Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I call it the ``If they do not ask, we will not tell policy.'' If the veteran does not ask what they are entitled to receive, the VA will not proactively provide that information. I tried to work this out. I went to Secretary Principi, a man that I know and admire, as a matter of fact, and we tried to work this out. I tried to get them to rescind this gag order, because it is a gag order. It is a gag order placed upon the health care providers. We just could not get them to budge. Finally, I decided to initiate legal action and I got the Vietnam Veterans of America to join me. We filed a suit. That suit is currently before the court. It is my hope that the court will decide that this policy of the VA is, in fact, contrary to the law and will require them to rescind this terrible policy. It is a terrible policy because there are veterans out there, for example, if I can just give an example, veterans out there who may have been exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. We now know that exposure to Agent Orange, even all of these years later, can lead to serious health consequences. For example, certain cancers are more likely to be found in those soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange, such as prostate cancer, for example. There may be veterans out there who have been so exposed and are not aware that they are at risk, that they should come into the VA facilities for an examination, and if they are found to have one of these illnesses, that they are entitled to receive medical care from the VA. That is just an example of why this outreach to veterans is so important and why it is so really quite pathetic that an administration that says it cares about veterans would take this action to limit the information that is disseminated to veterans who are in need of this kind of information. This is a matter of health, and it can be a matter of life and death. That is why I think it is so shameful that we would have a policy, and as the gentleman says, at the same time we are giving tax cuts to millionaires, to millionaires, we are taking steps to limit the dissemination of information to our veterans because if they come in, it may cost too much money to provide them the care they need.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Will my friend yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. May I, with kindness, challenge a statement my friend just made. My friend from Washington said the administration is rushing as quickly as they can to provide the armament our soldiers need. I think that is not the case. The only company that produces up-armored Humvees that the Pentagon does business with is an Ohio company from my State of Ohio. That company is located in Fairfield, Ohio. They are capable of producing up-armored Humvees at the number of about 500 per month. The Pentagon, although we desperately need them, is only buying about 300 a month. So even in this case, where they should be protecting our soldiers as quickly as possible, they are not doing what they could and should be doing and they are not doing it, certainly, as rapidly as possible. So when it came to the body armor, and the President has actually accused his opponent for the Presidency, the Democratic nominee, of voting against body armor for our troops, I think they are talking about that $87 billion supplemental, the fact is that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, when our soldiers first went into that country, many of them went in without body armor to protect them. That was many months before we voted on that supplemental. Many months. It was the President, it was Mr. Rumsfeld, it was this administration, this Pentagon that sent our soldiers into harm's way without adequate body armor. It took them an entire year from March when the war started until March the following year before all of our soldiers were outfitted with this body armor. Even tonight as we sit here and stand here in the safety of this House Chamber, there are soldiers in Iraq who are driving around in Humvees that are not adequately armored, and this Pentagon is not solving that problem as quickly as they can. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is a matter of life and death.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Once a senior goes through all these cards and finally reaches a decision, and that is going to be difficult to do, once they reach a decision and select a particular card, they are stuck with that card for an entire year. Yet the sponsors of that card every 7 days can either increase or reduce, but they are most likely to increase the costs of the drugs that are a part of that card. And every 7 days, the sponsor of the card can change the medicine covered by that card.

Mr. STRICKLAND. You can start out by getting a discount of 10 percent, and in 7 days that discount can be reduced down to 5 percent. I ask the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) to clarify this, but, for example, I am a senior citizen and I have high cholesterol, and I take Lipitor to control my level of cholesterol. I sign up for a card that has Lipitor as one of the medicines that is available under that card, and I am stuck with that card for an entire year, but 2 weeks after I sign up for that particular card, the card's sponsor decides they are not going to provide Lipitor any longer for high cholesterol, they may decide to provide Pravachol or some other drug, and I am left without the ability to get the drug with a discount that my doctor says I need.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Every 7 days, I am able to make those kinds of changes in the level of discount and in the drugs that are actually covered by that discount card, and yet the senior will be stuck with that particular card for an entire year. So I am locked into one card for an entire year, and the sponsor of that card has the ability to make all of these changes and I am the victim. I am helpless to do anything about it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. They have to provide one drug in every class of medications; but there are many medications that are prescribed for high cholesterol. I can tell Members that I took one drug for high cholesterol for over a year, and it did not control my cholesterol. It was not until my physician changed my prescription that I was actually to find control for my cholesterol level. That is an example of the problems that seniors are likely to face.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank also my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for leading this discussion tonight. I really believe what we are dealing with here is an administration that truly does not believe in Medicare, and this effort is not going over well with our senior citizens. As my friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said, the experience that he had with his seniors, I have had the same experience with the seniors in my district. When I sit down with them and I explain this bill, I explain how it came into being, the shenanigans that occurred right here in the people's chamber, the benefits that are so difficult to understand, the benefits that are really going not to the senior citizen, but to the insurance companies and to the pharmaceutical companies, they are outraged. They say to me, ``What can I do to respond? Who can I talk to? How can I express the anger that I feel?'' And that is what is happening across this country, and the administration is starting to feel the heat, and that is why they are taking I think $18 million of public tax dollars and putting these ads on TV, trying to convince our seniors that they are doing something good for them. Well, America's seniors are a pretty wise bunch. They have lived through a lot. Many of them have lived through the Depression. They have lived through the wars. These are not children in their understanding. They have watched government. They know those who are for them and those who are against them. And America's senior citizens are angry tonight, because they desperately need help with the cost of their medications. There are seniors in this country I believe losing their lives because they are unable to afford the medicines that they so desperately need. They know that this bill that was passed here in the Chamber under these terrible circumstances specifically prohibits the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada. They know that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is specifically prohibited from negotiating discounts for our senior citizens, although the Veterans Administration negotiates discounts as a savings of, I think, about 40 percent. They know that this bill was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry, and they are angry. And I think they are going to express themselves come November, because they are sick and tired of being used as political pawns, of being given false and exaggerated information; and I think they are going to stand up and say, we have had enough. We built this country. We fought the wars. We built our schools and our hospitals. We have made the sacrifice to make America what it is today, and we are sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens. I think America's seniors are going to be expressing themselves loudly and clearly, and the best way they can do that is to do it with their vote. That is the one way they can fight back.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I believe this is an election year scam, and America's senior citizens are going to be so confused. They are not going to know what choices to make, and we are doing it because an election is coming up in November and we want to present to our senior citizens that we are actually doing something meaningful when the drug companies are telling us that they expect their drugs to be increased by about 18 percent this year and these discount cards are likely to provide much less in discounts than that. So seniors are going to end up paying more even with these discount cards than they have been paying.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that we have got some people in the balcony tonight, and many of our constituents obviously are watching through C-SPAN. I think it is appropriate that we just take a moment and explain. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that there are those watching us tonight and are paying attention to what we are saying because we have lots of constituents. I have lots of constituents back in Ohio certainly that are watching, and I am sure there are constituents watching from Maine and New Jersey and elsewhere. And I think they need to know how this bill came into being. We received this bill as a body, over 700 pages, I believe, on a Friday morning. We began that debate. We debated Friday afternoon and through the night and at three o'clock in the morning when most of the people who are watching us tonight were probably asleep. They finally called the vote. I would remind my colleagues that this is probably the most important piece of domestic legislation that this body has considered maybe in many years, and we recall that the President told us it was going to cost $400 billion. Now we find out that his own administration's actuary had indicated it was going to cost over $550 billion, and apparently he was told he would be fired if he told the Congress, those of us who are supposed to be representing the people of this country. He was told he would be fired if he told us the actual cost, an action that the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, is now saying was probably an illegal act. But anyway, at three o'clock in the morning they called the vote here in the people's House. And at the end of that 15-minute voting period, the bill had lost because it is a bad bill. And they kept the vote open, not for 15 minutes, not for 30 minutes, not for an hour, not for 2 hours, but for 3 hours. And the press said that they got the President out of bed at four o'clock in the morning so that he could start twisting arms. And then the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who is retiring and whose son is running in a Republican primary, indicates that he was approached on the floor of this House, the people's House, and offered $100,000 for his son's campaign if he would change his vote. Think of that. Think of that. And at 6 o'clock in the morning as the sun was coming up, they finally convinced enough Members to change their votes, and the bill passed. That is not how an important piece of public policy should be crafted in a democracy. And we walked home that morning, as the gentleman recalls, as the sun was coming up after that kind of shameful behavior had taken place in this Chamber. And now they are spending $18 million on TV ads to try to convince America's senior citizens that it is a good thing. Shame on this administration for this kind of political shenanigans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I think the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, should resign. He was quoted in the paper today responding to a question as to why he had not asked to see the pictures, and he indicated that he had asked, but they were not available. Now, if the Secretary of Defense of this country cannot acquire pictures that he asks for, is it any wonder that we have troops in Iraq tonight who are driving around in unarmored vehicles? Is it any wonder that we had troops in Iraq for an entire year without protective body armor? If the Secretary of Defense cannot get pictures that he requests, my God, what are we facing over there? It just is indescribable. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington State.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld about the body armor issue months ago and he wrote me back and he said all of our troops will be protected with this body armor by November. A day later I get a letter from General Myers, and he says it will be December. Before we leave here for the holidays, they had a briefing at the Pentagon; they said it is going to be January. Do you realize it was March of this year, one full year after the beginning of this war, before the Pentagon was willing to say that all of our troops had been equipped? And now they are over there without uparmored Humvees, and they are driving over these roadway explosives. They are getting their arms and legs blown off. They are losing their lives, and we are not correcting that problem as quickly as we are capable of correcting it. How do I know that? Because the only company the Pentagon has a contract with to provide these uparmored Humvees is an Ohio company located in Fairfield, Ohio. They are capable of producing in November of this year, by November of this year, 500 of these uparmored Humvees per month. How many is the Pentagon willing to buy? Only 300 per month. That means that we are not addressing this problem as quickly as it is possible to address it. How can the President, how can the Secretary of Defense, how can Paul Wolfowitz look the American citizen, the American family, the American soldier in the eye and explain to them why we are not doing everything as quickly as possible to protect our soldiers? One more thing before I yield, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, who I believe and I think most people believe was largely responsible for helping formulate this policy of going into Iraq as we did, was asked a few days ago how many American soldiers had been killed. And he indicated that it was something over 500. And at that time we had lost well over 700 American soldiers. To think that the Deputy Secretary of Defense was not paying attention to the number of American deaths is almost unthinkable, almost unthinkable. I have got 8th and 9th grade students who come to Washington, D.C. from my district, to visit me in Washington, D.C., who are better informed about the price this country is paying in terms of deaths and the injuries of our soldiers than apparently is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. He should be ashamed of himself. I cannot fathom that one in his high position would not on a daily basis take note of the number of American soldiers who have lost their lives in this conflict.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield, I dare to say that this smells like a cover-up, and I think Secretary Rumsfeld has to assume responsibility. He is the Secretary of Defense of this Nation, and when he was asked, have you asked, Mr. Secretary, to see all of these pictures depicting this abuse, and he indicates, as was reported in the paper, well, I was told they were not available, I mean, talk about someone trying to shirk responsibility. It is almost laughable. He is the Secretary of Defense. Then General Myers, I saw him interviewed just a couple of days ago, and he had indicated that he had not even read this outrageous report. He had not read it, and so it seems to me, rather than the grunts on the ground, that someone like General Myers and Secretary Rumsfeld should step up, assume responsibility, admit their failure of leadership and have the good graces to submit their resignations to the President of the United States, and if he is not willing to do it, I would hope the President would ask for it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Who do they work for?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the history of this administration is anyone who questions is shoved aside. General Shinseki said we would need hundreds of thousands of troops. He was literally ridiculed by the Secretary of Defense and others.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely, because you do not question these folks. They seem to know everything. What we are finding out is that their understanding is so immature that they are almost child-like in their fantasies. It is almost like a make-believe. They want the world to be a certain way, and so they just assume it is; and then who pays the price? The American people pay the price, the families of our soldiers and the soldiers pay the price. If I can say something about the need to come up with a plan as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have suggested. The papers reported today that the troop levels that we are going to have in Iraq will stay at about 135,000 throughout 2005. I submit that is just the beginning. It is going to be 2005, 2006, 2007, we know not when this is going to come to an end. This is my prediction. My prediction is this: If we do not change our policies, if we do not come up with a plan to extricate ourselves honorably from that situation, we are going to find ourselves facing the strong possibility of a military draft and the moms and dads in this country who may feel very detached from this war right now because they have a 13 or 14 or 15-year-old son or daughter, and they do not think it is going to touch them, we cannot sustain our military needs around the world and continue to do what we are doing in Iraq without the possibility, I think the strong possibility of a military draft. If we have a military draft, I do not think we will have those exemptions that we had when I and Vice President Cheney were draft age. I think every person of draft age will be subjected to it. I hold that out not as a threat, but I think it is realistic. We have National Guard persons and Reservists over there, and they are being extended beyond the normal time of service. We cannot continue this for years and years and years into the future.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized. Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), said earlier, in a press conference recently on the 13th, the President was asked if he could identify any mistakes he may have made, and he was unable to do so. I can tell him a mistake that he and his administration has made. They sent our young soldiers into harm's way when the war in Iraq began without adequate body armor. That is the truth. They cannot escape that fact. There were soldiers who were placed in harm's way without having the protection of this basic equipment. The war began in March. I have written Secretary Rumsfeld over the last year two letters asking him to explain to me and to the American people why our soldiers were placed in harm's way without this protection. This body armor that I am talking about became available, I think, for the first time in 1998. It is called the ``interceptive vest.'' It is made of Kevlar with ceramic plates in both the front and the back. It is so effective that it can stop an AK-47 bullet, and it has been credited with saving the lives of many of our soldiers who had them and could use them. When we went into Iraq, after literally months during which we could have prepared to have had adequate equipment for our troops, we sent our soldiers into battle without this protection; and Mr. Speaker, it took Mr. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, and, yeah, the buck stops in the Oval Office, the President, one full year from March when the war began until March of this year before they were able to send me a letter informing me that, at last, all of our troops were equipped with this body armor. I asked how many young men or middle-age Reservists and Guardsmen may have lost their lives needlessly simply because this administration did not provide them with this basic protection. It is a question that I think needs to be analyzed and answered. There is a continuing problem in the war zone. As I stand here in the Chamber of the people's House tonight, there are American soldiers in Iraq, in various cities in Iraq, who are using vehicles without proper armor. There is one company that the Pentagon has a contract with to provide up-armored Humvees for our military personnel. It is located in Fairfield, Ohio. It is called O'Gara-Hess and Eisenhardt. It is the company that has the ability and the contract with the Pentagon to produce these vehicles which provide a high degree of protection when our soldiers may drive over a roadside bomb, for example; and yet the Pentagon is only contracting for 300 of these up-armored Humvees per month, although thousands are needed in Iraq. The company tells me that they are capable by November, if not sooner, of producing some 500 of these Humvees per month. What that means is if the President and the Secretary of Defense and those who make decisions regarding this matter at the Pentagon were willing to do so, they could have these up-armored vehicles in Iraq so that our troops would be protected much more quickly than they are willing to do. I do not understand this. I simply do not understand why the President does not call Secretary Rumsfeld up and say, listen, there are reports that our troops need up-armored Humvees; I want this problem solved as quickly as possible. Do everything necessary; move heaven and Earth but get this problem solved. A young West Point graduate from my district called me a few weeks ago. He had returned after spending 14 months in Iraq; and he said, Congressman, the Explorer you drive around is more armored and offers better protection than did the Humvee that I drove around the streets of Baghdad. It troubles me that those of us who serve here in this Chamber and the President, who is the Commander in Chief, would allow this situation to continue when they can do something about it. So if the President cannot think of any mistake he has made, I would offer this mistake. I would say to the President, you should not have sent our soldiers into battle without body armor, and you should not have our soldiers over there tonight without up-armored Humvees to provide them adequate protection.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, something happened on the floor of the House this morning that in my judgment is shameful, shameful, because the record of an American hero who shed his blood, who earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Medal was referred to on the floor of this House as ``Hanoi John.'' Is that what we have come to in this House? I would remind those listening that when the President of the United States found some reason not to show up for his responsibilities and when Vice President Cheney said he had other responsibilities during the Vietnam War, it was Senator John Kerry who took the bullets for this country and for us and our freedoms. Shame on those, shame on those who would denigrate the record of a true American hero.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the leadership of this House should be ashamed to bring this bill to the floor. We are going to vote for it, obviously, because it is better than nothing, but it is nearly nothing. The President said in his last press conference that he would tell the troops, whatever you need, we will provide. Well, it took the President and the Pentagon one full year, from March, when the war started, until March of this year, to ensure that all of our Guardsmen and all of our Reservists had body armor to keep them safe, and now we have Guardsmen and Reservists driving around in Iraq in Humvees that are not armored. They are getting their limbs blown off, and they are losing their lives by driving over these roadside bombs in unarmored Humvees. The only company that has a sole-source contract to provide these armored Humvees for our military is in the State of Ohio. The vice president of that company came to my office and said, Congressman, we can produce up to 500 of these armored Humvees per month, but the Pentagon is only asking for 220. We are doing something for our Reservists and our National Guard persons, but what we ought to be doing is providing them with life- saving equipment, and the President and the Pentagon and this Congress is failing to do that today.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be joined here this evening by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and another of my colleagues, the gentleman from the State of Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as we talk about what is happening in Iraq, the needs of our troops, and what the American people need to know. Much of the information is just now becoming clear to us as a result of Mr. Woodward's book, which became available to the general public today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by making reference to a comment the President made in his most recent press conference when he made reference to what he would say to the troops. In that statement he said, ``We will provide them what they need.'' That sounds like a rather direct and simple statement, but the truth is we have not provided our troops in Iraq with what they need, not in terms of equipment certainly, equipment that has the potential to save lives and to avoid serious injuries. Mr. Speaker, the war began in March 2003. Soon after that war began, I received a letter from a young soldier from my district who is a West Point graduate and a gung-ho Army guy, and he started his letter by saying, Congressman, I am so proud of the Army. I am so proud of what we are trying to do here to help these people. But later in his letter he said to me, my men are wondering why they have not been provided with these life-saving interceptor vests, which became available, I believe, in 1998. They cost $1,200 to $1,500 apiece. They are made with Kevlar with pockets in the front and back where ceramic plates can be inserted which will stop an AK-47 bullet. They are life-saving equipment, and yet we send our soldiers into battle in Iraq, and thousands and thousands were without this equipment. Now, the war began in March. I received this letter from this young soldier in the early summer. I wrote the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a letter sharing what I had been told by this young West Point soldier, and asked him when our troops would be provided with this life-saving equipment. He wrote me back. I got a letter in September from the Secretary telling me that he expected that our soldiers would be fully equipped with this life-saving equipment in November. Within a day of getting the letter from Secretary Rumsfeld, I received a letter from the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Myers, and in his letter General Myers indicated it would be December, not November as Secretary Rumsfeld had said, but it would be December before all of our soldiers were equipped with the interceptor vests. Then before we left this city for our Christmas vacation, our holiday vacation, the Pentagon held a briefing, and in that briefing we were told that it would be January before our soldiers were equipped with these life-saving vests. I remind my colleagues that the war began in March, and we are being told that it will be January before the soldiers are provided with life-saving vests. Lo and behold, after I came back to this city after the holidays, and I was continuously troubled that this problem had not been solved, so I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld another letter reminding him that the self-imposed deadline had passed. Finally, finally, in March of this year, I received a letter informing me that finally all of our soldiers had been equipped with this life-saving vest, 1 full year after the war began. Now we have a similar problem because many of our soldiers are being killed and wounded in Iraq because they are driving around in Humvees that are not up-armored Humvees. In other words, they do not have the proper armor that will protect them if the soldiers are attacked while on patrol. Soldiers are driving in Iraq with unarmored Humvees. I am concerned about this, and I say to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the only company that has a sole contract with the Pentagon to provides these up-armored Humvees and the kits to armor those already deployed is an Ohio company, O'Gara-Hess. O'Gara-Hess officials came to my office, and they told me under their current contract with the Department of Defense, they are being asked to produce 220 of these up-armored Humvees each month. However, they are capable of producing up to 500 a month. The Pentagon says there are about 4,000 of these Humvees in Iraq that need to be so armored to protect our soldiers, and it will probably be sometime in 2005 before it is all done. The question that I would ask: If the President was standing where you are standing, I would say to the President, Mr. President, this is a life-saving matter. Why are you not directing your Pentagon to provide our soldiers with this protection as quickly as possible?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. STRICKLAND. I received a call a few days ago from a soldier returning after 14 months in Iraq. He said, ``Congressman, your Ford Explorer that you drive around is better armored than the Humvee that I drove around Iraq.'' The fact is so many of the wounds and the deaths are occurring because of these devices that are planted in the roadways, and our soldiers are driving over them, and they are exploding, and there is nothing in that vehicle to protect them. These up-armored Humvees have steel plating in the bottom and on the sides. They can even reinforce the windshield so that the windshield itself is impenetrable. It can be done. The President said to our soldiers, we will provide you what you need, but the President is not providing our soldiers what they need. Regardless of what people feel about this war, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, the one thing we should be able to agree upon is if we are going to send our soldiers into harm's way, we provide them with every bit of equipment that they may need to be safe. Why we are not doing it, and why we are not doing it as rapidly as possible, I do not know. MS-NBC had a TV program about this last week. They identified the problem, and they indicated steps were being taken to correct it as quickly as possible. I can tell Members tonight, steps are not being taken to correct this problem as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, if I were the President, I would get on the phone to Secretary Rumsfeld, and I would say, fix this problem as quickly as it can be fixed, regardless of what it takes, 7 days a week of work, 3 shifts a day, whatever it takes. Get our troops the equipment they need to be protected, and do it as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).