Tim Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Could I make a point real quickly. That vote is such an example that the other side seems to just be playing politics. They want Obama to fail, and they want to be able to say----

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We're going to continue to go down the road. We're not going to turn back. We've had too much success. We've got a long way to go.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the chairman for this opportunity. Let me just go on record and say, I cannot believe, in the wealthiest country that has ever existed on God's green Earth, that we are having a debate about whether or not we should let 1.3 million people-plus, over the course of the next few weeks, go without unemployment when unemployment's at 10 percent. There's five people looking for every one job, and we can't muster up the courage in this body to pass unemployment benefits? And our friends on the other side said, Well, this is not an emergency. So all of those folks, over the 4th of July, get your charcoal out, get your grill, go buy your hamburgers and hot dogs and lay them on the grill. Relax, put your flip flops on, put your shorts on, put the sun block on. There's no emergency here. That's what our friends on the other side are trying to tell the 1.3 million people who will go without anything. And if you think the deficit is bad now, wait till we get another wave of foreclosures, another wave of people who aren't paying their bills, another wave of bankruptcies. And our friends on the other side have consistently said no. We tried to get money from BP to pay for the oil spill; they said no. We took on the insurance companies; they said no. We took on Wall Street; they said no. We took on the banks; they said no. If you took the word ``no'' out of the dictionary, the Republican Party would be speechless. General Leave

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, as you know, the issue of negligence by Kuwait and Gulf Link Transport Company (KGL) was brought to my attention by the family of the late Colonel Dominic (Rocky) Baragona. The tragic death of Lieutenant Colonel Dominic Baragona, Jr., occurred on May 19, 2003 on a road in Iraq. His death was caused by the simple, avoidable negligence of a tractor trailer truck owned by KGL, the predecessor company to an enormous group of international Kuwaiti companies, which have and continue to perform large U.S. government contracts potentially worth billions of U.S. dollars and with a vital mission. KGL's tractor trailer careened across three lanes of a highway in the middle of a clear, sunny day and destroyed the Humvee in which Colonel Baragona was riding. At the time of his death, Colonel Baragona had served honorably during Operation Iraqi Freedom and was on his way home to his family. KGL's subsequent conduct in the case brought against them led the Honorable William Duffey, Jr., the U.S. federal judge hearing the case, to write the following in his decision on the case: ``[A]s the Court communicated to the parties in the December 2008 hearing, KGL's conduct in this case was indignant and callous. KGL derived substantial revenue from its contracts with the United States Army. KGL and other Kuwaitis received unquantifiable benefits from the protection the United States Armed Forces have provided to Kuwait for over fifteen years. For KGL to then turn a blind eye to the death caused by a KGL employee of a United States service member, who was on duty protecting the region at the time of the incident, is an affront to the solemn sacrifices service members such as Lt. Col. Baragona honorably provided to Iraq and the citizens of other countries in the Middle East region. KGL took this callousness even further by causing Plaintiffs to expend nearly four years and significant expense in merely getting the question of jurisdiction before the Court. The Court implored KGL to work with Plaintiffs to fashion a just resolution in this case, but this request was ignored.'' I agree. The Baragonas commenced litigation, established a prima facie case of in personum jurisdiction over KGL and endured the personal rigors of the litigation. This burden includes giving testimony during a damages hearing, only to discover that KGL's apparent strategy was to cause the Baragona family to expend their resources for years. This despite the fact that KGL intended to challenge the judgment after it issued in the same court that KGL assiduously ignored during the years of litigation and several notices of the court case and its proceedings. The emotional burden borne by the family of the deceased serviceman was very high; the long years of litigation over their son's death in combination with the sudden entry of the defendant and the challenge to the judgment is not a cost that should be ignored or encouraged. In the course of the Baragonas' quest for justice against KGL, the family gathered evidence from credible news reports and other sources that KGL has a subsidiary, Combined Shipping Company, which is a partner with ValFajr Shipping Company, a subsidiary of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (``IRISL''), a company banned by the U.S. Treasury and now the named subject of the recently announced U.N. sanctions on Iran. We do not have any evidence that KGL's subsidiary has participated with IRISL in sending explosives into Iraq to kill US service personnel. However, it is often true that proliferators of Iranian WMDs, like IRISL, are directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also controls the Iranian funding, training and provisioning of the insurgents in Iraq who have been killing and wounding U.S. service personnel with Iranian-manufactured explosives over the past several years. No U.S. government contractor, or any member of its corporate family doing any business with Iranian companies blacklisted by the U.N. and the U.S. Treasury, should be considered ``responsible corporate parties'' as defined by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. This section will force KGL and all U.S. contractors to decide whether they will support Iran or the U.S., and the Congress will closely monitor the enforcement of this section. Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey recently submitted written testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on ``Iran Policy in the Aftermath of U.N. Sanctions''. In this testimony he stated: ``[w]e also took action under 13382 to prevent IRISL from carrying out activities to evade sanctions . . . Since we designated IRISL for sanctions in 2008, it has desperately attempted to evade those sanctions, setting up new front companies and renaming and even repainting ships to hide their true ownership.'' Importantly, this section finally permits the Procurement Fraud Debarment Branch of the U.S. Army to take action against KGL. The Baragona family notified the Army of these facts on April 29, 2010. On June 11, 2010 the Army sent a letter to the counsel for the Baragonas to notify them of the Army's receipt of the information but no action has yet been taken. I would appreciate this body's interest and support in compelling the Army to move to debar KGL as a result of its ties to Iranian proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. For the above reasons, this miscarriage of justice and threat to our national security cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank the outgoing President of the United Auto Workers Union, Mr. Ron Gettelfinger. Mr. Gettelfinger has admirably represented the nearly 1 million active and retired members of the UAW. Under Ron's leadership, the Union has continued its fight for improved health care benefits and the enforcement of fair trade provisions on human rights, and fair labor standards. Ron and I share a lot in common. We both were voted into current office in 2002, we both have been fortunate enough to be reelected by our constituents, and we both understand the substantial value of our Nation's auto workers. My district in Northeastern Ohio is home to UAW Local 1112 and Local 1714. These UAW locals represent over 7,500 active and 4,000 retired GM Lordstown Assembly Plant employees. The men and women of the Lordstown plant have manufactured the Chevrolet Cavalier, the Pontiac Sunfire, the Chevrolet Cobalt, and will soon begin production on the new Chevrolet Cruze. These workers represent the best of American production, manufacturing, and ingenuity. At a time of unprecedented catastrophe for America's automotive industry, Ron Gettelfinger provided much needed leadership. On behalf of the United Autoworkers in my district and those in my district whose livelihoods depend on UAW jobs, I thank Mr. Gettelfinger for his years of service and leadership and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life and public service of former Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley. Representing Ohio's 9th District, ``Lud'' Ashley served in the House of Representatives for 26 years. Throughout his tenure, Congressman Ashley successfully balanced his loyalty towards his home city of Toledo and his responsibility to the country at large. As Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, Lud was an important figure in passing legislation which provided federal grants that improved low and moderate-income housing nationwide. During the 1970's oil crisis, he was appointed to an Ad Hoc energy committee that passed a series of bills which reduced the nation's oil use and increased the budget for researching alternative energy sources. Among his many other accomplishments, Lud secured millions of dollars in federal grants to improve the Port of Toledo and maintain this vital Midwestern economic pathway. His achievements were products of his tenacity. Former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill praised Ashley for his ``toughness, and a never-say- die attitude, and who, when he was put on the first team, could run with the ball.'' Furthermore, Lud did not hesitate to work with Republican lawmakers. He was a lifelong friend of President George H.W. Bush, had a good relationship with President Gerald Ford, and made countless other alliances with members across the aisle. I will remember his commitment to public service and helping the American people.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise to remember Eugene Blair McCammon of New Springfield, Ohio who passed away last Thursday, June 17, 2010. Mr. McCammon was born on May 15, 1927, in Youngstown, Ohio and worked as a railroad yard clerk for the Erie Lackawanna Railroad and as a school bus driver for the Boardman schools. He served the community of New Springfield as a member of the VFW, a member of the Church of God, an EMT, and a volunteer firefighter. After his graduation from Rayen High School, he served in the United States Navy and later enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. In November and December of 1950, Eugene McCammon fought in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir known as the Frozen Chosin and fought by the Chosin Few. Following the onslaught of the Chinese Army across the Yalu River, U.S. and U.N. forces were overwhelmed and began a seventeen-day battle as a Siberian cold front dropped the temperature to 35 degrees below zero. The fighting at Chosin Reservoir was some of the most violent small unit fighting in the history of American warfare as our forces struggled along a 78-mile-long narrow road toward the port of Hungnam. Eugene McCammon received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star for gallantry in action and valor in the face of the enemy. Mr. McCammon is survived by two daughters, Kathleen Connolly and Jeri Westover, his nephew Robert McLaughlin, two brothers, Earl McCammon and Donald McCammon, two sisters, Rose Margaret Maizel and Dorothy Wiscott, granddaughter Molly Kathleen, and many friends and extended family members. On behalf of a grateful Nation we remember the patriotic service and the life of our friend and neighbor Eugene Blair McCammon.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, I think it's important for us to pull specific examples. I represent a district just to the east of Congressman Boccieri. It is very similar in nature to Mr. Murphy's district, manufacturing, traditional manufacturing. We've actually seen in the last couple of months a couple of point decrease in the unemployment rate. It is still way too high, but this stimulus plan is coming down the pike. It has helped in so many different ways, on so many different road projects, in different infrastructure projects. We got $100 million in title 1 money for our schools which prevented tens, if not hundreds, of teachers from being laid off. We've got grants for police and fire, cops. There are 20-some cops on the beat because of the COPS grant in the city of Akron. Now if we didn't have the stimulus package, if we weren't investing Community Development Block Grant money, if we weren't putting money into roads and bridges and infrastructure, if we weren't making sure there was State support for our schools and education funds, we would have lost thousands of teachers, police, fire, and construction workers who would have never went back to work. Now we're not saying that we've got all the answers, and we've got a corner on the marketplace of success. But we've clearly--because years and years and years of economic philosophy prior to 1980 said, When the economy goes into a big downturn, someone has got to step up and fill the hole to prime the pump. We have had projects. We have a General Motors facility in Lordstown, Ohio, that just put on a third shift, and all of their suppliers are going to benefit from that. If the Republicans were in charge, that whole company would have been sold off piecemeal. We used $20 million in stimulus money that leveraged $650 million for a French company to expand 350 jobs, 500 construction jobs. This is all happening because we had a stimulus bill, and I don't blame anybody in this Chamber, Mr. Boccieri, for not believing me that the stimulus package has had some success. But how about Bill Gates? Would anybody in here believe Bill Gates when he says, ``The incredible measures,'' the Recovery Act and TARP, ``needed to be taken to make sure there wasn't a collapse, both in terms of stabilizing the financial system and then priming the pump of the economy, because it had been slowed down so much. Now, we're seeing the benefits that those things have been done.'' That's Bill Gates saying it. And you can go right down the list, Warren Buffett and others, who have said the stimulus package has worked. And my concern, quite frankly, is that we've got to do more before we get completely out of the woods on this economy. But look at the job numbers. Look at the deficit numbers. And I want to make one final statement here, because Mr. Boccieri brought it up, about deficits. You grow your way out of deficits. If you don't have people working, you're not going to reduce the deficit. You can't cut your way out of some of this stuff. You've got to grow your way. And what we have is a pro-growth agenda. Tax cuts for businesses, lowest taxes for people in America since 1950. So tax cuts for the middle class, invest in infrastructure, invest in energy, get people working again. If we want to see the deficits go down, we've got to get people back to work. And that's what this whole agenda has been about, and it's working. You look at what President Bush left us with and look where we are at now. As jobs go up, the deficit projections go down. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity here on the House floor to spend a few minutes talking about some friends of mine who are celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary, and I wanted to take a second here to say what good friends they are, what great Americans they are, and what great people they are. Happy 40th Anniversary Bill and Margie Skeleski will be celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary this week. They have been not only tremendous supporters of me, but they have been great people in the community, and I wanted to take this opportunity to wish them a happy anniversary and many, many more years. You have never been to a holiday breakfast unless you have been to the Skeleskis' house, but I must say there are eggs and quiche and sausage and all kinds of different desserts, and not a day goes by when I don't see Margie Skeleski somewhere and she wants to bake me a cherry pie. So I want to thank her for all of her generosity. She and her husband are just two of the sweetest, kindest, nicest people in our community, and they treasure all of the things that, I think, we as Americans need to spend a little more time thinking about, which are the importance of family, the importance of community, the importance of church and faith, and the importance, really, quite frankly, of a nice piece of pie. They all come together, and they have been just tremendous influences on my life, so I wanted to say thank you and congratulations to all of them and to their family as they celebrate this very special day. Congratulations I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to extend a hearty congratulations to the president of Youngstown State University, Dr. David Sweet and his wife, Pat, who are both leaving Youngstown State University after a long tenure. Dr. Sweet and his wife came to Youngstown State University when it was a sleepy university somewhere in the center of the city of Youngstown. They came in with a vision for the community, and they came in with a vision of the university. I think history will judge him as one of the leaders on how a university can have a transformational effect on a community. Youngstown State University and the city of Youngstown both have been recognized for the partnerships that they have created, but Dr. Sweet, on every account that we would measure his success or failure as a president, has clearly succeeded. Enrollment is up by 25 percent. Minority enrollment is up. The university has created the first science, technology, engineering, and math college. Of all of the universities in Ohio, he took Youngstown State University and used it as an engine for not only economic growth and research, but also for helping to redefine the city of Youngstown. In so many ways, he provided leadership for our university and for our community. I wanted here, on the floor of the House of Representatives, to recognize his leadership, his team--Hunter Morrison, Dr. George McCloud and all of the leaders that he had in his administration--and their ability to take this university, to really transform it and, in turn, to transform our community. I wanted to say thank you, Mr. Speaker, to Dr. Sweet and to his wife, Pat, for their passion, for their contributions that they made to our community and to Youngstown State University. We stand on their shoulders as we continue this work, but clearly, we would not have been here today to make the kind strides that the university is making, doing the kind of research, hosting international energy seminars and forums and really transforming the role of that university. I want to say thank you. We clearly wouldn't be in the position we are in today if it weren't for the leadership of Dr. Sweet and Pat Sweet. With that, I say thank you. The Economy Also, Mr. Speaker, we'd like to take this opportunity to spend a little time--and I will be joined by some of my colleagues here in the next few minutes--to talk about what has been going in our country economically and really what the plan is and what the plan has been for President Obama, the Democratic Congress, and pushing forward an agenda that I think, without dispute, has taken our country from going off a cliff, which is where we were just a couple of years ago, a year and a half ago, where the stock market was at 6,000-plus; where the economy was bleeding 750,000 jobs, almost 800,000 jobs a month; and where there was a complete collapse of the global economic system. Because, quite frankly, there has been a debate going on in America that those of us--and my side, for sure--have been losing. The debate since 1980 has been how do we cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the country; how do we therefore raise the tax burden on the middle class; how do we cut government at every single turn; how do we deregulate and completely try to remove government out of every aspect of the financial markets and the role of regulating businesses; and, quite frankly, our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, won that debate. Through the 1980s, up until the current President, really with a good fight put on by President Clinton--and he made great strides in his own way--but we have been fighting the system. But over the course of the last couple of years we have seen exactly what happens when this philosophy, economic and political philosophy are implemented. It is Milton Friedman and the supply-side economists and the Republican Party versus the Keynesian demand-side Democrats on our side. And our Republican friends in the earliest parts of this decade, up until 2006 and then 2008, controlled every lever of government; controlled the House, controlled the Senate, controlled the White House, implemented their economic policies across the board. And in Ohio, the Republicans controlled every Statewide office, including the governorship for 16 years, and the State legislature for longer. Controlled everything and implemented their policies--their energy policy, their foreign policy, their economic policy. They deregulated Wall Street. They continued this path, this role of appointing industry lackeys to critical oversight positions on Wall Street, critical oversight positions in the oil and gas industry. Even big donors to oversee FEMA. And over the course of the last few years, we have seen how this philosophy, when implemented, works. And it works for those multinational corporations, it works for Wall Street, it works for the oil industry. But, quite frankly, it doesn't work for anybody else. So we saw when an industry lackey is appointed to head FEMA, we saw what happened with Katrina. You did a good job, Brownie, is what came of that. We see when the Minerals Management Agency is littered with industry people, we see that a lot of the approvals of drilling and the lack of preparation for contingency plans for emergencies was nonexistent because our friends on the other side said we don't need any government; we don't need any regulation of the oil industry. We don't need any regulation. We can just put anybody into FEMA. And we saw what happened. But, really, the most significant event has been what happened on Wall Street, when we completely ignored deregulated Wall Street, said, Let business police themselves, ignoring decades and decades and decades of history where we know, when unchecked, businesses get greedy. It is human nature to get greedy. It is human nature not to be connected to what happens three or four moves down the line with the decision that you're making today. And so Wall Street was deregulated. Warnings were ignored. We saw the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit the United States of America and almost bring down the entire global economy. And so having that philosophy implemented on all accounts--energy, Wall Street, globalization, cut taxes for the wealthiest, push the tax burden off on the middle class, borrow money and spend money and still cut taxes and run up huge deficits. In fact, it's important to note who left the huge deficits. Reagan left a $1.4 trillion deficit. Herbert Walker Bush, $3 trillion. President Bill Clinton had a $5 trillion, almost $6 trillion surplus. George W. Bush left us a $11.5 trillion deficit in this country, with no end in sight. And, then, not only left us that huge deficit, then we have a situation where the whole economy collapsed. The stock market tanked. Banks were going belly up. Unemployment was going through the roof. And then the first January that Barack Obama took office, we were losing almost 800,000 jobs in that month. So being left with this horrendous mess and the implementation of an economic and political philosophy that decimates government, runs up huge deficits, and here we are left to deal with it. So we did take some bold steps with the stimulus package, with TARP, which was actually under George W. Bush. But we took some bold steps. And they all weren't very politically popular in many instances. And we would go home every weekend and have to explain to our constituents about why we were doing this stuff. But we are now seeing that the national economy is turning around. We have seen the stock market go up from a little over 6,000 to 10,000-plus. Up to 11, back down. We have had some issues with the oil spill, with what's going on in Greece; but the stock market was back up to 11,000. We are starting the recovery. We have seen, with the issue of jobs, some level of success. Last week, we saw industrial production increased 8.1 percent during the past 11 months--the largest 11-month gain since 1997. Now, I'm not here to say that I'm seeing the world through rose- colored glasses. I'm not saying that we're even out of the woods yet. But what I am saying is the policies that we have implemented have clearly turned the country back in the right direction. It is moving us towards a more secure future for the business community and for those people who are out in our community looking for work. Unemployment is still too high. We still have work to do with police and fire and helping the States--and teachers, to make sure they don't get laid off. But before I kick it to my friend from Connecticut, I want to say that you can't help but look at where we were and to remember where we were and to say that we have at least shifted directions and at least changed things to at least move us in a more positive step where we can secure the future for our children; where we can secure a good economy for businesses and workers. And that's really what's important here. And that's why we have made some of these very, very difficult situations. With that, I yield to my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Before I yield to the gentleman from New York, I think it's important again to reiterate, these are two separate philosophies. We did not have one vote in the House of Representatives from the Republican side. They, in many instances, continue to argue for cutting taxes for the top 1 percent--hopefully that will trickle down to the middle class, hopefully that will trickle down to manufacturing. And we saw from the 1980s on, people took that money and they invested it in China, manufacturing in Mexico and China and other places. What we're saying is, reinvest back in the United States-- transportation, energy, infrastructure. Rebuild the country. A pro- growth agenda from Democrats--cutting taxes for businesses, cutting taxes for the middle class, and jump-starting the economy, making sure that we have fair regulation, referees on the field, and making sure we don't let corporations run the country, whether it's Wall Street and the financial markets, or whether it's the oil industry saying approve this permit even though I don't have a plan; in case we have a catastrophe, let it all go. We're the corporations, we run the show. We're reigning that back in, trying to jump-start small businesses with the fund we provided last week, $30 billion to loan $300 billion for community banks. Get the local banks loaning money again and stop relying on these globalized banks who are in it to make a profit and have no connection, no tie to the community. So I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I totally agree with the gentleman. Here you have tax cuts for businesses, you have $30 billion for community banks to loan out up to $300 billion, you have tax cuts for individuals, you have the extension of unemployment benefits and health care through COBRA, you have infrastructure projects, billions of dollars, you have billions of dollars for Pell Grants so people can go to school. We've taken the banks out of the student loan business so people get a better deal when they take out a loan to go to school. And as you said, we're taking $1 billion a day that's leaving this country to go to oil- producing countries and driving that back into the United States, the kind of technology that you have, the kind of nuclear technology and production that Mr. Altmire has in western Pennsylvania, fuel cells in Mr. Boccieri's district, manufacturing and engineering in my district, and all of the above in Mr. Murphy's district.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Murphy, would you like to wrap up? We've got about 1 minute left. Because I know you can, of all of us, you can put it all together in 1 minute.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for a little bit of a history lesson. Before President Obama even got into office, that first January, we were losing almost 800,000 jobs a month; the stock market was at 6,000, and the Republican policies had all been implemented on energy, on health care, on budget, on foreign policy, with tax cuts for the wealthiest, with borrowing the money, and with running our country and our economy off the cliff. We are turning the country around. We now have positive job growth. The stock market went up to 11,000 and now up past 10,000. 401(k)s are returning. Jobs are coming back. We do not need to go backwards with the Republican economic policies that drove us off the cliff in the first place. I ask my friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker: What are you going to tell the police officers, the firefighters, and the teachers who will get laid off if this country doesn't step up to bat and reinvest back in America? What are you going to tell them? What are you going to tell them? We have enough money for the wealthiest to get tax breaks, but we don't have enough money for police, for firefighters, and for road projects in the United States. Good luck.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We were honored, Mr. Speaker, several nights ago to have our colleague, John Lewis, attend and serve as the keynote speaker of the 40th anniversary of the May 4 shootings. He delivered a passionate, insightful speech, keynote address, which the people of Kent State University and the city of Kent enjoyed. But as we were milling around after, there has always been this tension between what happened at Kent State that day and the community and the students, and one person said this brought healing to Kent and Kent State, and that is what John Lewis has done for us, and I hope this resolution in some way helps to continue the healing process.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. Forty years ago yesterday, May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fired on students at Kent State University who were protesting the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the ongoing war in Vietnam. Four unarmed students, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder, were killed. Nine others, Alan John, Thomas, Dean, Joseph, Donald, James, Robert and Douglas, were injured at the noon- time rally. These students were exercising their right guaranteed by the United States Constitution to freely assemble and dissent from their government. The Kent State shootings were followed 10 days later by the shootings of two students protesting at Jackson State College in Mississippi. The tragedy at Kent State has had a broad resonance in American history. Richard Nixon's former chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, wrote in his book ``The Ends of Power'' that the Kent State shootings began the slide into the Watergate crisis, eventually dooming the Nixon Presidency. The shootings led to an uptick in student protests across the country, which prompted Richard Nixon to push for a series of unconstitutional moves to target his political enemies. These culminated in the Watergate break-in 2 years after the Kent State shootings. Kent State University has established a number of resources to honor the 13 students shot on May 4, 1970. The university has established the May 4 Memorial; Kent B'nai B'rith Hillel Marker; individual student markers and scholarships in memory of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder; May 4 collections maintained by the university libraries, the department of art, and the Kent State Museum; the Center for Peaceful Change, now rededicated as the Center for Applied Conflict Management; and an experimental college course entitled ``May 4, 1970 and Its Aftermath''; an annual Symposium on Democracy; annual commemorations sponsored by the May 4 Task Force; and recognition of the site on the National Register of Historic Places.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I submit the following. Youngstown--Calling hours for David John McKelvey, 58, will be held at St. Edward Church (240 Tod Lane) from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, April 29, 2010. Funeral services will be held on Friday at St. Edward Church at 11 a.m. Additional calling hours will be held from 9:45 to 10:45 a.m., prior to the service. David was born on March 23, 1952, in Youngstown, the son of William B. McKelvey and Sallie Turner McKelvey. David was a lifelong member of the community. David was a member of St. Edward Church and attended Ursuline and The Rayen School. After graduation, David joined the Peace Corps and later attended Youngstown State University. He worked in real estate and business development for the majority of his life. He was married in 1985 to Meg Mitchell of Youngstown. He is survived by his children, Jonathan (22), Catherine (18), and Connor (11). David is also survived by his mother, Sallie T. McKelvey; his siblings, Letitia McKelvey, Lucius McKelvey (Terrie), Walter McKelvey (Carol), William McKelvey (Sarah), former Mayor George McKelvey (Sherry), Sally McKelvey Bulger (David) and Anne McKelvey; and many loving nieces, nephews, and cousins. David was preceded in death by his father, William B. McKelvey. David was passionate about his faith, family, friends, fishing and traveling. David was an avid volunteer. His favorite charitable cause was serving holiday meals at the Rescue Mission. It gave him great joy to see his children participate in this charitable work. David was held in high esteem by his many friends, earning respect by his character strengths of integrity, reliability and loyalty. David will be sadly missed and remembered fondly in the hearts of the lives he touched. In lieu of flowers, the family asks that your generosity be best expressed by a donation to the Gleaner's Food Bank, 94 Pyatt St., Youngstown, OH 44502. Funeral arrangements are being handled by the McCauley Funeral Home on Broadway Ave. in Youngstown.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I submit the following. Starks, ``a Legend in Politics,'' Dies By David Skolnick Even though Herman ``Pete'' Starks last held office in 1985, he remained a local political force. Starks, 80, died Sunday. The local political icon served 22 years as the city's 2nd Ward councilman, representing most of the East side. Sparks spent 17 of those years as chairman of the council's powerful finance committee. ``He was very instrumental in my campaign,'' said Councilman DeMaine Kitchen, D-2nd, elected in 2007. ``He was a sounding board for my campaign. He was a legend in politics in the Mahoning Valley.'' Starks was elected to his first two-year term on council in 1963. When he was re-elected in 1973, he became the first person to serve six consecutive terms as a representative of any ward in the city. Starks was elected 11 straight times before opting not to run for his council seat in 1985. Instead, Starks ran for mayor that year, losing the Democratic Primary to Patrick Ungaro. Ungaro served on council with Starks for six years as council president. Ungaro was elected mayor in 1983, serving 14 years in the capacity, and is Liberty Township's administrator. ``We fought like cats and dogs, but we shook hands when we were done,'' Ungaro said. ``He was a dominant person in government. Even after Pete left office, his influence was enormous and overwhelming with council. He was still the person you had to work with.'' James E. Fortune Sr., a former 24-year council member, served six of those years with Starks. ``He was a teacher,'' Fortune said, ``I learned so much from Pete, particularly about finances. When he was on council, he was practically the leader of the city. We had the utmost respect for him.'' George M. McKelvey, a former 3rd Ward councilman and eight- year mayor, started his political career sitting next to Starks at council meetings. ``I am, still to this day impressed with his knowledge,'' he said. ``When he talked, I listened. His best qualities were his loyalty and honesty. With Pete Starks, his word was his bond.'' When Jay Williams announced he was running for mayor in 2005, Starks called him. ``He said, `You're going to be mayor,' '' said Williams, who won that race and was reelected to a second four-year term last year. ``He said it so matter of fact like the sun will come up tomorrow.'' Williams said Starks ``was never shy about offering his advice and perspective. You always knew where Pete stood.'' Councilman Jamael Tito Brown, D-3rd, and currently chairman of the finance committee, said the would speak with Starks from time to time about city finances. ``He was legendary in the city,'' Brown said. ``He was still on top of things in city government'' before his death. Funeral arrangements being handled by L.E. Black Phillips & Holden.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is interesting, I was listening to my colleagues from New York and California, I can't get over what all of the fuss is about against this bill. This is something that Bob Dole and Senator Chafee had worked out in the eighties. This is middle-of-the road stuff. Many of us wanted other things in here. I am not afraid to admit that. There is no public option in here. This is not single-payer. This is right down the middle. This is bread and butter, all American, apple pie and Chevrolet. This is baseball. Look at it, tax cuts for small businesses. Many people in our districts make $50,000 a year. Under this proposal, a family of four making $50,000 a year in Niles, Ohio, will get $5,800 worth of a tax credit. That is a middle class tax cut. This is what is in the bill. We are regulating and putting in new rules for the insurance companies. We are not taking over, but this is pretty simple. And the gentleman from New York mentioned it: this is about prevention. There is no one who can argue with the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have 30 million-plus people in the United States of America who have no preventive care at all, dumped into our emergency rooms, much sicker than they need to be. And it doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that that costs a lot of money, as opposed to giving each one of those, and they pay nothing, they go there and they pay nothing. They don't pay anything. So it is all free, shifted off to the next person who comes in with an insurance card. What we are saying is, it is cheaper for us as a country, since we are all already paying for them anyway through higher insurance premiums, it is cheaper for everybody if we give them an insurance card and make them pay something. No more free riders. Everyone is going to have to pay something, and get them to a primary care physician who will give them a $20 prescription drug instead of going to the emergency room a week or two later and costing us $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000. That is what this whole thing is about. And when the industry is set up, as it is currently, to knock people off the rolls and deny coverage, especially the stories we have heard coming out about people with HIV and AIDS, you are not covered. That gets pushed off and dumped on everybody else. We are saying this is a pro-business bill. I am glad, as the one gentleman said earlier, I am glad that the tea baggers are in Washington, D.C. to watch this pass because this is going to be the most significant tax cut for middle class people in the history of our country, especially geared towards health care. When I can go home and tell my folks that a family of four making $50,000 a year, they are going to get a $5,800 tax credit for their health insurance, they probably don't know that right now, but I am going to spend the next 6 months making sure that every single family in my district knows that they are going to get that tax cut, and they are going to like what we have done here.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the gentleman from California and our other colleagues here. I have got a nephew at home who is like 3 years old I think. You know how these kids have different little cute things that they say. His new thing is that if you ask him, you know, Why are you going in this room, and he'll say, Well, I'm going in here because of X, Y or Z, that's why. So he finishes all of his sentences with ``That's why.'' You ask him why, he says, ``That's why.'' So I was thinking about this debate, and people say, Well, why are you supporting this legislation? Well, so kids can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old. That's why. You know, we have got kids that are getting denied because they have a preexisting condition. The insurance company says, We won't cover you. I'm supporting this bill because that's going to change. The other provisions that you're highlighting here, tax credits for small businesses, up to 35 percent, and it's actually in some instances 50 percent of a tax credit for our small businesses for people who are providing tax relief to small business men and women who are providing health insurance. That's why I'm supporting this bill. If you get sick, and you try to get coverage, and all of a sudden the insurance industry, the insurance company says, Well, we can't cover you anymore, that's going to be done with. Think about these significant investments, these significant protections that we are making as a country. I love the idea of all the tea baggers that were down here today talking about these concepts of liberty. I would ask them today, Tell me, what do you mean? What liberty are we taking from you? And let me compare it to the person in my district, the 1,700 families last year in my district that went bankrupt. Are they free? They are not free. They are trapped in an economic system that buries them because someone in their family got sick. My goodness gracious, what did our Founding Fathers mean when they gave us these ideas of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Who can pursue happiness when they're bankrupt? Because of nothing that they did--it wasn't bad financing; it was bad luck. And if we don't start to recognize in America that some people in our country just have bad luck, and if the government doesn't step in and push back the insurance industry to say, We're going to carve out--we're going to box out the insurance industry so this family will have some freedom, have some protections, that's what this is about. I've got no interest in stymieing business growth. I come from Youngstown, Ohio, for God's sake. We've been in a recession for 30 years. You think I have an interest in stymieing business development? I want to help it. You've tried yours. They've tried their side, I would say to my friends. I was here. I'm not that old, but I've been here 8 years now. I sat here, and I watched while Bush jammed through his tax policy, cut taxes for the rich. They said, This is going to trickle down and help the poor. It didn't help anybody but the rich. I sat here and watched while he passed a prescription drug bill, didn't negotiate prices, didn't do anything, didn't pay for it, borrowed the money, started wars, didn't have money for the wars that he started. I sat here and watched while the Republican rubberstamp Congress rubberstamped all of those policies. The economy didn't improve. Wages didn't go up. They had control of every single thing. They had a chance to implement their health care strategy. It didn't work because they didn't do anything. They had a chance to implement their energy strategy. And when gas goes to $4 a gallon again this summer, we're going to feel it again. This is significant stuff we're talking about, and Democrats are stepping up to bat for the American people. We are taking on the insurance industry.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just listening, I want to speak directly to Members of the House because we've got a few minutes left tonight and some debate tomorrow. How does this play out over the course of the next few months? By listening to what you gentlemen have just got done saying about Medicare, the significant improvements of strengthening Medicare, we're going to have to run an election. And there is probably going to be an election on this bill. What has happened over the last few months is our friends on the other side have consistently tried to throw arguments again the wall, and they would just fall; they wouldn't stick because they weren't true. We started with death panels, and illegal immigrants, and abortion, and we went right down the line. None of them ended up working out. ``It's going to bankrupt the country.'' And then we get CBO--I mean you just go right down the line. They said it's going to support abortion, and then we have 60,000 Catholic nuns, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes, a bunch of Catholic theologians saying this is not a pro-abortion bill, this is a pro-life bill. Same thing with illegal immigrants. Then they say it's going to spend a ton of money, and then the Congressional Budget Office, a neutral third party, says it's going to save $1.2 trillion, reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years, $130 billion in the first decade. That is a reduction in the budget deficits on the backs of what President Clinton did by reducing the budget deficit. So we have a history of doing that. So quickly, the debate in the fall about health care is going to go something like this. We pushed an initiative that is going to close the doughnut hole and give our seniors 250 bucks just this year to help close that doughnut hole. Our friends on the other side running against us will be saying we want to repeal that. We don't want that closing of the doughnut hole. We're going to be campaigning on little kids who have a sickness are now being denied insurance coverage because they have a preexisting condition, we're going to say, we stopped that from happening in the United States of America. Our friends on the other side are going to be running a campaign saying we want to repeal that. We're going to have in there we want to have a ban on preexisting conditions for all citizens across the board. Our friends on the other side are going to be running a campaign saying we want to repeal that. And on and on and on. People who are now getting kicked off the rolls, their insurance rolls, because they got sick, we're saying that could never happen again in the United States of America. And next fall our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to say, no, no, we want to repeal that ban. We want to continue that practice of the insurance industry being able to kick people off of their insurance because they got sick. We're going to be saying, hey, your kid that just went on the insurance rolls because they were 24 years old and we allowed that to happen because of the health care reform bill. Our friends on the other side are going to be saying they want to repeal that provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old. Very clear. The family in my district, your district in New York, your district in California, your district in California, all across the country, those families of four making $50,000 a year who are going to get a $5,800 tax cut that we put in because of this reform, our friends on the other side are going to say we want to run this election about repealing that tax cut. Same with the 35 percent and then up to 50 percent tax cut for small businesses. Our friends on the other side are going to say, we want to repeal that. This is a referendum on health care reform. I say I want to have that debate day and night for the next 6 or 7 months because that is a debate, Mr. Speaker, we can win and we shall win. The only issue now is a lot of people do not know all of these benefits that have been itemized here tonight. They will know in the next 6 months. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take my entire 5 minutes here, but I wanted to come to the floor after hearing about, experiencing, and reading some reports of what happened here today in the Nation's Capitol to some of the finest servants that this institution has ever seen by some of these tea bagger protestors who have been out today. It's one thing to have disagreements on policy and it's one thing to have disagreements on political philosophy and how that is implemented and the role, either more or less of government, and what the government role and responsibility may be, but today, we had several Members of Congress, as they were walking from this Chamber back to their office, get spit upon; get called derogatory, racial remarks; derogatory remarks about a Member of Congress' sexual orientation. That is unacceptable. And I am calling upon, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans who spoke at this tea party today and who have supported this movement to come out and condemn this tea party. This behavior is irresponsible. It does not belong in a civilized society. It shows that many people in this country want to divide this country, want to seek out our differences and not what unites us. It's a shame. One of those Members was John Lewis, one of the greatest civil rights leaders this country has ever seen. And let me say this in closing. Baseball bats and dogs and firehoses didn't stop John Lewis from the last cause that he had, and spitting on Members and calling them names is not going to stop the progress of this bill. Have your disagreements about our philosophies, but let's conduct ourselves in a responsible way--not spitting on Members of Congress. Disagree with them. Give them your ideas. Calling them names? One of the greatest civil rights leaders in the United States of America has to walk, as a Member of Congress, from the House Chamber to his office and get worried about getting spit upon, getting called the N word? The Republican Party needs to distance themselves from this kind of behavior. It is irresponsible. It diminishes this office. It diminishes this country. And we call upon the Republicans to say: shame on the tea party for that type of behavior.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I always learn something when he is around. This bill, we ask: How does it affect the country? And it only makes good sense that if we are reducing health care costs over time, that will reduce the deficit; because the government is so intertwined with Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' benefits and everything else, taking the health care system and putting in these fixes and including everybody in the system so that they don't run up health care costs, and fixing the waste in Medicare and those kinds of things, at the end of the day will be very, very beneficial for the deficit. I have got a district in northeast Ohio. Very specifically, Mr. Speaker, I just want to state what this bill is going to do for those people in Ohio who have been for 30 years in a recession, for the most part. They lost the steel industry, lost the rubber industry, and lost a lot of the manufacturing in the United States and have been hurt very, very badly. I wish this was in place 30 or 40 years ago and it would have saved a lot of people from a lot of suffering over time. This bill alone will improve coverage for 355,000 citizens in the 17th Congressional District. This particular bill will give tax credits and other assistance for up to 180,000 people. There a lot of people in my district who have a family of four, make about $50,000 a year. That family, under this bill, will get a $5,800 tax cut for them to be able to afford health insurance. Last year alone in the 17th Congressional District, we had 1,700 families, neighbors of mine--this is all throughout the country--who went bankrupt because of the health care system. Because of health care issues, they went bankrupt, and many of those people had health insurance. They actually had health insurance and still went bankrupt. How many kids, how many families, how many parents had to file for bankruptcy in this country last year because of the current health care system that we have here? So 53,000 young adults in the 17th Congressional District will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance because we extend it up to 26 years old. This bill will guarantee 9,300 people in the 17th Congressional District will no longer be able to be denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition. This is where the rubber meets the road. I mentioned about the $250 that the Medicare part D recipients will get this year, a $700 savings in Medicare part D next year. They will save $3,000 by 2020. So this is a bill that has great significance. We will have enough money in this bill, just in my congressional district, for four new community health clinics. We already have a few sprinkled around, but four new community health clinics so people can go and get the kind of preventive care that we are focused on in this bill. Hospitals will save $11 million. This bill is a good bill. Is it a perfect bill; not even close. Nothing is perfect. We are all imperfect here, so why would we create something that is perfect? But we have extended it. We implement things over time so we have an opportunity to tweak things. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, this reduces the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next couple of decades. That's what this is all about for our kids and our grandkids, to have the kind of future that we want. So I think it is an important piece of legislation. I am excited about it. If I can say lastly--because the Ohio State Buckeye's basketball game is coming on and we have to do our part, Mr. Boccieri and I, to make sure that we root them in as much as we are rooting in the health care bill this weekend--I want to say this, and I don't mean to be glib or arrogant, but I want to be honest. I look forward to the campaign in November. I looked forward to going out and talking to the constituents in my district and around the State of Ohio about what is in this bill. And I very much look forward to the Republican Party running on a platform of repealing this bill, repealing the ban on preexisting conditions for children, repealing the ban for preexisting conditions on adults, repealing the tax credits for small businesses, repealing the tax credits for someone in Niles, Ohio, who makes $50,000 a year and will get $5,800. I want to have that debate. I want to have the debate where the Republicans come up and they say we need to repeal that and we need to make sure that our seniors, we continue to keep the doughnut hole wide open. We don't want to close it. I look forward to that debate and look forward to the debate saying that we should keep the lifetime caps in and keep the status quo. So it is going to be an exciting time in our country. And as I heard one of my colleagues say, we are debating real issues here. And we have an opportunity to talk about what is in this bill and how it is going to benefit the American people. I will then yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I tell you, what a cute kid he was. He was just the cutest little kid. You get caught up in this debate with numbers and statistics and whatnot, but he really was the poster child for why we need to do this. With that, we are blessed with someone who has come from the great State of New Jersey and has been in the middle of all of the negotiations on behalf of our leadership and who chairs the subcommittee on the Education Committee which handles these issues. I yield to my friend, Rob Andrews.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to respond to that, Madam Speaker, because if we want to talk about memos, let's talk about the memo that the pollster and the consultant for the Republican Party put out last spring saying, No matter what you do, do not let President Obama pass health care. It will put you in the minority for another decade or two. It will make his Presidency. That was before we had any bill ready to go. It was socialism, it was this--the other side, Madam Speaker, was told by their consultants not to support this bill. And as for the Medicare costs, why are we going to save $500 billion? Because there is waste in the Medicare program, and this is something that they've proposed on the other side for a long, long time. In addition to that, if those people 55 to 60, before they go onto Medicare, actually have health insurance, they're going to cost less when they get into the Medicare program because they're not going to be as sick. When you come from an old industrial area like ours, there are sick people who have lost their jobs, don't have health insurance. They wait until they get into Medicare. They are chronically ill, and they cost more money. That's how we're going to save money.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady, and I appreciate the opportunity to come here. My friend from Ohio, we have been through this routine before. We were in the State Senate many years ago together, except I was arguing against his proposals and he was passing them. This time, he's arguing against ours and we're going to pass ours. The issue really, here--and I think the gentlelady from California brought it up. Our friends on the other side, Madam Speaker, like to say, Well, seniors are against it. But then AARP endorses it. Our friends on the other side say doctors are against it. But the American Medical Association endorses it. You say that this is pro-abortion, and you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing this bill. So you're not calling anybody over here pro-abortion. You're calling 59,000 Catholic nuns pro-abortion, which I think really brings this debate to a head. We are doing something that we've not been able to do in this country for a hundred years. We all go back to our districts and with this bill alone we're going to make sure--I know in my congressional district-- that over 9,000 people can go back on the rolls because they've been denied because of a preexisting condition. We had 1,700 families in my congressional district last year go bankrupt. I know this is difficult. And nobody on this side is saying that this hasn't been a difficult process. It has been. But nothing good happens without it being a little bit difficult and challenging. And that's the point we are at now in our country. We cannot get to the point where we are afraid to do bold things in our country. We have to do this. Small businesses all over our State--to the gentleman from Ohio--all over our State can't get enough money to reinvest back into the capital, the technology, the wages that we need in order to get our businesses jump-started because it keeps going over to health care. If you're a small business, you're going to get a tax credit up to 50 percent of your health care costs. This is a tax cut for small businesses. And we're going to make sure that people are healthier and more productive. I know our friends on the other side want to say, Well, let's start over. Let's get the blank piece of paper out and let's start all over. Let the insurance industry start all over. Let them go back to 1993 and 1994, revoke all of their increases that they gave to the American people over the last 15 or 20 years. Let them start over. Put all the people who have been denied because of a preexisting condition back on the insurance rolls; all the people who got sick when they had insurance and were kicked off insurance. Put them back on, and then maybe we'll consider starting all over. But we've got to make this bold move to make sure that everybody's in the tent. This is a moral issue on so many levels. We can't keep telling citizens in the wealthiest country that this globe has ever seen that we have the ability to care for you, but we can't afford it. It's time to pass this bill. We're going to do it this weekend. And we're going to look back, just like on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and civil rights. We did the right thing, the moral thing.