Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. So it is a sham.

Mr. STRICKLAND. So this company is benefiting from the American taxpayer through the contracts, doing business with a country that the President stood at that platform and labeled a part of the ``axis of evil.'' Why is this happening?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Can I comment on that? If I understand what the gentleman is saying, Halliburton, a company that is getting billions of dollars in contracts, is doing business through an offshore subsidiary with a nation that the President has labeled one of the ``axis of evil'' nations.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Why do we continue to do business with a company like this that has shown such bad faith? Sixty-four million dollars or $65 million is a lot of money; $24 million is a lot of money. Yet we continue to allow this company to suck up tax dollars in contracts, and it is a shameful set of circumstances. I think the President and the Vice President ought to disassociate themselves from this company and say they are out of here. There are honest companies, there are honest corporate leaders that we can do business with. Why are we continuing to do business with Halliburton? I just cannot understand it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend from New Jersey. I think the American people need to know that under this President and under the leadership of this Congress that this government is for sale. It is for sale. It is for sale to the highest bidder. The fact is that Halliburton was fined, I think, over 60-some-million dollars for overcharging for fuel that they were supplying in Iraq, and now in the New York Times today there is a story about Halliburton having overcharged for the meals they are providing to our soldiers some $24 million. Halliburton has overcharged for the meals they are providing or should be providing or said they are providing to our troops in Iraq. In most other circumstances, this kind of behavior would be called criminal behavior. Why would this government continue to do business with Halliburton that has been fined 60-some-million dollars and overcharges $24 million for meals? It is almost beyond belief that we would continue to let this rogue corporation that Vice President Dick Cheney, I understand, is still getting compensation from, from getting these contracts. What is going on with this government? When are we going to stop and say, wait a minute, this is just unacceptable for a corporation to act like this?

Mr. STRICKLAND. They are profiteering on this war. That is what they are doing. They are profiteering on the war, and it is time the people in this country and those of us who serve in this Chamber say enough is enough. We are not going to continue to allow this rogue corporation to act in this behavior and to continue to get government contracts. I talk to my folks back home in Ohio, especially my seniors, very frequently about this so-called Medicare bill. When I describe to them what happened in this Chamber, the people's House, they are appalled. We got that Medicare bill, as you will recall, I think it was over 800 pages long, and we received it on a Friday morning. That debate started Friday evening. We debated in this House back and forth until 3 o'clock in the morning, at a time when most Americans are asleep. At 3 o'clock in the morning, they finally called the vote, and the vote which normally lasts 15 minutes, at the end of that voting period, the bill had lost. Most Members of this Chamber recognized that it was a bad bill, that it would not provide adequate benefits for our seniors, that there were no cost controls, that we were prohibiting cheaper drugs from being imported from Canada, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could not negotiate discounts, and the bill had failed. And so they just kept the vote open, not for 10 minutes, not for 30 minutes, not for an hour, but for 3 hours they kept the vote open, until 6 o'clock in the morning. And the news reports indicate that they got President Bush out of bed, or woke him up about 4 o'clock in the morning, so that he could start making calls and try to twist arms and get people to change their votes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a Republican, a man who is retiring from this Chamber and whose son is running in a contested Republican primary to replace him, shared with a columnist, Robert Novak, that he was approached on the floor of this, the people's House, and that he was told if he would change his vote that his son would be provided about $100,000 from certain business interests if he would change his vote. I am not an attorney, I am a psychologist by training, but that description sounds a lot like bribery to me; and if it is and if it happened on the floor of this House, it ought to be investigated and those responsible ought to be held accountable. But to his credit, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), as I said, who is a Republican, refused to change his vote. And then it is reported that another Republican Member approached him and said to him, ``Your son is dead meat. He will never be able to serve in the House of Representatives.'' That behavior is beneath the dignity and the honor of this, the people's House, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives ought to call for an investigation. We ought to determine if something illegal was done on this House floor, or at least something unethical or something that violated the rules of this House. And that is how that bill actually became law, because at 6 o'clock in the morning, as the sun was coming up, a couple of Members were finally persuaded to change their votes. That is not the way to create public policy in a democracy; certainly not in the American democracy. It is shameful behavior.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is because of the unique financial situations that veterans and military personnel often find themselves in as a result of their military service to our country that I support this motion to recommit, which would exempt them from the means test under Chapter 7. The means test used to determine whether a debtor can file under Chapter 7 is an arbitrary bureaucratic formula. Its mathematical variables really do not reflect the unique circumstances of deployed military personnel that experience sudden loss of income. The test does not look at the debtor's actual expenses or personal situation. Rather, it uses a hypothetical expense of what a debtor's cost of living is mathematically determined to be. The means test uses this figure to calculate excess money, and when someone has too much excess money, they are prohibited from filing under Chapter 7. The only recourse left to the individual denied this is a court motion for permission to use actual income and expenses, and such a motion takes time and money, something our soldiers and our veterans do not have. So I would just simply ask my colleagues to consider what we have asked of our veterans and what we are currently asking of our military personnel. They have endured much for us, and I ask that we simply honor their service by voting for this exemption.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to recognize Mr. Philip Workman's contributions to the field of mental health treatment. For nearly twenty years, Phil Workman has served as the Executive Director of the Ohio Psychiatric Association (OPA), the OPA Education and Research Foundation, and the Ohio Psychiatrists' Political Action Committee. In these positions, he has made an outstanding contribution to advancing education and treatment and reducing stigma and discrimination of mental illness. Under Mr. Workman's watch, the membership of OPA has doubled to over 1,000 members; this growth in membership is due, in part, to his ability and willingness to reach out to residents and psychiatrists who are just beginning their careers in order to develop young leadership in the organization. Mr. Workman has been a leader in Ohio and across the country in the fight for mental health parity. He worked in concert with other Ohio groups to establish the 1984 Fair Benefits Coalition. The Fair Benefits Coalition led directly to the creation of the Coalition for Healthy Communities, a coalition of over 25 professional agencies and consumer organizations devoted to providing quality mental health and substance abuse services in Ohio. And, he worked in the American Psychiatric Association to establish several groups and task forces that have been critical to the vitality of the national organization. Appropriately, Mr. Workman's outstanding leadership, commitment, and dedication was honored in 2002, when he was named a ``Mental Health Champion'' by the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill of Ohio. Phil Workman's long service to the Ohio Psychiatric Association and his strong advocacy for those who suffer from mental illness has inspired and served as a model to his many friends and professional associates. It has been said that ``some people strengthen society just by being the kind of people they are.'' Mr. Speaker, Philip Workman is such a person.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this time. I probably will not need a minute to say what I want to say. But this bill was written by and for the pharmaceutical companies. Do the Members want an example of why I say that? A few days ago the Blue Dogs met with our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Tommy Thompson, and two Democratic Senators were there, Senator Breaux and Senator Baucus. And in that meeting, a question was asked: Why is there a prohibition against the Secretary from negotiating discounted costs for America's senior citizens? And Senator Baucus said it is in there because PhRMA insisted that it be in there. Shame, shame, shame on you.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today, this Congress is missing a golden opportunity to pass a real prescription drug benefit for all seniors. During the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of the prescription drug bill this summer, my colleagues and I offered many amendments that would have improved this bill to ensure that all seniors, regardless of where they live, have access to an adequate, affordable, reliable prescription drug benefit. But my Republican colleagues defeated our amendments and pushed through a partisan bill that will do little to give meaningful help to the middle income seniors who most need a prescription drug benefit. In other words, Congress is passing up an opportunity to ensure that the retired, 68-year-old steelworker who had a heart surgery last spring and lost his retiree health insurance this summer, and who, along with his wife, has an annual income of about $28,000 can afford the prescription drugs they need to stay healthy. This bill does not even ensure that a person under these circumstances can access affordable prescription drugs from Canada or elsewhere in the world. For shame that we are passing up such an opportunity to do the right thing by our seniors. The AARP says that the prescription drug bill we are considering today is better than nothing, that it's one foot in the door. I disagree. The voucher demonstration program in the bill lays dangerous groundwork for a privatization scheme that I believe will undermine Medicare's ability to provide a guarantee of health security for all Americans when they turn 65. In addition, the drug benefit created by this bill will force many seniors to private insurance plans for their drug benefit. My colleagues who support this bill say that seniors want ``choice'' and that the private plans will give them the choice they want. Well, the seniors I talk to want choice, but not choice of a private plan. Instead, they want choice of their doctor, pharmacist, and hospital; they want the ability to choose their treatment plan when they are sick and the choice to access preventive services to keep them as healthy as possible. If seniors in my district have the choice of a private plan, the Medicare safety net as we know it today is no longer there. This is especially true since the bill we are considering tonight doesn't require these private plans to offer a standard premium, deductible, or copayment--in fact, where these private plans have been tried, monthly premiums have ranged as high as $85 a month, not the $35 promised by proponents of this bill. I cannot overstate this: the bill we are voting on does not mandate a $35 premium. Additionally, this bill includes a $12 billion slush fund to bribe private HMOs to participate in Medicare. This $12 billion is in addition to about $8 billion in huge overpayments to private plans. I believe that the billions we are spending in this bill in payments to private plans are simply to support an ideology of privatization that seeks eventually to destroy Medicare. This ideology is needless when you consider that traditional Medicare has both a strong track record with seniors and the amazingly low administrative overhead cost of only 2 to 3 percent. It is for all of these reasons that I cannot support this bill. However, it does include some good provisions that I wish I could vote for today. I wholeheartedly support the physician and hospital provisions, particularly for rural providers. For the last 2 years, doctors have faced significant scheduled cuts in their Medicare reimbursements, leading some to stop-taking new Medicare patients or drop out of the program altogether. Especially in the current environment of high malpractice rates, rising medical school costs and medical school debt, rising overhall health care costs, and a growing Medicare population, it is unacceptable for Congress to ask doctors to continue providing the same care for less money. And our rural hospitals are struggling to maintain their ability to serve as our health care safety net for the uninsured. Seniors depend on a strong network of physicians and hospitals to provide care; each time a physician decides he or she cannot afford to take new Medicare patients, seniors are forced to look elsewhere to find care. This is particularly troubling in rural areas, where there are fewer physicians and where it may be more difficult to travel to a doctor's office. I realize how important these provider provisions are, and I would say to the doctors and hospital advocates who are asking me to vote yes tonight that it is unfair to hold their needed reimbursement increases hostage in a bill that includes so many controversial provisions. We can and should pass a provider reimbursement bill apart from this Medicare package. In fact, I hope that we can defeat this Medicare bill and immediately pass these provider increases in a stand alone bill before we leave this session. In closing, I reiterate my support for adding a strong, adequate prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Seniors need such a benefit and Medicare is not a complete health insurance program without it. But the benefit before us tonight does more harm than good, particularly in the long term. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his work on this legislation that offers important benefits to very deserving veterans and their families. There are many excellent provisions in this bill, and we should all support these provisions, including benefits to POWs and Filipino veterans. I would particularly like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and his staff and the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their work in putting an end to lending schemes that target our Nation's veterans. Recently, I introduced legislation on making this type of predatory lending illegal, and I am happy to have this language incorporated into this legislation. Predatory lenders are preying on veterans by manipulating them into surrendering their veterans benefits for lump sums, lump sums that these lenders then charge interest rates on ranging from 39 to 106 percent. It is embarrassing that companies would prey on our Nation's veterans and seize the benefits that these veterans have earned through their service to our country. I am grateful that these provisions have been included in this legislation which make it clear that such practices are illegal and that predatory lenders who trick our veterans into surrendering their VA benefits will be in violation of the law. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member, for their work; and I would especially like to thank the staffs on both the Republican and Democratic sides who worked so closely together to do those things which can make life better for our veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment and direct a question to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). The gentleman has said over and over in his statement that this was a bipartisan conference report. I ask a question: Was any House Democratic Member included in the conference negotiations? Were any of the Democrats included in the conference negotiations?

Mr. STRICKLAND. But the gentleman from Florida knows that our appointed conferees were the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and those three individuals were not included in the negotiations. I do not understand how the gentleman can stand and say to the American people that this was a bipartisan effort. It was not. Our Members were shut out of these negotiations.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I continue to object to my friends on the other side referring to this as a bipartisan bill. They know that no Democratic Member of this House was allowed to participate in the negotiations. And it is your bill, and you are going to have to live with it. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), our representatives, were shut out; and you ought to recognize that. I think it is intellectually dishonest to refer to it as a bipartisan bill. This bill was written by the pharmaceutical companies. Let me give the Members an example of why I say that. Two days ago, Secretary Thompson and the two Senators that participated, the Democratic Senators, met with the Blue Dogs in this House; and in that meeting they were asked why there is specific language in this bill that prohibits the Secretary from negotiating cheaper prices for our senior citizens. And one of those seniors spoke up and said it is in there because PhRMA insisted that it be in there. Think of that. I hope the American people are paying attention, because this bill was written for and by the pharmaceutical companies and, sadly, my friends on the Republican side are supporting it, and they are going to have to live with it. I have gotten over 100 calls in my office today; only two of them have been in support of this flawed bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. We have talked this evening about the fact that this plan does not start until 2006, and they say, well, it takes time, I guess, for the insurance companies to set this up. It would take very little time if we were simply to provide a prescription drug plan as a part of the traditional Medicare program. We could get this program underway, I would guess, in a matter of a few months, at most. And yet they are going to pass this, or try to pass it. If they pass it, they are going to go tell America's seniors, we did it for you. Of course, it will not take effect until 2006, and by the time seniors find out what they have been given, they will realize they have been snookered. They will have been snookered, but the 2004 election will have passed, and we will have been able to boast to the American people that we provided them something. But what they will have provided the American people is a bitter pill. I just hope that all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, will reject this sham legislation, protect Medicare, and do what is right for our seniors. I hope we will have the courage to stand strong in the face of what is going to be, and we all know it, it is going to be an onslaught of TV advertising paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. And that is a shame.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I have been sitting here listening to this discussion, and I feel a quiet anger because I think something is being contemplated in this House that is going to be detrimental, perhaps devastating, to what I would consider the second most important piece of legislation Congress has ever passed to help seniors, and I am talking about the Medicare program. A lot of people in this chamber are nervous because they are afraid if they do not support this bad bill that our Republican friends will get a lot of money from the pharmaceutical companies, the President will go out and raise a lot of money and they will run a lot of TV ads. They are especially nervous because of the action of the AARP, the recent decision of the AARP to endorse this shameful piece of legislation, but I have heard from some of my constituents who are members of the AARP in the last few days, and they are outraged. They are outraged at their national leadership, and so I am not at all intimidated by the fact that the AARP has seemingly sold out the people they are supposed to be representing. I would like to just emphasize the fact that the executive director and the CEO of AARP, Mr. William D. Novelli, wrote a foreword to a book written by Newt Gingrich. Remember Newt Gingrich, when he was Speaker of the House talking about Medicare and saying that it would wither on the vine? Well, because of Mr. Gingrich's personal problems and some other issues, he is no longer Speaker, but those who want Medicare to wither on the vine are alive and well, and many of them are leaders in this House of Representatives. I would just like to share with my colleagues what Mr. Novelli, this CEO of AARP, said in the foreword to Newt Gingrich's book. He wrote: ``Newt's ideas are influencing how we at AARP are thinking about our national role in health promotion and disease prevention and in our advocating for system change.'' I wonder how many AARP members across this country agree with Newt Gingrich, and how many of them feel good about their CEO and executive director actually saying that Newt Gingrich's ideas are going to be influencing how AARP will be advocating for system change. The system change they are talking about is the destruction of Medicare as we know it. The American people need to understand that under this plan that is being promoted by the President and by the leadership in this House, they cannot maintain their relationship in traditional Medicare and have prescription drug coverage. They will be forced out of traditional Medicare and forced into a Medicare HMO, or if one is available, they will have to go outside traditional Medicare and purchase a drug-only plan. We are not talking about a Medicare prescription drug plan, we are talking about an HMO privatized prescription drug plan.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. General Myers and others have been widely quoted in the press as saying this is not a money problem; it is a supply problem. Well, it is a supply problem because this war was under way for almost 7 months before the first request came to this Congress for resources to provide this protection. But even beyond that, I got a call in my office, week before last, from a company that told me they had 30,000 of these plates in stock, plates that meet specifications. Because they say they also provide them to our Army Rangers. I do not know how those responsible can sleep at night. They ought to stay up until they solve this problem. I just met with a young soldier back in my district who was wounded by shrapnel. He told me that he sees no way that this Pentagon commitment to have these vests delivered to all of our troops by December is going to be possible. He says there are thousands of troops over there without this most basic protection. Now, how can we trust these people to tell us what is the best course of action for the future of this war in Iraq when they have been so incompetent and negligent in providing our troops with this most basic protection?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if I could just say a word about the troops. I spent some time last weekend with two young soldiers from my district, both of whom have been wounded, and they have come back for medical treatment. They are good, loyal, patriotic soldiers. They are going to do their duty. They care about Iraq. They care about the Iraqi people. They care about the final outcome in that country. The problem is not with our troops. These are wonderful young Americans who are simply doing what they are called upon to do. And they are doing it well. The problem, as I see it, exists with the decision-makers, those who sit here in the safety of the offices in Washington D.C. and elsewhere and make decisions which affect real lives. I had breakfast in a restaurant in Ohio a couple of weekends ago. As I was finishing my breakfast, I struck up a conversation with a young woman sitting in a booth next to me. She was leaving Ohio as soon as she finished her breakfast and driving to Baltimore to meet her husband, who is stationed in Africa and who is coming home, who is coming home for a 2- week leave. And then she told me that she had just gotten her orders and she is being deployed to Iraq. The children are going to be taken care of by the grandparents. I just share that with you to emphasize the fact that we are talking about real people, real mothers and dads, real sweethearts, real sons and daughters. These are real Americans, and decisions are being made to expose them to the most incredible danger. The question is, is this war being pursued in a way that is rationale and reasonable? I still wish that this President, this administration would go to the world community, would seek out the help that we need, would internationalize the effort in Iraq, would stop our soldiers being the only targets basically. We hear talk about a coalition. Let us face it. There are a handful basically of coalition forces in Iraq. Most of the young people there are being killed and injured and shot at are American troops; and we need to internationalize our effort, spread this responsibility and not just simply allow our kids, our children for the next, no one knows for sure. The most recent estimate I have heard is that at least for 5 years our troops are likely to be there, and I just do not think the American people want this to continue as it is unfolding before our eyes. Every day we see it happening.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be with you this evening. I was asked a few days ago by a reporter in my district why the emphasis on what has gone wrong in Iraq. The question was phrased in this way: Should you not be concerned about the future and what we do next? And my response was this: The same people who are in charge of planning for the future are the people who have gotten us to the point where we are now. And unless we look at how we got into this situation, unless we scrutinize the decision-makers who brought us to this point, we cannot have confidence that we are being taken in the right direction as far as the future is concerned. If I could just say a word about the $87 billion that my friend referred to earlier. I think the American people need to know that if we were to take the 435 congressional districts in this country, and we were to divide $87 billion by the 435 congressional districts, what we would come out with is $200 million that could be spent in every congressional district in this country for the needs that exist back home, for the jobless people, for the children who do not have health care, for the older people who do not have prescription drugs.

Mr. STRICKLAND. For our veterans. And that leads me to the fact that we are underfunding veterans health care by $1.8 billion. $1.8 billion. We are sending $87 billion to Iraq in addition to what we have already spent this year, and we are being so stingy with our veterans that we are underfunding their health care by $1.8 billion. And the American people need to know that over in the Senate they passed an amendment to add an additional $1.3 billion of that $1.8 billion shortfall. And the very day that amendment passed the Senate, the White House put out a statement opposing it. Now, think of that. Here we have a President, we have a President who has asked for $87 billion for Iraq and takes active opposition toward the efforts in this Congress to give an additional $1.8 billion to our veterans. I mean, I think that is shocking; I think it is something the American people would object to. And they need to know about that. But I want to talk about one other thing, if I can, in regard to this war effort, and it is something that I have talked about and I think others have talked about on this floor before. But it is something that the American people need to know about. As our soldiers continue to die on a daily basis in Iraq, I think Americans have a right to ask for answers from the President, from our Secretary of Defense, from the Pentagon: Why do all of our troops who are fighting for us this very moment in Iraq not have the best protective armor available? When will this armor be available to all of our soldiers? Why were soldiers sent into battle with these cheap, Vietnam-era flak jackets that are not capable of stopping bullets? I have asked the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, to provide answers as to how many American soldiers have been killed or have been seriously wounded in part because they were not adequately protected. And I have asked the Secretary to commit that we will not provide this protection to foreign troops until every, every American soldier in harm's way is so protected. Somebody needs to be held accountable for this. We had months to prepare for this war, months during which we knew we were likely to be sending young Americans into harm's way. And yet we did so without giving them this protection. Somebody ought to be held responsible. Either the President or Secretary Rumsfeld or some lower- level individual apparently made the decision that this was not a priority. And I believe American soldiers have lost their lives because of this failure to plan, failure to set appropriate priorities. And who is going to be helped accountable, and when is the situation going to be altered? Americans need to know that as we sit in our homes and watch TV, and those of us who work in this Chamber are here, we carry out our daily lives, that there are young Americans over there in tanks and in Humvees and walking patrols that do not have the most basic protection, this body armor that is capable of stopping bullets. Why do they not have that protection?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just concur with the gentleman that that is a very interesting Newsweek article. I read it a few hours ago. It is very disturbing because it does lay out how under the Vice President's leadership, this Office of Special Plans collected their own information and drew their own conclusions, and then they use those conclusions to encourage the kind of action that occurred. Now, the fact is that the President has finally admitted quite publicly, in spite of the Vice President's statement to the contrary, that there is no evidence that Iraq or Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attack upon our Nation on September 11, 2001. That is a very critical conclusion, I think, for us to have come to. Because given that and given the fact that we had weapons inspectors in Iraq and they were asking for more time, would not you think that if there is uncertainty about exactly what Saddam Hussein has or may have, that there is no evidence that he was involved in the direct attack upon our country, that we would have approached this situation a little more cautiously, a little more thoughtfully, that we would have expended the time that the inspectors were asking for. If we had done that, it may have been possible. It may have been possible.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the good doctor will allow me to interject a thought here, the President tries to set this up as a two choice paradigm. We either do exactly what we are doing now or, as he says, we cut and run, as if there are no other options, but the gentleman is describing a third option. There may be a fourth or a fifth option. We ought to be looking at the situation, not just simply blindly pursuing a course of action that is resulting in more and more death. Quite frankly, I resent it when the President refers to those of us who question his policies as those who want to cut and run. The last thing I want to do in Iraq is cut and run. We cannot cut and run, and I know not a single Democrat who is suggesting that course of action, but that does not mean that we endorse his plan because his plan is getting us deeper and deeper and deeper into a quagmire. More and more young Americans are being killed, and even more are being seriously wounded. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas said earlier we are not talking about a Congressional pay raise, but it is relevant, because the American people need to know that we are not willing to provide them with what we provide for ourselves. In this Chamber we voted to give ourselves a pay raise, and we voted to deny our soldiers a $1,500 pay increase. That is relevant to this discussion. We have a pretty good health plan here. I think it is fairly well subsidized by the taxpayer. We are not willing to do that for America's senior citizens. We need a Medicare program that is predictable, affordable, stable and secure. That is what our forebearers have given us, and that is what we need to hold on to. My friend from Texas said we would hasten the destruction of Medicare. You know what will hasten the destruction of Medicare? Your party's raiding the surplus and using it for other purposes. That will hasten the demise of Medicare. My seniors are pretty wise. They know what is going on up here. They know that we want to privatize this system, this system that they love and depend upon, and that we want to, by 2010, take away this guaranteed benefit. Quite frankly, America's seniors are going to storm this place when they find out what is happening. They will not tolerate these misstatements, this distortion, this exaggeration. Quite frankly, if we allow the Republican Party under the leadership of this administration to do what they want to do, we will not have Medicare by 2010 as we know it today. Can you imagine what this country would be like without Medicare? Well, if your party has its way, I am afraid America's senior citizens are going to find out. That is why we ought to do the right thing here tonight and accept this motion to recommit.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the trend that we are seeing from this administration when it comes to protecting our troops and caring for our veterans. As more and more Americans are coming to understand, the VA health care system is in a crisis. Veterans are waiting months for appointments, and some are being turned away when they go to enroll in the system. The bottom line here is funding, obviously. If we want the VA to provide the veterans with quality care, then we need to recognize and address this funding problem. There are two things that we can do. We can appropriate the money that is needed, or we can refuse to put the needed funds into the system and instead throw the burden on the backs of the veterans themselves. Sadly, the second option is what this administration has chosen to do over the last 2\1/2\ years. I would like to describe a pattern of behavior that is coming from this administration. In February of 2002, this administration, through the VA, increased the veterans prescription drug copayment from $2 to $7 a prescription. Now, for veterans who are living on fixed incomes, many who take 8 or 10 or more prescriptions in a month, this is a tremendous financial burden. That was in February of 2002. In July of 2002, this administration, through its VA, issued a gag order. The VA deputy secretary issued a memo that instructed all VA network directors to halt outreach activities aimed at encouraging new veterans to come in for services. Instead, providing the resources necessary, the VA says to their doctors, their social workers, their nurses, you can no longer actively inform veterans of what they are entitled to receive. They even went so far as to tell these doctors they could not participate in a community health fair. That was in July of 2002. Well, in January of 2003, the VA decided they were going to create a new category of veterans. They called them Priority 8 veterans. These are veterans who served honorably. Many of them are combat-decorated veterans. And the VA is saying to this group, you are out of here. Do not come to us. You can no longer enroll in the VA health care system because you make too much money. Well, the American people need to know that those of us who serve in this Chamber make about $155,000 a year and a combat-decorated veteran can make as little as $24,000 a year, and the VA is saying to you, you can no longer participate in VA health care. Think about that. We make $155,000, a veteran who served honorably, perhaps even in combat, can make as little as $24,000 a year and this administration says they are high income, so you cannot participate. I think that is shameful, quite frankly. Shameful. Well, that was in January of 2003. You see the pattern? Episode after episode of the VA doing things that are harmful to the veteran. Well, then in January 2003, the President sent his budget request to us. And in the President's budget request, he suggested that we not charge a veteran $7 for each prescription but that that be increased to $15 a prescription. Now, think about that. At a time when we are preparing to send our young men and women into battle, the President rewards our veterans by asking that their prescription drug costs be increased from $7 to $15 a prescription. It gets worse. In that same budget request coming from the President, he asked that there be a new annual enrollment fee imposed upon Category 7 and 8 veterans of $250 a year. I just think this is outrageous. The veterans of this country are coming to understand who their friends are. And how can this administration claim to be a friend of the veteran and at the same time put these increasingly onerous financial burdens upon them. Well, I want to talk about one other issue this evening with the time I have left. A few months ago, I received a letter from a soldier in Iraq who was concerned that his troops had not been provided basic, modern bulletproof vests, but instead were issued Vietnam-era flak jackets. The flak jackets are designed to protect against slower moving shrapnel and are incapable of stopping high-velocity projectiles such as bullets from assault weapons, and we sent our soldiers into battle in Iraq without this most basic protection. Shame on us.