Tim Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. These kids, these families. And we should get the quote for tomorrow, we should get the quote and we should have it out here, but these kids, these families should pay for it themselves. And they can't. And so we've got to make a decision as a country whether we're okay with that, whether we're okay with them not having the wherewithal to pay, and then no one is willing to help them. But we have made the decision, in the Democratic Caucus, and many of our friends on the Republican side, excluding the President and a small group of fringe Members on their side, that somehow they're going to stand on principle here. They sat here for 6 years and didn't squawk one time about excessive spending. The President didn't veto one bill that came from this House, Republican-controlled, and a Republican- controlled Senate, but now, all of a sudden. But the American people, and I know the people in my district, see right through it, and they understand what we're trying to do and how in the long term this will be very helpful. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If I may, I think if you have to deficit-spend, if you have to borrow money because you need to make an investment, the Federal government's decision should be based on the same kind of principles that a family would base the decision on. By borrowing this money, are you going to yield more value down the line? So a business will buy a machine and go into debt so they have the machine, but they know long-term if they make enough widgets out of the machine that eventually they'll pay it off and they'll actually increase the value of the company. Families borrow money, like for school and for college because they know that they may have to borrow 20 or $30,000, but your son or daughter that has a college degree will be able to pay that back and have a higher standard of living throughout the course of their life. So if we are borrowing money, if we are going to deficit-spend, it seems to me it would make sense that we want to invest into our own health care or education. But this President has spent and borrowed over $3 trillion, as my colleague from Miami has pointed out so eloquently. Where is the return? Where is the return on the $700 billion we have spent in Iraq? Where is the return? Lower oil prices? Lower gasoline prices? No. It has only aggravated the problem that we have in the global economy now. And when you look at what we have been trying and trying and trying to do, not with the help of very many Republicans on this particular issue, Ray Lahood, Steve LaTourette and a lot of our friends have been very helpful with this issue. But when you look overall on what we have been trying to do, we, as Democrats since Speaker Pelosi took over, we are trying to make good investments. We increased the minimum wage so that average people will have a few more bucks in their pocket. We made sure that we invested billions of dollars into the Pell grant so that you will have almost $1,000 more in a Pell grant in the next 5 years. We invested money that was going to the bank so that they could make a profit loaning money to students, and we took that money and we gave it to the students and reduced the interest rate that is paid for college loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, so when you go out to get a loan, the average person will save $4,400. SCHIP. These are investments into the health of our kids. Community health clinics. We put a few hundred million dollars more, starting in the CR and then in the 2008 budget so that we can open up more health clinics so that poor families who don't have health care can at least have a first stop before they go to the emergency room. They may go earlier and will start preventing. My point is, before I yield to my friend, these are all investments, Mr. Meek, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, Mr. Murphy, that are going to save the taxpayer money in the long run. They are going to make this country more competitive. They will lead to a stronger, more secure America. We are entitled here. This body has proven over the last 6 years that money is going to get spent. It's either going to the oil companies as corporate welfare and subsidies, it's going to the military-industrial complex through the war, it's going in tax cuts, primarily to the top 1 percent. I am not saying that we want to tax people. I think the corporate tax needs to be fixed. There are a lot of changes that need to be made. But the overall point is, we are making investments that are going to yield value to the country and make us stronger and more unified and more prosperous as we move into the 21st century. I yield to my friend.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have been caring about this for a long time, since this thing started.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I agree. And there are so many different aspects for us to talk about here, but I think our friend from Cleveland has hit the nail right on the head; this is about us competing as a country. This is about us only having 300 million people in the United States, many of them poor, many of them living in your community, my community, Congressman Meek, Congressman Murphy, our communities. And what we're saying is, if we want these kids to be able to compete against 1.3 billion people in China, 1.2 billion people in India, you're not even going to get on a field unless you're healthy. And we're saying that this is a modest investment. This is $35 billion over 5 years. This is 41 days in Iraq. Now, when you think of it that way, and this has been the contrast of this whole debate; the President, over the past 6 years, has raised the debt limit for our country to go out and borrow money five times and increased the debt by over $3 trillion; $9 billion a week in Iraq; no end in sight; borrowed more money than every President before him combined, from China, from Japan, from the OPEC countries. And now, all of a sudden, in the early days of October he says he is going to, and he does, veto a bill that provides children's health care for a few million poor kids. Now, I know when I go back to my district and I talk to constituents, they cannot believe it. And we have our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, telling us that this is socialism. It wasn't socialism when a Republican Congress in the 1990s put this law into action, signed by President Clinton. It was a Republican Congress controlled by Newt Gingrich, a Republican Congress.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Meek. So now, all of a sudden the same program that they helped create is now all of a sudden socialism because the Democrats control the Congress. And I think it's an absolute shame, shameful, that we would have Republican Members of this Congress come out here for ideological reasons to try to score some political points with their base with the blatant disregard of providing health care for all these kids. Now, you can argue all you want, but the bottom line, Mr. Murphy, is that there are millions of kids who will not get health care because the President all of a sudden found the courage. You know, we all went to school with people like this, they pick on the little kids. Well, the President has this big military budget. He won't shrink that. He's got all these tax cuts that the wealthiest people in our country are getting. He won't touch that. But he's going to be a big strong guy and come in and take it on the backs of these kids. Shameful, Mr. Speaker, shameful that he is willing to do this, and that the Republican Congress, the Republican Members of the House, a fringe group, enough to prevent a veto override, will help this President sustain this veto. I find it shameful that we can't take 41 days of spending in Iraq, Mr. Murphy, and help provide some health care for these kids. And I say this because we all know that these kids need it. I was watching Chris Matthews, and Pat Buchanan was on. And Pat Buchanan said, I think these people need to pay for it themselves. Well, if they could pay for it themselves, we wouldn't be doing this. We would be doing something else.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can I say something that I just find funny? I can't wait to hear you. When we walk out of here, Kendrick, it is the same thing. My mom will call me and Kendrick's mom will call and we will be like on the phone, and my mom will say tonight, I guarantee you, ``I just love Stephanie.'' That is what she will say. So I have to make sure I am quick here. But the bottom line is, we are not saying that we don't want to support the military. All of us have. Mr. Meek and I sit on the Armed Services Committee. We are supportive. These are the kinds of things that we have to support, and we have to make sure we have a strong military. But to your point, Mr. Murphy, no one, no one thinks wasting money is a good thing. So it seems to me that our friends on the other side have literally become a caricature of themselves. They think that the American public, Mr. Speaker, has somehow forgotten and their brain was like a computer that was erased. Like the American people's brain over the last 6 years has been completely erased, and they don't remember the $3 trillion they borrowed, they don't remember the runup to the war, they don't remember Katrina, they don't remember the FEMA fiasco, they don't remember the passports. These are the guys that know how to run government? They can't even distribute passports, and they are going to give us a lecture on how we need to run our government.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to make one final point. Those of my friends who are in this Chamber, those people who we work with who are in the business community, when you look at this from a purely economic standpoint, what would a business person do if they were here? Would they put a little bit of the money up front and try to prevent all of these other problems from happening? Or would they say what the President said: We'll get them in the emergency room. What would a business person in 2007 do? I would guess that they would want to put the money up front. Now as we end, because we only have a few minutes left, before I yield to my friend from Florida, I'm going to brag. Because on Saturday there was a middleweight title fight, and Kelly Pavlik from Youngstown, Ohio, is now the middleweight champion of the world, WBO/WBC. He had a rough second round. He went down, got back up, and was a little wobbly. But about half of the fans in Atlantic City were from Youngstown, from the Mahoning Valley and cheered him on. He came back and in the seventh round knocked out the champion. And he knocked him out. We are all very proud of Kelly Pavlik. He is a great kid, 25 years old. Humble, speaks well. Just a great kid. I want to congratulate him and his family and his mom. I have a great story. When he won a fight a fight or two ago, I called his house just to congratulate him. His mom answers and says, ``Who is this?'' I said, ``This is Congressman Ryan.'' And she said, ``Yeah, and I'm Queen Elizabeth. Who is this?'' He is a great kid, and I want to congratulate him and his mom and dad and his grandmother and his little baby daughter and Jack Loew, his trainer. Just great people who represent Youngstown, Ohio, and the Mahoning Valley very well.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Seals driveways.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect and tribute to former Rep. Charles Vanik of Ohio, who died Wednesday August 31 at his home in Jupiter, Florida at age 94. Looking back at the career and mission of Representative Vanik, it is an utterly refreshing example of a legislator who didn't let politics get in the way of his goals and vision for his constituents and people all over the world. Many of my colleagues have already mentioned the historic Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Reform Act of 1974. This critical human rights legislation was the mark on the map for Charles Vanik with regards to those outside the state of Ohio, but for us Ohioans, we know Congressman Vanik as a lifelong stalwart for all of those who are socially and economically oppressed. Charles Vanik led a life of complete selflessness. After receiving his law degree he was on the City Council and in the Ohio legislature where he was valued for his consistent effort and achievements. He then joined the Navy during World War II. After his time in the service, Charles Vanik became a municipal judge until 1954 when he first ran for Congress. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee with jurisdiction over tax law, Congressman Vanik was known for his fights against big business tax breaks in the halls and corridors of Congress as he was known for his signature bow ties. Congressman Vanik served honorably and long as a dedicated public servant. Mr. Vanik, who had rarely spent little more than $3,000 for any of his re-election bids, became increasingly discouraged with the changing political world and the need to siphon time and resources away from addressing the concerns of his constituents. He chose not to run for re-election in 1980. Charles Vanik's life and his commitment to principle are truly remarkable. I believe one of the most important things we should learn from the actions and words of Charles Vanik is to constantly hold ourselves to the highest possible standards, no matter what the political environment or what criticism you might face. The United States Congress and the state of Ohio will miss one of its greatest public officials, Congressman Charles Vanik.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and also want to lend my support to this fine piece of legislation. I also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). This is something that many areas of our country need. Those areas that once thrived in the Industrial Age and are trying to recreate their economy need the kind of early capital that this bill is going to put into these small firms. The gentleman from Pennsylvania who was here earlier, Mr. Altmire, and I are trying to create a Technology Belt between Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, and Pittsburgh. We have many early startup companies that need the venture capital that they are going to be able to access, in particular in the New Market Venture Capital Program, which will allow low-income areas to expand the reach for more capital to go in there, also the office of Angel Investment, where we have public-private partnerships so that those early startup companies will have that early capital that they need. Tax cuts for the top 1 percent don't get to these businesses. We need that early capital in order to grow them In Ohio, for example, we have a company in Cleveland called BioEnterprise. Over the past 5 years they have brought in over $500 million in venture capital, 80 percent of it from outside of the State of Ohio. They employ 20,000 people in northeast Ohio. The hardest thing for them to do is to get that early venture capital. That's what this bill does. So I want to thank the gentlewoman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio and also the gentleman from Pennsylvania for putting this together. We are giving life and hope and opportunity to those areas of the country that are trying to retool their economy. This is going to allow us to do this, whether it's medical device technology, any kind of medical technology that may be coming up, advanced manufacturing. These are the kinds of programs that we need. So I want to thank everyone again for putting so much effort into this bill and being so thoughtful. These are the kinds of things that are going to help us create a strong, vibrant economy in the United States and in the industrial Midwest.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rick Diegel. Rick is the Political and Legislative Director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and is retiring at the end of this month. Rick Diegel exemplifies the best in an American worker and advocate for the American worker. He has been an electrician and member of his union for 37 years. After rising to the position of Business Agent for IBEW Local Union 278 in Corpus Christi, Texas, Rick Diegel left his Texas home in 1983 to accept a job with his international office. Over the last 24 years in Washington, DC, Rick has risen to the position of Legislative and Political Director of the IBEW. When discussing a matter before Congress, one got an education from Rick Diegel. You knew you were listening to someone who came, as Rick has often said, ``out of the tools.'' Having worked and gained experience at every level, Rick did not let the issues of Washington, DC affect his vision and mission of helping American laborers. For Rick, the only question was and remains: `Is this good for IBEW members?' And those members are electricians in the construction industry, they are utility workers, railroad workers, telecommunication workers, broadcast and government workers. His easy manner and ready smile could break the tension in any room, but those who know him best never made the mistake of underestimating his passion and his commitment to the matter at hand. He has been on the front line for a very long time and he will be missed. I wish Rick a long and happy retirement.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I also thank our friend, the dean of the delegation, Mr. Regula. I would just add for a minute my thoughts and memories of Mr. Gillmor. I graduated from Bowling Green State University, so I knew of Mr. Gillmor before I even got into politics, because as many of the Members from Ohio know, he is a legend in northwest Ohio, especially in Bowling Green and especially with the Bowling Green Young Republicans. He was very familiar. I remember, as we all do, taking the little trolley back and forth from the office buildings over here, and for some reason our conversations always ended up talking about Ohio State football. Mr. Gillmor loved the Buckeyes. He loved going to the Ohio State football games. I remember being in the State senate seeing him at the Ohio State football games. That is just the kind of guy he was. He loved football, he loved his country, he loved his constituents, he loved this institution, and he certainly will be missed. So from the citizens of the 17th District, we just want to thank Mr. Gillmor for his service and send our condolences and our prayers to his family and his children and his wife, Karen. And also to say, as Mr. Boehner, the minority leader said, he was a gentleman. He was a gentle man. In the midst of all the chaos of Washington, DC, his silence and his gentleness were very refreshing, and he will be missed.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I would just like to make a couple of points. The gentleman from Texas mentioned entitlements. I think it's important for the Members to recall that it was the Republican majority that passed a trillion dollars in spending on the Medicare part D program and had zero, zero ability for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate down drug prices to keep them under control. And my good friend from Ohio made the point about families, this family in his district, a middle-class family. This new Congress raised the minimum wage which will help that middle-class family. This Congress in the Labor-H bill passed an increase of $600 or $700 million in the Pell Grant. They're trying to send their kids to school. That will help. And we cut student loan interest rates in half. So that same family who has to borrow money will have to pay back $4,000 less over the course of the loan. We're helping that family, and I'm glad we can agree on that.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the math analogy and the math equation here. What do you get if you have a weapons of mass destruction directorate program that has 146 positions, and you cut that budget by .5 percent or 3 percent? Well, we won't get into the details, but you get less than 146 positions. That is a cut. What do you get if you cut the Render Safe Mission program that wants to hire nine people, and you cut that by 1 percent? You're going to get less than the nine people. Stop cutting national security.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I just want to go through a little bit of the details here and some of the logic and some of the facts. There's been an increase in crime. There's been an increase in methamphetamine use. So the committee said, as Mr. Obey stated, in reaction to that, we're trying to, we'll do the southwest border and methamphetamine enforcement program, hire eight positions, four full- time equivalents, in order to attack a poly-drug-trafficking organization located along the southwest border by increasing DEA's intelligence gathering, detection monitoring and surveillance capabilities. Most of the methamphetamines coming into our country are made in California or in Mexico, out West, very close to the gentlewoman's district. What this program does is it hires people to try to address this problem, and basically there's been a DEA hiring freeze. We want to increase this. We want to spend money, invest in this program, one, because we will allow the DEA to hire more agents to address this issue that is growing, so you need to grow the agents that are going to address the issue. But, two, this is going to save us money in the long run. When Mr. Obey says the price of everything and the value of nothing, that's what we're talking about. Why wouldn't we want to make this small investment to try to prevent the long-term consequences of these young people with drug treatment, in prison, with insurance claims, this has a long-term ripple effect that will cost us 10 times the amount of money. Finally, the gentlelady said, I hope you don't mean to say that we don't want to address this issue, or this issue isn't important to us. I think it's important to note that the President's budget, when he submitted it to the Congress of the United States, terminated this program. He cut it completely. He zeroed it out. I hope our friends on Capitol Hill will take a walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and let the President understand the kind of importance that this program has and ultimately the amount of money that will save us.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity within the first 100 hours to cut $14 billion from going to the oil companies. We supported it. Our friends on the other side of the aisle rejected that approach; they would rather take it out of security. So I think it is important we go back. My friend from Tennessee said where do we slow the growth. Well, we tried to slow it from going to the oil companies and we tried to slow it from going to corporations who harbor themselves in these far-off distant lands to avoid paying taxes. Our friends choose to take it out of security. Let's look at a couple more of these programs because sometimes the details hurt. Crimes Against Children, which is a program we have, the committee wanted to have an increase of 14 positions to provide a coordinated investigative, operational and intelligence effort to combat crimes against children and to address child abduction, predators who sexually assault children, and child prostitution. There will not be 14 positions to protect our children if this amendment passes. How about this one, weapons of mass destruction directorate. Sounds like a pretty good idea post-9/11, and in a bipartisan way it passed out of committee. Here is what it will do. The committee wants to hire 146 positions, 29 agents, 69 support personnel, to develop the essential baseline capabilities to build a dedicated weapons of mass destruction program designed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the threat of weapons of mass destruction. If this amendment passes, we are going to have less agents trying to find folks who are in our country trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction. How about the Data Intercept and Access program; 41 positions, 6 agents, 35 support to provide the technical expertise, training and necessary equipment to execute lawfully authorized electronic surveillance of data network communications facilities trying to protect us. This bill has some essential components to it. This committee went to great lengths to make sure that they would make the proper investments. This is very well thought out. I think we would be hard-pressed to find any American who would read this and say no, you know what, we should not hire that many agents. We should give that money to the oil companies. I don't think there are many Americans who would say that. One more before I yield back. Render Safe Mission, the RSM program; nine positions, three agents, six support personnel to address the White House directive, the White House directive, giving the FBI the mission to respond to devices involving weapons of mass destruction within the United States and its territories. Within the United States. This is not about Iraq. This is not about Afghanistan. This is about funding nine positions in this one specific field, people who are experts to keep this country safe. I think the more we get into these programs, the more ridiculous some of these amendments seem. The American people would not support a 0.5 percent decrease in these programs, not a 1 percent decrease in these programs, not a 3 percent decrease in these programs. These are essential. When you look at the money, Mr. Chairman, that has been wasted in Iraq on unbid, no-bid contracts, no oversight provided at all, when you look at the $14 billion we tried to get off the oil companies, that makes sense. Get that money. Don't get it on the backs of FBI agents who are going to be operating surveillance operations here in the United States.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is very interesting and we need to continue to point this out: We had a measure within the first 100 hours we were here to cut $14 billion from the oil company subsidies, and my friends on the other side couldn't find the courage to vote for that, but they want to do it on the back of these COPS programs in our local neighborhoods. Ninety billion dollars' worth of tax shelters, they didn't vote for that, but yet they want to cut COPS programs in our local communities. They had the opportunity to stop funding these huge tax cuts and subsidies to the oil companies, refused to do that for fear of alienation, and now they choose to do it on the backs of these programs.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is funny that we got the socialism talking points back out, Mr. Chairman. Dusted them from 1992 and 1993, and now they are back out. But this is exactly right, Mr. Israel. This is about putting agents, cops on the street. This is about national security. This is about protecting our country. Now, I think it is important that we get a little bit into the details on a couple of these programs that the gentlelady's amendment is going to cut and that the previous two amendments were going to cut, too, because I think it is easy for us to say you are going to cut cops and cut the FBI. It doesn't sound like a whole lot. But as the gentleman from New York stated earlier, there has been a decrease in FBI criminal agents by 29 percent from 6,200 to 4,400 agents. So what the committee did, in all its wisdom in a bipartisan way, said we need to hire more people. For what exact programs? Well, why don't we take a look here. National security field investigations is one of the programs that would be cut under this amendment. Now, many of our friends on the other side of the aisle say, what, is the world going to end if we cut this by 0.5 percent? Is the world going to end if we cut this by 1 percent? Is the world going to end if we cut this by 3 percent? Let's look at exactly what you're cutting. Just in this one little program, national security field investigations, the committee wants to hire 245 positions, 150 agents, 95 support personnel to increase the level of field resources dedicated to national security investigations. This amendment will cut agents from being on the street protecting the United States of America. Let's look at another one, surveillance. This committee wants to hire another 50 people, 50 positions under the surveillance program to provide additional resources for the FBI to conduct surveillance in support of priority national security investigations. Do you think this isn't going to affect anything? There are going to be less agents investigating. There are going to be less agents listening to the terrorists who already may be in this country. This amendment will ensure that these agents don't get in the field, they don't get hired, and that they don't listen to what the terrorists are saying and hopefully protecting the United States of America from the next terrorist plot. This is a dangerous amendment that puts this country's security in jeopardy.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It has been said a couple times here today about money in people's pockets. And I would suggest that under the leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans, who have been great, on the Appropriations Committee, we are putting money back in the pockets of average American people. Only half of the people in my congressional district got a tax cut. Only half. And the ones that got it only got a couple hundred dollars. So when you look at the big tax cuts that supposedly went to people who live in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio, that was a couple hundred dollars, and you compare that with what we are doing with the Pell Grants, an increase of $500 or $600, that is going to people in my district. So we are already $400 ahead of the tax cut that the Republicans were so generous to give. When you look at cutting student loan interest rates in half, saving $4,000 over the course of a loan, that is money in the pockets of people who live in most of our congressional districts. And I am thankful for the concern for the American families, but I wish our friends on the other side, at least most of them, were around when we tried to give them a pay raise and increase the minimum wage. They are talking about taking money out of their pockets. We are trying to put money in their pockets. That is what we are trying to do here. And as the gentleman from New York made the point a few minutes ago, we are funding 2,800 cops. We can't pass police and fire levies in my district because the cities just don't have the money, and we don't have the local economy. The Federal Government does have a responsibility to make our streets safer. That is what this bill does. That is what the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee have done. And that is why this amendment needs to go down. This is not the time to start cutting police officers going to our streets to make our communities safer so that we can grow our local economies.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I continue to reserve my right to close.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his fine arguments, and all of the gentlemen and ladies who have made their presentation here tonight. And I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee for the Transportation and HUD bill. This was passed out of committee in a bipartisan way unanimously with Democrats and Republicans. So, again, we come to the floor to have a discussion with a very small group of fringe Members from the other side, Mr. Chairman, so that we can continue to get fiscal responsibility lectures from the Republican Party. Now, getting lectures on fiscal responsibility from the Republican Party is like getting lectures on animal welfare from Michael Vick. It really doesn't have any credibility. It really doesn't have any credibility. So we need to look at what the two different approaches here. And I am not going to be long because we have a lot of votes tonight, and we want to get the Members out of here as soon as possible. There is a difference in philosophy, and the bottom line is this: There are certain things that individual members of our society cannot do. One of them is build a road. Another is build a bridge. And others that we have already had discussions about are going to college and being able to afford college and making sure some families have loans to go to college. And that is what we are here for. That is what we are here for. We are here to do the things that individual citizens cannot do for themselves, and that is what is included in this bill. We have had talks about trillion-dollar train wrecks coming up, and I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona stating the fact that, yes, the party in power over the past 6 years, $3 trillion was borrowed primarily from China, Japan, and OPEC countries. And our friends on the other side had to go to the Treasury Department and ask for the debt limit to be raised so that they could go out and borrow more money. So the lectures have all been given and we've heard them, and we'll probably hear them again later this week and we'll probably hear them again next week. One of the Members mentioned entitlement spending. It was the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman, who passed the largest increase in entitlement spending with the Medicare part D. And you want to talk about fiscal irresponsibility; they passed it without even giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate down the drug prices. That is the platinum standard for fiscal irresponsibility. So we move forward. What would this cut do? What would this 1 percent cut? And as the gentleman from New York stated earlier a few of the programs, I think it's important that the Members know what exactly is going to be cut here. Safety belt performance grants, going to be cut. Occupant protection incentive grants, going to be cut. State traffic safety information system improvement grants, going to be cut. All of the investments in future growth. In aviation, the inspectors, the budget for inspectors in aviation for this country will be cut under this amendment. There will be less inspectors inspecting the maintenance of our airplanes than there would normally be if this amendment doesn't pass. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs. Airport safety grants under this amendment will be cut. There'll be less money for airports. $6.9 billion in this bill for air traffic services. That will be cut. Continue on. Rail, passenger rail grants, those will be cut. Improvement and safety grants, those will be cut. This is the kicker. Housing for the elderly. That will be cut under this amendment. Housing for the elderly will be cut under this amendment. And we don't say that these are going to be cuts just because they're going to be cuts, and we're not saying we're spending money on these programs just to spend money. This is the difference. I think this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple and it sounds good. Why can't we just cut 1 percent across the top of this budget? There's changes going on in the world that make it a little more complex than we would normally think it is. I'll give you some examples. Traveling on our Nation's highways has grown by 94 percent from 1980 to 2005, from 1.5 trillion miles to 3 trillion miles. Of course you're going to need to spend a little bit more money if you have more people on the roads and you have more roads. Now, the congestion has resulted in 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel being burnt. That means $794 per commuter. Now, there's no way a commuter can get the $300 tax cut that they got a few years ago and go out and somehow fix the congestion problem. There's no way to do that. We had this same discussion with brownfields. An individual citizen can't clean up a brownfield. You need the Federal investment. And when you're talking about elderly housing, the elderly population in the United States, Mr. Chairman, is going to grow over the next 25 years by millions and millions and millions of seniors, so it's important that we make these investments. Another program that will be cut is housing for the disabled. 49.7 million Americans live with a disability. Forty-three percent of those are women. Forty percent of men 65 and older have disabilities. If they had the money to pay for it themselves, they would pay for it and we wouldn't need to be here. We're making these bipartisan investments, Republicans and Democrats, on the Appropriations Committee to help move the country forward. And one of the key approaches that we've had when we started this year, under the leadership of Chairman Obey, is to figure out what the world's going to look like in 10 years so that the investments we make today will have our society ready to compete in the global economy 10 years from now, 20 years from now. And the bottom line is, this bill here reflects the values of this country, passed by Democrats and Republicans in the committee. And those 1 percent cuts may not mean a whole lot to me, may not mean a whole lot to the chairman, but if you're an adult with a disability, elderly senior, if you're a disabled citizen of this country, if you use the aviation system. How do you fix the aviation system by yourself? You need to do that together, and that's the investment that we make here. So I appreciate the difference in philosophy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.