Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, almost immediately. They finally were able to wring out a number of votes. And the reason it was so difficult to pass this bill is because it was not a bill that was written for the seniors; it was a bill that benefits the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. If I can just take another moment before I yield back to my friend, there are two really terrible parts of this bill, and the first part the gentleman mentioned earlier. It explicitly forbids the Secretary of HHS from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to get cheaper drugs for our seniors. The Veterans Administration gets discounts for the veterans of this country. They are able to save between 40 up to 60 percent on the drugs, and yet this legislation specifically prohibits that. Why would that be? There is only one reason, and that is because the pharmaceutical companies insisted that language be in this bill. The second really terrible part of this bill, and it has been referred to earlier, it specifically prohibits the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada unless the Secretary gives his approval, and he said he is not going to do that. So what do we have here? We have a discount card that provides a level of discount that does not even in most cases match the increase that has occurred over the last few months. Seniors know what is going on. I go to senior groups in my district. And I explain to them the specific provisions of this legislation. When I talk to them about the big donut hole, the gap in coverage, when I explain to them that there is an assets test for an individual like $6,000, even a person's burial plot is included in the assets test, they audibly gasp and they gasp because they find it difficult to believe that their government, this President and the leadership of this House of Representatives, would do this. But it is the truth. My friends on the other side of the aisle may not want to hear it, but American seniors need to hear it because it directly affects their lives.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman shares these numbers, and I see the very significant savings that would be available to seniors if we were able to negotiate these discounts for them under Medicare, and when I see the great savings that are available to the people who live in Canada, I feel real anger because I really do not believe there is any way to justify what is happening here other than the fact that the pharmaceutical industry owns this Chamber and the administration is doing everything they can to protect them. Can the gentleman think of another explanation of why it would not be possible to have these drugs sold at these reduced rates for our seniors? If the veterans can get these prices and if the Canadians can get these prices, how can we justify a senior citizen having to pay two or three times as much as someone who lives in Canada? It just is one of those things that when I talk to my constituents and they bring up the subject, I do not have an answer for them because it is irrational. There is no rational explanation as to why this government should not protect our seniors and allow this discrimination, this unfairness in terms of pricing to continue month after month, year after year. I really do believe that the leadership of this House, my colleagues on the other side and the President of the United States, have to answer this question to America's seniors: Why are you allowing this price discrimination to continue? The only reason that I can think of is because the pharmaceutical companies are asking them to or demanding them to, which is not right.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I want to thank the gentleman for reminding me and all of us of that fact. I talk to people frequently in my district who suffer from various kinds of arthritis, osteoporosis and other kinds of chronic illnesses and diseases, and some of them are unemployed. We have lost a lot of jobs in Ohio, especially a lot of manufacturing jobs, jobs that at one time provided good health coverage for the worker and the worker's family. Many of those jobs are now gone. So these folks, who are maybe 45, 55, 60 years old, they do not even qualify for Medicare yet, and they are out of a job and have lost their health care and need these medicines. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing that reality to this debate tonight, because there are people who are not seniors who are terribly, terribly in need of help with their medications.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And, if the gentleman will yield, you do not have to pay $35 for the card.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I sometimes wonder if the leadership of this House and the President of the United States understand the pain that is being felt by people throughout this country. I can only speak for my State and my district, but Ohio is part of the heartland of this country. It is a State that I think is a microcosm of the larger Nation. We have got large cities such as Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Akron, Cincinnati and Youngstown. We have the urban areas. We have large agricultural operations. We have got a huge part of Appalachia that is contained in Ohio in small towns. What I am trying to say is, I really do believe that, because of the State and the district that I represent, that I have an understanding of the kind of pain and struggle that people are encountering today. With regard to the loss of living-wage jobs, many of the jobs being created to replace the manufacturing jobs pay 35 percent or less than the jobs that have been lost, and these new jobs oftentimes do not provide the kind of health care coverage. So there is a lot of pain throughout this country, and I just sometimes think that the President, coming from a privileged background as he did, and I do not fault him for that, but sometimes I wonder if he actually knows what life is like for someone who has an income of $13,000 or $15,000 or $16,000 a year and is trying to pay bills and raise kids and especially if they do have medical problems. It is a huge, huge issue. One of the reasons that I most opposed this bill that passed here in the House in the middle of the night was I see it doing nothing to really bring down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. The way to bring down the cost is to increase the competition, and you increase the competition by allowing less costly drugs to be imported from Canada. That would bring down the prices overnight. Another way to bring down the cost is to have Medicare be able to negotiate for the senior population. If Medicare had a prescription drug program that was part of the traditional Medicare operation, Medicare would be the largest buyer of prescription drugs probably in the entire world, so Medicare would be able to negotiate and bring down the price of these drugs. But I see nothing in this bill, which has been passed here in the middle of the night after a lot of arm twisting, I see nothing in this bill that actually deals with what I think is the core problem, and the core problem is the cost of the drugs and the fact that they escalate 17 to 27 percent in a year's time. So you give someone a 10 percent discount, and if the drugs have gone up 17 to 27 percent, what have you accomplished? It seems to me like we are playing games here. Why do we not just say that Medicare works? Seniors trust Medicare. They know they have hospital coverage through part A, they have physician coverage through part B. Medicare part C is for the managed care portion. Why do we not just add Medicare part D and make that a prescription drug benefit and allow the Secretary to negotiate discounts for all of the seniors? That could bring down prices immediately, and it would be easy to administer. Seniors could understand how to access the benefit. We have created a huge bureaucracy here. My colleagues were talking earlier about the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new people that Secretary Thompson has had to hire just to answer the phones to try to get people a timely response.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman would yield further, I keep referring to my friends on the other side of the aisle and the fact is I do think this is an honest debate and there are honest differences, but why would we have to spend tax dollars to try to convince seniors this is a good thing if in fact it is a good thing? The General Accounting Office, as the gentleman pointed out, is the arm of the Congress that actually oversees the expenditure of tax dollars to make sure that they are spent properly and in accordance with the law. And it is true they have said, wait a minute, this is probably an illegal expenditure of funds because it was not informational in nature, it was an attempt to convince seniors that this was a good deal when in fact many of us are convinced that it is not a good deal for seniors. I have had seniors say to me, Congressman, what should I do about this card? What card should I choose? I have said to them, go talk to your local pharmacist, because I do think your local pharmacist may be in the best position to really advise you. But many of my local pharmacists are very upset with this. They know it is not a good deal. As I think about this, something else just came to mind that I think the American people need to know. Many already know, but some may not have heard. When this bill was first presented to us by the President, many conservatives on the Republican side of the aisle were terribly concerned that it was going to cost too much; and they in fact apparently drew a line in the sand and said, if it costs more than $400 billion, we simply will not support it. So the President said, it will not cost more than $400 billion. Then, after the bill passes, we find out that the chief actuary at the Department of Health and Human Services had actually determined that it was not going to cost $400 billion, but it was more likely to cost I think about $551 billion, and he indicates that he was basically told if you inform the Congress of the true cost, you lose your job. Those kinds of actions are indefensible. I think they are shameless.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield further, it was important for those of us who were faced with casting a vote to have that information but equally important that the American people deserved to know. It is their money that is being spent. If we get to the point where we have an administration that purposefully works to keep information away from the people, then I think that is quite serious. I hope this investigation continues, and I hope whoever is responsible is held accountable. Because one of the terrible things that can grow out of a situation like this I think is people come to distrust what they hear from their government, and if this is allowed to happen without being investigated and fully exposed, and those responsible punished for such misbehavior, then I just think it does great damage to our governmental processes.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman would yield further, I would like to point out to my friends that, to my knowledge, the FDA has not identified a single death that has occurred as a result of a senior or an American taking one of these drugs imported from Canada. Not a single case. Now, we have had several deaths occur as a result of onions being imported from Mexico, and I do not see any attempt to block the importation of food into this country from Mexico and other countries. It is crystal clear to me as to why this is happening. The pharmaceutical companies know that if Americans can get these drugs from Canada, pay less for them, that their profitability will be affected. I mean, it is as simple as that. So here we have citizens in Belgium and France and Germany and England and Italy and wherever, Canada, buying drugs and paying less for them than citizens in the good old United States of America; and the pharmaceutical companies say, wait a minute. If you do anything that is going to interfere with our profits, then we will not be able to put adequate resources into research, and we will not be able to bring new and better drugs on stream. And I say bull feathers, quite frankly, for a couple of reasons. Much of the research that is used by the pharmaceutical industry to develop these new and better drugs is research that is paid for already by the American taxpayer through the NIH and other agencies of the Federal Government. So the pharmaceutical companies benefit from that taxpayer-funded research, and then they get very generous tax benefits for the research they do. So here we have a situation where the American taxpayer is paying for much of the research, the American taxpayer is providing certain very generous tax benefits to pharmaceutical companies for the research they do, and the American taxpayer is paying two or three times as much for the drugs that those companies produce, as do citizens in nearly any other country on the face of this Earth. It is gross discrimination against the American consumer. We are, in fact, as American consumers, subsidizing the pharmaceutical companies, and we are subsidizing the cost of drugs for citizens in all of these other countries. That is really a shameful set of circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I just wish I could have the President to take him to Belpre, Ohio, or down in Lawrence County or Marietta or up in Youngstown, throughout my district, to sit down with seniors and have him try to explain to them why this is a fair system. How can it be fair when our citizens are paying the cost, much of the cost that goes into producing these drugs and, at the same time, paying more for them when they go to buy them to use them. It just does not make sense.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my friend on the other side earlier, and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health indicated that those of us who oppose this bill wanted to do nothing. Well, that is so far from the truth. We had an alternative; we just were not allowed to present it. Our alternative would have provided a prescription drug benefit that was a part of traditional Medicare, easily administered, easily understood, a program that seniors could trust just as they trust Medicare today; and it would have happened, but for the other side who just are so into privatization and, quite frankly, many of them do not believe in Medicare and consider it socialized medicine. It has even been referred to by some Members on the other side as a Soviet-style health care system. Well, I think most seniors in this country feel pretty comfortable with it, confident in it. They think it is a good program, and there is just simply no reason why we could not add a prescription drug benefit. One of my fears regarding what has happened here is that I do believe that this is an attempt on the part of the Republican Party to begin the full privatization of Medicare, so that in the years to come, Medicare will no longer be a guaranteed benefit with a guaranteed premium, but seniors will be forced to face the private sector and all that that involves. I think this is a very clear-cut choice. I do believe that this is going to be a big issue this November. As seniors go to the polls to vote, I think they are going to have to choose between those who would want to privatize Medicare and those who want to strengthen Medicare and to expand it to include a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if my friend would just yield for a final comment, the seniors of this country, the senior citizens in this country need to understand that what we are dealing with here is an administration that appears to want to obliterate, to get rid of, Medicare as we know it, to make it more of a privatized system where the government no longer has the ultimate responsibility to carry out the promises to provide this defined benefit, guaranteed benefit, guaranteed premium, to all seniors, so that regardless of where the senior lives, they are going to pay the same premium; regardless of where the senior lives, they are going to be entitled to the same benefit. We could just mongrelize, if that is a word, this program so that depending on what State you lived in or what city you lived in, you may have to have a higher premium, you may be denied certain medical benefits and so on. I do not think that is what America's seniors want, quite frankly. I think they want Medicare to be strengthened, to be expanded to include a prescription drug benefit; but they want Medicare to remain, and they do not want it privatized.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, why do we not just do the right thing when it comes to this issue, just do the right thing, help all the workers who need help? I appreciate the effort of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) to improve this program, but I cannot support his amendment. Unfortunately, DOE's management of this program has been a miserable failure. After spending millions of dollars, they can only point to one claim having been paid through March of 2004. Not only is DOE's claims processing moving at a snail's pace, but by the Department's own admission, as many as 50 percent of the claimants may not have a willing payer. This means that regardless of how quickly DOE processes a claim, many sick workers will get nothing but an IOU. The gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Wamp) amendment does nothing to address this larger problem of a willing payer, which affects my constituents in Ohio and other nuclear workers in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico, and we do not fully understand the magnitude of this problem as GAO acknowledges that it is not possible to effectively audit DOE's databases. Meanwhile, I have a June 7, 2002, DOE letter saying that the Department is compiling a list of sites which would not have a willing payer. Nearly 2 years later, DOE's Under Secretary testified in the Senate, and I am quoting, ``DOE has proposed a study by the National Academies that would commence when sufficient cases have been through the State program to provide meaningful data regarding the finding of willing payers.'' How long can DOE study this obvious problem? Enough is enough. If DOE will not face the problem, then it is our responsibility to take action because DOE apparently thinks that conducting a study is going to help sick workers. The Senate has been noted as working on an amendment in a bipartisan fashion. I went to the Committee on Rules with a simple amendment that would have made significant progress in resolving the willing payer issue. My amendment was not made in order. Processing claims more quickly falls far short of addressing the glaring flaws in this program. The intent of this program is not to compensate our Cold War veterans based on geography. We should be paying comprehensive reform of this program so that all meritorious claims can be paid in a timely manner.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take the full 5 minutes because I am going to be joining my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), a little later for a Special Order. But there was something that I wanted to point out that I think is relevant to every one of us who serves in this body. Following the exposure of the prisoner abuse in the prison in Baghdad, our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has said that he believes that the prisoners who were abused should be compensated by our government. Now, I do not have any real problem with that if in fact the abuse can be verified. But what puzzles me greatly is the fact that there have been other prisoners held in captivity in that part of the world, and I am talking about American prisoners, American POWs, who were held during the first Gulf War by the Iraqi regime and some 16 of those ex- prisoners who were held by the Iraqi regime and treated terribly. They have described the abuse they endured while they were being held during that first Gulf War, and following that they brought suit against the Iraqi Government. And they laid claim on the right to compensation, and it has been reported that our government had some $1 billion, perhaps even more than $1 billion which we had frozen. These were Iraqi Government assets which had been frozen, and these American ex-POWs having been tortured at the hands of the Iraqi regime asked the courts to grant them compensation. And lo and behold the courts, my understanding is, made the right decision and said that they were entitled to compensation. And they were hoping to be compensated from these frozen Iraqi funds. And lo and behold, and this is almost shocking, I believe, the Bush administration opposed these ex-POW American veterans from receiving compensation from the Iraqi Government, although we had the funds that could have been used to compensate them. Those funds, it is reported in the press, those funds have now been sent back to Iraq for the rebuilding of Iraq. Now, the question that I would ask the President is why would this administration support the compensating of Iraqi prisoners who were held in an American prison and were subject to abuse and would oppose compensation for American soldiers who were held in an Iraqi prison and abused? It just seems like a double standard that is difficult to explain. And so I believe the American people should be aware of this. And they should hold this administration accountable. If the Iraqi prisoners who were abused should be compensated, then certainly the American prisoners who were held by the Iraqi Government and subjected to terrible abuse, they should be compensated as well. I think this is a stark contradiction, but I do not think it is inconsistent with the way this administration has treated veterans when it comes to other benefits, and we will be talking about that a little later. But I felt like this situation was egregious enough, the contrast was stark enough that the American people should be aware of it.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I look forward to hearing in a moment from another gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said something that triggered a recollection that I want to share with him. I had said earlier here on the floor that this administration apparently wants to compensate Iraqi prisoners who were abused in the prison in Baghdad, and I understand why Secretary Rumsfeld has reached that conclusion, but I also pointed out that I was puzzled that the administration, on the other hand, was opposing American ex-POWs who had been held in captivity in Iraq during the first Gulf War getting compensation from the Iraqi Government. So there seems to be a double standard. On the one hand, the administration is willing to compensate the Iraqi prisoners who were abused and opposes the American prisoners who were abused from getting compensation. But there is a second contradiction, a second example of where this administration seems to favor people in Iraq versus the good old, homegrown American. An example is the fact that just last week it was reported that, back in December, Paul Bremer, who is our point man in Iraq, had gone to the Department of Labor and secured $5 million, and this was $5 million that the Congress had no awareness of, in order to pay unemployment compensation to former Iraqi soldiers. These were Iraqi soldiers who were no longer working as soldiers. And so this administration got $5 million in order to pay them unemployment compensation at the very same time that the administration, for months now, has been fighting extending unemployment compensation to unemployed Americans.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, one other point I pointed to throughout was a discrepancy between the administration's wanting to compensate abused Iraqi prisoners and not compensate America's abused prisoners; and then I pointed out that it sought money to pay unemployment compensation to unemployed Iraqis while fighting extending unemployment benefits to Americans. There is a third example of how the administration is favoring the Iraqis over Americans, and that is the fact that in Iraq we have promised Iraqi citizens health care. We have said that we are going to provide universal health care to the Iraqi citizens, while we have got millions, some 44 million Americans, with no health coverage, and we have got Americans who are losing their health coverage on a daily basis, and yet this administration seems to not care about that at all. So here are three clear-cut examples of where this administration has a double standard and where this administration is willing to put resources into Iraqis and into Iraq, while refusing to help the people right here at home who are in desperate need of help.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I think the most important thing we do is to make choices. That is the most important function of a legislator is to make choices, to decide how we are going to use the people's resources, what is going to get supported and what will not get supported. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said earlier that folks watching may think we are making this up because it sounds so outlandish, why would an administration favor Iraqi prisoners over American prisoners, and why would some of these terrible decisions be made. And it is almost as if it is so bad it must not be true. But I want to share a letter here which each Member of this Chamber received from four veteran service organizations. I am talking about the AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Legislative Director for the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. They sent to us this letter. Every Member in this Chamber got this letter as we were considering the budget resolution, which laid out how much we were going to be willing to spend for our veterans. I just want to read a passage from that letter, which we all received: ``On behalf of the coauthors of the independent budget,'' and the independent budget was created by these veteran organizations, so, ``On behalf of the coauthors of the independent budget, the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, we are writing to urge you to oppose and vote against H. Con. Res. 393, the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2005.'' And then they continue: ``Passage of the budget resolution as presented would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this country and are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world in our fight against terrorism.'' Now, those words did not come from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). Those words came from these veteran service organizations, these organizations whose sole purpose is to look out for what is right for the veterans of this country. And so this administration has a credibility problem. And it is fine to salute the flag, it is fine to walk around on an aircraft carrier, it is fine to stand and get your picture made with veterans; but what really counts here is how we spend our resources. And the fact is that our veterans are being shortchanged by this President and by this administration. It is as simple as that. They are not putting resources into veterans health care, the resources that are needed even to maintain the current level of services. I think we should be expanding services. I think we should get rid of this prohibition on priority 8 veterans being excluded from VA health care. But that is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about just having enough money to maintain our current level of services. And even with the President's budget, he was asking in that budget that additional financial burdens be placed upon the backs of our veterans. The President actually sent us a budget that said that veterans should have to pay $15 a prescription rather than $7 a prescription.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I certainly will.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend will yield, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely.

Mr. STRICKLAND. On the rich, that is right. Excuse me, but they are raising taxes or causing taxes to be raised on the working folks of this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if you go to Ohio, we now pay more taxes in Ohio in part because of the cuts that have been made at the Federal Government level. And across this country working people are paying more in property taxes, they are paying more in excise taxes, they are just paying more in taxes in general while the folks at the very top, and as my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), said, we are talking about millionaires, we are not talking about the family that makes a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. We are talking about the millionaires. Tonight, in Iraq, we have soldiers sacrificing and their families back here at home are sacrificing. And I want to tell you, they are about the only ones sacrificing, because this President is not asking anything from anybody except our soldiers and their families. In wars past, we have paid for those wars. What we are doing is passing the cost of this war on to the next generation. It is a rather shameful set of circumstances that our country faces today.

Mr. STRICKLAND. The gentleman is absolutely correct that much of this is being done in this Chamber well after midnight, when most Americans are asleep and the press is not here, with the hope that the American people will not really fully understand what has been done. But I am encouraged, because as I go back to my district and I talk to my veterans, as I travel across Ohio and I talk to veterans, I think the veterans get it. They understand. They understand their efforts to raise the cost of their prescription drugs; they understand that the President wants to impose a user fee, an annual user fee of $250 on many of our veterans; they understand that if they are a priority 8 veteran, they may even be a combat-decorated veteran, but if they are a priority 8 veteran and this administration thinks they receive a high income, of course that could be about $24,000. You know, we make about $155,000 in this Chamber and the American people need to know that, when this administration is trying to imply that if you make about $24,000 or $25,000 and you are a veteran, you are high income and so you are no longer able to participate in the VA health care. I want to tell you that is quite shameful, and the veterans know it. They also know that this disabled veterans tax, which basically says that if you retire from the military and you have earned your pension and you are disabled as a result of your military service and you are entitled to disability compensation, you cannot get both. For every dollar of disability pay you get, $1 is deducted from your military pension. We have been trying to get rid of that discrimination against veterans. And, guess what? The President has said if we do it, he will veto the bill. He will veto the bill. Here is a letter from Secretary Rumsfeld to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) indicating that if the bill authorizes concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation benefits, then he would advise the President to veto the bill. So what did we do? We half fixed it. We took a baby step, and there are veterans in this country tonight who deserve their pensions and they deserve their disability compensation, and we are nickel and diming them, depriving them, discriminating against them. It is absolutely wrong, and I believe the veterans are coming to understand what is being done to them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend would yield.

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is not really passing a benefit. It is a bill to try to keep this government from taking something away from the veterans that they have earned. If they have served their time in the military and they are entitled to receive a pension, they should get it. And if they have been disabled and qualify for disability benefits, they should get the disability benefits, and there should be no offset. If you worked in any other part of the Federal Government, you would not be subjected to this discrimination. It is only the veteran that is being subjected to this kind of discrimination.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes.

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is quite simple. I was shocked many months ago when the VA put out a memo, and I am paraphrasing, but I am true to the spirit of the memo, which basically said, too many veterans are coming in for services and it is costing us too much money. We do not have enough money to provide those services. So henceforth, all of you who are health care providers are forbidden to market VA services to veterans. And it got quite specific. These health care providers were told they could not participate in community health fairs in their local communities. They were told they could not send out newsletters.