transparency and collateral rules set by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law. A yes vote was to waive the regulations on grounds that they raise the cost of credit for small businesses and that small banks do not create systemic risk when their deals go bad. (HR 3336) Voting yes: Paul Ryan, R-1; Ron Kind, D-3; Gwen Moore, D-4; James Sensenbrenner, R-5; Tom Petri, R-6; Sean Duffy, R-7; Reid Ribble, R-8” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/28/12] Ryan Voted To Allow “Crowdfunding” To Finance New Businesses Up To $1 Million Without Registering With The SEC. On November 3, 2011, Ryan voted to allow “Crowdfunding” to finance new businesses up to $1 million without registering with the SEC. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “The House on Thursday passed two bills to make it easier for small companies to raise capital to grow their businesses. Supporters say the bills would give smaller companies access to a realm of capital that has been out of their reach. The House voted 407-17 to pass a bill (HR 2930) that would permit “crowdfunding” to finance new businesses by allowing companies to accept and pool securities issuances up to $1 million without registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It would allow pools of up to $2 million if the issuer provides potential investors with audited financial statements. The bill would limit individual contributions to the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of their annual income. As amended by the House, it would call on the SEC to adjust the individual investment cap and the amounts of securities issuances exempted from registration for inflation… In lieu of SEC registration, it would require SEC notification of offerings, including contact information for the issuer and its target offering amount. The 78

House adopted by voice vote an amendment by McHenry that would require the issuer to state a deadline to reach the target offering amount. It also would require issuers to notify the SEC once the offering is completed of the aggregate amount and number of purchasers. The bill also would require the SEC to make rules to disqualify individuals convicted of violating federal or state securities laws from issuing unregistered securities under the exemption. McHenry’s amendment also would revise the provision to disqualify issuers and intermediaries from the exemption if their predecessors, affiliates, officers, or directors have a history of committing securities fraud. The House also adopted, by voice vote, an amendment by Colorado Democrat Ed Perlmutter to preserve a state’s right to enforce securities laws on fraud, deceit or unlawful conduct. The amendment would clarify that the bill’s pre-emption provisions apply only to state registration, documentation and offering requirements.” [Roll Call 825, H 2930, 11/03/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/3/2011] Ryan Voted Against Requiring Intermediaries in “Crowdfunding” Security Transactions to Disclose Compensation Structure. On November 3, 2011, Ryan voted against a Velazquez, D-N.Y amendment that would require intermediaries in “crowdfunding” security transactions to disclose the compensation structure in place for their participation in the offering. The underlying legislation would provide exemptions from Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements for certain “crowdfunded” securities, or those financed with small amounts of money from numerous investors. The bill would exempt annual sales of up to $1 million, or $2 million if the company provided audited financial statements, from registration requirements. Individual investors would be limited to total annual purchases of $10,000 or 10 percent of their income, whichever is less. As amended, the thresholds would be indexed to inflation. The bill would require intermediaries or issuers in such transactions to disclose certain warnings to investors about the risks involved. As amended, the bill would pre-empt statelevel registration requirements but would clarify that such pre-emption does not apply to fraud or other malfeasance. [Roll Call 823, H 2930, 11/03/2011] Ryan Voted Against Regulating Wall Street After Financial Crisis. On June 30, 2010, Ryan voted against the conference report of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In an attempt to avoid a future financial crisis, the bill would establish a procedure for dissolving financial institutions that pose systematic risk to the economy, create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, establish a national standard for mortgages, and authorize $4 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds for housing relief. It also creates a clearinghouse for the previously unregulated financial derivatives market, requires registration of all credit rating firms, and creates a registry of private capital investment advisers. [Roll Call 413, H 4173, 06/30/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Regulating Wall Street After Financial Crisis. Paul Ryan voted against HR 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In an attempt to avoid a future financial crisis, the bill established a procedure for dissolving financial institutions that pose systematic risk to the economy, created a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, established a national standard for mortgages, and authorized $4 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds for housing relief. It also created a clearinghouse for the previously unregulated financial derivatives market, required registration of all credit rating firms, and created a registry of private capital investment advisers. Finally, the bill allowed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to overrule state consumer financial laws if they impair nation bank business. [Roll Call 968, H 4173, 12/11/2009] Ryan Voted To Ease Financial Regulations. On March 18, 2004 Ryan voted for the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2004. The bill eases “dozens of banking regulations, including expanding the ability of banks and thrifts to open new branches or merge with other institutions. It would provide banks with greater flexibility to manage their operations, such as providing greater leeway in the calculation of dividend payments. The bill, as amended, would ban any company with less than 85 percent of its business in financial services from using an industrial loan company to branch across state lines. It also would allow credit unions to expand their investment opportunities and their service offerings, such as wire transfers, while streamlining merger procedures.” The bill passed 392-25. [Roll Call 69, H 1375, 03/18/2004; CQ Vote Summary, 3/18/04] Ryan Voted to Delay Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Regulation of Derivatives by One Year. In June 2011, Ryan voted to prohibit the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from using funds to promulgate block-trade and real-time reporting rules under the 2010 financial regulatory overhaul until one year after the promulgation of final swap transaction data-reporting rules. According to the Virginian-Pilot, “Voting 231-189, the House on Thursday amended HR2112 (above) to delay for at least one year the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulation of derivatives trades on Wall Street. Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law, the CFTC is drafting what would be the first regulation of the $600 trillion derivatives industry, whose collapse in 2008 helped cause that year’s Wall Street bailout and the 4-year-old U.S. financial crisis. This amendment dealt mainly with rules for block trades and the public reporting of data on derivatives swaps.” [Roll Call 446, H 2112, 06/16/2011] 79

Ryan Voted in Favor of Giving the SEC Oversight of Credit Rating Agencies and Promoting Competition Among Them. On July 12, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act of 2006. According to the Washington Post, “The House approved legislation yesterday intended to encourage more companies to enter the industry that rates the creditworthiness of corporations and their debt, an arena now dominated by two firms. The bill, […] would also require credit-rating companies to give investors more information about how credit risk is calculated. And it would give the Securities and Exchange Commission oversight of the industry for the first time. […] The SEC requires companies that file financial statements with the agency to have their credit-risk assessed by an independent third party. In theory, that should mean any credit-rating firm could perform the task. In practice, credit-rating providers that carry an SEC designation of being ‘nationally recognized’ get most of the business. Only five of the 130 credit-rating agencies carry that designation, and among those, Moody’s and S&P have an overwhelming market share, rating 99 percent of the debt registered with the SEC, Fitzpatrick said. Under the proposed legislation, the SEC designation would go to any firm that has been in business for three years, registers with the SEC, and publicly discloses its method of weighing credit risk and any potential conflicts of interest. The SEC would have to oversee registrants to ensure each company keeps proper records and makes full and adequate disclosures.” [Roll Call 368, H 2990, 07/12/2006; Washington Post, 07/13/06]

Stock Market
Ryan Opposed Government Investment In The Stock Market, Saying He Didn’t “Think We Should Take Any Of The Surplus And Have The Government Own Private Shares Of Corporations.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Republicans in the Wisconsin delegation also object to the government investing in the stock market. ‘I don’t think we should take any of the surplus and have the government own private shares of corporations,’ said Ryan, of Janesville.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 3/14/99]

TARP
Ryan Said He Didn’t Regret His Vote In Favor Of TARP. According to a transcript of a speech Ryan gave at the American Enterprise Institute that was obtained via Fair Disclosure Wire, Ryan was asked, “Do you regret your vote on TARP?” He responded, “No, I mean, obviously I hate TARP. It was a bad episode. I don’t regret it because I do -- I do believe we were probably on the cusp of a deflationary spiral. There just -- it’s too unknown, and I believe, if we went into a deflationary spiral, we would have -- we would have seen much, much pain and suffering. We would have seen lots of businesses go down, lots of bank go down. We would have seen a lot more job losses.” [Fair Disclosure Wire, 4/5/11] Ryan Said He Voted For TARP To Prevent The Economy From Collapsing. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview on “Fox Business Network,” John Stossel asked whether there was a disconnect between Ryan’s criticism on increased federal aid and his vote in favor of TARP and the auto bailout. Ryan responded: “I voted for TARP because I believe we will going to fall into a deflationary spiral, meaning the economy was going to collapse and I really believe that, that would have swept in a whole new usher of more government on new deal part three…The whole purpose of voting for that auto bill was to prevent the auto companies from getting TARP dollars. What happened? It didn’t get that money and President Bush, followed by President Obama gave them tarp and now TARP has become this revolving government slush fund, never was it was in, never intended to be in the first place.” [CQ Transcriptions, 6/3/10] Ryan Voted to Tax 90 Percent of Employee Bonuses at Companies that Received TARP Money. In 2009, Ryan voted to impose a 90 percent tax on employee bonuses paid in 2009 by companies that received more than $5 billion in federal aid. The bill did not affect bonus recipients with household’s adjusted gross income below $250,000, $125,000 for individuals or married people who file separately. Executives could avoid the tax by waiving any rights to the bonuses or returning the money by the end of the year. The bill was in response to the outrage over the reported bonuses to executives at AIG. [Roll Call 143, H 1586, 03/19/2009; CQ Today, 3/19/09] Ryan Voted Against the TARP Reform and Accountability Act. In 2009, Ryan voted against placing new strict requirements on banks and other financial institutions that accept government assistance under the Treasury Department’s $700 billion financial rescue program. The House measure included requiring recipients of government money to prove they 80

are using the money to increase lending to consumers and small businesses, limit the ability to use the money to finance mergers, and bar them from paying bonuses to top executives until the money is repaid. The measure also would require the President to dedicate at least $40 billion to help distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. Homeowners in part would be helped by the creation of a “safe harbor” that would protect loan servicers that modify troubled mortgages from lawsuits by investors in the mortgages. The reform also allowed for funds to be used to assist the domestic auto industry. [Roll Call 26, H 384, 01/21/2009; Washington Post, 1/22/09]

81

BUDGET
2006: Ryan Was Named Top Republican On House Budget Committee At The Age Of 36. According to the Associated Press, “Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin won his long-shot bid Thursday to become the top Republican on the House Budget Committee next year, putting him in a position to become chairman of the panel if Republicans retake the House down the road. But two other Wisconsin lawmakers lost their bids for top GOP committee assignments: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner for the Science Committee, and Rep. Tom Petri for the Transportation Committee. The selections were made by the House GOP steering committee. Ryan, 36, beat out Florida Rep. Ander Crenshaw for the Budget post. In a telephone interview, Ryan said he was surprised he won the spot, given his low seniority. ‘I’ve been very clear we need to become more fiscally responsible,’ Ryan said. ‘We need to make sure our party reclaims the banner of fiscal responsibility.’” [Associated Press, 12/8/06] 2005: Ryan Was Named To Second Stint On Budget Committee. According to the Associated Press, “Rep. Paul Ryan was appointed to the House Budget Committee, adding a second assignment to his spot on the Ways and Means Committee. ‘I want to fully engage in the fight to control spending and this assignment on the Budget Committee helps me do just that,’ said Ryan, R-Wis., one of the House’s fiscal hawks. Ryan served on the Budget Committee through 2000 but gave up the seat when he landed a spot on the more powerful Ways and Means Committee. Republican leadership announced Ryan’s appointment to the Budget Committee on Thursday.” [Associated Press, 1/6/05] In His First Term In Congress Ryan Was On The Banking, Budget, And Government Reform And Oversight, Was Also The Vice Chair Of The National Economic Growth, Natural Resources And Regulator y Affairs Subcommittee. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan is starting out his term in Congress with a full plate. He has been appointed to three committees -- Banking, Budget and Government Reform and Oversight. He was asked to serve as vice chairman of the National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs subcommittee, in addition to working on panels devoted to the Census, domestic and international monetary policy and several other issues. After a long day of committee and caucus meetings, Ryan returned late this week to his office consumed with President Clinton’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 2/6/99]

Balanced Budget Amendment
Ryan Voted Against a Balanced-Budget Amendment to The Constitution. On November 18, 2011, Ryan voted against balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House rejected a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution on Friday afternoon, disappointing fiscal conservatives in the first House vote on the issue in 16 years. The proposed constitutional amendment (H J Res 2) would require that total federal outlays in any given year not exceed the total amount of revenue taken in unless Congress votes with a three-fifths majority to allow it. It would allow Congress to waive the balanced-budget requirement with a simple majority vote in years when a declaration of war was in effect. The proposed change to the Constitution also would institute a three-fifths majority requirement for raising the debt limit.” [Roll Call 858, S 2, 11/18/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/18/11]

Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission
Ryan Said He Was A Huge Fan Of Erskine Bowles And Alan Simpson: “I Think They’ve Done This Country A Great Service.” According to a transcript of a Bloomberg TV interview obtained via Analyst Wire, Ryan said, “A couple of things, because I served on the fiscal commission. I thought it was a great exercise. I am a huge fan of Erskine and Alan. I think they’ve done this country a great service.” [Analyst Wire, 5/4/11] Ryan Attacked Obama For “Disavow[ing]” The Fiscal Commission, Even Though Ryan Voted Against The Commission’s Findings. According to a transcript of “Surveillance Monday,” Ryan said, “You know, I think it’s a little strange that the President created the fiscal commission in the first place. It came up with a report. We put dozens of their conclusions in our budget. The President disavowed it. And the President gave us a budget that didn’t do anything to fix the 82

problem. Then he said have the iPad cut Medicare a little bit more and create another fiscal commission - this one run by Vice President Biden.” [Bloomberg, “Surveillance Monday,” 4/29/11] Ryan Said He Didn’t Support The Fiscal Commission Because It Didn’t Address Health Care; Said, “You’re Whistling Past The Graveyard. You’re Ignoring The Problem.” According to a transcript of the E21 Event obtained via States News Service, Ryan said, “The reason I didn’t support the Fiscal Commission, is it didn’t address the drivers of our debt, health care. You’re whistling past the graveyard. You’re ignoring the problem. And so I don’t want to suggest that we’re going to fix this problem by ignoring the drivers of our debt. And that’s why I didn’t vote for the Fiscal Commission.” [States News Service, 4/14/11] Ryan Said He Opposed The Fiscal Commission’s Recommendations Because “It Accepted Obamacare As A Given.” According to The American Conservative, “Ryan still voted against the deficit reduction commission’s final proposals. ‘It accepted Obamacare as a given,’ says Ryan. ‘I’m not willing to do that.’ By contrast, Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican some have dubbed the upper chamber’s ‘Dr. No,’ voted for the commission’s recommendations.” [The American Conservative, 3/1/11] Ryan Said It Was A “Pleasure” To Serve On The Fiscal Commission. According to a transcript of a Congressional Republicans press conference that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “I served on the president’s fiscal commission that he created this last year. It was a pleasure to do so. Oh, I have problems with some of the fiscal commission’s reports and findings. I, along with others like Alice Rivlin, put out alternative plans out there. But the president, in suggesting the fiscal commission, gave people like me the idea that we are going to move the ball in the right direction, that that was a constructive step in the right direction.” [Federal News Service, 2/14/11] Ryan Attacked Obama For Not Embracing The Fiscal Commission; Defended Voting Against The Commission’s Recommendations By Saying “I Proposed Alternatives.” According to a transcript of Fox News Sunday, Ryan said, “Look, the president not only didn’t deal with these programs which are the drivers of our debt. He punted to a fiscal commission and then he just didn’t even embrace the Fiscal Commission.” Chris Wallace said to Ryan, “You were on the Fiscal Commission and you voted against it yourself.” Ryan responded, “I did, and I proposed alternatives. The reason I voted against the Fiscal Commission, because it didn’t deal with the driver, which is healthcare spending.” [Fox News, “Fox News Sunday,” 2/13/11]

Budget Votes
Paul Ryan Opposed Fiscally Responsible FY 2009 Budget That Would Create Budget Surplus in 2012. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against a budget resolution that would establish the congressional budget for FY 2009.The resolution would call for expenditures of $3.1 trillion and would allow up to $1 trillion in discretionary spending, plus $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $5.8 billion for hurricane recovery. The bill would call for the federal budget to reach a surplus in fiscal year 2012. The bill would also include instructions for the Ways and Means Committee to reduce mandatory spending by $750 million over six years. [Roll Call 141, S 312, 03/13/2008] Ryan Voted for Republican Substitute Budget for 2009. On March 13, 2008, Ryan voted for the Republican substitute 2009 budget resolution introduced by Rep, Ryan, R-Wis. The substitute amendment would set discretionary spending of $973 billion in fiscal 2009, and project budget surpluses in fiscal 2012 and 2013. It would assume an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and provide for reconciliation legislation to reduce mandatory spending by $412.4 billion over five years. It would place a moratorium on earmarks and establish procedures for a legislative line-item veto. [Roll Call 140, S 312, 03/13/2008] Ryan Opposed Fiscally Responsible Budget. In 2007, Ryan against the fiscal year 2008 budget conference report that began to reverse six years of Republican fiscal mismanagement, provided for middle-class tax relief and would return the budget to balance – reaching a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 – without raising taxes. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the budget represented “a major step toward restoring fiscal responsibility in the Congress…” The budget passed 214-209. [Roll Call 377, S 21, 05/17/2007; Center for Responsive Politics, 5/29/07; House Budget Committee, Overview of FY2008 Budget Conference Agreement, 5/16/07] Ryan Voted Against “PayGo” Rules. In 2007, Ryan voted against legislation to re-enact so-called Pay-As-You-Go (PayGo) 83

rules. The rules were originally established under the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act and extended in 1997, but had been allowed to lapse during the Bush administration. The rules required that both increases in mandatory spending and tax cuts be offset, either by cuts in mandatory spending or increases in taxes. The motion would have imposed “budgetary rules that would force any increase in entitlement spending or cut in taxes to be funded by equal spending cuts or revenue raisers.” The earmark and Pay-as-you-Go reforms passed 280-152 [Roll Call 9, S 6, 01/05/2007] Ryan Supported Giving President Bush Line Item Veto Authority. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of granting President Bush line item veto authority, meaning that the President could single out specific spending or tax measures in larger bills passed by Congress and ask lawmakers to delete them. Bush and some Republican members of Congress have argued that the authority was a necessary tool for imposing fiscal discipline and controlling pork barrel spending. The bill gave the president 45 days to propose rescissions of line items in bills he signed into law, prohibited duplicative requests and limited the number of rescission packages per bill to five, or 10 in the case of omnibus spending packages. The bill allowed the president to delay spending for no more than 90 days unless Congress endorsed a rescission. According to the bill’s sponsors, this bill was different from an earlier line-item veto struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998, because Congress had the final say on the president’s rescissions. The measure required Congress to give expedited consideration to these presidential proposals, without amending them. The bill passed 247-172. [Roll Call 317, H 4890, 06/22/2006; CQ Today, 6/20/06] Ryan Supported 2005 Budget Resolution Conference Report. Ryan voted for the conference report of the 2005 budget resolution. The resolution made changes to programs for a net savings of $39.7 billion over five years. “The total includes savings of roughly $12.7 billion from student loans program, $1.5 billion from aid to states to enforce child support payments and $4.8 billion from Medicaid. The bill would provide $2.1 billion in hurricane assistance, authorize an additional $1 billion for low-income home energy assistance and provide $7.3 billion to avoid a scheduled Medicare reimbursement cut to physicians. It would phase in, starting Oct. 1, 2007, the repeal of a law that sends anti-dumping trade penalties to aggrieved companies instead of to the U.S. Treasury.” [Roll Call 670, S 1932, 12/19/2005; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/05] Ryan Voted for the 2005 Budget Resolution. In 2005, Ryan voted to make changes to programs for a net savings of $49.9 billion over five years. It would reduce subsidies to lenders of student loans, with a net savings of $14.3 billion. The bill would create $4.9 billion in net savings by reducing aid to states to enforce child support payments. It allowed oil and natural gas leasing and pre-leasing activities for Outer Continental Shelf areas, terminated subsidies for broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, and provided for energy production on a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and established a national mining and minerals policy. The legislation would cut dollars for rural health research and rural emergency medical services, for example, along with money to attract health care professionals to rural areas. The bill repealed a law - commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment - that helps hundreds of US companies harmed by unfair trade practices. It also cut $11.4 billion from Medicaid over five years. The bulk of the cuts - nearly $8 billion - would fall directly on patients through higher co-pays, premiums and other provisions that cut benefits or delayed access to Medicaid coverage. The bill passed 217-215. [Roll Call 601, H 4241, 11/18/2005; Congressional Quarterly, Bill Analysis, S 1932, 11/18/05] Ryan Voted for Republican Fiscal 2006 Budget. On March 17, 2005, Ryan voted for the concurrent resolution that would allow up to $843 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2006, plus $50 billion for operations in Iraq. It would call for mandatory spending cuts of $68.6 billion over five years and tax cuts totaling $106 billion over five years, $45 billion of it protected by reconciliation rules. Defense spending would increase by 4 percent over fiscal 2005, to $439 billion, and nondefense spending would be cut by 1 percent, to $404 billion. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “GOP leaders steered companion fiscal 2006 congressional budget resolutions through the House and Senate on March 17. […] The House budget provides for $69 billion in cuts to mandatory programs over five years. […] Both budgets are aimed at endorsing Bush’s goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. Democrats stress, however, that the plans do not account for major big-ticket items, including the long-term costs of military action in Iraq and Afghanistan or the cost of modifying the alternative minimum tax, which will hit 30 million tax filers by 2010 if it’s not changed. Even some Republicans acknowledge that one of the centerpieces of their budgets -- a 1 percent cut in domestic appropriations other than homeland security that would essentially be frozen at that level for four more years -- may prove impossible to carry out, especially in the later years of the plan.” [Roll Call 88, S 95, 03/17/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 3/19/05] Ryan Voted for $6.5 Billion in Additional Spending. On July 20, 2001, Ryan voted for the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001. Specifically, the bill would approve $6.5 billion dollars in supplemental appropriations, mostly for defense. According to the New York Times, “Under the bill, the Pentagon will receive $5.6 billion of the new spending this year, for fuel, health care and housing, among other expenses. About $44 million is to go to repair the U.S.S. Cole, the destroyer badly damaged by a terrorist attack in Yemen in October. And $36 million is to go to efforts to recover bodies from a Japanese 84

fishing boat sunk off Hawaii in February in a collision with an American submarine. Lawmakers from both parties warned that the bill did not provide enough money for defense, and that a major natural disaster this summer could force Congress to grant more money to the government’s disaster relief fund. The bill also provided $116 million to enable the Treasury Department to mail the tax-rebate checks Congress authorized when it approved a tax-cut package this spring; $300 million to help low-income families pay heating and energy bills, double Mr. Bush’s request; $100 million for programs to battle AIDS in Africa and other parts of the world; $60 million to law enforcement agencies for costs associated with next year’s Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City; and $5 million for federal inspectors assigned to prevent foot-and-mouth disease and mad cow disease from entering the United States.” [Roll Call 256, H 2216, 07/20/2001; New York Times, 07/21/01] Ryan Voted for Increasing the Commerce, Justice and State Department Budgets; Fees on International Cruises. On July 18, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of an appropriations bill to increase the budget of the Commerce, Justice and State Departments. The bill also included a provision for imposing new fees on international cruises. According to the Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, “The House measure […] would provide about $600 million more than President Bush’s request of $37.9 billion. Under the bill, the Commerce Department would receive $5.19 billion, about 1 percent less than it received last year and $21 million more than Bush’s request. The Justice Department would receive $21.5 billion -- $672 million more than in fiscal 2001 and $623 million more than Bush sought. The State Department would receive $7.7 billion -$837 million more than last year but $94 million less than Bush requested. […] The House bill would impose a $3-perpassenger fee on the cruise lines, but an industry lobbyist said the Senate bill may omit the provision, which would leave the issue for a conference committee to resolve.” [Roll Call 248, H 2500, 07/18/2001; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 07/18/01] Ryan Supported FY 2001 Republican Budget Plan. In 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a Republican budget plan that called for cutting taxes by $150 billion over five years and created a ‘reserve fund’ of $25 billion that could also be used for tax cuts. The budget passed 220-208. [Roll Call 125, S 290, 04/13/2000] Paul Ryan Supported Republican Budget Plan. In 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a Republican budget plan that called for cutting taxes by $150 billion over five years and created a ‘reserve fund’ of $25 billion that could also be used for tax cuts. The budget passed 220-208. [Roll Call 125, S 290, 04/13/2000] Ryan Supported Republican Budget Plan. In 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a Republican budget plan that called for cutting taxes by $150 billion over five years and created a ‘reserve fund’ of $25 billion that could also be used for tax cuts. The budget passed 220-208 [Roll Call 125, S 290, 04/13/2000] Paul Ryan Voted For House Passage Of Budget Resolution That Even Republican Appropriations Chairman Said Provided Too Little Funding. In 2000, Ryan voted for House passage of a budget resolution that would provide $596.5 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2001 – an amount that Appropriations Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) “warned … would be spread too thin over the 13 annual spending measures,” Congressional Quarterly reported. Said Young: “I don’t think it’s realistic.” The budget envisioned tax cuts costing $150 billion over five years, plus an additional $50 billion if the budget surplus exceeded estimates. [Roll Call 75, S 290, 03/24/2000; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor¸3/24/00] 1999: Paul Ryan Voted For A Measure That Provided $1.9 Billion Less Than President Clinton Requested For Foreign Operations. In 1999, Paul Ryan voted in favor of adopting the conference report on the bill that would provide $12.7 billion for foreign operations. The measure provided $1.9 billion less than President Clinton’s request. [Roll Call 480, H 2606, 10/05/1999]

Congressional Pay
Ryan Voted to Freeze Federal Pay. On February 1, 2012, Ryan voted for a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend an existing pay freeze on federal employees for an additional year, through Dec. 31, 2013, and apply the same pay freeze to members of Congress. According to Government Executive, “The House last week passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., that would extend the current federal pay freeze through 2013. It also would apply to members of Congress, which many Democrats have decried as a political ploy to force lawmakers into the uncomfortable position of either voting for a prolonged pay freeze affecting civilian employees or voting against a freeze on their own salaries.” [Roll Call 19, H 3835, 02/01/2012; Government Executive, 2/9/12] 85

Ryan Voted for Stopping Congressional Pay Raise. On April 27, 2010, Ryan voted for the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would block a scheduled 2011 cost-of-living pay increase for members of Congress. According to the Washington Post, “the bill will freeze salaries at levels in effect since January 2009, which are $174,000 for rank-and-file members, $193,400 for the House and Senate majority and minority leaders and the Senate president pro tempore, and $223,500 for the House speaker. Under federal law, lawmakers automatically receive cost-of-living increases each January unless they vote to block them.” [Roll Call 226, H 5146, 04/27/2010; Washington Post 05/06/2010] Ryan Voted Against Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Blocking Automatic COLA Adjustments for Congress. On February 25, 2009, Ryan voted against a bill that would provide $410 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2009 for federal departments and agencies covered by nine unfinished spending bills. The measure incorporates the following previously separate appropriations bills from the 110th Congress: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; Energy-Water; Financial Services; Interior-Environment; Labor-HHS-Education; Legislative Branch; State-Foreign Operations; and TransportationHUD. Furthermore, the bill would block automatic cost-of-living adjustments for members of Congress in 2010. [Roll Call 86, H 1105, 02/25/2009] Ryan Voted for Fiscal 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Increase in Government Pay. On December 19, 2007, Ryan voted for the fiscal 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The bill would provide $473.5 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2008 for all federal departments and agencies whose regular fiscal 2008 spending bills have not been enacted. The measure incorporates 11 previously separate appropriations bills: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; Energy-Water; Financial Services; Homeland Security; Interior-Environment; Labor-HHS-Education; Legislative Branch; Military Construction-VA; State-Foreign Operations; and Transportation-HUD. Furthermore, the legislation would provide a 3.5 percent average pay adjustment for federal civilian employees, including Members of Congress. [Roll Call 1186, H 2764, 12/19/2007] Ryan Voted Against Legislative Appropriations Bill. On July 18, 2002, Ryan voted against a $2.7 billion dollar legislative appropriations bill. Specifically, the bill would fund House operations, including staff salaries and expenses, plus congressional agencies such as the Library of Congress, Botanic Gardens and the General Accounting Office. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “The $2.7 billion bill (HR 5121) would increase funding for the U.S. Capitol Police and provide improved benefits for House staff members. Many police officers have quit in recent months for higher-paying jobs with other federal law enforcement agencies, and the extra money is aimed at recruiting and retaining officers. The bill also calls for up to $10,000 per year for tuition reimbursement for officers and recruits in exchange for at least three years of service on the force. […]For House staff members, in addition to the 4.1 percent COLA, the bill calls for increasing public transportation subsidies and implementing a student loan repayment plan. […]Overall, the bill would increase spending on the force to $219 million, a $62 million increase over this year. [Roll Call 321, H 5121, 07/18/2002; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 07/18/02] Ryan Voted Against Across-the-Board Cuts Excluding Congressional Pay Raise. On November 18, 1999, Ryan voted against a conference report on a bill to provide almost $385 billion in new budget authority for those Cabinet departments and federal agencies whose fiscal 2000 appropriations bills were never enacted. The measure incorporates five previously separate appropriations bills: Labor-HHS-Education, Commerce-Justice-State, Interior, Foreign Operations, and District of Columbia. In addition, the conference report contains an across-the-board spending cut of 0.38 percent, although the administration would be permitted to spare certain accounts by making larger cuts in other accounts. Although this legislation called for across-the-board rescission in discretionary spending, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the bill did not contain language to reduce the pay of Members of Congress. Therefore, members would receive their scheduled January 1st annual pay adjustment of 3.4 percent. [Roll Call 610, H 3194, 11/18/1999; CRS Report: Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2010, 2/9/11] Ryan Voted for Conference Report on Spending Bill that Made Across the Board Cuts, Reducing Congress’ Pay by 0.97 Percent. On October 28, 1999, Ryan voted for the conference report on H.R. 3064, a bill to fund District of Columbia, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations in fiscal year 2000, which would make an across-the-board cut of 0.97 percent to the agencies it funded. The bill included language reducing the scheduled 3.4 percent member pay adjustment by 0.97 percent. However, this bill was vetoed by the President because of the damage he said the spending cuts would inflict on schools and other programs, therefore allowing Congress to receive their annual pay raise. [Roll Call 549, H 3064, 10/28/1999; CRS Report: Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2010, 2/9/11] Ryan Voted to Cut House Members’ Allowances and Library of Congress Funding While Increasing House Leaders’ Budgets. Ryan voted for a legislative appropriations bill that, according to the Washington Times, would shrink the 86

“House’s operation budget for the year 2000 while authorizing House leaders to fatten theirs.” “The House voted 214-197 to spend $2.4 billion on congressional operations in 2000, roughly 7 percent less than in 1999... As a result of the last-minute cut, a proposed increase for House members’ allowances was eliminated. So was spending on the Capitol grounds. It was cut 30 percent. And the entire $5.4 million budget for furniture and furnishings at the Library of Congress will be zeroed out. Nonetheless, funding for House Democratic and Republican leadership offices will rise 7 percent.” [Roll Call 203, H 1905, 06/10/1999; Washington Times, 6/12/99]

Cut, Cap, and Balance
Ryan Voted for “Cut, Cap, Balance” Legislation, Forcing Deep Cuts to Social Security and Medicare. On July 19, 2011, Ryan voted for the “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation that was introduced by House Republicans as a plan to manage the debt ceiling crisis. The legislation would allow the government to raise the debt ceiling, but only after big and immediate spending cuts, a cap on future spending and adoption of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. The plan would cap federal spending at 18 percent of the previous year’s gross domestic product, which marks the first time the federal budget has been under that mark in more than four decades. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cap would “lock in cuts over the next ten years at least as severe as those in the Ryan budget plan that the House passed in April” which, according to Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo, is a “formula for slashing spending at an epic clip, and, invariably, for devastating key safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid”. Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called the [constitutional] amendment “the most irresponsible action imaginable” because the amendment “would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time.” [Roll Call 606, H 2560, 07/19/2011; Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11; CNN Money, 3/29/11; Talking Points Memo, 7/18/11]

Debt Limit Fight
Ryan Said The U.S. Was Headed Toward A Debt Crisis. According to the National Journal’s Hotline, “Ryan warned in a Milwaukee speech April 10 that the U.S. is ‘headed for a debt crisis.’ Ryan: ‘We’re coming into what I would call a tipping point. The more concerning tipping point is a cultural one, where we have more takers than makers in America.’ In his speech, titled ‘A Shining City on a Hill... or Greece?’ Ryan accused Pres. Obama of ‘leading the country toward greater debt, encouraging ‘crony capitalism’ by picking winners and losers, and villainizing his political opponents who propose possible solutions.’ Ryan: ‘We just fundamentally believe we owe the country a choice of two futures’ (Spicuzza, Wisconsin State Journal, 4/10).” [Hotline, National Journal, 4/6/12] Ryan Voted to Disapprove of President’s Request to Increase the Debt Limit. On January 18, 2012, Ryan voted for the joint resolution that would disapprove of a request by the president for a $1.2 trillion debt limit increase. Current law provides for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit upon certification from the president that the debt is within $100 billion of the debt limit unless a disapproval measure is enacted. According to the Hill, “The House on Wednesday approved a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s request to increase the debt ceiling by another $1.2 trillion, sending it to a Senate that is expected to reject it. The House approved the resolution in a 239-176 vote in which just one Republican voted against it and six Democrats voted for it. But the vote fell far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed for passage if Obama were to veto the resolution. […]Under the deal to raise the debt ceiling last year, Obama has the authority to call for increasing the debt limit by $1.2 trillion. This increase can only be avoided if both the House and Senate pass resolutions of disapproval.” [Roll Call 4, S 98, 01/18/2012; Hill, 1/19/12] Ryan Voted for Bipartisan Debt Ceiling Compromise to Avert Default. On August 1, 2011, Ryan voted for the bipartisan debt ceiling compromise that would raise the debt ceiling and cut spending by $1 trillion. Specifically, the bill would provide for a two-step debt limit increase that would allow the president to raise the debt limit immediately by $900 billion, $500 billion of which would be subject to a resolution of disapproval. It would set discretionary spending caps that would reduce the deficit by approximately $917 billion in fiscal 2012 through 2021 and establish a bipartisan committee to reduce the deficit another $1.5 trillion. If the committee did not create a bill with the required savings, a $1.2 trillion dollar cut would automatically be activated with cuts to programs that each party cares about deeply. Furthermore, the bill requires Congress to 87

vote on a balanced-budget constitutional amendment by the end of 2011, though passage is not required. Finally, the bill would provide for the second debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, depending on whether Congress had passed a balanced-budget constitutional amendment and on the amount of spending cuts recommended by the committee that Congress adopted. [Roll Call 690, S 365, 08/01/2011] Ryan Voted Against Raising the Debt Ceiling. On May 31, 2011, Ryan voted against a motion to increase the statutory limit on the public debt. The Business Insider called it a, “a largely symbolic House vote last night in which Republicans overwhelmingly rejected a $2.4 trillion increase in the nation’s borrowing limit [...] House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP leaders sought to demonstrate that nothing will be done to raise the Treasury’s borrowing authority until Republicans complete negotiations with President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders on a major deficit-reduction package.” [Roll Call 379, H 1954, 05/31/2011; Business Insider, 06/01/2011] Ryan Voted For House Republican 2011 Budget Continuing Resolution. On February 19, 2011, Ryan voted for H.R.1., the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act that would fund the government through September of 2011. House Republicans have made roughly $61.5 billion in cuts which, according to the New York Times, is the largest cuts since just after World War II. The bill would reduce some of the most critical government services and block all funding for Planned Parenthood. It would also ban the use of funds made available in the bill for a variety of executive branch regulatory activities and implementation of several provisions of the health care overhaul law. [Roll Call 147, H 1, 02/19/2011; Washington Post, 2/12/11] Ryan Voted To Cut Spending to 2008 Levels. On January 25, 2011, Ryan voted for a resolution that would reduce spending for the remainder of 2011 to 2008 funding levels. Specifically, the resolution would require the House Budget Committee chairman, when setting a discretionary spending limit for the remainder of fiscal 2011, to assume that “nonsecurity” spending would be at or below the levels provided in fiscal 2008. According to the Hill, this resolution was not technically necessary, since House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has already been given special powers to unilaterally set spending ceilings for the rest of 2011. [Roll Call 20, S 38, 01/25/2011; The Hill, 1/19/11] Ryan Agreed That The Bush Administration Helped Create The Debt Problem. According to a transcript of “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” Ryan was asked, “And let me -- I just want to sort of get factually two things clear. You would agree that the Bush administration added greatly to this deficit and this debt that you are now looking at?” Ryan responded, “I would. Look, both parties messed this up. This is not a Republican created problem or a Democrat created problem, it is both parties. And we’ve got to face up that if we’re going to get this situation under control.” [CNN, “State of the Union with Candy Crowley,” 5/15/11] April 2011: Ryan: “Ultimately, The Debt Ceiling Will Be Raised.” According to a transcript of “Surveillance Monday,” Ryan was asked, “Speaking of debt crisis, you had at least one of your town hall participants yesterday say, Congressman Ryan, whatever you do, don’t raise the debt ceiling… I notice you didn’t’ give them an affirmative answer.” Ryan responded, “Well, no, I said, look, ultimately, the debt ceiling will be raised. The question is will it be raised as a rubber stamp, which we don’t agree with. Or will we have an accompanying it real fiscal controls? So I tried to explain to people the consequences of default, what the debt ceiling means and why, how it represents spending that has already taken place.” [Bloomberg, “Surveillance Monday,” 4/29/11] Ryan Voted for Boehner Debt Ceiling Plan. On July 29, 2011, Ryan voted for the plan introduced by Speaker Boehner to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. According to the Hill, “the legislation authorizes $900 billion in additional borrowing while reducing the deficit by $917 billion over 10 years. The president could request a second increase in the debt ceiling of up to $1.6 trillion upon passage of the balanced-budget amendment and a separate $1.8 trillion deficit reduction package, to be written by a new ‘joint committee of Congress’. Democrats assailed the bill as an unacceptable short-term measure that would prolong economic uncertainly, and they criticized Republicans for pressing ahead with a vote despite Senate opposition at such a late date”. The initial version of Boehner’s bill required only a vote on a balanced budget amendment in the House and Senate, not actual passage. However, according to the Washington Post, Speaker Boehner had to “make changes aimed at appealing to his tea-party influenced right flank” in order to secure enough votes for final passage. [Roll Call 677, S 627, 07/29/2011; The Hill, 7/29/11; Washington Post, 7/28/11] Paul Ryan Voted Against Increasing The Debt Limit to $12.4 Trillion. Ryan voted against a bill that would increase the federal debt limit to $12.4 billion. [Roll Call 988, H 4314, 12/16/2009] 88

Ryan Voted to Raise the Debt Limit to $6.4 Trillion. In 2004, Ryan helped pass the FY 2005 Budget Resolution that spends $174 billion of the Social Security trust fund would pay in part for $55.2 billion in additional tax cuts. The agreement also increased the public debt limit by $690 billion. The measure passed 216-213 [Roll Call 198, S 95, 05/19/2004; CQ House Action Reports, “The Budget Agreement.” 5/19/04; USA Today, 5/20/04] Paul Ryan Voted To Increase Debt Limit By $1 Trillion. In 2003, Ryan voted for the conference report on the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that endorsed up to $550 billion in tax cuts through 2013 and raised the nation’s legal debt limit nearly $1 trillion. Among moderate Republicans, the Associated Press reported, there were “concerns … about burgeoning deficits, projected in the budget to peak at $385 billion next year and then decline gradually and disappear in 2012.” [Roll Call 141, S 95, 04/11/2003; AP, 4/11/03] Paul Ryan Voted For Budget Plan That Added $2.4 Trillion to the Federal Deficit. In 2003, Ryan voted for a budget resolution that added $2.4 trillion in deficits and national debt between 2003 and 2013 while cutting $550 billion in taxes. The amount reflected the impact of the tax cuts, as well as of spending increases for defense, the $400 billion prescription drug benefit and the increase in interest payments resulting from the higher debt. The budget agreement cut domestic funding by $7.2 billion from 2003 levels and by $168 billion over the next decade. The non-binding agreement passed 216-211 [Roll Call 141, S 95, 04/11/2003; Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/17/03; Duluth News Tribune, 4/12/03]

Earmarks
Ryan Praised Boehner For Introducing GOP Moratorium On Earmarks. According to CQ Transcriptions, in an interview with “Fox Business Network,” host David Asman criticized John Boehner saying “…a lot of people look at John Boehner and some of the leaders of the Republican Party and say, Hey, these are the guys that helped build up the government back when Bush was in power.” Ryan replied “Well, first of all, there’s a new generation coming in that is against all of that stuff. And just so you know, John Boehner may have been around for a while, but he was with us in those fights against earmarks. He never took earmarks…Boehner’s not been hurting us from reforming these things. He has not been standing in our way to get this earmark moratorium. We actually don’t do earmarks in the Republican caucus anymore. People might not know that. Do you know why we’re not doing it? Actually, Jeff Flake -- it was his resolution. John Boehner brought this resolution up... and helped us get it through this Congress. So look, you know, give people a chance to have redemption!” [CQ Transcriptions, 7/29/10] Ryan Sign Anti-Earmark Pledge; Said He Wanted To ‘Drain The Earmark Swamp.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville and, so far, eight other members of Congress - all Republicans have signed a new pledge to bring more transparency and accountability to the practice of congressional earmarks, or special funding requests for pet projects. ‘It has become all too clear, with every new media report on abusive, special-interest spending in Washington, that we have to drain the earmark swamp,’ Ryan said. The 10-part pledge would require lawmakers to disclose on their Web sites all requests for earmarks and targeted tax benefits. Lawmakers would be prevented from requesting such special treatment for entities outside their state. And they’d agree to back legislation to ‘end the linkage’ between campaign contributions and earmarks. New rules governing earmarks aren’t strong enough, Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/11/07] Ryan Said Members Should Be Ready To Defend Their Earmarks On The House Floor. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But Republicans waged a successful campaign last week to force Obey to change those plans and include earmarks in most bills at the time of passage. Obey suggested that was a largely meaningless exercise, because efforts to defeat individual earmarks on the House floor have been routinely voted down by members of both parties. But Ryan said that was beside the point. ‘It doesn’t matter whether or not they are (defeated). A member should know when he submits his request that he may have to defend it on the floor,’ said Ryan, who contended such knowledge would make lawmakers think twice about irresponsible requests.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/17/07] Ryan And Russ Feingold Proposed Bill To Allow President To Line Item Veto Earmarks. According to the Capital Times, “Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan have joined forces on legislation that would allow the president to veto so-called ‘earmarks,’ or pork barrel projects, from congressional budget bills. Feingold and Ryan announced plans at a joint news conference Monday at the Oak Creek police station to introduce the legislation. ‘Under our proposal, 89

wasteful spending won’t have anywhere to hide,’ Feingold said. ‘It’s out in the open, so that both the Congress and the president have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they can become law.’ ‘This new level of sunshine, of accountability, of transparency, will do a lot to embarrass a lot of wasteful spending out of these bills in the first place,’ Ryan.” [Capital times (Madison, WI), 4/24/07] Ryan Opposed Appropriations Bill To Provide $500 Million for Wildfire Management. In 2007, Ryan voted against an appropriations bill that provided emergency supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and other functions, including veterans’ health and disaster relief assistances. The funding included $6.4 billion for recovery from hurricanes, $3.7 billion for agricultural assistance programs, $2.5 billion for anti-terrorism efforts of the Homeland Security Department, $1.7 billion for veterans programs, $750 million for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), $500 million for wildfire suppression, and $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The bill also included $2.8 billion to enhance medical services for active duty forces, mobilized personnel and their family members and $1.7 billion for veterans’ health care priorities including maintenance at VA health care facilities like Walter Reed. The measure passed 218212. [Roll Call 186, H 1591, 03/23/2007; CQ House Action Reports, No. 110-3, 3/20/07] 2007: Ryan Praised Democrats For Transparency In Earmark Rule That Banned Earmarks Where Members Had Financial Ties. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Another provision bans trading earmarks for votes and requires members to disclose earmark requests and certify that they have no financial interest in such requests. Obey said some of those changes were helpful, because there were too many earmarks for committees to review them adequately. But they won’t have any impact on reducing overall spending, he said, because earmarks don’t add to the budget; the money for them is just taken out of other funds in the budget. ‘You can cut out a thousand earmarks from a bill, and that will not save one dime,’ Obey said. Ryan praised the Democrats’ earmark reforms, saying they’ll add ‘transparency and accountability’ to spending decisions.” According to the St. Petersburg Times, “Ryan, like many other Republicans, emphasized that he supported the other pieces of the Democratic package, especially the one requiring disclosure of pet projects, which on Capitol Hill are known as earmarks. ‘I think the earmark reforms are very good. They are very commendable. They work,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/6/07; St. Petersburg Times, 1/6/07] Ryan Opposed Earmark Reform. In 2007, Ryan voted against new House rules to reform the process of creating “earmarks” in legislation. The rule required legislation and conference reports to be accompanied by a list of earmarks and limited tax or trade benefits, and their sponsors. Members would have to provide information about the recipient and purpose of an earmark. It also created new budget points of order, including pay-as-you-go rules which would require offsets to any new entitlement spending or tax cuts. The earmark and Pay-As-You-Go reforms passed 280-152 [Roll Call 9, S 6, 01/05/2007] 2004: Ryan Obtained $350,000 In Pork Projects. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan obtained $190,000 for a feasibility study examining dredging the Kenosha Harbor in order to extend its north pier, and $160,000 for a study on ecosystem restoration at Lake Koshkonong, southwest of Fort Atkinson. The second project aims to protect shoreline and restore wetlands surrounding the lake. He also took credit for letting the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension plan use unspent federal funds that would have otherwise expired, an aide said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/28/04]

Entitlement Reform
Ryan Believed That Entitlements Threatened Entrepreneurship. According to the Daily Reporter, “Entrepreneurship, Ryan said, is threatened by the country’s sad state of entitlements - Social Security and Medicare benefits - both inadequate and in need of modernization at a time when they’ll be most needed. ‘The baby boomers are coming,’ he said. ‘How do you make Social Security solvent for the baby boom generation?’” [Daily Reporter, 8/21/01] Ryan Was “Sincere” In His Pursuit For Social Security And Medicare Reform. According to the Associated Press, “He is sincere in his pursuit for Social Security and Medicare reform, and he recently took steps to fix a fuel supply system that may have caused this summer’s spike in gasoline prices. Ryan is popular throughout the district, and he is moving up quickly in Washington’s power structure, securing a place on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.” [Associated Press, 8/6/01]

90

The House Passed A Ryan-Sponsored, Non-Binding Resolution That Would Protect Current And “Soon-To-Be” Retirees From Future Social Security Reforms. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “In a related action, the House overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution by Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan that said benefits for today’s retirees would not be affected by future Social Security reforms. Although not legally binding, the measure, approved 416-1, was a chance for lawmakers in both parties to agree on one sensitive issue: that whatever reforms are passed, present and ‘soon-to-be’ retirees will be held harmless. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) cast the lone no vote.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/3/99]

Federal Pay
Ryan Opposed Proposal To Civil Servants The Same 3.5 Percent Pay Increase As Military Personnel Were Set To Receive Under 2005 Fiscal Plan. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Members recommended, 299 for and 126 against, that civil servants be awarded the same 3.5 percent pay increase in fiscal 2005 that military personnel are to receive. In effect, the non-binding measure urges House appropriators to disregard President Bush's request for a 1.5 percent civilian raise. The Senate has approved 3.5 percent. A yes vote backed a 3.5 percent raise for civil servants.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 4/4/04] Ryan Voted to Allow the GAO to Break Its Link to the Federal Employee Pay System. On June 24, 2004 Ryan voted to “allow the agency to break its link to the federal employee pay system and adopt compensation practices that are more closely tied to job performance and other factors.” The bill “caused concern for some of the GAO’s 3,200 employees, in part because it raises the possibility that some employees, because of job status or where salary lines get drawn, might not receive the standard general pay increase that Congress provides to federal employees each year.” The bill passed 382-43. [Roll Call 28, H 2751, 02/25/2004; Washington Post, 7/12/04] Ryan Voted in Favor of 17.1 Billion Dollar Treasury-Postal Budget, 4.6% Raises for Federal Employees. On October 31, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the $17.1 Billion Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. According to the Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, the bill “would appropriate $387.6 million more than the administration’s request, including funding for the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the White House. It does not include structural spending changes that would have given the president more power over his executive office spending by consolidating 18 accounts into one. […] Conferees also dropped a provision of the Housepassed version that would have prohibited the use of funds to enforce restrictions on American tourist travel to Cuba. The Bush administration opposed the provision, and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 put added pressure on the conferees to eliminate it. […]The measure includes a 4.6 percent pay increase for civilian federal employees.” [Roll Call 413, H 2590, 10/31/2001]

Federal Surplus
When It Came To The Projected 2000-2010 Federal Surplus Should Be Spent On Social Security Solvency And Target Tax Cuts Such As An Estate Tax Cut, A Cut In The Capital Gains Tax, And An Expansion Of The Roth IRA. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said he had read the Republican leadership’s tax packet but did not take it home with him. He said he had not been promoting tax cuts. But, he said, ‘everybody is reading about these surpluses and asking about them. As soon as they find out there’s a new surplus -- an income tax surplus -- in addition to Social Security, most people want their money back.’ When they talk tax cuts, the Wisconsin Republicans are mostly on the same page, with some variations. It goes like this: First, make certain Social Security is solvent and protected, which also will help reduce the national debt. Then work toward specific tax cuts, such as: Elimination of the so-called marriage penalty, which results in married couples paying higher taxes than if they filed separately. Reduction of estate taxes to enable taxpayers to pass more wealth to their heirs. A cut in capital gains taxes. Modest across-the-board reductions in federal income taxes. Some also favor other specific targeted tax relief. For example, Petri said he was attracted to providing a tax deduction or credit to taxpayers to care for an elderly or incapacitated parent or other relative in their homes. ‘I think that’s something that would help an awful lot of people,’ he said. Ryan said he also favored an expansion of the Roth IRA to encourage savings for retirement, health care and education. But he said reforms should be done only in the context of simplifying the tax code. Ryan also said he 91

supported indexing capital gains taxes. But Sensenbrenner said he would not favor that until the rates were lowered.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/9/99] Ryan Said That Clinton’s Proposal To Deal With The Federal Surplus Sounded Like A “New Entitlement Program.” According to the Capital Times “Wisconsin Democrats Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. Tammy Baldwin greeted President Clinton’s State of the Union address Tuesday night with guarded optimism, while Republican Rep. Paul Ryan expressed guarded criticism. Clinton’s remedy for Social Security, his radical education funding reform and his proposal to boost defense spending were chief among their concerns -- and their plaudits. The president proposed that 60 percent of the federal budget surplus, estimated to reach $4 trillion in the next 15 years, be committed to Social Security and ‘a small portion of it’ be invested in the private sector. One out of each $ 6 in the surplus would go to Medicare. Additional money would fund new retirement savings accounts, akin to the 401(k) plans offered by some employers… Ryan, R-Janesville, said he also would review the president’s plans, but his first reaction was that the plan ‘sounds like a new entitlement program.’ ‘To me, Social Security payroll taxes should go to Social Security, period. But I didn’t hear that tonight,’ he said. His ‘biggest concern is we’re going to continue to take payroll receipts and spend’ them on other government programs.” [Capital Times, 1/20/99]

Government Shutdown
Ryan Voted For “Government Shutdown Prevention Act”, Forcing GOP House-Passed Cuts to Become Law if Senate Does Not Approve a Plan Before Shutdown. On April 01, 2011, Ryan voted for the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. The Los Angeles Times reported that it is a “largely symbolic bill that would declare the $61-billion Housepassed cuts the ‘law of the land’ if the Senate did not pass its own legislation by Wednesday”, before the government is scheduled to shut down. “Democrats mocked Republicans for a bill attempting to bring back to life legislation that had already been soundly rejected by the Senate and carried no presidential signature.” The Kalamazoo Gazette reported that “after several questions about this proposal, [Majority Leader] Cantor admitted that for his schedule to work, the Senate would first have to agree to surrender its constitutional authority.” The legislation would also prevent lawmakers and the president from being paid for the duration of any government shutdown that lasts more than 24 hours. [Roll Call 224, H 1255, 04/01/2011; Kalamazoo Gazette, 4/3/11; Los Angeles Times, 4/2/11] Ryan Said He Would Forgo Compensation If The Federal Government Was Shut Down To Ensure Funding For U.S. Military Personnel. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “As negotiations continue to avert a possible ‘government shutdown’ from occurring at mid-night, First District Congressman Paul Ryan sent a letter to the House Chief Administrative Officer, Dan Strodel, making clear his desire to forgo compensation if Congress does not provide funding to pay for U.S. military personnel during a shutdown. Congressman Ryan said: ‘Members of our military who are bravely serving in combat, abroad or here at home should not have to worry about whether their families are able to pay their bills on time as a result of a government shutdown.’ ‘I do not wish to receive compensation if our troops who are serving are not being paid. I voted in favor to withhold the compensation of Members of Congress in the event of a lapse of appropriation but this legislation is still pending action in the Senate. As a result, should a lapse of appropriations occur, I am requesting that you hold my compensation until funds are appropriated for uninterrupted compensation for the men and women in our armed forces.’” [Congressional Documents And Publications, 4/8/11] Ryan Pledged To Donate Compensation He Received During A Government Shutdown To Military Support Organization “Fisher House.” According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “Congressman Ryan has also pledged to donate compensation received during a shutdown to the Fisher House, which supports America’s military in their time of need. The letter from Congressman Ryan comes just one day after the House passed H.R. 1363, which would fund the Department of Defense for the rest of the Fiscal Year and keep the rest of the federal government operational for another week, saving taxpayers $12 billion.” [Congressional Documents And Publications, 4/8/11] Ryan Voted Against Funding the Government, Avoiding Costly Shutdown. On December 21, 2010, Ryan voted against motion to concur in the Senate amendment that would continue most appropriations at fiscal 2010-enacted levels through March 4, 2011. The measure would provide an overall annualized spending rate that is $1.16 billion more than fiscal 2010 levels. It would provide additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Pell grants. It also would allow the awarding of a Navy contract for shipbuilding of Littoral Combat Ships to multiple suppliers. [Roll Call 662, H 3082, 12/21/2010] 92

Ryan Voted for $459 Billion in Defense Spending and a Continuing Resolution to Keep the Government Operating. On November 8, 2007, Ryan voted to adopt the conference report of a $459.3 billion defense appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “Overall, the Defense bill conference report would grant the Pentagon $459.3 billion in discretionary funding -- $3.5 billion less than Bush’s request and $39.7 billion, or 9.5 percent, more than in fiscal 2007. Although most Iraq-related provisions were left for ‘bridge’ fund legislation, which is likely to be considered this week, the Defense conference report does include House-proposed policy provisions barring the use of torture and permanent bases in Iraq. The conferees made several compromises on weapons systems, essentially splitting the differences between the two chambers. And they agreed to add billions for military health care and pay and National Guard and reserve equipment.” Congressional Quarterly Today reported, “The continuing resolution that Congress cleared Thursday night for President Bush would keep most of the government funded at current levels through Dec. 14. But a few programs would fare better. Among them are veterans’ programs, the Census Bureau, disaster relief, wildfire suppression and Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. The CR was attached to the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill (HR 3222), which the Senate passed by voice vote shortly before midnight. It would supplant a stopgap funding measure (PL 110-92) that expires Nov. 16.” [Roll Call 1064, H 3222, 11/08/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/09/07; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 11/10/07]

International Debt Relief
2000: Paul Ryan Voted Against Debt Relief For Poor Countries. In 2000, during debate over the fiscal 2001 foreign appropriations bill, Paul Ryan voted against increasing the U.S. contribution to a multilateral fund that would forgive some of the debts that poor countries owe to international financial institutions. Congressional Quarterly called the vote “drawn-out” and “dramatic,” reporting that it was the most significant of several votes that would bolster the Clinton White House’s negotiating position during subsequent budget debates. The vote was on a Waters (D-CA) amendment, which Paul Ryan voted against, to the fiscal 2001 foreign appropriations bill. [Roll Call 397, H 4811, 07/13/2000; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 7/14/00]

Local Projects
Ryan Approved St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “Earlier today, Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan joined a bipartisan majority in approving S. 1134, the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act. This legislation, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 339-80, allows Wisconsin and Minnesota to proceed with the construction of a new bridge over the St. Croix River and addresses a major regional transportation priority. Following the passage of S. 1134, Congressman Ryan offered the following statement: ‘I was grateful to join members of the Wisconsin Congressional delegation in supporting S. 1134, which authorizes Wisconsin and Minnesota to make a much needed upgrade to their transportation systems. This project is supported by both states’ Governors and Senators and funds have already been set aside for the bridge’s construction. States should have the ability to decide how their transportation dollars are spent and Congress was right to prevent this project from being delayed further due to unnecessary litigation and an expansive reading of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.’” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 3/1/12]

Spending
Ryan Voted to Take Automatic Inflation Increases Out of Budgeting Process. On February 3, 2012, Ryan voted for a bill that would amend current law governing the development of budget baselines to remove the assumption that discretionary spending will increase each year by the level of inflation. It would require the Congressional Budget Office to prepare an annual alternative baseline that shows the projected spending, revenue, deficits and debt that would occur if current tax policy was maintained. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House on Friday voted in favor of changing how the Congressional Budget Office calculates its spending projections, the second of 10 Republican proposals aimed at overhauling the budget process. The chamber voted 235-177 to pass a bill (HR 3578) that would stop the CBO from incorporating inflation increases into its projected spending baselines. […] Ryan, R-Wis., said that taking automatic inflation increases out of the equation would remove the ‘pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline we use as a starting point in federal budgeting.’ […] Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the Budget panel’s top Democrat, countered that changing the 93

formulation for the spending baseline would create a ‘very misleading picture’ about goods and services purchased with government dollars. […] The bill also would require CBO to submit to Congress a ‘long-term budget outlook’ by July 1 of each fiscal year for the next 40 years instead of the next 30, as originally drafted. His measure also would require CBO to report an alternative baseline projection assuming the extensions of current tax policies.” [Roll Call 32, H 3578, 02/03/2012; Congressional Quarterly Today, 2/3/12] Ryan Voted for the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. On May 10, 2012, Ryan voted for a bill that would replace previously negotiated defense spending reductions with other offsets. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House on Thursday passed the GOP’s plan to protect the Pentagon from deep automatic spending cuts early next year by putting in place new reductions to a host of social programs, including health care and food stamps. The bill (HR 5652) would cancel $98 billion in automatic cuts to discretionary funding set to take effect in January 2013, including $55 billion in cuts to the military, in order to prevent those Pentagon reductions and allow for even higher defense spending. It would replace those automatic cuts, known as a sequester, with a $19 billion cut in the discretionary cap for fiscal 2013 and with ‘reconciliation’ savings recommended by six House committees that would pare more than $310 billion over a decade from mandatory spending, including Medicaid and programs for the poor […]During the House floor debate, Democrats highlighted that the bill would cut nearly $34 billion in spending over the next 10 years on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and save $16.7 billion over that same period by repealing the Social Services Block Grant. The bill also would eliminate a separate cap on defense spending for fiscal 2013 to allow for higher spending levels. It would make cuts to mandatory spending on Medicaid, limit court awards in cases of medical malpractice claims and repeal part of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul (PL 111-203). It also would require federal employees to contribute more of their salaries to their retirement pensions. The bill would make changes to child tax credit programs. Democrats wanted to present an alternative plan that included provisions to place limitations on certain tax cuts for oil and gas companies, eliminate direct crop payments to farmers and set a minimum tax rate for millionaires. But the House Rules panel rejected the proposal Wednesday under the chamber’s ‘cut-go’ rule, which the GOP majority instituted at the beginning of this Congress. The rule requires that any new spending program be paid for by eliminating an existing program of equal or greater value.” [Roll Call 247, H 5652, 05/10/2012] Ryan Voted to Grant President Expedited Rescission Authority. On February 8, 2012, Ryan voted for the bill that would grant the president expedited rescission authority over discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills, which would be subject to an expedited up-or-down vote in Congress. Proposed rescissions would take effect only if Congress passes, and the president signs, a measure specifically approving the spending cuts. The expedited authority would expire Dec. 15, 2015. According to the Hill, “The House on Wednesday approved legislation that would allow Congress to quickly consider budget rescission recommendations made by the president, a proposal that many Republicans and Democrats said could help reduce the budget deficit. Members approved the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, H.R. 3521, by a 254-173 vote. The bill split both parties considerably, but support from most Republicans and several dozen Democrats allowed it to pass by a healthy margin. […] The bill differs from the line-item veto authority that President Clinton had in the mid- to late 1990s, which he could use to veto specific spending proposals within an overall bill. The Supreme Court found that power unconstitutional because it gave the executive branch the power of the purse, which belongs to Congress. The bill approved today would allow the president to make rescission recommendations, within 45 days of passage, which have to be acted on by Congress.” [Roll Call 46, H 3521, 02/08/2012; Hill, 2/9/12] Ryan Voted for Fiscal 2012 “Minibus” Spending Measure. On December 16, 2011, Ryan voted for the conference report on the bill that would provide approximately $915 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal 2012. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House completed its fiscal 2012 appropriations work, adopting the conference report for a $915 billion ‘megabus’ spending measure Friday night. Current fiscal 2012 spending authority (PL 112-55) was set to expire at midnight Friday. […] The ‘megabus’ conference report, signed late Thursday night, largely mirrors the text of the House Republican bill (HR 3671). It includes the text of the conference agreement on the Military Construction-VA bill and eight other spending measures: Defense, Energy-Water, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, LaborHHS-Education, Legislative Branch and State-Foreign Operations. […] The law provides $128 billion in discretionary spending for those programs and also includes $2.3 billion in emergency disaster relief that is exempt from the discretionary cap. The spending bill would provide $95 billion less in discretionary spending compared to fiscal 2010 levels.” [Roll Call 941, H 2055, 12/16/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/16/11] Ryan Voted Against A Conference Report On A Fiscal 2012 Spending Package. On November 17, 2011, Ryan voted against a conference report on a fiscal 2012 spending package. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The Senate cleared a conference report on a fiscal 2012 spending package Thursday, sending it for President Obama’s expected signature. 94

The ‘minibus’ (HR 2112 -- H Rept 112-284) contains three of the usual 12 annual appropriations bills: Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science and Transportation-HUD. The measure also includes a continuing resolution that would keep programs not funded by the legislation operating through Dec. 16 at current levels. Under the current stopgap (PL 112-36), funding for government programs is set to expire at midnight Friday. The House voted 298-121 to adopt the conference report on the package Thursday afternoon. …In total, the spending package would provide $128.1 billion in discretionary funding subject to the $1.043 trillion cap established in the Budget Control Act (PL 112-25) and an additional $2.3 billion for emergency relief activities not subject to the cap. It would provide $19.8 billion in regular discretionary funding for Agriculture programs, down $391 million from fiscal 2011; $52.7 billion for the Commerce and Justice departments and for science activities, a reduction of $387 million; and $55.6 billion for Transportation-HUD, up $183 million.” [Roll Call 857, H 2112, 11/17/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/17/2011] Ryan Voted for the Fiscal 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill. On July 22, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would provide $3.33 billion for legislative branch operations, excluding Senate operations, in fiscal 2012. The total would include $1.23 billion for House operations, $575.3 million for the Library of Congress, $511.3 million for the Government Accountability Office, $489.6 million for the Architect of the Capitol, and $340.1 million for the Capitol Police. The bill would provide $5.8 million for a transition quarter, from Sept. 30, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2012, to allow leadership offices to operate according to the sessions of Congress, similar to member offices. According to Politico, attached to the bill were two amendments, “An amendment from Democratic Reps. Jim Moran of Virginia and Peter Welch of Vermont would bar funds for polystyrene containers in the various House cafeterias,” and “an amendment that would prevent Congress from screwing in compact fluorescent light bulbs.” [Roll Call 629, H 2551, 07/22/2011; Washington Post 07/20/2011] Ryan Voted For a $1 Trillion Discretionary Funding Bill that Would Finance the Federal Government Through the Second Half of Fiscal year 2011. On April 14, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would provide $1.055 trillion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2011, $39.9 billion less than fiscal 2010 spending. The bill contains a full Defense Department spending bill that would appropriate $513 billion for fiscal 2011, plus $157.8 billion for overseas operations. According to the Star Ledger, it is “a bill to fund the government for the remaining five-plus months of fiscal 2011 at an annualized level of $1.365 trillion. The figure applies to discretionary spending but not to entitlement programs or interest payments on the national debt, which account for the remainder of the $3.7 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.” [Roll Call 268, H 1473, 04/14/2011; Star Ledger 4/17/2011] Ryan Voted in Favor of Stopgap Measure that Cut $12 Billion. On April 7, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of a stopgap appropriations bill to keep the government running for another week and fund military operations. The bill came amid intense debate over a budget and a looming government shutdown. According to USA Today, “House Republicans passed a bill Thursday to keep the government running for another week and fund military operations through September. It would cut $12 billion. Senate Democrats immediately denounced the proposal, and Obama promised to veto it, calling it a distraction from negotiations.” [Roll Call 247, H 1363, 04/07/2011; USA Today, 04/08/11] Ryan Voted in Favor of Stopgap Spending Bill that Cut Six Billion Dollars. On March 15, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of a stopgap appropriations bill that cut spending by six billion dollars. According to the New York Times, “The House gave grudging approval on Tuesday to a plan to finance the federal government for three more weeks, even as dozens of Republicans broke with their leadership and opposed the stopgap legislation. Congressional leaders said the measure, which imposes $6 billion in new spending cuts, would avert a government shutdown while giving Republicans and Democrats until April 8 to conclude a more sweeping budget deal to finance the government through Sept. 30. […] The short-term measure saves $3.5 billion by eliminating 25 programs, including some the Obama administration had already proposed to end on its own. More than $2 billion is saved by reclaiming money set aside for local projects that will not be financed because of the Congressional ban on earmarks.” [Roll Call 179, S 48, 03/15/2011; New York Times, 03/16/11] Ryan Voted for Continuing Appropriations for FY 2011. On March 01, 2011, Ryan voted for passage of the joint resolution that would provide continuing appropriations through March 18, 2011, for all government agencies and programs. Most spending levels would be based on fiscal 2010 levels, less certain eliminations and reductions totaling $4 billion. It would eliminate funding for earmarks that were included under the continuing appropriations law expiring March 4. [Roll Call 154, S 44, 03/01/2011] Ryan Voted to Block Periodic Pay Increases for Federal Employees. On February 19, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the bill to fund periodic pay increases for federal employees on 95

the GSA schedule. This amendment was offered to GOP-introduced legislation funding the federal government through 2011 that would cut domestic spending programs by $61 billion. [Roll Call 133, H 1, 02/19/2011] Ryan Voted to Bar Defense Department Sponsorship of NASCAR. On February 18, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the bill for Defense Department sponsorship of NASCAR race cars. [Roll Call 90, H 1, 02/18/2011] Ryan Voted to Defund the U.S. Institute of Peace. On February 17, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would cut funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, the House, “approved a Democratic proposal to cut funding for the United States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonpartisan research institute funded by the government.” [Roll Call 76, H 1, 02/17/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 02/17/2011] Paul Ryan Voted Against Instituting Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Rules. Paul Ryan voted against a division of a motion to concur with a the Senate amendment to a joint resolution that would establish a statutory requirement that new tax and mandatory spending legislation be budget neutral, enforced by automatic across-the-board spending cuts in non-exempt programs if the pay-as-you-go tally at the end of the year shows a deficit. [Roll Call 48, S 45, 02/04/2010] Ryan Voted Against 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. On February 25, 2009, Ryan voted against an omnibus appropriations bill packed with earmarks. According to the New York Times, “The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike. […] The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October. […] The legislation includes nine of the regular appropriations bills for this fiscal year. Unable to reach agreement with President George W. Bush last year, Congress provided most domestic agencies and programs with a short-term infusion of cash, which runs out at the end of next week. […] The bill increases budgets for the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, among others. Over all, it provides $19 billion more than Mr. Bush requested for the same agencies and $31 billion more than what they got in the last fiscal year. […] Democrats boasted that they had not included earmarks in the economic stimulus bill, but lawmakers of both parties relished the opportunity to stuff the new bill with pet projects. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, counted more than 8,500 ‘Congressionally designated projects’ in the bill and said the cost of these earmarks totaled $7.7 billion, up 3.4 percent from last year.” [Roll Call 86, H 1105, 02/25/2009; New York Times, 02/26/09] Ryan Voted for Supplemental Appropriations. On June 19, 2008, Ryan voted for the Obey, D-Wis., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment with an additional amendment. The House amendment would appropriate $21.1 billion for domestic programs, including $2.7 billion for disaster relief in the Midwest and $5.8 billion for fiscal 2009 to rebuild levees in Louisiana. It would provide for a permanent expansion of education benefits for post-Sept. 11 veterans and cut $3.6 billion from funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to fund domestic programs. It also would temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits and place a moratorium through March 2009 on six Medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. The amendment would require the Iraqi government to match reconstruction aid and prohibit establishing a permanent base in Iraq. It would provide $4.6 billion for military construction. National Journal’s CongressDaily reported that “the war supplemental is the result of an agreement worked out between House Democratic and Republican leaders and the White House. The legislation is composed of two amendments. The first would provide $161.8 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cover the rest of FY08 and the first part of FY09. The second amendment -- which focuses more on initiatives not directly related to the wars -- includes a boost in veterans’ education benefits that can be transferred to spouses and children, but would not be offset. The cost is estimated at $62.8 billion over 11 years.” [Roll Call 432, H 2642, 06/19/2008; National Journal’s CongressDaily 6/25/08] Ryan Voted for $473.5 Billion in Discretionary Spending. On December 19, 2007, Ryan voted for $473.5 billion in discretionary spending. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “The fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill (HR 2764) that Congress cleared Dec. 19 would provide $473.5 billion in discretionary money spread across 11 of the 12 regular spending bills for the year. The measure would also provide an additional $11.2 billion in emergency appropriations, which would be exempt from budgetary caps. A portion is intended for veterans’ benefits and could be released only if the president formally requested it. The bill would also provide $70 billion in supplemental spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, matching a request from President Bush.” [Roll Call 1186, H 2764, 12/19/2007] Ryan Voted Against $473.5 Billion in Discretionary Spending. On December 17, 2007 Ryan voted against providing $473.5 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2008 for all federal departments and agencies whose regular fiscal 2008 96

spending bills have not been enacted. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “the bill would provide $473.5 billion for the 11 remaining spending bills; $11.2 billion in emergency funding for such things as veterans’ programs, border security and drought relief; and $70 billion in emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The emergency funding does not count against spending caps and is meant to be for one-time emergencies. Both parties, however, have used this funding for priorities they do not want to squeeze into their budget plans. Funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has consistently been approved as emergency spending.” [Roll Call 1171, H 2764, 12/17/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/19/07] Ryan Voted Against Fiscal 2008 Budget Resolution. On May 5, 2007, Ryan voted against the adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended, that would allow up to $955.8 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2008. According to the Washington Post, “the conference report on a five-year Democratic budget that for 2008 projects $2.9 trillion in spending, a $252 billion deficit, a national debt of $9.5 trillion and debt-service payments of at least $250 billion. The fiscal blueprint provides full funding of President Bush’s defense and national security requests, including $145 billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and authorizes $452.3 billion for non-defense discretionary spending, about $23 billion more than the president had requested.” [Roll Call 307, S 21, 05/08/2007; Washington Post 05/20/2007] Ryan Promised Cuts ‘Everywhere’ As Soon As He Was Chosen To Be Top Republican On Budget Committee. According to the Associated Press, “Ryan said he’d like to see spending cuts ‘everywhere,’ but declined to spell out specific targets. ‘We need to be serious about tightening our belt,’ he said.” [Associated Press, 12/8/06] Ryan Voted for Funding the Legislative Branch for 2007. On June 7, 2006, Ryan voted for passage of the Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the House version of the 2007 spending bill would provide $46 million for the visitor center next year, and it would provide the architect with an overall budget of $363 million, up from $358 million -- a scant 1.5 percent increase. The measure also would provide an increase of 5 percent, to $259 million, for the Capitol Police...But the fiscal 2007 spending bill (HR 5521), which includes funding for House operations and congressional agencies, would eliminate the architect’s office and transfer its duties to the Government Accountability Office, thanks to a provision inserted by Obey. The Obey provision was added to the bill because of concerns among lawmakers and others that complaints of mismanagement were being ignored by the architect’s office. As evidence, they cite the growing cost and slipping completion date of the Capitol Visitor Center, which now totals $556 million and will not open until April or May of 2007. The spending bill also would establish an inspector general to audit and report semi-annually on management and operation issues related to the architect’s office.” [Roll Call 229, H 5521, 06/07/2006; Congressional Quarterly, 06/07/06.] Ryan Voted for $175,000 Study on Whether to Improve Dental Benefits for House Members. In July 2004, Ryan voted for the FY 2005 the Legislative Branch appropriations, included in which was an in-house study – estimated to $175,000 according to the AP – on whether to improve the dental, vision, and hearing benefits available to House members and their aides. The vote succeeded, 327-43. [Roll Call 362, H 4755, 07/12/2004; AP, 7/12/04] Ryan Voted for $2.75 Billion FY 2005 Legislative Branch Appropriations. In July 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would appropriate $2.75 billion in fiscal 2005 for legislative branch operations, excluding funds for Senate operations. It would include $1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives, $272 million for the Architect of the Capitol and $121 million for the Government Printing Office. The vote succeeded, 327-43. [Roll Call 362, H 4755, 07/12/2004] Ryan Introduced Family Budget Protection Act In An Effort To Cap Federal Spending. According to the Chicago SunTimes, “A specter is haunting the House of Representatives -- the specter of reforming the flawed budget process. Rep. Paul Ryan, a 34-year-old third-term Republican from Janesville, Wis., is advocating an entirely new congressional system intended to put a serious lid on runaway federal spending. […]On Feb. 9, Ryan introduced the Family Budget Protection Act (a total rewrite of the 1974 act despite its corny nomenclature) as a major project of the Republican Study Committee. His cosponsors are two freshmen: Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Chris Chocola of Indiana. […]Ryan's bill would set rigid spending caps, permitting growth only to the extent of inflation. It would allow money saved by pork elimination to come out of the federal budget altogether -- a change from the current practice under which killing $50 million for the infamous indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa, for example, would merely transfer that money to other accounts for appropriators to spend. The elimination of "baseline budgeting" would end the ridiculous practice” [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/6/04] Ryan Voted To Cut $170 Million In Discretionary Spending From 2004 Agricultural Appropriations Bill. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 68 for and 333 against, the House on July 14 refused to trim discretionary spending in the fiscal 2004 agricultural appropriations bill (HR 2673) by 1 percent, or $170 million. This preserved a spending level of $17 97

billion for non-entitlement farm programs and agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration. The bill's total cost, which reflects entitlement payments such as for crop subsidies and Food Stamps, is $77.4 billion, up 3.6 percent over 2003. A yes vote backed the budget cut.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Supported Across The Board $194 Million Cut To Funding For The Department Of The Interior And Other Agencies. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 81 for and 341 against, the House on July 17 refused to cut the fiscal 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and other agencies (HR 2691) by 1 percent, or $194 million. This preserved more than $19 billion in the bill for the budget year beginning in October. The bill awaits Senate action. A yes vote backed the across-the-board cut.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Voted to Circumvent 1997 Balanced Budget Law to Fund 2000 Census at Level Requested by Clinton Administration. Ryan Voted for the conference report of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. According to CQ, “the measure provides all the funds requested by the administration for the 2000 census, and places no restrictions on the use of the funds. The measure would declare the $4.5 billion in census funding to be “emergency” funds that do not count against the budget caps set by the 1997 balanced budget law.” [Roll Call 518, H 2670, 10/20/1999; Congressional Quarterly, 10/20/99]

CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING
Ryan’s Congressional Office Spent $894,376 In 2000, The Wisconsin Average Was $856,355. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “OFFICIAL EXPENSES Personnel compensation and mail to constituents are two components of the cost of Wisconsin’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives... Ryan 894,376… Average $856,355.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/27/01]

Spending Criticism
Ryan Created “Budget Boondoggle” Award To Highlight What He Considered Wasteful Spending. According to the Associated Press, “Congressman Paul Ryan and other Republican lawmakers have unveiled their version of the late Sen. William Proxmire’s ‘Golden Fleece’ award, which highlighted wasteful federal spending. Ryan, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and several other legislators invoked Proxmire’s name when announcing their ‘Budget Boondoggle Award’ Tuesday. ‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and today, we strive to imitate Senator Proxmire,’ Ryan said.” [Associated Press, 10/17/07] Ryan Said The U.S. Only Had A Few Years To Fix Its Economy Before Becoming Like “Socialist” Europe. According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) on how both the GOP, Democrats are responsible for the massive national debt, warns drastic measures could be needed in the future. When asked how did this problem originate, Rep. Paul Ryan says it was made by Washington politics who made a whole bunch of empty promises they could not keep. Rep. Ryan says 9/11 was also a huge hurdle to the economy in the early part of the decade. Rep. Ryan warns we only have a few years to fix our economy or else we will turn into a socialist European country.” [States News Service, 4/2/11] Ryan Warned That The U.S. Could End Up Like European Countries If Deficit Was Not Reduced. According to the Miami Herald, “He warned that without swift action on the deficit, the U.S. could end up like European countries -- Greece, Ireland -- imposing austerity measures and increasing taxes. ‘We still have time,’ Ryan said. ‘But not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be...Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we have to act now.’” [Miami Herald, 1/26/11] Ryan Warned That If The Government Did Not Reform Entitlements, They Would “Collapse” And Bury The Next Generation In Debt. According to U.S. News, “In a recent debate with David Brooks, Ryan warned that, ‘Should the government fail to reform entitlements, those very programs will collapse under their own weight and bury the next generation under a crushing debt.’” [U.S. News, 12/15/10] Ryan’s “Young Guns” Book Argued That Republicans Couldn’t Afford To Make Wasteful Spending And Corruption Mistakes Of The Past. According to The Janesville Gazette, “Ryan’s hoping the Republicans retake the House, 98

of course, but he wants the new Republican faces to be Young Guns. The Young Guns book will say that the GOP cannot afford to make the mistakes it made in the past, especially wasteful spending and corruption, Ryan said. Ryan said he’s looking for ‘sincere reformers’ who will stand up to pressure to go along to get along. ‘I’ve been here long enough to know that you need people who have strong character and strong principles to survive this system and this town,’ Ryan said.” [The Janesville Gazette, 7/22/10] Ryan Said The U.S. Was Practicing “Japanese Economics” By Borrowing Beyond Reason, Which He Said Could Produce A “Lost Decade.” According to Federal News Service, in an interview on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” host Larry Kudlow asked “You were at this Chamber of Commerce jobs for America summit. Can you just tell us right at the top what you told the conference today?” Ryan replied: “The moderator, Mort Kondracke, asked me, are we going to have a double dip or a lost decade? I don’t know about a double dip, that’s possible, but I think we’re doing everything we could ever do to produce a lost decade. We’re practicing Japanese economics. We’re borrowing way beyond reason. Our debt doubles in five years, triples in 10 years. The top marginal tax rate from the laws passed in this Congress goes to 44.8 percent. You throw state income tax rates on top of that, and that means small businesses, S Corps, LLCs are going to get hit with an above-50 percent tax rate in most states. We’re raising capital gains taxes. We’re raising dividends taxes. So we’re increasing taxes on capital, on job creation and entrepreneurial activity. We’re borrowing ungodly sums, so we’re going to put high pressure on interest rates. And we have a carried trade with our banks, which, if interest rates start going up in the short term or even we have some fast growth, then banks are underwater and we have our own lost decade scenario. And so what I said is, we should go and do the opposite -- low taxes, sound money, certainty with tax policy, regulatory policy. Those are the things we ought to do to be growing out of this recession and creating jobs.” [Federal News Service, 7/14/10] Ryan Said There Was A “Capital Strike” By Businesses Who Were Not Investing. According to Federal News Service, in an interview on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” Ryan said: “I talked to the largest banker in Wisconsin just the other day. And their lines of credit that are open for large businesses are being tapped at about 11 percent, the lowest ever in recorded history since they’ve been opening up lines of credit for businesses. So yes, there’s a capital strike. And there’s a capital strike, because look what’s coming ahead. You’ve got two waves of big tax increases. You’ve got much higher interest rates in the future because of the borrowing binge we have because of our monetary policy. And then all this regulatory uncertainty. Every week that goes by, there’s a new launch of unpredicted regulations coming from the executive branch. And so they’re sitting on their hands, because they don’t know if they should take a risk, if they should hire people, if they should deploy capital, because they don’t know if they can get return on their investment.” [Federal News Service, 7/14/10] Ryan Invoked Debt Crisis Of The 1780’s To Describe How Federal Deficit Could Result In “Violence” Inflation, And Loss Of Trust In Government. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote: “Can we learn anything from the financial upheavals of the 1780s that might guide us today? Financial collapse wrecked the new American economy and foreign trade, brought civil violence, set states against each other and endangered our nation’s moral character. Every state acted like a separate nation. […] The reign of violence peaked when upward of 2,000 men tried to capture the national arsenal in Springfield but were driven off by state militia. From this history, we see that a debt crisis dissolves social bonds, weakening economic, personal, social, moral and political relationships. As government monetizes the debt to meet rising interest rates, inflation is unleashed and the currency devalued. Money whose future value is unpredictable cannot serve its most important purpose, to provide a common rule to equate goods, services and work effort. When social transactions are undermined, people lose trust in one another. A society without trust cannot long remain free. A paralyzed democratic government, unwilling to act against a predictable threat, such as a growing debt crisis, invites popular contempt and resistance. […]” [States News Service, 7/4/10] Ryan Said Lawmakers Should Handle Debt Crisis In The Same Manner They Would An Invading Army. According to States News Service, in a press release, Ryan wrote: “Recent polls show a near majority believe their government has now become the chief danger to their rights. America’s looming debt crisis challenges this experiment in democracy. Political leaders should meet this crisis with the same seriousness and determination they would bring against an invading army. There are no Madisons, Hamiltons and Washingtons to save us from our folly, nor do we need a new Constitution. Yet the courage, imagination, wisdom and public spirit that provided the founders with the plan to end America’s first debt crisis can also supply our needs. We only need leaders who will rise above narrow partisanship to confront our debt challenge and save our exceptional country.” [States News Service, 7/4/10] Ryan Said Medicare, Medicaid And Social Security Were “Out Of Control” And Would Cause The Economy To Collapse. According to The Examiner, “In a speech last week, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan spelled out the real reasons why , Obama’s popularity is sinking and why his crazy spending and congressional profligacy in general are so 99

upsetting to Americans. ‘Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three giant entitlements, are out of control,’ Ryan noted. ‘Exploding costs will drive our federal government and national economy to collapse. And the recession plus this Congress’ spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning. ‘Today, Medicare is $38 trillion short of its promised benefits,’ Ryan continued. ‘In five years, the hole will grow to $52 trillion. Your family’s share of this gap is $458,000. Medicaid will add trillions more in state and federal debt.’ Ryan’s truth-telling continued: ‘Social Security’s surplus is already gone, and its debt is mounting. Unless its finances are strengthened, the government will be forced to cut benefits nearly 25 percent or raise payroll taxes more than 30 percent.’” [The Examiner, 4/5/10] Ryan Said Entitlements Would Cause The Most “Predictable” Economic Crisis In History. According to Federal News Service, in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Dylan Ratigan Show,” Ryan said: “Well, this is the most predictable economic crisis we’ve ever had in the history of this country. We know its timing, we know its nature, and we know what we need to do to prevent it. We will have a debt crisis in this country that will come to us pretty quickly if we don’t do anything. Look, the General Accountability Office last year told us, for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we’re $62 trillion in the hole. You know what they’re telling us this year? That number is now $76 trillion, just from last year to this year. So we are courting a huge debt crisis, which means lower standards of living for future generations -- which means -- massive debt and massive debt crises like what you see in Greece, if we don’t head this off at the pass. And that’s why I’m simply saying do it now. It’s far less painful if you do it now versus if you kick the can down the road.” [Federal News Service, 3/10/10] Ryan Said Budget Process Was Designed To Keep Spending And Taxes High. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The problem, says Ryan, lies in the way Congress budgets. Under a process dating to the 1970s, Congress passes a budget that isn’t binding, that too easily adds money for ‘emergencies’ and that is riddled with add-ons that could never survive on their own merits. So Republicans find themselves spending $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa, to use one of Ryan’s examples. ‘It is a system designed to keep spending and taxes high,’ he says, and with the power to earmark spending, it has let Republicans prove that they are as human as were Democrats before them.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/8/06]

100

BUSINESS
Small Businesses
Ryan Voted to Cut Taxes by 20 Percent for Small Businesses. On April 19, 2012, Ryan voted for the Small Business Tax Cut Act, a bill that would cut taxes 20% for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Despite a veto threat from President Obama, the Republican-led House approved a 20% election-year tax cut for most companies intended to entice them to pick up the pace of hiring and, thus, boost the economy. Critics said the tax cuts for companies with fewer than 500 employees would add $46 billion to the deficit and do little to create jobs. Obama and Democrats attacked the legislation as unfairly favoring wealthier small-business owners, celebrities and sports teams.” [Roll Call 177, H 9, 04/19/2012; Los Angeles Times, 4/20/12] Ryan Voted to Require Agencies to Identify Costs and Increase Small Business Input, Impose Unnecessary Procedural Requirements. On December 1, 2011, Ryan voted for passage of the bill that would give the Small Business Administration new powers to ensure federal agencies comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. According to Government Executive, “The Republican-controlled House made good on promises by passing two far-reaching regulatory reform bills long sought by many in industry, though the White House has vowed to veto both bills. […]On Thursday, the House voted 263-159 for the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527), which would require agencies to step up efforts to identify costs that new regulations could impose on small businesses, write the regulations in ways that reduce costs and increase input from small businesses in the process. […] A White House statement issued before the vote Thursday said the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act ‘would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and increase costs for businesses and further impede the implementation of common-sense protections for the American public.’” [Roll Call 880, H 527, 12/01/2011; Government Executive, 12/2/11] Ryan Voted for Repealing Burdensome Reporting Requirement for Small Businesses. On March 3, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of repealing new tax-reporting requirements felt to be too burdensome on small businesses. According to the New York Times, “The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to repeal burdensome tax-reporting requirements that were imposed on small businesses to help pay for the expansion of health insurance coverage under the new health care law. […] Under the law, businesses must file reports with the Internal Revenue Service on Form 1099 identifying most providers of goods or services to whom they pay $600 or more in a year. […] Small businesses said the law would impose a huge administrative burden, requiring them to hire accountants and buy computer software to report routine purchases of office equipment, food, gasoline, lumber and thousands of other items. […] The new health care law requires most Americans to carry health insurance, starting in 2014. People with modest incomes will be eligible for subsidies, or tax credits, to help them afford the premiums. The amount of the subsidy is based on a person’s income, estimated from tax returns for prior years. People may be required to repay some or all of the tax credit if their actual incomes prove to be higher than estimated. The House bill increases the amount that people may have to repay.” [Roll Call 162, H 4, 03/03/2011; New York Times, 03/04/11] Paul Ryan Voted Against Increasing Lending and Lowering Taxes For Small Businesses. Paul Ryan voted against a motion to concur in the Senate amendment that would establish several small business initiatives, including a $30 billion smallbusiness lending fund administered by the Treasury Department, with funds directed to community banks and a revival of an expired bonus depreciation provision to allow companies to write off assets more quickly. The cost would be offset with increased penalties for failing to file information returns, new limits on paper-makers’ ability to claim a biofuel tax credit and new rules on tax-delinquent federal contractors. Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California, called it a “really, really big deal,” and said the legislation will save many owners from bankruptcy by reducing tax burdens and making it easier to get loans. [Roll Call 539, H 5297, 09/23/2010] Ryan Voted Against the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. On June 17, 2010, Ryan voted against the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010. Congressional Quarterly reported that “the House passed legislation to boost lending to small businesses Thursday, with Democrats framing it as much-needed help for Main Street and Republicans deriding it as a wasteful bailout. The bill (HR 5297), passed 241-182, would establish a $30 billion lending fund to invest in financial institutions like community banks in hopes of expanding the availability of credit to small businesses. The fund would be administered by the Treasury Department [...] The bill also would create a $2 billion state small-business credit initiative, which 101

would assist state and municipal programs that provide small businesses access to capital, and a $1 billion Small Business Administration program to make investments in ‘early stage’ small businesses.” [Roll Call 375, H 5297, 06/17/2010; Congressional Quarterly, 06/17/10.] Paul Ryan Voted Against Tax Breaks For Companies Who Hire Workers And Small Business Tax Breaks. Paul Ryan voted against a motion to concur with a Senate amendment that would exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes for certain hires made in 2010 and would expand the Build America Bonds program and extend the Highway Trust Fund and certain transportation safety programs through Dec. 31, 2010. It also would extend through 2010 the ability of small businesses to deduct $250,000 of qualified property purchases from income taxes in the year of purchase. It also included changes to the payment structure for certain tax credit bond programs and delay by one more year the effective date of new interest allocation rules for multinational companies. [Roll Call 90, H 2847, 03/04/2010] Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Allow Small Businesses Purchase Health Insurance Through Trade Associations. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Small businesses in Wisconsin, beset with ever-rising health insurance costs, would be helped by a bill passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow small businesses to purchase health insurance through trade associations. That’s the claim of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) who cosponsored the bill approved Thursday in a 262 to 162 vote. The bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, where Ryan said Friday he feels it will pass, although on a closer vote. ‘Escalating costs are making it tougher and tougher for Wisconsin’s small businesses to offer good health care coverage for their workers,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/23/03]

Regulation
Ryan Said Environmental Regulations Scared Businesses And Stifled Capital. According to the Federal News Service, in an interview on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” Ryan said: “…we’ve got to make sure that these regulations don’t come from out of left field like we’re seeing all of the time. Things like cap and trade. If it goes down in the Senate, what we’re hearing is, the EPA’s going to do it anyway. Those kinds of regulations are scaring businesses, especially manufacturers in Wisconsin, and it’s stifling capital.” [Federal News Service, 7/14/10] Ryan Voted Against Regulating the Manufacturing, Sale and Promotion of Tobacco Products. In 2009, Ryan opposed a bill to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the production and marketing of tobacco products. The agency could require tobacco companies to change their products to reduce their harmful health effects, including reducing levels of nicotine or menthol. The FDA would not be able to require companies to eliminate nicotine completely or ban tobacco products. The bill imposed strict marketing restrictions on tobacco companies, within a year they would no longer be able to advertise on outdoor billboards or signs near schools and playgrounds. They would also not be able to give away non-tobacco products or sell cigarettes in vending machines outside of adult-only locations. [Roll Call 187, H 1256, 04/02/2009; CQ Weekly, 4/06/09] Ryan Voted against Bill to Regulate Tobacco Products. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration broad new powers to regulate tobacco products and their advertising. Specifically, the bill would allow the FDA to restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products, including advertising and promotion, if the agency determines that it is necessary to protect public health. The bill would also require the FDA to establish tobacco product standards to protect the public health, but prohibit the agency from banning any class of tobacco products, such as all cigarettes, or reducing the nicotine level to zero. The bill passed 326-102. [Roll Call 542, H 1108, 07/30/2008; Congressional Quarterly; Congressional Quarterly]

102

CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
Ryan Voted in Favor of Protections for Journalists and Confidential Sources. On October 16, 2007, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to protect journalists and their right not to disclose confidential sources. According to the Washington Post, “Setting up a potential confrontation with the Bush administration over press freedoms, the House on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation to extend new protections to journalists and their confidential sources. The so-called shield law would for the first time establish standards that limit the power of federal authorities to compel reporters to testify or to disclose documents and unidentified sources they have used in their reporting. […] Media groups also softened their demands, agreeing to exceptions that would allow a federal judge to compel disclosure of documents or sources if it would prevent an act of terrorism or if a source would be ‘critical’ to resolving a criminal case. Responding to criticism from the Bush administration, the sponsors also added an exception Tuesday to allow a judge to order disclosure if it is ‘essential’ to the investigation or prosecution of a leak of classified information. The exception requires a judge to find that the unauthorized leak ‘has caused or will cause significant and articulable harm to the national security.’ And in a concession to business groups that had opposed the bill, the measure allows a judge to order the disclosure of individuals who have divulged trade secrets or private medical records protected by federal law.” [Roll Call 973, H 2102, 10/16/2007; Washington Post, 10/17/07] Paul Ryan Voted to Condemn Media Leaks of Classified Information. In 2006, Paul Ryan voted to express support for intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances as well as condemn the disclosure and publication of classified information that relate to such programs. It also states that the House expects the cooperation of all news media by not disclosing classified intelligence programs. The resolution was adopted 227-183. [Roll Call 357, S 895, 06/29/2006; CO Today, 6/29/06] Ryan Said That It Was Time To Move On From Trent Lott’s Racial Comments And That He Brought It To Himself. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Washington -- A great, pained sigh of relief. That’s how many top Republicans, worn and beleaguered by the controversy, greeted Trent Lott’s decision to step down as Senate majority leader. ‘I think we can now move on,’ said House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville. ‘This was being drubbed out on 24-hour news channels every five minutes. He was really setting us back in our plans to do outreach to minorities. . . . It just offends reasonable people. Any positive reference to segregation whatsoever offends any reasonable thinking person. It offends the (political) middle. It offends me.’ In interviews Friday, leading Republicans in Wisconsin defended their party broadly on matters of race. But they expressed little sympathy for Lott, lamented the political fallout from his recent comments and unambiguously welcomed his decision to give up his leadership post. ‘Did the press pile on? Sure. Did Democrats seize the opportunity? Yes. But did Trent Lott bring us to this situation on the first place? Yes. Perception is reality,’ said Ryan.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/21/02] Ryan Believed That Trent Lott Should Resign As Senate Majority Leader After His Racial Insensitive Comments. According to Capital Times, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, says Trent Lott should resign as Senate majority leader because of comments he made about Sen. Strom Thurmond’s pro-segregationist 1948 presidential campaign. ‘I think he should go. I don’t think he should be majority leader,’ Ryan said of Lott. Lott, senior senator from Mississippi, said Mississippians were proud to have supported Thurmond, R-S.C., for president when he ran as a segregationist Dixiecrat. ‘And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,’ Lott said. Lott has apologized repeatedly for his remarks, but the comments triggered a barrage of criticism that threatens to clip his grip on power. Ryan did not call for Lott to resign his Senate seat.” [Capital Times, 12/18/03]

Affirmative Action
Ryan Believed That Affirmative Action Treated “Discrimination With Discrimination.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan said people have a moral responsibility to respect people of other races, but he said the government should not overcompensate with affirmative action programs. ‘It treats discrimination with discrimination,’ he said.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/9/98]

103

Flag Burning
Ryan Consistently Supported Ban on Flag Burning. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of amending the United States Constitution to give Congress the authority to prohibit physically desecrating of the U.S. flag. The resolution was aimed at a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that reversed the conviction of a Texas man under state law for “desecration of a venerated object” after he burned a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Houston. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” wrote former Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Congress responded to the ruling with a law that criminalized flag burning. The Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional in 1990. The amendment passed 286-130, with the necessary 2/3 majority to move to the Senate [Roll Call 296, S 10, 06/22/2005; CQ Today, 6/23/05] Ryan Supported Ban on Flag Burning. Ryan voted in favor of a joint resolution to propose a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The resolution passed, 298-125 [Roll Call 232, S 36, 07/17/2001] Ryan Voted for Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Flag. Ryan voted in favor of the joint resolution to propose a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. [Roll Call 252, S 33, 06/24/1999]

Pledge of Allegiance
Ryan Supported Stripping Federal Courts Of Jurisdiction Over Constitutional Issues Involving The Pledge Of Allegiance. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 247 for and 173 against, the House passed a bill to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional issues involving the Pledge of Allegiance. This gives state courts the sole right to determine whether under God can be included in the pledge. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/04] Ryan Opposed Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over State Rulings Involving The Constitution And Pledge Of Allegiance. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Members defeated 202 for and 217 against, an amendment to the bill above to allow the Supreme Court but not lower federal courts to review of state rulings involving the Pledge of Allegiance and the Constitution. A yes vote backed Supreme Court jurisdiction.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/04] Ryan Voted to Prohibit Courts from Hearing Cases Challenging the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. In September 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would prohibit federal district and appellate courts and the Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. It would allow the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to continue considering such cases. The vote succeeded, 247-173. [Roll Call 467, H 2028, 09/23/2004]

Privacy
Ryan Voted against Additional Privacy Protections for Warrantless Surveillance Act. In 2007, Ryan opposed a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide for the acquisition of electronic surveillance with constitutional protections and court oversight. The bill would allow the government to continue collecting electronic surveillance on people outside of the U.S. without a warrant for up to one year but would strengthen the FISA court’s oversight and privacy protections by requiring frequent audits and for a warrant to be obtained when Americans are targeted for surveillance. The bill did not provide immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. The bill passed 227-189 [Roll Call 1120, H 3773, 11/15/2007; Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi press release, 11/15/07] Ryan Supported Allowing the Federal Government to Seize Library Records. In 2005, Ryan voted against an amendment curtailing the FBI’s ability to seize library and bookstore records for terrorism investigations. One provision of the 104

Patriot Act made it possible for the FBI to obtain a wide variety of personal records about a suspected terrorist -- including library transactions -- with an order from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the government must meet a lower threshold of proof than in criminal courts. Under the amendment, officials would have to get search warrants from a judge or subpoenas from a grand jury to seize records about a suspect’s reading habits. Some libraries said they were disposing of patrons’ records more quickly because of the provision, which opponents viewed as a license for fishing expeditions. President Bush threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers. The amendment was adopted, 238-187. [Roll Call 258, H 2862, 06/15/2005; Washington Post, 6/16/05] Ryan Supported Do-Not-Call Registry. Ryan voted in favor of legislation to ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry. [Roll Call 521, H 3161, 09/25/2003] Ryan Voted in Favor of an Intelligence Authorization Bill that Expanded the Types of Businesses whose Records can be Seized Without a Court Order. On November 20, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the 2004 intelligence authorization bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, “a fiscal 2004 intelligence authorization bill (HR 2417) was ready for final congressional action Friday after an 11th-hour controversy about provisions expanding the FBI’s power to demand financial records from businesses.[…] While the intelligence budget is classified, it was believed to be about $40 billion for fiscal 2003. […] Some lawmakers expressed concern over the little noticed Senate-drafted provision, which would broaden the definition of a ‘financial institution’ contained in the Financial Privacy Act of 1978. Under current law, the FBI may demand financial records in terrorism cases -- without a court or grand jury order -- from banks, credit unions and other traditional financial institutions. The new provision would define a ‘financial institution’ to include such entities as car dealerships, pawnbrokers, travel agencies and casinos. […] One of the bill’s declassified provisions would establish a new Office of Intelligence and Analysis in the Treasury Department. The unit would coordinate foreign intelligence gathering and analysis on financial flows going to terrorist organizations. […] In addition, the bill would authorize funds to improve information-sharing of raw intelligence among intelligence agencies. It calls for a single government wide terrorist watch list under the auspices of the newly created Terrorist Screening Center. It also asks the CIA to provide an Iraq ‘lessons learned’ report to Congress no later than a year after the bill’s enactment.” [Roll Call 649, H 2417, 11/20/2003; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 11/20/03; Washington Post, 11/23/03]

Religion
Ryan Voted To Reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ As The National Motto. On November 1, 2011 Ryan voted to reaffirm the phrase ‘in god We trust’ as the national motto. According to the Chicago Tribune, “With overwhelming bipartisan support, the Republican-led chamber voted Tuesday to reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and encourage the motto’s display in all public schools and buildings. The resolution drew praise from Christian conservatives who see an effort to withdraw references to God from the public sphere. ‘Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured,’ read the resolution, introduced by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. Critics saw the vote as unnecessary and an attempt to gin up support from the GOP base. ‘I think we know by now that this Congress likes God. Can we move on?’ said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.” [Roll Call 816, S 13, 11/01/2011] Paul Ryan Voted Against Restrictions on Federally Funded Faith-Based Groups. On July 19, 2001, Paul Ryan voted against the Democratic substitute amendment to HR 7 that forbids federally funded religious social service providers from employment discrimination based on religion. The measure disallowed the pre-emption of any state or local civil rights law by any bill provision and prohibited religious groups from conducting sectarian activities at the same time and place that they carried out federally funded social programs. The bill struck a bill provision allowing indirect aid to be used for religious purposes. The House rejected the amendment 168-261. [Roll Call 252, H 7, 07/19/2001] Ryan Voted For Passage Of A Bill Prohibiting Government Infringement On An Individuals Religion. Ryan voted for a bill to prohibit the government from interfering with an individual’s religious practices unless the government can prove the action is the least restrictive means of furthering a “compelling state interest.” The bill would alter court procedures involving religious matters by requiring the government to prove that the individual’s rights were not violated, instead of the current standard where the individual must prove his rights were violated. [Roll Call 299, H 1691, 07/15/1999]

105

Terror Suspects
Ryan Voted Allow Warrantless Surveillance of Foreign Terrorists. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to expand the authority of the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of one suspected foreign terrorist to another without a court warrant. Under the bill, communications companies would be compelled to comply with the government’s conduct of such surveillance. The administration would be required to provide the FISA court with a description of the procedures they used to determine whether the intelligence acquisition being conducted without a warrant is directed at foreign targets overseas within 10 days of initiating the electronic surveillance. The FISA court would then approve or disapprove of the measures. The bill included a six-month sunset clause. The bill was considered a top legislative priority for President Bush, who threatened to keep Congress in session until it was passed. “By passing a FISA modernization bill that the president can sign before we go home for recess, the Senate has taken immediate and decisive action to improve the security of our country,” said Senator Mitch McConnell (RKY). The ACLU strongly opposed the bill, claiming that the bill gave “unconstitutional authority” to the Bush administration “to conduct warrantless dragnets of American’s international phone calls and emails.” [Roll Call 836, S 1927, 08/04/2007; Congressional Quarterly; CQ Today, 8/3/07] Ryan Supported Establishing Military Tribunal Process for Alien Terrorist Suspects. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that lends legislative support for the first time to broad rules for the detention, interrogation, prosecution and trials of terrorism suspects. The measure created new military tribunals or commissions to try alien terrorists, allowed prosecutors to make only certain portions of classified evidence available to defendants, permitted trials to proceed without the presence of the defendant if the judge finds that the defendant was disruptive, and provided for an appeals process for those convicted by military commissions. It barred detainees from filing habeas corpus suits challenging their detentions, thereby preventing detainees from initiating any judicial proceeding. The measure did not interpret U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, but stated that the president has the authority to interpret the meaning of the Conventions through executive order and specified types of interrogation techniques that were deemed in violation of the Geneva treaties. The bill also codified the definition of an “unlawful enemy combatant.” According to the Washington Post, “By writing into law for the first time the definition of an “unlawful enemy combatant,” the bill empowered the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have “purposefully and materially” supported anti-U.S. hostilities...At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year.” [Roll Call 508, S 3930, 09/29/2006; CQ House Action Report, 109-46; Washington Post, 9/29/06] Ryan Supported Authorizing Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that set ground-rules for Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, also known as the “terrorist surveillance program.” The bill allowed the president to authorize electronic surveillance of communications by suspected terrorists for specified periods without first obtaining approval from the special, secret court established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under the bill, such warrantless surveillance could be conducted for up to 90 days if an armed or terrorist attack against the United States has occurred, or if there is an “imminent threat” that is likely to cause death or widespread harm in this country. In all such instances, however, the president must notify the Congressional Intelligence committees and the FISA court of such surveillance. The original version of the bill would have authorized those expanded powers only post-attack, but the Bush administration sought, and got, the additional authority preceding an attack as well. The bill would have the effect of authorizing the NSA program with some changes, since the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) said the president would have the authority to determine and certify to Congress when the country is in a time of post-attack - the trigger that would allow warrantless surveillance. Wilson said she believed the nation was currently in a time of post-attack. Many Democrats repeatedly stressed that while spying on terrorists was important, the bill would not protect the rights of innocent U.S. citizens. The bill passed 232-191. [Roll Call 502, H 5825, 09/28/2006; CQ House Action Report]

Voting
Ryan Supported Requiring Government Issued ID to Vote, Disenfranchising Millions of Americans. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill requiring that voters show government issued ID in order to vote by 2008 and requiring proof of US citizenship in order to vote by 2010. The latter provision was of particular concern as most Americans currently do not possess government issued ID that denotes their citizenship status. In 48 states, a driver’s license does not reflect one’s 106

citizenship status, so by 2010, a driver’s license would not be sufficient. This bill would disenfranchise millions of Americans particularly the elderly, people with disabilities, and minorities. Democrats charged that the bill was one in a series of attempts by Republicans to suppress the vote to keep Republicans in power. Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in national elections and from providing false information about citizenship when registering. Both provisions carry prison time and stiff financial penalties. Democrats charged that the bill would institute a 21st Century poll tax, as documents denoting citizenship can be expensive. Only 25% of Americans own a passport, which costs $97 and reissued Naturalization papers cost $210. Democrats argued that the bill would particularly disenfranchise the elderly who often do not have drivers’ licenses or have lost their birth certificates. The bill passed 228-196. [Roll Call 459, H 4844, 09/20/2006; Leadership Document, “Vote No On GOP Voter Id Bill - A Partisan Attempt to Disenfranchise Millions of Voters,” 9/20/06] Ryan Supported 25 Year Extension of Key Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a 25 year extension of expiring portions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. The bill was supposed to come up for a vote, but ran into difficulties when some southern Republicans complained that the reauthorization would continue to penalize their states for polling place-related discriminatory practices that they claim were resolved long ago. These Republicans offered four amendments to the bill, all of which Democrats described as poison pills. Among the provisions that the bill extended was Section 5, the pre-clearance section. Section 5 required that certain jurisdictions, with a history of discrimination in voting, obtain federal approval (or pre-clearance) prior to making any changes in voting, thus preventing the implementation of discriminatory practices. The bill also extended Section 203, which required certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to citizens who have limited-English proficiency. The bill failed 390-33. [Roll Call 374, H 9, 07/13/2006; CQ Today, 7/12/06; Leadership Document, “Democrats Support HR 9, the Bi-Partisan Voting Rights Extension Act, and Strongly Oppose All Amendments, 7/13/06]

107

CRIME AND SAFETY
Ryan Voted Against $2.7 Billion Legislative Appropriations Bill, Cutting the Capitol Police Force by 12%. On July 9, 2003, Ryan voted against a $2.7 billion dollar legislative branch appropriations bill that would cut the Capitol Police force budget by about 12%. Congressional Quarterly Today reported that, “The primary focus of the House-Senate conference on HR 2657 will be the significant differences between the two chambers over funding for the U.S. Capitol Police force and the Capitol Visitor Center. The Senate bill would provide $240 million for the police -- the same as provided in 2003 in regular and emergency funds and enough for the force to continue hiring additional officers. By contrast, the House version would cut the police budget to $212 million. House appropriators expressed strong reservations about allowing the force to continue growing. […] As for the visitor center, the House bill includes no additional money to cover cost overruns on construction of the underground complex. The Senate bill would provide $48 million in additional funds, the smallest amount that would be needed to complete the center, according to a recent General Accounting Office review.” [Roll Call 345, H 2657, 07/09/2003; Congressional Quarterly Today, 07/11/03]

Child Abuse
Ryan Voted for PROTECT Act, Creating AMBER Alert System and Establishing Stricter Punishments for Sex Offenders. On March 27, 2003, Ryan voted for the conference report on a bill that would create the AMBER alters system for missing children, provide additional protections for children and establish stricter punishments for sex offenders. Twotime child sex offenders would be subject to mandatory life sentences. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual depictions of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for several specified crimes against children and make it a crime to travel to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would expand law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance capabilities in investigations of child pornography. [Roll Call 127, S 151, 04/10/2003]

Domestic Violence
Ryan Voted for Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act that Does Not Offer Extend Protections for LGBT individuals, American Indians, and Illegal Immigrants. On May 16, 2012, Ryan voted for the House Republican version of the bill reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. According to Roll Call, “Democrats pointed to three key differences between the House bill and a version passed by the Senate in April. The Senate bill included provisions offering explicit protection for lesbian, gay and transgender people as well as giving legal authority to American Indian tribes to prosecute domestic violence committed by non-American Indians. The House bill, meanwhile, put new restrictions on illegal immigrants who report domestic abuse, which Republicans said are designed to prevent immigration fraud but Democrats warn could result in victims failing to report abuse to police. Standing alongside the Democrats in their attack of the Republican bill were advocacy groups who said the changes in the Senate bill were important reforms to stop an ‘epidemic’ of domestic violence. The groups spurned Republican overtures and a managers amendment designed to ameliorate their concerns, deciding on a conference call Tuesday to lobby vigorously against the bill.” [Roll Call 258, H 4970, 05/16/2012; Roll Call, 5/17/12]

Drugs
Ryan Voted to Make Targeting of Methamphetamine Importation a Priority for the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. On July 19, 2005, Ryan voted “to direct the State Department to make combating meth from Mexico’s super drug labs a priority. The amendment authorizes but does not guarantee $4 million in 2006 and in 2007 for the department to work with Mexican law enforcement to crack down on meth smuggling into the United States,” according to Gannett News Service. [Roll Call 387, H 2601, 07/19/2005; Gannett News Service, 07/20/2005] Ryan Opposed Additional Funding for Anti-Drug Enforcement Efforts. In 2003, Ryan voted against the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, which included $525.4 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy: $226.4 108

million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, $20 million above the President’s request; $145 million for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign; $70 million (full funding) for the Drug-Free Communities program. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program advanced the National Drug Control Strategy in the most critical drug trafficking areas of the country, including Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Washington/Baltimore, and Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands AND the Southwest Border. The purpose of the program was to empower equal local, State, and Federal partnerships to dismantle the most significant drug trafficking and drug money laundering organizations. The program primarily supported progressive initiatives such as co-located task forces, intelligence sharing and electronic networking of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and linkages between the criminal justice system and drug treatment. The bill passed 338-83. [Roll Call 32, S 2, 02/13/2003] Paul Ryan Opposed Funds for High Intensity Drug Program in 2000. Paul Ryan voted for the $29.1 billion Treasury Appropriations that represented an $824.5 million increase over the previous year’s funding. It funded the US Postal service, the Treasury Department, and Executive Office of the president, as well as $731 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and $8.9 billion for the Internal Revenue Service. [Roll Call 428, H 4871, 07/20/2000] Ryan Voted For $429.1 Million In Funding For The District Of Columbia That Included Ban On Using Federal Funds For Needle Exchange. On November 3, 1999 Ryan voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, which provided $429.1 million in federal funds for the District of Columbia and approved the District’s $6.8 billion budget. The measure also included “a provision barring private clinics that receive federal money, such as Whitman-Walker, from distributing needles to drug addicts to curb the spread of AIDS and HIV.” The measure passed 216-210. [Roll Call 562, H 3194, 11/03/1999]

MARIJUANA
Ryan Voted against Medical Marijuana. In 2007, Ryan voted against an amendment to protect state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. The amendment was an attempt to bar the use of funds in the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill to prevent the implementation of state laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical reasons in certain states. The amendment was defeated 165-262. [Roll Call 733, H 3093, 07/25/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Opposed Medical Marijuana in 2005. In 2005, Ryan voted against an amendment to undercut a Supreme Court decision that the government can prosecute medical marijuana users, even when state laws permit doctor-prescribed use of the drug. Specifically, the proposal would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting people in the 10 states where the practice was legal including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington State. Advocates argued that marijuana was the only way that many chronically ill people, such as AIDS and cancer patients, could relieve their symptoms. Opponents said the amendment would undercut efforts to combat marijuana abuse and argued that Marinol, a government-approved prescription drug that contains the active ingredient in marijuana, offers comparable relief. The amendment was rejected, 161-264. [Roll Call 255, H 2862, 06/15/2005; AP, 6/15/05]

Guns
Ryan Voted for Including Firearms in Exempt Bankruptcy Items. On July 28, 2010 Ryan voted for the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would add firearms valued at up to $3,000 to the list of items exempted from repossession during the bankruptcy process. According to the Washington Post, the bill would permit “people filing for bankruptcy to exempt up to three firearms with an aggregate value of $1,500 or less from creditors’ claims. The exemption applies to pistols, rifles and shotguns.” [Roll Call 479, H 5827, 07/28/2010; Washington Post 8/5/2010] Ryan Voted to Set Civil Penalties for Gun License Violations. On September 26, 2006 Ryan voted to advance a bill that would set civil penalties for gun license violations. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, “the bipartisan bill would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more tools to punish federally licensed gun dealers who break U.S. firearm-sale rules. It was passed on a vote of 277-131. […] As many as 98 percent of gun dealers’ federal violations now result in nothing more than a letter of reprimand, or a meeting with ATF officials in their offices, [Rep. Robert C.] Scott said during debate of the bill Monday. […] The bill also directs the inspector general for the Justice Department to review the ATF’s gunshow enforcement program.” [Roll Call 476, H 5092, 09/26/2006; Richmond Times-Dispatch, 09/27/06] 109

1999: Paul Ryan Supported Republican Cuts to COPS program. Paul Ryan voted in favor of an appropriations bill that cut funding for the COPS program by $1 billion. The bill passed, 217-210. [Roll Call 387, H 2670, 08/05/1999; CQ Breaking News, 8/06/99] Ryan Supported Republican Cuts to COPS program. Ryan voted in favor of an appropriations bill that cut funding for the COPS program by $1 billion. The bill passed, 217-210 [Roll Call 387, H 2670, 08/05/1999; CQ Breaking News, 8/06/99] Ryan Voted for Protecting Gun Manufacturers and Dealers from Third-Party Misuse Law Suits. On October 20, 2005, Ryan voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “the House cleared legislation last week that would shield gun manufacturers and dealers from being sued when third parties misuse their products. The Oct. 20 vote on the bill (S 397) -- 283-144 -- is a victory for the National Rifle Association and Republican efforts to overhaul the civil justice system by limiting liability lawsuits. […] Supporters say allowing such lawsuits is like taking car manufacturers to court when people drive drunk. They say the liability suits are often filed by anti-gun critics hoping to drive manufacturers out of business with exorbitant legal fees. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., said such litigation threatens to ‘bankrupt the national firearms industry and deny all Americans their fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.’ Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen complained that ‘what it actually does is protect those gun dealers who are engaged in wrongful, negligent sales of weapons to criminals.” [Roll Call 534, S 397, 10/20/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/22/05]

GUN SAFETY
Ryan Supported Overturning Law Requiring Child Safety Locks on Handguns. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of an amendment to overturn a recently enacted law requiring safety trigger locks on all handguns sold in the United States. In 2005, President Bush signed legislation giving gun makers broad protections from civil lawsuits, but that law contained the mandatory trigger lock provision. The amendment reversed the trigger lock provision. The amendment passed 230-191. [Roll Call 343, H 5672, 06/28/2006; Reuters, 6/29/06] Paul Ryan Voted to Block Gun Liability. In April 2003, Paul Ryan voted for HR 1036, legislation blocking liability lawsuits against gun makers and sellers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The legislation also blocked such actions against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. A maker or seller who “knowingly and willfully violated” state or federal laws in selling or marketing a weapon would still be subject to a civil lawsuit, and design and manufacturing defect lawsuits were also allowed when weapons were “used as intended” The legislation, which the House passed 285-140, retroactively applied to all pending lawsuits. [Roll Call 124, H 1036, 04/09/2003]

BACKGROUND CHECKS
Ryan Supported Weak Bill to Close Gun Show Loophole. The Columbine High School shooting was the deadliest school shooting in United States history. Two 17-year-old boys in Littleton, Colorado, procured two shotguns, an assault rifle and a TEC-9 assault pistol and shot 26 students, killing 13 of them before turning the guns on themselves. Subsequent investigation by the ATF found that all four of the weapons had passed through the hands of unlicensed dealers at gun shows. In the postSeptember 11th world, it can potentially be argued that the gun show loophole poses a threat to homeland security by giving potential access to firearms without a background check. In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that undermined existing laws to prevent criminals from purchasing handguns by adding a background check standard for gun shows that actually reduced the time law enforcement officials had to conduct background checks in traditional gun purchases from three business days to twenty-four hours. [Roll Call 244, H 2122, 06/18/1999] Ryan Voted Against Amendment Requiring Gun Show Purchasers to Undergo Background Checks. Ryan voted against an amendment that required all gun show purchasers to undergo background checks in compliance with current federal law. The amendment would have required the extension of Brady background checks (3 business days) to all firearms sold at gun shows -- no exceptions. A gun show was described as any event where 50 or more firearms were offered or 110

exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or at which two or more persons were offering or exhibiting one or more firearms for sale or transfer. The amendment was defeated, 193-235. [Roll Call 235, H 2122, 06/18/1999] Ryan Voted Against Amendment Requiring Gun Show Purchasers to Undergo Background Checks. Ryan voted against an amendment that required all gun show purchasers to undergo background checks in compliance with current federal law. The amendment would have required the extension of Brady background checks (3 business days) to all firearms sold at gun shows -- no exceptions. A gun show was described as any event where 50 or more firearms were offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or at which two or more persons were offering or exhibiting one or more firearms for sale or transfer. The amendment was defeated, 193-235 [Roll Call 235, H 2122, 06/18/1999] Ryan Supported an Amendment to Weaken Background Check Standards. Ryan voted for an amendment that weakened existing standards that provide law enforcement personnel with three business days to complete background checks. The amendment supported gave law enforcement only 24 hours for instant background checks at purchases made at gun shows. The amendment passed, 218-211. [Roll Call 234, H 2122, 06/18/1999]

GUN BANS
Ryan Voted to Repeal DC Gun Ban. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would repeal District of Columbia laws prohibiting firearm possession, including the possession of semiautomatic firearms. It would repeal the District’s requirements for firearm registration and the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home. It would remove criminal penalties for possessing firearms in the home and allow the District’s residents to purchase firearms in Maryland and Virginia. In a victory for gun-rights advocates, the House passed legislation Wednesday that would broadly roll back District of Columbia gun laws. Lawmakers voted to amend narrower legislation by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton a substitute amendment by Travis W. Childers drawn from his broader measure (HR 6691). Eighty-two Democrats backed Childers in a vote that was a victory for the National Rifle Association (NRA), while nine Republicans voted against his amendment. The bill passed by a vote of 266 to 152. [Roll Call 601, H 6842, 09/17/2008]

CONCEAL CARRY LAWS
Ryan Voted To Let Permit Holders Carry Concealed Handguns Across State Lines. On November 16, 2011, Ryan voted to let permit holders carry concealed handguns across state lines. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House passed a proposal Wednesday to let permit holders carry concealed handguns across state lines, after rejecting repeated Democratic efforts to scale back the measure’s reach. The amended bill (HR 822), passed 272-154, would allow those with a valid state permit and photo identification to carry a concealed handgun into any state that allows its residents to carry a concealed weapon, as long as the permit holder is not prohibited by federal law from having a firearm. In the United States, only Illinois and the District of Columbia do not provide concealed-carry permits.” [Roll Call 852, H 822, 11/16/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/16/11]

HUNTING HISTORY
Ryan Participated In A Deer Hunt That Was Intended To Help Eradicate Animal Diseases. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “… Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) donned blaze orange and set out early Saturday hoping their example would persuade Wisconsin hunters that their help is needed to combat the disease now more than ever… During a news conference after their hunts, both Green and Ryan contended that federal funding for disease research was coming -- but money should not be considered the only need. The real necessity, they argued, is for more testing sites in the area. As hunting season approaches, hunters need to know that they can get disease results quickly. On Saturday, the congressmen reiterated requests that the U.S. Department of Agriculture reverse an earlier decision that keeps private labs from conducting tests.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/8/02]

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
111

Public Campaign Revealed That Ryan Accepted $88,429 From Pro-Gun Groups For His 1998 Campaign. According to an Editorial by the Capital, “The advertisements, placed by Public Campaign, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group, reveal that Ryan accepted $ 88,429 from anti-gun control groups for his 1998 campaign… Paul Ryan, a twenty-something political unknown who raised and spent more than $ 1 million to win his first ever electoral contest last year, owes the voters of southern Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District some sort of signal that he has not been ‘bought’ by the special interests that have so warped our national policies. He can send that signal this week -- both by joining mainstream Republicans in supporting sensible gun control measures now being considered by the House and, far more importantly, by making a firm commitment to clean up America’s corrupt system of financing campaigns… Paul Ryan faces a simple choice. He can sign the House petition and join responsible Republicans such as Shays and U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, in their efforts to force a debate that could lead to campaign finance reform. Or he can prove his critics right by failing to sign the petition -- and thus confirming that he is, indeed, the paid servant of the special interest groups, including the gun lobby, that so generously financed his 1998 campaign.” [The Capital, Editorial, 6/2/99] Ryan Said He Was Not Aware Of The Amount the Gun Lobby Had Donated To His Campaign. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was among 10 lawmakers criticized for taking money from the NRA in an ad published in The New York Times and Washington’s Roll Call. The ad, paid for by Public Campaign, read: ‘Want guns out of our schools? Get gun money out of our politics.’ It identified Ryan, a freshman from Janesville, as the top House recipient of money from the gun lobby, having received $ 88,000 in the last election. Ryan said he was not aware of how much money had been contributed to his campaign on behalf of the gun lobby.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 5/30/99] Ryan Was Financially Supported And Endorsed By The NRA In 1998. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “NRA spokesman Bill Powers declined to comment on why the NRA chose to put money into the Neumann and Ryan campaigns or how the money would be used. NRA’s Victory Fund disclosed it was doing independent spending in 26 congressional contests. The Wisconsin sums are among the larger NRA efforts. Gun issues and the NRA spending in the 1st District could be more critical because gun owners’ rights have become a bigger issue in the Spottswood-Ryan contest than in the Feingold-Neumann race. Spottswood declared herself pro-gun in September, noting that she owned guns herself and used them for target practice. Ryan, who has been endorsed by the NRA, chided Spottswood as insincere on the issue, noting she had made a motion as a Kenosha alderman to schedule a city handgun ban referendum in 1996.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/28/98]

Prisons
Ryan Supported Enabling Private Companies To Compete Against Federal Prison System For Government Contracts. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 350 for and 65 against, the House passed a bill enabling private companies to compete against the federal prison system for a range of government contracts. A yes vote was to pass the bill, which awaits Senate action.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/9/03]  Ryan Opposed Annual Justice Department Review On Whether Loss Of Prison Contracts Would Endanger Public Safety Or Security At Federal Prisons. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 91 for and 325 against, the House defeated an amendment requiring annual Justice Department reviews to determine whether the loss of prison contracts resulting from the bill above would endanger security at federal prisons or imperil public safety. A yes vote backed the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/9/03]

Ryan Voted in Favor of Ending Preferential Federal Treatment of Prison-Made Goods, Raising Wages for Some Inmates. On November 6, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that phases out the requirement for federal agencies to first try and purchase goods from Federal Prison Industries. The bill also contained an amendment that raised wages to $2.50 an hour for some inmates. According to the Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, the measure “would eliminate a requirement that government agencies shopping for at least $2,500 worth of goods or services must first try to buy them from the Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a 69-year-old program that employs inmates. […] The bill would phase out the mandatory source requirement, as the preference is called, over five years. FPI still could compete for government contracts but would not receive preferential treatment. […] By voice vote, the House adopted an amendment by Maxine Waters, D-Calif., that would boost the wages earned by some inmate workers. Under the amendment, inmates who have less than two years of their sentences left would earn $2.50 an hour. Typically, inmate workers earn up to $1.50 an hour. The chamber also adopted by 112

voice vote an amendment that would bar prison factories from competing for government contracts that under current law already are supposed to be reserved for small businesses.” [Roll Call 612, H 1829, 11/06/2003; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 11/06/03]

113

DEFENSE
Ryan Voted to Place Wartime Contractors Under the Jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. On October 4, 2007, Ryan voted to place contractors working in warzones under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. According to the Washington Post, “Prompted by last month’s deadly shootings in Baghdad by armed guards working for Blackwater USA, the House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to place all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The 389 to 30 vote expanding the scope of the existing Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act came over the strong opposition of the Bush administration, which objected to its broad application to a wide range of contractors working for U.S. agencies overseas. The bill requires that contractor offenses that would be punishable by at least a one-year prison sentence if perpetrated in the United States be pursued under U.S. law. The Justice Department’s inspector general would have to report to Congress on the status of Justice Department investigations of alleged contactor abuses. And the FBI would have to establish investigative units for each U.S. war zone where contractors are operating. Defense Department contractors already fall under U.S. and military law, but contractors working for other agencies often do not. Blackwater and two other private firms provide protective services to U.S. diplomats and other civilian officials in Iraq under a State Department contract.” [Roll Call 940, H 2740, 10/04/2007; Washington Post, 10/05/07]

DOD Budgeting and Defense Spending
Ryan Opposed The Sequester As An Aide Described It As A “Meat-Ax Approach” According to the Hill, “One step he has already decided upon is to exclude $500 billion in defense cuts that were mandated by last summer’s debt-ceiling deal. Those reductions are deeply unpopular with his GOP colleagues, and Ryan said his budget will offer a different way forward. ‘Using the sequester is a meat-ax approach,’ a Ryan aide said. ‘Cuts to defense have to be made based on an assessment of threats. I think replacing the sequester is where our conference is on this’… But keeping the defense cuts would likely be an even bigger problem for Ryan. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he’s prepared to offer an amendment to restore the Pentagon funding if the cuts are included in the Ryan budget, and it is vitally important that Republicans have unity behind their budget. Not one Democrat backed the Ryan measure last year, and four Republicans defected.” [The Hill, 2/6/12] Ryan Said He “Accepted” Obama’s Defense Cuts. According to a Bloomberg TV transcript, Ryan said, “We cut Defense by $78 billion… we take [Obama’s] cuts. We accept his cuts, which haven’t occurred yet. And we accept the President’s cuts. We actually agreed with the President on this point.” [Bloomberg TV, 4/6/11] Ryan Said Waste In Defense Spending Should Be Reinvested In The Pentagon. According to The American Conservative, “Ryan remains reluctant to cut defense spending. ‘I don’t see where the world is any safer,’ he says. He argues that any waste found in the Pentagon budget should be reinvested in other military expenditures rather than used for deficit reduction.” [The American Conservative, 3/1/11] Ryan Said It Was The Responsibility Of The Appropriations Budget To Prioritize Spending, But Defense Spending Was The Most Important. According to a transcript of a Manhattan Institute event with Ryan at the National Press Club that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “I would reduce the entire discretionary cap… And we prioritize -- and like I -- like I try to do is, I don’t try to do the job of the Appropriations Committee. They’re pretty guarded about their jurisdiction. So the way I look at Defense spending is, number one, let me say something that’s probably counter to what you thought I was going to say. Everybody wants to have a peace dividend budget, but we’re not at peace. Can’t have a peace dividend budget when we have two wars going on.” [Federal News Service, 1/6/11] Ryan: “I Would Rather See Savings Occur From Within The Pentagon Budget By Cleaning Up The Books Of The Pentagon And Then Plowing That Back Into The Pentagon.” According to a transcript of a Manhattan Institute event with Ryan at the National Press Club that was obtained via Federal News Service, Ryan said, “So I would rather see savings occur from within the Pentagon budget by cleaning up the books of the Pentagon and then plowing that back into the Pentagon to reduce the need to have these supplementals which occur outside of the budget and on top. That, to me, is the better way to go, but when it comes to Treasury spending, bring the entire cap down and force government to prioritize within. And when you’re prioritizing, let’s recognize the fact that we can’t have a peace dividend in the budget in a time when we’re not at peace.” [Federal News Service, 1/6/11] 114

Ryan Voted for Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. On May 18, 2012, Ryan voted for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 that would authorize programs and funding levels for America’s defense programs. According to the New York Times, “the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year that begins in October, makes clear that House Republicans -- and many Democrats -- are opposed to including the Pentagon in the coming era of fiscal austerity. The $642 billion measure, approved 299 to 120, exceeds spending limits enshrined in the Budget Control Act of 2011 by $8 billion…. Mr. Coffman (R-CO) proposed to remove the Army’s permanent brigade combat teams stationed in Europe and replace them with a cheaper rotational force, not accompanied by family members, permanent housing and other support. Only 63 Republicans joined him, but that was enough to win approval, given the overwhelming support of Democrats. But over all, the defense bill proved the power of the Pentagon and its diffuse installations, even as Republicans push the nation’s fiscal straits to the top of the political agenda. An amendment by Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, to reduce spending by $8 billion and stick to statutory spending caps failed, 252 to 170, with 29 Democrats siding with 223 Republicans…. The White House has raised concerns about several issues but has focused on three: overall spending levels, detainee policy and nuclear weapons deployments. Administration officials say the bill sets up ‘onerous conditions’ on the retirement of nondeployed nuclear weapons and compliance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was ratified in late 2010.” [Roll Call 291, H 4310, 05/18/2012; New York Times, 5/19/12] Ryan Voted for 2012 Defense Spending Conference Report. On December 14, 2011, Ryan voted for the conference report on the bill that would authorize $662.4 billion in for defense programs in fiscal 2012, including approximately $115.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, “A sweeping defense bill that sparked a heated debate over the handling of terrorism suspects passed the Senate on Thursday afternoon and is headed to President Obama’s desk after weeks of wrangling that included a veto threat from the White House. The $662 billion defense authorization bill was approved by the Senate 86 to 13 one day after the White House withdrew its threat to veto the measure over several controversial detainee provisions. The White House said those provisions would have been an infringement on its executive power. The bill overwhelmingly passed the House on Wednesday 283 to 136. The measure authorizes military funding for the fiscal 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama’s request and $43 billion less than the amount Congress authorized for the fiscal 2011. The bill underwent last-minute revision Monday after lawmakers met with administration officials to address the White House’s concerns. The revised bill grants greater discretion to the administration over the implementation of the law and gives waiver authority to the president rather than the secretary of defense.” [Roll Call 932, H 1540, 12/14/2011; Washington Post, 12/16/11] Ryan Voted to Defund an Alternative Engine Project for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. On February 16, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would reduce funding for Army and Air Force research, development, testing and evaluation by $450 million, with the aim of reducing funding by that amount for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine. According to the Chicago Tribune, “The House voted 233-198 to deny $450 million for the continued development of a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a project opposed by the Pentagon but backed by House Speaker John Boehner. Republicans were split, but most Democrats voted to kill the project.” [Roll Call 46, H 1, 02/16/2011; Chicago Tribune, 02/17/2011] Ryan Voted Against Reducing Funding for the V-22 Osprey. On February 15, 2011, Ryan voted against an amendment that would reduce funding for Navy aircraft procurement by $22 million and funding for Air Force aircraft procurement by $393 million, with the aim of reducing funding for the V-22 Osprey aircraft. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The proposal, by Lynn Woolsey of California, would prohibit the use of funds in the bill for research and development of the V-22 as well as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.” [Roll Call 43, H 1, 02/15/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 02/17/2011] Ryan Voted to Block Debate of Supplemental Funds for 2010. On July 01, 2010, Ryan voted against adoption of the rule that would provide for House floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill that would provide $58.8 billion in supplemental funds for fiscal 2010. Congressional Quarterly reported that “House Democrats opted Thursday to put off enactment of the fiscal 2010 supplemental war spending bill, gambling that a previously reluctant Senate will agree to add domestic funding and that they can overcome a presidential veto threat. […] The House set the stage for the action when it adopted, 215-210, a complex rule for debate. The rule called for separate votes on domestic spending sought by retiring Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., and the amendments designed to strike funds for military operations in Afghanistan or impose restrictions on that spending -- votes that stretched late into Thursday night. Adoption of the rule also resulted in the adoption of a one-year budget plan to guide fiscal 2011 spending by the House.” [Roll Call 428, S 1500, 07/01/2010; Congressional Quarterly, 07/01/10] 115

Ryan Voted Against the $680.2 Billion Defense Authorization for FY 2010. On October 08, 2009, Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $680.2 billion in discretionary spending for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including approximately $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations. It would authorize $244.4 billion for operations and maintenance; $150.2 billion for military personnel; $24.6 billion for military construction, family housing, and base closings; and $29.3 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. It would prohibit detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from being transferred to U.S. soil until the president submits a plan to Congress and consults with the governors of affected states. It would extend, through 2010, bonus and special pay for military members, and make disabled retirees eligible for one year of concurrent military retirement and veterans disability payments. It would extend federal hate crimes laws to cover offenses motivated by a victim’s gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, and would prohibit attacks on military personnel based on their military service. [Roll Call 770, H 2647, 10/08/2009] Ryan Voted For Defense Authorization Bill, Including War Funding, Military Housing, Healthcare and Pay Increase. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would authorize $696.4 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $189.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill included $142.8 billion for operations and maintenance; $119.7 billion for military personnel; $23.7 billion for military construction and family housing and $23.1 billion for the Defense Health Program. The bill would also authorize a 2.5 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill passed 36946 [Roll Call 11, H 4986, 01/16/2008; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted for Supplemental War Appropriations. On June 19, 2008, Ryan voted for the Obey, D-Wis., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment that would appropriate $165.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $99.5 billion for military operations for fiscal 2008 and $65.9 billion for fiscal 2009. [Roll Call 431, H 2642, 06/19/2008] Paul Ryan Voted to Fund War in Iraq. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted in favor of the final version of the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill. The bill would authorize national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments totaling $611 billion. The bill would include approximately $68 billion for expenses related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also included a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. [Roll Call 631, S 3001, 09/24/2008; CQ Today, 9/24/08] Paul Ryan Voted for Pay Raise for Troops. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted in favor of the final version of the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill. The bill would authorize national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments totaling $611 billion. The bill would include approximately $68 billion for expenses related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also included a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. [Roll Call 631, S 3001, 09/24/2008; CQ Today, 9/24/08] Paul Ryan Voted for $611 Billion in Defense Funds. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted in favor of the final version of the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill. The bill would authorize national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments totaling $611 billion. The bill would include approximately $68 billion for expenses related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also included a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. [Roll Call 631, S 3001, 09/24/2008; CQ Today, 9/24/08] Ryan Voted for $696 Billion for Defense Programs. On December 12, 2007 Ryan voted to adopt the conference report on the bill to authorize $696.4 billion for defense programs in 2008. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The bill (HR 1585 -- H Rept 110-477) includes authorization to spend $189.4 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the actual funding for the wars would still have to be appropriated. [...] It includes a 3.5 percent increase in military pay, as well as a “wounded warriors” section intended to help military service members injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [Roll Call 1151, H 1585, 12/12/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/12/07] Ryan Supported $94.5 Billion Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a $94.5 billion emergency supplemental spending bill for hurricane relief and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provided: $65.8 billion for defense-related expenditures, primarily for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; $19.8 billion for Katrina-related aid; $500 million for agriculture aid for Gulf Coast states; $4 billion for foreign assistance; $2.3 billion for avian flu preparedness; and $1.9 billion for border security. Components of the bill included $480 million for safer, armored Humvees; $2 billion to develop IED countermeasures; $3.7 billion for levee improvements; and $5.2 billion for Community Development Block Grants to Gulf Coast states. The bill passed 351-67. [Roll Call 257, H 4939, 06/13/2006; Leadership Document, “Fact Sheet: Conference Report on HR 4939, FY 2006 Iraq/Katrina Supplemental,” 6/12/06] 116

Ryan Voted in Favor of $427.4 Billion in Defense Appropriations. On June 20, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of the defense appropriations bill for 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House passed a $427.4 billion fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill Tuesday that would provide billions less than President Bush requested for procurement, personnel, and operations and maintenance, prompting a veto threat.[…] Overall, the bill would provide $19.1 billion more than this year’s appropriation (PL 109-148), but $4.1 billion less than Bush requested. Appropriators working with a tight fiscal 2007 discretionary spending cap shifted the $4.1 billion to other spending bills in order to provide more money for domestic accounts. […]The fiscal 2007 bill passed Tuesday includes $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that amount will not cover the full fiscal year, leaving the remainder to a later supplemental spending bill. Bush generally has allowed Congress broad latitude to shift discretionary spending around from his budget requests as long as lawmakers stuck close to his overall spending limit. However, Bush made clear Tuesday night that he strongly objected to the $4 billion shift, as well as a funding maneuver in the bill that essentially would exempt $2 billion in defense spending from the discretionary cap.” [Roll Call 305, H 5631, 06/20/2006; Congressional Quarterly Today, 06/20/06] Ryan Voted for Military Funding for 2006. On May 25, 2005, Ryan voted for the 2006 Defense authorization bill that would provide $441.6 billion for defense programs and $49.1 billion in emergency supplemental spending. The Washington Post reported that the bill provides “an increase of $20 billion, or 4.7 percent […] also would authorize $49 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, raising total outlays for both theaters to more than $327 billion since actions began. The bill would provide a 3.1 percent military pay raise; add 10,000 active duty troops to the Army and 1,000 to the Air Force; enhance recruitment bonuses and benefits; and increase the military death benefit to $100,000. The bill would provide $7.9 billion for the National Missile Defense; continue the Pentagon’s authority to assign female soldiers to support roles in ground combat units; accelerate spending to complete the armoring of Humvees in Iraq; streamline procurement to more quickly accommodate battlefield requests; and prohibit privately financed abortions at U.S. military hospitals and clinics abroad.” [Roll Call 222, H 1815, 05/25/2005; Washington Post 05/29/2005] Ryan Voted for Authorizing $441.5 Billion in Defense Spending. On December 19, 2005, Ryan voted for the conference report on the bill that would authorize $441.5 billion for defense programs and $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would authorize $77 billion for weapons procurement, $108.9 billion for personnel and $12.2 billion for military construction and family housing. It also would authorize $6.6 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, $130 million for flu preparedness and $40 million for Pakistan earthquake relief. It would establish prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of any prisoner detained by the U.S. government. [Roll Call 665, H 1815, 12/19/2005] Ryan Voted for $417 Billion FY 2005 Defense Budget. In June 2004, Ryan voted for passage of a bill that would appropriate $417 billion for defense programs for fiscal 2005, including $25billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total includes $120.6 billion for operations and maintenance, $77.4 billion for procurement and $9.7 billion for ballistic missile defense programs. It also would appropriate $104.2 billion for personnel, including $200 million to fund an additional 13,000 active-duty Army and Marine Corps personnel. The vote succeeded, 403-17. [Roll Call 284, H 4613, 06/22/2004] Ryan Supported Bill Authorizing $400.5 Billion In 2004 Defense Spending. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 362 for and 40 against, the House approved the conference report on a bill authorizing $400.5 billion for defense in fiscal 2004, up 4.5 percent from the comparable 2003 sum. The figure does not reflect $65 billion in new military spending for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. A yes vote backed the conference report.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/9/03] Ryan Voted in Favor of Decreasing Spending on Military Construction. On November 5, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a $9.3 billion military contraction appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “In the end, the $9.3 billion package comes close to Bush’s spending request. It includes $4.9 billion for military construction, $370 million more than the request and $829 million less than fiscal 2003 levels. Family housing projects would be funded at $3.8 billion, $164 million less than the administration request and $412 million less than appropriated for 2003. Largely because of Senate opposition to spending on overseas projects, when the Pentagon might shift bases out of South Korea and Europe, military construction programs overseas were curtailed to $697.7 million from Bush’s original request of $1 billion. Fiscal 2004 military construction spending has also already received a boost because of $838 million included in the fiscal 2004 supplemental (HR 3289).” [Roll Call 606, H 2559, 11/05/2003; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 11/07/03] Ryan Voted For War Supplemental Package. On April 3, 2003 Ryan voted for a bill that would provide emergency war supplemental appropriations for 2003. According to the Washington Post, “a $ 78 billion fiscal 2003 measure that, in part, 117

appropriates $ 62.4 billion for military actions in Iraq; $ 8 billion in foreign aid and Iraq reconstruction; $ 4.2 billion for homeland security; and a $ 3 billion-plus bailout for U.S. airlines. The bill bars France, Germany, Russia and Syria from federal contracts for rebuilding Iraq.” [Roll Call 108, H 1559, 04/03/2003; Washington Post 3/10/2003] Ryan Voted to Fund Military Operations and the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, Increase Deficit. On October 31, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a supplemental appropriations bill to pay for military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post, the “$87.5 billion package to sustain U.S. military forces and rebuild the shattered nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. […] includes nearly $65 billion for military personnel and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $18.6 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Senate is expected to follow suit quickly, sending President Bush a package that closely matches his original request. House and Senate negotiators worked out the final details of the package Wednesday, eliminating a Senate provision that would have required that half of the money for Iraq reconstruction be given as loans instead of grants. Democrats used the debate to criticize the lack of congressional controls over how the funds will be spent. The Washington Post also reported that, “the bill also provides about $1.2 billion for similar purposes in Afghanistan. […] The overall $87.5 billion cost is to be borrowed, raising the projected 2004 deficit to about $600 billion.” [Roll Call 601, H 3289, 10/31/2003; Washington Post, 10/31/03; Washington Post, 11/02/03] Ryan Voted for Defense Department Funding, Boosting Military Spending. On October 10, 2002, Ryan voted for the conference report on the bill that funds the Defense Department at $355.1 billion for 2003. According to the Washington Post, “House and Senate negotiators reached agreement late yesterday on a $ 355.1 billion defense bill for 2003 that would boost military spending by $ 35 billion and finance the purchase of dozens of new high-tech weapons, warships, fighter planes, and helicopters as the nation girds for war. Final passage of the measure, which could come as early as today, would greatly strengthen President Bush’s hand if he decides to use force to bring about his goal of toppling the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, congressional sources said. It would also be a boon to hundreds of defense contractors who stand to profit handsomely from the post-Sept. 11 defense buildup.” [Roll Call 457, H 5010, 10/10/2002; [Washington Post, 10/10/02]] Ryan Voted Against $28.9 Billion in Supplemental Emergency Spending. On July 18, 2002, Ryan voted against a $28.9 billion dollar emergency supplemental appropriations bill. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The emergency spending bill was this year’s first test of Bush’s ability to balance those conflicting forces. The compromise, drafted to resolve differences between House and Senate versions, includes $14.4 billion for the Pentagon, $6.7 billion for homeland security and $5.5 billion to help New York recover from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It also includes funding for an array of other needs, including $100 million to help respond to recent floods and forest fires.” [Roll Call 328, H 4775, 07/23/2002; Los Angeles Times, 07/19/02] Ryan Voted in favor of $10.1 Billion in Military Construction. On June 27, 2002, Ryan voted in favor of a $10.1 billion dollar military construction appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “Eyeing the next round of base closings in 2005, the House passed a military construction spending bill that boosts work at installations that could end up on the Pentagon hit list. The hope among many lawmakers is that facilities undergoing major construction or on track for work would be passed over as the Defense Department looks for potential closures. Despite congressional resistance, the administration is counting on a 2005 round to produce savings for the armed services. President Bush initially requested $9 billion for military construction in fiscal 2003 -- $1.7 billion less than enacted in fiscal 2002. The House bill (HR 5011) -passed 426-1 on June 27 -- would provide $10.1 billion for military facilities, family housing and other infrastructure work.” [Roll Call 277, H 5011, 06/27/2002; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 06/28/02] Ryan Voted to Adopt Conference Report of Bill to Appropriate $3.6 Billion for Military Family Housing, $700 Million for National Guard and $672 Million for Environmental Cleanup. Ryan voted for “adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate $8.4 billion in fiscal 2000 for military construction. The conference report would provide $3.6 billion for family housing, $672 million for environmental cleanup, $695 million for the National Guard and reserves and $643 million for military barracks.” [Roll Call 343, H 2465, 07/29/1999; Congressional Quarterly, 7/29/99] Ryan Voted For FY2000 Defense Appropriations of $266 Billion, 4.8% Military Pay-Hike, $1.8 Billion For Kosovo and Iraq. Ryan voted for a bill to appropriate $266 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2000. The bill would provide $1.2 billion for research and development on next-generation tactical aircraft. The measure would fund a 4.8 percent pay hike for military personnel. The bill would appropriate $93.7 billion for operations and maintenance, which would be used to maintain military properties and spare parts depleted by extended overseas engagements. The bill would provide $1.8 billion for operations in Kosovo and Iraq. [Roll Call 334, H 2561, 07/22/1999] 118

Ryan Voted to Provide $8.5 Billion for Military Construction Spending, Including $3.6 Billion for Family Housing. Ryan voted “to provide $8.5 billion in fiscal 2000 for military construction spending. The bill would provide $3.6 billion for family housing, which includes $2.8 billion for operations and maintenance costs and $747 million to construct new housing units and improve existing ones. The bill would provide $21 million for child care centers. The bill would appropriate $789 million for construction of barracks, $497 million for National Guard and Reserve projects, and $267 million for dismantling chemical weapons.” [Roll Call 280, H 2465, 07/13/1999; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/99]

Intelligence
Ryan Voted for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. On April 26, 2012, Ryan voted for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would allow private companies to share information with intelligence agencies. According to the Los Angeles Times, the bill “is designed to lift legal barriers that make it difficult for the intelligence community and private companies to share information about cyber-threats.” [Roll Call 192, H 3523, 04/26/2012; Los Angeles Times, 4/27/12] Ryan Voted Against Requiring New Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by Jan. 31, 2011. On July 1, 2010, Ryan voted against the fifth portion of the divided question on the Obey, D-Wis., motion to concur in the Senate amendments to the bill with House amendments. The fifth portion consists of a McGovern, D-Mass., amendment that would require the president to present Congress with a new national intelligence estimate on Afghanistan by Jan. 31, 2011, as well as a plan for redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by April 4, 2011. The amendment also would require Congress to vote by July 2011, in order to allow the obligation and expenditure of funds for Afghanistan in a way not consistent with the president’s policy to begin to drawdown troops by July 2011. [Roll Call 433, H 4899, 07/01/2010] Ryan Voted Against 2010 Intelligence Funding. On February 26, 2010, Ryan voted against the bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2010 for 16 intelligence agencies, including the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the National Security Agency, and for intelligence activities of the Defense Department, the FBI, the Homeland Security Department and other agencies. According to the Washington Post, “the bill funds operations of the CIA, National Security Agency and several other spy agencies. In part, the bill would step up the use of human assets to fight terrorists, require the videotaping of prisoner interrogations, prescribe stiff sentences for interrogators who inflict torture, upgrade government cybersecurity systems, fund the recruitment of a more diverse workforce, expand training in several African languages and authorize Government Accountability Office audits of certain intelligence operations.” [Roll Call 73, H 2701, 02/26/2010; Washington Post 02/28/2010] Ryan Voted to Overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On June 20, 2008 Ryan voted to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). According to the Washington Post, “The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government’s eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. [...] The agreement gives telecom companies the ability to have privacy lawsuits thrown out if they demonstrate to a federal judge that they received written assurance from the Bush administration that the spying was legal. House GOP leaders and opponents of the legislation consider the new court review a formality that will lead to dismissal of the suits. The bill requires approval by the secret FISA court of procedures for intercepting foreigners’ e-mails and telephone calls. Spying on U.S. citizens, including those overseas, would require individual warrants from the same court.” [Roll Call 437, H 6304, 06/20/2008; Washington Post, 06/21/08] Ryan Voted to Bar the Use of Phrases Within the Intelligence Community or the Federal Government. On July 16, 2008 Ryan voted to bar the use of funds to prohibit or discourage the use of the phrases “jihadist,” “jihad,” “Islamo-fascism,” “caliphate,” “Islamist,” or “Islamic terrorist” within the intelligence community or the federal government. [Roll Call 500, H 5959, 07/16/2008] Ryan Opposed Holding Secret Session to Review Entire National Intelligence Estimate. In 2006, Ryan voted against a motion to hold a secret session to discuss the National Intelligence Estimate. On September 24, the New York Times reported that the National Intelligence Estimate, a document reflecting the opinions of all 16 of the government’s intelligence agencies, “concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has 119

worsened the U.S. position.” In short, the war in Iraq was making the US less safe and was, according to the Times, “helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi offered a motion to dissolve the House into a secret session so that members could discuss the ramifications of the report on the war in Iraq and the war on terror. The motion was defeated 171-217. [Roll Call 478, 09/26/2006; Leadership Document, “National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in April Reportedly Concluded That the Iraqi War Has Worsened the Terrorist Threat,” 9/26/06] Ryan Voted for Intelligence Overhaul Bill. On October 8, 2004, Ryan voted for the 2004 intelligence overhaul bill. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The bill (HR 10) would create a national intelligence director and national intelligence center, but it largely defers to the White House and Pentagon on the issues of budget and personnel control over the intelligence agencies.” The bill would also allow aliens to be deported without judicial review, increase the number of border patrol agents from 10,000 to 20,000 over the next five years, make attending a terrorist training camp a deportable offense and toughen penalties for those charged with financially aiding terrorist groups. [Roll Call 523, H 10, 10/08/2004; Congressional Quarterly Today, 10/8/04] Ryan Voted To Approve 2005 Fiscal Budget Of At Least $40 Billion For U.S. Intelligence Agencies. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “By a vote of 360 for and 61 against, the House approved a fiscal 2005 budget for the 15 U.S. intelligence agencies. The classified budget is reported to total at least $40 billion. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/27/04] Ryan Opposed Amendment To Withhold Intelligence Funding Until The Bush Administration Provided Documents On Guantanamo Bay Detainees. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 149 for and 270 against, the House rejected an amendment to withhold one-quarter of their fiscal 2005 budget from certain intelligence programs until the administration provides Congress with ‘all documents related to the handling and treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.’ A yes vote was to require administration disclosure of prisoner documents.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/27/04] Ryan Voted for Audit of Pre-9/11 Relationship Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In June 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would direct the CIA’s inspector general to audit the evidence of the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, relationship between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda. The vote passed, 360-61. [Roll Call 300, H 4548, 06/23/2004] Ryan Voted for FY 2005 Intelligence Budget. In June 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would authorize classified amounts in fiscal 2005 for U.S. intelligence activities and agencies including the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bill, as amended, would direct the CIA’s inspector general to audit the evidence of the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, relationship between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda. The vote passed, 360-61. [Roll Call 300, H 4548, 06/23/2004]

Military
Ryan Voted against Mandatory Rest and Recuperation for Troops in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill to mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for members of the regular and reserve components of the U.S. military serving in Iraq. The bill established the time between deployments to combat zones to be at least equal to the length of the most recent deployment. For National Guard and reserve members, the bill called for time between deployments to be at least three times longer than the length of the most recent deployment, and exempted special operations forces units and allowed the president and military service chiefs to waive these requirements in response to unforeseen circumstances. President Bush opposed the bill. The bill passed 229-194. [Roll Call 796, H 3159, 08/02/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted against Budget that Provided for Strong National Defense. In 2007, Ryan voted against the fiscal year 2008 budget conference report that began to reverse six years of Republican fiscal mismanagement, provided for middle-class tax relief and would return the budget to balance – reaching a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 – without raising taxes. The budget provided $507 Billion for the base 2008 Defense Budget, matching the President’s base national defense budget but called for a shifting of resources to address the most critical threats facing our nation. The budget called for implementing the GAOrecommended initiatives to combat wasteful spending, shifting these savings, as well as funds for missile defense and for defense acquisition programs with cost and schedule problems, to higher priorities. Those priorities included the Cooperative 120

Threat Reduction efforts (a 9/11 Commission recommendation) to secure nuclear and other materials used in making weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, mitigating shortfalls at Walter Reed and other health care facilities, eliminating the President’s health care fee increases on military retirees, and ensuring adequate benefits for the troops (such as pay increases to retain experienced personnel). The budget assumes that no less than $5 billion is used to address deficiencies in training, equipment, force protection, logistics, and military medical care. According to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), the budget “makes a strong start on meeting the needs of the military and veterans’ community.” [Roll Call 377, S 21, 05/17/2007; House Budget Committee, Conference Agreement on the FY 2008 Budget Resolution: Building on the “Six for ‘06, 5/24/07; House Budget Committee, Overview of FY2008 Budget Conference Agreement, 5/16/07] Ryan Voted Against Defunding Sending Students for Western Hemisphere Institute. On June 21, 2007, Ryan voted against the amendment that would bar the use of funds to recruit and send students to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at Fort Benning, Ga. The amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act is aimed at halting funding of the school. Though the amendment failed by a vote of 218-188, it led to the first debate in Congress regarding the school since 2001, providing an opportunity for McGovern and other representatives to cite multiple reports of human rights violations perpetrated by both graduates as well as some of its current students. [Roll Call 536, H 2764, 06/21/2007; Washington Report 06/18/2008] Ryan Said Proposed Closure Of Wisconsin Military Base Was ‘Penny Wise And Pound Foolish.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Voicing surprise and dismay, Wisconsin lawmakers vowed to try to save the 440th Airlift Wing and other defense jobs that would be lost under the Pentagon’s base-closing recommendations announced Friday. Members of Congress breathed a sigh of relief that Fort McCoy escaped the closure list but lamented the proposal to shutter the 440th, which is part of the Air Force Reserves and is headquartered at Mitchell International Airport. In a joint statement, Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold and Democratic Reps. Gwen Moore and Ron Kind said they would ‘exhaust all available options’ to preserve the jobs and facilities that the Pentagon wants to cut and called the proposal to close the 440th ‘extremely disappointing.’ ‘I’m very surprised,’ said Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville, whose chief of staff serves with the 440th. ‘We had no indications this was going to be the recommendation . . . I think it’s penny wise and pound foolish.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/14/05] Ryan Supported Statute Denying Federal Aid To Colleges That Banned Military And ROTC Recruiters From Campus. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “The House voted, 343 for and 81 against, to bolster an existing statute that denies many types of federal aid to colleges and universities that ban military and ROTC recruiters from campus. A federal court ruling last year upheld the so-called ‘Solomon Law’ but found that it fails to empower military recruiters to the extent claimed by the Pentagon. This bill seeks to remedy that flaw. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 4/4/04] Ryan Voted For An Amendment Closing Army Schools Of The Americas, Prohibiting Another From Opening For 10 Months. Ryan voted for an amendment that would close the Army’s School of the Americas in Georgia and prohibit the establishment of a successor school for at least 10 months. A congressional task force would be charged with assessing the training of Latin American soldiers by the United States government and reporting to Congress within six months. [Roll Call 204, H 4205, 05/18/2000]

Military Pay
Ryan Voted Against a Combat-Pay Increase for U.S. Troops. In May 2011, Ryan voted against a motion to recommit the fiscal year 2012 Defense Authorization bill to committee with instructions that it be reported back with an amendment to increase the existing pay bonus for U.S. troops “under hostile fire” or “in imminent danger” to $325 per month, from $225. This combat pay increase was to be in addition to a 1.6 percent pay raise already in the bill for uniformed personnel. The measure failed, 185 to 233. [Roll Call 374, H 1540, 05/26/2011; Virginian-Pilot, 5/30/11] Ryan Voted for Pay Raises for Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a bill to appropriate $459.6 billion in defense spending, including a 3.5 percent pay raise. The bill passed 395-13 [Roll Call 846, H 3222, 08/05/2007]

121

Ryan Voted for Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of the Defense Appropriations bill, which contained a 2.2% pay raise for our troops. The bill passed 394-22. [Roll Call 486, H 5631, 09/26/2006] Ryan Voted for Pay Raises for Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense appropriations bill that contained a 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel. The bill passed 308-106. [Roll Call 669, H 2863, 12/19/2005] Ryan Voted For Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense appropriations bill that contained a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel. The bill passed 410-12 [Roll Call 418, H 4613, 07/22/2004] Ryan Voted For Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2005. The bill included 3.5 percent across-the-board military pay increase and more than doubles the allotment for hardship duty. The bill passed 391-34 [Roll Call 206, H 4200, 05/20/2004] Paul Ryan Voted For Pay Raise For Troops. Paul Ryan voted in favor of a defense appropriations bill that contained a 4.1 percent military personnel pay raise. The bill passed 407-15. [Roll Call 513, H 2658, 09/24/2003] Paul Ryan Voted For Pay Raise For Troops. Paul Ryan voted in favor of a defense appropriations bill that contained a 4.1 percent military pay raise. The bill passed 399-19. [Roll Call 335, H 2658, 07/08/2003] Ryan Voted For Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense authorization bill that contained an average 4.7 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill passed 359-58. [Roll Call 158, H 4546, 05/10/2002] Ryan Voted For Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense appropriations bill that contained a 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel. The bill passed 413-18 [Roll Call 270, H 5010, 06/27/2002] Ryan Voted Repeatedly for Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense authorization bill that contained a 4.8 percent military pay raise and increased retirement benefits. The bill passed 365-58. [Roll Call 191, H 1401, 06/10/1999] Ryan Voted Repeatedly for Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted in favor of a defense authorization bill that contained a 4.8 percent military pay raise and increased retirement benefits. The bill passed 365-58. [Roll Call 191, H 1401, 06/10/1999] Though Ryan Twice Voted Against Bills Containing Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted against a supplemental appropriations bill, which included $1.8 billion for a pay raise for the military. [Roll Call 133, H 1141, 05/18/1999] Though Ryan Twice Voted Against Bills Containing Pay Raises for Our Troops. Ryan voted against a supplemental appropriations bill which included $1.8 billion for a pay raise for the military. [Roll Call 120, H 1664, 05/06/1999] Ryan Voted in Favor of Defense Bill Loosening Environmental Restrictions on the Military, Increasing Troop Pay and Veterans’ Benefits. On November 7, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the 2004 Defense authorization bill. According to the Washington Post, “The House approved a $401 billion military spending bill yesterday, providing a pay raise for troops, new benefits for veterans and money for more sophisticated weapons. […] The measure, expected to clear the Senate next week, outlines Pentagon spending for the coming year and sets policies on a variety of matters, including research on nuclear weapons and treatment of the environment. […] Lawmakers said it was essential to include a 4.15 percent pay raise for military personnel. The bill also would reduce the amount that service members must pay for housing and would phase out the payments by 2005. […] Republicans and Democrats sparred over how to treat veterans’ disability benefits. Under current law, about half a million retirees must give up a dollar in retirement benefits for every dollar they receive in disability compensation. Under the authorization bill, any veteran who is 50 percent disabled would not have retirement benefits deducted, a change that would cost the government $22 billion over the next decade. […] The bill would exempt the military from aspects of the Marine Mammal Protection and Endangered Species acts. The armed forces would be allowed to conduct tests near critical habitats with less oversight from other departments such as Interior. […]Under the plan the Pentagon would have to spend $2.4 billion more than had been set aside for fiscal years 2008 to 2010, as well as $1.4 billion later, but taxpayers would save $4 billion over the long term.” [Roll Call 617, H 1588, 11/07/2003; Washington Post, 11/08/03]

CIVILIAN DEFENSE EMPLOYEES
122

Ryan Opposed Military Appropriations Amendment Guaranteeing Collective Bargaining Of Civilian Defense Department Employees Were Covered Under Revised Personnel Rules. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 202 for and 218 against, the House defeated an amendment to the bill above to guarantee the collective-bargaining rights of 700,000 civilian employees covered by new personnel rules at the Defense Department. A yes vote backed the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/27/04] Ryan Opposed Proposal To Give Civil Servants The Same 3.5 Percent Pay Increase As Military Personnel Under 2005 Fiscal Plan. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Members recommended, 299 for and 126 against, that civil servants be awarded the same 3.5 percent pay increase in fiscal 2005 that military personnel are to receive. In effect, the nonbinding measure urges House appropriators to disregard President Bush's request for a 1.5 percent civilian raise. The Senate has approved 3.5 percent. A yes vote backed a 3.5 percent raise for civil servants.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 4/4/04]

Missile Defense
Ryan Supported Working Toward A Nuclear Missile Defense System. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan said the nation should work toward a nuclear missile defense system.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/9/98]

Non-Nuclear Proliferation
Ryan Voted to Give India Access to U.S. Nuclear Technology. On September 27, 2008, Ryan voted in favor of giving India access to U.S. nuclear technology. According to the Washington Post, “The deal, which has been fiercely opposed by nuclear proliferation experts, would give New Delhi access to U.S. nuclear technology for the first time since it conducted a nuclear test in 1974. Since then, India has been barred from the worldwide nuclear trade, leaving it without advanced uraniumenrichment and plutonium-reprocessing technology that is superior to India’s homegrown methods. The administration has argued that the deal would bring a substantial portion of India’s nuclear industry -- though not the facilities that produce materials for weapons -- under international observation and would forge ties between two large democracies that have had an antagonistic relationship in the past. But critics say the deal undermines efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons because it rewards a country that violated nonproliferation norms by building bombs with material from civilian reactors.” [Roll Call 662, H 7081, 09/27/2008; Washington Post, 09/27/08]

123

ECONOMY AND JOBS American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Ryan Wrote A Letter To The Department Of Labor In Support For Energy Training Partnership Grant Created By Stimulus Plan. According to All Politics, “Republicans in Congress have attacked the Democratic-sponsored $787 million economic-stimulus plan, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying to get a piece of the action. One of those Republicans is U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who has labeled the stimulus a ‘wasteful spending spree.’ Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Wall Street Journal obtained letters from some Republicans supporting funding proposals. In Ryan’s case, he wrote a letter to the Department of Labor in support for a grant application that was submitted for an Energy Training Partnership Grant. Ryan, who is traveling in the Middle East, could not be reached for comment. But a spokesman provided this statement: ‘If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing Federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job and providing a legitimate constituent service to his employers.’” [All Politics, 2/16/10] Ryan Voted Against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ryan voted against HR 1, a $787 billion combination of tax cuts and spending designed to improve the economy. The over $211 billion in tax cuts included depreciation allowances for businesses, suspended $2,400 in taxes for those receiving unemployment benefits, and granted a first time homebuyer tax credit of $8,000. The mandatory spending included provision extended $37 billion in unemployment benefits to an estimated 6.7 million people. Other provisions in the bill provided grants for medical information systems, gave states aid through Medicaid programs and other grants, and funded transportation infrastructure projects to update America rail and highway systems. [Roll Call 70, H 1, 02/13/2009; CQ Bill Analysis]

Economic Development
Ryan Voted Against the Reauthorization Appalachian Regional Development Act. On September 21, 2006 Ryan voted against reauthorizing the Appalachian Regional Development Act. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “the bill would reauthorize the Appalachian Regional Commission, a federal-state development partnership designed to address economic and social problems in the historically distressed region. […] Starting in fiscal 2006, appropriators began earmarking a ‘significant amount’ of funds that otherwise would be distributed by a formula among the 13 states that make up the commission, according to Oberstar and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. Three states -- North Carolina, Ohio and West Virginia -- would receive a net benefit from the earmarks, while 10 others would receive less than they would get under the formula, they said in a Sept. 19 letter to colleagues. The House bill would mandate that an earmark for a particular state come out of that state’s formula funds.” [Roll Call 470, S 2832, 09/21/2006; CQ Weekly, 09/23/06]

Bush Economy
Ryan Defended Bush’s Handling Of The Economy, Saying Bush Inherited Recession-Bound Economy And Fought For Job Growth. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Standing against an image of rolling farmland complete with dairy cows, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan praised President Bush for turning around an economy that was sliding toward recession when he took office. ‘The stock market was declining, the dot-com bubble had burst,’ Ryan, R-Janesville, said in his address Wednesday at the Republican National Convention in New York. ‘In response, President Bush delivered broad tax relief for all Americans because he understands that people, not government, start the businesses and create the jobs that that drive our economy.’ Ryan credited Bush with creating new jobs and reducing unemployment while cutting taxes and putting more money in the pockets of Americans. ‘The economy is strong and getting stronger,’ said Ryan, who criticized Democratic challenger John Kerry for voting to increase taxes while in the Senate.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 9/2/04]

124

Jobs
Ryan Voted Against $154.4 Billion For Infrastructure, Jobs And State Aid. Paul Ryan voted against a $154.4 billion package of infrastructure projects, jobs programs and aid to state and local governments. It would redirect $75 billion of the money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, with $48.3 billion for infrastructure projects and $26.7 billion for aid to help state and local governments preserve public jobs. It also would extend unemployment benefits, COBRA health care premium subsidies and provisions requiring the federal government to assume an increased share of Medicaid funding through June 30, 2010. It would extend federal highway, transit and safety programs through the end of fiscal 2010, and would expand eligibility for the child tax credit. [Roll Call 991, H 2847, 12/16/2009]

125

EDUCATION
Ryan Supported Block Granting of Education Programs. In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would establish a new block grant combining three existing education programs – a teacher performance program, the Goals 2000 program and a program to reduce class size by hiring 100,000 teachers. The new grant was authorized at $2 billion per year for five years, and states were given greater flexibility in deciding how to spend the funds. The bill passed 239-185 [Roll Call 320, H 1995, 07/20/1999] Paul Ryan Supported Block Granting of Education Programs. In 1999, Paul Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would establish a new block grant combining three existing education programs – a teacher performance program, the Goals 2000 program and a program to reduce class size by hiring 100,000 teachers. The new grant was authorized at $2 billion per year for five years, and states were given greater flexibility in deciding how to spend the funds. The bill passed 239-185. [Roll Call 320, H 1995, 07/20/1999] Ryan Voted For Ed Flex Bill. Ryan voted in favor of Passage of the bill to expand the current Education Flexibility Partnership program by making all 50 states eligible to participate in the program, instead of just the 12 states permitted under current law. Under the bill, participating states could waive certain federal statutory or regulatory requirements for education programs, as well as state requirements. The bill removes the Ed-Flex program from the Goals 2000 statute, but requires states to have implemented content and performance standards and assessments required under the Title I program for disadvantaged students. He also voted for the conference report. [Roll Call 94, H 800, 04/21/1999] Ryan Supported Removing Nearly 112,000 Students from Work Study Programs. In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of the 2000 GOP budget resolution, which would remove nearly 112,000 students from the Work Study Program. The budget passed 220 to 208. [Roll Call 85, S 68, 04/14/1999] Paul Ryan Supported Removing Nearly 112,000 Students from Work Study Programs. In 1999, Paul Ryan voted in favor of the 2000 GOP budget resolution, which would remove nearly 112,000 students from the Work Study Program. The budget passed 220 to 208. [Roll Call 85, S 68, 04/14/1999] Ryan Voted For Ed Flex Bill. Ryan voted in favor of Passage of the bill to expand the current Education Flexibility Partnership program by making all 50 states eligible to participate in the program, instead of just the 12 states permitted under current law. Under the bill, participating states could waive certain federal statutory or regulatory requirements for education programs, as well as state requirements. The bill removes the Ed-Flex program from the Goals 2000 statute, but requires states to have implemented content and performance standards and assessments required under the Title I program for disadvantaged students. He also voted for the conference report. [Roll Call 41, H 800, 03/11/1999] Ryan Voted Against an Amendment Prohibiting the Diversion of Funds from Poorer School Districts. On March 11, 1999, Ryan voted against a Scott (D-VA) amendment to an education flexibility bill. The bill would prohibit states from waiving Title 1 requirements if 35% of the children or more in the school district come from low-income families. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Two Wisconsin Democrats, however, were among those voting against the House bill, claiming it could take money away from needy school districts. ‘This bill makes it easier to divert money from schools that need help the most to schools that need help the least,’ said Rep. David Obey of Wausau. Rep. Tom Barrett said he voted against the measure because it lacked assurances that it will not steer money away from the Title 1 program, which directs funds to poorer schools. ‘Everybody likes the idea of more flexibility, but there needs to be a balance struck between flexibility and fairness,” said the Milwaukee Democrat. A Democratic amendment offered to address this issue was defeated 195-223. [Roll Call 40, H 800, 03/11/1999; Wisconsin State Journal, 03/12/99] Ryan’s 1998 Opponent Lydia Spottswood, Claimed That Ryan Wanted to Eliminate “School-To-Work Program, Based On His Advocacy For Education Block Grants. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The Spottswood ad accuses Ryan of wanting to eliminate ‘school-to-work’ programs and to privatize Social Security and eliminate guaranteed benefits. The claim is based on Ryan’s advocacy for education block grants and comments that he’d consider suggestions to change Social Security. Ryan, however, has said he does not favor cutting education programs but giving local schools the choice of how to spend federal aid. He also has said he doesn’t back privatization but might consider it.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/30/98] 126

Affordability
Ryan Voted to Strip $5.9 Billion in Health Care Funding to Extend Student Loan Interest Rates. On April 27, 2012, Ryan voted for extending current student loan interest rates. According to the New York Times, “The bill, which would strip $5.9 billion from a program within the health care law to pay to keep rates on subsidized undergraduate loans at 3.4 percent, is all but certain to fail in the Senate, where lawmakers have put together their own measure to keep the rate from reverting to 6.8 percent by closing tax loopholes for some wealthy business owners.” [Roll Call 195, H 4628, 04/27/2012; New York Times, 4/28/12] Paul Ryan Voted Against Expanding Access To Higher Education. Paul Ryan voted against a measure to replace costly private student loans with federal government loans by eliminating the Federal Family Education loan program. The legislation would provide for a competitive bidding process for entities to service the loans. The bill would make several modifications to education programs, including increasing funding for Pell grants, early-childhood education and community colleges. [Roll Call 719, H 3221, 09/17/2009] Ryan Voted Against a $2,500 Tax Credit for College Students. Ryan voted against the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The act created the American Opportunity Tax Credit, an expansion of an existing tax break called the Hope Scholarship Credit. The new credit allowed for 100 percent of the first $2,000 in tuition and related fees and 25 percent of the second $2,000 (for a total of $2,500). That increased from a maximum of $1,800 previously. [Roll Call 70, H 1, 02/13/2009; Chicago Tribune, 3/01/09]

For-Profit Colleges
Ryan Voted to Repeal New Department of Education Rules Governing For-Profit Colleges. On February 28, 2012, Ryan voted for the bill that would rescind Education Department regulations that define a credit hour and set minimum requirements that all higher education institutions must meet to be considered authorized by a state. It also would bar the Education secretary from establishing or enforcing any new rules to define the term “credit hour.” According to the Washington Post, “The House sent the Senate a bill (HR 2117) to repeal new Department of Education rules governing forprofit colleges and universities. One rule requires such institutions to meet accreditation requirements in each state in which they have students and establishes state-by-state processes for handling student complaints. Another rule targeted by the bill sets a uniform definition of what constitutes a credit hour for purposes of allocating federal financial aid. The rules are scheduled to take effect in July 2014. For-profit schools, many of which specialize in online or ‘distance’ degree programs, account for 11 percent of U.S. higher-education students and rely heavily on federally backed student loans and federal grants for their revenue. Their students receive about one-quarter of all student loans and make up 43 percent of those who default on such loans, according to the Department of Education. Some of the best- known for-profit institutions are Capella, Kaplan and DeVry universities and the University of Phoenix.” [Roll Call 79, H 2117, 02/28/2012; Washington Post, 3/8/12]

Funding
Ryan Opposed Increase for Special Education, Teacher Quality Programs. In 2003, Ryan voted against the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, which increased funding for the IDEA special education programs. The bill included a $3.2 billion increase for education programs over the FY 02 level of $49.9 billion (for a total of $53.1 billion). Specific increases included $1.4 billion increases for Title I (for a total of $11.7 billion) and IDEA special education (for a total of $8.9 billion). The bill also increased investments for Teacher Quality (increase from $2.85 billion to $2.93 billion) and MathScience programs (increase from $12.5 million to $100.3 million). The bill passed 338-83. [Roll Call 32, S 2, 02/13/2003] Paul Ryan Voted For Across-The-Board Cut To Education Initiatives. In 1999, Ryan voted for the conference report on the fiscal 2000 DC/Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which would make an across-the-board cut of 0.97 percent to the agencies it funded. President Clinton pledged a veto because of the damage he said the spending cuts would inflict on schools and other programs. [Roll Call 549, H 3064, 10/28/1999; AP, 10/28/99] 127

Paul Ryan Opposed Fiscally Responsible FY 2009 Budget With $85.3 Billion for Education. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against a budget resolution that would establish the congressional budget for FY 2009. The resolution would call for expenditures of $3.1 trillion and would allow up to $1 trillion in discretionary spending, plus $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $5.8 billion for hurricane recovery. The bill would also include $85.3 billion for education, training, employment and social services, an amount that was $7.1 billion more than President Bush had requested. [Roll Call 141, S 312, 03/13/2008; Congressional Quarterly; “Summary of the 2009 Democratic Budget,” House Committee on the Budget, 3/11/08] Ryan Opposed Reauthorization of Higher Education Act. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would reauthorize the Higher Education Act through fiscal 2012, including a wide range of post-secondary programs, including student loans and teacher training. The measure would raise the maximum Pell grant award from $5,800 to $9,000 and allow the grants to be used year-round. A major provision included increasing the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide students and barring lenders from giving schools any perks to get on a “preferred lender” list. It would also create a “higher education price index” to compare tuition increases. The bill also would allow the federal government to penalize states that substantially decrease their contributions to public colleges and universities. The bill passed 354-58 [Roll Call 40, H 4137, 02/07/2008; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 2/09/08] Ryan Voted to Sustain Bush Veto on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations. In 2007, Ryan voted against an override of President Bush’s veto of the bill to appropriate $150.7 billion in fiscal 2008 for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and related agencies. The legislation provided $63.6 billion for the Education Department, including $14.5 billion for Pell Grants; $15 billion for the Labor Department, including $3.6 billion for training and employment services; and $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health. The veto override failed, 277-141. [Roll Call 1122, H 3043, 11/15/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Opposed FY08 Budget that Invested in Education, Innovation Agenda. In 2007, Ryan voted against the fiscal year 2008 budget conference report that began to reverse six years of Republican fiscal mismanagement, provided for middle-class tax relief and would return the budget to balance – reaching a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 – without raising taxes. The budget provided $9.5 billion more for education, training, and social services than President Bush requested, including funding for No Child Left Behind programs, special education, and aid to help students afford college. The budget also increased funding for Head Start and child care while funding the House Democratic innovation agenda, putting us on a path to double funding for the National Science Foundation and providing significant increases in K-12 math and science education. The budget passed 214-209 [Roll Call 377, S 21, 05/17/2007; House Budget Committee, Overview of FY2008 Budget Conference Agreement, 5/16/07, SCR 21, House Budget Committee, Conference Agreement on the FY 2008 Budget Resolution: Building on the “Six for ‘06, 5/24/07] Ryan Supported Higher Education Funding Bill that Did Not Make College More Affordable. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill authorizing funds for higher education aid. The measure would simplify the financial aid application and make Pell Grants, the major grant that helps low- and middle-income students, available for summer study. The bill would also raise the spending cap on Pell Grants to $6,000, up from $5,800. The increase would be largely symbolic, however, as the maximum grant Congress appropriates has been frozen for four years at $4,050. The bill would set the interest rate for subsidized loans at 6.8 percent, regardless of whether commercial rates rise or fall. The bill did not reverse any of the $12.7 billion in cuts to federal student aid enacted by the Republican Congress in February 2006. The bill passed 221-199. [Roll Call 81, H 609, 03/30/2006; New York Times, 3/31/06; Committee on Education and Workforce release, 3/30/06] Ryan Voted for $496.6 Billion FY 2005 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Budget. In September 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would appropriate $496.6 billion, including $142.5 billion in discretionary spending, for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments and related agencies in fiscal 2005. It would provide $57.7 billion for the Education Department, including $12.2 billion for special education; $14.9 billion for the Labor Department; $374.3 billion for Health and Human Services, including $28.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health. The bill includes a total of $4 billion for countering bioterrorism. As amended, the bill also would prohibit funds from being used to administer or implement any regulation that would take away eligibility for overtime for workers. The vote succeeded, 388-13. [Roll Call 440, H 5006, 09/09/2004] Ryan Voted For $14 Billion Increase in Labor, Health and Education Funding. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of House passage of the $396 billion fiscal 2002 appropriations bill for the Labor, HHS, and Education departments. Of the total, $123 billion was approved by the House, with the remainder automatically allocated to entitlement programs. The bill would 128

provide almost $14 billion more than in the previous year – and $7 billion more than Bush requested at the start of 2001. [Roll Call 381, H 3061, 10/11/2001; AP, 10/11/01] Ryan Voted For Education Bill With Substantially Less Funding Than House Plan. Ryan voted for an education plan with $9 billion less funding than the Senate plan Johnson voted for. The House plan included only $24 billion for elementary and secondary education, while the plan Johnson supported contained $33 billion. [Roll Call 145, H 1, 05/23/2001] Ryan Voted To Reauthorize Title I And Raise Achievement Standards In Public Schools. On October 21, 1999 Ryan voted for the Student Results Act of 1999, which was a “$9.9 billion bill Thursday that imposes strong federal requirements to raise achievement standards in public schools. The bipartisan bill, known as the Student Result Act, is a 5-year reauthorization of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, originally created in 1965.” The bill passed 358-67. [Roll Call 526, H 2, 10/21/1999; University Wire, 10/26/99] Ryan Supported Extreme Cuts to Education. In 1999, Ryan voted in favor of a Republican Budget plan that called for drastic cuts to education programs. Among the programs highlighted for cuts and even elimination were the initiative to fund 100,000 new teachers, after-school programs and teacher quality and recruitment programs. Based on the Labor/Health and Human Services and Education bill passed by the House Appropriations Committee on September 23, 1999, here is a partial list at some the programs that would have been impacted: Eliminated the 100,000 new teachers program. This included eliminating the funding for the 30,000 teachers that were hired in 98, the 8,000 new teachers that would be hired in 1999 and any future teachers; Eliminated funding for programs that help states and localities to turn around failing schools; Cut funding for after-school and summer school programs, denying at least 300,000 students access to the programs; Cut funding for teacher quality and recruitment programs; Cut funds for the GEAR UP program, denying more than 130,000 disadvantaged young people the help they need to get into college. The budget passed 221-208. [Roll Call 77, S 68, 03/25/1999] Ryan Said He Supported Educational “Fled Grants” In Which Federal Dollars Were Sent To Local School Districts And They Would Use The Money As They See Fit. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Congressional Republican measures endorsed by Ryan would cut federal education spending in areas like school-to-work programs, computers and afterschool learning programs, Spottswood claimed. She said she based her conclusion on a U.S. Department of Education analysis of the GOP-backed ‘Dollars to the Classroom’’ legislation. ‘The program would actually cut federal support to our kids,’ Spottswood said at a forum sponsored by a Kenosha-area business group. ‘I think that’s the wrong way to go. We need more of that partnership, not less.’ Ryan, running for office for the first time, disputed Spottswood’s claims. Ryan said he favors educational ‘flex grants,’ in which federal education dollars are sent to local school districts, who would then use the money as they see fit.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/21/98]

Head Start
Ryan Voted for Bipartisan Early-Childhood Education Program. In 2007, Ryan voted for an amendment agreeing to a conference report to reauthorize the Head Start program through 2012.The Head Start program has provided over 24 million children with education and needed social services, like health and nutrition, since its inception in 1965. The conference report increased Head Start teacher salaries, increased the number of eligible participants, tightened program accountability, and authorized $24 million for the program from 2008-2010. The final version did not include a provision to take faith-based hiring into account for religious providers of Head Start services. “Head Start is one of America’s most popular investments because it is one of our most effective,” said Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. ”This legislation builds on its success and strengthens Head Start for the future.” The conference report passed 381-36 [Roll Call 1090, H 1429, 11/14/2007; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/07 Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi press release, 12/12/07] Ryan Supported Cutting Head Start Enrollment. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act, including provisions that would weaken the program. The Republican Head Start bill started to dismantle the high-quality federal standards and comprehensive services that have made Head Start the premiere early childhood education program for American toddlers. At the time, funding only allowed three out of five eligible children to be served. And yet, instead of expanding Head Start to serve more children, the Republican bill froze funding levels in real terms and ultimately cut enrollment in Head Start for the first time in history. The bill also created a block grant that specified no minimum for class size, child-teacher ratios or curriculum effectiveness. The bill passed 217-216. [Roll Call 444, H 2210, 07/25/2003] 129

Ryan Voted Against Full Funding For Head Start. Ryan voted against providing full funding for Head Start. Gephardt opposed an amendment to provide for investments in education, including new school construction grants and full funding for Head Start; funding for Medicare prescription drug benefit; funding for election reform; and funding for affordable housing construction. [Roll Call 496, S 1438, 12/13/2001]

Higher Education
Ryan Supported Statute Denying Federal Aid To Colleges That Banned Military And ROTC Recruiters From Campus. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “The House voted, 343 for and 81 against, to bolster an existing statute that denies many types of federal aid to colleges and universities that ban military and ROTC recruiters from campus. A federal court ruling last year upheld the so-called ‘Solomon Law’ but found that it fails to empower military recruiters to the extent claimed by the Pentagon. This bill seeks to remedy that flaw. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 4/4/04] Ryan Voted In Favor of GOP Bill To Prevent An Increase In Student Loan Interest Rates. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Student loan interest rates: Members on Friday voted, 215-195, to prevent interest rates on student loans from doubling on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The GOP bill would offset the $6 billion cost with cuts in the 2010 health law’s preventive-care section. A yes vote was to pass HR 4628. Voting yes: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, Ribble.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/28/12] Ryan Supported 2003 Reauthorization of Higher Education Act. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the reauthorization of Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The reauthorization bill made improvements to the teacher training programs funded under Title II of the Higher Education Act to provide the teachers of tomorrow with the skills they will need to be ready to teach when they enter the classroom. The bill passed 404-17 [Roll Call 340, H 2211, 07/09/2003] Ryan Voted for Reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On April 30, 2003, Ryan voted for reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. According to Asbury Park Press, the bill aims to ensure “each special education pupil has a plan which must be reviewed each year and necessary changes made. The House proposal would no longer hold educators and parents to a one-year review, but permit an option of once every three years.” According to The Honolulu Star, “the bill would also make it easier to discipline children with disabilities. Currently, families can challenge efforts to remove such students from class for more than 10 days in a school year, unless the violation involves weapons or drugs, or the child is likely to injure himself or others. The measure would allow such students to be sent to alternative educational settings for up to 45 days, just like other students, whether or not their misbehavior was linked to their disability. Schools now must prove the misbehavior is not related to the disability in order to do so.” [Roll Call 154, H 1350, 04/30/2003; Asbury Park Press 06/18/2003; Honolulu Star 4/22/2003]

No Child Left Behind
Ryan Voted to Cut No Child Left Behind by $784 Million. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of the Labor, HHS & Education appropriations conference report that cut $1.5 billion from key domestic priorities. The measure cut education programs by $59 million - including a $784 million cut from No Child Left Behind programs. The bill provided less than a one percent increase in Title I reading and math assistance for low-income children - the smallest increase in 8 years. In addition, the bill cut $87 million from programs that helped nearly 14,000 school districts that relied on the funding for school safety, drug prevention and anti-violence activities. The bill failed 209-224 [Roll Call 598, H 3010, 11/17/2005; House Appropriations Committee Democratic Staff, “Summary of the Conference Agreement - HR 3010,” 11/16/05] Ryan Supported Bill that Underfunded NCLB by $8 Billion. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The bill underfunded the landmark No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and provided the smallest percentage increase in education funding in eight years. Because of the bill, 54,000 fewer teachers would receive federally supported professional development. Special education programs would receive a $1 billion funding increase, compared to the $2.2 billion increase promised by Republicans. Pell Grants would finance only 130

38 percent of the cost of a public university, compared to 84 percent when the Pell Grant program was established. The bill passed 215-208 [Roll Call 353, H 2660, 07/10/2003] Ryan Supported Budget Cutting NCLB by $1 Billion. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a budget resolution that provided for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, while cutting programs for children and public education by $38 billion over ten years, below the amount needed to maintain current service levels. It provided virtually no increase for education programs overall and cut funding for No Child Left Behind programs by $1 billion (from $23.8 billion to $22.8 billion). In addition, the House Budget eliminated 46 education programs (such as Rural Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology), cut the after school program by 40 percent (or $400 million), and reduced the maximum Pell Grant award (from $4,050 to $4,000). The budget passed 215-212 [Roll Call 82, S 95, 03/21/2003] Paul Ryan Supported Budget Cutting NCLB by $1 Billion. In 2003, Paul Ryan voted in favor of a budget resolution that provided for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, while cutting programs for children and public education by $38 billion over ten years, below the amount needed to maintain current service levels. It provided virtually no increase for education programs overall and cut funding for No Child Left Behind programs by $1 billion (from $23.8 billion to $22.8 billion). In addition, the House Budget eliminated 46 education programs (such as Rural Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology), cut the after school program by 40 percent (or $400 million), and reduced the maximum Pell Grant award (from $4,050 to $4,000). The budget passed 215-212. [Roll Call 82, S 95, 03/21/2003] Ryan Supported No Child Left Behind Bill. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to overhaul education proposals to increase school accountability and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for six years. The final version of the bill required states to annually test students in reading and math in grades three through eight, provide new accountability measures for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, and give schools greater flexibility to spend federal funds. It included about $26.3 billion for federal elementary and secondary education programs and $13.5 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged children in fiscal 2002.The bill passed 381-41. [Roll Call 497, H 1, 12/13/2001]

Public Schools
Ryan Supported More Local Control of Public Schools. According to the Capital Times, “Ryan said he did not side with Clinton’s plans, reiterating the Republican call for more local control of public schools. ‘The education proposal sounds like more Washington control over our schools when I think the real answer is local control,’ the congressman said. As an example, he said, many communities in southern Wisconsin have different needs than Kenosha or Racine, and a broad-based, federal-directed reform would not address those individual needs.” [Capital Times, 1/20/99]

Pell Grants
Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, Doubling the Maximum Number of Pell Grants. On July 31, 2008, Ryan voted against reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. According to the Washington Post, “Congress yesterday passed a major overhaul of federal higher-education programs aimed at expanding financial aid and bringing greater clarity and disclosure to the student loan process. By overwhelming bipartisan votes, the House and Senate approved a fiveyear reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It will nearly double the maximum amount of Pell Grants by 2014 and will require the Education Department to collect and publish better data on soaring tuition costs at universities and colleges. […] In addition to increasing Pell Grants, the legislation seeks to clarify the application process. One provision, written by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), simplifies a financial aid form by reducing the number of questions asked and mandating it contain more easily understood language. […] The legislation also imposes new regulations on financial institutions that make private loans to students not in the federal student loan program. It requires those lenders to disclose 27 pieces of information, such as mandating lenders to reveal three times in the application process all potential finance charges, late fees, penalties and adjustments to the loan. It also gives student borrowers up to 30 days to terminate a loan after an application is approved.” [Roll Call 544, H 4137, 07/31/2008; Washington Post, 08/01/08] 131

Ryan Voted Against Raising Pell Grants. On July 11, 2007, Ryan voted against the bill that would cut nearly $19 billion from federal student loan lender subsidies and redirect most of those funds to financial aid for students, colleges and universities. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “cut taxpayer subsidies of firms that provide student loans by $19 billion over five years and allocate most of the savings to programs that directly benefit students and institutions of higher education. The bill would halve interest on student loans to 3.4 percent; raise Pell Grants for poor students to a maximum of $5,200; provide tuition aid to students preparing to teach in disadvantaged neighborhoods; authorize grants to Hispanic and historically black institutions; provide student-loan forgiveness to first responders and nurses; and cap student-loan repayments at 15 percent of discretionary income.” [Roll Call 613, H 2669, 07/11/2007; Washington Post 07/15/2007] Ryan Voted To Block Legislation To Save Thousands Of Dollars For Pell Grants. On July 01, 2010, Ryan voted to block legislation that would help prevent thousands of teacher layoffs across the nation. The legislation would invest $10 billion to teachers’ jobs and $16 billion to help cover state Medicaid payments. The legislation also invests $4.95 billion for Pell grants, which help support low-income students attend institutions of higher education. [Roll Call 430, H 4899, 07/01/2010] Ryan Supported Pell Grant Award Cuts. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a budget resolution that provided for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, while cutting programs for children and public education by $38 billion over ten years below the amount needed to maintain current service levels. It provided virtually no increase for education programs overall and cut funding for No Child Left Behind programs by $1 billion (from $23.8 billion to $22.8 billion). In addition, the House Budget eliminated 46 education programs (such as Rural Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology), cut the after school program by 40 percent (or $400 million), and reduced the maximum Pell Grant award (from $4,050 to $4,000). The budget passed 215-212. [Roll Call 82, S 95, 03/21/2003] Paul Ryan Supported Pell Grant Award Cuts. In 2003, Paul Ryan voted in favor of a budget resolution that provided for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, while cutting programs for children and public education by $38 billion over ten years below the amount needed to maintain current service levels. It provided virtually no increase for education programs overall and cut funding for No Child Left Behind programs by $1 billion (from $23.8 billion to $22.8 billion). In addition, the House Budget eliminated 46 education programs (such as Rural Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology), cut the after school program by 40 percent (or $400 million), and reduced the maximum Pell Grant award (from $4,050 to $4,000). The budget passed 215-212. [Roll Call 82, S 95, 03/21/2003]

Teachers
Ryan Voted to Cut Title 1 Funding for Local Educators by $693.5 Million. Ryan voted for a House continuing resolution that contained severe cuts to Title 1 funding. According to the National Education Association, the GOP House Continuing Resolution contained severe cuts to Title 1 funding. “Funding for Title 1 would be cut by $693.5 million in fiscal year 2011 from current levels, which would reduce or eliminate additional academic support for more than 957,000 low-income students and could lead to more than 9,000 job losses.” [Roll Call 147, H 1, 02/19/2011; National Education Association, 2/19/11] Ryan Voted to Block Funding of Education Department “Gainful Employment” Rules. On February 18, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would bar the use of funds made available in the bill to implement, administer or enforce an Education Department regulation or rule with respect to the definition or application of the term “gainful employment” under the Higher Education Act. Congressional Quarterly Today reported, “In a victory to the for-profit college industry, the House adopted an amendment Friday that would block the Obama administration from implementing new regulations aimed at curtailing deceptive marketing practices by the schools [...] Among those is a “gainful employment” regulation, which would eliminate federal financial aid for programs where high proportions of students are not repaying the principal on their student loans, or end up with excessive debt loads compared with the salaries they can earn.” [Roll Call 92, H 1, 02/18/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 02/18/2011] Paul Ryan Voted against Education Funding to Help Avoid Teacher Layoffs. Paul Ryan voted against the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $53.6 billion for a state fiscal stabilization fund of which, $39.5 billion would be used to enhance local school budgets. Governors were to channel money to avoid teacher layoffs and modernization of school buildings. Also included $1 billion for Head Start programs. The measure also included 132

$15.84 billion for student financial assistance and to carry out the Higher Education Act of 1965. [Roll Call 46, H 1, 01/28/2009; CQ Bill Analysis HR1; New York Times, 2/14/09] Ryan Opposed Helping Schools Reduce Class-Size; Train Teachers. Ryan voted in favor of a Republican budget resolution that cut all funding for the 100,000 new teachers program. This included eliminating the funding for the 30,000 teachers that were hired in 1998, the 8,000 new teachers that would be hired in 1999 and any future teachers. The budget passed 221-208 [Roll Call 77, S 68, 03/25/1999] 1999: Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate Funding For New Teachers. Paul Ryan voted in favor of a Republican budget resolution that cut all funding for the 100,000 new teachers program. This included eliminating the funding for the 30,000 teachers that were hired in 1998, the 8,000 new teachers that would be hired in 1999 and any future teachers. The budget passed 221-208. [Roll Call 77, S 68, 03/25/1999]

Student Loans
Ryan Voted to Block Federal Student Loan Money From Going to ACORN. On September 17, 2009, Ryan voted for a motion to recommit HR 3221 with instructions to add language blocking federal student loan money from going to ACORN. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House passed a landmark overhaul of the student lending system Thursday that will establish the government as the only provider of loans and put tens of billions of dollars toward various scholarship and education programs. [...] The House approved, by a vote of 345 to 75, a motion by Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to clarify that no funding under the bill would be directed toward the activist group ACORN -- a provision that Miller encouraged members to vote in favor of, as ACORN would receive no funding under the bill anyway.” [Roll Call 718, H 3221, 09/17/2009; Congressional Quarterly Today, 09/17/2009] Ryan Voted to Increase Annual Loan Limits on College Loans. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a motion to concur on a Senate amendment that would increase annual loan limits on federal college loans and give the Education Department a bigger role in ensuring loan availability. Despite originally opposing the legislation, President Bush came to support it, saying the federal government “had an obligation to encourage and support people pursuing higher education.” By granting the Department of Education greater authority to purchase Federal student loans, the measure would “ease the anxiety many students may feel about their ability to finance their education this fall,” Bush said. The motion was agreed to 388-21. [Roll Call 239, H 5715, 05/01/2008; House Education and Labor Committee Release, 5/01/08, White House Release, 5/01/08] Ryan Voted for Increased in Limits for College Loans. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would increase annual loan limits on federal college loans and give the Education Department a bigger role in ensuring loan availability. The bill would increase the annual loan limits on both direct loans from the federal government and government-guaranteed loans by $2,000 for all students. The bill would also increase the total amount of federal loans students could borrow to $31,000 for dependent undergraduates and $57,000 for independent undergraduates. The bill passed 383-27. [Roll Call 204, H 5715, 04/17/2008] Ryan Opposed Largest Increase in Student Aid Since the GI Bill. In 2007, Ryan voted against legislation that provided the largest increase in student aid since the G.I. Bill. The conference report of the bill cut government subsidies to student loan firms by about $20 billion and redirected most of the money to aid for students and college graduates. It also included $750 million in federal budget deficit reduction. The maximum Pell grant award would be increased by $490 in 2008 and by $1,090 over five years. It also provided debt forgiveness to certain public-sector workers after 10 years of service, and capped student loan repayments at 15 percent of discretionary income. The bill passed 292-97 [Roll Call 864, H 2669, 09/07/2007] Ryan Opposed College Student Relief Act. In 2007, Ryan voted against cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans for undergraduates in half over five years – cutting the interest rate from 6.8% today to 3.4% by 2011 – helping 5.5 million students. Once fully phased in, this bill would save the typical borrower, with $13,800 in subsidized federal student loan debt, approximately $4,400 over the life of their loans. The bill passed 356-71. [Roll Call 32, H 5, 01/17/2007] Ryan Supported Cutting Student Loan Funding, Social Programs and Agriculture Funding but Prevented HMO Cuts. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of the conference agreement to cut mandatory spending programs by $39.7 billion over the following five years. Due to the billions of dollars in tax cuts passed separately, the budget reconciliation package would 133

increase the deficit. The measure cut $12.7 billion from student loan programs - the largest single cut in history. The bill also put billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all of the critical funds ($2.2 billion) used to carry out and administer the student aid programs. The measure cut $2.6 billion from programs serving single-parent families, foster children and lowincome elderly and disabled people. The cuts included $1.5 billion from child support enforcement, $343 million from foster care programs and $732 million from Supplemental Security Income for the elderly. The bill reduced the amount of direct payments available to farmers in advance to 40% in 2006 and 22% in 2007 and extended the Milk Income Loss Contract through 2007, at a cost of $998 million. The bill canceled funds, for a total cut of $1 billion over five years, for several programs including the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food systems. Additionally, the bill cut important farm bill conservation programs by $934 million over five years. The measure did not touch a $5 billion HMO slush fund established by the 2003 Medicare bill, and after intense lobbying from the health insurance industry, the budget saved HMOs $22 billion dollars. The bill passed 216-214. [Roll Call 4, S 653, 02/01/2006; CQ Today, 2/1/06; Washington Post, 2/2/06] Ryan Opposed Cutting Student Loan Interest Rates, Reversing Cuts to Student Aid. In 2006, Ryan voted against a Democratic alternative to the higher education authorization bill that would have cut student loan interest rates in half (from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent) for one year for those most in need. Students taking out a subsidized loan during that year would be able to lock in the low fixed interest rate for the life of their loans, thereby saving thousands of dollars in interest costs. The average college student graduates from college with $18,000 of debt. The measure would have also reversed previously enacted cuts to student loan programs. The measure was defeated 200-220 [Roll Call 80, H 609, 03/30/2006; New York Times, 3/31/06; Committee on Education and Workforce release, 3/30/06] Ryan Supported Increasing Student Loan Forgiveness for Teachers. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would increase from $5,000 to $17,500 the amount in student loans that could be forgiven for math, science and special education teachers who serve low-income students. Loan forgiveness also would be available to reading teachers who have obtained a separate state credential in reading. Teachers would have to be ‘highly qualified’ as defined in the 2001 education reauthorization law and work in a Title I school in which more than 40 percent of its students come from families below the poverty line. It also would accelerate the timetable for forgiveness to allow a teacher to have a portion of their loans forgiven after only two years of service. The bill passed 417-7 [Roll Call 343, H 438, 07/09/2003]

Vouchers
Ryan Voted to Extend D.C. School Voucher Program. On March 30, 2011, Ryan voted for a bill that would extend funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which provides low-income students with scholarships, also known as “school vouchers”, that allows them to attend the school of their choice within the District of Columbia. In 2009, Democrats closed the program to new students but kept it open to current ones. The Washington Post reported that “House Speaker John A. Boehner’s bill – known as the SOAR Act – would reopen it, offering $20 million annually for five years for new scholarships, along with another $20 million apiece for D.C. charter schools and traditional D.C. public schools. […] Boehner’s bill would provide students from low-income families with as much as $8,000 to attend elementary school or $12,000 for high school – amounts that wouldn’t cover tuition at most of the city’s elite private schools but would cover the costs of many parochial schools. Boehner has been a strong supporter of Washington’s Catholic schools, some of which are struggling financially.[…] President Obama weighed in Tuesday, issuing a statement through the Office of Management and Budget saying that he ‘strongly opposes expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and opening it to new students’.” [Roll Call 204, H 471, 03/30/2011; Washington Post, 3/30/11]

134

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality
Ryan Voted to Ban the EPA from Regulating “Farm Dust.” On December 8, 2011, Ryan voted for passage of the bill that would prohibit the EPA from proposing, finalizing, implementing or enforcing regulations for one year that would modify current rules regarding the emission of coarse particulate matter. It would exempt “nuisance dust” from regulation under the Clean Air Act. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “Legislation that would bar the EPA for one year from revising standards on ‘nuisance dust’ advanced last week in the House. Lawmakers voted 268-150 on Dec. 8 to pass the bill (HR 1633), which is designed to prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) to regulate coarse particulates kicked up by farm operations. The EPA would, however, be allowed to regulate nuisance dust in cases where it is not regulated under state or local law and the benefits of regulation surpass the cost and potential economic effects on employment. […] Republicans say the legislation would provide regulatory certainty for farmers and rural citizens, while Democrats contend that the GOP is trying to regulate a threat that does not exist. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has said she intends to propose no change to the air pollution standard for coarse particulates, which must be reviewed every five years. Such pollution likely causes adverse health effects due to its ability to travel to the lower regions of the respiratory tract, the EPA says.” [Roll Call 912, H 1633, 12/08/2011; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 12/10/11] Ryan Voted To Nullify EPA Standards For Cement Plants In Defiance Of President. On October 6, 2011 Ryan voted for passage of a bill nullifying EPA emission standards for cement plants. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., who co-authored the delay bill with Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said the measure ‘will remove regulatory barriers to growth in the construction and cement manufacturing industries.’ Republican members and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports the GOP bill, contend that the EPA’s new rule would force one-fifth of the nation’s cement plants to close in the next two years and cost industry $3.4 billion a year. President Obama had threatened to veto the legislation if passed. [Roll Call 764, H 2681, 10/06/2011] Ryan Voted to Direct the EPA to Consider Feasibility and Costs When Establishing Air Quality Standards. In September, 2011 Ryan voted for an amendment to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to consider feasibility and cost in the setting of national ambient air quality standards. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, the amendment “effectively negat[ed] a 2001 Supreme Court decision that upheld the EPA’s practice of considering only public health concerns when setting the standards.” The amendment passed, 227 to 192. [Roll Call 738, H 2401, 09/23/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 9/23/11] Ryan Voted to Delay Numerous EPA Air Pollution Regulations. In September, 2011 Ryan voted for delaying, until at least 2015, the promulgation of federal cross-state air pollution rules, and require states to wait at least an additional three years to implement them. The amendment would also prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using modeled data to determine the impact of pollution on downwind states. it would delay air toxin standards for utilities until at least 20123 and would require giving power plants at least five years to comply with the rules once they are issued. The amendment passed 234 to 188. [Roll Call 737, H 2401, 09/23/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 9/23/11] Ryan Voted to Weaken Air Pollution Permit Regulations in the Clean Air Act. On June 22, 2011, Ryan voted for “legislation that would shorten the EPA’s approval process for issuing air pollution permits for offshore oil and gas development. The measure (HR 2021) is the latest in a series of GOP efforts to expand domestic offshore oil production and target the EPA’s rulemaking authority. It comes in response to decisions by an EPA appeals board that have stalled air pollution permits that Shell Oil needs for a drilling project off the Alaskan coast. [...] The legislation would set a six-month deadline for the EPA to take final action on air pollution permit applications for outer continental shelf exploration and bar the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing decisions regarding such permits. It also would amend the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) by requiring that air quality impacts be measured at a corresponding onshore location and prevent supportvessel emissions from being considered as part of the overall emissions from the drilling rig,” according to Congressional Quarterly Today. [Roll Call 478, H 2021, 06/22/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 06/22/2011] Ryan Sponsored Provision To Allow EPA To Lift Bans On Clean Fuels In Smoggy Areas. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The energy bill passed by Congress this week contains a provision by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that could 135

limit short-term gasoline price spikes in particularly smoggy parts of the country and especially the Midwest. The legislation allows the Environmental Protection Agency to temporarily lift rules requiring areas with poor air quality to use cleaner burning fuels, called ‘boutique’ blends, during disruptions in supply. Although there are more than 40 blends of boutique fuels, each community can access a small number, making them highly susceptible to shortages caused by pipeline or refinery problems. Ryan’s provision also would limit the number of boutique fuels and require the EPA to study ways of making them more widely available, steps he believes will prevent shortages and stem what he views as the ‘monopolies’ that oil companies now enjoy. ‘Oil companies didn’t have their prices set by the market; they were setting their own prices,’ Ryan, a Janesville Republican, said in a telephone interview. ‘It played right into their hands.’ ‘What this does is streamline our gasoline so we have a stable supply of gas, and thus stable prices,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/30/05]

Alternative Energy
Ryan Voted for GOP Short-Term Federal Funding Bill that Off-Set Disaster Relief Spending With Cuts to Renewable Energy and Green Vehicle Programs. In September 2011, Ryan voted for a GOP short-term appropriations bill that would fund the federal government through November 18, 2011. The Chicago Tribune described the bill’s passage, “It also would include $3.65 billion to replenish the coffers of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is expected to run out of money by Monday after a succession of tornadoes, floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Disaster funding typically draws bipartisan support, but this year Republican leaders insist that any supplemental emergency funds be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. Democrats object, and time is running out for Congress to act. [...] The House measure would take $1.5 billion from a green vehicle program championed by Democrats as a job creator. It also would take $100 million from an Energy Department account for renewable energy firms -- including Solyndra, the Northern California solar manufacturer with ties to the White House that received a $535 million loan guarantee, then went bankrupt. The Solyndra angle may have sealed the deal for conservatives who had rejected an earlier version of the bill on Wednesday, demanding $24 billion in spending cuts.” The measure passed, 219 to 203. [Roll Call 727, H 2608, 09/23/2011; Chicago Tribune, 9/23/11] Ryan Voted Against Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would extend expiring tax provisions through 2009. Specifically, the bill would provide tax incentives for carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, and investment in renewable energy. These tax incentives would be offset by prohibiting individuals from understating foreign oil and gas extraction income in the calculation of foreign tax credits, freezing the deduction amount for oil and gas companies and prohibiting individuals who work for certain offshore corporations to defer tax on compensations. The bill passed 257-166. [Roll Call 649, H 7060, 09/26/2008; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Supported Bill To Ease Requirements On Renewable-Energy Projects Under 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 229 for and 186 against, the House passed a bill easing requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act on renewable-energy projects such as hydroelectric power, solar energy and wind farms. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/20/04]

Climate Change
Ryan Voted to Bar the EPA from Regulating Emissions Linked to Climate Change. On April 7, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of barring the EPA from regulating emissions linked to climate change. According to the New York Times, “The House voted 255 to 172 on Thursday to halt the Obama administration’s program to regulate industrial air emissions linked to climate change, delivering a rebuke to a central tenet of the president’s energy and environmental policy. Nineteen Democrats joined in approving a bill that, were it to become law, would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from acting to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that the agency has declared a threat to human health and the environment. The measure would also nullify a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave the agency the authority to issue regulations to curb those emissions. The bill stands little chance of becoming law because a similar measure voted on in the Senate on Wednesday came up 10 votes short of the 60 votes needed to avert a filibuster. President Obama this week threatened to veto any measure that would hinder the administration’s efforts to restrict emissions that scientists say are warming the atmosphere and leading to potentially devastating changes in the global climate.” [Roll Call 249, H 910, 04/07/2011; New York Times, 04/08/11] Ryan Voted Against Cap-and-Trade Policy to Combat Climate Change. Ryan voted against HR 477 which created a 136

cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities and set new regulations. Under this system, the EPA would auction emission allowances, 3/4s of which would be provided to polluters free of charge. The total number of permits would be reduced over the years, thus reducing greenhouse gases. Holders of permits would be allowed to buy and sell them. The bill would also require 15% of the nation’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, as well as a 5% increase in efficiency. The bill also created programs to help consumers who have higher utility bills due to the policy and create a more efficient energy grid. [Roll Call 477, H 2454, 06/26/2009]

Energy
Ryan Voted for the Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008. On June 26, 2008 Ryan voted for the bill that would direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to immediately curb the role of “excessive” speculation in oil futures trading. According to the Washington Post, “The House of Representatives yesterday approved legislation that directs the regulator overseeing commodity trading to use its emergency authority to investigate and rein in speculators who lawmakers blame for the run-up in oil prices. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has not yet taken such action, arguing that oil prices are rising simply because supply cannot keep up with demand. But lawmakers who authored the bill say recent congressional hearings have shown that investors such as hedge funds, pension funds and big financial firms are flooding into commodity trading and causing oil prices to soar. The measure immediately allows the agency to use its most dramatic powers, such as imposing temporary limits on traders or halting trading altogether when oil prices swing wildly. The legislation, which passed by a 402 to 19 vote, is a sign of Congress’s growing impatience with the CFTC’s response to the oil crisis, lawmakers said.” [Roll Call 468, H 6377, 06/26/2008; Washington Post, 06-27-08] Ryan Voted Against Energy Efficiency Loan Programs. On September 16, 2010 Ryan voted against the bill that would authorize $5 billion over five years to create two energy efficiency loan programs. The bill would include $850 million annually for the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program to support loans to finance energy efficiency home renovations and $150 million annually for the Rural Savings Energy Program to make loans to eligible entities to provide loans for energy efficiency measures in rural areas. According to the Washington Post, the bill “authorizing about $160 million annually in zero-interest federal loans to rural electric cooperatives, for the purpose of spurring energy-efficiency construction by rural property owners. Cooperatives would leverage the federal funds into billions of dollars of low-interest loans for projects aimed at cutting utility bills and creating jobs.” [Roll Call 530, H 4785, 09/16/2010; Washington Post 9/23/10] Ryan Voted Against New Renewable Energy Standards for Utilities, Appliances. In 2007, Ryan voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would require electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 and direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances and building construction. The bill would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity. Democrats characterized the legislation as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. The motion was agreed to 235-181. [Roll Call 1140, H 6, 12/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly; Associated Press, 12/06/07] Ryan Voted against Plan to Increase Energy Independence, Promote Renewables. In 2007, Ryan voted against legislation to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, develop innovative new technologies, reduce carbon emissions, create green jobs, protect consumers, increase clean renewable energy production, and modernize our energy infrastructure. The bill set new efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and buildings, and create new programs to research infrastructure and delivery of alternative fuels. The bill also required oil and natural gas producers who did not pay royalties on leased federal land under existing law to either agree to renegotiate their leases or pay a new fee. In addition, the bill expanded an existing federal program to promote the capture and storage of carbon dioxide and set a goal of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by federal agencies by 2050. The bill also required utilities, starting in 2010, to produce at least 2.75 percent of electricity from renewable sources, with percentages rising each year to 15 percent by 2020. The bill passed 241-172. [Roll Call 832, H 3221, 08/04/2007; Congressional Quarterly; www.speaker.gov] Ryan Supported an Amendment that Increased Use of Renewable Energy. In 2007, Ryan supported an amendment that would increase the use of renewable energies. The amendment required retail electricity suppliers, starting in 2010, to produce at least 2.75 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources, with percentages rising each year to 15 percent by 2020. The amendment passed 220-190. [Roll Call 827, H 3221, 08/04/2007] 137

Ryan Voted To Repeal Light Bulb Efficiency Standards. On July 12, 2011, Ryan voted for a bill that “sought to invalidate standards in a 2007 energy law signed by President George W. Bush requiring bulbs to be about 30 percent more efficient,” according to the Washington Post. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “The July 12 vote on HR 2417, which would have repealed the provision, was 233-193, short of the two-thirds majority required for passage of measures considered under suspension of the rules, an expedited floor procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation. […] The bill would repeal part of a 2007 energy law (PL 110-140) that created minimum efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs. It would also eliminate $30 million in funding authority for Energy Department research, market assessments and consumer education related to energy-efficient lighting. […]The new standards are expected to lead to a phaseout of the traditional light bulb. Set to replace them are compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), light-emitting diodes and new styles of incandescent bulbs, many of which are halogen-based and use less power. But the price of the new bulbs, which can be many times that of the old incandescents, has sparked opposition to the regulation. […] Supporters of the standards contend that although the new bulbs may be more expensive, they pay for themselves.” [Roll Call 563, H 2417, 07/12/2011; Washington Post, 07/13/2011] Ryan Opposed Tax Break Package, Designed To Increase Domestic Energy Production And Conservation. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 244 for and 178 against, the House approved a package of tax breaks, regulatory relief and other policy changes designed to increase domestic energy production and conservation and shore up the nation's aging electricity grid. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/20/04] Ryan Opposed Conference Report Bill To Provide At Least $23 Billion Over 10 Years In Tax Breaks To Promote Energy Exploration. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 246 for and 180 against, the House approved the conference report on a package of tax breaks, regulatory relief and other policy changes designed to increase domestic energy production and conservation and shore up the nation's aging electricity grid. The bill provides at least $23.5 billion over 10 years in tax credits and incentives crafted mainly to promote oil and gas exploration, coal production and a revival of nuclear energy. It provides $18 billion in loan guarantees to subsidize construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago and mandates increased use of the corn-based gasoline additive ethanol and of biodiesel fuel, a soybean product. A yes vote was to approve the conference report.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/23/03]

REFORMULATED GAS REQUIREMENT
Ryan Teamed Up With Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, And Mark Green To Ensure A Reduction In The Number Of Variations Of Reformulated Gas Used Around The Country, Would Allow Milwaukee To Pull Gas In Other Parts Of The Country. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In various ways, Ryan and his colleagues in the state’s congressional delegation have been working to keep the gas price more affordable this summer and in future years. Ryan teamed with Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and Republican Mark Green, to keep a provision in the federal energy bill that would reduce the number of variations of reformulated gas used around the country. The measure, which is part of the bill now being negotiated in a conference committee, would allow the Milwaukee area to pull gas from refineries in other parts of the country when Midwest supplies run low.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/2/02] Ryan Considered Asking For A Waiver Request From Reformulated Gas Requirements. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Perciasepe said that the EPA had received Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson’s request for a waiver from the reformulated gas requirement. Perciasepe said the agency had not yet responded, but that all options remained on the table. -- Several state lawmakers -- Barrett of Milwaukee and House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville, among them -- are talking about going back at the EPA with new waiver requests.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/00] Ryan Later Admitted That Asking For The Waiver Would Do More Harm Than Good. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “At the height of the uproar, reformulated gas was costing 20 cents more a gallon than conventional gas, and Wisconsin politicians called unsuccessfully for a waiver of the EPA requirement. But the difference has nearly vanished, conventional gas supplies are tight, and Ryan -- one of those who sought a waiver -- admitted Thursday that a waiver now would do more harm than good. A scarcity of conventional gas means that a waiver would boost prices, he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/9/00]

GAS PRICES
138

Editorial: Ryan’s Plan To Reduce the Amount Of Gasoline Varieties Proved He Was A “First-Class Thinker.” According to a Waukesha Freeman editorial, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is not just the 1st District congressman ... he’s a first-class thinker as well. Everyone in southeastern Wisconsin should appreciate the work Ryan and Mark Green, a fellow Republican congressman, have put into a proposal to reduce the varieties of gasoline from 40 to three. The proposal makes perfect sense, which is why it might have a difficult time inside the beltways of D.C. and Madison. The essence of the plan is to have three kinds of gasoline - regular gasoline for those regions with no pollution problems; a medium grade of reformulated gas - RFG - for areas like southeastern Wisconsin; and an even less-polluting blend for cities like Los Angeles.” [Waukesha Freeman, Editorial, 1/21/02] Ryan Conducted A Meeting To Investigate The Reason For The Rise In Gas Prices, Believed EPA Regulations Impacted The Cost Of Gasoline. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Still, as vice chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Ryan said the hearing at City Hall could provide lessons for avoiding similar situations in the future. Taylor said high prices were simply the way the market rations a scarce commodity, and he said the ethanol version of the new reformulated gas was in short supply last month. Prices had to increase dramatically because smaller increases aren’t enough to get people to drive less, he said. Although economic factors -- including production limits by OPEC nations -- accounted for 75% of the price boost, in Taylor’s opinion, he blamed EPA regulations for the remaining 25%. He said Congress should repeal the ‘obsolete and pointless’ re-formulated gas rules. Lyons, Midwestern regional chief for the EPA, strongly disagreed. He said re-formulated gas has been ‘highly successful’ in cutting air pollution in the Milwaukee and Chicago areas, and that it was responsible for only a few cents of the price increase. Ryan said the EPA was ‘way off the mark’ in its estimates of the price impact. He questioned how much of the local air pollution came from elsewhere.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/9/00]

Environmental Protection Agency
Ryan Said That The EPA Seemed To Punish The Recipients Of Pollution And Not The Source. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan, the panel’s vice chairman, said he wanted to hear from environmental experts about why they believe reformulated gas is needed to clean up air pollution in the six- county southeastern Wisconsin area, and about how much of this region’s ozone problem is caused by air currents blowing in pollution from elsewhere. ‘Are we in fact paying for pollution we didn’t create?’ Ryan asked. He said EPA rules seem to punish the recipient of pollution, not the source.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/6/00]

Green Jobs
Ryan Criticized White House Effort To Transition Away From High Carbon Investments, Which He Claimed Killed “Hundreds” Of Wisconsin Jobs. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “Wisconsin’s 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan continues to speak out about the painful impact of Washington’s misguided economic policies on Wisconsin workers. News broke over the weekend that the Obama Administration killed a contract with Wisconsin employer Bucyrus International Inc. in an effort to ‘transition away from high-carbon investments,’ threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of Wisconsin families. […] ‘Bucyrus International Inc., which is based in South Milwaukee, won an international competitive-bidding process to supply an estimated $600 million worth of mining equipment for this project. It is important to note that Bucyrus’ bid relied on favorable financing rates from the Export-Import Bank, whose stated mission is to ‘assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets.’ By declining to finance Bucyrus’ bid, as many as one thousand American jobs will be lost, including hundreds in Wisconsin. Worse yet, construction on the Sasan project is already moving forward - but instead of using American-made products - our foreign competitors will now provide the equipment needed for the project.’” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 7/29/10] Ryan Called Obama Administration’s Attempt To Reduce Global Warming By Reducing High-Carbon Investments “Reprehensible.” According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “News broke over the weekend that the Obama Administration killed a contract with Wisconsin employer Bucyrus International Inc. in an effort to “transition away from high-carbon investments,” threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of Wisconsin families. […]’The Administration’s actions show that attempting to reduce global warming- by a fraction of a degree over the next century - is a higher priority than keeping Wisconsin residents employed now. The vibrancy and competitiveness of the American economy should never take a 139

back seat to political ideology and it’s reprehensible that the Administration has arrived at the faulty conclusion that we are incapable of enacting energy policies that are both environmentally friendly and economically beneficial. ‘American products and workers can compete with the best in the world, if they are given the chance- unfortunately, in this instance, they were not. Should the Administration fail to reverse this decision, or worse, should it continue with muscling through a byzantine cap-and-trade scheme, we need only look to Bucyrus to see the repercussions[,]’” Ryan wrote in a statement. [Congressional Documents and Publications, 7/29/10] Ryan Said Rejection Of Environmentally Adverse “Bucyrus International” Contract Would Cause The U.S. To Lose Jobs To Foreign Competitors. According to Congressional Documents and Publications, “News broke over the weekend that the Obama Administration killed a contract with Wisconsin employer Bucyrus International Inc. in an effort to “transition away from high-carbon investments,” threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of Wisconsin families. […] ‘As this flawed political ideology permeates, the U.S. will continue to lose manufacturing jobs to our foreign competitors. This isn’t a question of reducing the carbon footprint of the project - Bucyrus’ foreign competitors will quickly fill the gap left by this narrowminded decision. Construction at Sasan will continue with or without the high-quality, environmentally friendly equipment that should have been provided by Bucyrus. Countries like India and China will use ‘dirtier’ technology and production methods, which expel more carbon into the atmosphere, and ultimately, global temperatures and total emissions will remain unaffected[,]’” Ryan wrote in an statement. [Congressional Documents and Publications, 7/29/10] Ryan Said He Was “Angered” By Export-Import Bank’s Rejection Of Power Plant Company “Reliance Power,” Which Jeopardized Wisconsin Jobs At Bucyrus International. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “Up to 1,000 jobs at Bucyrus International Inc. and its suppliers could be in jeopardy as the result of a decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, funded by Congress, to deny several hundred million dollars in loan guarantees to a coal-fired power plant and mine in India. About 300 of those jobs are at the Bucyrus plant in South Milwaukee, where the company has 1,410 employees and its headquarters. […]On Thursday, the Export-Import Bank denied financing for Reliance Power Ltd., an Indian power plant company, effectively wiping out about $600 million in coal mining equipment sales for Bucyrus, chief executive Tim Sullivan said. ‘President Obama has made clear his administration’s commitment to transition away from high-carbon in-vestments and toward a cleaner-energy future,’ Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg said in a statement. ‘After careful deliberation, the Export-Import Bank board voted not to proceed with this project because of the projected adverse environmental impact.’ Ryan said he was angered by the ‘slippery explanation’ given by the Export-Import Bank for denying the loan guarantees. ‘This is an ominous preview of the economic damage from Washington’s environmental overreach. Should they fail to overturn this decision, the administration is sending a clear signal to the Midwest that political ideology is a higher priority than the livelihoods of Wisconsin families,’ Ryan said.” [St. Paul Pioneer Press, 6/28/10]

Land Management
Ryan Voted to Override Endangered Species Act and Alter California Water Supply Practices. On February 29, 2012, Ryan voted for the bill that would change California water supply practices around the San Joaquin Valley. It would require the Interior Department to increase the total water delivery capability of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet of water by Sept. 30, 2016. It also would repeal provisions of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act and would impose an alternative set of water flow requirements. It also would limit the enforcement or consideration of environment rules under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House on Wednesday passed a bill that would change California water supply practices around the San Joaquin Valley. The measure (HR 1837), sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes, would facilitate increased water access for agricultural and municipal use and limit the enforcement or consideration of certain environmental rules and regulations. The House passed the bill 246-175. Democrats said the bill would override the state’s rights to manage its resources by overruling a California statute that requires water contractors to meet certain environmental regulations, including some stipulated in the Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205). […] Republicans charged that water deliveries to the region, especially to area farmers, have been unfairly limited due to environmental regulations protecting various fish species.” [Roll Call 91, H 1837, 02/29/2012; Congressional Quarterly Today, 2/29/12] Ryan Voted In Support Of Arizona Land Exchange That Gave Federal Land To Private Company To Allow Development Of Copper Mine. On October 26, 2011 Ryan voted in support of the Arizona Land Exchange, which allowed the federal government to swap land with the Resolution Copper Company in order to develop a copper mine. According to the Arizona Republic, “Resolution Copper would get about 2,400 acres in the Oak Flat area of the Tonto National Forest in 140

return for giving more than 5,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land throughout Arizona to the federal government.” The Republic added, “Once the mine is open, which is projected to happen in 2021, it would employ about 1,400 people. Resolution Copper said most of those workers will be Arizonans. The mine will also create about 2,300 non-direct jobs, including contractors who supply fuel, tires, cement and steel, company officials said. New businesses, such as restaurants, also would be expected to open to serve the workers, according to a report commissioned by the company. ‘The total economic impact of the project on the state of Arizona is estimated to be over $61.4 billion, nearly $1 billion per year, and another $19 billion in federal, state, county and local tax revenue,’ Gosar said. ‘In these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree that the (federal government) can use this.’ Opponents of the project, including Grijalva, say the project would harm Apache tribal lands and threaten the region’s already scarce water supply.” [Roll Call 809, H 1904, 10/26/2011] Ryan Supported Conference Report On Bill To Waive Environmental Regulation On Commercial Logging In National Forests, Believed To Control Wildfires. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 286 for and 140 against, members approved the conference report on a bill (HR 1904) waiving environmental rules and limiting judicial review so that commercial logging in national forests can be increased to control wildfires.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/23/03] Ryan Supported Conference Report On Bill Authorizing $400.5 Billion In 2004 Defense Spending. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 362 for and 40 against, the House approved the conference report on a bill authorizing $400.5 billion for defense in fiscal 2004, up 4.5 percent from the comparable 2003 sum. The figure does not reflect $65 billion in new military spending for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. A yes vote backed the conference report.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/9/03] Ryan Voted For An Amendment That Provided Protective Status To Land During The Formulation Of A Management Plan. On June 7, 2000 Ryan voted for an amendment to “provide protective status to each section of the Conservation Area pending the completion of the management plan.” The amendment was on HR 3605, The San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. The Act was “to designate the San Rafael region of Utah under a new land management category, called a ‘western legacy district.’“ The amendment “would have preserved land with wilderness characteristics while BLM formulated its management plan for the area, according to Boehlert’s office. His amendment, which passed by 212-211, replaced one offered by Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have given interim protection to lands not yet designated by wilderness study areas.” [Roll Call 238, H 3605, 06/07/2000] Ryan Supported Protections for Environmentally Sensitive Land. In 2000, Ryan voted for a bill that would annually set aside $2.8 billion in royalties gained from oil and gas drilling on federal lands for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land and other conservation programs. The bill passed 315-102. [Roll Call 179, H 701, 05/11/2000]

Mining
Paul Ryan Voted Against Improving Mine Safety. Paul Ryan voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill that would provide additional authorities to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, including the power to subpoena documents and testimony in carrying out investigations and inspections. It would increase civil and criminal penalties for mines that violate safety and health regulations and create a system by which mines could be identified as having a history of citations for substantial violations. The bill would provide for independent investigations for certain mine accidents and increase whistleblower protections for mine workers. The vote required 2/3s majority to pass. [Roll Call 616, H 6495, 12/08/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Ending Federal Moratorium On Deepwater Drilling. Paul Ryan voted against an amendment that would seek to end the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling by allowing the Interior secretary to provide permits to applicants that have complied with increased safety measures outlined by the Minerals Management Service on June 8, 2010, and June 18, 2010. Applicants would also have to comply with any additional safety measures recommended by the Interior Department and complete all required safety inspections before they could be granted a permit. [Roll Call 511, H 3534, 07/30/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Mining Safety Reform. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would shorten deadlines for mining operators to conform to new safety requirements, provide the Mine Safety and Health Administration with subpoena 141

power and increase penalties for multiple safety violations. The bill would also require mine operators to install new communications equipment sooner than previously mandated. [Roll Call 10, H 2768, 01/16/2008]

Nuclear Energy
Paul Ryan Voted Against Continuing Appropriations That Provided Child Nutrition And Pre-Disaster Funding. Paul Ryan voted against a motion to concur in the Senate amendments that would provide continuing appropriations through Dec. 3, 2010, for all federal departments and agencies, none of whose fiscal 2011 appropriations bills have been enacted. It also would extend year-round child nutrition programs and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s pre-disaster mitigation operations. It includes several spending adjustments including an increase of $624 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration and $23 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. [Roll Call 564, H 3081, 09/30/2010] Ryan Voted in Favor of Shipping Nuclear Fuel to India without India Signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On July 26, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would waive requirements for congressional approval before shipping civilian nuclear fuel to India. According to the Washington Post, “The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to allow U.S. shipments of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, handing President Bush a victory on one of his top foreign policy initiatives. Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.) said the proposal, which reverses decades of U.S. anti-proliferation policy, is ‘a tidal shift in relations between India and the United States.’ […] For Bush to implement his accord with India, lawmakers must first exempt New Delhi from U.S. laws that bar nuclear trade with countries that have not submitted to full international inspections. Congressional action is needed because India built its nuclear weapons program outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides civilian nuclear trade in exchange for a pledge from nations not to pursue nuclear weapons. Before the vote, lawmakers made last-ditch attempts to attach conditions they said were needed to make sure the United States is not supporting a massive increase in India’s nuclear stockpile. Supporters of the accord quashed proposals they said would cause India to balk and the delicately worded deal to collapse. Several lawmakers strongly questioned the initiative, arguing that it would undermine the world’s premier nonproliferation treaty.” [Roll Call 411, H 5682, 07/26/2006; Washington Post, 07/27/06] Ryan Voted in Favor of Increasing Spending on Nuclear Weapons Research, funding Yucca Mountain and Cutting Spending on Water Projects. On November 18, 2003 Ryan voted in favor of a $27.3 billion energy and water appropriations bill for 2004. According to the Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, “The House adopted and the Senate cleared an energy and water appropriations conference report on Tuesday that would provide significant increases for nuclear weapons research while cutting money from the Army Corps of Engineers for water projects around the country. […]The bill would provide $580 million for Yucca Mountain, despite the protests of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and a leading opponent of the project in his home state. […] The $6.3 billion in the bill for nuclear weapons development -- a $358 million increase over fiscal 2003 -came under fire from some Democrats who say spending on a new generation of bombs encourages nuclear proliferation at a time when the United States is calling for other countries to give up their weapons development programs. The conference report would provide $7.5 million for the Energy Department to research and develop smaller nuclear bombs known as ‘bunker busters’. The amount is about half what Bush requested. Overall, the Energy Department would receive $22 billion, a $1.2 billion increase over fiscal 2003 and $120 million less than Bush requested. The corps, a popular agency among members of Congress because it funds hundreds of water projects, would receive $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004, about $127 million less than in fiscal 2003. Appropriators tried to keep the corps budget below last year’s because appropriators added $466 million to Bush’s request in 2003 and a multibillion-dollar backlog for corps construction projects already exists.” [Roll Call 631, H 2754, 11/18/2003; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 11/18/03] Ryan Voted to Provide $131 Million for the Construction of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility. In June 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $131 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. [Roll Call 325, H 4614, 06/25/2004; AP, 6/25/04]

National Parks and Preservation
Ryan Voted Against $32.3 Billion in Interior and Environmental Appropriations for FY 2010. On October 29, 2009, Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $32.3 billion in fiscal 2010 for the 142

Interior Department, the EPA and related agencies. The bill would provide $11 billion for the Interior Department, including $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Land Management; $10.3 billion for the EPA; $5.3 billion for the Forest Service and $4.1 billion for the Indian Health Service. The bill would fund the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities at $168 million each and the Smithsonian Institution at $761 million. The funding also includes $3.4 billion to fight and prevent wildfires. It also would prohibit the EPA from requiring mandatory greenhouse gas reporting from manure management systems for one year. It would provide continuing appropriations through Dec. 18, 2009, for all federal departments and agencies whose fiscal 2010 appropriations bills have not been enacted. Funding would continue fiscal 2009 levels, with some exceptions. [Roll Call 826, H 2996, 10/29/2009] Ryan Voted for Funding Department of Interior and EPA in 2007. On May 18, 2006, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $25.9 billion in fiscal 2007 for the Department of Interior, the EPA and related agencies. Congressional Quarterly reported that “The House passed a $25.9 billion Interior-Environment appropriations bill Thursday, after stripping provisions that would have lifted a ban on most new offshore natural gas drilling and addressed global warming. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, used a parliamentary challenge to strip from the bill nonbinding language declaring human activity to be a major cause of global warming and recommending mandatory, market-based measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Specifically, the bill would provide $9.7 billion for the Interior Department, $7.6 billion for the EPA, $4.2 billion for the Forest Service, $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Land Management and $3.2 billion for the Indian Health Service. As amended, it would fund the National Endowment for the Arts at $129 million and the National Endowment for the Humanities at $146 million. It would maintain the moratorium on natural gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf as well as bar the use of funds in the bill for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros. [Roll Call 172, H 5386, 05/18/2006] Ryan Voted for Department of Interior Funding for 2006. On May 19, 2006, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $26.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Department of Interior, the EPA and related agencies. Specifically, the bill would provide $9.8 billion for the Interior Department, $7.7 billion for the EPA, $4.2 billion for the Forest Service, $1.8 billion for the Bureau of Land Management and $3.1 billion for the Indian Health Service. According to The Salt Lake City Tribune, “the House included $ 242 million in Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes funding in the Interior bill […] meaning the prospects are good that there will be an increase in the money going to the historically shortchanged program.” According to the Washing Post, the bill “would reinstate a ban on mustang and burro sales that was begun in 1971 but lifted last year by Congress. The new ban would protect at least 27,000 wild horses and 4,000 wild burros roaming on federal land in 10 western states.” [Roll Call 199, H 2361, 05/19/2005; Salt Lake City Tribune 06/08/2005; Washington Post 05/22/2005] Ryan Opposed Ban On Snowmobiles In Yellowstone And Grand Teton National Parks. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 198 for and 224 against, the House refused to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. The vote permits the operation of snowmobiles equipped with the best available technology for controlling noise and pollution. If the Senate goes along with this vote, the effect will be to uphold Bush administration regulations permitting snowmobile access. A yes vote was to ban snowmobiles from the two parks.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 6/20/04] Ryan Voted Against $20.1 Billion In Interior Appropriations Including Emergency Funding. On October 30, 2003, Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $19.7 billion for the Department of the Interior in fiscal 2004, plus an additional $400 million in emergency funds to repay debt by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management incurred for fighting wildfires in fiscal 2003. [Roll Call 595, H 2691, 10/30/2003] Ryan Voted Against the $19.6 Billion Fiscal 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill. On July 17, 2003, Ryan voted against passage of the bill that would appropriate $19.6 billion in fiscal 2004 in discretionary funds for the Interior Department, related agencies and cultural programs, $186 million less than the current level. The bill would include funds for the Forest Service, energy-related programs, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Endowment for the Arts. It would include $1.1 billion for land acquisition and conservation. It also would provide funds to combat wildfires including $1.6 billion for Forest Service firefighting efforts and $699 million for Bureau of Land Management suppression initiatives. [Roll Call 389, H 2691, 07/17/2003] Ryan Voted Against Designating 160,000 of the Coconino National Forest a National Scenic Area. On September 23, 2010 Ryan voted against designating approximately 160,000 acres of National Forest System land in the Coconino National Forest near Sedona, Ariz., as a National Scenic Area. [Roll Call 538, H 4823, 09/23/2010] 143

Ryan Voted Against Expanding the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. On September 23, 2010 Ryan voted against authorizing the Interior Department to expand the boundary of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Arizona. According to the Arizona Daily Star, “The measure - introduced by Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick D-Ariz. - would have enlarged the site by 415 acres. That would have nearly doubled the existing 472-acre monument, which protects ruins of Indian villages built in the 13th and 14th centuries. The expansion proposal sought to add ancient canals, ball courts, platform mounds and fields to the preserve, which is centered on a four-story casa grande, or great house.” [Roll Call 537, H 5110, 09/23/2010; Arizona Daily Star, 09-24-10] Ryan Voted Against Amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. On July 16, 2008 Ryan voted against designating a 40mile segment of the Taunton River in Massachusetts as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It would allow the Interior Department to acquire land only through purchase from a willing seller or through a land donation. The bill would require the Interior secretary to report on the energy resources available on the lands and waters included in the segment of the river. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House Wednesday passed a bill to protect a Massachusetts river despite Republican objections that it would block energy development. The bill (HR 415), which passed 242-175, would designate a 40-mile section of the Taunton River part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The bill prompted a spirited floor debate even though similar legislation is normally passed as a routine matter. One reason is that the bill would effectively block a liquefied natural gas terminal that Weaver’s Cove Energy, a subsidiary of Hess Corp. is trying to build in the city of Fall River.” [Roll Call 507, H 415, 07/16/2008; Congressional Quarterly Today, 07-16-08] Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing Public Lands Programs. In 2008, Ryan voted against a conference bill that designated new park, wilderness and scenic areas and authorized programs and activities in the Forest Service, the departments of Interior and Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management. It would add 106,000 acres in Washington state to the National Wilderness Preservation System, which would be known as the “Wild Sky Wilderness.” The legislation provided a stable immigration policy for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) and also provided them with a non-voting Delegate to Congress. The bill passed, 291-117 [Roll Call 226, S 2739, 04/29/2008; Congressional Quarterly, 4/29/08; Rep. Christenson Release, 4/30/08] Ryan Voted to Designate 11,000 Acres in New Hampshire as Wilderness. On September 25, 2006 Ryan voted to designate 11,000 acres in the White Mountain National Forest as wilderness. According to the Concord Monitor, “The New Hampshire Wilderness Act would have classified land in the Wild River and Sandwich regions as ‘wilderness,’ a label that must be approved by Congress and that prohibits logging, mining, road construction and motorized traffic.” [Roll Call 472, H 5062, 09/25/2006; Concord Monitor, 09/27/06] Ryan Voted For Earmarking Dollars For Conservation Programs. Ryan voted for the bill to set aside about $2.8 billion a year in royalties, gained from oil and gas drilling on federal lands, for the purchase of environmentally sensitive land and other conservation programs. [Roll Call 179, H 701, 05/11/2000] Ryan Voted Against Redirecting Land Acquisition Funds. Ryan voted against an amendment that would redirect the $450 million allocated for land acquisition to boost funding for urban parks and recreation programs, farmland protection programs and threatened and endangered species recovery projects. [Roll Call 162, H 701, 05/10/2000] Ryan Voted against A Bill That Designated More Than 2 Million New Acres Of Protected Wilderness Areas. In 2009, Ryan voted against a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to a bill that designated more than 2 million new acres of protected wilderness areas nationwide, in addition to wild and scenic rivers, historic sites and expansions of national parks. The bill included a measure to authorize the Interior Department to approve a road through an Alaskan wetland to provide airport access to an isolated town, in exchange for land elsewhere. The measure also authorized water rights settlements in Western states and established new programs in the Interior Department on water reclamation and the effects of climate change on water availability. Some of the major new wilderness areas were created in Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Oregon. The bill passed 285-140. [Roll Call 153, H 146, 03/25/2009; CQ Today, 3/25/09] Ryan Voted Against Designating Two Million Acres as Protected Wilderness. On March 11, 2009, Ryan voted against a bill to designate two million acres of land as protected wilderness. According to the Washington Post, the bill “would represent one of the largest expansions of public lands in a quarter-century […] Conservation groups and many lawmakers said the package, which combined more than 170 bills, would preserve some of the nation’s remaining pristine landscapes, but several Republicans argued that it would cost too much to implement and would stand in the way of needed energy 144

development. ‘At a time when we need jobs and we need energy independence, it’s the wrong time to be tying up too much land,’ said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), who added that some of the proposals merited approval, but ‘so many of the bills could never withstand an individual vote.’ […] The bipartisan bill would apply to areas from Oregon’s Mount Hood to part of Virginia’s Jefferson National Forest. Other affected states are California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah and West Virginia.” [Roll Call 117, S 22, 03/11/2009; Washington Post, 03/12/09] Ryan Voted to Cut Spending for Interior and EPA in 2006. On July 28, 2005, Ryan voted for adoption of the conference report on the bill that would fund the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and related agencies in fiscal year 2006. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “the bill would provide $26.2 billion, all but roughly $50 million of it discretionary funds. That includes a 0.48 percent across-the-board cut. The total is $816 million, or about 3 percent, less than the amount enacted for comparable programs in fiscal 2005. […] Funding for the EPA was set at $7.7 billion, $294 million less than the agency received in fiscal 2005. Much of the reduction came from a $191 million cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides money for state and local water and sewage treatment projects. […] The final bill includes $9.9 billion for the Interior Department, $30 million less than in the fiscal 2005 law. State conservation grants were cut by $61 million from the $90 million provided in fiscal 2005.” The bill also included $1.5 billion in supplemental spending to cover a shortfall in veterans’ health care funding. [Roll Call 450, H 2361, 07/28/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 7/29/05] Ryan Voted for $19.5 Billion FY 2005 Interior Department Budget. In June 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would appropriate $19.5 billion for the Interior Department, related agencies and programs in fiscal 2005. The bill would provide $3.6 billion for fighting wildfires, including $1 billion in supplemental funding -- $500 million in each of fiscal 2004 and 2005 -that could be released for emergency fire conditions. It also would provide $3 billion for the Indian Health Service. The bill, as amended, would increase spending for the arts and humanities by $13.5million and block the use of funds to plan or construct forest development roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska for harvesting timber. [Roll Call 264, H 4568, 06/17/2004] Ryan Voted in Favor of Limiting Environmental Regulations of Forest Thinning. On November 21, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a forest thinning bill that limited environmental reviews of brush and tree removal. According to the Los Angeles Times, “A version of President Bush’s plan for thinning national forests to reduce wildfire risks cleared Congress on Friday, driven by the recent fires that ravaged California. The measure, which was sent to Bush for his expected signature, would limit environmental and judicial reviews for brush removal and tree-cutting projects on up to 20 million acres of federal land. […] Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society opposed the measure, contending that it would lead to the logging of healthy trees in the forest in the name of fire prevention, rather than focus on prevention efforts close to homes. […]The bill authorizes $760 million a year for forest-thinning projects, a $340-million increase, but Congress must continue to appropriate the money at budget time.” [Roll Call 656, H 1904, 11/21/2003; Los Angeles Times, 11/22/03] Ryan Voted in Favor of Legislation to Accelerate Forest Thinning. On May 20, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to accelerate forest thinning which aims to prevent wildfires. According to the Washington Post, the bill is “meant to lessen the risk of massive wildfires by loosening regulations and clearing more trees deep in the wilderness. […] The bill, pushed through the House by Republicans with some Democratic support, would give the government broader leeway to thin undergrowth and trees on 20 million acres of federal land. It would provide quicker judicial review of forest-thinning projects if they are challenged in court, and it would rely on private companies to carry out more of the work. […] Opponents said the measure would go too far. They said it would undermine legal protections against excessive logging and would accelerate judicial reviews, giving plaintiffs 15 days to file lawsuits opposing thinning projects and requiring judges to rule within 100 days. In instances where the environmental impact of thinning a section of forest is disputed, the measure would require courts to give greater weight to the opinion of federal agencies than to that of outside experts hired by groups trying to block the clearing. […] One of the most contested aspects of the legislation involves which part of forests could be cleared. The bill would allow greater thinning, including of relatively large trees, in remote forest areas, as well as those nearer developed communities.” [Roll Call 200, H 1904, 05/20/2003; Washington Post, 05/21/03] Ryan Voted For An Amendment To Allow Motorized Vehicles In Conservation Areas. On June 7, 2000 Ryan voted for an amendment that would have replaced “language which prohibits motorized vehicle use in the conservation area with language that would allow the use of motorized vehicles where authorized by the Bureau of Land Management.” The amendment was on HR 3605, The San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. The Act was “to designate the San Rafael region of Utah under a new land management category, called a ‘western legacy district.’“ The amendment failed 210-214. [Roll Call 240, H 3605, 06/07/2000; Energy and Environment Daily, 6/7/00] 145

Oil
Ryan Voted Against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. On June 24, 2008 Ryan voted against prohibiting price gouging for fuels in areas experiencing an energy emergency, set civil and criminal penalties for such price gouging, and permit states to bring lawsuits against retailers for price gouging. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “the House earlier in the week rejected, 276-146, a bill (HR 6346) aimed at retail gasoline price gouging. That measure, which also did not get the two-thirds needed, came to the floor June 24. It would have authorized the Federal Trade Commission to impose fines and other punishments for ‘unconscionably excessive’ prices for motor fuels during a presidentially declared “energy emergency,” and was similar to a measure (HR 1252) the House passed last year and to language the Senate included in broader energy legislation.” [Roll Call 448, H 6346, 06/24/2008; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 6/29/08] Ryan Voted for Bill to Crack Down on Foreign Oil Price Manipulation. In 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would make it illegal for foreign countries to collectively manipulate energy prices or supplies and allow the federal government to sue foreign countries for any such actions that affect the United States. The measure would create a Justice Department task force to investigate price gouging and manipulation in oil markets and require a study of the effect of oil industry mergers on fuel prices. The legislation would allow the Justice Department to pursue legal action against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for conspiring to restrict supplies or drive up prices. The bill passed 324-84 [Roll Call 332, H 6074, 05/20/2008; Los Angeles Times, 5/21/08] Ryan Supported Subjecting OPEC to Anti-Trust Laws. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that subjected the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other oil cartels to federal antitrust laws by eliminating the sovereign immunity they receive under current law. The measure was intended to crack down on OPEC members that set production quotas to manage global oil prices. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, “OPEC would send a strong and long-overdue signal to OPEC oil barons that they must stop limiting production and investment access.” The bill passed 345-72. [Roll Call 398, H 2264, 05/22/2007; Chabot press release, 5/17/07; Heritage Foundation, 5/21/07] Ryan Voted Against Ending Tax Breaks for Oil Companies. On January 18, 2007, Ryan voted against the bill that would limit tax benefits and require royalty payments from certain oil and gas companies. According to the Washington Post, the bill “would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives, raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production, and plow the money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources.” [Roll Call 40, H 6, 01/18/2007; Washington Post 01/04/2007] Ryan Voted Against Bill to Crack Down on Oil Speculation. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would direct foreign exchanges trading U.S. commodities to impose limits on the number of futures contracts an investor can own. Investors trading on such overseas exchanges would have to reduce positions, if they exceed the limits or their activity threatens to distort prices. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would be authorized to set position limits on over-the-counter trading. During floor debate, Democrats seized on the week’s turmoil on Wall Street to support their argument for stricter oversight of financial markets. Critics blamed speculation in energy futures for contributing to the run-up of oil prices this year. The bill would bolster transparency in energy futures trading and require tougher regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), in an attempt to pre-empt excessive speculation and ensure that futures prices reflect supply and demand. The measure also would authorize increased staffing at the agency. Several minor changes were made to ensure that the scope of the bill fell entirely within the Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction. That blocked Republicans from offering a procedural motion for a vote on their energy bill which would fall within other committees’ jurisdiction. The changes included removing mandates to create an independent inspector general at the CFTC and to require a Government Accountability Office investigation. The House rejected a Republican motion to delay implementation of the limits on contracts until after certifying that no pension plan would be adversely affected. Democrats said the provision would effectively kill the bill. The bill was passed by a vote of 283 to 133. [Roll Call 608, H 6604, 09/18/2008] Ryan Voted to Protect Oil Companies over Renewable Energies. In 2008, Ryan voted against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. The legislation comprehensively invested resources into wind, solar, and geothermal energy systems. Furthermore, it extended tax credits to producers of cleaner burning bio-diesel and cellulosic alcohol based fuels. The legislation also eliminated a manufacturing tax deduction for larger oil and gas companies. The bill passed, 236-182. [Roll Call 84, H 5351, 02/27/2008; Release, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, 2/27/08] 146

Ryan Voted to Protect Oil Companies Over Green Energy Sources. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill to authorize $16.1 billion in energy-related tax provisions, including new tax credit bonds to encourage energy efficiency in residential property and more production of “clean” energy. The bill authorized $3.6 billion in bonds for state and local governments to fund energy conservation efforts. The costs of the bill were offset primarily by reducing current tax benefits for oil and gas companies. The bill also raised taxes on the oil and gas industry and used the proceeds to extend and expand tax breaks for renewable energy, hybrid cars and energy-efficient buildings and appliances. In addition, the bill created a $6 billion “green bond fund” that would help local and state governments build energy-efficient projects. The bill passed 221-189. [Roll Call 835, H 2776, 08/04/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Supported Handouts to Big Oil, Energy Corporations. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of the energy conference report that exempted oil and gas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlined permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helped the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. One obscure provision would repeal a Depression-era law that has prevented consolidation of public utilities, potentially transforming the nation’s electricity markets. It also includes an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy – including oil and gas, “clean coal,” ethanol, electricity, and solar and wind power. The bill included $2 billion for “risk insurance” in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays and nuclear utilities would be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants. The bill passed 275-156. [Roll Call 445, H 6, 07/28/2005; Washington Post, 7/30/05] Ryan Voted to Suspend Strategic Petroleum Reserve Acquisitions. In May 2008, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would require the Interior and Energy departments to halt acquisition of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) until the end of 2008. The departments could resume shipments if the president determined that the average price of oil in the United States for the most recent 90-day period was $75 a barrel or less. While even the bill’s supporters noted that its effect on prices at the gas pump would be minimal, “bipartisan support for freezing SPR purchases was a breakthrough of sorts in a longstanding partisan impasse on contentious oil issues.” The motion passed 385-25. [Roll Call 307, H 6022, 05/13/2008] Ryan Voted Against Energy Bill That Would Eliminate or Reduce Tax Breaks for Major Oil Companies. In 2007, Ryan voted against comprehensive energy legislation that would raise automobile fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years and require increased use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity. Democrats characterized the legislation as “a new direction” in U.S. energy policy away from dependence on fossil fuels. The bill would boost corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 40 percent, to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such action since 1975, when Congress first enacted the federal auto fuel economy requirements. The bill would expand the use of ethanol sevenfold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 with 21 billion gallons coming from cellulosic feedstock such as wood chips and prairie grass. The bill would require electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 and direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances and building construction. It also would eliminate or reduce $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the five major oil and gas companies to be used for tax incentives for development of renewable energy sources like ethanol from grasses and wood chips and biodiesel and for energy efficiency programs and conservation. The motion was agreed to 235-181 [Roll Call 1140, H 6, 12/06/2007; Congressional Quarterly; AP, 12/06/07] Ryan Supported Sham Refinery Plan That Did Nothing to Lower Energy Costs. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to speed the approval of refinery permits, allow a refinery to appeal to the government for compensation if operations are stalled by unforeseen regulation or litigation and call for the president to identify new refinery sites on federal land, possibly including wildlife refuges and national forests. The United States has not built a refinery since 1976, and in a series of memos in the 1990s, major energy companies warned they needed to reduce the number of refineries to boost profits. Even a House Republican remarked that the bill “will do nothing for consumers and will hurt taxpayers... but it sure will help the bottom line of oil companies.” The bill passed 212-210 [Roll Call 519, H 3893, 10/07/2005; Washington Post, 8/6/05; Dallas Morning News, 10/7/05] Ryan Supported Billions In Handouts to Big Oil, Energy Corporations. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of the House version of an energy bill that reflected President Bush’s energy priorities. The bill included $8.1 billion in energy tax breaks and several billion in other subsidies, including $2 billion to increase research into drilling for oil and gas in extremely deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The bill included $2 billion to makers of the gasoline additive MTBE to help them defray the cost of phasing out the product, which contaminates drinking water. The House bill also would give MTBE makers, including major oil companies and refiners, protection against product liability lawsuits stemming from the water contamination. The bill 147

passed 249-183. Note: Ryan was not in office to vote on the conference report. [Roll Call 132, H 6, 04/21/2005; AP, 4/22/05]

OIL SPILLS
Paul Ryan Voted Against Making Oil Companies Responsible For Oil Spills. Paul Ryan voted against a bill to repeal the $75 million cap on liability for offshore drilling. It would create numerous new safety regulations for leases for offshore oil and gas development, including features designed to prevent well blowouts, and it would require some holders of leases to renegotiate royalty payments disputed by industry. As amended the bill would prevent oil companies from shifting oil spill cleanup costs onto taxpayers in the event one of its subsidiaries goes bankrupt. [Roll Call 513, H 3534, 07/30/2010]

DRILLING
Ryan Voted to Allow Offshore Drilling Leases in Gulf of Mexico and Off the Coast of Virginia. On May 05, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would require the Interior Department to conduct certain oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia. The bill would deem that the existing environmental impact statement issued for the current department five-year plan for 2007-2011 is sufficient to satisfy environmental requirements for the sales. According to the Washington Post, the bill would go about “setting deadlines for the administration to auction certain Outer Continental Shelf leases for oil and gas exploration that were delayed for environmental and safety reasons after last year’s BP-Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill requires leases in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and Virginia to be auctioned within one year of enactment or sooner.” [Roll Call 298, H 1230, 05/05/2011; Washington Post 05/12/2011] Ryan Voted In Favor Of Measure To Ease Environmental Regulations On Drilling Permits For The Outer Continental Shelf Of Alaska. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Members voted, 253-166, to ease environmental rules to make it easier for Shell Oil Co. and other energy firms to obtain exploratory drilling permits for the Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska. A yes vote backed a bill (HR 2021) requiring, in part, expedited action by the Environmental Protection Agency on permit applications.” Ryan voted “yes.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/25/11] Ryan Voted Against Amendment To Mandate Energy Companies Seeking Drilling Permits To Disclose Taxpayer Subsidies They Receive. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Members defeated, 183-238, an amendment requiring that energy companies seeking drilling permits under the terms of HR 2021 (above) disclose in their applications detailed information on the taxpayer subsidies they receive. A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.” Ryan voted no. [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/25/11] Ryan Voted to End Ban on Offshore Drilling. On June 29, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to end the ban on offshore drilling. According to the Washington Post, “The House, voting 232-187, yesterday approved a bill to end a 25-year-old moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling. The vote came even after the White House surprised the bill’s supporters by estimating that the measure’s royalty terms would divert ‘several hundred billion dollars’ away from the federal treasury over the next 60 years. Amid high oil and gas prices, the idea of allowing more offshore oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf had widespread support in the House. The measure would let firms drill anywhere within 50 miles of U.S. coastlines, while forcing states that want to keep drilling 100 miles off their own shores to pass legislation every five years. States could also ask the federal government to allow drilling closer. […] Perhaps the most controversial section of House bill would divert from the federal government to coastal state governments large portions of royalties from drilling in federal waters. This would apply to both new leases and existing offshore oil and gas production. In a policy statement yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget said that the Bush administration ‘agrees with the goal’ of expanding oil and gas production and supported passage of the House measure ‘to advance the legislative process.’ But OMB also said that the administration ‘strongly opposes revenue sharing provisions’ that would not create incentives for new production and would have ‘adverse long-term consequences on the federal deficit.’“ [Roll Call 356, H 4761, 06/29/2006; Washington Post, 06/30/06] Ryan Voted to Eliminate Moratorium on Offshore Drilling. On May 18, 2006, Ryan voted for en bloc amendments that would strike sections of the bill dealing with offshore preleasing, leasing or related activities, eliminating the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling. Congressional Quarterly Today reported that the underlying legislation “funds the Interior 148

Department, the EPA and the Forest Service as well as American Indian services and cultural programs through the Smithsonian Institution and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.[…] The House passed a $25.9 billion Interior-Environment appropriations bill Thursday, after stripping provisions that would have lifted a ban on most new offshore natural gas drilling and addressed global warming. [Roll Call 164, H 5386, 05/18/2006; Congressional Quarterly, 05/18/06.] Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted in favor of President Bush’s energy bill, which contained a provision allowing drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. The bill passed 240-189 [Roll Call 320, H 4, 08/02/2001] Ryan Voted Against Offshore Drilling, Renewable Energy. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill to give states the option to allow oil and gas offshore drilling between 50 and 100 miles off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, except for waters in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida coast. The federal government could permit drilling from 100 to 200 miles offshore. It stipulates that the federal government would collect all royalties from new oil and gas leases permitted under the bill. It would require utilities to obtain 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. It also includes roughly $19 billion in new tax incentives for renewable energy, new coal technologies and alternative-fuel vehicles. Despite the objections of Republicans who said it would do little to boost offshore oil and gas production. President Bush threatened a veto. A Republican attempt to stall the measure was defeated. Democrats touted the bill as a compromise that would expand domestic production and invest in alternative energy sources. It would allow drilling beyond 100 miles off U.S. shores and give states the option of allowing production beyond 50 miles from the shores. It proposes major incentives for renewable energy, building efficiency and advanced technologies for coal-fired power plants. The bill passed by a vote of 236 to 189. [Roll Call 599, H 6899, 09/16/2008; CQ Weekly, 9/16/08] Ryan Voted against Keeping Alaskan Oil in U.S., Requiring Exploration Leaseholders to Use or Lose Existing Leases. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would require energy companies to explore their existing oil and gas leases or lose them. The “use it or lose it” bill included new provisions to expedite oil and gas production in Alaska’s Natural Petroleum Reserve, speed construction of an oil and gas pipeline from Alaska and bar the export of Alaskan oil. The bill failed 244-173. [Roll Call 511, H 6515, 07/17/2008; CQ Today, 7/17/08] Ryan Voted against Requiring Holders of Oil Leases to Drill or Release Land. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would strip oil companies of their leases to federal land not being used for drilling. Democrats referred to the bill as the “use it or lose it” measure, saying that oil companies already lease 68 million acres of government land and waters that they are not exploiting, and before opening new areas, the companies should be forced to use the leases they hold. Many Republicans opposed the bill, saying that it was easier to blame others for the rise in oil prices. “…blame it on oil companies, blame it on OPEC,” Republican Minority Leader John Boehner said. “There’s only one group, only one group in this chamber we ought to blame, and that is all the liberals in this House who have voted for ‘no energy’ each and every time over the last 18 years that I’ve been here.” The bill failed 223-195. [Roll Call 469, H 6251, 06/26/2008; CQ Today, 6/26/08; CQ Today, 6/26/08] Ryan Opposed Keeping 25 Year Ban on Offshore Natural Gas Drilling. In 2006, Ryan voted against an amendment offered to the FY 07 Interior Appropriations bill that would strike a provision in the bill allowing for natural gas drilling in the outer continental shelf, which begins just three miles off America’s shores. The OCS natural gas drilling ban has existed for the past twenty-five years with bi-partisan support. The amendment failed 217-203. [Roll Call 170, H 5386, 05/18/2006; Leadership Document, “Key Environmental Amendments to Interior-Environment Appropriations,” 5/18/06] Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted in favor of a Republican energy bill that allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bill passed 249-183 [Roll Call 132, H 6, 04/21/2005] Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted against an amendment to block drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The amendment was defeated 200-231 [Roll Call 122, H 6, 04/20/2005] Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted in favor of the Bush energy bill, which allowed drilling in Alaska. The bill passed 247-175. [Roll Call 145, H 6, 04/11/2003] Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted in favor of a phony proposal to limit drilling in the Arctic Refuge to 2,000 acres. The limitation proposal passed 226-202. [Roll Call 134, H 6, 04/10/2003] 149

Ryan Supported Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Ryan voted against an amendment to maintain the prohibition on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The amendment was defeated, 206-223 [Roll Call 317, H 4, 08/01/2001]

KEYSTONE PIPELINE
Ryan Voted to Expand Drilling to ANWR, Approve Keystone XL Pipeline. On February 16, 2012, Ryan voted for the bill that would open up a portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and production and expand lease sales to include areas off the coast of southern California, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the mid-Atlantic coastline. The bill also would provide for approval of the 1,700-mile Canadian tar sands Keystone XL pipeline and shift permitting authority for the project from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As amended, it would establish a trust fund for Gulf Coast restoration efforts. Expenditures from the fund would be contingent on enactment of further legislation. According to Politico, “House lawmakers on Thursday approved a plan to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline and expand drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The 237-187 victory for Republican leaders as part of one portion of a much larger energy and infrastructure strategy - was a relatively painless start to what has become a difficult endeavor for the overall package.” [Roll Call 71, H 3408, 02/16/2012; Politico, 2/16/12]

Pollution
Ryan Supported “Energy Bill” Giving Billions of Dollars to Polluters. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the Republican energy bill, which made numerous changes to the nation’s energy policies including those in the areas of production, conservation, taxes, and research. The bill included allowing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offered incentives for offshore drilling, funded nuclear energy, clean coal, and oil and gas research, extended tax credits for energyefficiency and coal technology, and increased fuel efficiency standards for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks. In addition, the bill provided billions of dollars in subsidies to polluters. The bill also provided $33.5 billion in tax credits over 10 years for energy producers and consumers. The bill passed 240-189 [Roll Call 320, H 4, 08/02/2001; Public Interest Research Group, League of Conservation Voters] Ryan Supported “Energy Bill” Giving Billions of Dollars to Polluters. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the Republican energy bill, which made numerous changes to the nation’s energy policies including those in the areas of production, conservation, taxes, and research. The bill included allowing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offered incentives for offshore drilling, funded nuclear energy, clean coal, and oil and gas research, extended tax credits for energyefficiency and coal technology, and increased fuel efficiency standards for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks. In addition, the bill provided billions of dollars in subsidies to polluters. The bill also provided $33.5 billion in tax credits over 10 years for energy producers and consumers. The bill passed 240-189. [Roll Call 320, H 4, 08/02/2001; Public Interest Research Group] Ryan Voted To Allow States To Establish Combustion Residual Permit Programs That Would Block The EPA From Regulating Coal Ash. On October 14, 2011 Ryan voted to allow states to establish combustion residual permit programs that would block the EPA from regulating coal ash, giving control to state governments. Republicans had said that this bill would prevent the EPA from instituting a rule that would cost 316,000 jobs. According to the Houston Chronicle, “The agency has proposed either subjecting coal ash to a federal hazardous-waste management law or requiring states to regulate it as a non-hazardous waste. The proposed rule comes in the wake of coal-ash spills, including a 2008 incident in Kingston, Tenn., in which 1 billion gallons of ash slurry spilled into the nearby area. The bill would allow states to regulate coal-ash disposal no less stringently than municipal waste. The EPA could run similar programs for states that don’t end up regulating it.” Democrat Jim McGovern said, “These jobs will not happen if we pass this bill. This bill basically preserves the status quo.” [Roll Call 800, H 2273, 10/14/2011] Ryan Supported Exempting Businesses from Superfund Liability. In 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would exempt small businesses from liability under the superfund hazardous waste cleanup program if the business dumped only a small amount of waste or just ordinary garbage. The bill also would have established an expedited settlement procedure. The bill, which required a 2/3 vote to pass, was defeated 253-161 [Roll Call 494, H 5175, 09/26/2000] 150

Ryan Opposed Arsenic Clean-up in 2000. In 2000, Ryan voted against an amendment to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to use funds to clean up contaminated lake and river sediments and to enforce arsenic drinking water standards and issue radon water standards. The amendment was defeated, 208-216 [Roll Call 304, H 4635, 06/21/2000] Ryan Opposed Funds for Arsenic Clean-up in 2000. In 2000, Ryan voted against an amendment to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to use funds to clean up contaminated lake and river sediments and to enforce arsenic drinking water standards and issue radon water standards. The amendment was defeated, 208-216. [Roll Call 304, H 4635, 06/21/2000]

Water
Ryan Voted Against a $32 Billion Energy and Water Bill; Increasing Spending on Energy Efficiency Programs. On July 17, 2007, Ryan voted against an energy and water appropriations bill that would increase the budget for energy efficiency programs. According to the Washington Post, “The House passed a $32 billion measure funding the Energy Department budget and hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers water projects. The bill, which passed 312 to 111, increases the budget for programs aimed at making cars and buildings more energy-efficient, and for research on and development of alternative energy sources. President Bush who requested about 4 percent less for the programs covered by the measure, has promised a veto.” [Roll Call 641, H 2641, 07/17/2007; Washington Post, 07/18/07] Ryan Voted for Funding Energy and Water Development Projects in 2006. On November 9, 2005, Ryan voted for the conference report on a bill that would provide $30.5 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects. Congressional Quarterly Today reported that the “bill funds the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers. It would raise overall spending by 2 percent over fiscal 2005 and would be about a 3 percent increase over the White House request. The bill marks a departure from past appropriations legislation because it would make deeper cuts to the Energy Department’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. At the same time, the conference report provides the Energy Department with $50 million to develop a plan for reprocessing nuclear waste to produce more fuel instead of burying it.” Specifically, the bill includes $24.3 billion for the Energy Department, $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for Interior Department water projects. [Roll Call 580, H 2419, 11/09/2005; Congressional Quarterly Today, 11/14/05] Ryan Voted for Funding Energy and Water Projects in 2006. On May 24, 2005, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $29.7 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects, including $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $8.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration. It also would provide $661 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, including $10 million for the department to begin accepting waste for interim storage at one or more storage facilities by 2006. The administration would be barred from redirecting more than $2 million, or 10 percent of a project’s value, whichever is less, from one account to another. [Roll Call 211, H 2419, 05/24/2005; Daily Record 11/09/2005; The Chronicle of Higher Education 11/25/2005; Washington Post 06/02/2005] Ryan Voted for the 2002 Energy-Water Appropriations Bill. On November 1, 2001, Ryan voted for the conference report that would appropriate $24.6 billion in fiscal 2002 for the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies, $2.1 billion more than the president’s request. [Roll Call 416, H 2311, 11/01/2001] Ryan Voted to Withhold $1 Billion from Department of Energy, Including Weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program, Until National Security Issues Were Addressed. Ryan voted for an energy and water appropriations bill that cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Energy. The Albuquerque Journal reported, “Under the House measure, the Energy Department budget would drop from $17 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $15.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. About $1 billion of the cut could be restored in the last quarter of fiscal year 2000. The House plan would restore the withheld money if the Energy Department reforms its much-criticized management practices in the nation’s nuclear-weapons complex.” [Roll Call 342, H 2605, 07/27/1999; Albuquerque Journal, 7/28/99] Ryan Voted for $28.5 Billion FY 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations. In June 2004, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $28.5 billion in fiscal 2005 spending for energy and water development projects. It would provide $4.8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $9 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration. It also would provide $131 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The bill, as amended, would prohibit funds from being used to deny the 151

public release of documents relating to the investigation of alleged manipulations of Western energy markets. The vote succeeded, 370-16. [Roll Call 325, H 4614, 06/25/2004] Ryan Voted to Gut Water Quality Standards. Ryan voted in favor of the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act,” a bill to “preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards.” A New York Times editorial, titled “Another Dirty Water Act,” blasted the legislation saying it “would strip the [EPA] of its authority to oversee state water quality standards and to take action when the states fail to measure up…Absent federal oversight, states are likely to engage in a race to the bottom, weakening environmental rules to attract business.” [Roll Call 573, H 2018, 07/13/2011; New York Times, 7/14/11] Ryan Voted to Override Bush Veto on Water Resources Development Bill. On November 6, 2007, Ryan voted in favor of overriding Bush’s veto of a water resources development bill. According to the Washington Post, “The House voted to override a veto by President Bush for the first time yesterday, acting to save a $23 billion water resources bill stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers from both political parties. […]The bill would authorize billions of dollars in coastal restoration, river navigation and dredging projects, levee construction and other Army Corps of Engineers public-works efforts. Seven years in the making, the measure took on particular political resonance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as Gulf Coast lawmakers secured nearly $2 billion in restoration and levee construction projects for the region. The bill would also continue projects such as the restoration of the Everglades and the dredging of the upper Mississippi River, while expanding oversight of the Army Corps. […] But the bill would merely authorize such projects. Lawmakers backing the projects must now secure funding through the House and Senate appropriations committees, with no guarantees. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said some Republicans made the case that the GOP’s stand for fiscal rectitude should apply to such ‘authorization’ bills, but others drew a distinction between measures such as the water bill and actual spending bills, on which they have vowed to stand with the president.” [Roll Call 1040, H 1495, 11/06/2007; Washington Post, 11/07/07]

Wildlife
Ryan Supported Weakening the Endangered Species Act. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to expand privateproperty rights under the 1973 law that is credited with helping keep the bald eagle from extinction. The bill would require the government to compensate property owners if measures to protect species thwart development plans. It would also give political appointees the power to make some scientific determinations and stop “critical habitat” designations, which limit development. The plan passed 229-193. [Roll Call 506, H 3824, 09/29/2005; Washington Post, 9/30/05] Ryan Opposed Endangered Species Act Reform. Ryan voted against a bipartisan alternative plan to help threatened and endangered species recover without putting onerous burdens on landowners or taxpayers. The measure would dedicate resources to provide technical assistance and grants to private property owners – particularly small land owners – who help conserve species on or near their land. It would also use private lands to help threatened and endangered species recover to sustainable levels only if public lands – like national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges - are not adequate for recovery. The proposal was defeated 206-216. [Roll Call 505, H 3824, 09/29/2005; Reps. Boehlert, Dingell and Gilchrest Press Release, 9/28/05;] Ryan Voted Against Allowing the Fish and Wildlife Service to List New Endangered Species and Habitats. On July 27, 2011 Ryan voted against the amendment that would strike language in the bill barring the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing new species and habitats for protection under the Endangered Species Act. According to the Washington Post, the amendment “killed language that sought to use a funds cutoff to prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2012 from taking this first step toward attempting to protect certain declining species. About 260 species now are listed as potential candidates for protection under the law. The vote occurred during consideration of a Republican-drafted Interior Department budget.” [Roll Call 652, H 2584, 07/27/2011; Washington Post 7/31/2011] Ryan Voted in Favor of Lifting Protections on Endangered Species, New Nuclear Weapons Research. On May 22, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a $400 billion dollar defense bill that would authorize small yield nuclear weapons research and allow the Pentagon to waive laws protecting endangered species. According to the New York Times, “The House voted today to give the Pentagon broad discretion to waive laws meant to protect rare animal and plant species if the restrictions are judged to interfere with military training and readiness. […] Representative Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the laws were making it increasingly difficult for the military to 152

find training grounds and that long stretches of 17 miles of beach at Camp Pendleton, Calif., could not be used for Marine landing exercises because of lawsuits, the presence of an endangered gnatcatcher and protected vegetation. […] The administration sought to lift the ban on “small yield” weapons, saying it wanted to study using them to penetrate deep underground bunkers. The weapons at issue are five kilotons or less, one-third the power of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War II. The House version would also allow the administration to begin research into the smaller nuclear weapons.” [Roll Call 221, H 1588, 05/22/2003; New York Times, 05/22/03] Ryan Said It Was A Mistake For Bush To Back Off Of Conservation Efforts. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Ryan said, “‘They [Bush] made a mistake by giving the appearance they were backing off on conservation,’ said the Republican Ryan. ‘ They say that’s no longer the case. It sure sounded like they were backing off on conservation. That’s an important part. The point Cheney was trying to make was it’s not the only part. But he kind of bumbled that.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/17/01] Ryan Was Undecided On Whether He Would Support Conservation $3 Billion Proposal For Conservation And Recreation Programs. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The U.S. House of Representatives this week plans to consider $3 billion in funding for conservation and recreation programs -- worth $28 million a year to Wisconsin -- in a measure hailed as a historic opportunity to preserve fragile lands and dwindling species. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act has drawn together supporters from across the political and social spectrum, from bass fishermen to bird watchers and, perhaps more telling, Republicans and Democrats… Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville, who is an adviser to House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), said that because of the possibility of amendments, ‘I foresee the potential for this to change drastically between now and final passage.’ As a result, Ryan said, he is undecided about whether to support the bill. He said he wanted to wait and see its final form before deciding.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/8/00]

153

ETHICS AND LOBBYING
Campaign Finance
Ryan Opposed The DISCLOSE Act, Which He Accused Of “Unconstitutionally Earmarking The First Amendment.” According to States News Service, “1st District Congressman Paul Ryan offered the following statement regarding the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier today by a vote of 219-206: ‘Congress should not be in the business of earmarking the First Amendment. The DISCLOSE Act unconstitutionally empowers Congress to pick winners and losers with respect to free speech, drawing clear lines between those groups and organizations that are able to easily participate in our elections and those that are not… If we want to reduce the role of special interests groups in government, we should combat the overreach and influence of government rather than combat the Constitution itself. By limiting the government’s influence over our lives, we can reduce the flow of money into politics. Regrettably, the Majority took the opposite approach and proceeded with a bill that serves the interests of their own party as opposed to the interests of the American people.’” [States News Service, 6/24/12] Ryan Voted To Terminate The Presidential Election Campaign Fund. On December 1, 2011, Ryan voted to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Taxpayer financing of presidential elections would end under a House bill passed Thursday. Mississippi Republican Gregg Harper, who introduced the bill (HR 3463), said it would terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which has seen a decline in check-offs on tax returns, and shut down the Election Assistance Commission, an agency he says has ‘completed the task it was assigned.’ The House voted 235-190 to pass the measure.” [Roll Call 873, H 3463, 12/01/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/1/11] Ryan Voted to Terminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns. On January 26, 2011 Ryan voted to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides matching funds for presidential primary candidates and grants for general election candidates and national party conventions. As amended, the leftover amounts transferred to the Treasury from the fund would be used solely for deficit reduction. According to the Oklahoman, “The House passed a bill by U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, on Wednesday that would abolish public financing for presidential campaigns, despite objections from Democrats that special-interest groups would gain more influence in elections [...] The bill, part of the new House Republican majority’s drive to cut federal spending, would save $617 million over the next 10 years, Cole said.” [Roll Call 25, H 359, 01/26/2011; The Oklahoman, 01/27/11] Ryan Voted Against New Political Donation Reporting Requirements For Corporations. On June 24, 2010, Ryan voted against the DISCLOSE Act. The legislation would require corporations, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to publicly declare their role in TV ads or mass mailings during the closing months of a political campaign, including where the money is coming from to pay for such activities. Foreign-controlled corporations and big government contractors would also be barred from paying for such political activities. The bill is intended to blunt the impact of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws that had barred corporations and unions from airing certain types of election ads. [Roll Call 391, H 5175, 06/24/2010; Politico, 6/24/10] Ryan Voted to Limit Donations to 527 Political Organizations. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to limit donations to 527 political organizations. The bill would have limited contributions to only $25,000 a year for partisan voter mobilization activities and $5,000 for direct expenditures on federal elections. These groups raised more than $400 million in 2003-2004. The bill was supported by groups including the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG. Meanwhile, conservative groups such as the Club for Growth opposed the bill. The bill passed 218-209. [Roll Call 88, H 513, 04/05/2006; Club for Growth, 4/26/0, Letter in Support of HR 513, 4/4/06] Ryan Voted to Exempt Online Speech from Campaign Finance Rules. On November 2, 2005, Ryan voted for a bill that would exempt blogs, e-mail and other online speech from campaign finance rules. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that “House leaders brought up the bill (HR 1606) under suspension of the rules, a procedure usually used for noncontroversial legislation. Such bills require a two-thirds majority vote of those members present and voting, which in this case was 272. The measure thus was rejected on a 225-182 vote. […]Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling, sponsor of the failed House bill, introduced his proposal in April after a federal judge ruled the Federal Election Commission could not exempt online speech from the 2002 law. The commission lost an appeal of that court decision and is currently trying to determine how the 154

law -- intended to limit the influence of money in politics -- should apply to online speech. The law bars corporations and unions from contributing to campaigns or advertising on behalf of candidates. It also imposed restrictions and disclosure requirements on campaign spending, donations and political speech.” [Roll Call 559, H 1606, 11/02/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 11/5/05] Ryan Voted Against Reforming Campaign Finance Rules. On February 14, 2002, Ryan voted against legislation that would reform the nation’s campaign finance rules. Specifically, the bill would ban unlimited and unregulated contributions to political parties from unions, corporations and wealthy individuals, which is also known as “soft money” contributions. The bill would also place restrictions on “issue” advertising by preventing political ads from targeting specific candidates in the days leading up to elections. Finally, the legislation would increase the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates. A poll conducted by CNN/USA Today/Gallup shows widespread public support for new federal laws limiting the amount of money that any individual or group can contribute to the national political parties, with a 76% to 19% margin. However, Republicans opposed to the legislation argue that the legislation is stacked against their party and unconstitutional as well. [Roll Call 34, H 2356, 02/14/2002; Fox News, 2/14/02; Gallup, 3/20/01] Ryan Voted To Require 527 Groups To Disclose Their Political Activities. On June 28, 2000 Ryan voted to suspend the rules and pass a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and require 527 organizations to disclose their political activities. The bill passed 385-39. [Roll Call 341, H 4762, 06/28/2000]

Election Laws
Ryan Opposed Backup Paper Ballots for 2008 Election. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would pay for backup paper ballots in the November 2008 election. Specifically, the bill would authorize up to $75 million for grants to reimburse states and localities that opt to purchase pre-printed paper ballots to have ready should electronic voting machines fail on Election Day. President Bush opposed the measure, calling it expensive and unnecessary. The bill failed 248-170. [Roll Call 493, H 5803, 07/15/2008; CQ Today, 7/15/08; CQ Today, 7/15/08] Paul Ryan Opposed Funding for States to Use Paper Ballots. I. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would authorize reimbursement for states and counties that convert to paper-ballot voting machines before the November 2008 elections or need help paying for manual audits afterward. The bill would authorize a one-time-only funding to set up a paperballot-counting system or to retrofit printers onto electronic voting machines. It would also authorize federal reimbursements for hand counts and manual audits of the 2008 election results. [Roll Call 188, H 5036, 04/15/2008; CQ Today, 4/15/08] Ryan Voted for Procedure to Hold Rapid Special Elections If Large Number of Congressman Killed. On April 22, 2004 Ryan voted for the Continuity in Representation Act of 2004. The bill amended federal law “concerning the election of Senators and Representatives to require States to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives within 45 days after a vacancy is announced by the Speaker of the House in the extraordinary circumstance that vacancies in representation from the States exceed 100.” The bill was designed to ensure the functionality of government in case of a catastrophic event. The bill passed 306-97. [Roll Call 130, H 2844, 04/22/2004; Washington Post, 4/23/04] Ryan Supported Overhaul of Election System After 2000 Florida Recount Debacle. In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of a plan to overhaul the nation’s election system and provide almost $3.9 billion to upgrade voting equipment and improve election administration. In addition, the measure changed many of the laws that governed how Americans register to vote and cast their ballots. The bill represented the federal government’s response to the deadlocked 2000 presidential election in Florida and the chaotic recount process that was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill passed, 357-48. [Roll Call 462, H 3295, 10/10/2002; Washington Post, 10/11/02]

Ethics Votes
INSIDER TRADING
155

Ryan Voted for Congressional Insider Trading Ban. On February 9, 2012, Ryan voted for a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would clarify that members of Congress as well as officials and senior staff of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government are covered by current regulations that bar the use of non-public information for trading stocks and bonds. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House on Thursday morning passed an amended version of the Senate’s insider-trading legislation, setting the stage for a showdown between the chambers regarding which version to send to President Obama. The House advanced, 417-2, Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s amendment to the bill (S 2038) that would ban lawmakers and some aides from buying or selling stock or other securities based on confidential information gathered in the course of their duties. […]The bill, which the Senate passed a week ago, 96-3, would clarify that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prohibitions on insider trading extend to lawmakers, staffers and executive branch employees. […]Unlike the Senate-passed measure, the House version would add more specific disclosure restrictions on executive branch officials covered by the bill, such as barring high-level executive and judicial branch employees from employment negotiations without required disclosures. The House version also would prohibit lawmakers and other top officials from participating in initial public stock offerings on a favored basis.” [Roll Call 47, S 2038, 02/09/2012; Congressional Quarterly Today, 2/9/12]

ETHICS
Paul Ryan Voted Against Ethics Bill. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against legislation to establish an independent panel of the House ethics committee to consider alleged violations by House members and employees. The measure created an independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), whose primary mandate will be to carry out probes and refer allegations of unlawful activity made against Members of Congress to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. This new independent organization would be led by a bipartisan, six-person panel whose membership will be jointly agreed to by both the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader. With the creation of a new Office of Congressional Ethics and previously approved lobby reform legislation, Democrats said that the New Direction Congress has demonstrated its commitment to making the 110th Congress and future Congresses more ethically transparent and morally accountable. [Roll Call 122, S 1031, 03/11/2008; Rep. Clyburn Press Release, 3/11/08]

LOBBYING
Ryan Voted in Favor of Lobbying Reform. On July 31, 2007, Ryan voted in favor of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, an ethics and lobbying overhaul bill. According to the New York Times, “The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved sweeping ethics rules that would require lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who gather more than $15,000 in political contributions for them within a six-month period. The measure would also impose new restrictions on accepting gifts, discounted airfare and other long-held perquisites of office. […] the final bill retained provisions doubling the current one-year ban on former senators’ direct lobbying contacts with onetime colleagues and that former senior Senate aides, already barred from lobbying their previous office for one year, would now be forbidden to do so anywhere in the chamber during that period. House members must continue to honor a one-year ban against directly lobbying their former colleagues. But the most far-reaching element of the bill -- and the one that caused the most contentious behindthe-scenes negotiations -- was the provisions requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions that lobbyists gather up from clients and associates to give to political candidates and the parties’ Congressional campaign committees.” [Roll Call 763, S 1, 07/31/2007; New York Times, 08/01/07] Ryan Voted for GOP Backed Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of an ethics and lobbying reform bill that would prohibit privately funded travel by House members and their staff for the rest of the 109th Congress unless the ethics committee certified that a proposed trip complied with House rules and standards. It would deny pension benefits to House members convicted after the bill’s enactment of crimes related to their official positions. The House could not consider an appropriations bill unless the accompanying report listed the earmarks in the bill or report, along with the name of the member requesting the earmark. Lobbyists would be required to file quarterly reports. Lobbyists and members of Congress who fail to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements would face increased civil penalties and up to five years in prison. Newspaper editorials across the country criticized the bill as being watered-down and ineffective. The San-Antonio Express News called it a “disgraceful sham,” while the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel called it a “miserable bill.” [Roll Call 119, H 4975, 05/03/2006; San Antonio News Express, 5/02/06; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/01/06] 156

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
Ryan Voted to Kill Effort to Force Ethics Committee to Begin Investigation into the Abramoff Scandal. The vote was for a move to kill a resolution offered by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi that would force the House Ethics committee to immediately begin an investigation into members of the House embroiled in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. [Roll Call 76, S 746, 03/30/2006] Ryan Voted to Censure Charlie Rangel. On December 2, 2010 Ryan voted to censure Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York. It would require Rangel to present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure, including a public reading of the resolution by the Speaker and require Rangel to pay restitution for any unpaid estimated taxes on income from his property in the Dominican Republic and provide proof of payment to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. According to the Baltimore Sun, “The 333-79 vote matches the recommendation of the House ethics committee, which found in its investigation that the New York Democrat was guilty of 11 violations of House rules, including failure to declare rental income from a Dominican Republic villa, improper solicitation of donations on congressional letterhead and misuse of a rent-controlled Harlem, N.Y., apartment as a campaign office. In a dramatic moment that brought the often raucous body to a standstill, the 80-year-old former chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee stood in the well of the House, his hands clasped in front of him, as a somber Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., read the censure resolution.” [Roll Call 607, S 1737, 12/02/2010; Baltimore Sun, 12/03/10] Ryan Voted to Remove Rep. Charles Rangel as Ways and Means Chairman Before the Conclusion of an Ethics Investigation. On October 07, 2009, Ryan voted against referring a resolution removing Rep. Charles Rangel from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee back to committee. The Hill reported, “Democrats easily thwarted the latest Republican attempt to dethrone Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) as the head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee [...] Democrats successfully passed a procedural motion referring the matter to the House ethics committee - a move that effectively sank a GOP effort to remove Rangel from the influential tax-writing panel until the ethics committee finishes its investigation into multiple allegations against him. This was the third time Republicans introduced a resolution to force Rangel from the panel but the first time any Democrats voted with the GOP to remove him. [Roll Call 759, S 805, 10/07/2009; Hill, 10/08/2009] Ryan Voted in Favor of Expelling Representative Traficant. On July 24, 2002, Ryan voted in favor of expelling Representative James Traficant (D-OH) from the House of Representatives. According to the Washington Post, “The House voted overwhelmingly last night to expel Rep. James A. Traficant, an Ohio Democrat who taunted foes for years with bombastic floor speeches but now faces a likely prison term on felony convictions for bribery and corruption […] members of the House ethics committee, which unanimously recommended expulsion last week, said the extensive evidence that prosecutors presented in Traficant’s federal trial in Cleveland last spring left his colleagues little choice. Former aides and business associates testified they gave the House member kickbacks, as well as free labor to fix up his farm and boat, in exchange for government jobs and legislative favors.” [Roll Call 346, S 495, 07/24/2002; Washington Post, 07/25/02]

Transparency
Ryan Voted Against the Electronic Message Preservation Act. On July 9, 2008 Ryan voted not to direct the National Archives and Records Administration to create regulations on the capture, management and electronic preservation of electronic messages that would be electronically searchable. All federal agencies would be required to comply with the regulations within four years of the bill’s enactment. The bill also would require the archivist to set standards for the management of presidential records and to certify annually that the president’s records management controls meet those standards. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Hoping to boost their efforts, the Democratic-controlled House moved Wednesday to impose new rules to preserve e-mails from the White House and other federal agencies, acting in defiance of a veto threat from President Bush. The measure was in response to an uproar over e-mails found missing by recent Capitol Hill probes of Bush aides, including Rove, then the president’s chief political strategist. Investigators have tried to determine whether Rove and others used Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to conduct government business in an attempt to circumvent the Presidential Records Act, a post-Watergate law designed to preserve White House records. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has said that White House e-mails transmitted over several hundred days 157

between 2003 and 2005 also are unaccounted for, an assertion that the administration disputes.” [Roll Call 477, H 5811, 07/09/2008; Los Angeles Times, 07/10/08] Ryan Said The Federal Government Did A “Miserable” Job Overseeing Agencies And Programs. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “… [Ryan] is on a quest to revamp the way the U.S. budgets and spends its money. He decries pork, wasteful spending, duplicative federal programs and what he calls the country’s ‘miserable’ job of doing oversight on agencies and programs. ‘The budget process is broken,’ he laments. ‘There are a million tricks lawmakers can use to hike spending and get around existing rules meant to keep the budget in check.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/4/04]

158

FOREIGN POLICY
Foreign Aid
Ryan Voted against Funding for Global HIV/AIDS Program. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would reauthorize funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).The bill would reauthorize PEPFAR for $48 billion from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013, including $2 billion in fiscal year 2009 for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The bill would also set aside $5 billion for malaria and $4 billion for tuberculosis. Additionally, the bill would repeal a ban on HIV-positive visitors to the United States and overturn an existing law requiring that one-third of the money for HIV prevention be spent on abstinence education. The bill would also include new linkages between AIDS and nutrition programs. The bill passed 303-115. [Roll Call 531, H 5501, 07/24/2008; CQ Today, 7/24/08; CQ Today, 7/24/08] Ryan Voted against Measure to Provide Debt Relief to Poor Nations. In 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would require the Treasury Department to negotiate with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as well as other lending nations, to forgive poor countries’ debt. The bill would require eligible countries to have a good human rights record, oppose terrorism and demonstrate a record of fighting drug trafficking. It would exclude countries with “excessive” military spending and forbid a reduction of aid alongside debt relief. The bill passed 285-132. [Roll Call 199, H 2634, 04/16/2008; CQ Today, 4/16/08] Ryan Voted Against Funding for AIDS, Malaria Relief in Africa. In 2008, Ryan voted against more than tripling the money available for a program fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa and other stricken areas of the world. The bill authorized $10 billion a year, or $50 billion through 2013. Of that, $41 billion was for AIDS prevention and treatment, significantly expanding a program credited with saving more than 1 million lives in Africa alone in the largest U.S. investment ever against a single disease. $4 billion was marked for tuberculosis and $5 billion for malaria. The $41 billion includes up to $2 billion a year for the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The bill limits U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to one-third of total contributions. The bill expands the AIDS program, originally focused on 15 mainly subSaharan African countries, to include Caribbean nations as well as Malawi, Swaziland and Lesotho in Africa. The bill increases coordination with drinking water and nutrition programs and efforts to educate girls and women. The bill passed 308-116 [Roll Call 158, H 5501, 04/02/2008; AP, 4/03/08] Ryan Voted for Funding Foreign Operations in 2007. On June 9, 2006, Ryan voted for passage of a bill that would fund foreign operations and related programs for 2007. Congressional Quarterly reported that “the House passed its $21.3 billion fiscal 2007 foreign assistance measure (HR 5522) on June 9 by a vote of 373-34, including large majorities of Republicans and Democrats. The bill would provide 10 percent less for aid programs than the White House had sought, but about 2 percent more than was appropriated for fiscal 2006. Lawmakers in both chambers say foreign aid -- currently less than 1 percent of federal spending -- can pay dividends in both humanitarian terms and for America’s economy and security. But, many say, the billions of dollars that go for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and electoral pressure to meet home front needs make it difficult to provide as much for foreign programs as the president would like.” [Roll Call 250, H 5522, 06/09/2006; Congressional Quarterly, 06/09/06] Ryan Voted for Combined State Department and Foreign Aid Authorization Funding for 2006 and 2007. On July 20, 2005, Ryan voted for the combined State Department and foreign aid authorization for 2006 and 2007. Specifically, the bill would provide $20.8 billion over 2006 and 2007 for the State Department, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs and related agencies. The bill would authorize $3.8 billion in fiscal 2006 and $3.9 billion in fiscal 2007 for the State Department’s diplomatic and consular programs. It would also authorize $690 million in fiscal 2006 and $710 million in fiscal 2007 for worldwide embassy-security upgrades. The bill would authorize $2.6 billion over two years for assessed contributions to international organizations such as the United Nations, and $661 million in fiscal 2006 for international broadcasting activities. [Roll Call 399, H 2601, 07/20/2005] Ryan Voted for Increasing Access to Emergency Obstetrical Care for Women in Developing Countries. On July 19, 2005, Ryan voted for a Smith, R-N.J., amendment that would increase access to emergency obstetrical care for women suffering from obstetric fistula and increase the fiscal 2007 authorization for new treatment centers to $7.5 million. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that this amendment is a “long-standing initiative of Smith’s” that would provide 159

Africa and elsewhere in the developing world treatment of obstetric fistula, “an injury that affects women during prolonged obstructed labor.” The amendment would also provide access to family planning services and abstinence education, and make these prevention activities discretionary. The underlying legislation would authorize $10.8 billion in fiscal 2006 and $10 billion in fiscal 2007 for the State Department, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs and related agencies. [Roll Call 389, H 2601, 07/19/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 7/23/05] Ryan Voted for $1.3 Billion in Supplemental Spending, Cuts in Callable Capital. On March 24, 1999, Ryan voted in favor of a $1.3 billion supplemental spending bill that included cuts in callable capital. According to the New York Times, “Against the backdrop of a veto threat by President Clinton, members of the House tonight approved a $1.3 billion emergency spending bill that included nearly $1 billion in relief to Central American countries ravaged by a hurricane and scaled back an array of Government programs to pay for the expenditures. […] Democrats criticized the cuts in the bill as unnecessary and dangerous -- particularly a $648 million reduction in “callable capital,” or money set aside to guarantee loans by international development banks, and a $150 million decrease in money for the disposal of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in Russia.” [Roll Call 70, H 1141, 03/24/1999; New York Times, 03/25/99] Ryan Voted Against Increasing Peace Corps Budget. On March 3, 1999, Ryan voted against legislation to increase the Peace Corps budget. According to the Washington Post, “The budget for the Peace Corps would increase by 51 percent, to $365 million, over the next four years under a bill approved 326 to 90 Wednesday by the House. It would enable the agency to support 10,000 volunteers around the world by 2003. The bill also would make changes in the law so Peace Corps workers would have most of the benefits of being a member of the Foreign Service, said Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.).” [Roll Call 31, H 669, 03/03/1999; Washington Post, 03/05/99] 2000: Paul Ryan Voted Against Restoring $42 Million Cut From President Clinton’s Budget For AIDS Relief In Africa. In 2000, Paul Ryan voted against a measure that would restore $42 million that the House Appropriations Committee had cut from Clinton’s request of $244 for combating the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The increase would be offset by equal cuts to the International Narcotics Control and International Military Education and Training accounts. The vote was on a Lee (DCA) amendment to the fiscal 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill. [Roll Call 398, H 4811, 07/13/2000; AP, 7/13/00] Ryan Voted Against FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations. Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill to provide $12.7 billion for foreign operations. The measure is $1.9 billion less than the President’s request. The measure does not include language that would reduce funding for abortions in international family planning programs. [Roll Call 362, H 2606, 08/03/1999]

Afghanistan
Ryan Voted Against Ending the War in Afghanistan by Limiting Funding to Only Troop and Contractor Withdrawal. On May 17, 2012, Ryan voted against an amendment to HR 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 that would end the war in Afghanistan by limiting funding only to the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Her proposal would have limited funding for Afghanistan operations to the withdrawal of troops, but it was defeated 113-303. Overall, the proposed $643 billion authorization for fiscal 2013 Pentagon programs would be $8 billion more than the cap set by the 2011 debt limit law and $3.6 billion more than the president’s request.” [Roll Call 264, H 4310, 05/17/2012; Roll Call, 5/17/12] Ryan Voted Against Withdrawing Troops from Afghanistan. On March 17, 2011, Ryan voted against withdrawing troops from Afghanistan either within 30 days, or if that was deemed unsafe, then by the end of the year. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Congressional Republicans on Thursday held fast to support for the Afghanistan war, heavily opposing a troop withdrawal in a vote that tested whether conservative new members would adhere to the party leaders on a significant question of U.S. policy. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who put forward the resolution, framed it in fiscal terms, predicting that if troops were not pulled out immediately, the war would last until 2020 and cost an additional $1 trillion.” [Roll Call 193, S 28, 03/17/2011; Los Angeles Times, 03/18/11] Paul Ryan Voted To Send 30,000 Additional Troops To Afghanistan. Paul Ryan voted for a military supplemental appropriations bill that provided $33.5 billion for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000. It also provided $3.6 billion for Afghan and Iraqi security forces and $4.9 billion for Department of Defense procurement. The bill included funds to clean 160

up the Gulf oil spill, funds for FEMA to pay for past disasters, and compensation for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. [Roll Call 474, H 4899, 07/27/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Reducing US Military Role In Afghanistan. Paul Ryan voted against a divided motion to concur that would limit the use of military funding for Afghanistan to activities relating to the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops and protection of civilian and military personnel in the country. [Roll Call 432, H 4899, 07/01/2010] Ryan Voted For Supplemental Funding For The Iraq And Afghanistan Wars. On May 5, 2005, Ryan voted for the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $82 billion in fiscal 2005 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and for disaster assistance to victims of the December 2004 tsunami. According to the Washington Post, “the bill would bring total combat and reconstruction appropriations to at least $212 billion for Iraq and at least $65 billion for Afghanistan since operations began. The bill also would require states to deny driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants […] Among non-military items are $656 million for victims of last year’s Asian tsunami, $592 million for a new U.S. embassy in Baghdad, $200 million for the Palestinian territories, funds for hiring 500 border patrol agents and more than $1 billion for members’ pet projects back home.” [Roll Call 161, H 1268, 05/05/2005; Washington Post 05/08/2005] Ryan Voted Against $31 Billion For Operations in Afghanistan. On December 17, 2007, Ryan voted against providing $31 billion for operations in Afghanistan and prohibits the funds from being used for operations in Iraq. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “[the bill] provided $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and certain domestic Pentagon needs.” [Roll Call 1172, H 2764, 12/17/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12/17/07] On Afghanistan Ryan Said Bush Methodically Put Forward A Plan And A Coalition. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan had just returned home from church with his wife when he turned on his television and learned of the airstrikes. The retaliatory attack was not a surprise, said Ryan, since briefings to Congress made it clear that America would take action if the Taliban didn’t turn over Osama bin Laden. ‘What strikes me as significant is the president didn’t simply lash out after Sept. 11. He methodically put forward a plan and a coalition,’ Ryan said. ‘This attack is a series of waves instead of one assault, which is designed to limit collateral damage to civilians, which is entirely appropriate.’ Ryan doesn’t expect American support of the military strikes to waver if U.S. soldiers begin to die in the war against terrorism. ‘You have to remember we were attacked,’ Ryan said. ‘This is not an instance where we’re asserting ourselves somewhere across the world like Vietnam.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/8/01]

Africa
Ryan Voted for Increasing AIDS Prevention Funding. On May 1, 2003, Ryan voted for a bill that would authorize $3 billion annually over the next five years to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS in Africa. According to the Lincoln Journal Star, the bill would “bring funding for AIDS and other infectious diseases in 2004 up to the $3 billion level authorized in HR 1298, including a $1 billion contribution for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Current funding in Senate spending bills for next year stands at about $2 billion, with just $400 million for the Global Fund.” [Roll Call 158, H 1298, 05/01/2003; Lincoln Star Journal 10/11/2003] In August 2002, Ryan Visited Troops In Afghanistan, Did Not Stay Overnight. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The lawmakers said there were multiple objectives: to assess progress in the war and learn what’s ahead; gain the perspectives of the U.S. military and intelligence communities there; meet with allies in the region; and thank U.S. troops. ‘I’ve gotten a 400 percent increase in my understanding of the situation, regarding both Afghanistan and Iraq,’ Ryan said. Classified briefings were part of the agenda. Ryan said that amid great devastation in Afghanistan, he was impressed with the good spirits. ‘The biggest shock was how happy the Afghan people seem to be. Enthused. Bustling. Kids going to and from school. Men working on buildings. Women shopping and running corner markets,’ Ryan said. ‘Basically, this has been the most peaceful seven months they’ve had in the last 25 years’… According to Ryan, the delegation was not allowed to stay overnight in Afghanistan because ‘they couldn't guarantee our security.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/30/02] Ryan Supported Free Trade with Africa. In 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to extend certain tariff benefits to nations of the Caribbean, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa. The bill eliminates tariffs for garments made in struggling nations, making it easier for them to reach American stores, and threatening jobs in the United States’ garment industry. Labor unions, human rights groups, small garment companies, traditional Democrats and some Republicans came together to fight the bill. 161

Ann Hoffman, president of UNITE, the garment workers’ union, called the bill “a disgrace,” saying that the bill gives foreign countries “free access to our market, and in return they do nothing.” Hoffman claimed that the bill was “a major threat to the jobs of hundreds of thousands of garment workers in the United States.” The bill passed on a vote of 309-110. [Roll Call 145, H 434, 05/04/2000; Washington Post, 5/5/00] Op-Ed: Ryan Was Wrong To Entertain On Voting For The “African Growth And Opportunity Act” Which Was Known As The As “NAFTA For Africa.” According to David Newby, President of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO who wrote in the Capital Times, “A battle is brewing again over international trade with a vote expected shortly on the ‘African Growth and Opportunity Act’ (AGOA). On its merits, the bill deserves the ‘‘NAFTA for Africa’’ moniker the press has given it. It parallels North American Free Trade Agreement policies that have destroyed jobs, increased pollution and drawn criticism from groups here and across Africa. Growing numbers of Republicans and Democrats oppose the bill. Area representatives will be critical players in the vote. While U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, has made clear her opposition to the NAFTA-for-Africa proposal, U.S. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, says he is undecided. In a twist of fate, his decision on how to vote could well decide the fate of the bill. Support for the bill comes from a corporate coalition, including some who are propping up African dictatorships. Last week, these companies were surprised to find the bill’s congressional prospects diminished when a letter signed by African-American ministers in opposition to AGOA was released. The bill also faces strong opposition from many respected African organizations, from church groups to the South African COSATU labor federation. With both Africans and African-Americans saying the NAFTA-for-Africa proposal will hurt most Africans, it’s a mystery why Rep. Ryan’s office says he may support it.” [Capital Times, David Newby, 7/14/99]

China
Ryan Voted Against Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Arms Sales to China. On July 14, 2005, Ryan voted against imposing sanctions on foreign companies that sell arms to China. Congressional Quarterly Today reported, “House leaders underestimated the furious opposition from the defense industry, and the bill’s sponsors watched their legislation get killed in a dramatic vote-switching episode that one lawmaker called a ‘wild scene’ on the House floor. The measure would impose trade sanctions on foreign companies that sell military technology to China. It had been placed on the House suspension calendar, which is reserved for non-controversial bills because measures considered under suspension of the normal House rules require a two-thirds vote for passage.” [Roll Call 374, H 3100, 07/14/2005; Congressional Quarterly Today, 07/14/2005] Ryan Said The U.S. Should Urge China To Free Its Currency, Which He Said Gave China Unfair Price Advantage. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Speaking at the 5th annual trade policy conference of the Wisconsin World Trade Center, Ryan said the foreign effort must center on China and its surging level of exports to the U.S. Working through the World Trade Organization, the U.S. should press China to free its currency, now pegged to the dollar in a formula that gives Chinese goods an unfair price advantage of up to 40%, Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/5/03]  Ryan Also Urged The U.S. To Use World Trade Organization Rules To Stop China’s Illegal Subsidies Of Business And Theft Of Intellectual Property. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “He said the U.S. also should use WTO rules to curb what Ryan described as China's illegal subsidies of business and wholesale theft of intellectual property.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/5/03]

Ryan Supported Granting Most Favored Nation Trade Status to China. Ryan voted against a joint resolution to deny the president’s request to provide “normal trade relations” (formerly known as “most-favored-nation” or MFN trade status) for items produced in China for the period July 2001 through July 2002. The resolution was defeated, 169-259 [Roll Call 255, S 50, 07/19/2001] Editorial: Ryan’s Support Of Granting China Favored Nation Trading Status Was Wrong As He Spun His Vote To Be “Farmer Friendly.” According to a Capital Times Editorial, “So who doesn’t get it? U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican, who has been under intense pressure from both sides on the issue. Ryan announced this week that he intends to vote yes on the proposal, suggesting that his southeastern Wisconsin 1st District is split on the issue -- with farmers favoring the move and autoworkers opposing it. While Ryan is right that the UAW is an out-front foe of the trade bill, he’s wrong about farmers -- the National Farmers Union and every serious congressional advocate for family farming strongly oppose the deal. Ryan shouldn’t try to ‘‘spin’’ his vote as farmer-friendly. It’s not. Instead, he should change his stand and vote with labor, 162

environmental, human rights and farm advocates, who oppose giving a blank check to the Chinese government and its corporate partners.” [Capital Times, Editorial, 5/24/00] Ryan Supported Permanent MFN Status for China. In May 2000, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would grant permanent most favored nation status to China. The bill was strongly opposed by organized labor. The bill passed 237-197. [Roll Call 228, H 4444, 05/24/2000]

Cuba
Ryan Voted for Easing Cuba Gift Regulations. On June 15, 2005, Ryan voted for an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to implement, administer or enforce regulations related to license exemptions for gift parcels and humanitarian donations for Cuba. Congressional Quarterly Weekly reported that the amendment “would have relaxed the trade embargo against Cuba to allow the shipment of gift parcels [...] it encountered strong resistance from Florida’s GOP delegation and DeLay, who said the goods would just wind up in the hands of the Castro regime. The White House warned last week that such an amendment might trigger a veto.” [Roll Call 254, H 2862, 06/15/2005; Congressional Quarter Weekly 06/17/2005] Ryan Voted To Repeal Limits On Family Travel To Cuba. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 225 for and 174 against, the House blocked new administration limits on visits by Cuban-Americans with family members in Cuba. A yes vote was to repeal new limits on family travel to Cuba.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/04] Ryan Supported An End To U.S. Sanctions Against Cuba, Backing A Measure To Allow Free, Two-Way Trade. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 188 for and 225 against, the House refused to end U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba and thus allow free, two-way trade with the Communist state. A yes vote backed free, two-way trade with Cuba.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/04] Ryan Voted to Remove Travel Restrictions to Cuba. In September 2004, Ryan voted to “remove barriers to agriculture sales and student exchanges” with Cuba, according to the AP. The measure was part of the FY 2005 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act, which passed 397-12. [Roll Call 465, H 5025, 09/22/2004; AP, 9/22/04] Ryan Voted to Increase Spending for the Treasury Department, Lift Travel Restrictions to Cuba. On July 25, 2001, Ryan voted for an appropriations bill that increased spending on the Treasury Department and the Postal Service, in addition to lifting travel restrictions on Cuba. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “A showdown between Congress and President Bush over Cuba policy is threatening to slow progress on the fiscal 2002 Treasury-Postal Service appropriations package. The House voted 334-94 to pass its version of the legislation (HR 2590) July 25, after adding language that would lift restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba.” The next day the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 to approve a bill that is silent on Cuba, the two measures are otherwise strikingly similar. “As a result, Cuba is the main point of disagreement at the moment. But the bill will be managed on the Senate floor by Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., […] Dorgan said he would either offer his own amendment or ask the Senate to adopt the same travel provision added by the House.” [Roll Call 274, H 2590, 07/25/2001; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 07/27/01] Ryan Voted to Lift Restrictions on Travel to Cuba. On July 25, 2001, Ryan vote in favor of an amendment to end restrictions on travel to Cuba. According to the Washington Post, “The House voted yesterday to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens, which sponsors said would be a first step toward ending the communist nation’s economic isolation and hastening democratic reforms. […] The 240 to 186 vote in favor of lifting the restrictions came on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to the $ 32.7 billion fiscal 2002 spending bill for the Treasury Department, Postal Service, White House and other agencies. The House passed a similar amendment last year, but it died in the Senate.” [Roll Call 270, H 2590, 07/25/2001; Washington Post, 07/26/01]

Europe
163

Ryan Voted Against Adoption Of A Resolution Directing The Removal Of US Forces From Yugoslavia. Ryan voted against a concurrent resolution to direct the removal of U.S. armed forces from the conflict in Yugoslavia. [Roll Call 101, S 82, 04/28/1999]

Iran
Ryan Voted for Tougher Sanctions on Iran. On September 25, 2007, Ryan voted for tougher economic sanctions against Iran. This was largely in response to the continued development of the Iranian nuclear program and a U.S. visit by Ahmadinejad to address the UN general assembly. According to the Washington Post, “Lawmakers in Washington weighed in on Ahmadinejad’s visit. The House voted 397 to 16 to block foreign investment in Iran, particularly the energy sector, and to bar Bush from waiving U.S. sanctions.” Congressional Quarterly Today reported that, “the bill would strengthen sanctions President Bush signed into law in 2006 (PL 109-293) that have been waived since their initial enactment in 1996. It would bar all Iranian imports, including carpets, to the United States and would expand sanctions on exports to Iran. It also would remove Bush’s ability to waive sanctions on corporations doing business with Iran’s energy industry. It would expand the definition of those who can be sanctioned for making investments to include financial institutions and insurers to the list of entities already barred from investing in Iran. The measure also would block U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that assist Iran’s nuclear program and would decrease U.S. contributions to the World Bank by the same amount as the bank’s loans to Iran. It calls on Bush to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group and would grant the president the authority to block the assets of any entity supporting the Revolutionary Guard. It also would authorize $60 billion for the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. […] the House bill specifically states that the administration cannot interpret anything in the legislation as a congressional authorization of a military strike on Iran.” [Roll Call 895, H 1400, 09/25/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today, 09/25/07; Washington Post, 09/26/07] Ryan Voted in Favor of Extending Sanctions on Iran and Libya. On July 26, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of a five year extension of sanctions against Iran and Libya. According to the New York Times, “The House joined the Senate today in overwhelmingly backing a five-year extension of sanctions against Iran and Libya, intended to curb foreign investment in their oil and gas sectors. The measure, approved 409-6, gives the president the authority to assess penalties on any foreign company that invests more than $20 million in the energy sectors of either country. […] The 1996 law, due to expire in August, was meant to punish the two countries and limit funds for what Washington says is their support for international terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries have dismissed the charges. […] The law allows the president to waive the sanctions, and no sanctions have been imposed since it was enacted in 1996.” [Roll Call 276, H 1954, 07/26/2001; New York Times, 07/27/01]

Iraq
Ryan Wanted Faster Withdrawal Of U.S. Troops From Iraq After Surge. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,, “In his statement afterward, Ryan said that although he’d prefer to see a faster drawdown of troops than Petraeus has proposed, ‘I understand that drawing down our forces suddenly, without regard for the conditions on the ground or the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves, would forfeit the progress our troops have made and have devastating consequences.’ Ryan said of the surge, ‘It’s clear the troops are succeeding, but it is unclear the Iraqi government is working,’ and the congressman said the U.S. needed to step up pressure on Iraqi leaders to reach a political breakthrough among rival factions there.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/16/07] Ryan Voted to Condemn the Abuse Of Iraqi Prisoners In U.S. Custody. On May 6, 2004, Ryan voted for a resolution that would condemn the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody, regardless of the circumstances of their detention. It also would urge the secretary of the Army to investigate any allegations of abuse and bring to justice any member of the armed forces who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [Roll Call 150, S 627, 05/06/2004] Paul Ryan Voted against Requiring Administration to Begin Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against an amendment that would require a troop withdrawal from Iraq within 30 days of the bill’s enactment, with a goal of completing the withdrawal of combat troops by December 2009. It would also limit agreements between the U.S. and Iraqi governments and impose other restrictions on Iraq War policy by requiring Congress to authorize any agreement 164

between the U.S. and the Iraqi government committing U.S. forces. The amendment would require the Iraqi government to match reconstruction aid and to sell fuel to the U.S. military at the same price it is sold to Iraqi consumers. The amendment would prohibit any combat unit not assessed as fully mission capable from deploying to Iraq and limit deployment time, but allow for presidential waivers. It would also prohibit interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual on the subject and prohibit establishing a permanent base in Iraq. [Roll Call 329, H 2642, 05/15/2008; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 5/16/08] Ryan Answered ‘Present’ on a Vote for Funding for War in Iraq. In 2008, Ryan answered ‘present’ on an amendment to add the war money to an appropriations bill that would provide $162.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with $96.6 billion for fiscal 2008 and $65.9 billion for fiscal 2009. 132 Republicans voted “present” in a strategy concocted by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and members of a conservative faction, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), who pressed for a dramatic demonstration to Democrats of how dependent they are on Republican votes to keep money for the troops flowing. The motion was rejected 141-149 [Roll Call 328, H 2642, 05/15/2008; Congressional Quarterly; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 5/16/08] Ryan Voted Against Funding Troops, Against Accountability in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that appropriated $50 billion in emergency supplemental funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until Feb. 1, 2008. The bill would require troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq within 30 days of enactment, with a goal of withdrawing most troops by Dec. 15, 2008. The measure would restrict U.S. armed forces to missions of force protection, counterterrorism and training of Iraqi security forces. It also would prohibit the deployment of troops who are not fully trained and equipped, and require all U.S. personnel, including CIA, to follow the Army field manual’s rules against torture. “We all view this as a significant statement, a turning point,” Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) said. “This is the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.” The bill passed 218-203. [Roll Call 1108, H 4156, 11/14/2007; Congressional Quarterly; The Hill, 11/14/07] Ryan Supported an Amendment Concerning Government Silence on Iraqi Corruption. In 2007, Ryan supported a resolution rebuking the Bush administration for withholding information on the corruption and criminality that has plagued the Iraqi government. After the State Department instructed its staff not to address corruption in the Iraqi government, the department retroactively classified two reports by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that concluded the government “is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anticorruption laws.” The resolution stated that “it is an abuse of the classification process to withhold from Congress and the people of the United States broad assessments of the extent of corruption in the Iraqi government.” The resolution passed 395-21 [Roll Call 969, S 734, 10/16/2007; Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/07] Ryan Voted For Reporting Requirements on the Redeployment of Forces in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill requiring the Secretary of Defense to report on the status of planning for the redeployment of Armed Forces from Iraq. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be required to meet with and brief Congress on those reports within sixty days after the enactment of the Act and every ninety days thereafter. The bill also recognized that it is necessary for the security of U.S. Armed Forces, civilians, contractors and Iraqi nationals who have aided the mission in Iraq for the Department of Defense to have comprehensive contingency planning. The bill was called “a rarity in the 110th Congress – a war question on which most members of both parties could agree.” The bill passed 377-46. [Roll Call 927, H 3087, 10/02/2007; Congressional Quarterly, 10/03/07] Ryan Was Unsure If Iraq Surge Was Successful. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Many Republican lawmakers - and presidential candidates - who oppose timetables for withdrawal are hoping the surge represents the kind of progress that will make lower U.S. troop levels possible (beyond the anticipated reductions once the surge runs its course next spring). ‘It looks like the surge is working from the military side. It’s the political side of things I want to know more about,’ Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville said. Ryan said he expected that a ‘sizable troop drawdown is in the cards in the not-too-distant future.’ He cited several reasons: U.S. troops are overstretched, more Iraqis are being trained, and, he said, U.S. success in making deals with local tribes will make it possible to pull troops out of combat. ‘I am waiting to interpret the surge until I hear (Petraeus). My mind has not been made up one way or the other,’ said Ryan, referring to congressional testimony Monday and Tuesday by the U.S. commander in the region.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/9/07] Ryan Voted to Prohibit Permanent Base in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to prohibit any funding for the creation of a permanent military base in Iraq. The bill prohibited any funds made available by any act of Congress to be obligated or expended to establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Iraq, 165

or to exercise U.S. economic control of the oil resources of Iraq. The bill passed 399-24 [Roll Call 717, H 2929, 07/25/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Opposed Accountability in Iraq, Redeployment of Troops. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill to require the Defense secretary to begin redeploying U.S. troops and contractors out of Iraq within 120 days of the bill’s enactment. The redeployment, except for a “limited presence,” would have to be completed by April 1, 2008. It would require the president, no later than Jan. 1, 2008, to transmit to Congress a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq that includes a justification of the minimum force levels required to protect U.S. national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008, a description of the specific missions of U.S. forces to be undertaken, the cost of maintaining such a force and the expected duration of the missions. President Bush opposed the bill. The bill passed 223-201 [Roll Call 624, H 2956, 07/12/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Supported Iraq Benchmarks without Deadline for Troop Withdrawal. . In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to appropriate $97.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending. The measure included $87 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $3.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief Fund. In addition, the bill would establish 18 “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government and require the president to report on progress towards meeting the benchmarks. It would permit, but not require, the president to withhold reconstruction funds if the benchmarks were not met. Many Democrats opposed the measure because it did not contain language calling for a deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq. The motion passed 280-142. [Roll Call 425, H 2206, 05/24/2007; Congressional Quarterly, CQ Weekly, 5/28/07] Ryan Opposed Accountability in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted against legislation that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill required another congressional vote in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion for the Pentagon, and would withhold funds until the president reports by July 13 on progress the Iraqi government has made toward meeting specified benchmarks and goals set by the bill and Congress has adopted a joint resolution releasing the “fenced off” funds. In addition, the bill provided $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.3 billion for military healthcare costs and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. President Bush opposed the bill. The bill passed 221-205 [Roll Call 333, H 2206, 05/10/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted Against Emergency Spending in Iraq & Afghanistan Tied to Benchmarks; Minimum Wage Hike; Hurricane Recovery. On May 10, 2007, Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and require another congressional vote in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion for the Pentagon. It would withhold funds until the president reports by July 13 on progress the Iraqi government has made toward meeting specified benchmarks and goals set by the bill and Congress has adopted a joint resolution releasing the “fenced off’ funds. The measure would provide $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.3 billion for military healthcare costs and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small- business tax incentives. The resolution passed 221-205. [Roll Call 333, H 2206, 05/10/2007] Ryan Opposed Override Veto of Iraq Accountability Legislation. In 2007, Ryan voted against a measure to overturn President Bush’s veto of legislation to require accountability in Iraq. The original bill, which was vetoed by Bush on May 1, 2007, would provide $124.2 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency funding, as well as set as a goal of redeploying most U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of March 2008, if the president can certify the Iraq government is meeting benchmarks, and by the end of 2007 if he cannot. The measure also provided $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. Also included in the bill was a provision to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (284 in this case) of both chambers are necessary to override a veto. The veto override attempt was defeated 222-203. [Roll Call 276, H 1591, 05/02/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Opposed Override Veto of Iraq Accountability Legislation. In 2007, Ryan voted against a measure to overturn President Bush’s veto of legislation to require accountability in Iraq. The original bill, which was vetoed by Bush on May 1, 2007, would provide $124.2 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency funding, as well as set as a goal of redeploying most U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of March 2008, if the president can certify the Iraq government is meeting benchmarks, and by the end of 2007 if he cannot. The measure also provided $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $6.8 billion 166

for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster assistance and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. Also included in the bill was a provision to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (284 in this case) of both chambers are necessary to override a veto. The veto override attempt was defeated 222-203 [Roll Call 276, H 1591, 05/02/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Opposed Supporting Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that provided $95.5 billion for the Department of Defense. This provided support for the 140,000 troops deployed in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan. It also fully funded the original surge force of 21,000 soldiers plus an additional 4,729 personnel in Iraq and 7,200 in Afghanistan. It included $3.3 billion for Defense Health and $1.8 billion for Veterans Health, while the President requested nothing for Veterans Health in the supplemental. The bill included a timeline to begin withdrawal, but removed the date certain for when all troops need to be out of Iraq. The bill passed 218-208 [Roll Call 265, H 1591, 04/25/2007; CQ House Action Reports, No. 110-1] Ryan Opposed Measure To Bring Our Troops Home By August 2008. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that would set in motion a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008 and establish requirements that could be waived for unit readiness and deployment lengths. The bill included $2.8 billion to enhance medical services for active duty forces, mobilized personnel and their family members and $1.7 billion for veterans’ health care priorities including maintenance at VA health care facilities like Walter Reed. The measure passed 218-212 [Roll Call 186, H 1591, 03/23/2007; CQ House Action Reports, No. 110-3] Ryan Called Iraq Sure A ‘Big Gamble,’ Gave It A Six Month Window To Succeed. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan returned Thursday from a trip to Iraq, expressing support for the new U.S. strategy and buildup there but warning that ‘it is our last chance to get this right’ before going to ‘Plan B’ and starting to withdraw troops. ‘This whole thing is a big gamble, but it’s probably the best gamble to take before throwing in the towel and allowing sectarian genocide to take over,’ said Ryan, who was visiting Iraq for the first time. ‘I personally give this three to six months to find out.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/23/07] Ryan Said The US Made Colossal Mistakes In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Sentinel, “Ryan said the trip also gave him a better appreciation of the ‘colossal mistakes’ that the U.S. made after the invasion of Iraq. ‘We’ve made so many mistakes,’ Ryan said. ‘Number one, they sent about half to a third as many troops as were needed at the beginning, so the Tommy Franks-Rumsfeld-Bush master strategy was way off on troop levels.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/23/07] Ryan Said It Was A Mistake For Congress To Place Conditions On Funding For Troops In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said soldiers told him that ‘I don’t want my buddies to have died in vain.’ He labeled as a ‘mistake’ efforts in Congress to place conditions on funding of new or current troop levels, but he said Congress had a huge role to play in oversight of the effort in Iraq. ‘We are going to know within three to six months if this is going to work or not,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/23/07] Ryan Accused Democrats Of ‘Playing Politics’ With Debate Over Troop Funding In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In the meantime, Ryan lashed out at Democrats for ‘playing politics’ while Iraq is at a ‘critical point.’ He said pursuing the right strategy - and he did not elaborate - was ‘our last chance to enable freedom to take hold in Iraq, and prevent a lot more bloodshed and quite possibly genocide.’ Alluding to the coming debate, Ryan complained: ‘It’s definitely the worst time to play politics, and I think it’s wrong for Congress to pass a non-binding resolution that does nothing but tell our servicemen and women that we don’t believe their mission is achievable.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/11/07] Ryan Supported Bush’s Plan for Escalation of Troops in Iraq. In 2007, Ryan voted against a resolution that would express support for U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq, while disapproving of the President Bush’s decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to that country. [Roll Call 99, S 63, 02/16/2007] Ryan Wanted Generals To Create Comprehensive Strategy In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Paul Ryan said, “I think we need to develop a more comprehensive strategy to win in Iraq. We need to listen more to what the commanders on the ground want and need to do their jobs. Failure in Iraq will compromise our national security and create a safe haven like we had in Afghanistan. We need to be more open-minded as a government on what it really will take to bring the troops home and also for democracy to take hold and take root in Iraq.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/5/06] 167

Ryan Endorsed Bush Strategy. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a resolution endorsing President Bush’s Iraq policy while declaring that the United States will prevail in the war against terrorism. The resolution, written entirely by the GOP, also took a stand against setting withdrawal dates. Democrats were barred from proposing an alternative. Many Democrats felt the resolution was unfair because it conjoined non-controversial measures, such as declaring support for the ongoing Global War on Terror, with controversial measures, such as joining the War in Iraq to the War on Terror. The resolution passed 256-153. [Roll Call 288, S 861, 06/16/2006; CQ Today, 6/16/06] 2005: Ryan Called Iraq War Opponents ‘Defeatists’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “After spending the past two weeks in his southern Wisconsin district, Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville says he is more confident today, not less, about the public’s will to succeed in Iraq. ‘I got the strong impression people think it’s important we see it through and push for victory, not defeat,’ said Ryan, who believes critics of the war have ‘overplayed their hand’ by sounding ‘defeatist.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/8/05] 2005: Ryan Said The U.S. Was Succeeding In Its Mission In Iraq; Declared The ‘Score’ Was U.S. 3, Terrorists: 0. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan was a little more emphatic when asked if the U.S. is succeeding. ‘We wanted to hand over sovereignty, help write a constitution, and hold elections. Every one of the benchmarks for democracy has been accomplished,’ he said. ‘It’s ‘democracy, three, terrorists, zero.’’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/8/05] 2005: Ryan Said If The U.S. Failed In Iraq That ‘We Will Never Be Safe And Secure.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan described the war as central in a generational struggle against what he called ‘Islamic fascism.’ ‘Right now, the front line is in Iraq. If we do not succeed, we will never be safe and secure,’ he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/8/05] 2005: Ryan Said His Confidence In Donald Rumsfeld’s Leadership Was Shaken. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “While supportive of the war, Green and Ryan both suggested that Bush hasn’t done an adequate job reminding Americans of the progress they think is being made there. Both said Bush had begun to do a better job of that in the last week with the first of a series of speeches on Iraq. The second of those speeches was delivered Wednesday. Green said Bush should lay out ‘benchmarks’ for progress and ‘repeat them over and over’ and ‘constantly remind people why we’re there.’ Ryan said he believed important mistakes had been made in the prosecution of the war, including insufficient troops on the ground at the time major combat ended and the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Asked about his view of the performance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Ryan said, ‘You know, I must confess my confidence in some areas has been shaken.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/8/05] Ryan Supported Additional Funding for Military Operations in Iraq. In March 2005, Ryan twice voted in favor of a bill (HR 1268) that appropriated $76.8 billion for U.S. military operations for the then-current fiscal year in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Iraq, the bill raised total appropriations for combat and reconstruction to at least $212 billion since early 2003. For Afghanistan, military actions and reconstruction received at least $65 billion in appropriations since late 2001. Almost all of HR 1268 was deficit spending. Among the bill’s other large items were $656 million for victims of the December 2004 Asian tsunami and $558 million for international peacekeeping, mainly in the Sudan. The bill passed 388-43, passed again in its conference version 368-58, and was signed into law [Roll Call 77, H 1268, 03/16/2005; Washington Post, 3/20/05] Ryan Supported Billions Of Dollars In Spending On The Reconstruction Of Iraq. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan voted for billions of dollars in spending for the reconstruction of Iraq.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/5/04] Ryan Voted To Commend The Removal Of Saddam Hussein And The Liberation Of Iraq. On March 17, 2004 Ryan voted for a House Resolution “relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces.” The resolution stated “that the House of Representatives: (1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; (2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein’s regime; (3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq’s interim constitution; and (4) commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.” The resolution passed 327-93. [Roll Call 64, S 557, 03/17/2004] Ryan Voted to Urge France, Germany, and Russia to Forgive Iraqi Debt. On October 16, 2003, Ryan voted for adoption of the resolution that would express the sense of the House that France, Germany and Russia should forgive debts owed to them by Iraq as part of their Iraqi reconstruction efforts. [Roll Call 545, S 198, 10/16/2003] 168

Ryan Supported $87 Billion Emergency Funding Package For Post War Iraq And Afghanistan. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, on the “… on the president’s request for $87 billion in emergency funding for postwar Iraq and Afghanistan…Ryan, a Republican, supports the package, saying, ‘It’s critical that we not allow Iraq to fail.’ […] Ryan […] notes that it’s a critical time in Iraq. ‘We are in the business of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people right now, and bringing them toward a republic and away from a chaotic state. It’s important we invest in democracy.’ […] Ryan favors outright grants, rather than loans repaid from future oil revenue, and would prefer the $20.3 billion for reconstruction offset by cuts in the foreign-aid budget. He’s not sure, though, if lawmakers will have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/5/03] Ryan Said That He Was Pleased With The “High-Quality” Of Defense Briefings On Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ever since the fighting began in Iraq, the Pentagon has made sure that one key audience -Congress -- isn’t getting all its war news from embedded journalists, armchair generals and 24-hour cable TV. Almost every weekday, Defense and State department officials have been holding confidential briefings on the war for members of the House and the Senate in rooms swept for bugging devices. Most lawmakers in both parties are happy with the practice, though some acknowledged past unhappiness with the Bush administration over information-sharing. ‘They’re high-quality. They’re taken very seriously,’ Wisconsin Senate Democrat Russ Feingold said of the sessions. ‘They’re a lot better than the briefings we got prior to this thing. It would have been so helpful if they’d tried to answer some of these questions prior to the invasion.’ House Republican Paul Ryan of Janesville said the briefings help lawmakers ‘decipher whether what you’re hearing on CNN or Fox News is true or not.’ By providing hard numbers on things such as ‘attrition rates of divisions, troop movements, troop locations,’ it’s easier to ‘see the progress on each of these points,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/3/03] In 2003, Ryan Said that He The “We Are Doing Very Well” In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said he has used the briefings to educate himself about things military and put battlefield events in context. Ryan said the briefings have helped him understand why U.S. forces hadn’t engaged the Republican Guard sooner (‘We’re decimating them from the air in an antiseptic way that has not cost us one soldier’) and the negative impact of not having a northern front from Turkey. Ryan said his view of the war is that ‘We are doing very well.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/3/03] Six Weeks Before The Iraq War, Ryan Conducted 36 Town Hall Meetings. According to the Washington Post, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who has conducted 36 town hall meetings in the past six weeks, said his surveys showed that although a majority of constituents opposed an attack on Iraq in early January, nearly 90 percent now favor it. ‘It was not what I expected,’ said Ryan, who noted there had been a couple of pro-war rallies in his district recently.” [Washington Post, 3/19/03] When It Came To The Iraq Situation, Ryan Said The US Must Be “Consistent” And “Morally” Clear. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But Bush gets high marks from Wisconsin Republicans, who say the world will likely fall in line behind a U.S.-led war and for rebuilding efforts in Iraq. ‘This is a case where we do have to be consistent and morally clear,’ said Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville, who dismissed the idea of waiting and working to secure more international support. ‘We can’t coddle dictators and turn a blind eye.’ Republican Reps. Ryan, Tom Petri of Fond du Lac, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Menomonee Falls and Mark Green of Green Bay expressed strong support for Bush’s Iraq policy.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/16/03] Ryan Supported The Iraq War Resolution. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In one of his only campaign efforts, Thomas recently sent out a news release opposing U.S. military involvement in Iraq, offering subtle criticism of Ryan for his position on the issue. The congressman voted with the majority on the resolution giving President Bush authority to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm. ‘I believe this resolution is the best thing we can do to hopefully get a peaceful settlement,’ Ryan said. ‘This will show force to Saddam Hussein.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/2/02] Paul Ryan Voted for Iraq Use-of-Force Resolution. On October 10, 2002, Paul Ryan voted for H J Res 114, a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The resolution, however, required the administration to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted diplomatic options no later than 48 hours after military action had begun. The president was also required to submit a progress report to Congress at least every 60 days. The House passed the resolution 296-133. [Roll Call 455, S 114, 10/10/2002] 169

In August 2002, Ryan Said He Was Undecided About Going To War In Iraq. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Janesville Republican Paul Ryan also will vote for the resolution supported by the White House and the top House leaders in each party. ‘I’m no longer wavering. In August, I was very undecided about this,’ Ryan said. His briefings, meetings with administration officials and reading on the subject had convinced him that Iraq is a significant threat to U.S. security, and that Hussein would do all he could to evade international inspections and resolutions, he said. ‘But if he knows we are serious and have the authority and will to act unilaterally, it will give us a better chance to get him to comply,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/9/02] A Group Of Nuns Called On Ryan To Support Ending Iraq Sanctions, He Supported Ending The Sanctions. According to the Capital Times, “Economic sanctions against Iraq are unjust, killing thousands of women and children who have committed no crime, a group of Dominican nuns told U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville. Hoping to dramatize the Iraqis’ plight, the nuns handed Ryan a pound of rice and sugar, 5 pounds of flour, and dashes of salt, tea, cheese, lentils and cooking oil -- what the nuns say Iraqi citizens are forced to live on. ‘The very small rations of food have to last a month,’ Sister Mary Michna said Wednesday. ‘At least 5,000 people are dying a month because of malnutrition.’ Ryan voiced agreement with the nuns and said he would co-sign a letter to President Clinton calling for an end to the sanctions. ‘We don’t have anything against the Iraqi people. We have a problem with Saddam Hussein,’ Ryan said.” [Capital Times, 1/22/00]

Israel
2004: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of the appropriations bill for foreign operations and export financing. The bill passed 365-41. [Roll Call 390, H 4818, 07/15/2004] 2003: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of the appropriations bill for foreign operations and export financing. The bill passed 370-50. [Roll Call 429, H 2800, 07/24/2003] 2003: Ryan Opposed Aid for Israel. Ryan voted against the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, which contained the appropriations for the foreign operations and export financing. The bill passed 338-83. [Roll Call 32, S 2, 02/13/2003] Ryan Said It Was About “Supporting Democracy And Defeating Terrorism” In Vote For Resolution Supporting Israel. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “When the House took up its resolution of support for Israel on May 2, Madison Democrat Tammy Baldwin wouldn’t vote for it because it was ‘one-sided’ and ‘inflammatory.’ She wouldn’t vote against it because of ‘my solidarity’ with Israel… Yet the votes suggest at least two things about the two parties. There are more reservations among Democrats, especially African-Americans and white liberals, about Israel’s use of force. And congressional Republicans in particular are identifying Israel’s experience of suicide bombings with America’s losses on Sept. 11. For conservatives, the issue is ‘just supporting democracy and defeating terrorism,’ says Janesville Republican Paul Ryan. He backed the resolution, saying ‘you can clearly take issue with the timing,’ but ‘once this hits the floor of Congress, we need to stand united with our ally.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/12/02] 2001: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of the conference version of appropriations bill for foreign operations and export financing. The bill passed 357-66. [Roll Call 505, H 2506, 12/19/2001] 2000: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of the appropriations bill for foreign operations and export financing. It passed 239-185. [Roll Call 400, H 4811, 07/13/2000] 2000: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of the conference version of the appropriations bill for foreign operations and export financing. The bill passed 307-101. [Roll Call 546, H 4811, 10/25/2000] 1999: Ryan Supported Aid for Israel. Ryan voted in favor of a foreign operations appropriations bill. President Clinton vetoed it over language the House had inserted into the bill regarding international family planning. The bill passed 214-211. [Roll Call 480, H 2606, 10/05/1999]

170

Korea
Ryan Voted to Condemn North Korean Abductions as Terrorism and Human Rights Violation. On July 11, 2005, Ryan voted for a motion to suspend the rules and adopt the concurrent resolution that would condemn and call upon the North Korean government to immediately cease and desist in the abduction and continued captivity of citizens of South Korea and Japan. [Roll Call 363, S 168, 07/11/2005]

Kosovo
Ryan Opposed Clinton’s Actions In Kosovo “From The Start.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan has opposed President Clinton’s actions from the start. Now, with some of his colleagues talking about the next steps, he said, ‘I have grave concerns about sending ground troops. I’ve yet to see a clearly defined mission and strategy. . . . Troops into Belgrade? I wouldn’t be in favor of that.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/8/99]

Libya
Ryan Voted Against Prohibiting Defense Department Funds in Support of NATO Operations in Libya. On June 24, 2011, Ryan voted against “a GOP-led attempt to cut off funding for the U.S. role in the NATO-led operation in Libya [...] The House rejected, 180-238, a Republican-backed bill (HR 2278) that would prevent the use of funds to pay for U.S. participation in any aspect of the NATO effort except intelligence, surveillance, search-and-rescue and other “non-hostile” support activities,” according to Congressional Quarterly Today. [Roll Call 494, H 2278, 06/24/2011] Ryan Voted Against Authorizing Limited Use of Force in Libya for One Year. On June 24, 2011, Ryan voted against a resolution “that would authorize limited use of U.S. military forces in support of the NATO-led mission in Libya for at least one year after the resolution’s enactment,” Congressional Quarterly Today reported. The resolution would state Congress’ opposition to putting U.S. forces on the ground in Libya, except to protect government officials or rescue troops. It also would direct the president to “consult regularly” with Congress and provide regular briefings on the situation. [Roll Call 493, S 68, 06/24/2011] Ryan Voted to Bar Use of VA Appropriations Funds to Contravene the War Powers Resolution. On June 13, 2011, Ryan voted for an amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to contravene the War Powers Resolution. [Roll Call 415, H 2055, 06/13/2011] Ryan Voted Against Removing Troops from Libya. On June 03, 2011, Ryan voted against a resolution that would direct the president, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya within 15 days of the resolution’s adoption. [Roll Call 412, S 51, 06/03/2011] Ryan Voted to Prohibit the Use of Ground Forces in Libya. On June 03, 2011, Ryan voted for a resolution “barring the use of American ground forces in Libya and demanding the White House turn over internal documents related to President Barack Obama’s decision to order U.S. forces to take part in the NATO-led campaign,” according to Politico. It would state that the armed forces should be used exclusively to defend and advance the U.S. national security interests, that the president did not provide “compelling rationale” to Congress regarding the action in Libya, and that the president should not deploy ground forces in Libya unless it is to rescue a member of the armed forces in imminent danger. [Roll Call 411, S 292, 06/03/2011; Politico.com, 06/03/2011] Ryan Voted to Block the Use of Funds Provided by the Bill to Contravene the War Powers Resolution. On June 02, 2011, Ryan voted for a Sherman, D-Calif., amendment that would bar the use of funds in the bill to contravene the War Powers Resolution. According to Bangor Daily News, “Sherman said the amendment was needed to prevent the Obama administration from sending ‘our forces into battle for an unlimited duration, unlimited in scope, and for whatever purposes the executive branch finds worthy.’ An opponent, Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said the amendment was not germane to the bill because it applied to the use of military force.” The underlying legislation would fund the Department of Homeland Security. [Roll Call 394, H 2017, 06/02/2011; Bangor Daily News, 6/4/11] 171

Ryan Said Death Of Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi Was The End To A Sad Chapter Of A Brutal Dictator. According to the Associated Press, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan says the death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is the ending of a very sad chapter of a brutal dictator. The Wisconsin Republican made the comment Thursday after a listening session in Muskego. He says he hopes the Libyans can build a strong society with Gadhafi gone.” [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 10/20/11] Ryan Voted Against Bill To End Funding For Direct U.S. Military Intervention In Libya War. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Members defeated, 180-238, a bill to end funding for direct U.S. military involvement in the ongoing NATO-led war over Libya. A yes vote was to end most funding. (HR 2278)” Ryan voted no. [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/25/11] Ryan Voted Against Authorization Of U.S. Participation In NATO Coalition To Support Rebels In Libya Conflict. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Members defeated, 123-295, a measure (HJR 68) under which Congress would authorize for one year U.S. participation in the NATO coalition that is supporting rebel forces in Libya’s ongoing civil war. A yes vote was to authorize U.S. actions over Libya.” Ryan voted no. [Wisconsin State Journal, 6/25/11]

Pakistan
Ryan Voted Against Pakistan Troop Withdrawal. On July 27, 2010 Ryan voted against the adoption of the concurrent resolution that would direct the president to remove U.S. armed forces from Pakistan within 30 days of adoption, or by Dec. 31 if the president determined that a withdrawal could not be accomplished safely within 30 days. The bill would “remove all U.S. military personnel from Pakistan under the 1973 War Powers Act. That law requires presidents to end combat operations after 90 days unless Congress authorizes the deployment. There is dispute over whether the U.S. forces in Pakistan are in combat or advisory roles.” [Roll Call 473, S 301, 07/27/2010; The Houston Chronicle 8/1/2010]

Russia
Ryan Voted for Restricting the Implementation of the New START Treaty. On May 18, 2012, Ryan voted for an amendment to HR 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, that would ban reductions to the United States Nuclear Missile Inventory unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are needed to meet requirements for the New START treaty and Russia is not developing new nuclear systems not covered by the treaty. The amendment would also prevent the complete elimination of any one part of the nuclear triad; which includes land based missiles, submarine based missiles, and airplane based delivery systems. According to the Billings Gazette, “Rehberg offered an amendment last Friday that passed on the U.S. House floor, saying no U.S. Department of Defense funds can be spent in 2013 to reduce nuclear weapons delivery systems unless the president certifies that Russia makes a commensurate reduction. Rehberg, R-Mont., said New START requires the United States to reduce its nuclear weapons to meet a ceiling, while Russia is already at or below the ceiling.” [Roll Call 288, H 4310, 05/18/2012; Billings Gazette, 5/24/12]

Worldwide Organizations
Ryan Voted In Favor Of Calling On The United Nations To Refund $179 Million In Overpayments Of U.S. Dues. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 259 for and 169 against, the House on Feb. 9 failed to reach a two-thirds majority needed to pass a Republican bill (HR 519) calling upon the United Nations to refund $179 million in U.S. dues overpayments. If the U.N. balks, Congress would cut future dues payments by same amount. The bill would thwart a State Department plan to divert $100 million of the $179 million to security improvements at U.N. headquarters in New York City. Backers called the bill fiscally responsible, while opponents said it would increase New York’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks.” Ryan voted “yes” in favor of the bill. [St. Paul Pioneer Press, 2/12/11] Ryan Voted to Withhold US Dues from the United Nations Unless Specific Reforms Were Met. On June 17, 2005, Ryan voted for passage of the bill that would withhold up to 50 percent of U.S. dues to the United Nations unless the 172

secretary of State certifies by Oct. 1, 2007, that the U.N. has complied with 32 of 39 changes in its operations, such as more rigorous budget control, the creation of a U.N. independent oversight board and detailed financial disclosure for top U.N. officials. Overall U.S. contributions would be capped at 22 percent of the regular (non- peacekeeping) U.N. budget. The secretary of State would have some discretion in certifying compliance with most of the specified goals, with the exception of 14 conditions, including those requiring the United Nations to establish a new independent oversight and ethics office and prohibiting countries that violate human rights from serving on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “The chamber on June 17 passed legislation (HR 2745) that would cut hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. dues if the United Nations does not make 46 specific changes recommended in the bill. The debate comes amid continued investigations into allegations that contractors received kickbacks as part of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program that permitted an embargoed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food and medical supplies.” [Roll Call 282, H 2745, 06/17/2005; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 06/17/2005] Ryan Supported A Block On Aid To The United Nations Population Fund, Which Supported Family Planning And Women’s Reproductive Health Programs In 140 Countries. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “The House on July 15 voted, 216 for and 211 against, to block U.S. aid to the United Nations Population Fund, which supports programs in 140-plus countries on family planning and women's reproductive health. This removed $50 million for the fund from a $32.2 billion foreign affairs budget (HR 1950) for fiscal 2004, which awaits Senate action.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Supported Reduction In U.S. Dues To The United Nations To The Level Paid By France. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 187 for and 237 against, the House on July 15 refused to reduce U.S. dues to the United Nations to the level paid by France. In 2003, this would lower the U.S. payment from $341 million to about $87 million, a 74 percent cut. The amendment specified that U.S. dues could not exceed those paid by any other permanent member of the Security Council. At $87 million, France ranks second to the U.S. Dues to the U.N. are based on a country's share of the world's gross domestic product. A yes vote was to slash U.S. dues to the U.N.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Voted Against A Resolution Withdrawing Congressional Approval Of The WTO. Ryan voted against a joint resolution that would withdraw Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. [Roll Call 310, S 90, 06/21/2000] Ryan Voted Against A Resolution Withdrawing Congressional Approval Of The WTO. Ryan voted against a joint resolution that would withdraw Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. [Roll Call 310, S 90, 06/21/2000]

173

GLBT Hate Crimes
Ryan Voted Against Expanding Federal Hate Crime Law. In 2009, Paul Ryan voted against expanding federal hate crime law to cover offenses based on a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition the bill would also cover crimes based on a victim’s physical or mental disability. At the time of the bill passage, the law only covered the use of threat or force based on race, color, religion or national origin. [Roll Call 223, H 1913, 04/29/2009; CQ Weekly, 5/04/09] Paul Ryan Voted Against Making Hate Crimes Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Stand-Alone Offenses. On May 3, 2007, Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would expand federal hate-crimes law, despite a White House veto threat issued before lawmakers took up the measure. The bill would add to federal law definitions of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender, making them stand-alone offenses. Proponents of the legislation say current law does not readily allow federal law enforcement officials to work with state and local officials who prosecute those types of hate crimes, or to bring such cases themselves. More than 15,000 crimes based on sexual orientation were reported from 1991 to 2005, the proponents say. Opponents of the bill say it would unfairly elevate a special category of crime victims above others. Social conservatives argue that the legislation would make clergy members more reluctant to denounce homosexuality, out of fear that they could somehow be liable for a subsequent crime committed against a homosexual person by someone in their congregation. The bill passed 237-180. [Roll Call 299, H 1592, 05/03/2007; CQ Today, 5/3/07]

Marriage, Civil Unions
Paul Ryan Voted for Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same Sex Marriage. In 2006, Paul Ryan voted for passage of a joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman. It would provide that the U.S. Constitution or any state’s constitution could not be construed to require that marriage or any other constructs of marriage be conferred to any other union. A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting was required to pass this constitutional amendment. A “yea” was a vote in support of the president’s position. The joint resolution failed 236-187. [Roll Call 378, S 88, 07/18/2006]

DADT
Ryan Voted Against Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy That Bans Openly Gay Service Members. On December 15, 2010, Ryan voted against legislation that would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the law that bans openly gay men and women from military service. The legislation would require a written certification, signed by the president, the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that repeal is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness. In November 2010, “This can be done, and should be done, without posing a serious risk to military readiness,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said. [Roll Call 638, H 2965, 12/15/2010; New York Times, 12/18/10; Washington Post, 11/30/10]

DOMA
Ryan Voted for Preventing Funds Being Spent in Contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act. On May 9, 2012, Ryan voted for an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would prevent funds from being spent in contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Roll Call, “As President Barack Obama endorsed gay marriage Wednesday, the House prepared to vote on language barring the Department of Justice from arguing against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. […] Facing increasing pressure from gay civil rights organizations, Attorney General Eric Holder has begun intervening in DOMA cases in California and other states, arguing the law is not constitutional. That decision has angered conservatives. According to Huelskamp, that decision, along with Vice 174

President Joseph Biden’s endorsement of gay marriage on ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday, prompted his decision to offer the amendment. ‘The most immediate reason was the comments of the vice president of the United States. Stating his position is fine, but you tie that together with the issues with the lawsuit in California in which, essentially, the attorney general walked away from DOMA and said, ‘I’m not going to defend that,’ Huelskamp said.” [Roll Call 235, H 5326, 05/09/2012; Roll Call, 5/10/12]

175

HEALTH CARE
Affordable Care Act
Ryan Voted for Republican Substitute Amendment to the Health Care Overhaul Bill. On November 7, 2009, Ryan voted for the Republican substitute amendment to the health care overhaul bill that would require each state to establish a reinsurance health care program or high-risk pool by 2010, allow small businesses to pool together through association health plans and allow consumers to purchase licensed health insurance in any state, not just their state of residence. According to the Washington Post, the amendment “would grant states tens of billions of dollars over 10 years as an incentive for them to expand health-insurance coverage and reduce insurance premiums for their residents. The GOP bill also would pay states up to $25 billion over 10 years to finance pools for insuring high-risk individuals and reinsurance programs to help private insurers cover catastrophic costs and thus lower their premium levels. The bill would cover up to five million of the uninsured. The Republican measure would not require individuals to obtain insurance or employers to offer it and would allow insurance firms to continue to deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing conditions.” The amendment would prohibit any federal funding from being used to pay for abortions, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger. [Roll Call 885, H 3962, 11/07/2009; Washington Post 11/15/2009] Ryan Voted Against a Resolution to Express Disapproval with Rep. Joe Wilson For Shouting “You lie!” During the Sept. 9, 2009 Joint Session of Congress. On September 15, 2009, Ryan voted against adoption of the privileged resolution that would express the disapproval of the House over the behavior of Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., in breaching decorum and degrading proceedings to the discredit of the House during the joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. According to the Washington Post, “In a rare action, the House rebuked one of its members Tuesday for shouting ‘You lie!’ at President Obama last Wednesday, ending a week-long standoff during which Democrats demanded a public apology that the lawmaker refused to give. On a largely party-line vote, the House voted 240 to 179 to ratify a ‘resolution of disapproval’ against Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for interrupting Obama’s health-care speech before a joint session of Congress.” [Roll Call 699, S 744, 09/15/2009; Washington Post, 09/16/2009]

REPEAL EFFORT
Ryan Voted to Repeal CLASS Program Authorized Under Health Care Reform. On February 1, 2012, Ryan voted for the bill that would repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program authorized as part of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would shift funding for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information from a mandatory appropriation to an authorization. According to Politico, “The Republican-led House on Wednesday voted to repeal a financially troubled part of the 2010 health care law that was designed to provide affordable long-term care insurance. The House vote comes months after the Obama administration suspended the Community Living Assistance Services and Support program, known as the CLASS Act. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in October said she was unable to find a way to make the program financially solvent. Still, the White House has said it does not support repealing the program, under which workers would pay a monthly premium during their careers and collect a daily cash benefit if they become disabled later in life. Republicans have targeted the program as part of their overall goal of dismantling the health care overhaul law.” [Roll Call 18, H 1173, 02/01/2012; Politico, 2/1/12] Ryan Said He Was Confident Mitt Romney Would Repeal The Affordable Care Act If Elected President. According to The Frontrunner, “…Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R) “indicated on Tuesday that he has come around to Mitt Romney on the issue of healthcare. ‘Romney’s been very clear that he’s against ObamaCare and he’s going to repeal it. So I for a second don’t worry about whether he’s going to shy away from repealing the president’s health care law,’ Ryan said in an interview with The Weekly Standard.’ Ryan, who had previously said that the healthcare overhaul Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts wasn’t ‘that dissimilar to ObamaCare,’ told the Weekly Standard of the similarities between the two laws, ‘I don’t think this question matters that much anymore.’” [The Frontrunner, 11/2/11] Ryan Touted House GOP’s Vote To Repeal Federal Health Care Reform. According to the Miami Herald, in his State of The Union response, Ryan “touted the House Republicans’ largely symbolic vote to repeal healthcare reform, but 176

acknowledged that voters are wary of both Democrats and the GOP. ‘Americans are skeptical of both political parties and that skepticism is justified,’ he said. ‘So hold all of us accountable.’” [Miami Herald, 1/26/11] Ryan Said Repealing The Affordable Care Act Was Possible, But Would Be Tough. According to The Oklahoman, “Repealing the legislation is possible, but won’t happen quickly, [Ryan] said. ‘It is doable, it’s tough, it’s a steep hill to climb,’ Ryan said. ‘It will take us two elections to repeal it but that’s what we should be focusing on doing. We spent the last year and a half fighting the government takeover of our health care sector. Just because it passed doesn’t mean all of a sudden we give up. ‘It’s going to take a new Congress and a new president to repeal and replace it,’ said Ryan, whose in-laws are from Madill; he comes to Oklahoma about four times a year. ‘We also need to articulate what we would replace it with.’” [The Oklahoman, 4/1/10] Ryan Called For New American Revolution To Stop The Health Care Reform Bill From Being Enacted. According to Enid News & Eagle, “Ryan was keynote speaker for Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs’ 2010 citizenship dinner. Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, focused on the recent passage of the government health care bill during the majority of his keynote address. He called passage of the bill a ‘travesty,’ and said one political party was trying to decide the future of America. In order to thwart the bill and the challenges Americans now are facing, Ryan said it was up to the people to start a new American Revolution, this time a peaceful one, with ballots. ‘(We need) men and women who go to Congress and are running to stand up and fight for what this country is all about,’ Ryan said.” [Enid News & Eagle, 3/31/10] Ryan Said The Affordable Care Act Was Another Attempt Of The Federal Government To Control The Rights Of Individuals. According to Enid News & Eagle, “To Ryan, the health care legislation is another example of Washington’s attempt to control the rights of individuals in the United States. ‘What kind of society will we hand down to children in future generations?’ Ryan said. ‘We will choose one of two paths, and once we make that choice, there really is no going back.’ The first choice, Ryan said, is a future where people are dependent on the government for everyday living. But Ryan didn’t specifically blame one party over the other. ‘The U.S. (has) been slowly moving down that path for a long time, and Democrats and Republicans share in this blame,’ he said.” [Enid News & Eagle, 3/31/10] Ryan Said The Earliest The Health Care Reform Bill Could Be Repealed Was 2013. According to Federal News Service, during an interview with Greta Van Susteren of “On The Record,” Ryan was asked how he intended to repeal the health care reform bill. He responded: “…So I try to explain to people, this isn’t easy. This isn’t going to be done right away. You’ve got to have a House that’s a Republican majority. You’ve got to have a Senate not only that can pass a bill but that can get 60 votes. And you have to have a president willing to sign a different law into law, repealing this law, and that’s not this president. So the earliest a real repeal and replace agenda can take place is 2013. So that’s a ways away. The subsidies, the real entitlement kicks off in 2014. So this is really a thread-the-need kind of thing, which is, we have to make the case to the American people that we shouldn’t turn our entire health-care system over to government. We shouldn’t create two new openended unfunded entitlements on top of the ones we al-ready have that we can’t pay for.” [Federal News Service, 3/25/10] Ryan Said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen Would Be Able To File Lawsuit Against The Affordable Care Act After 2010, Under A Republican Governor. According to Federal News Service, during an interview with Greta Van Susteren of “On The Record,” Susteren said “I have a letter here, a copy, from your home state’s attorney general and J.B. Van Hollen who wrote the governor saying, I need your authority, because I would like to file suit on behalf of the state of Wisconsin. And the governor has sent his letter back. I guess he didn’t waste much time. They’re both dated March 25th. And he said, you’re out of luck, pal. This is constitutional, and it’s going to help the state of Wisconsin, and he goes through a list.” Ryan responded: “Well, J.B. is our Republican attorney general. Jim Doyle is our Democratic governor. I think our next governor after 2010 is going to be probably Scott Walker or Mark Neumann, and those are Republicans. I think we’re going to win the governor’s mansion. J.B. is going to get reelected. So this is just delayed, as far as I’m concerned. The legislature in Wisconsin is Democratic… So you’re not going to see the Wisconsin attorney general have the power and authority between now and 2010 to be able to do this, like you have seen that kind of authority extended to attorney generals around the rest of the country.” [Federal News Service, 3/25/10] Ryan Voted To Defund Health Care Overhaul Law. On January 19, 2011, Ryan voted for legislation that would repeal the 2010 health care over law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires most individuals to buy health insurance by 2014. The bill would restore the provisions of law amended or repealed by the health care overhaul, and repeal certain provisions of the health care reconciliation law. The Affordable Care Act expanded health insurance coverage to 31 million previously uninsured Americans, prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with preexisting medical conditions and required employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance for either 177

employees. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is estimated that repealing the health care legislation would cost Americans $230 billion in ten years and would leave an additional 32 million people without health insurance. [Roll Call 14, H 2, 01/19/2011; Congressional Quarterly Weekly; 2/5/11]

CRITICISM
Ryan Said Decision On Health Care Reform Bill Would Decide What Kind Of Country The U.S. Would Be. According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Transcript of Congressman Ryan’s closing remarks in opposition of the Majority’s health care bill: ‘We’re not just here to pass a healthcare bill. We are being asked to make a choice about the future path of this country. The speakers to my left are correct: this is history. Today marks a major turning point in American history. This is really not a debate about prices, coverage, or choosing doctors. This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century. America is not just a nationality - it’s not just a mass of land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. It’s the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. Our founders got it right, when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature’s God - not from government.” [States News Service, 5/21/10] Ryan Said Democrat’s “Philosophy” On Health Care Reform Was “Paternalistic And So Arrogant.” According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Transcript of Congressman Ryan’s closing remarks in opposition of the Majority’s health care bill: ‘Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives - or do we now believe that government’s role is to equalize the results of people’s lives? The philosophy advanced on the floor by the Majority today is so paternalistic, and so arrogant. It’s condescending. And it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods - a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies.” [States News Service, 5/21/10] Ryan Said Americans Were Not Happy With The Health Care Reform Bill. According to The Oklahoman, “Ryan, a leading critic of the health care reform bill approved last week by Congress, said he believes most Americans are unhappy with the package that won the unanimous approval of Democratic U.S. House members; every Republican House member voted against it. ‘Never before has such a huge entitlement program passed with just one-party rule,’ said Ryan 40, who is serving his sixth term in Congress. ‘This is the largest expansion of government in 40 years and it was done with just one-party rule running it through. The American people don’t like that and it’s very clear that they have great concerns about it.’” [The Oklahoman, 4/1/10] Ryan Said He Believed The Affordable Care Act Would Make Health Care Worse And Hurt The Economy And Medicare. According to Federal News Service, during an interview with Greta Van Susteren of “On The Record,” Ryan said “…You don’t stop fighting for what you believe in. And I really do believe that this is going to make health care worse. It’s going to raise premiums. It’s going to cause job losses, half a trillion (dollars) in tax increases is going to hurt the economy, half a trillion (dollars) taken out of the Medicare system into this new entitlement is going to hurt that program, and it’s not going to help its solvency.” [Federal News Service, 3/25/10] Ryan Said Health Care Reform Bill Would Deny Americans Health Care Options And Reduce The Quality Of Care. According to Federal News Service, during an interview with Greta Van Susteren of “On The Record,” Ryan said: “…I really think the American people, once they see what [the health care reform bill] does, the new mandate that’s going to be enforced upon them, the denial of the kinds of options that they have in health-care reform right now and the reduction in the kind of quality of care I think that we’re going to be experiencing over the next few years, especially after this thing is enacted, I like to think that we’re going to be able to make the case to the public, you know, let’s get a new crew in town here, let’s get new leadership in Washington that agrees with the American idea, not a cradle-to-grave social welfare state. And we’re going to have to make that case very forcefully to our constituents.” [Federal News Service, 3/25/10] Ryan Believed Health Care Reform Debate Was Less About Policy And More About Ideology. According to Federal News Service, in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Dylan Ratigan Show,” Ryan was asked: “whether it’s you or Ron Wyden, why do you think plans like that have basically been pushed into the ditch?” Ryan responded, “Because I think this is less about health-care policy and more about ideology. I really believe this. And it’s just the conclusion that I have reluctantly come 178

to, which is they could have had good bipartisan deals with many of us to address cost and quality and health insurance for the uninsured, and those are the pre-existing conditions. We could have done that before August. I believe this is really more about political philosophy and agenda, which is an ideological idea to have the government take this whole system over. And that to me is something that is basically having the American idea of promoting equal opportunity being replaced with more of a Western European cradle-to-grave social democracy, welfare state, where the goal of government isn’t promoting equal opportunity but to equalize the results of our lives. And I just think that’s the ideology that dominates the White House and the people running Congress right now.” [Federal News Service, 3/10/10]

TAX LANGUAGE
Ryan Voted Against Repealing Tax Compliance Language in Health Care Overhaul that Hurts Small Businesses. On July 30, 2010 Ryan voted against the bill that would repeal tax compliance language in the health care overhaul law that would require businesses to file information reports to the IRS for payments of $600 or more made to any vendor in a single year. The repeal of the reporting requirement would be offset by placing new limits on the ability of U.S.-based companies to use certain foreign tax credit transactions to lower their tax liability. According to the Bangor Daily News, “the bill would have eliminated certain tax reporting requirements for small businesses and eliminated tax loopholes for foreign operations by U.S. companies.” [Roll Call 514, H 5982, 07/30/2010; Bangor Daily News 8/7/2010]

Health Care Reform
Paul Ryan Voted Against Health Care Reform Reconciliation Package Which Expanded Access To Health Care And College. Paul Ryan voted against a bill that would make changes to the previously passed health care reform bill HR 3590. The bill covered 32 million previously uninsured Americans at a savings of $143 billion over 10 years. The reconciliation package increased federal subsidies to help low- and moderate-income families purchase coverage through health insurance exchanges established by the overhaul measure, phase out the coverage gap for Medicare prescription drug enrollees and adjust the federal matching funds for Medicaid. It would change penalties on employers that do not offer health benefits. It would freeze Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, which are higher than traditional Medicare, and then re-formulate payments according to local costs. The federal government would cover 100 percent of the cost of coverage to newly eligible Medicaid recipients in 2014-16. It would delay until 2018 the effective date of a tax on high-cost health plans and adjust the dollar amounts used to determine who would be affected by the tax. The bill was financed in part by repealing a tax credit for a paper-processing byproduct called “black liquor.” It also would make the federal government the sole originator of federal student loans and direct the savings generated to education programs, including Pell grants. The bill would shift all new federal student lending to the Direct Loan Program beginning July 1, 2010. It would increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,975 in 2017 and provide $2.6 billion for minority-serving institutions. [Roll Call 167, H 4872, 03/21/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Expanding Health Care To 31 Million Americans. Paul Ryan voted against the motion to concur with the Senate amendment to HR 3590. The bill would over haul the nation’s health insurance system and require most Americans to purchase insurance by 2014. The Congressional Budget Office found the bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion and cover 31 million uninsured Americas. The bill would create a system of national private insurance plans supervised by the Office of Personnel Management and create state-run marketplaces for purchasing health insurance. Those who do not obtain coverage would be subject to an excise tax. Employers with more than 50 workers would have to provide coverage or pay a fine if any employee gets a subsidized plan on the exchange. Certain small businesses would get tax credits for providing coverage, and those with low incomes, excluding illegal immigrants, could get subsidies. It would bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the new programs, except in the cases of rape or incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. Insurance companies could not deny coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014, and could not drop coverage of people who become ill. It would expand eligibility for Medicaid, shrink the coverage gap under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and create an advisory board to reduce the per capita growth rate in Medicare spending. [Roll Call 165, H 3590, 03/21/2010] Ryan Claimed The Affordable Care Act Created A $701 Billion Deficit. According to a transcript of “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” Ryan said, “The CBO just scored the health care legislation, which was written to manipulate that score. What they when they wrote that bill was they double counted lots of money. They didn’t count the $115 billion of new bureaucratic spending that CBO says has to occur. They double counted money from Social Security, this new Class (ph) Act, 179

from Medicare they double count. They didn’t count the doc fix. So if you take away all the budget gimmicks, and all the smoke and the mirrors, this thing has about a $701 billion deficit. CBO can’t say that. CBO has to score the legislation as it’s drafted. The problem is, the Democrats drafted it in such a way, with so many spending gimmicks, that it was done to manipulate that score. Make no bones about this. This thing’s a budget buster.” [Fox News, “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” 1/6/11] Paul Ryan Voted To Allow Health Insurance Companies To Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions. Paul Ryan voted against the motion to concur with the Senate amendment to HR 3590. Under this bill, insurance companies could not deny coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions beginning in 2014, and could not drop coverage of people who become ill. [Roll Call 165, H 3590, 03/21/2010] Paul Ryan Voted Against Historic Bipartisan Health Insurance Reform, Put Big Insurance Companies First. In 2009, Paul Ryan voted against the historic bipartisan Affordable Health Care for America Act. The bill was to reduce health care costs for the middle class, protect families’ health care choices, end discriminatory practices by insurance companies, and provide more security for seniors. The bill passed 220-215. [Roll Call 887, H 3962, 11/07/2009; Chicago Tribune, 11/11/09; Washington Post, 11/08/09] Paul Ryan Voted To Allow Health Insurance Companies To Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions. Paul Ryan voted against HR 3962 which prohibited health insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. [Roll Call 887, H 3962, 11/07/2009] Paul Ryan Voted Against Bill To Expand Access To Health Care And Reduce The Deficit. Paul Ryan voted against HR 3962, an overhaul of health insurance that would expand access to health care and reduce the deficit by $109 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 36 million. The bill mandated most Americans purchase health insurance by 2013 and created the Health Choices administration to setup and administer exchanges from which consumers can purchase health insurance on an open market. The bill also created a public health insurance option for consumers to choose from. It includes a premium support system for those making up to 400% of the federal poverty line to help them purchase insurance. Employers are required to provide coverage or pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll and individuals who do not purchase insurance are subject to fines. The system is funded by an excise tax on high cost health insurance plans as well as $500 million cuts to the Medicare Advantage plan, a program which allowed seniors to purchase private insurance, but costs more than traditional Medicare. Health insurance companies would be required to spend a certain amount of premiums on direct health care costs and the bill prohibited companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It also included provisions that allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines. The bill would bar the use of federal funds to provide abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. [Roll Call 887, H 3962, 11/07/2009] Ryan: I Am Not In Favor Of Socialized Medicine. In a Capital Times editorial Paul Ryan wrote, “As for health care, it is no secret that I am not in favor of socialized medicine. Perhaps this is ultimately where The Capital Times and I disagree. Yet, I think both of us would agree that the health care status quo in America is unsustainable. I believe more power must be placed into the hands of consumers, not government or HMO bureaucrats. Does this mean shifting costs from businesses to individuals? Far from it. I am pushing reforms that give the consumer the financial resources, the clout and the information to be the driving force of our health care system, rather than the recipients of annual double-digit cost increases.” [Capital Times, 6/16/05] Ryan Criticized Ted Kennedy Health Care Plan As Socialized Medicine. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “During his last face-to-face with Ryan two years ago, [Democratic candidate Jeffery] Thomas pounded on health care as his major campaign issue. He supported the government-run single payer, universal health care plan put forward by U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Ryan called it ‘socialized medicine’ and voiced strong opposition to having the government run health care, pointing out the government already has a hand in health care with Medicare and Medicaid and the Federal Children’s Health Insurance Plan. Ryan agreed that health care needs to be overhauled and took steps during his last term to push such programs as the creation of Health Savings Accounts and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Modernization and Improvement Act.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/24/04]

180

Health Insurance
Ryan Voted To Repeal Funding for State Insurance Exchanges. On May 03, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would repeal the section of the 2010 health care overhaul that allocates mandatory funding for state insurance exchanges and would rescind unobligated funds made available for the exchanges. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “prohibit spending to establish the state-run exchanges that will become core elements of the new health law starting in 2014. The bill would lower spending by $13 billion over five years and apply the savings to deficit reduction. It would also have the effect of expanding federal involvement in U.S. health care, because the law requires the federal government to establish exchanges in states that fail to do so.” [Roll Call 285, H 1213, 05/03/2011; Washington Post 05/12/2011] Ryan Was One Of Only 19 Representatives To Oppose Proposal To Strip Insurance Companies Of Antitrust Exemptions. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Last week, he was one of just 19 members of the House who voted against a proposal to strip antitrust ex-emptions for insurance companies. According to the American Medical Association, most local markets in the U.S. are dominated by a single insurer. What that means is that there is no real competition, a circumstance that allows big insurers to impose radical rate hikes. The vast majority of House Republicans got it. A total of 153 GOP representatives voted with 253 Democrats to create real competition. On the losing end of that vote, Ryan was a lonely defender of insurance industry monopolies and duopolies, which can raise prices at will because they face little real competition. For all his talk about being for free markets, the Janesville Republican joined a tiny minority of House members …who opposed freeing up the market to foster competition and reduce insurance prices.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 2/28/10]  2010: Since Election To Congress, Ryan Received $528,751 From Insurance Industry Donors. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Since coming to Congress, Ryan has collected $528,751 from insurance industry donors. No industry pro-vides Ryan with more campaign money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And his take is going up. Over the past year, he has taken in more than $74,720 in contributions from insurance industry-related political action committees and executives. As it turns out, Ryan’s a good investment.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 2/28/10] Wisconsin State Journal: State Health Insurance Rates Were Expected To Increase By 17.2%. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “‘Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin has filed a notice with the Wisconsin Office of the Insurance Commissioner that the company intends to increase its composite premiums in Wisconsin by 17.2 percent, effective April 1, 2010. The company projects a 17.2 percent composite rate increase for its Blue Access, Blue Economy, Blue Value, and Blue Preferred Plus products in Wisconsin,’ BizTimes.com reported. Politicians like Paul Ryan, the Janesville congressman who accepts millions in special-interest money and then defends those interests in Congress, have opposed every effort to crack down on the excesses and abuses of health insurance corporations… don’t blame Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Wisconsin for the rate hike. Blame the people who make it possible for companies like Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield to do whatever they please.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 2/28/10]

Ryan Said Health Insurance Reform Would Be His Priority In 2004. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said that if he is re-elected, his priorities would include seeking a refundable tax credit for people without health insurance that, in effect, would provide them vouchers for health care. He said he would renew his efforts for legislation that would allow small businesses to create health insurance purchasing pools.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/23/04] Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Allow Small Businesses Purchase Health Insurance Through Trade Associations. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Small businesses in Wisconsin, beset with ever-rising health insurance costs, would be helped by a bill passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow small businesses to purchase health insurance through trade associations. That’s the claim of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) who cosponsored the bill approved Thursday in a 262 to 162 vote. The bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, where Ryan said Friday he feels it will pass, although on a closer vote. ‘Escalating costs are making it tougher and tougher for Wisconsin’s small businesses to offer good health care coverage for their workers,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/23/03] Editorial: Ryan Supported Expanding The “Pool Of Larger Health Insurance Plans To Allow Individuals To Join” And A Refundable Tax Credit. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “On the overarching issue of health care, Ryan says the system should be consumer- and physician-based rather than dictated by insurance companies or overseen by the federal government. He supports expanding the pool of larger health insurance plans to allow individuals to join, and favors a refundable tax credit or deductibility for insurance premiums paid to private insurance carriers.” [Editorial, Wisconsin State Journal, 10/27/02] 181

Ryan’s 1998 Opponent Said Ryan Should Be Held Accountable For A Health Insurance Portability Bill That Sen. Sam Brownback Opposed When Ryan Served As His Legislative Director. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan’s support from groups that favor privatizing Social Security is at odds with the ad’s claim about protecting Social Security, said Spottswood campaign spokesman Jonathan Brown. In addition, when Ryan was legislative director for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Brownback voted against a bill to guarantee the transfer of health benefits to a new job, Brown said. He said voters could hold it against Ryan if they come to regard the ad’s claims as inaccurate. ‘This ad is a far better example of the Spottswood campaign platform than the Ryan campaign platform,’ Brown said. Ryan aide Murray said those criticisms missed the mark because Ryan has endorsed a Republican version of health-insurance portability and has said that while he would consider plans to privatize Social Security, he has not committed to it.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/8/98]

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
Ryan Co-Authored Plan To Create Health Care Savings Account. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan co-authored health care savings account legislation that the House Ways and Means Committee approved in September, and he has introduced legislation that would allow health care providers to use a paperless system that would maintain privacy standards. He also intends to work on providing more information to consumers about health care providers and health care systems so they can be more easily compared and analyzed. ‘I have a lot of initiatives that I’m fighting for to bring down health care costs,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/5/06] Capital Times Editorial: Ryan’s Health Savings Accounts Are A Dangerous Fantasy. According to a Capital Times editorial, “Ryan will counter that he is doing something to help protect the Janesville plant by promoting health savings accounts as a means to lower insurance costs for employers such as GM. But that is a dangerous fantasy. Such accounts only shift the cost of health care away from corporations and onto their employees. Workers at GM, who are lucky enough to have a strong union, would not accept this arrangement willingly. And they are right to resist. The answer to what ails GM is not the nickel-and-diming of workers to fake up a short-term ‘fix.’ Part of the answer is to develop a health care infrastructure that ensures that all workers have access to affordable care, as is the case in Canada and other countries. (Notably, GM says that one of the reasons it has shifted so much work to Canada over the years is because that country has a national health care system that holds costs down.)” [Capital Times, 6/9/05] Ryan Called Health Savings Accounts His Most Important Accomplishment In 2004. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan said his most important accomplishment this past term was being co-author of a law that created health savings accounts. They allow people with high-deductible health insurance policies to save money for health care expenses tax free. ‘It’s actually proving to bring down health care costs for people,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/23/04] Ryan Praised Health Savings Accounts. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs, become available on New Year’s Day. They are a totally federal tax-free way for Americans to accumulate money to pay for medical expenses, but they come with a big condition: To qualify, a person must be covered only by a high-deductible health insurance policy, one with annual out-of-pocket costs of at least $1,000 for an individual or $2,000 for a family. ‘The goal of the HSAs is to spark a consumer revolution in health care, to get the consumer back in the game, to give the consumer the resources and wherewithal to make choices,’ said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican who helped to steer the measure through Congress as part of the larger Medicare reform bill enacted earlier this month.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/28/03]  Ryan Said He Would Provide The Poor, Who Could Not Afford Health Savings Accounts, With Tax Credit To Pay Deductible For Their Health Insurance. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “While Ryan is excited about HSAs, he realizes they will not make health insurance affordable for everyone. The working poor might have trouble coming up with money to fund them, he said. To fix that, he would like to amend the law to provide such people with a tax credit to pay for the deductible. The credit would be refundable -- that is, payable no matter how low a person’s tax bill. ‘This is by no means the final answer toward solving the uninsured problem,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/28/03]

182

Children’s Health
Ryan Voted for Creating Programs to Decrease Infant Mortality. On September 22, 2010 Ryan voted for a bill that would authorize the creation of pilot programs to reduce infant mortality. According to the Banger Daily News, “the bill would establish $10 million in 1-year grants for each year from fiscal 2011 through fiscal 2015 for the purpose of cutting infant mortality in 15 metropolitan U.S. areas that have had the highest infant mortality rates over the last three years. The grants will help to develop improved access, utilization and quality of social, educational, and clinical services to promote healthy pregnancies, full-term births, and healthy infancies through counseling on infant care, feeding and parenting, postpartum care and the prevention of premature delivery.” [Roll Call 533, H 3470, 09/22/2010; Bangor Daily News 9/25/2010] Ryan Voted Against Expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. On January 14, 2009, Ryan voted against expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. According to the Washington Post, “The House easily approved an expansion of government health coverage for low-income children yesterday, a top priority for President-elect Barack Obama and the first in a series of stalled measures expected to move quickly through the Democratic Congress as President Bush leaves office. […] The president-elect vowed as a candidate to provide health coverage to every child, and the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, is a major step toward that goal. […] The House legislation would cost nearly $33 billion over 4 1/2 years and would be funded in part by a cigarette tax increase of 61 cents to $1 per pack. […] The House bill would provide health insurance to an additional 4.1 million children and parents, including legal immigrant children and pregnant women, who currently must wait five years before becoming eligible for the program. A total of 11 million individuals could now receive coverage. […] In a policy statement, House Republicans outlined their objections, chiefly that the measure would place a new burden on states already struggling to meet soaring Medicaid costs and would permit states to enroll children from households with incomes of up to $80,000. […] Republicans also object to the tobacco tax as an unstable revenue source.” [Roll Call 16, H 2, 01/14/2009; Washington Post, 01/15/09] Ryan Voted against Veto Override for SCHIP. In 2008, Ryan opposed overriding President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program SCHIP. The vote fell 26 short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass. SCHIP would provide. The bill reauthorized SCHIP at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 BILLION. To offset the costs it raised the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack and raised taxes on other tobacco products. The bill limited program eligibility to families earning three times the federal poverty level or less. It also required the Social Security Administration to verify the citizenship of all applicants and required states to phase out coverage of childless adults by the end of 2008. The override failed 260-152. [Roll Call 22, H 3963, 01/23/2008; CongressNow, 1/23/08] Ryan’s Opposition To The State Children’s Health Insurance Program Was Met With Protests In His District. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Protesters demonstrated outside Rep. Paul Ryan’s Racine office on Friday to call attention to his opposition to the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Two people, members of Citizen Action of Wisconsin and Americans for Democratic Action, participated. They said they will continue to hold the vigils from noon to 12:30 p.m. Fridays until the reauthorization passes. The organizations are hoping the vigils will help pressure Ryan to change his position and support the reauthorization as proposed. Ryan voted against the bill and did not vote to override President Bush’s veto of the proposal last week.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/28/07] Ryan Said His Votes Against SCHIP Were Not A Reflection Of His Non-Support. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan’s votes are not a reflection of non-support of SCHIP, his office said. Instead, the votes reflects his concern that the changes proposed under the most recent reauthorization would expand it to an unreasonable extent.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/28/07] Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, the bill would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. The bill would limit program eligibility to families earning three times the federal poverty level or less. It also would require the Social Security Administration to verify the citizenship of all applicants and require states to phase out coverage of childless adults by the end of 2008.The bill is nearly identical to an earlier version of the SCHIP expansion; HR 976. The most substantive change is that HR 3963 would limit SCHIP eligibility to families earning at or less than three times the federal poverty level -- about $62,000 for a family of four. The bill passed 265-142 [Roll Call 1009, H 3963, 10/25/2007; Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/27/07] 183

Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing and Expanding Children’s Health Insurance. In 2007, Ryan voted against an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, the bill would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. The bill would provide coverage to pregnant women and dental coverage to children enrolled in the program. States would have to meet new requirements before being allowed to expand eligibility beyond 300 percent of poverty. It also would authorize $100 million to fund state outreach and enrollment efforts and establish a contingency fund for states with funding shortfalls due to increased enrollment. The bill failed 273-156. A two-thirds majority was required to override the veto. [Roll Call 982, H 976, 10/18/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted Against Expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. In 2007, Ryan voted against an amendment that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. The amendment would provide coverage to pregnant women and dental coverage to children enrolled in the program. States would have to meet new requirements before being allowed to expand eligibility beyond 300 percent of poverty. It also would authorize $100 million to fund state outreach and enrollment efforts and establish a contingency fund for states with funding shortfalls due to increased enrollment. The motion was agreed by a vote of 265-159 [Roll Call 906, H 976, 09/25/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted against Expansion of Children’s Health Care. In 2007, Ryan voted against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, legislation to expand the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $47.8 billion. The bill expanded the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $47.8 billion in order to bring 5 million children into the government health insurance program in addition to the 6.6 million children already enrolled. The measure also expanded the federal subsidy program for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, eliminates the current penalty for those enrolling late in the new Medicare prescription drug program, requires that the poorest Medicare beneficiaries be put in prescription drug plans that cover 95% of the 100 most used drugs, and makes permanent the program that helps lowincome people pay their Medicare premiums. The White House has threatened to veto the bill as an ill-advised expansion of government-run insurance.” According to the Washington Post, the bill included two “noteworthy innovations. It would focus additional federal health-care spending on ensuring that poor children eligible for coverage actually receive it. And it would end expensive and unnecessary subsidies for managed-care programs for seniors while making new efforts to help the poorest seniors.” The bill passed 225-204. [Roll Call 787, H 3162, 08/01/2007; Congressional Quarterly House Action Reports, No. 110-21/July 31, 2007; Washington Post, 7/30/07]

General Health Care
Ryan Voted Against Motion To Prevent Cuts In Health Care Spending In Student Loan Bill. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “…Members defeated, 178-231, a Democratic bid to prevent cuts in health care spending in the GOP student loan bill (HR 4628, above) from reducing benefits in or raising the cost of private health insurance for women and children. A yes vote backed the motion. Voting yes: Baldwin, Kind, Moore; Voting no: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, Ribble.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/28/12] Ryan Claimed He Put Forth A Bill That Would Create Universal Health Care Coverage Without Increasing The Deficit. According to a transcript of “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” Ryan said, “We can have a system where everybody in America has affordable health insurance, regardless of preexisting conditions… Even if you’re poor, especially if you’re poor, without having the government take it over. Tom Coburn and I put out a bill last year that doesn’t increase the deficit at all, that gets guaranteed universal access to health insurance for everybody, especially lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions.” [Fox News, “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren,” 1/6/11] Paul Ryan Voted Against Mental Health Parity Bill. In March 2008, Paul Ryan voted against the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The bill would require health insurers to offer mental health benefits equal in cost and scope to medical health benefits and to cover a wide variety of mental health conditions. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), would also bar insurers from requiring larger co-payments or imposing lower reimbursement ceilings for mental health conditions. Earlier, the White House issued a policy statement saying the administration opposed any bill that 184

expanded mental health parity benefits beyond those laid out in the Senate legislation, which passed Sept. 18, 2007. [Roll Call 101, H 1424, 03/05/2008; Congressional Quarterly Today, 3/05/08] Ryan Voted Against Extending Abstinence Education Funding and Transitional Medical Assistance Program. On July 11, 2007 Ryan voted against the bill that would provide for an extension of the Transitional Medical Assistance program and the abstinence education program through Sept. 30, 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the program, which expired June 30, is designed to ease the transition off of welfare rolls by allowing families to continue their Medicaid coverage for up to four months as their income levels rise above the normal allowable ceilings.” Congressional Quarterly also reports, “The measure also would keep alive through Sept. 30 a $50 million per year grant program for abstinence education. […] The measure would offset the costs of extending the Medicaid program by sunsetting a program that allows certain Medicare beneficiaries to enroll throughout 2007 and 2008 in Medicare Advantage plans that do not cover prescription drugs. The bill would sunset the provision this month, on July 31. The legislation also would cut funding for the Medicare Advantage Stabilization Fund. Current law provides $3.5 billion for the fund in 2012 and 2013 combined. Under the bill, total funding over the two-year period would be cut by $110 million. It would provide $1.6 billion in 2012 and $1.79 billion in 2013. The fund offers incentives for HMOs and PPOs to join and remain in the market.” [Roll Call 610, S 1701, 07/11/2007; Congressional Quarterly Today 07/11/2007] Ryan Voted in Favor of a Bill to Encourage the Use of Electronic Medical Records. On July 27, 2006, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would encourage the expanded use of electronic medical records in doctors’ offices and hospitals. According to the Washington Post, “The House approved federal guidelines to help the U.S. health-care system convert its paper files to electronic files that could be instantly shared over the Internet by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. The Republican-drafted bill (HR 4157) gives the industry at least three years to set technical standards for the sharing of medical information. The bill contains no substantial federal funding, on the rationale that the conversion will pay for itself through efficiencies.” Specifically, the bill would authorize $15 million per year in fiscal 2007 and 2008 for a grant program to assist in the coordination of health care for the uninsured, underinsured, and medically underserved through new or improved health information technology. [Roll Call 416, H 4157, 07/27/2006; Washington Post, 07/30/06] Ryan Voted Against Plan to Lower Health Costs for Small Businesses. In 2005, Paul Ryan voted against an alternative proposal to lower health insurance costs for small businesses. The plan allowed small employers access to state and federal low-cost health insurance plans that pool all health risks and provided subsidies to help small employers with low-wage workforces afford family coverage. The Department of Labor would establish the Small Employer Health Benefits Plan (SEHB) giving similar benefits to those enjoyed by federal employees and members of Congress. Under the substitute, states could establish state small employer health pools while small businesses would be eligible for premium assistance, as would employees earning below 200 percent of the poverty level. The proposal has the potential of providing health insurance coverage to 33 million Americans who currently go without it today. The alternative failed, 197-230. [Roll Call 424, H 525, 07/26/2005; Leadership Document “Association Health Plans,” Education & Workforce Committee, Minority Staff] Ryan Voted for Allowing Rollover of Funds in Flexible Spending Accounts. In May 2004, Ryan voted to permit up to $500 of unused funds in an employee’s health flexible spending account (FSA) to be carried over to next year’s FSA or transferred to the employee’s health savings account. The vote succeeded, 273-152. [Roll Call 163, H 4279, 05/12/2004; AP, 5/12/04] Ryan Voted For FY 2004 Labor HHS Bill Which Underfunded Health Care. In 2003, Ryan voted for the Republicancrafted FY 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill which critically underfunded health care. According to the AFL-CIO, “The bill also eliminated funds for the Labor Department’s international initiatives that help foreign countries…educate their workers about HIV/AIDS.” [Roll Call 353, H 2660, 07/10/2003; 2003 AFL-CIO Scorecard] 2003: Ryan Voted For Medicare Rx Drug Benefit Plan That Would Require Medicare To Compete With Private Plans. In June 2003, Ryan voted for House passage of the bill that would create a new prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The House version would force the traditional government-run Medicare program to compete with private plans on price beginning in 2010 – “an issue that will be a major sticking point in conference,” Congressional Quarterly reported. [Roll Call 332, H 1, 06/27/2003; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 6/27/03] Ryan Supported Deregulation of Small Business Health Plans. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill that would allow small businesses to join together to form association health plans across state lines without having to adhere to state-mandated coverage requirements for certain diseases. Democrats claimed the bill would weaken coverage for diseases such as autism, 185

breast cancer, prostate cancer and mental illness. The bill passed 262-162 [Roll Call 296, H 660, 06/19/2003; American Health Line, 6/13/03; States News Service, 6/20/03] Ryan Voted for GOP Smallpox Vaccination Compensation Fund that Failed, with Critics Saying It Was not Generous Enough. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a GOP-backed bill establishing a set of payments to compensate people injured by the smallpox vaccine. Democrats complained that the Republican bill – which met “a rare defeat for House Republicans” – was not generous enough to persuade health care workers and others to sign up for the vaccine. The vote was on a Tauzin (R-LA) motion, which Ryan voted for, to suspend the rules and pass the compensation fund bill. [Roll Call 92, H 1463, 03/31/2003]

PREVENTATIVE CARE
Ryan Voted to Repeal Funding for Preventive-Care Clinics. On May 04, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would repeal the section of the 2010 health care overhaul that allocates mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. It also would rescind unobligated funds made available for such construction. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “defund a program in the new health law that finances the construction of preventive-care clinics at schools. These wellness clinics are intended to provide primary care, dental services and mental-health care for youths who otherwise would not receive early medical attention, and thus cut health-care costs in the long run. The health law provides $200 million over several years in mandatory spending for the construction program, about $100 million of which has been obligated.” [Roll Call 290, H 1214, 05/04/2011; Washington Post 05/12/2011]

HEALTH FUND
Ryan Voted to Repeal Funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. On April 13, 2011 Ryan voted for the bill that would repeal the section of the 2010 health care overhaul that establishes and allocates mandatory funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It also would rescind unobligated funds made available for the program. According to the Evansville Courier & Press, the bill would “repeal the healthcare law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which will grant nearly $18 billion over eight years to states and communities for preventive healthcare, or wellness, programs. Backers said that by promoting healthier lifestyles, the fund would reduce treatment costs, while critics called it a ‘slush fund’ run by the secretary of Health and Human Services with loose fiscal controls.” [Roll Call 264, H 1217, 04/13/2011; Evansville Courier & Press 4/17/2011]

Medicaid/Medicare
MEDICAID
Ryan Voted To Tighten Eligibility Requirements For Medicaid And Other Health Programs. On October 27, 2011 Ryan voted to tighten eligibility rules for Medicaid and other programs that would count Social Security benefits as income. The passage of this bill was part of a deal to repeal a tax on government contractors. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The House sought to make up the gap by passing a separate bill that would tighten eligibility requirements for Medicaid and other health programs. That bill passed 262 to 157, over Democratic opposition. Democrats had instead proposed paying for the repeal by closing a tax loophole for major oil and gas companies, but Republicans blocked that effort.” [Roll Call 813, H 2576, 10/27/2011] Ryan Voted For Paul Ryan Plan To Overhaul Medicare. On April 15, 2011, Ryan voted for the GOP-created budget for fiscal year 2012 authored by Paul Ryan (R-WI). The GOP budget included proposals to convert the federal share of Medicaid to a block grant to states. It also called for converting Medicare for persons currently younger than 55 into a “premium support system” through which the government would pay private insurance companies directly for each enrollee. The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reported that “The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare’s direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The 186

Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors.” In an April 7th, 2011 editorial, the Newark Star-Ledger warned that Paul Ryan’s plan would “end Medicare as we know it.” [Roll Call 277, S 34, 04/15/2011; Congressional Quarterly Today, Senate GOP Stands Behind Budget, 5/25/11; Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 4/16/2011; Newark Star-Ledger Editorial, 4/7/11] Ryan Voted to Block Legislation that Provides Medicaid Assistance to States and Prevents Thousands of Teacher Layoffs. On August 10, 2010, Ryan voted to block legislation that would help prevent thousands of teacher layoffs and help states cover their Medicaid payments for the first six months of 2011. Specifically, the legislation would invest $10 billion to save the jobs of approximately $160,000 teachers and $16 billion to help cover state Medicaid payments. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the Medicaid funds will save 158,000 jobs, including preventing the layoff of police officers and firefighters. More than half the saved jobs will be in the private sector. The bill pays for itself through a combination of tax reforms and other spending cuts. [Roll Call 518, H 1586, 08/10/2010; CNN, 8/10/10; Politico, 8/10/10] Ryan Voted Against Funding for Health Care and Medicaid. Ryan voted against the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which included $86.6 billion to help states with Medicaid costs based on increases in the state’s unemployment rate. The bill provided a 65 percent subsidy for COBRA continuation premiums for up to nine months for workers and their families that had been involuntarily terminated. [Roll Call 70, H 1, 02/13/2009; CQ Bill Analysis HR1] Ryan Voted For $2.6 Trillion Budget Resolution That Cut $10 Billion From Medicaid and $13.5 Billion From Veterans Health While Increasing the Federal Deficit. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of the conference report on the Republican budget plan (HCR 95), which projected $2.6 trillion in spending and a $382 billion deficit for fiscal 2006.The budget cut Medicaid spending by $10 billion, spent every penny of the Social Security surplus, increased the nation deficit by $167.5 billion over five years and paved the way for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Furthermore, the conference report cut funding for veterans’ health care by $13.5 billion over five years. Yet the budget still found room for $106 billion in tax cuts for those who need it the least. The measure passed, 214-211. [Roll Call 149, S 95, 04/28/2005; House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, “Summary and Analysis of FY 2006 Budget Resolution Conference Report, 4/28/05] Ryan Opposed Delay to Medicaid Cuts. In 2008, Ryan voted against a moratorium on the implementation of new Medicaid rules that the Bush Administration said were aimed at ending federal payments for services that Medicaid shouldn’t cover and curtailing abuses in the system. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) decried the bill on the Senate floor the week prior to the House vote on the measure. He argued that HR 5613 would spend $1.7 billion to delay the Medicaid regulations suggested by President Bush until 2009. Grassley also cautioned that if the regulations were indefinitely delayed, the cost to taxpayers could be “almost $20 billion over the next five years and almost $50 billion over the next ten years.” The motion passed 34962. [Roll Call 209, H 5613, 04/23/2008; Congressional Quarterly, 5/02/08; U.S. Senate, 4/16/08]

MEDICARE
Ryan Said Medicare Could Run Out By 2024. According to The Leader-Telegram, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, has said on his website that ‘Social Security is going broke’ and faces a $6.5 trillion deficit over 75 years. Medicare, a federal health insurance program for elderly and disabled Americans, could run out of money by 2024, Ryan said.” [The Leader Telegram, 12/7/11] Ryan Dismissed Suggestion That Medicare Costs Could Be Cut By Implementing Payment Reforms, Saying The Idea Was Too Similar To The Independent Payment Advisory Board. According to the National Journal, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) 4/28 dismissed Pawlenty’s recent suggestion ‘that Medicare costs could be cut by implementing ‘payment reforms’ that would direct money to doctors and hospitals for better healthcare out-comes.’ Ryan said ‘the idea hews too closely’ to the Independent Payment Advisory Board proposed in Obama’s healthcare law, which both Pawlenty and Ryan oppose. Ryan, telling the Weekly Standard: ‘Medicare has yet to do this successfully. The president wants his IPAB to do essentially the same thing.’ […] Ryan said that Pawlenty’s idea ‘would rely too heavily on centralized bureaucracy to be effective’ (The Hill, 4/28).” [National Journal, 4/29/11] Ryan Said Gradual Reform Was The “Most Compassionate” Way To Tackle Medicare Solvency Crisis. According to Buffalo News, “…Medicare ideas [in [‘Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders’] come from Ryan’s 187

Roadmap for America’s Future legislation in the past two sessions of Congress. While it has received only limited attention, it could gain ground if Republicans win control of the House. Ryan said Medicare was on shaky financial ground; Medicare’s trustees in August called for changes to address short-term liabilities. ‘The sooner we get ahead of this solvency issue, the more likely we can guarantee the existing system,’ Ryan said. ‘Gradual, phased-in reform is the most compassionate way to move forward.’” [Buffalo News, 10/29/10] Ryan Said That The Problem With Medicare And Private Plans Was The Third-Party-Payer System. According to a Fortune Magazine in a Ryan press release, “His prescription for health care is radical: Ryan would eliminate the exclusion allowing companies to lavish on employees tax-free benefits and give the tax breaks to the workers themselves through a rebate of $5,700 a family, or a check for that amount if they don’t pay taxes. ‘The problem with both Medicare and private plans is the third-party-payer system,’ says Ryan. ‘Consumers, spending their own money, will drive down prices.’ Ryan proposes a classic flat-tax solution: Americans could choose between using today’s byzantine rules and a simplified, post-card model with two rates, 10% and 25%. Believe it or not, the simplified system would disallow mortgage and other deductions. [Ryan Press Release, Fortune, 3/4/10] Ryan Voted Against New Medicare Payment System. On November 19, 2009, Ryan voted against the bill that would create a new Medicare payment formula for physician services. According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the bill “would avert the 21 percent cut to Medicare reimbursements scheduled for Jan. 1. The bill also would revamp the formula for Medicare’s sustainable growth rate, which routinely calls for cuts to physician payments, and replace it with a new formula that considers the rising cost of running a medical practice.” [Roll Call 909, H 3961, 11/19/2009; Chattanooga Times Free Press 11/23/2009] Ryan Voted to Override President Bush’s Veto to Prevent Cuts in Medicare Physician Payments. On July 15, 2008 Ryan voted to override President Bush’s veto that would prevent a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare physician payments scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2008, by holding payments at current rates for 18 months. It would give doctors a 1.1 percent increase in payments in 2009 and provide $16.6 billion over 10 years for changes to Medicare beneficiary programs. The costs would be partially offset by provisions to reduce the cost of Medicare Advantage plans. According to the Gannett News Service, “Congress worked late Tuesday to avert a cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians and other health care providers that a trade organization said might limit access to health services and pharmaceutical coverage for a majority of the 2.86 million New Yorkers who rely on the program. In New York state, the average payment rate for a midlevel office visit would be cut from $57 to $51, according to the American Medical Association. Sixty percent of physicians surveyed nationally by the AMA predicted they would limit the number of Medicare patients they accept if the cuts take effect.” [Roll Call 491, H 6331, 07/15/2008; Gannett News Service, 07-17-08] Ryan Voted Against the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. On June 24, 2008 Ryan voted not to replace a 10.6 percent cut in payments to physicians treating Medicare patients, scheduled for July 1; hold payments at current rates for 18 months; and provide a 1.1 percent increase in 2009. The bill would provide an additional $16.6 billion over 10 years for changes to Medicare beneficiary programs. The costs would be partially offset by phasing out bonus payments to Medicare Advantage plans and requiring private “fee for service” plans to form networks with health care providers, thereby slowing the plans’ growth. According to the National Journal’s Congress Daily, “The 355-59 House victory and Reid’s decision to abandon a fresh bipartisan compromise puts tremendous pressure on some Senate Republicans because it could be their last chance to vote to stop the 10.6 percent Medicare physician pay cut set to begin Tuesday. Republicans grumbled about voting on the bill under suspension of the rules, but a majority of House GOP members felt the heat being turned up on their Senate counterparts and ignored their leadership’s pleas to oppose the House bill Tuesday.” [Roll Call 443, H 6331, 06/24/2008; National Journal’s Congress Daily, 06/25/08] Ryan Supported Bush’s Medicare Reform Plan, Which Would Allow Privatized Option To Seniors. According to the Associated Press, “The new law allows private companies to compete with the traditional government program for the first time. Seniors will also be eligible for prescription drug coverage. Thompson and Ryan said the law will increase federal reimbursements to Wisconsin hospitals and doctors by millions of dollars through use of the same Medicare reimbursement rates used for urban counties in suburban and rural counties. Some people at the meeting expressed concern that the new law will help drug companies and HMOs while eroding a government safety net for senior citizens. Ryan said in addressing such concerns that the law allows seniors to maintain the current Medicare plan. ‘The new options are not mandatory,’ said Ryan, who conducted the first half of the two-hour meeting on his own because Thompson arrived late. ‘Nobody has to do anything they don’t want to do.’” [Associated Press, 12/19/03] 188

Ryan Voted In Favor Of Bill To Increase Private-Sector Competition With Medicare And To Establish Prescription Drug Entitlement. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 220 for and 215 against, the House on Nov. 22 approved the conference report on a bill that increases private-sector competition with Medicare and establishes a prescription-drug entitlement under Medicare at a ten-year cost of at least $400 billion. Upon enactment, the bill uses taxpayer subsidies to enable private insurers to offer Medicare-style policies in less profitable regions. In 2010 in six metropolitan areas, it allows insurers to begin direct competition with traditional Medicare. The measure awaits Senate action. A yes vote was to pass the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/23/03] Ryan Opposed Motion To Repudiate GOP Plan For Private Competition With Medicare. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 197 for and 209 against, the House defeated a bid by Democrats to repudiate a GOP plan for private insurance competition with Medicare. With their non-binding motion, Democrats urged that the proposal be killed in ongoing House-Senate talks over the final version of a bill adding a drug benefit to Medicare. A yes vote opposed partial privatization of Medicare.” Ryan voted no. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/9/03] Ryan Persuaded Blue Cross & Blue Shield Of Wisconsin And All Saints Healthcare System To Offer Medicare+Choice. According to the Associated Press, “The reimbursement system, Barrett said, ‘runs against the grain of medical economics because where it’s hardest to attract physicians, we get paid the lowest.’ Ryan confronted the problem directly last year when Humana and PrimeCare Gold discontinued their Medicare+Choice health care coverage in Racine County. Medicare+Choice is a supplemental Medicare insurance program in which HMOs agree to provide managed care for seniors at county rates. After Congress passed some modifications to provide financial incentives to health providers to maintain or enhance health service options for seniors, Ryan persuaded Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, and All Saints Healthcare System Inc., to provide the Medicare+Choice coverage.” [Associated Press, 3/26/00] Ryan Said His Biggest First-Year Success Came When He Was Able To Retain Supplemental Medicare Benefits For 3,000 Racine County Residents. According to the Capital Times, “Ryan said his biggest first-year success came when he was able to retain supplemental Medicare benefits for 3,000 Racine County residents, most of whom were seniors living on Social Security. Ryan added an amendment to last year’s Medicare bill that allowed him to restore the funding. Their supplemental insurance was being canceled on Dec. 31, 1999, Ryan said. ‘So on Jan. 1, 2000, all these seniors would have to go out and buy a new supplemental plan of $ 180 a month just to get the same kind of Medicare health plan they already had.’” [Capital Times, 3/6/00] Ryan Also Worked On A Piece Of Medicare Legislation That “Could Lure Health Service Providers Back To Parts Of His District” As They Left Due To Low Medicare Reimbursement Rates. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan said he was also glad he was able to work with the House Ways and Means Committee to craft Medicare legislation -included in the final spending bill -- that could lure health service providers back to parts of his district. They had left due to low Medicare reimbursement rates.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 11/22/99] Ryan Charged That The Medicare Federal Funding Formula Punished Wisconsin And Sponsored Legislation That Would Provide Equal Reimbursement Rates. According to the Associated Press, “Plans by two insurance companies to cancel medical policies in southeastern Wisconsin demonstrate faults with a federal funding formula that punishes the state, a congressman says. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., says the formula penalizes states like Wisconsin where surveillance of Medicare reimbursements is so efficient that costs are down and the government sends proportionately less money. Ryan met Saturday with about 500 people who are angry that two health maintenance organizations, PrimeCare HealthPlan Inc. and Humana Inc., are reducing coverage that supplements Medicare for people over 65. PrimeCare, whose cancellation applies to Kenosha and Racine counties, says the formula does not provide it with enough federal reimbursement to cover its expenses in those counties. Ryan said he is helping sponsor legislation that would provide equal reimbursement rates for all counties.” [Associated Press, 8/16/99] Ryan Blamed The Reduced Medicare Reimbursements On The Balanced Budget Act Of 1997 And Said His Medicare Health Care Plan Fair Payment Act Of 1999 Would Require Reimbursement Rates To Be More Fairly Distributed Nationwide And Would Prevent Companies From Leaving Areas. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Ryan blamed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for reduced reimbursements. He touted his own legislation, the Medicare Health Care Plan Fair Payment Act of 1999, which he said would require reimbursement rates to be more fairly distributed nationwide and would prevent companies from leaving areas. The bill is in the Ways and Means Committee, and Ryan said he wanted it treated as emergency legislation when Congress resumes work after its August recess.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/15/99] 189

Medicare Fair Payments Act
Ryan Joined The “House Fairness Caucus” And Co-Sponsored The Medicare Fair Payments Plan Act, Which Would Equalize Medicare Reimbursements. According to the Associated Press, “Four Wisconsin congressmen have joined a bipartisan caucus seeking to overhaul the nation’s Medicare reimbursement system. Democratic Reps. Tom Barrett, Jerry Kleczka and Ron Kind and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan have joined the new House Fairness Caucus, which has about 40 members. All four also are co-sponsors of the Medicare Fair Payments Plan Act, which would equalize Medicare reimbursements. The state of Wisconsin filed suit against the federal government earlier this month challenging the Medicare reimbursement formula. Attorney General James Doyle, who brought the suit, contends the state comes up $130 million a year short because of the formula. He said an HMO in Milwaukee, for example, would get $452 a month to care for a senior citizen, while the reimbursement rate for a senior resident in Dade County, Fla., which includes Miami, is $778. ‘Dade County is the poster child for this,’ Barrett said. ‘It has one of the highest rates in the country.’” [Associated Press, 3/26/00] Ryan Included A Non-Binding “Sense Of The Congress” Provision In The FY 2001 Budget Resolution Calling For The Passage Of The Fair Payments Plan Act. According to the Associated Press, “Ryan included a non-binding ‘sense of the Congress’ provision in the fiscal year 2001 House Budget resolution calling for passage of the Fair Payments Plan Act.” [Associated Press, 3/26/00]

RYAN-WYDEN
Ryan Introduced Bipartisan Proposal Aimed At Strengthening Medicare, With U.S. Senator Ron Wyden. According to U.S. Fed News, “Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (1st CD), issued the following press release: This morning, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a new proposal that represents a major advance in the effort to build a more secure future for the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare. The new report from Sen. Wyden and Rep. Ryan, titled ‘Guaranteed Choices to Strengthen Medicare and Health Security for All: Bipartisan Options for the Future, ‘ outlines a bipartisan path forward on expanding health care choices for seniors while preserving a traditional Medicare plan as an option. The report also proposes to give Americans under 65 more power and freedom to purchase coverage they can carry with them into retirement. […] Rep. Paul Ryan stated: […] ‘Today’s report represents a major advance toward building the kind of bipartisan consensus that is going to be absolutely critical as we seek to meet our nation’s greatest fiscal and economic challenges. By empowering seniors to use choice and competition to control costs and improve quality, our plan ensures that Medicare remains a guaranteed, affordable option for all seniors for decades to come.’” [U.S. Fed News, 12/15/11] Ryan Called Sen. Wyden A Strong Leader On Market-Based Health Insurance Who Was A “True Fighter” In Protecting Seniors. According to U.S. Fed News, “This morning, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a new proposal that represents a major advance in the effort to build a more secure future for the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan stated: ‘Ron Wyden has been a consistently strong leader on market-based health insurance reform and a true fighter when it comes to protecting seniors, so it was only natural that we should work together on a plan that saves Medicare from fiscal threats, strengthens the program through expanded choice, and guarantees that all seniors will have the means and the freedom to purchase coverage that is tailored to their needs. I am also proud to support Sen. Wyden’s efforts to empower small businesses and their employees, so that Americans under 65 can find better health care options that they can carry with them into retirement.’” [U.S. Fed News, 12/15/11]

Patient’s Choice Act
Ryan Was Among Group Of Republican Lawmakers Who Introduced Health Reform Legislation “The Patient’s Choice Act.” According to The Oklahoman, “Ryan, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, and two other Republican lawmakers earlier this year introduced comprehensive health reform legislation called ‘The Patients’ Choice Act.’ They said it would put patients and physicians back in control of health care decisions. ‘That to me is what we have to focus on - repeal and replace with real reform,’ Ryan said. ‘We’ve got to go straight to the people about this. This new law doesn’t kick in in earnest until 2014 so I think there’s going to be an opportunity before the new law fully turns on to repeal and replace it.’” [The Oklahoman, 4/1/10] 190

Patients’ Rights
Ryan Voted for GOP Version of Patients’ Bill of Rights. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the GOP version of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Specifically, the bill would provide federal health care protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and require that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have an appeals process for patients who are denied care. A patient denied care could sue an HMO in state and federal court but first must exhaust internal and external appeals processes. Federal law would govern a state court suit and an employer could remove the case to federal court. Economic damages would not be limited but non-economic and punitive damages would both be capped at $1.5 million. An employer could select a “designated decision maker” to assume liability. The bill would reauthorize and lift current law restrictions on medical savings accounts and allow association health plans. Arizona Senator John McCain, the lead sponsor of the Senate’s version of the Patients’ Bill of Rights, stated that the compromise “favors the H.M.O. over the patient.” Dr. Timothy Flaherty, chairman of the American Medical Association, said the GOP bill “helps HMOs more than it helps patients. … It overrides strong patients’ rights laws already enacted by many states.” [Roll Call 332, H 2563, 08/02/2001; AMA press release, 8/2/01; New York Times, 8/02/01] Ryan Voted For Patient’s Bill Of Rights That Favored Health Insurance Companies. Paul Ryan voted for a Patient’s Bill of Rights that capped damages at $1.5 million, which a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial called “chump change to large insurance companies.” The bill also made it less likely that HMOs would be found liable. “It’s hard to believe that a firm that size would be deterred” by the small penalties in this bill. [Roll Call 332, H 2563, 08/02/2001; Editorial, St. Louis PostDispatch, 8/3/01] Ryan Opposed Patients’ Ability to Sue HMOs. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of an amendment to the patients’ rights bill to limit lawsuits against health maintenance organizations. Opponents of the proposal charged it would set up obstacles for patients seeking to enforce their rights, give advantages to HMOs and pre-empt patient protection laws in states such as California, Georgia, Texas and New Jersey. Specifically, the amendment would allow HMOs or employers who make medical decisions to transfer a case filed against them to federal court. It also provided that when cases against health plans were tried in state courts, the proceedings would be conducted under federal rules that offer greater protections for them than state laws. It limited non-economic damages to $1.5 million. The amendment passed 218-213. [Roll Call 329, H 2563, 08/02/2001; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/03/01; Baltimore Sun, 8/03/01] Ryan Opposed Patients’ Bill of Rights in 1999. In 1999, Ryan voted against the bipartisan Patients’ Bill of Rights, which would give patients much-needed protection against the managed care and HMO abuses. The bill required health plans to cover emergency care when a ‘prudent layperson’ could reasonably believe such care was required. Health plans would have to allow direct access to gynecological and pediatric care. The bill also established an internal and external appeals process to review denial of care. Patients or their estates would have the right to sue their health plan in state courts when they make negligent decisions that result in injury or death of patients. The bill passed 275-151 [Roll Call 490, H 2723, 10/07/1999] On The Patients’ Bill Of Rights Bill, Ryan Said That Employer Protection-Language Differentiated The Democratic And Republican Bills. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the one item separating the Democratic and Republican bills is the employer-protection language. Ryan said Republicans don’t want to leave the door open for suits against employers under any circumstances, an item not reflected in the Democrats’ bill. ‘If we solve that problem, we will have a law. If not, employers tell me they will drop their health insurance,’ Ryan said. Ryan predicted that a conference committee would resolve the difference and said he expected a bill to be signed this summer.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/27/01] Paul Believed That A Patients-Rights Bill Should Not Expose Employers To Lawsuits Unless Employers Interfere In Health-Care Decisions. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Ryan contends that the health-care measures he and Republicans back are superior to those supported by Thomas and Democrats. For example, Ryan said, efforts to enact a patients-rights bill shouldn’t expose employers to lawsuits unless employers interfere in health-care decisions.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 11/5/00] Ryan Believed Health Care Legislation That Would Allow Patients To Sue Their Employers Would Make Small Business Less Willing To Offer their Employees Health Insurance. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “House passage of sweeping health-care reform legislation Thursday ‘is a tremendous victory for the people,’ said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. But Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warned that enabling patients to sue their employers in some cases, as this 191

measure would, might make some small businesses less willing to offer their employees health insurance… Opponents called the bill a veiled boon for trial lawyers because it would make it too easy for patients to sue their health-care providers. ‘When small businesses are a lawsuit away from going bankrupt we need to make sure that health- care reform does not drive small businesses to dropping health insurance for their employees,’ said Ryan. ‘We need to protect those small businesses and give employees the rights that they are entitled to in getting quality health care.’ Ryan voted in favor of two substitute measures with less stringent liability provisions.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/8/99]

Prescription Drugs
Ryan Voted to Prevent Reimportation of Prescription Drugs. In 2007, Ryan voted against an amendment to the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill to prevent the reimportation of prescription drugs. The amendment would have removed language in the bill which barred the use of funds by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent individuals, wholesalers and pharmacists from importing FDA-approved prescription drugs. The amendment was defeated 152-278. [Roll Call 806, H 3161, 08/02/2007; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/07] Ryan Opposed Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation. In 2007, Ryan voted against requiring the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. The bill included discounts, rebates, and other price concessions that may be charged for drugs covered under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The bill passed 255-170. [Roll Call 23, H 4, 01/12/2007; Chicago Tribune, 1/13/07; CQ Weekly, 1/08/07] Ryan Supported Cutting Health Programs by $976 Million. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of the Labor, HHS & Education appropriations conference report that cut $1.5 billion from key domestic priorities. The measure cut efforts to address rural health needs like clinics, expanded dental and mental health services and telemedicine by 73 percent. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were cut by $249 million, while the bill cut by 11 percent funds granted to state and local health departments to improve preparedness against bioterrorist attacks and naturally occurring epidemics. The bill failed 209-224. [Roll Call 598, H 3010, 11/17/2005; House Appropriations Committee Democratic Staff, “Summary of the Conference Agreement - HR 3010,” 11/16/05] Ryan Supported $534 Billion Medicare Drug Bill. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Ryan “voted $534 billion for a Medicare drug bill that provides little benefit to seniors but continues profits for pharmaceutical companies. Ryan has failed to explain how we're going to pay for these expensive programs.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 10/5/04] Ryan Opposed Canadian Prescription Drug Plan Proposed By Oak Creek, Wisconsin Aldermen. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Oak Creek Mayor Dick Bolender on Wednesday vetoed a Canadian prescription drug plan approved by aldermen last week, saying that if the Common Council overrides his decision, it is choosing to break the law. ‘I believe it is improper to support breaking the law because there is disagreement with the law,’ Bolender wrote in his veto. The six-member council would need four votes to override the veto on Tuesday. […]But other elected officials share Bolender’s concerns, including U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who said he had spoken with Bolender for the first time Wednesday. Bolender said he had spoken to Ryan's staff about the issue earlier. ‘I'm for reimportation. I vote for it every time it comes up in Congress," Ryan said. "But I'm not in support of breaking the law. I'm for changing the law.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/16/04] Ryan Supported Measure To Permit U.S. Consumers To Buy U.S. Made And Federally Approved Drugs In Canada And Other Countries. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 237 for and 176 against, the House called for language in HR 1 (above) to permit U.S. consumers, pharmacies and wholesalers to buy U.S.-made, federally approved drugs from U.S. Food and Drug Administration-certified outlets in Canada and certain other countries. Despite this non-binding vote, the final bill allowed reimportation only when certified by the Food and Drug Administration. A yes vote urged inclusion of drug reimportation in the bill.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 11/23/03] Ryan Supported Safe Drug Reimportation. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to allow for reimportation from industrialized nations, including Canada, the European Union nations, Australia, Iceland, Japan, Norway and Switzerland. The bill contained measures to ensure patient safety. Importation would be allowed only if the FDA approves the drugs and the facilities where they are made. Drugs would have to be packaged and shipped using counterfeit-resistant technologies similar to those used to secure U.S. currency. Any drugs imported by a pharmacist or wholesaler that weren’t packaged in this fashion 192

would have to be tested for quality and purity. The bill passed 243-186. [Roll Call 445, H 2427, 07/25/2003; Scripps Howard News Service, 7/25/03] Ryan Voted For GOP Proposal To Administer Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Through Private Insurance Plans. In 2002, Ryan voted for House passage of a Medicare prescription drug bill that would spend $320 billion over 10 years to offer limited coverage of prescription expenses through drug-only private insurance policies that did not currently exist. Costs to seniors could vary, depending on the private policies available – a sharp contrast with the traditional Medicare program, which guaranteed the same benefits to all for the same premiums and out-of-pocket payments. During debate, Republicans accused Democrats – who said the bill was the first step toward privatization of Medicare – of wanting a budgetbusting plan that would hurt Medicare in the long run. [Roll Call 282, H 4954, 06/28/2002; AP, 6/28/02] On The Medicare Prescription Bill, Ryan Said That If He Were “King” He Would Have Written It Differently But Believed It Was A Good Bill. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Paul Ryan, House Republican from Janesville, echoed Petri, saying, ‘If I were king, I would have written it a little differently, but I think it’s a good bill.’ Ryan said Medicare would be involved as the ‘arbitrator’ of prescription drug benefit plans offered by private insurers. He said, too, that the GOP plan would give seniors a choice of providers and would not force those with existing coverage ‘to leave to go on a government plan.’ And he is high on portions of the bill that he said would send millions more dollars to Medicare providers in Wisconsin. ‘A huge victory,’ he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/27/02] Ryan Hoped A Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Would Come In The Form Of Block Grants To States So That They Could Craft Their Own Programs. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Wisconsin is in line to get tens of millions of federal dollars to help people 65 and older pay for prescription drugs, members of the state’s congressional delegation agree. But big questions remain: When is the money coming? How much will it be? What strings are attached?... Ryan hopes the federal money is given to Wisconsin and other states in the form of block grants. That way, he said, state leaders could craft their own program, potentially helping people such as Silvers whose drug bills account for such a high percentage of his income. ‘We still need a lot of details,’ Ryan said. ‘From my perspective, I want to make sure the parameters aren’t too restrictive on Wisconsin, and the formulas (for distributing federal aid to individual states) are done equitably.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 5/20/01] Ryan Said Canadian Drugs Were Cheaper Than U.S. Drugs Because Was “Financing The Rest Of The World’s Drug Consumption.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “‘It is true drugs are cheaper in Canada,’ said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. ‘Why are retail prices so high? It costs $ 500 million to bring a drug to market. We are financing the rest of the world’s drug consumption.’ But Congress is not going to enact the kinds of price controls enacted in other countries any time soon, Ryan said. ‘We don’t want to stop all the forces that bring about these new drugs we need,’ he said. ‘Price controls stifle research and development and would bring on drug rationing.’ Underlining a point made by the drug industry, Ryan said new medications have saved Medicare money by keeping people out of the hospital and away from other costly medical and surgical treatments. ‘That’s a wonderful thing,’ he said. ‘It gives us longer and healthier lives, and that needs to be encouraged.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/2/01] 2000: Ryan Voted For GOP Prescription Drug Benefit Plan That Critics Said Was A Giveaway To Pharmaceutical Companies. In 2000, Ryan voted for House passage of a plan that would help let seniors afford prescription drug coverage. Costs under the GOP plan would vary by policy, but Republicans estimated a $250 annual deductible, a $35 to $40 monthly premium, and a 50-50 split on the first $2,100 in expenses. Catastrophic coverage would begin after a senior had spent $6,000 out of pocket. President Clinton threatened to veto the GOP plan, which he said would benefit pharmaceutical companies rather than seniors. [Roll Call 357, H 4680, 06/28/2000; AP, 6/28/00] Ryan Did Not Make A Patients’ Bill Of Rights A Priority In His 1998 Campaign, But Did Eventually Support A Republican Version. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Spottswood’s TV ad flashes an image from one of Ryan’s commercials in which he vows to ‘protect your paycheck.’ Then the ad says Ryan ‘opposes the law to guarantee doctors make our health care decisions,’ concluding that Ryan actually favors protecting insurance companies’ profits. The ad claim was based on a July article that said Ryan didn’t back any proposals then before Congress on the topic, Spottswood spokesman Jonathan Brown said. Ryan countered that he announced his support for a Republican version of a patients’ rights bill later that month, though he hasn’t made the issue as much of a campaign focus as Spottswood has. Spottswood and congressional Democrats don’t like the measure because instead of subjecting health insurers to liability, the GOP version would limit malpractice lawsuit damages.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/14/98] 193

Wisconsin Health Costs
Ryan Requested The Government Accountability Office Conduct A Study To Find Out Why The Milwaukee Area Health Costs Were Higher Than Rest Of The Nation. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The U.S. General Accounting Office said Thursday it will conduct a study to find out why Milwaukee and other regions have higher health care costs than other parts of the nation. Fearing that health care costs could damage the economy in southeastern Wisconsin, U.S. Congressmen Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and Paul Ryan, a Republican, asked the GAO to do the study, which could take a year to complete… The audit is necessary ‘to get to the bottom of the extraordinary high health care prices,’ Ryan said. ‘We need to know the facts surrounding these high health care costs.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/24/02]

194

HOUSING
Foreclosure
Ryan Voted to Terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program. On March 29, 2011, Ryan voted to terminate the Home Affordable Modification Program meant to prevent mortgage foreclosures. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The House voted 252 to 170 to end the Obama administration’s main mortgage foreclosure prevention program, saying the muchcriticized initiative has been ineffective and given false hope to hundreds of thousands of homeowners who ultimately lost their homes anyway. The vote […] follows votes this month […] to end three smaller federal programs designed to help homeowners and communities deal with the foreclosure crisis. […] HAMP is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts to keep struggling homeowners in their houses but has drawn bipartisan criticism for failing to meet its objectives. It was launched with great fanfare in early 2009 with the goal of helping 3 million to 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure through 2012 by providing cash incentives for lenders to reduce monthly payments. Funded with as much as $30 billion from the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, HAMP has permanently lowered payments for about 540,000 homeowners through January.” [Roll Call 198, H 839, 03/29/2011; Los Angeles Times, 03/30/11] Ryan Voted to Terminate Neighborhood Stabilization Program. On March 16, 2011, Ryan voted in favor of terminating a neighborhood stabilization program designed to aid redevelopment in cities with large numbers of vacant properties. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “HR861 would end a Neighborhood Stabilization Program that gives money to state and local governments to buy and resell foreclosed properties. Only $1 billion remains in this program.” [Roll Call 188, H 861, 03/16/2011; San Francisco Chronicle, 03/10/11] Ryan Voted Against Providing Legal Assistance to Homeowners Facing Foreclosure. On December 17, 2010 Ryan voted against allowing the Treasury secretary to use unobligated funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide legal assistance to homeowners of owner-occupied homes who have mortgages that are in default or delinquency, or in danger of default or delinquency, or are subject to or at risk of foreclosure. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “The House on Friday rebuffed legislation to provide legal aid to homeowners in states with the highest unemployment rates and sharply declining home prices. The House voted, 210-145, to reject the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (HR 5510). A two-thirds majority of those present and voting was required to advance the measure. The bill would allow states eligible for Hardest Hit Fund assistance to designate unused money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for legalaid services to homeowners facing foreclosure.” [Roll Call 655, H 5510, 12/17/2010; Congressional Quarterly Today, 12-1710] Paul Ryan Voted For Veto Override Of Bill That Required Federal And State Courts To Recognize Legal Documents Notarized In Another State. Paul Ryan voted to override the veto of a bill that would require federal and state courts to recognize legal documents that have been notarized in another state. President Obama argued the bill “could worsen problems related to recent revelations that some mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using fraudulent or awed methods to expedite foreclosures.” [Roll Call 573, H 3808, 11/17/2010] Ryan Voted Against Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. In 2009, Ryan voted against the Helping Families Save their Home Act. The bill allowed bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages and made permanent an increase in the insurance limit for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The bill made several changes to the Hope for Homeowners Program, which guarantees mortgages to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. It also provided a “safe harbor” to mortgage servicers that participate in mortgage modification programs. The provisions that related to mortgage modifications only applied to mortgages issued before the bill’s enactment. The bill passed 234-191. [Roll Call 104, H 1106, 03/05/2009; CQBill Analysis HR1106] Paul Ryan Voted Against $4 Billion In Housing Relief. Paul Ryan voted against HR 4173. It included a provision to provide $4 billion for housing relief for homeowners struck by the financial crisis. The funds were allocated from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). [Roll Call 968, H 4173, 12/11/2009] Ryan Voted Against Grants and Loans for Foreclosed Properties, Housing Assistance for Working Families. In May 2008, Ryan voted against a bill that would establish a loan and grant program, administered by the Department of Housing 195

and Urban Development, for states and localities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed properties. The bill would authorize $7.5 billion for zero-interest loans and $7.5 billion for grants. The bill would direct states to allocate funds to the 100 largest cities with high foreclosure rates and 50 most populous counties. Properties purchased for rental with the funds could serve only families having incomes at or below the area’s median income. [Roll Call 299, H 5818, 05/08/2008; Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/08]

Housing and Urban Development
Ryan Voted Against $105.6 for the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation, and for Related Agencies. On November 14, 2007 Ryan voted against the conference report on a bill that would appropriate $105.6 billion in fiscal 2008, including $51 billion in discretionary spending, for the departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation, and for related agencies. It would provide $66.7 billion for the Transportation Department, including $40.2 billion for the federal aid highway program, and $38.7 billion for the Housing and Urban Development Department. It would appropriate $14.6 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration and fund grants to Amtrak at $1.4 billion. It would provide $9.6 billion for the Federal Transit Administration. The measure would provide $16.4 billion for the Section 8 TenantBased Rental Assistance program. It would increase the obligation limitation for the Highway Trust Fund by $1 billion to repair aging bridges. It also would bar the use of funds to establish a demonstration program to allow Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexican border. [Roll Call 1102, H 3074, 11/14/2007] Ryan Voted Against Authorizing Section 8 Low-Income Housing Voucher Program through 2012. On July 12, 2007, Ryan voted against the bill that would authorize the Section 8 low-income housing voucher program through fiscal 2012 and alter calculations of income, tenant rent and public housing authority funding. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “revamp the Section 8 Voucher Program that helps 2 million poor families pay for rental housing. In part, the bill makes formula and rules changes that would expand the program by 100,000 vouchers over five years and establishes incentives for recipients to obtain work and higher education. The voucher program currently has a $16 billion annual budget.” [Roll Call 629, H 1851, 07/12/2007; Washington Post 07/15/2007] Ryan Voted for the 2002 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill. On November 8, 2001, Ryan voted for adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $112.7 billion for the departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and related agencies including the EPA, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. The agreement would require the EPA to adopt a new standard for arsenic in the drinking water consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide $407 million for the AmeriCorps community service program. [Roll Call 434, H 2620, 11/08/2001] Ryan Voted for $2.5 Billion Emergency Funding for FEMA and $4.2 Billion Advanced Funding for Section 8 Housing Included in Veterans Affairs and HUD Spending Bill. Ryan voted for the conference report on the VA-HUD Appropriations Act. The spending measure included “$44.3 billion in VA funding and $26 billion for HUD. The conference report total includes $4.2 billion in advance funding for HUD’s Section 8 rental subsidy program for 2001, and $2.5 billion in emergency funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” [Roll Call 500, H 2684, 10/14/1999; Congressional Quarterly, 10/14/99]

Mortgage Reform
Ryan Voted In Favor Of Repealing The “Emergency Mortgage Relief Program” Designed To Help Jobless Homeowners. According to Herald Times Reporter, “Voting 242 for and 177 against, the House on March 11 passed a bill (HR 836) to repeal the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, which is designed to help homeowners who have lost their jobs meet mortgage obligations and keep their homes. Authorized as part of last year’s Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law, the assistance is available for up two years to those who have fallen behind in mortgage payments due to loss of work or a serious medical condition. Participants could receive taxpayer-subsidized loans for purposes such as paying arrearages and capping monthly payments at 31 percent of gross monthly income. The program is projected to cost $840 million in 2011-2012.” Rep. Ryan voted “yes” in favor of repealing the program. [Herald Times Reporter, 3/13/11] 196

Ryan Voted Against Motion To Allow Veterans And Military Families To Continue Under The Program. According to the Herald Times Reporter, “Voting 182 for and 238 against, the House on March 11 defeated a motion by Democrats to continue the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for active-duty service personnel, veterans, and Gold Star families. Backers noted that foreclosure rates in towns near military bases are more than twice the national average, while opponents said the national debt is also a threat to military personnel and families.” Ryan voted “no” against the motion. [Herald Times Reporter, 3/13/11]

Rep. Paul Ryan Voted To Repeal the Federal Housing Administration’s Refinance Program Designed To Help Struggling Homeowners. According to Herald Times Reporter, “Voting 256 for and 171 against, the House on March 10 passed a Republican bill (HR 830) to repeal a six-months-old initiative known as the FHA Refinance Program. The program is designed to help homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth, who are current in their loan payments and whose loans are not insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Projected to cost up to $175 million over two years in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, the program enables eligible homeowners to refinance into less costly, FHA-insured loans. The financial institution servicing the loan must agree to write off at least 10 percent of the unpaid balance in order to bring the loan-to-home-value ratio to nearly 100 percent. Critics said the program so far has helped fewer than 50 homeowners, while defenders said it should be given time to prove itself.” Rep. Paul Ryan voted “yes” to repeal the program. [Herald Times Reporter, 3/13/11]  Ryan Voted Against Motion To Allow Seniors Over 62 Years Of Age To Continue Under The Program. According to the Herald Times Reporter, “Voting 185 for and 243 against, the House on March 10 defeated a bid by Democrats to continue the FHA Refinance Program for seniors, who are defined in the measure as those 62 and older.” Ryan voted “no” against the measure. [Herald Times Reporter, 3/13/11]

Ryan Voted to Terminate Refinancing Program for Underwater Borrowers. On March 10, 2011, Ryan voted for a bill that would terminate the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Refinance Program that was established to provide refinancing assistance to homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home. According to the New York Times, “Struggling homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth have had few options to restructure their loans, but that may soon be changing for a few of them. Six months after the Federal Housing Administration announced an $11 billion refinancing initiative for these ‘underwater’ borrowers, nearly two dozen lenders have agreed to take part in a new loan modification program. […] The F.H.A. program -- called Short Refi -- requires major concessions from lenders, which must agree to write off at least 10 percent of the principal balance, and from investors, who, if they own the mortgage, must also agree to the deal. To qualify, homeowners must be current on their monthly mortgage payments and not already have an F.H.A. loan. The size of the new primary loan cannot be more than 97.75 percent of the current value of the property; refinanced loans for homeowners whose properties carry second liens cannot exceed 15 percent of the property value. […] Even so, it faces challenges in Congress; on Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to end it.” [Roll Call 171, H 830, 03/10/2011; New York Times, 03/13/11] Ryan Voted to Repeal Emergency Authority of FHA to Insure Loans up to $720,000 in Certain Areas. On June 10, 2010, Ryan voted for a Turner, R-Ohio, amendment that would repeal the emergency authority that allows the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure loans up to $720,000 in certain high-cost areas. The amendment would create a maximum FHA-insured loan limit of $500,000 for a single-family unit and a percentage of the same ratio for two-, three- or four-family residences. [Roll Call 350, H 5072, 06/10/2010] Ryan Voted to Cap Number of Mortgages FHA can Insure. On June 10, 2010, Ryan voted for the amendment that would cap the number of mortgages the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) can insure to 10 percent of total loans originated in each year, starting in 2012. Within 90 days of enactment, FHA would have to submit a plan to Congress to decrease FHA market share to 10 percent of loans originated each year. [Roll Call 349, H 5072, 06/10/2010] Ryan Voted for Increasing the FHA Loan Minimum. On June 10, 2010, Ryan voted for the amendment that would increase the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan minimum. According to the Washington Post, the amendment” sought to increase the minimum down payment for FHA-insured home loans from 3.5 percent to 5 percent. Such an increase would lead to fewer defaults on FHA-backed loans while excluding many moderate- and low-income borrowers from home ownership.” [Roll Call 348, H 5072, 06/10/2010; Washington Post 06/13/2010]

197

Paul Ryan Opposed Sweeping Mortgage Relief Bill. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to HR 3221 with House amendment #1. The House amendment would provide government backing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by allowing government purchase of the entities’ stock, and create an independent agency to regulate the two mortgage entities and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The House amendment would also overhaul the Federal Housing Administration and provide $300 billion in new loan guarantee authority for the FHA to help refinance borrowers in danger of losing their homes, create a $7,500 tax credit to some first-time homebuyers, raise loan limits for FHA-backed loans, and provide a standard tax deduction of $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers on property taxes. The House amendment would also authorize S3.92 billion in Community Development Block Grants to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties, and increase the federal debt limit to $10.6 trillion. [Roll Call 519, H 3221, 07/23/2008] Paul Ryan Opposed Mortgage Reforms. In 2008, Paul Ryan voted against an amendment that combined several major pieces of housing-related legislation into one package that was aimed at slowing the pace of foreclosures and stimulating the real estate market. The package provided an overhaul of mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, loan programs aimed at helping borrowers get out from under mortgages they can’t afford. It also would overhaul the Federal Housing Administration and expand its loan guarantee program. It also would provide legal protections for mortgage servicers who made certain loan modifications, permit federal savings associations to make investments designed primarily to promote the public welfare through the provision of housing, services and jobs, and expand access to reverse mortgages. [Roll Call 301, H 3221, 05/08/2008; Congressional Quarterly; Congressional Quarterly Today, 5/08/08] Ryan Voted Against Overhaul of Mortgage System. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill that would create a nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry. The bill would also establish minimum standards for home loans and expand certain limits on high-cost mortgages and prohibit brokers from steering consumers to mortgages they are unlikely to be able to repay. Opponents of the bill included the mortgage banking industry and the White House, who were concerned that tightening mortgage regulations could make it harder for potential homebuyers to get loans. [Roll Call 1118, H 3915, 11/15/2007; Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 11/18/07; Congressional Quarterly, 12/28/07] Ryan Voted Against Mortgage Relief. On October 10, 2007, Ryan voted against mortgage relief. According to the New York Times, “House Democrats squared off against the Bush administration yesterday over measures to help homeowners trapped in a vise of unaffordable subprime mortgages and falling home prices. The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill that would require the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage finance companies and the Federal Housing Administration’s insurance program to channel up to $900 million a year into a new fund for affordable housing.” [Roll Call 958, H 2895, 10/10/2007; New York Times, 10/11/07] Ryan Supported Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. The legislation was designed to lessen the tax burden on struggling homeowners, fixing an unfair anomaly in the tax code. The bill also extended the deduction for private mortgage insurance and slightly broadened the definition of housing cooperatives to allow more people to deduct payments they made to cooperatives as mortgage interest. The bill passed, 386-27. [Roll Call 948, H 3648, 10/04/2007] Ryan Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Make Home-Mortgage Insurance Premiums Tax-Deductible. According to the Washington Post, “The Capitol Hill campaign to make home-mortgage insurance premiums tax-deductible took a giant step last week with the introduction of a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by key members of the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means. The bill (HR 1336) would affect the mortgages of more than 12 million American homeowners and reverse a decades-old Internal Revenue Service prohibition against write-offs of mortgage insurance payments. Co-sponsored by Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and William J. Jefferson (D-La.), the bill would apply to home loans with private mortgage insurance, Federal Housing Administration insurance, veterans guaranty coverage and Rural Housing Service mortgages.” [Washington Post, 3/29/03]

198

HOMELAND SECUIRTY
9/11 Commission
Ryan Voted for September 11th Commission Recommendations. In 2007, Ryan voted in favor of the conference report on the bill that would implement recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. The recommendation included requiring homeland security grants based mainly on risk while ensuring minimum amounts for each state and creating a new grant program to support the development of interoperable communications. It also required all cargo bound for the United States to be scanned for radiation and density before being placed on a ship in a foreign port by July 1, 2012, and authorized new sanctions on foreign individuals or entities that engage in the improper transport or sales of nuclear weapons materials. The bill passed 371-40. [Roll Call 757, H 1, 07/27/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Was At A White House Meeting During The September 11th Attacks. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan was at a White House meeting when the attacks began. By the time the Janesville Republican got back to his Capitol Hill office, the Pentagon had been hit. ‘At the time, I didn’t think a congressional office was the place to be,’ Ryan said, so some members of his staff went home while others gathered in his apartment. Later, he said, Ryan and his wife, Janna, went to church to pray for the victims. ‘We’re going to survive this. We’re going to pass this test,’ Ryan said. ‘We have to come together as a nation and put aside all partisan differences.’” [Wisconsin State Journal, 9/12/01]

Bin Laden Death
Ryan Called News Of Osama Bin Laden’s Death “Fantastic News” And A “Major Blow” Against Al Qaeda. According to States News Service, “The following information was released by the office of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: In response to the news that Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by U.S. forces, Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan offered the following statement: ‘The President’s announcement that Osama Bin Laden has been found and killed is simply fantastic news. After ten years of dedicated effort across two administrations, we have struck a major blow against alQaeda and achieved a momentous turning point in our nation’s ongoing War on Terrorism. While we must remain vigilant in defense of freedom and democracy in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on other fronts, we can rest assured that the murderer who orchestrated the deaths of thousands of our countrymen has finally met justice at the hands of the brave men and women of our military and intelligence community.’” [States News Service, 5/2/11]

Cybersecurity
Ryan Voted In Favor Of Bill Expansion Of Data Sharing To Increase U.S. Defense Against Cyber Attacks. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Cybersecurity: Members on Thursday voted 248-168 to expand data-sharing between businesses and federal security agencies to bolster U.S. defenses against Internet attacks by terrorists, foreign government and others. A yes vote backed HR 3523 over arguments it violates privacy and other civil liberties. Voting yes: Ryan, Petri, Duffy, Ribble.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/28/12]

Detainees and Terror Suspects
Ryan Voted Against Eliminating Indefinite Military Detention of Suspects Caught on U.S. Soil. On May 18, 2012, Ryan voted against an amendment to HR 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, which would ban indefinite military detention for individuals detained under 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on U.S. soil or territories or possessions. According to the New York Times, “The House on Friday turned back an unusual coalition of liberals and conservatives and voted down legislation to reject explicitly the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects apprehended on United States soil…. This year, Democratic leaders had some surprise support. Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Tea Party-backed freshman Republican, teamed up with Representative Adam 199

Smith, Democrat of Washington, to declare that terrorism suspects apprehended on United States soil should not be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. But the left-right coalition fizzled in the face of charges that the two lawmakers were coddling terrorists. On the 238-to-182 vote against the amendment, as many Democrats -- 19 -- voted against it as Republicans voted for it.” [Roll Call 270, H 4310, 05/18/2012; New York Times, 5/19/12] Ryan Opposed Accountability at Guantanamo. In 2007, Ryan voted against an amendment to the 2007 Defense Authorization bill that would require the office of the Defense secretary to submit a report that contains a plan for the transfer of all individuals presently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The report would identify the number of detainees who, as of Dec. 31, 2007, will have been charged with a crime, will be subject to release, or have not been charged with a crime but who the Defense Department wishes to continue to detain. President Bush opposed the amendment. The amendment passed 220208. [Roll Call 370, H 1585, 05/17/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Voted to Authorize the Use of Military Tribunals to Try Suspected Terrorists. On September 27, 2006 Ryan voted to authorize the use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, allow prosecutors to make only certain portions of classified evidence available to defendants and permit trials to proceed without the defendant’s presence if the judge finds that the defendant is disruptive. It also would set standards for the interrogation and treatment of detainees, and provide for an appeals process for those convicted by military commissions. Detainees would be barred from filing habeas corpus suits challenging their detentions, preventing them from initiating any judicial proceedings. According to the New York Times, “The House, in a politically charged decision, voted 253 to 168 in favor of extensive new rules governing the questioning of terror suspects and bringing them before military tribunals. The Senate was expected to follow suit on Thursday, which would deliver Republicans a major national security victory before the elections.” [Roll Call 491, H 6166, 09/27/2006; New York Times, 09/28/06]

Disasters
Ryan Voted for Short-Term Federal Funding Bill that Off-Set Disaster Relief Funds. In September 2011, Ryan voted for a GOP bill to extend federal funding through November 18, 2011. The bill, according to The National Journal, was largely opposed by the Democratic Party because it off-set $3.65 billion in disaster relief funding with cuts to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program by $1.5 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sought $7 billion for FEMA for disaster relief without funding off-sets. The bill failed, 195 to 230. [Roll Call 719, H 2608, 09/21/2011; The National Journal, 9/21/11] Ryan Voted Against Renewing the National Flood Insurance Program. On July 15, 2010 Ryan voted against passage of the bill that would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through September 2015. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “renew the National Flood Insurance Program at an authorized cost of $476 million over 10 years. The renewal, covering five years, would increase premiums and deductibles, raise residential and commercial coverage limits, delay purchase requirements in areas newly added to flood maps and provide $50 million annually in grants for programs to educate homeowners and renters about the program.” The post also writes, “The bill would increase maximum residential coverage from $350,000 to $470,000 for both structure and contents and maximum commercial coverage from $1 million to $1.3 million for structure and contents. It would raise by tenfold, to $1 million, the maximum civil penalties on lending institutions that fail to require flood insurance on mortgages where it is mandated.” [Roll Call 447, H 5114, 07/15/2010; Washington Post 7/22/2010] Ryan Opposed Funds to Rebuild New Orleans Levees. In 2008, Ryan voted against an amendment that would provide domestic disaster assistance, particularly for the Gulf Coast. The amendment appropriated $21.2 billion for domestic programs, military construction and foreign aid programs. It would provide $4.6 billion for military construction and $5.8 billion for levee building in Louisiana. The amendment would provide a permanent expansion of education benefits for postSept. 11 veterans, offset with 0.47 percent surtax on modified adjusted gross income above $500,000 per year for individuals and $1 million for couples. It also would temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits and place a moratorium through March 2009 on seven Medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. It would appropriate $9.9 billion for the State Department, USAID and international food assistance. The amendment passed 256-166. [Roll Call 330, H 2642, 05/15/2008; Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 5/16/08] Ryan Voted Against Subsidizing Natural Disaster Insurance. On November 8, 2011 Ryan voted against subsidizing 200

insurance for natural disasters. According to the New York Times, “The House of Representatives approved legislation yesterday that would put the federal government into the home insurance business to deal with natural disasters like hurricanes and the recent wildfires in California. The legislation, which passed on a vote of 258 to 155, would require the federal government to lend billions of dollars to states to help pay for damage to homes and businesses. […] The bill does not establish a specific threshold for when government loans would begin to flow. It would make individual states eligible for assistance once they were facing disaster costs that exceed 1.5 times the amount of premiums collected from homeowners and businesses in the previous year. […] The legislation also lays out a plan for states to create insurance funds, as Florida and some other states have already done. It also would allow them to collectively sell bonds, widely known as catastrophe bonds, that would provide more capital to pay disaster losses and thus, in theory, make home insurance more widely available and less costly. There is no direct cost to the government in the bond program, but the Office of Management and Budget contended that the legislation would create an implicit guarantee of federal backing for the bonds.” [Roll Call 1074, H 3355, 11/08/2007; New York Times, 11/09/07] Ryan Supported Emergency Disaster Funds. In 2007, Ryan voted for legislation to appropriate $97.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending. The measure included $87 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $3.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief Fund. In addition, the bill would establish 18 “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government and require the president to report on progress towards meeting the benchmarks. It would permit, but not require, the president to withhold reconstruction funds if the benchmarks were not met. The motion passed 280-142. [Roll Call 425, H 2206, 05/24/2007; Congressional Quarterly] Ryan Supported $92 Billion Appropriations for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Relief. In 2006, Ryan voted in favor of final passage of the $92 billion supplemental appropriations bill for hurricane relief and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill included $67.6 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $4.2 billion in foreign aid, and $19.1 billion for hurricane relief. The bill passed 348-71. [Roll Call 65, H 4939, 03/16/2006; CQ Today, 3/16/06] Ryan Supported Unbalanced Investigation into Hurricane Katrina. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of a plan to assemble a special House committee for investigating the actions of federal, state and local officials in preparing for and responding to Hurricane Katrina. “A commission controlled by the politicians of one party charged with investigating itself will face tremendous internal political pressure to eliminate embarrassing truths from the public eye, to defer blame and to hide facts. That is the fundamental truth, because we all know how politics works,” said Representative Louise Slaughter (D-New York). The GOP plan passed 224-188. [Roll Call 475, S 437, 09/15/2005; Aberdeen American News, 9/11/05] Ryan Accused Lawmakers Of Using Hurricane Katrina To Criticize Republican Spending Priorities. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Interviewed during a trip he made to Washington last week, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett noted that Milwaukee’s poverty rate is worse than New Orleans’, and said Katrina showed that local governments can’t bear the burden of caring for large, low-income populations. GOP faces pressure, criticism: Not surprisingly, many Republicans have taken issue with what they say is an effort to use Katrina to broadly repudiate the governing agenda of a GOP Congress and administration, from tax cuts to war to spending priorities. ‘The social safety net is in place and intact. That’s not the problem. The problem is a hurricane just pushed out hundreds of thousands of people,’ said Janesville Republican Paul Ryan in an interview Wednesday. ‘You’re seeing people trying to pile unrelated agendas on top of this tragedy, which I think is unfortunate.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/11/05] Ryan Said Katrina Situation Would Look Different ‘After The Dust Settled.’ According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But while some Democratic lawmakers assailed the Bush administration’s performance, Republicans offered a muted defense, saying people should reserve judgment. Asked whether he thought Bush was getting a ‘bum rap,’ Ryan said, ‘I don’t think FEMA is getting a bum rap,’ then added, ‘I think when the dust settles, the situation will look different than it does today.’” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/11/05] Ryan Voted in Favor of Reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program. On November 20, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of a bill to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance program. According to the Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, “the bill, which would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through 2008, calls for $450 million for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to pay for mitigation activities for properties that are repeatedly flooded. FEMA could offer to elevate or relocate a property to prevent future flooding or buy the property.” [Roll Call 655, H 253, 11/20/2003; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 11/20/03] 201

Funding
Ryan Voted for Funding Department of Homeland Security in 2012. On June 02, 2011, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $42.3 billion in fiscal 2012 for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. The bill would include $11.8 billion for customs and border protection; $7.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including fees; $10.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.7 billion for the Secret Service and $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would include $258 million for the global war on terrorism and $1 billion in emergency spending for disaster relief. The bill would restructure FEMA state and local grant programs to allow for the disbursement of funding based on highest risk. It also would bar the use of funds to move detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States. [Roll Call 409, H 2017, 06/02/2011] Ryan Voted Against $44.1 Billion in Homeland Security Appropriations for FY 2010. On October 15, 2009, Ryan voted against adoption of the conference report on the bill that would provide $44.1 billion in fiscal 2010, including $42.8 billion in discretionary funds, for the Homeland Security Department and related activities. It would provide $10.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection; $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, not including offsetting fees; $10.1 billion for the Coast Guard; $1.5 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would prohibit the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States except for prosecution; place detainees on the “no-fly” list; and bar the use of funds to provide them benefits. It also would extend the authorization of the E-Verify program for three years. [Roll Call 784, H 2892, 10/15/2009] Ryan Voted Against Stopgap Measure that Includes Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs Appropriations. On September 24, 2008, Ryan voted against a stopgap measure to continue funding the federal government. According to the Washington Post, “The House overwhelmingly approved a resolution yesterday to continue funding the federal government until March 6, a stopgap measure needed to avert a government shutdown because Congress has not approved the 12 appropriations bills pending on Capitol Hill. The measure, passed 370 to 58, includes provisions to lend as much as $25 billion to help the U.S. auto industry build more fuel-efficient vehicles; $2.5 billion more than was spent in 2008 for home heating assistance for the poor; additional money for Pell Grant tuition assistance for low-income students and money for the 2010 census, among many other measures. The resolution will fund most of the government at fiscal 2008 levels but includes three fiscal 2009 appropriations bills totaling $630 billion for Defense, Homeland Security and military construction/Veterans Affairs. Those measures devote $487.7 billion to defense, $39.98 billion for homeland security, and $72.9 billion for military base construction and veterans’ health care. The bill does not extend the moratorium on oil drilling off the East and West coasts that is set to expire Tuesday.” [Roll Call 632, H 2638, 09/24/2008; Washington Post, 09/25/08] Ryan Opposed Fiscally Responsible FY 2009 Budget That Would Increase First Responder Funding. In 2008, Ryan opposed a budget resolution that would establish the congressional budget for FY 2009. The resolution would call for expenditures of $3.1 trillion and would allow up to $1 trillion in discretionary spending, plus $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $5.8 billion for hurricane recovery. The bill would also increase first responder funding over the Bush administration’s request, specifically for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and firefighter assistance grants. The bill passed 212-207. [Roll Call 141, S 312, 03/13/2008; Congressional Quarterly; “Summary of the 2009 Democratic Budget,” House Committee on the Budget, 3/11/08] Ryan Voted Against Reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. On December 12, 2007 Ryan voted against reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) through 2014. According to BestWire “By a 296-118 margin, the House approved H.R. 4299, which, like an earlier Senate-passed bill, would authorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program through 2014 and eliminate the program’s current distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. Created in 2002 and set to expire Dec. 31, the program provides $100 billion in federal reinsurance capacity to commercial property/casualty insurers for terrorism risks.” Specifically, the bill would set deductibles, starting at 5 percent, that insurance companies would be responsible for when an act of terrorism resulting in aggregate industry-insured losses exceeding $1 billion occurs. It would also add group life insurance to policies backed by the government for which terrorism insurance coverage must be made available by insurers. [Roll Call 1150, H 4299, 12/12/2007; BestWire, 12/12/07] Ryan Voted against Reauthorization of Terrorism Insurance for 15 Years. In 2007, Ryan voted against a bill to reauthorize the federal terrorism insurance coverage for conventional acts, as well as nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist attacks for fiscal years 2008 through 2022. The bill passed 312-110. [Roll Call 884, H 2761, 09/19/2007; Congressional Quarterly] 202

Ryan Opposed 14 Percent Increase in Homeland Security Funds. In 2007, Ryan voted against the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The bill addressed pressing security needs and included provisions to implement many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The $37.4 billion bill provided a 14% increase in homeland security funds over the previous year (not including emergency funding), including $8.8 billion for customs and border protection, $6.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), including fees, $8.4 billion for the Coast Guard, $1.4 billion for the Secret Service and $7.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Under the bill, new emphasis was placed on protecting our ports and our rail and transit systems. The bill provided support to states and local communities for preventing and responding to terrorist threats and natural disasters. Critical investments were made into border and immigration security, providing for record numbers of border patrol agents (17,819 in total), and detention beds (28,450). The bill also included provisions to: Expand the number of federal airport screeners beyond last year’s capped total of 45,000; Prohibit the federal government from pre-empting stricter state and local chemical security laws and regulations; Require TSA to double the amount of cargo that it screens in fiscal 2008. In addition, the bill included language mandating that projects funded by the bill comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that contractors pay the prevailing wage rate to their employees. The bill passed 268-150. [Roll Call 491, H 2638, 06/15/2007; Congressional Quarterly House Action Report; House Appropriations Committee] Ryan Opposed Budget that Funded Key Homeland Security Programs. In 2007, Ryan voted against the fiscal year 2008 budget conference report that began to reverse six years of Republican fiscal mismanagement, provided for middle-class tax relief and would return the budget to balance – reaching a surplus of $41 billion in 2012 – without raising taxes. The budget provided robust defense funding levels while targeting resources on the most pressing security concerns, including an increase for homeland security funding that exceeded funding requested by the Administration. The budget provided funding that can be used to help address previously underfunded 9/11 Commission recommendations such as increasing efforts to screen cargo on passenger aircraft, increasing efforts to scan shipping containers in foreign ports, and providing interoperable communications to first responders. The budget resolution placed high priority on rejecting the President’s cuts to first responder and local law enforcement programs, which included: Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants (cut $112 million), State Homeland Security Grant Program (cut $338 million), Urban Area Security Initiative (cut $170 million), Firefighter assistance grants (cut $362 million), Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (cut $115 million), Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (cut $170 million), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) (cut $510 million) and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) (eliminated). In addition, the President’s budget included only $210 million for port security grants, $190 million short of the authorized level of $400 million per year. The budget passed 214209. [Roll Call 377, S 21, 05/17/2007; House Budget Committee, Overview of FY2008 Budget Conference Agreement, 5/16/07; House Budget Committee, Conference Agreement on the FY 2008 Budget Resolution: Building on the “Six for ‘06, 5/24/07] Ryan Voted for $35 Billion in Homeland Security Appropriations. On September 29, 2006, Ryan voted for the adoption of the conference report to provide $35 billion in Homeland Security appropriations. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly, “the total for the bill (HR 5441) exceeds President Bush’s request by about $2.7 billion, or 8 percent, and is more than either chamber initially approved. It includes $31.9 billion in discretionary funding and $1.8 billion in emergency appropriations for border security.” [Roll Call 509, H 5441, 09/29/2006; CQ Weekly, 09/30/06] Ryan Voted for Department of Homeland Security Funding for 2007. On June 6, 2006, Ryan voted for passage of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly “the House overwhelmingly passed a $33.1 billion homeland security spending bill Tuesday, setting up a high-stakes dispute with Senate appropriators on border security and protections against weapons of mass destruction. Under the House bill, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement would receive $11.8 billion. While that is about 2 percent less than the administration requested, it is nearly 13 percent more than they received in fiscal 2006 (PL 109-90). Much of that spending would be added to first-responder grants and preparedness programs and the Transportation Security Administration, which devotes most of its budget to airline passenger screening. The House bill would provide $139 million for the overseas Container Security Initiative, about $60 million less than authorized; $500 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $36 million less than authorized; and $70.1 million, or nearly $5 million less than authorized, for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a voluntary program that offers expedited security processing for certain shippers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency also will receive less funding than Bush requested. The agency would receive $2.6 billion in the House measure, but would lose money from a disaster relief fund in the House’s $325 million reduction from the president’s request.” [Roll Call 226, H 5441, 06/06/2006; Congressional Quarterly, 06/06/06.] 203

Ryan Voted for Homeland Security Funding in 2006. On May 18, 2005, Ryan voted for the bill that would authorize $34.2 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, including $6.9 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $2 billion for grants to state and local governments for terrorism preparedness. It also would authorize the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol agents and create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity to oversee the National Cyber Security Division and the National Communications System. According to the Sun Sentinel, the bill also “requires FEMA to develop within 90 days criteria for determining whether a death is disaster-related, and requires the agency to provide documentation for granting funeral assistance.” [Roll Call 189, H 1817, 05/18/2005; Sun Sentinel 05/19/2005] Ryan Voted for Homeland Security Funding for 2006. On May 17, 2005, Ryan voted for a bill that would provide $31.9 billion in fiscal 2006 for the Homeland Security Department, including $22 billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It would provide $5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $3.6 billion for the state and local grant programs. It would withhold more than $310 million pending improvements in air cargo screening measures and deployment of more explosive-detection technologies at airports. [Roll Call 180, H 2360, 05/17/2005] Ryan Voted for the $30.4 Billion Fiscal 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. On September 24, 2003, Ryan voted for adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $30.4 billion in fiscal 2004 spending for the Homeland Security Department and related agencies, about $1 billion more than the administration’s request. The measure includes $5.8 billion for customs and border protection, $3.7 billion for immigration enforcement, $4.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $6.8 billion for the Coast Guard. [Roll Call 515, H 2555, 09/24/2003] Ryan Voted for Passage of $33.1 Billion FY 2005 Homeland Security Budget. In June 2004, Ryan voted for passage of a bill that would provide $33.1 billion in fiscal 2005 for the Department of Homeland Security, including$2.5 billion previously enacted for Project Bioshield. It would provide $20.6billion for security, enforcement and investigation activities, such as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. It also would provide $5.1 billion for the Transportation and Security Administration. It also would provide $4.1 billion for the Office of State and Local Coordination and Preparedness, including $3.4 billion for state and local homeland security grant programs. The bill, as amended, would prohibit the use of funds to privatize or contract out services provided by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The vote succeeded, 400-5. [Roll Call 275, H 4567, 06/18/2004] Ryan Voted in Favor of Funding Newly Created Department of Homeland Security. On June 24, 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. According to the Washington Post, “The House, after a contentious debate, approved legislation providing $ 29.4 billion for the newly created Homeland Security Department in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Although last night’s vote -- 425 to 2 -- was bipartisan, many Democrats said the bill would not sufficiently fund some of the nation’s key efforts to thwart future terrorist attacks. Even the bill’s defenders questioned why the administration was not more forthcoming about its efforts to protect Americans. The legislation, which appropriates $ 1 billion more than President Bush requested, would provide billions of dollars for state and local responders and for the new Transportation Security Administration, plus millions to protect ports, air cargo, intercity buses and trucking routes. […] Democrats, however, accused Republicans of leaving targets vulnerable by devoting so much money last month to Bush’s $ 350 billion tax cut. […] Republicans rejected a Democratic bid to add money to the bill by raising taxes on the wealthy. The GOP majority also rejected Democratic efforts to add money for the screening of incoming containerized cargo and for protecting the nation’s northern borders, as well as bids to boost funding for the Coast Guard.” [Roll Call 310, H 2555, 06/24/2003; Washington Post, 06/25/03]

National Security
Ryan Voted in Favor of Arming Commercial Pilots. On July 10, 2002, Ryan voted in favor of arming commercial pilots. According to the New York Times, “On Wednesday, despite opposition from the Bush administration, the House voted 311 to 113 to pass a bill backed by the Air Line Pilots Association that would allow commercial pilots to be deputized as federal flight deck officers and carry guns during flights. The bill specified that guns were to be used only in the cockpit.” [Roll Call 292, H 4635, 07/10/2002; New York Times, 07/12/02] Ryan Voted Against Constitutional Amendment to Allow State Governors to Appoint New House Members in the Event They Were Killed or Incapacitated. In June 2004, Ryan voted against passage of a joint resolution to propose a 204

constitutional amendment to allow state governors to appoint new House members in the event that many were killed or incapacitated. The vote failed, 63-353. [Roll Call 219, S 83, 06/02/2004] Ryan Voted for Project Bioshield. On July 16, 2003, Ryan voted for passage of the bill that would authorize $5.6 billion over 10 years for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to carry out Project Bioshield, an administration initiative to develop and stockpile vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat a bioterrorism attack. The bill would allow HHS to contract to purchase drugs and other items for the Strategic National Stockpile. It would give the government authority to promote additional research and development of measures to counter biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents including allowing an expedited award process for grants and projects. The bill also would allow the distribution of treatments not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the event of a national emergency. [Roll Call 373, H 2122, 07/16/2003] Ryan Voted for Conference Version of Aviation Security Bill. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the conference version of the bill, which was very similar to the Democratic substitute. The final bill included the following major provisions: Establish a new security agency within the Transportation Department to assume federal control of U.S. airport security and screening services; Passenger and baggage screeners would become federal employees within one year of enactment, but the bill sets up a pilot program under which five airports could resume use of private screeners under federal supervision after that time and all airports could switch to private screeners after three years; The agency would directly oversee airport security, conduct background checks and enforce stringent employment, training and performance standards, including U.S. citizenship requirements for screeners; Other safeguards would include having all bags checked for explosives by December 2002, armed air marshals, anti-hijacking training for flight crews, stronger cockpit doors, and background checks on individuals enrolling in flight schools; Passengers would pay a $2.50 boarding charge, with a maximum fee of $5 per trip, to help pay for enhanced security; The bill also would limit legal liability for certain parties sued after the Sept. 11 attacks. The bill passed, 410-9 [Roll Call 448, S 1447, 11/16/2001] Ryan Was Undecided On Federalizing Airport Screeners And Believed The Issue Had Become Politicized. According to the Associated Press, “Congressman Tom Barrett and other Democrats Monday urged support for an aviation security bill that would make airport baggage screeners federal employees, a move they said would make air travel safer… President Bush and the Republican leadership in the House support a bill that would keep the nation’s 28,000 screeners in the private sector, but would put them under the federal government’s supervision. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, said the issue of airport and airline safety should not be politicized. Ryan said he hasn’t decided yet how he’ll vote. ‘People are trying to use this issue for partisan gain and that’s wrong,’ Ryan said. ‘We’re getting off track with this partisan issue. Our focus ought to be safety.’” [Associated Press, 10/29/01] Ryan Voted to Authorize the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and Countries Connected to Terrorism. On September 14, 2001, Ryan voted in favor of a joint resolution authorizing the president to use military force against terrorists and countries connected to terrorism in response to the September 11th attacks. The New York Times reported that, “The joint resolution fell short of a full declaration of war, which lawmakers said would have been inappropriate in military action against a shadowy enemy. The resolution states: ‘That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.’ Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress was not ceding its constitutional authority to declare war or intending to write a measure like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which President Lyndon B. Johnson used in 1964 to justify escalation of the war in Vietnam. The resolution specifically states that it does not supersede the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to seek Congressional approval for any extended use of American forces in combat.” [Roll Call 342, S 64, 09/14/2001; New York Times, 09/15/01] Ryan Voted against an Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that Included Increased Funding for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship and Cuts to Stockpile Management Funding. Ryan voted against the conference report on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The Albuquerque Journal reported, “The House and Senate agreed to final 2000 funding figures for the Department of Energy, ending a stormy appropriations cycle for the agency that has been rocked by reports of Chinese espionage in America’s nuclear-weapons complex. The $21.3 billion Energy and Water Appropriation Bill agreed to by House and Senate conference members includes $4.44 billion for DOE weapons activities, including nuclear weapons programs that fund a large portion of work at New Mexico’s two national laboratories.” The bill included a $102.2 million increase from 1999 for the Stockpile Stewardship program and a $119 million decrease from 1999 for Stockpile 205

Management. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson “issued a statement criticizing the conference report as being harmful to national security and basic scientific research programs at the national laboratories. ‘In all, this conference report barely meets the country’s national security needs and undercuts our international leadership in science,’ he said.” [Roll Call 452, H 2605, 09/27/1999; Albuquerque Journal, 9/26/99; Associated Press, 9/28/99]

Patriot Act
Ryan Voted to Extend 3 Provisions of Patriot Act. On May 26, 2011 Ryan voted to advance a bill that would extend through June 1, 2015, three provisions of the anti- terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. According to the Washington Post, the bill would “extend until June 2015 the three sections of the Patriot Act that are not permanent law. One section authorizes roving wiretaps on the communications gear used by terrorist suspects. Another permits surveillance of noncitizen ‘lone wolf’ suspects not linked to terrorist organizations. Under the third Section 215 -- investigators can obtain warrants for searching businesses and other entities without having to show probable cause. The searches can be for ‘any tangible item’ such as hotel, airline, bookstore, tax, medical and other records of persons broadly defined as terrorist suspects, including U.S. citizens. Businesses and others receiving these warrants are barred from discussing them.” [Roll Call 376, S 990, 05/26/2011; Washington Post 05/29/2011] Ryan Voted to Extend Expiring Provisions of the Patriot Act. On February 17, 2011, Ryan voted for a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would extend through May 27, 2011, three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. According to the Associated Press, “At issue are law enforcement powers to set roving wiretaps to monitor multiple communication devices and to ask a special federal court for access to ‘any tangible thing’ from business records to library checkouts that could be relevant to a terrorist threat. The third provision, from a 2004 intelligence act, gives the FBI court-approved rights for secret surveillance of non-American ‘lone wolf’ suspects not known to be tied to specific terrorist groups. Unlike other sections of the Patriot Act, the provisions were not made permanent law because of lingering concerns that they gave the government too much power to spy on people.” [Roll Call 66, H 514, 02/17/2011; Associated Press Financial Wire, 02/17/2011] Ryan Voted To Extend Provisions Of The U.S. Patriot Act Reauthorizing Roving Wiretaps And Increased Surveillance. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 277 for and 148 against, the House on Feb. 8 failed to reach a two-thirds majority needed to pass a bill (HR 514) extending until Dec. 8 three sections of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire Feb. 28. Two of the sections authorize roving wiretaps on terrorist suspects on American soil and expanded lawenforcement searches of library, bookstore and business records in the U.S. The third allows stepped-up surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects not linked to terrorist organizations. Republican leaders will return the bill to the floor under rules requiring a simple majority for passage.” Ryan voted “yes” to extend the Act’s provisions. [St. Paul Pioneer Press, 2/12/11] Ryan Voted to Extend 3 Provisions of the Patriot Act. On February 14, 2011, Ryan voted to extend three expiring provisions in the Patriot Act. According to the Associated Press, “The House measure, passed 275-144, would extend authority for the USA Patriot Act-related provisions until Dec. 8. Common ground must be found with the Senate before the provisions expire on Feb. 28. At issue are two provisions of the post-Sept. 11 law that give counterterrorism offices roving wiretap authority to monitor multiple electronic devices and court-approved access to business records relating to a terrorist investigation. The third “lone wolf” provision of a 2004 law permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals not known to be linked to a specific terrorist organization. [...] The main objections are to what critics see as unconstitutional search and seize authority and big government intrusions into private lives.” [Roll Call 36, H 514, 02/14/2011; Associated Press, 02/15/2011] Ryan Voted to Extend 3 Provisions of the Patriot Act. On February 8, 2011, Ryan voted to extend through Dec. 8, 2011, three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act. The provisions allow the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on suspects who use multiple devices or modes of communication, to request access to “any tangible thing” deemed related to a terrorism investigation and to seek warrants to conduct surveillance of “lone wolf” foreign terrorist suspects who may not be connected to a larger terrorist group. According to the National Journal, “The bill does not make any changes to the provisions, even though privacy and civil liberties advocates argue reforms are needed to ensure the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are protected.” [Roll Call 26, H 514, 02/08/2011; National Journal, 02-08-11]

206

Paul Ryan Opposed Senate Version of FISA Bill without Retroactive Immunity. In 2008, Paul Ryan opposed the Senate version of FISA as amended by the House. The House amendment struck the retroactive immunity provisions for telecommunications companies on pending civil lawsuits and instead provided for immunity for future cooperation with government requests to assist with surveillance. It also created a bipartisan commission to report on conducting surveillance on Americans without obtaining FISA warrants and allowed federal courts to hear classified information in civil suits against telecommunications companies. Opponents of the amended version said it was “show piece” that both the Senate and Bush Administration indicated was “dead on arrival” and “unlikely ever to become law.” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) commented on the lack of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies saying, “We cannot ask these companies to help us protect America and then subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits. If we do, we risk losing their help in the future.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that the immunity provisions were just an attempt to cover up malfeasance by Bush administration officials. [Roll Call 145, H 3773, 03/14/2008; Rep. Geoff Davis Press Release, 3/18/08] Ryan Voted for Expanded Law Enforcement Power to Investigate Suspected Terrorists. Ryan voted for HR 2975, the House version of the USA PATRIOT Act that expanded law enforcement’s power to investigate suspected terrorists. The bill would allow disclosure of wiretap information among certain government officials, authorize limited disclosure of secret grand jury information to certain government officials, and authorize the attorney general to detain foreigners he suspects are tied to terrorism. It also would make it easier for law enforcement to track Internet communications using surveillance techniques. Most of the bill’s intelligence-gathering provisions would sunset after three years, but if the president provides notice that the national interest requires their continuation they would be extended another two years. [Roll Call 386, H 2975, 10/12/2001] Paul Ryan Voted for USA Patriot Act: October 2001. On October 12, 2001, Paul Ryan voted for passage of HR 2975, the House version of the USA Patriot Act. The bill passed the House 337- 79. [Roll Call 386, H 2975, 10/12/2001] Paul Ryan Voted for Renewal of the Patriot Act. On March 7, 2006, Paul Ryan voted in favor of legislation reauthorizing expiring provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act to clarify that, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, individuals who receive orders to hand over business records could challenge nondisclosure requirements after one year, those who receive national security letters would not be required to disclose the name of their attorney, and that libraries would not be considered wire or electronic communication service providers when functioning in their traditional roles, including providing Internet access.(Note: A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (279 in this case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules.) The motion agreed to, thus clearing the bill for the president, 280138. [Roll Call 20, S 2271, 03/07/2006] Ryan Supported Patriot Act Reauthorization. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act. The bill passed 251-174 [Roll Call 627, H 3199, 12/14/2005] Ryan Supported Making Patriot Act Permanent. In 2005, Ryan voted in favor of legislation to make 14 of the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to expire permanent and extend for 10 years the remaining two provisions -- access to business and other records and roving wiretaps. The bill permanently extended provisions that expand law enforcement’s power to investigate suspected terrorists. As amended, the bill would require the Justice Department to report to Congress on the development and use of data-mining technology by federal departments and agencies. The bill passed 257-171. [Roll Call 414, H 3199, 07/21/2005] Ryan Opposed Oversight of Patriot Act. In 2005, Ryan voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act with provisions to allow Congressional oversight and extend the sunsets of all 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions under current law through December 31, 2009.Extending the sunsets would allow Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the Patriot Act provisions and decide whether there is a continuing need for them or a need to modify them. The proposal was defeated 209-218. [Roll Call 413, H 3199, 07/21/2005] Ryan Supported Original Patriot Act. In 2001, Ryan voted in favor of the Patriot Act, which expanded law enforcement’s power to investigate suspected terrorists. Among many provisions, the bill: Allowed disclosure of wiretap information among certain government officials, authorize limited disclosure of secret grand jury information to certain government officials, and authorize the Attorney General to detain foreigners suspected of ties to terrorism; Expanded the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and increases the punishment for committing them; Allowed nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices, including legal expansion of those devices to e-mail and Internet; Authorized the use of roving wiretaps, in which officials get orders that allow them to tap whatever telephone a person uses instead of one telephone at a 207

time; Relaxed rules to allow the FBI and intelligence officials to share grand jury and wiretap information more easily. The bill passed 357-66 [Roll Call 398, H 3162, 10/24/2001; AP, 10/25/01]

Terrorism
Ryan Supported Federal Funding For Development And Stockpiling Of Drugs And Vaccines To Counter Bioterrorism. According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, “Voting 421 for and 2 against, the House on July 16 passed a bill (HR 2122) authorizing a $5.6 billion federal fund to spur the development and stockpiling of drugs and vaccines to counter biological, chemical or radiological attacks on the U.S. populace. The sum actually spent will depend on later action on appropriations bills. The bill provides financial incentives for the private sector to develop pharmaceuticals and other countermeasures that have no broad commercial application. The dissenting votes were cast by Ron Paul, R-Tex., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. The bill, which awaits Senate action, also relaxes Food and Drug Administration safety rules to speed the testing and use of drugs and medical devices for responding to bioterrorism.” Ryan voted yes. [Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 7/20/03] Ryan Said That Preventing Other Countries From Supporting Terrorists And Destroying Training Grounds Were “Short-Term Goals.” According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Rep. Paul Ryan, a Janesville Republican: ‘He said what needed to be said. He put it in the context that freedom comes with a price.’ Bush’s comparison of terrorism to Nazism and totalitarianism was particularly apt, he said. We’ll know when the fight has been won, ‘but it’s tough to define it right now,’ Ryan said. Short-term goals of destroying terrorist training camps or preventing other countries from supporting terrorists such as Osama bin Laden will be signs of progress, he said. Bush gave the best speech of his political career Thursday, Ryan said. ‘He is rising to the occasion and becoming a better communicator,’ Ryan said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/21/01]

Torture
Ryan Voted Against Override of Bush Veto of Intelligence Authorization Bill, Which Included Prohibition of Water Boarding. In 2008, Ryan voted against an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. The bill contained a provision that would restrict intelligence agencies to the 19 interrogation techniques that were allowed in the Army Field Manual. The manual prohibits harsh interrogation methods, such as the simulated drowning technique known as water boarding, and forbids cruel and inhumane treatment of enemy captives. The provision in the legislation would extend these restrictions, which had already been imposed on the military, to the CIA and other agencies. The override was rejected 225-188 after failing to get the necessary 2/3 majority under suspension of the rules. [Roll Call 117, H 2082, 03/11/2008; CQ Today, 3/11/08l; CQ Today, 3/10/08] Ryan Opposed Banning Harsh Interrogation Methods. In 2007, Ryan voted against a conference report on the bill that would authorize classified amounts in the fiscal year 2008 budget for intelligence agencies and programs. The conference report would block the CIA from using several controversial interrogation techniques. It would require civilian as well as military interrogators to obey the Army Field Manual’s ban on torture of prisoners and the United States to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when handling prisoners of war. The conference report passed 222-199 [Roll Call 1160, H 2082, 12/13/2007; CQ Today, 12/13/07; Washington Post, 12/16/07]

208

IMMIGRATION
The Hill: Ryan’s Vice Presidential Prospects Could Be Hurt By “Mean Spirited” Votes On Immigration Bills. According to The Hill, “Controversial votes to crack down on illegal immigrants could hurt the chances of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) or Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) landing on the Republican presidential ticket. The two men are rising stars in the GOP believed to be on the shortlist of possible running mates for Mitt Romney. But their prospects could be endangered by their votes on legislation that pro-immigrant advocates describe as ‘mean-spirited’ and still sparks anger among Hispanic voters.” [The Hill, 5/10/12]  Ryan Supported Border Security Bill To Criminalize Violations Of Federal Immigration Law. According to The Hill, “Ryan voted in December of 2005 for a border security bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) that pro-immigrant advocates describe as the most outrageous anti-immigrant and anti-Latino legislation of the past decade. The bill, which did not pass the Senate, would have criminalized violations of federal immigration law and shifted enforcement responsibility to state and local authorities. Illegal immigrants who violated certain provisions would have been listed in a national crime information database. The legislation prompted mass protests by Hispanics nationwide several months after it passed the House.” [The Hill, 5/10/12]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Said Ryan Stance On Immigration Was In Sync With President Bush. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But Ryan acknowledges that his constituents require a lot of persuading on that point. ‘I think the vast majority of my constituents side with the House legislation and are against what the Senate was trying to do,’ Ryan said. Ryan’s support for a broader bill with citizenship provisions places him more in sync with President Bush on immigration. But fellow Republicans Green and Petri stand closer to Sensenbrenner’s position.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/23/06]

Amnesty
Ryan Supported Plan To Give Citizenship To Illegal Immigrants, Refused To Call It Amnesty. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “But Ryan has a significantly different position. He voiced reservations about Sensenbrenner’s measure at the time he voted for it, and he advocates much broader reforms that include a path to ‘earned’ citizenship for many of those now in the country illegally. ‘You can’t ignore the 11 million illegals in this country. You’ve got to come up with a way to respect the rule of law and get them into the system,’ said Ryan, who supports plans in the Senate to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they remain employed, pay fines and back taxes, learn English, and meet other tests. Ryan said that approach is not ‘amnesty.’ ‘There are people who will call anything that attempts to fix the document status of illegals amnesty,’ he said.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/23/06]

Border Security
Paul Ryan Voted For Study of Security Systems on US-Canadian Border. On September 14, 2006, Paul Ryan voted to require the Homeland Security Department to prevent the