Tim Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We thank you. You are marvelous.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And pay for it.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Remember how many years ago when we had the Contract with America, one of the main components of that contract was that we were going to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which meant that the budget in the United States had to be balanced every year. Everything had to be paid for. You either cut spending or you raised taxes, but you pay your bills, and I think there is some confusion at home, the debt is the mounting of yearly deficits, and it just keeps compounding. So the national debt is about $7 trillion I think, close to it. The annual deficit now for next year is projected to be, I think, $500 billion, close to $500 billion. So as you have a growing debt caused by annual deficits, you have to go out and borrow money. As the gentleman from Florida said, the country loaning us the most money, number one, is Japan. Number two is China. We are going to Japan and China to borrow money to pay for these deficits that we have so that we can keep giving these tax cuts to millionaires. It makes no sense. We are becoming more dependent on these other countries because we are borrowing money from them and paying interest. So they take the interest that they make on the money that they loan us, and they invest it in the manufacturing and everything else. So that is a whole other issue that they keep taking our money and investing it in that way, too. If one wants to go to the home page here, it is www.House.gov/George Miller, who is our ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. There is a page on his Web site, Issue No. 14. It is called the debt burden, and it gives a chart that will show how much American families are paying in what we are calling the debt tax. Because we are borrowing so much and having to pay interest, we have got to pay more on taxes to cover our spending habits, or are generating less revenue by giving millionaires tax cuts. So there is a little chart on there, and in the year 2004 the interest per family of four is $4,392. By 2014, we are going to be paying almost $9,000, $8,934. So who is raising the taxes now? The facts are the facts, and it makes sense that if one goes out and one borrows money for a car and has to pay interest on it because it was borrowed, that interest is something that one has to pay out of pocket. What we are trying to say is repeal a portion of that tax cut for millionaires. Increase the child tax credit. Keep the child tax credit. Keep the marriage penalty. Remove it and leave it off for married couples. If one makes under $200,000 or $300,000 a year, none of the benefits that are received under the tax cuts over the last few years would be touched at all. You are safe. You are going to keep it. What we are saying is people who make a million dollars a year or more should pay their fair share, because it is going to benefit the whole society, and that is why we are here, is it not?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The guys with the suits.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think if you ask why there is a lot of frustration here, I think there are a lot of reasons for it. If you look at what was said before the war and you compare that to what is being said now, you will find that nothing of record from what I can tell that was said before the war on our reasons for going has been true. We were told that Saddam Hussein was somehow tied to 9/11. That was not true. We were told that there was an imminent threat from Iraq to the United States and the possibility of a mushroom cloud in Cincinnati is a real threat. That was not true. They had weapons of mass destruction. That was not true. That we would be able to use the oil in Iraq to generate revenue and we would not have to pay for the war because we would just use the oil and sell it and then that would pay the United States back. That has not been true. We are up to $200 billion that we have spent. Then comes the issue of Halliburton. Was the Vice President, who had strong, strong ties, an officer in the company, did he have anything to do with Halliburton getting an unbid contract? Right, wrong or indifferent. Some may even say, Hey, that is politics. He is the Vice President. He used to work there. Let his former company do it. There aren't a whole lot of companies that do it. The problem is that for months and months and months the Vice President denied, and his office denied, knowing anything or having anything to do with the contract. We find out last week that Scooter Libby, who is the chief of staff of the Vice President, in essence okayed the contract, knew about the contract, was familiar with the contract, okayed the contract. Why would you lie about that for 6, 8 months when people were trying to figure it out? Then we were told that this Abu Ghraib was just an isolated incident. We find out later that the Secretary of Defense approved of hiding a prisoner from the Red Cross. That seems pretty systemic of a problem to me. So when we are up here questioning what is going on here, it is not like we do not have any reason to do so. I think we have ample evidence. As I said earlier, I think we have a constitutional obligation to do it. A member of my staff has been saying this, Ryan Keating, no one likes to be the bad parent. No one likes to be the one who comes in and says, You know what, you're grounded. You're not doing this right, to be the enforcer. It would be nice to always be nice but someone has got to question what is going on here because we are losing lives, we are losing people because of these misjudgments. And then this Chalabi who gave us all this information on how great the war was going to be, and that was another one, we were going to be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. We are 800 dead later, most of that happening after we have toppled Saddam and the statue was pulled down. Now everyone is saying that this Chalabi, well, we never really worked with him. We knew him, we talked to him, but we get advice from everybody. He was sitting up in the Chamber when the President gave his State of the Union address, right behind Mrs. Bush. I do not like to be the bad parent. I do not have kids. I am not a parent in any sense. But I think the point is well taken that somebody has to say, what is going wrong here, and I think there is a growing frustration among the American people. It is not just Democrats. It is not just Democrats. It is the frustration that I think you see when we see the President's hometown newspaper editorializing against him I think is a pretty good sign that people better start shooting straight. The problem is you cannot put the bullet back in the gun. The bullet is out of gun. We have got to make the best of a bad situation and work with our soldiers to make sure that we do not lose any more of them while they are over there.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think today, with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), there is a lot more class in this Chamber with her here as opposed to just the gentleman from Florida and me.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we talk about and put ourselves in the shoes of these veterans who are going to be coming back, and one of the issues that they are going to be dealing with is their veterans benefits, which the gentlewoman has talked about. Secretary Principi is saying they need another $1.5 billion. The House budget, both Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, on the committee have agreed that we need another 2.5 or $3 billion more for the veterans to meet their needs. And I think it is important to understand that what we hear from the administration is that we have increased funding for veterans, the Veterans Administration by ex-fold or whatever the percentage points they want to cite, and that is great; but the problem is we have thousands and thousands more veterans accessing the system, so although we are putting more money into it, it is not addressing the demand of the people going into the system. I know in northeast Ohio we have a large concentration of veterans. I think I have 73,000 veterans in my district out of a 700,000-person district; that is almost a sixth of who we represent, and the reason is, the steel mills close down, you lose your pension, you lose your health care, you do not have anywhere to turn, you never utilized the VA system, but because of the drastic downturn in the economy and the weeding out of manufacturing, you are having a lot of these people enter the system. So the gentlewoman's point is very well taken, and I think it is something that needs to be addressed and it is an issue that, again, it is easy for us to say here, but these veterans save this capitalistic system. These veterans save the democratic system. And there would be no one generating wealth, there would not be CEOs making however many times, 300 times as much as the average worker if the system was not saved by these heroic veterans. So I think it is important for us to know that this system that we have that is generating all this wealth would not exist if it were not for the veterans. So I think we have some obligation some responsibility to make sure that we provide them with the health care, the benefits, and everything else that they need. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think so.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we want to include our good friend, the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), from the good old Buckeye State, but before I yield to her, I want to say that obviously we do not have enough troops in Afghanistan. So here we are in Iraq doing what we are doing with 130,000 troops, we only have between 10,000 and 15,000, I do not know the exact number, I think it is about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan right now. Now, just imagine if we took some of the money that we are spending in Iraq and we used it for homeland security and we took some of the money and some of the troops that we are using there and we had them in Afghanistan, Afghanistan has natural resources we could be developing, the water infrastructure we could be developing in Afghanistan, and setting up an Arab democracy. Is that not what we want to do? Was that not the goal after hearing about weapons of mass destruction, hearing that al Qaeda is tied to Iraq, and Iraq is tied to 9/11 and they have weapons pointed at us, there is an imminent threat and all of this other nonsense that we heard before the war. But then the story eventually changed, and there is always that undercurrent of: we need an Arab democracy in the Middle East for stability purposes. Why did we not do that in Afghanistan? We have many, many other points to make here, but I would like to begin to include our good friend here from Cleveland, Ohio into the discussion, and I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman, who is my surrogate mother here in the United States Congress.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, as the gentlewoman brought up, this is the latest with the Red Cross, that we first said that this was just an isolated incident. This is just a few wild folks we have working with us and it is an isolated incident. Now we find out that the Secretary of Defense is the one saying pull him aside over here and put him back here and do not put a number on him. It is the same with the Halliburton contract. Vice President Cheney for months and months said, I do not have anything to do with it. My office does not have anything to do with this Halliburton contract. Well, we find out earlier this week, it has been a long week, earlier this week that Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States, okayed the contract to Halliburton. It went right through his office. You cannot tell me that the Vice President did not know anything about it. So when you keep looking, we see the subversion of the Geneva Convention. All of a sudden in the United States of America, we have lawyers saying, well, Mr. President, you do not have to follow the Geneva Convention. Why would you want to follow the Geneva Convention? Some people out there are saying, yes, we would like to get these guys and treat them maybe the way they deserve to be treated. But when we look at what has happened today with the beheading and the murder that happened today in Saudi Arabia, where is the moral high ground in the United States? Where do we come out, and what can we possibly say? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to repeat that, because that is a very important point and we need to share this with the American people. Reiterate that point, about the man doing the investigation.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So the gentleman is saying that if there was a 3- star or a 4-star or any officer above a 2-star, General Taguba could not investigate?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is the way the military runs. You cannot have someone low on the chain of command investigating Jack Nicholson, the top dog.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As I begin to wrap up here, I want to make a final statement that maybe next week, to the gentleman from Florida, I have about 6 pages here that a member of my staff put together for me, Dean Thomas who does my military work, that has about 6 pages' worth of claims by the administration, President, Vice President, different Secretaries; and then it has the facts. Let me suggest that maybe next week the gentleman and I come down here, whether it is with our 30-something hour or maybe another Special Order, and we go through these because it is astonishing to me that in the United States of America we can have a commission put together, a bipartisan commission, the likes of Lee Hamilton and Senator Kerry and the distinguished group that we have with the 9/11 Commission, and the commission issues a report and the report says what we have known for many, many months, and that is that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, two separate entities that did not want to work together. And to have the administration just come out and just keep repeating the fact that they have a connection is a slap in the face to the American people. And that is not the only claim. We talked about the Halliburton claim that was denied and found out to be true. We found out the claim, it was only a couple of soldiers; now we found out it is more of a systemic problem. The American people need to know what the facts are, and just because the administration wants to keep repeating what they want the world to be like and what they want the situation to be like, as opposed to what the truth is; and hopefully next week and over the course of the next few weeks and the next few months we can really try to shape the debate here and move the ship back to the truth. Because I get very, very frightened when the majority of the American people think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and Iraq has connections, direct connection, military connections and terrorist connections with al Qaeda, when everyone is saying it is not true, when the experts are saying it is not true, when the CIA is saying it is not true, when the 9/11 Commission says it is not true. And the administration keeps repeating it just to muck up the waters, just to make it unclear, just because people are working two or three jobs and they are worried about getting their kid a pair of tennis shoes and some health care, and they do not have time to pay attention. So, hopefully, over the course of the next few months, the gentleman and I and maybe other Members of this Chamber, we can try to establish what the truth is and what the facts are and let the American people make the kind of decision that they want to make it, and they can make it at least in an informed way.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend my sympathies to the family of the prisoner on behalf of myself and my family and the citizens of the 17th Congressional District in Ohio, and really all Americans. We are reminded, unfortunately, daily about the struggles that we do have here and how real they are, and when you see the kind of torture and the kind of treatment and the kind of abuse and the murdering that go on every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan and, unfortunately, now in Saudi Arabia and many other countries, I think we are all beginning to question more and more and I think at deeper and deeper levels about the policy of our government and its effect on the credibility of this country. I think ultimately we come to this House floor with a certain amount of humility. President Reagan had his peace through strength, and I think it is easy for the bully to go around and kick people around, and we have had to do that on a number of occasions. We needed to do that in Afghanistan, and we did it in Iraq to a certain extent; but we have now gotten ourselves bogged down in a situation that I believe is making the American people less safe than they were before we went to war in Iraq. I just want to share some thoughts. We are wrapping this congressional session up here for the week. We are on our way to catch some planes back home. But we wanted to come down here and share some of our thoughts, because there is this growing amount of frustration among many of us, not only those of us who sit on the Committee on Armed Services, those of us who have consistently backed the troops with the defense appropriations bills that I voted for and the gentleman voted for. No one can come to you orally and say you are not supportive of the troops. We put the money where our mouth is, and we are saying we support the troops, and we voted for the defense appropriations. We worked it through committee; we made sure there were the proper modifications after the war already began. But the question we have here is really of two different strategies. The one strategy was take the $200 billion that you are going to spend in Iraq, and take that money and not only invest it in the United States, but use it like we passed today the Homeland Security bill, use more of that money to secure our ports, to make sure people are looking through the cargo that is coming into the country. One or two out of 50 ships that actually come into the ports actually get checked. If you ask the American people, would you rather spend $200 billion in Iraq or would you rather spend that money looking through and hiring people to work at our cargo ports, I think the decision is clear. We put ourselves in this predicament that it is going to be very, very difficult for us to get out of. I am not saying we should cut and run. We have to do the best we can there. Another point that I want to make is that we had the opportunity. If we wanted to set up an Arab democracy in the Middle East, we could have done it with Afghanistan. Talk about a tragedy, is what we have done in Afghanistan. We went in there, and now we only have 10,000 to 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, when in fact we have 130,000-some in Iraq. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan; the Taliban that was the home of al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. That is where we needed to be. If you wanted to set up an Arab democracy, we had the opportunity to do that in Afghanistan. As we learned a couple weeks ago in committee with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, when we began to talk about the drug production in Afghanistan, which is the funding mechanism for al Qaeda, billions of dollars in heroin is grown in Afghanistan, is sold, the money goes to al Qaeda and these different terrorist organizations, and they use that money to fund terrorist attacks all around the world. So we need to go to the heart of it. We need to cut out their financing. We did that through the special organizations and the nonprofits, and a lot of these that people had here in the United States, but we also needed to go into Afghanistan and we needed to rid them of the poppy and get rid of it. And the answer we got from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when I asked him directly what are we doing about drug sales, drug production in Afghanistan, because it seems like at least at this point that is the only crop that they can grow, and the answer was stunning. I think the American people need to know this. The answer was: they harvested the crop early this year, and so we did not have the opportunity to stop them. Let me repeat that. The answer from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the policy of the United States in response to a question by a Member of Congress as to what are we doing about getting rid of the drugs in Afghanistan, the answer is: they harvested the crop early.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Then when we get this information through the newspapers or through some other entity where we can get it, and then when we get the information and we try to share the information, people were questioning, why are we doing this? And I think the short answer is with the war and all the preliminaries of the war, with the weapons of mass destruction, and the ties to 9/11 and greeted as liberators and we do not need 200,000 troops, we are going to use the oil as revenue to fund the war, all of these things that have been said and now denial of Halliburton, and then saying it is an isolated incident when in fact it seems like more of a systemic problem that we have, detaining prisoners and keeping them away from the Red Cross. Why are we bringing this up? Because it is wrong. That is wrong. It is not right that you do that. The way we got into the predicament right now, I just could not disagree more with how this all transpired. And if the original reason was you wanted to go to the Middle East to set up an Arab democracy, tell the American people that and let them answer yes or no with their support for or against it. But do not give us all those reasons that there is going to be a mushroom cloud in Cincinnati when we have a dictator that is writing romance novels, boxed in in the fly zone and the sanctions were working. So do not mislead the American public with this. This is wrong, and we have to say it is wrong. We have to call a spade a spade here. Hopefully, over the hours of the next few weeks and months, we can be able to do that.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Send us an e-mail if you would like, to 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov. We would love to hear any personal stories or opinions on the topics we discussed, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for all his leadership.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 62. I support this resolution which honors Katherine Dunham. This renowned dancer was born in Illinois in 1909 and started studying dance in her early teens. She was one of the first African Americans to study at the University of Chicago, where she earned a doctorate degree in anthropology. As part of a research fellowship, Dunham studied the anthropological roots of dance in the Caribbean. Her research led to the creation of the anthropological dance movement which focuses on folk, ethnic and cultural choreography. In 1931, she started the first African-American ballet company in the United States. Later she joined the faculty of Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, where she helped create a performing arts training center and established a dance anthropology program. She went on to create a community-based arts education program for impoverished young people in East St. Louis, the St. Louis metropolitan region's only multi-disciplinary arts organization devoted to the study, appreciation and celebration of diverse cultures. Throughout her illustrious career as one of the word's most respected dancers, choreographers and teachers, Ms. Dunham used her talents, fame and resources to call attention to social injustices at home and abroad. In closing, Madam Speaker, Katherine was dedicated to improving the lives of America's youth and correcting the social injustices at home and around the world, using her fame to increase support for the civil rights movement and to fight injustices worldwide. She is a good example of a person who has followed her passion and used her success for the greater good. We need more Americans to follow her fine example. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume in order to support this resolution which honors Lionel Hampton. This talented musician was born in Kentucky in 1908 and was raised in Chicago. He learned to play the drums while in school and later moved to Los Angeles to pursue a career in music. He is most famous for his work with the vibraphone, earning himself the nickname ``the king of vibes.'' In 1930, he joined the Benny Goodman Quartet, making them the first racially integrated group of jazz musicians. He also established the Lionel Hampton Orchestra. Sunny Side of the Street, Central Avenue Breakdown, his signature tune, Flying Home and Hamp's Boogie-Woogie all became top-of-the-chart best sellers. Hampton visited many different countries as a goodwill ambassador for then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He created the Lionel Hampton Development Corporation in order to build low-income housing in the cities. Hampton also worked with the University of Idaho to preserve and teach the history of jazz music to future generations. He died on August 31, 2002. In closing, it is fitting for Congress to honor Mr. Hampton's contributions to American music, to expanding low-income housing in our Nation's cities and for his work as a goodwill ambassador.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to rise in appreciation of fathers and in full support of Father's Day. Many people believe that Father's Day was started by greeting card companies to create another reason for people to buy greeting cards, but that is not so. The origination of Father's Day is generally credited to Mrs. John B. Dodd of Washington State. Mrs. Dodd wanted to honor her father, William Smart. Mr. Smart was a Civil War veteran whose wife, Mrs. Dodd's mother, died in childbirth with their sixth child. Mr. Smart never remarried and raised all six children by himself. Beginning in 1919, Father's Day was celebrated unofficially on June 19, which was close to Mr. Smart's birthday. It was not until 1966 that Father's Day became an official American celebration when President Johnson signed a Presidential proclamation declaring the third Sunday in June Father's Day. I am happy to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to honor the many, many wonderful fathers who have given children their time, knowledge and strength, and most of all their love; and I would like to take this opportunity to also thank and show great gratitude for the grandfathers who have in many of our lives, mine in particular, played a tremendous role and in many instances step in for the father who is not there. There is something special about the grandfather because they are passing down from many generations, which is very enriching, I think, for many young people in our society today. And coming from a generation where there has been much divorce and many fathers who have not been around, I think this is a very appropriate resolution, and I am happy to show our appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think it is important that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) shared with us exactly why we are having all these problems. I think people sitting at home would be thinking to themselves why in God's name would our country be giving tax credits to companies who would outsource jobs? And the answer, as the gentleman so eloquently gave us, is that these people who are making the profits from outsourcing jobs are the same people that are donating millions of dollars to Members of this body, that are donating millions of dollars especially to the Presidential campaign, and that is probably the fundamental problem that we have in this country right now. Our government and our laws are being dictated to everyone else by the big-money people, and they control this institution. And I think the best example that we have had, at least since I have been here, is why would we not allow prescription drugs to come down from Canada. It seems it would make sense. But then we realize, as I was reading his op-ed here that he wrote here in the New York Times, we realize that political contributions from the drug industry to Republicans in this body is $22 million, 74 percent of the total of the money that they raised. The Democrats raised $7 million, only 25 percent. Still a lot of money. But it is clear that if they are raising $22 million, 74 percent of their total amount of money that they are raising, that they would be advocating on behalf of those major corporations and they would be saying we do not want to free trade with Canada. And the same thing with not allowing them to negotiate down drug prices. Why would we not use the buying power of millions of people to sit down with Pfizer, say to Pfizer, we are going to make a deal here. They want access to these millions of people, they have got to sit down and talk to us and negotiate a fair price. So I think it is very important and probably the best point that we could make as we speak to the American people here tonight, because they would ask why are we doing this, and the reason is there is too much money in this game and the average person has a microphone and the people who have a lot of money have a big bull horn, and they seem to get everything done. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) talked about outsourcing of jobs, free trade, competing on a global economy, our workers trying to compete with workers who make $5 a day or 50 cents an hour in a lot of these other countries. The promise to the American people always was this: we are going to trade, we are going to compete in an international economy, in a global economy; but we are always going to invest in our own people. We are going to invest in our own children. We are going to invest in our college students. We are going to make college accessible, affordable so that we can get the high-end jobs. Now we are still losing the high-end jobs; we are losing a lot of them to India. If we would have fulfilled the promise that this government made many years ago and one has a computer-programming degree or a high-tech degree of some sort, most of those jobs are now leaving in the millions in the next few years to India where they are paying people with bachelor's degrees in engineering not even $5 an hour, and we know the kind of money that they make here. So not only are we losing the high-end jobs; now we are no longer even investing in education. And I just want to share a few statistics with the people who are listening. Student debt is up 66 percent since 1997. Funding for higher ed in Ohio was slashed by over $18.5 million in 2002, 2003. In-state tuition at places like University of Cincinnati, Kent State University, University of Akron, Youngstown State, the tuition costs have been raised by 10 to 15 percent since basically the late 1990s, and the burden is being placed on the students who are trying to get ahead. So it is up 66 percent. I think the most atrocious statistic that we can have is, because of these increases, in the fall of 2003, an estimated 250,000 students, college qualified, could not afford to either go to college or continue to go to college. They were completely shut out because of the increase in tuition, the lack of buying power for the Pell grants. So how can we on the one hand say that we want to trade, we want to participate in the global economy, we have the right to lift everybody else up and share some of the wealth of our own country, and then at the same time not invest in our own people? That has clearly been the policy of this administration, it has clearly been the policy of this Congress. Since 1994, the Republicans have controlled this Chamber, they have had the presidency for the last 3\1/2\ years, and they have done nothing. President Bush promised in his election that he was going to increase investments in the Pell Grants for the first year and then graduate it up. It did not happen. College loans today are costing kids more, and the policies that this Congress wants to adopt will cost them even more money in the long run. So something actually needs to be done. Since 2001, which is another interesting statistic, tuition and fees have increased by almost 30 percent in 49 of the 50 States. When we are talking about Ohio and talking about trying to create jobs in Ohio, you cannot overlook the fact that we have not, whether it was in this Congress or in the General Assembly in Ohio, we have not made sufficient investments into the young people who are going to create the new economy. Really, as we are losing these jobs, it is also important to note that we do not know what the new economy is going to be. Many of us are advocating for alternative energy sources, investments in high speed rail and a variety of other issues that I think we need to advance on, but those are just our ideas. The private sector will ultimately create what the new economy is to be. But the government's role has been and should continue to be investment in the colleges, investment in the young students, and let those bright, intelligent, creative minds create the new economy we are going to have. One last statistic that I want to share, and that is the No Child Left Behind, because we have talked a little bit about college but have not talked about K through 12. No Child Left Behind was put in place to move the bottom 25 percent of the students, bottom in regards to test scores and achievement, move them across the finish line, with investments into after-school programs, good idea; investments in the summer programs, good idea; investments into one-on-one tutoring, if necessary. The philosophy was we are going to pull these kids across the finish line so that they can have a successful life. If they have the one-on- one tutoring, if we make the investment after school, if we make the investment during the summertime and help these kids along with intensive training, that they will be able to succeed and become proficient. So that was the Federal mandate on the States, that was the Federal mandate on the local school districts. But, lo and behold, we prioritized and we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. Half the people in my congressional district did not get one dollar from the tax cut. So this nonsense that was being spewed out on the other side earlier tonight that everyone is benefiting from this tax cut did not hit home in Youngstown, Ohio, in Warren, Ohio, and in Akron, Ohio. It did not show up. Fifty percent of the people in my congressional district did not get one dollar back from the tax cut. So we have all these Federal mandates underfunded. No Child Left Behind just in Ohio is underfunded by $1.4 billion just this year, $1.4 billion. That is going to go to the State to have to comply, and that is going to go down to the local school district. If you are sitting in Ohio and do not think these mandates are going to cause your local school district to have to go and try to pass another property tax increase, you are missing the boat. So what we are trying to say here is the Federal Government has a responsibility to invest, whether it is No Child Left Behind, college access or anything else, into our young kids and students so they will be able to compete. We have missed the boat. We have not fulfilled our obligation, we have not fulfilled our responsibility, because, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has said, we had to give these tax cuts.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, I read that same series of articles. There was a quote in there by one of the gentlemen, and I cannot think of his name, who worked at either the food pantry or helped run the Second Harvest, and he said the lines were depression- like. Those were his words, depression-like. So to sit here and say the economy is going just fine, just humming along, that these tax cuts have worked, and we have people, in the same article they said the increase from 2002 to 2003 was I think 17 percent increase in people using the food pantry, and then last year was 19 percent on top of the 17 percent, they have the audacity to come down here and say things are getting better.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as sad as it is, I just want to say how this has just followed a very consistent pattern that this administration has taken with regard to the facts. And most recent, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) already brought it up tonight, was with the Vice President's office regarding Halliburton. We do not have anything to do with their contract, they said. My office had nothing to do with it, the Vice President says. I do not even know what you are talking about, the Vice President says. Well, it is in the New York Times today. Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, approved the contract, okayed it, with Halliburton. State Department, terrorism is down. Well, another analysis comes out. Terrorism is up. They were wrong. Colin Powell apologizing again after the U.N. fiasco. Weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction. Greeted as liberators. Greeted as conquerors. They are going to love us. They hate us. We need 200,000 troops. No, we do not. You are fired. We only need 130 and now we do not have enough. Consistent pattern, whether it has been foreign policy or domestic policy, this administration at least, if we can give them some kudos but they have been consistent, but consistently wrong and have been consistently harming people.