Tim Ryan

I think we have to have some real understanding of what we are doing here. And is this really what we want to do, given the risks that we see facing us around the world?

When we are already in a fragile economy with a 9-percent unemployment rate, they are talking about job losses of a million and a half, which would increase that unemployment rate up over 10 percent.

In order to avoid these large cuts and the resulting job losses, we're going to have to stop repeating ideological talking points and address our budget problems comprehensively.

Sequestration would have a similar impact on American workers in cutting other non-entitlement spending.

If we are serious about not cutting large amounts of funding from the defense budget, something else has to give.

In order to avoid drastic job losses caused by cuts to our military and other important programs, revenue must be on the table.

It is also important that we address the revenue side of our budget problem. We must consider raising additional revenue.

What is this doctrine that justifies a massive ground presence in Afghanistan? How do we measure success in that theater in particular?

I have been incredibly encouraged, more so than any HASC hearing I have attended thus far during my first term here because you discussed, in a very direct way, the need to assess risk, to accept risk, to articulate precisely which risks…

It is critical that we have this money that we are spending, the billions of dollars invested back into our country.

Large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget, which would occur under sequestration, would do serious damage to our national security.

I believe that we can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current mission sets we ask the military to undertake and come up with a strategy that requires less funding.

What is this Administration's economic strategy for Afghanistan, which, under the law, it was required to present to this Congress before you were sworn in back in June. We are still waiting on it.

Large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget, which would occur under sequestration, would do serious damage to our national security.

In order to avoid drastic cuts to our military and other important programs, revenue streams must be enhanced.

We can, I believe, spend smarter and not just more.

If the 'super committee' fails to reach a deal, then cuts through sequestration will only impose deeper and more dangerous cuts to our military and non-entitlement spending.

Large, immediate cuts to the defense budget would have substantially negative impacts on the ability of the U.S. military to carry out its missions.

We need a strategic review of the Department of Defense.

We have to consider the rest of the budget.

One final point. The debt that we now are debating was run up by our friends on the other side--two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and a prescription drug plan all on the credit card. And now the same people who've worked their way up in the…

I thank the gentlelady. I would also like to thank Representative Fudge and the Congressional Black Caucus. This issue of voter identification and voter suppression goes to the heart of our Constitution in this country. Eleven percent of…

It is clearly currency manipulation. Here is the deal: Chevron, $19 million refunded from the IRS last year. They made $10 billion. Valero Energy, 25th largest company in America, $68 billion in sales last year; they got a $157 million tax…

We had a group in Cleveland, Ohio, do a study a few years back that, if you added in that cost, the 17 percent of our military budget that protects the oil lines, supply lines for oil all over the world, the actual cost of a gallon of gas…

It's interesting. My district, the Youngstown- Warren metropolitan district, was the fastest growing in job development in the last month or two.