Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for his recognition, and I am happy to be joined this evening by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and later we will be joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). We are going to be talking this evening about the Nation, but especially about some of the problems that are faced by those of us who live in the State of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Ohio's theme has been ``Ohio, The Heart of It All.'' It is true that Ohio is the heartland of our Nation. Ohio probably more than any other State is a microcosm of this great Nation. We have the Great Lakes to the north, the majestic Ohio River along the eastern and southern boundaries. We have some of the richest, most productive farmland in the world. We have great cities: Akron, Toledo, Youngstown, Cincinnati, Columbus. They are wonderful metropolitan areas. We have small towns. And many of those small towns are in my district. Certainly Youngstown and Steubenville, Marietta, Portsmouth, Lisbon, Ohio, all wonderful towns. And we have a great diversity of population. We have great ethnic and racial diversity. We have religious diversity. We have high tech and some of the greatest universities that exist in this country. Although the American people are hurting tonight economically and otherwise, the people of Ohio are especially hurting. In the month of June, Ohio lost 14,100 jobs, bringing the total number of jobs lost since President Bush came to office, the number of jobs lost in Ohio, to 231,500 jobs. In June, Ohio lost 3,400 manufacturing jobs, bringing the total number of manufacturing jobs lost under President Bush to 173,300 jobs. That is only 200 jobs behind those jobs lost in Texas, and third in the entire Nation. The number of unemployed persons in Ohio grew by 111,121 since President Bush took office in 2001, rising to a total number of 3,338,831 persons unemployed last month. That is in Ohio. Nationwide, job creation is still anemic with only about 110,000 jobs created nationally in the last month. The middle class in America is being squeezed. Senator John Kerry has been talking about this middle-class squeeze. Over 90 percent of the new jobs created since August 2003 are service-sector jobs that pay an hourly wage of less than the national wage average. About 1.4 million of the jobs created are service-sector jobs with an average wage of $15.24 an hour, which is 41 cents less than the national average. And 203,000 of these jobs are temporary in nature, providing no stability to the people and the families who depend upon them. Approximately 370,000 of these jobs were in low-paying domestic industries such as wait staff in restaurants and bars and retail workers. In addition to this, and most Americans know this, wages are at a record low. Over the last year, the average hourly wage has fallen. When adjusted for inflation, wages are now at the lowest point in 2 years, and the typical American family is making $1,500 less per year under President Bush. The portion of the national economy going to wages is lower than it has been since 1966. In contrast, after-tax corporate profits are the highest since the government began keeping track in 1947. So the wages of America's workers are declining and the income of the corporate giants are increasing. Now as we approach a month-long recess, instead of this Congress taking steps to help the American working family, Congress is spending its last remaining days debating what is likely to be an unconstitutional effort to block gay marriage and a bill to further extend tax cuts to those who are already wealthy. No wonder that this Congress has come to be known as the ``do-nothing Congress.'' Instead of taking up bills which focus on issues which are really important to the average American, congressional leaders are focusing on issues which are important to their very narrow political constituency. The priorities of this Congress do not reflect the priorities of the American people. Tonight, my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I will be talking about some of these issues to inform the American people and to try to alert our colleagues to what is really happening in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, every time I mention a town in Ohio, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has relatives there. I do know the gentlewoman's relatives in Portsmouth, Ohio, and they are delightful folk, and I am so pleased the gentlewoman is joining us today, and it is wonderful to have her as a colleague because I do feel like we come from the same part of the country.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, in the last Presidential election, then- candidate, now President, Bush said, I am an oil man. He said, I am not a big oil man, but I am an oil man, and I know how to jawbone, and I will jawbone OPEC and I will tell them to turn on the spigots. The Saudi regime, I believe, only remains in power because of the support they receive from this country. In my judgment, if we were to withdraw our support from Saudi Arabia and that regime governing that country, they would be gone in a split second. And yet at a time when we really needed their help, when our economy was struggling to recover, they participated in a decision to cut oil production which sent the cost of gasoline in this country skyrocketing. To my knowledge, President Bush has said nothing to OPEC, nothing to the Saudi regime. He has not jawboned. We have gone through this spring and summer with all of these high prices. The gentlewoman talked about the price of gasoline in Ohio, and that situation exists across this country. Now, are we going to have lower prices soon? I suspect we may because I think there is reason to believe that an arrangement has been made with OPEC and especially the Saudi government as the election comes nearer and nearer, that they will take steps to increase production and thereby decrease the price pressure, and the result may be lower gasoline prices. But I hope the American people remember what they have gone through over the last 5 or 6 months. I hope they remember the hundreds and hundreds of dollars that have come out of their family budgets as a result of these high gasoline prices. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for sharing her thoughts.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), our newest representative from the Youngstown/Trumbull County area.

Mr. STRICKLAND. The fact is if we do not wake up and smell the coffee in a few years, and I am talking about a handful of years, we are going to find that China is going to eat our lunch economically. They have billions of people. They do not have the same kind of requirements that we have here in terms of environmental requirements, labor standards. Their wages are pathetic. We are talking about pennies a day. And they use slave labor; they use child labor. They are an authoritarian government. I have been told that when a Chinese worker is injured on the job, they are just shuttled aside and they bring on someone else. So there are all kinds of reasons why the playing field is not level when it comes to China and dealing with China and this trade issue. We made a mistake, in my judgment; this Congress, this administration made a mistake in granting to China most-favored-nation trading status. We gave them the advantages that come with that designation. We supported their entry into the World Trade Organization, although they are authoritarian, although they are oppressive, although they routinely abuse their own citizens in terms of human rights and civil rights; and yet now we are allowing them to engage in a trade relationship with us which is out of balance, unfair, unequal. I think my friend is right, and I believe he has some charts there showing what is happening in terms of certain sectors of our economy.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Speaking about China, job loss, the needs that we have, I have a chart here that shows that since President Bush has been in office, I am talking about the period from January 2001 through April of 2004, 48 of our 50 States have lost manufacturing jobs. These are jobs that traditionally pay decent wages, have benefits, enable a person to support their families, pay their taxes, support their communities. If we can just look at the heartland of our country here, and I am talking about our great State of Ohio, Ohio has lost 163,500 manufacturing jobs. That job loss is continuing. We now know from the recent statistics that just last month, Ohio lost more than 3,000 manufacturing jobs.

Mr. STRICKLAND. There are people who live in Never-Never Land. People in this administration must live in Michael Jackson's Never-Never Land because they seem totally out of touch. The President comes to Ohio and he talks about how the economy is doing better than it has done in decades. Where is he talking about? What is he talking about? The job loss continues. You look at our surrounding States. Pennsylvania lost 157,400 jobs. West Virginia, a fairly small State, 9,500 manufacturing jobs. The great State of Kentucky where I got my education, my higher education, lost 38,600 jobs. Indiana lost 66,500 jobs. Michigan, 133,200 jobs. The job loss is horrendous, and it is continuing. Even the jobs that are coming back do not pay nearly as much as the jobs that have been lost. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is kind enough to join us tonight.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this may indicate something that I think we intuitively feel, that under this administration the wealthy have done very well. There are people in this country who have got significant tax breaks, who are capable of paying $600 a night for a hotel room. Most of my constituents certainly could not do that, and I think this is just one example of how the rich are being well cared for by the Bush administration. The working middle class is being squeezed, as Senator John Kerry and Senator Edwards have been talking about as they have traveled around this country. There is a middle-class squeeze. The wealthy are doing very well.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for sharing with those of us from Ohio tonight. As I said earlier, and this reinforces what she has said, wages are now at the lowest point in terms of the purchasing power that they have been in 2 years, and the typical American family is making nearly $1,500 less per year than they were when George Bush was elected President. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and I noticed the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has joined us.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what my friend is describing is the middle-class squeeze. The fact that in America today the people who play by the rules, who work, who want to work, who want to pay their taxes, support their churches, invest in their communities, educate their kids, these are the people who are being squeezed. And those at the very upper limits of the income ladder are being richly rewarded by this administration. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my long-time friend.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, what was the result of that increased productivity? What did the workers get out of that?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I make a prediction to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). My prediction is this: President Bush will not return to Canton, Ohio, to the Timken plant during this election year, because the people there are hurting. They know that although they worked hard, although they increased productivity, although the company continued to make money, it wanted to move to where it could earn more money, and that was China. I just want to share with my friend something that is in the President's economic report to the Congress that was presented to us in February of this year. On page 25 of that report, is this statement: ``Whenever a good or a service can be produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it, rather than to produce it domestically.'' That is the philosophy that drove Timken to China: more money, greed, higher profits. But that is the philosophy of the Bush administration. ``Whenever a good or a service can be produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it, rather than to produce it domestically.'' I say to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), nearly every product can be produced at lower cost in another country if you are going to pay slave wages, if you are not going to have environmental standards, if you are not going to have safety requirements for the workplace. That is what we face with the George W. Bush economic philosophy, and we are going to lose jobs until we change our course.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am sometimes amazed and sometimes appalled at what I perceive to be the hypocrisy of this administration. Recently, with the approval of the Bush administration and this Congress, a decision was made that Cubans living in this country could only visit their relatives on the island once every 3 years. Why? Because Cuba is a Communist country. Fidel Castro is an authoritarian dictator. Yet, at the very same time, we continue to expand our efforts to accommodate China, to encourage Americans to invest in China, to encourage trade with China.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for pointing out those really outrageous facts. But can you imagine the American citizen is being told, you cannot voluntarily travel to Cuba. You cannot go down there and enjoy a few days vacation or interact with your friends or families except once every 3 years, because they are a bad Communist country and Fidel Castro is a authoritarian dictator, and they persecute people of religious faith. Does anyone in this Chamber or who serves in this Chamber or in this administration, are they unaware that China routinely persecutes people of religious faith, puts them in jail, in prison; uses slave labor; is an authoritarian country? And yet we encourage this free trade with China. I think it is hypocritical. I do not think it is consistent. I think the American people should be asking, what kind of rationale or reason is behind such duplicitous policy and behavior? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my friend. Earlier this evening I had the privilege of meeting with a group of Ohioans who are involved with projects and agencies that try to help the homeless. They were from Cincinnati and Cleveland and Portsmouth and all of the areas throughout Ohio. I said to them, ``You are the people who are really doing God's work, because you believe in community. You understand that none of us really gets through this life as individuals. All of us need help and receive help. It may be from our parents, our relatives, our neighbors, our church, our schools.'' But I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is trying to describe is the fact that we are a large national family, and we have differences. We have ethnic and religious and racial, philosophical differences. We have different skills and abilities, different educational levels. The fact is, we are not all the same, but we are all a part of the same great Nation. What we have been describing tonight is a nation that is out of balance, that has great unfairness, has inconsistencies, and quite frankly, I believe, a nation that is lacking in leadership. What we need is a Congress that will come together and work for the real benefit of the American people, and we need a President who is aware of the real problems. I think what we have described tonight is a government administration that is out of touch. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), earlier our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and our colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for participating in this discussion tonight.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the world now knows that the Bush administration withheld reliable information regarding the true cost of the Medicare privatization bill they pushed through this House in the middle of the night. According to The New York Times today, and I quote, ``New government estimates suggest that employers will reduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits for 3.8 million retirees when the Medicare bill becomes operable in 2006.'' That represents one-third of all the retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage, according to documents from the Department of Health and Human Services. We know how that bill passed in the middle of the night, 6 o'clock in the morning, after the vote was held open for 3 hours, got the President out of bed at 4 o'clock in the morning to twist arms, and we have done this to Americans, especially America's retirees. It reminds me of a verse from there scriptures that says ``Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.''

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would like to call attention to information which was recently published by The Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health regarding the Australia Free Trade Agreement. CPATH's report explains that because chapter 15 of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies to Federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs that procure pharmaceuticals, under the agreement drug companies would have the right to challenge VA procurement decisions. This would include VA decisions about coverage and pricing of pharmaceuticals. Virtually any aspect of coverage or pricing could be challenged based on technical specifications, timing, process, or any number of other agreements or disagreements. For example, a drug company could claim the VA's decision not to offer a particular drug is the result of an unfair assessment of the drug's effectiveness or economic value. Under the trade agreement, the drug company could then file a complaint against the VA based on these claims. If the VA's procurement decisions are delayed, routinely contested, or reversed on a regular or irregular basis, there could be a serious effect on access to and prices for medications for our veterans. Before we vote on this free trade agreement, please consider this analysis and its potential effect on our Nation's veterans. It is a fact that the drug companies could challenge drug listing and pricing decisions by the VA. The government of Australia is not required to initiate or authorize these challenges. A drug company could do so. A drug company with an office in Australia could have standing to initiate such a challenge. Now, it does not have to be this way. Many procurement decisions are already excluded by both Australia and the United States under this agreement, including motor vehicles, the dredging at construction sites, and so on. Important government programs that provide benefits to millions, including vulnerable populations, can be legitimately added to the list of excluded measures. It was not done in this bill, and America's veterans are at risk as a result. It is important that before we vote on this trade bill that we read it and understand its potential negative effects upon America's veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, almost 4 years ago, President Bush came to the office of the Presidency having lost the popular vote in this country by over 500,000 votes, having endured a disputed election in Florida, where there were multiple charges and accusations of fraud and people being denied the right to vote. We had the involvement of the Supreme Court for the first time, I believe, in our Nation's history in making a decision basically to stop the counting of votes in Florida. And so the President came to office under these very unusual circumstances. I think all of us, all of the country recognized that there was a need for healing in our country, and we hoped that President Bush would do what he promised to do during his campaign: that he would be a uniter, not a divider; that he would govern as a compassionate conservative. But the fact is that President Bush has governed from the far right of his party, and he has perhaps been the most divisive President in recent history. We all know also that on September 11, 2001, our country was attacked and all Americans pulled together at that time. It was a time when the President had a unique opportunity to mobilize the world in the fight against terrorism. But rather than do that, he chose to go his own way, to use intelligence data that was inaccurate, I believe exaggerated and manipulated, in order to convince the American people that there was a threat from Iraq, when we now know that the real threat continues to come from al Qaeda and the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden, who I would remind all of us is free tonight to plot the next attack upon our Nation. In the last few hours, something has happened that alarms me, and I think will alarm the American people as they find out about it. Earlier this week, the U.S. Elections Assistant Commissioner, who is a Bush appointee, asked the Homeland Security Secretary, Mr. Tom Ridge, to consider seeking the authority to postpone a Federal election. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze the steps that would be needed to postpone the November Presidential election. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. The postponement of a Presidential election would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be a capitulation to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt the selection of our highest leader, and it would be unprecedented for a Presidential election. Not even the Civil War stopped the 1864 Presidential election from taking place. I quote from Abraham Lincoln, November 10, 1864: President Lincoln said, ``We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have conquered or ruined us.'' In early 1864, President Abraham Lincoln feared that he may lose the Presidency because of widespread criticism of his handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term since Andrew Jackson, more than 30 years prior, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military disappointments. Under those conditions, many of Lincoln's closest advisers urged him to postpone the election so that he could focus on the war effort, but Abraham Lincoln never even considered that possibility, nor should we. The fight against terrorism, like the Civil War, will affect more than a generation of Americans. Let us make sure that in this long fight against terrorism we do not lose what we are fighting for in the first place. I do not know that this would happen, but I think the American people need to be paying attention. Would it be possible that shortly before the elections the residing party in power determined that things were not going so well, would there be a temptation under those circumstances to find some reason to justify postponing the election? We should never even consider such a possibility. I call upon the President to reject this suggestion, and I call upon this Congress to stand together as Republicans and Democrats to say we are having our Presidential election on November 2, regardless of what the terrorists may seek to do.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. The Vice President uttered on the floor of the United States Senate a graphic, sexual obscenity that is, I think, beneath the office. And the gentleman is right, when he was asked about it, he indicated he was not sorry he said it; in fact, he said he felt better. Now, this chamber and in fact much of the country got terribly upset a few months ago when there was an incident during the half-time at the super bowl when Janet Jackson had part of her anatomy exposed. I did not see the super bowl, I did not see the half-time show, so I did not see that incident, but it has been described. I guess I would ask this of the Vice President or of the American people: what is more harmful in terms of setting an example for the young people of this country, the children of our country, a momentary glimpse of a part of the human anatomy during an entertainment show on TV, or the Vice President of the United States on the floor of the United States Senate using a very graphic sexual obscenity directing it toward a United States Senator? And then I would further ask this question. all of us perhaps lose our tempers sometimes and say things that we should not say and are later sorry for. I know I do. I mean I think that is part of the human condition. But what I found most objectionable about the Vice President's behavior is that hours later, when he had had time to reflect upon his behavior and its possible influence upon the country, that he was asked on Fox News, and I was watching that show; in fact, I followed him on Fox News just a few moments after he had completed his interview, he was asked if he was sorry, and he said no, he had no regrets and, in fact, he felt better. Now, this is the Vice President of the United States, a person who talks about values, about moral values, and I just think it is quite unfortunate that this incident happened, but I can understand that it happened. As I said, we are all human. We all get angry, perhaps, at times. I confess that I have been guilty of that kind of behavior. But what I found so objectionable was the Vice President's unwillingness, even after he had time to reflect upon it, to admit the error.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to support what my friend from Washington State has said. I want to read something that the Vice President said on August 26, 2002 in a speech that he gave on that date. He said, ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.'' Now, the Vice President could have said, we have reason to believe, or I believe, or Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction, but the words he chose to use were the words ``no doubt.'' There is no doubt. And as a result of that thinking, we have lost nearly 900 American lives in Iraq. Many, many thousands of our soldiers have been terribly wounded because the Vice President and others in the administration were willing to say ``there is no doubt'' when, in fact, there was great doubt, significant doubt. And I believe that if the American people had been told that Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction, but we do not know for sure, I believe the American people would have supported letting the inspectors have a longer period of time, time that they requested, to make sure that we knew whether or not Saddam Hussein had these weapons of mass destruction before we sent our soldiers into harm's way.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Just recently, the Columbus Dispatch, the major newspaper in Ohio's capital city, had an editorial, and they pointed out that former Halliburton employees have made accusations that Halliburton housed some of their employees in hotel rooms that cost $10,000 per night. $10,000 per night, paid for, obviously, through these contracts, which ultimately are financed by the American taxpayer.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I was amazed, but as I checked into it, it was not a misprint, $10,000 per night. Apparently there are hotels that have those kinds of prices. There were also accusations made that Halliburton was paying $100 for one bag of laundry, and then there were further reports that when a contract with Halliburton to provide food to our troops was cancelled, that the cost of feeding our troops declined by 40 percent. Now, this was information contained in an editorial in the Columbus Dispatch, and it was based upon information that was coming from a former Halliburton employee. And in that editorial there was a call for Halliburton and Vice President Cheney to be forthcoming in explaining whatever relationship may have been involved in Halliburton's achieving this kind of contract. And the emphasis was made that when you have a contract that is a cost-plus contract, there is really no incentive to hold down the costs. And so while we are struggling here in this country to meet the basic necessities of our citizens, we have senior citizens without adequate access to prescription drugs, we have children that are not being adequately educated, we have an infrastructure in our communities that is crumbling and falling apart while we cannot get a transportation bill passed, because the President is unwilling to spend money on the infrastructure needs in this country, while we are pouring money into Iraq, we have these outrageous contracts, which are enriching Halliburton and draining resources from our country. It is quite disturbing, and I do think the vice president, the administration owes the American people an explanation.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think you can go downstairs here in this Capitol building and look in the stairwell and actually see pock marks where bullets were fired during that period of time right here in this building, the Capitol building. And Abraham Lincoln in 1864 was really in danger of losing his presidency because the war was not going well. There had been some recent losses and there was wide spread criticism of President Lincoln as the President and some of his advisors were advising him to postpone the election. And this is what President Lincoln said on November 10, 1864, ``We cannot have free government without elections and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have concurred or ruined us.'' We are strong people. We can take a lot. The American people have backbone. They have got courage. There is nothing that terrorists can do that ought to have the power to interfere with our ability to have a national election on November 2 as planned, absolutely nothing. And I think to imply that those who wish us harm would have that kind of power to influence our national purpose and our national behavior in that way is giving greater credibility to the terrorists than they deserve. We are going to have that election on November 2, I believe, but it does bother me, it truly bothers me that this would be something that would even be considered by this government. It really bothers me. If we did not cancel or postpone elections during the Civil War, if we did not cancel or postpone elections during World War II, why would we even contemplate the possibility of postponing this upcoming presidential election. One more thing, if I can say this before I yield back, we all want to trust each other, but what kind of motivation may such a provision inspire? What if it was 3 days before the election and the poll was taken and showed perhaps the party in power was not going to do very well, would there be incentive to perhaps indicate to the American people that there was a justification for postponing the election? I would hope not. But even to have this as a consideration I find alarming, appalling, and as I said earlier tonight, I would just hope the President and every Member of this chamber, Republican and Democrat alike, would reaffirm to the American people that we intend to have our election on November 2 as planned, and that there is nothing that terrorists can do to interfere with that Democratic process.