Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Green amendment. Mr. Chairman, I agree with nearly everything my friend from Massachusetts has said, but I rise today in support of the Green amendment because I think that would give Congress important information about the potential effects of H.R. 1829 by requiring the GAO to submit to this Congress a study of the effects of eliminating Federal Prison Industries' mandatory source requirements. This amendment would require that this study be completed within a compressed period of time, by April 2004. Mr. Chairman, I may be the only Member of this House who has actually worked in a prison, in a maximum security prison, as a matter of fact. Based on my experience, I believe there are good arguments both in support of and in opposition to H.R. 1829, and I feel conflicted today. I am inclined to support the underlying bill because I do want to put FPI on a more level playing field with other industries that employ Americans. I am very sympathetic with the concerns of correctional officers, however, who oppose the bill because FPI has been proven a successful tool in creating safe prison environments for both staff persons, correctional officers, and inmates. I am sympathetic with those who believe that FPI provides essential work experience and rehabilitation for inmates who will eventually use these skills when they are released from prison. I strongly believe that the Green amendment gives us an opportunity to craft a thoughtful, successful public policy for all involved. The Green amendment would simply give Congress more information. The amendment gives the GAO a compressed time frame to study the effects of the bill on prisons, on public safety, inmates, public and private sector employment. I know that I have a lot of questions about the effects this bill will have, and it seems to me that we should at least have a chance to have all of our questions answered before we make this decision. This program has been around nearly 70 years. In closing, I want to point out that this is not an issue that we should take lightly. Its effects have the potential to reach the core of our communities. Yes, correctional officers and inmates, small business owners and American workers care about this bill for very obvious reasons. But we should not forget that all those who are worried about criminal recidivism and the safety of our communities also care about this bill. About 98 percent of prisoners currently serving time will eventually return to society, and H.R. 1829 will potentially have a dramatic effect on our prisons' ability to ensure that those prisoners are ready to make the transition. I think we should do this right. I would hope we would pass this amendment so that when we do make the final decision, we can do it being better-informed Representatives and consequently arrive at a more justifiable public policy.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about this debate today. In my judgment, it has been one of the most thoughtful, substantive debates that I have witnessed in this Chamber, and I think the reason for it is it is not based upon being a liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat; but it is an attempt to deal with a serious matter, and I think there are people of differing opinions who want to do the right thing and are trying to do the right thing. I intend to vote for this bill. But one of the concerns that I have had and one of the concerns that has been expressed here today is that we simply do not want to deprive work from being undertaken in our prisons and then allow that work to be performed outside of our country. This amendment is very simple. It just simply says under those circumstances where the Federal Bureau of Prisons is permitted to bid on a procurement activity, those competing private bidders must provide whatever goods and services they are seeking to provide which are manufactured within the United States of America. I think that will solve a lot of concerns that many of us have.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, soon we will be observing Veterans' Day in our Nation; and there will be parades, pictures will be taken, and flowery speeches will be made. But I want to just point out to my colleagues here in the House and to those who may be watching what the record is in terms of veterans and veterans funding and veterans health care. In 2002, the Veterans Administration decided that they were going to raise the cost of a prescription drug that a veteran would have to pay from $2 to $7 a prescription. At the time I thought that was outrageous, because many of the veterans that I represent take 10 or more prescriptions a month; and I felt like that was an unnecessary burden, financial burden, to place upon our veterans. But there is a pattern of actions that have been taken by this administration that I think I would call shameful as far as the treatment of veterans is concerned, because following this increase in the cost of a prescription drug, the VA issued a gag order. They literally changed VA policy. They sent out a memo that went out to all the health care providers across our country, the doctors and nurses and social workers who work in our VA clinics, and they forbade them to continue to proactively inform veterans of what benefits they were legally entitled to receive. The memo was very specific. It told these health care providers that they could no longer participate in a community health fair, they could no longer send out newsletters informing veterans of the benefits that they were entitled to, they could no longer make public service announcements. Now, think of that. Here is this agency of the Federal Government, under this President, an agency that is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of veterans, literally forbidding the health care providers in our VA facilities from informing veterans in a proactive manner of the benefits they were entitled to receive under the law. Well, not long after they issued this gag order, the VA made a decision that they were going to exclude an entire group of veterans from VA health care. They called this new category of veterans Priority 8. You can be a Priority 8 veteran and be a combat-decorated veteran; but if you have an illness that is not service-connected and if your income is deemed to be too much, and in this case it can be as little as $24,000 a year, you are told by the VA, you are out of here. We do not want you coming to us for medical care. You are excluded. You are a Priority 8 veteran. Pretty pathetic. All of this is happening, by the way, under the Presidency of George W. Bush. Then in January the President sent his budget to the Congress, and in his budget he asked that the cost of a prescription drug be increased from $7 to $15 a prescription. Think of that. At a time when we were getting ready to send our young men and women into war, the President wants to increase the copayment for a prescription from $7 to $15. His budget also asked that a new first-time enrollment fee be imposed upon veterans, Priority 7 and 8 veterans, an enrollment fee of $250. You can see the pattern. It is a pattern of neglect and, I believe, abuse of veterans. Then we could talk about the disabled veterans tax. The country is becoming aware that if a veteran has served 20 years, he or she is entitled to a retirement benefit; and if they are injured as a result of their military service, they are entitled to disability benefits, but they cannot receive both. But they cannot receive both. Now, if they were in any other part of the Federal Government, they would get both. But if you are a veteran, for every dollar in disability benefit you get, you lose a dollar in pension. In other words, veterans are being required to fund their own disability compensation. We tried to correct that in the House and Senate, but the President put out a veto threat that if this was in the bill, if this correction was in the bill, he would veto it. Then there is a matter of VA funding for this year. It is $1.8 billion short of what this House promised. We need $1.8 billion additional dollars in VA funding simply to maintain the current level of VA health care services, but the Republican leadership and the President say no. So the Senate, just last week, passed an amendment to increase VA funding, not by the full $1.8 billion, but by $1.3 billion, and they wanted to take it out of that $87 billion that is being provided for Iraq. The same day, the White House put out a statement saying they oppose this. I think the veterans of this country are coming to understand that they are being treated in a shabby and a shameless manner.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is not only veterans who are being neglected, but those who support this $87 billion supplemental and the President, this administration, they are trying to say to us, if you oppose this, then you are not supporting our troops, and I say balderdash. There is absolutely no truth to that. The fact is that right now, right now this very night, as my colleague and I are standing here in this chamber of the House of Representatives, there are young soldiers in Iraq who are in danger because they do not have adequate protective vests. It is estimated that about 44,000 American soldiers this very moment are in Iraq, and they have Vietnam-era vests that cannot protect them from bullets. Why is that? It is because this Pentagon, this administration did not make it a priority.

Mr. STRICKLAND. The civilian leadership, not the military. It is the civilian leadership, and we had months to prepare for this war. There were months during which we knew that war was likely to occur before the actual conflict started. General Myers has said recently, wait a minute, this is not a matter of money, this is a matter of production. We just cannot simply get these vests produced rapidly enough, and so our soldiers will not receive these until December, but he is saying that after they were exposed. If the public had not achieved knowledge that these soldiers were being unprotected, they would not be trying to get these vests made for the soldiers. It was only after they were exposed. In May, I received a letter from a young soldier saying that I and all of my men have the vests that will not stop bullets, and we have had stories of moms and dads taking money out of their own pockets and buying these protective equipment and sending them to Iraq and young soldiers literally duct taping them to their bodies because they do not have the proper vests to hold these ceramic inserts. That is quite shameful. I do not want anyone in this administration lecturing me about my concern for our troops. I would spend the last dollar available to this government to protect our soldiers, but I will not support a policy that is flawed. I see we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) as well.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield for a moment, we all support the troops. There is not a Member of this chamber that does not care about the young Americans, and some of them are middle- aged because they are reservists and National Guard. They are moms and dads and people who are serving us this very night, not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan and in other dangerous places around this world. We honor them. We love them for their service to this great country, but what we are talking about here is a policy that is flawed, and we are talking about the need to bring some common sense and sanity to the way we support our troops and the way we spend the American tax dollar.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield, the President talks about the fact that we are not going to cut and run, that we are going to stand strong and that we are going to sacrifice to pursue this war on terror. The only people sacrificing, with due respect to the President, the only people sacrificing are the soldiers in Iraq and the loved ones back here at home, and the children in our country who are being given the bill to pay for all of this. Those are the people who are sacrificing. The President is not sacrificing. I am not sacrificing. No Member of this House of Representatives is sacrificing. No Senator is sacrificing. We are continuing to draw our salaries and enjoying whatever benefits are coming to us. We are not sacrificing, but we are using Social Security trust fund monies. We are increasing the debt. And that debt has to be paid sometime in the future, and the children in this country are being given this huge burden. Now, the President says he wants to build schools in Iraq. I care about children everywhere, but if we are going to build schools in Iraq, let us pay for those schools now. He wants to build schools in Iraq, and he wants to give the bill to America's kids. He wants to build hospitals in Iraq, and he wants America's children to pay for it sometime in the future. They want to build two big prisons in Iraq, two 4,000-bed prisons. They are asking for $410 million to build these two prisons, and we could build those two prisons in this country for an estimated $113 million. So with all due respect to the President, when he talks about our willingness to sacrifice, he is not asking anyone to sacrifice except the kids, the old people who depend upon Social Security, and the soldiers and their families. He is not asking Members of Congress to sacrifice. He is not asking his rich wealthy friends to sacrifice.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if my friend will yield once again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a Republican and a strong supporter of the President usually, is going to offer an amendment tomorrow to have at least a large portion of this $87 billion given in loans instead of grants. Now, the President says, oh, we cannot do that because we cannot put this great debt burden on the Iraqi people.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam speaker, if my colleague will yield, someone said that this is not a debate about guns and butter; it is a debate between our butter and their butter. And there is some truth to that. But on a very serious note, I said something in the Chamber earlier this evening, and I want to repeat it. I deeply resent, I deeply resent those who would use our troops as leverage, those who would use our troops as hostages in order to extract from this Congress an agreement to spend $87 billion in Iraq. All of us support our troops, but this President and this leadership will not allow us to have separate votes on the money to support our troops and the money to build Iraq and money that could and probably will be used in a non-bid contracting-kind of environment. But it really offends me to imply that because we do not want to just give the President $87 billion to spend basically as he wants to spend it, that somehow we are not being supportive of our troops. I find that a painful thing to have to cope with.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Could I just say in closing before I turn it over to our good leader here this evening, I am not sacrificing for this war. The President has not asked Ted Strickland to sacrifice a thing. I am getting my full salary, my full benefits. No one in this Chamber is sacrificing. And you know the President is not sacrificing. Who is sacrificing? His wealthy contributors are not sacrificing. Halliburton is not sacrificing. The Vice President is not sacrificing. You know who is sacrificing? Our soldiers are sacrificing. Their loved ones back here who worry that they do not have protective armor so that when they are out on patrol they are not as protected as possible. They are sacrificing. And the children of this country who are being given a huge debt to pay off at some time in the future, they are the ones that are sacrificing. I do not want to hear the President talking about us being willing to sacrifice. The sacrifice ought to be shared sacrifice. We all should be sacrificing, including the wealthy among us.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, we are talking about the $87 billion that is currently under consideration. We ought not to forget, we have already appropriated for Iraq about $65 billion. And, mark my word, this administration is going to come back here next year and they are going to ask for another $50 billion or more. This $87 billion is just part of what they are asking for. And every dollar of that $87 billion is going to come out of Social Security and Medicare trust fund moneys. It is going to be added to our debt. Our children are going to be responsible for paying it off. And in the meantime we are nickel and diming our veterans as we said earlier. All they need is $1.8 billion to increase their health care budget to bring it up to where we can take care of the veterans in a reasonable, defensible manner. They are not willing to spend an additional $1.8 billion on our veterans. Think about that. Hear that, people. They are not willing to spend 1.8 billion additional dollars on our veterans, and they are asking for $87 billion for Iraq. It in my judgment it is shameful. Shameful. And this is one of the things we ought to be talking about tomorrow when this bill comes to the floor for our consideration.

Mr. STRICKLAND. But the President is putting it on America's children. I mean it is a puzzle to me. This is strange thinking, that we are willing to pile debt upon America's kids and we are not willing to expect Iraq, with these huge oil reserves, to bear some of the burden. And, remember, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz told the Senate in March of this year that Iraq was such a wealthy country that they would be able to finance, in most part, their entire reconstruction. He said that in March.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, it puzzles me. I do not understand why the President and the leadership in this House do not just solve this problem. It is so easy for them to ask for $87 billion for Iraq; it should be a no-brainer, quite frankly. They should decide tomorrow that they are going to add this $1.8 billion. If we had an additional $1.8 billion in the VA budget, we would not have to increase co-payments on drugs. We would not have to impose an enrollment fee. We would not have to exclude priority 8 veterans from care. We would not have to do any of these things if we had sufficient funding for VA health care. How can those who are so willing to boast of their support for our military be so callous, so unfeeling when it comes to the men and the women who have fought our past wars, who have borne the battle and who are now in need? It just puzzles me that why is it so easy to ask for $87 billion on top of the $65 billion that has already been appropriated, and yet they nickel and dime the veterans and refuse to add the $1.8 billion. I want to state, and the gentleman is aware of this, I am sure, the veterans groups in this country know what is going on. The DAV, the Paralyzed Veterans, the American Legion, the Vietnam Vets, the AMVETS, all of these vets. I have met with them. I am on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. They have been before our committee. Every last one of these veterans organizations are asking that we restore $1.8 billion. It is unconscionable, it is unconscionable that those of us who serve in this House would refuse to do what needs to be done for veterans health care and be so willing to just go into the pockets of the American taxpayer and take out $87 billion and use it for Iraq. It just does not make sense to me.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the gentleman points out the neglect of the needs that are right here at home and the fact that the President frequently talks about forcing Congress to restrain spending, but yet he is so willing to ask us to spend so much in Iraq. And the gentleman mentioned all of these dreaded diseases, and that is appropriate; but I also think it is appropriate for American people to understand that when the VA/HUD appropriations bill was dealt with in this Chamber just a couple of weeks ago, that when we passed that bill, VA health care was underfunded by $1.8 billion. Now, think of that. Compare underfunding VA health care by $1.8 billion because the President and the leadership of this House says, well, we just simply cannot afford to provide this level of health care for our veterans, less than $2 billion. And yet they are so willing to come to this Chamber and to ask us to spend $87 billion in addition to the $65 billion that we have already appropriated for Iraq. That just seems incongruous to me that we would have that kind of leadership. Now, this past week I was in my home town of Portsmouth, Ohio, and I was there with the National Commanders of the AMVETS at an AMVETS meeting hall; and I was talking with many of those veterans, and I want to state that they were upset. They talk about the underfunding of VA health care; they talk about the fact that the administration is trying to increase the cost of prescription drugs for their medicines; that the President has asked that they pay a $250 annual enrollment fee to participate in the VA health care system; that many veterans, some of them combat decorated veterans who are being totally excluded from VA health care because they are being considered higher income and they can earn as little as $24,000 a year and be considered higher income. And yet we nickel and dime the veteran and are so willing to ask for huge sums of money to build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals and prisons and medical clinics and to establish phone systems and cell phone capability in Iraq, and we are shortchanging the American people. We are especially shortchanging our veterans. That just simply does not make sense to me.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about something that has been in the news lately. I first became aware of this problem in May when I received a letter from a young soldier in Baghdad, one of my constituents, a young man who attended West Point, a young man who loves the military and loves being in the Army. He wrote me a letter and he said, Congressman, I am so proud to be in the Army. And then later on in his letter, he said, I'm angry because there are two kinds of protective vests that are being issued over here. One of the vests is capable of stopping fragments. The other vest is capable of stopping bullets. I'm wondering why my men do not have access to the best vests, those that can stop bullets. It is called the Interceptor vest. It is made of Kevlar. It has areas where ceramic inserts can be placed. And these Interceptor vests have been credited with saving nearly 30 lives in Afghanistan. Yet, Madam Speaker, it is almost beyond belief that although we had months to prepare for this conflict, months during which we knew that there was a high probability that we would be going to war, we put our young soldiers into harm's way without protecting them with the best vests, bulletproof vests, available to us. There is a story that has been reported in the press of how one young soldier was on patrol, and he was shot by the enemy four times, twice in the chest and twice in his arms, and he survived. He survived because, although he did not have one of these Interceptor vests to wear, before he went on patrol one of his buddies took off his vest and gave it to him. It was only because he had this Interceptor vest on that he survived being shot in the chest. But tonight, as we are here in Washington, DC, and those of us who are Members of this Chamber feel safe and secure within the confines of this House Chamber, there are young Americans who are in Baghdad and Tikrit and other parts of Iraq, some 44,000, we believe, who do not have the Interceptor vest. They have Vietnam-era flak jackets basically, jackets that are incapable of stopping the bullets. I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld, and I asked him some questions which I think I and the American people deserve to have answered. Why were our soldiers not provided with these vests at the very beginning of this war? We had plenty of time to prepare to have these vests manufactured. Why were they sent into harm's way? How many American soldiers have lost their lives? How many have been terribly wounded and injured because of the insensitivity or incompetence or outright shameful behavior of those who decided that for some reason our soldiers did not need or did not deserve this kind of protection? I think the Secretary should answer that question to this Congress and to the American people. It is just almost beyond belief with all the billions of dollars available to the Pentagon that this most basic protection for our soldiers, the vests, the body armor they wear, would not be given to them. General Meyers said, well, it's not a question of money, it's a question of production. We're trying to get as many of these vests produced as possible. In fact, the Pentagon has even enlisted three additional companies to produce these vests. Well, it is about time. Back in Ohio we have an old saying, it does no good to close the barn door after the horse has left the barn. Why were these protective devices not available before our soldiers were sent into battle? General Abizaid, testifying before a Senate committee, said he did not have an answer to that question. He said, I cannot answer why we went into conflict with an insufficient supply of these vests. Somebody ought to take responsibility. The President frequently talks about the need for personal responsibility. Who was responsible at the Pentagon, in our defense establishment, for this gross oversight? I think the Secretary owes the American people an answer, and I hope he responds to my letter in an expeditious and prompt manner.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, we have already appropriated about $65 billion for Iraq, and now the President is asking for $87 billion more. The President wants to do this at a time when he is seeking to increase the copayment for veterans on their prescription drugs from $7 to $15 a prescription. The President wants $87 billion for Iraq when he wants to impose a $250 annual enrollment fee so that veterans can participate in veterans health care. They are excluding priority 8 veterans and saying you cannot even enroll in VA health care now because we do not have enough money. Yet he wants $87 billion more for Iraq. The President has threatened to veto a bill if we get rid of the disabled veterans tax, but he wants $87 billion for Iraq. This administration has given gold-plated, unbid contracts to the President's and the Vice President's friends at Halliburton, and now he wants $87 billion more. The President wants to build schools in Iraq, but he will not ask his wealthy contributors to reduce their tax cuts so that we can pay for those schools. No, the President wants to build schools in Iraq, and he wants to give the bill to America's children to pay for those schools. We are being told we must support this in order to support our troops. But the truth is we sent young Americans into battle, and some of them have lost their lives and been seriously injured without having protective vests. I got a letter from a young West Point graduate in Baghdad saying, ``Congressman, my men are wondering why they have the cheap vests. Shame. Shame.'' Mr. Chairman, I resent the fact that the President and the leadership in this House are using our troops as leverage. They are using our troops as hostages in order to extract $87 billion out of this Congress for Iraq. I support our troops. We all support our troops. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we are going to support the misguided policies of this administration. I will vote ``no'' on this unwise request.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding to me. We are talking about ending the disabled veterans tax. Now, there may be people listening or watching who do not fully understand what we mean when we say disabled veterans tax. Well, let me just explain it briefly. We know that disabled military retirees are the only Federal employees forced to pay for their own disability. Dollar for dollar they have got to give up their pension benefits in order to collect their disability benefits. We know that over 600,000, maybe some of them are watching today, 600,000 disabled veterans across this country, 10,000 disabled veterans in my State of Ohio, are paying millions of dollars every year because of this tax that we are trying to eliminate. We know that the administration and the President himself, the President cannot escape this issue. The Bush administration has told Congress that if we pass legislation to eliminate this unfair disabled veterans' tax, that the President will veto the legislation. So what is Congress going to do? What are we going to do? Most of my Democratic colleagues have signed what we call a discharge petition. When the leadership of this House refuses to bring a bill to the floor, we have a mechanism called the discharge petition, and if we can get 218 Members of this House to sign that petition, that bill comes to the floor automatically. How many have signed this discharge petition? Two hundred and three Members have signed this petition. We need 218 signatures to bring the bill to the floor. How many Republicans have signed this petition? Only two. Two hundred and one Democrats have signed the petition, only two Members of the Republican party. I am proud to say that every Democrat from the State of Ohio has signed this petition, and I am disappointed that not a single Republican from the State of Ohio has signed the discharge petition. Why are they not signing the petition? I suspect it is because their leadership is telling them that they better had not, they better had not buck the leadership, there is a price to pay if they go against the leadership. Who are we here to represent, the leadership of the Republican party or the men and women, especially the disabled veterans, who have voted for us and sent us to represent them in this Chamber? People listening may think, well, this is just a Democrat harangue against the Republicans, this is just a partisan issue, but I have, here in my hands, a news release that was sent out by the national veterans' groups. I will tell my colleagues who they are: The AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America. They put a heading on their press release that is pretty strong. They say, Congress declares war against disabled veterans, and I would like to share with my colleagues just some of the things these national representatives of the veterans have said in their press release. They begin by saying, The House majority leadership has shown callous contempt for the sacrifices of America's defenders by attempting to impose overly restrictive conditions that would limit benefits for disabilities from military service. That is what these organizations say. They continue, An untold number of men and women will return from Iraq and the war on terror with disabilities. The military and veterans' organizations worry that many of them will not be able to directly identify or prove the origin of their ailments, but that certainly does not mean that they should be ignored. Any suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and shameful, they say. Then they conclude their press release by saying, Our Nation is engaged in a war with a hostile enemy that would willingly kill innocent civilians. Yet it seems that some members of our government would shortchange those who protect us. They continue, Disabled veterans should not have to fight their own government for the benefits they have earned. In a callous effort to limit government's obligations to our former, current and future defenders, authors of the provision in the Defense authorization bill took it upon themselves to rewrite the law regarding benefits for disabled veterans. That is what the national veterans' organizations are saying. This is not just a Democratic attack upon the Republican leadership or upon the President. We can solve this problem quickly. If we just had a few more Republicans who would walk down here to the well of the House and put their signatures on this discharge petition, within a matter of hours that bill would be brought to this floor, and we could end the disabled veterans' tax. Probably a lot of veterans are watching today or families of veterans or just simply Americans who care about veterans. I think it is fair for me to point out that President Bush is willing to spend millions in Iraq to develop a ZIP code system, but he is not willing to spend for America's veterans. He is willing to spend millions building roads in Iraq, but he is neglecting to provide for our veterans. He is willing to spend millions to build hospitals and clinics in Iraq, but he is unwilling to support eliminating this disabled veterans' tax. We need to get our priorities right, and I hope the people in this country start letting the Members of this House who are unwilling to sign this discharge petition know how they feel about it. Every Member of this House who goes back to their Districts this weekend should be confronted with veterans saying, sir or ma'am, have you signed the discharge petition, and if you have not, why not?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me. I noted earlier that many of our colleagues had gone to Iraq over the weekend, and they came back and described their experiences. I went to southeastern Ohio over the weekend, and I talked to people in Shady Side, Ohio and in Bel Air, Ohio, and Youngstown, Ohio, and I heard about infrastructure needs in Ohio. I heard about schools that need to be built. I heard about water and sewer systems that small communities simply cannot afford to pay for. And I talked with teachers and principals, talked with about three or four high school classes over this last 4 or 5 days while I was in Ohio. We are a compassionate people, I would say to my friend from New York. We are compassionate. We care about other people, but we also care about the people that we are charged to represent. And in my district, I have got so many needs. I found out this past weekend that in one of my communities there is the great danger that we are going to lose an additional 275 good- paying jobs, union jobs, steelworker jobs. This really concerns me. I think there is a bleeding of jobs in this country. I looked at the headlines in the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch this morning. Iraq Battle Last 8 Hours and then One in Six Uninsured, this U.S. report says. Unemployment is skyrocketing in my district and throughout Ohio. More and more of our constituents are without health insurance. Our schools are being inadequately funded. I toured a school in my district, I would say to my friend from New York, not long ago; and after that tour was completed, one of the parents on that tour came to me and he said, Congressman, I have two children who attend this school. I had no idea it was in this condition. He said, I am a building inspector, and if I were inspecting any other commercial building that had the problems this school has, I would close it immediately. He said, I saw at least 100 safety violations in this school. And he said, there are violations that cannot be easily fixed because this school has been added on to. It has been patched together over multiple years. Why is it that we seem so willing to accept the fact that our kids can go to dilapidated schools, our people can be without health insurance, our roads can be unbuilt, our veterans can be shortchanged in the health care we provide to them, and yet we seem so willing, almost casual in talking about billions of dollars for the rebuilding of Iraq? I might say to my friend from New York, it is not the rebuilding of Iraq. It is the building of Iraq. The President said when he addressed the United Nations that he intends to build 1,000 new schools in Iraq. We did not destroy 1,000 schools in this war. They want to build two 400-bed hospitals in Iraq. We did not destroy hospitals during this war. Talk about nation building. This President, during the campaign, criticized efforts to nation-build. And as I said earlier when I started my comments, we are a compassionate Nation. We care about the needs that exist in other countries. We care about the people in Iraq, but we are charged primarily to represent our constituents right here at home. I want to state, I do not know if many of my colleagues or the President understand what life is like in southern and southeastern Ohio. It is an Appalachian district. Unemployment in one of my counties is 13.5 percent. People want to work. They are good people. They want to care for their families. They care about their kids as much as any Member in this Chamber cares about his or her children. They want them to get a high-quality education as much as any person in this Chamber wants their children to get a high-quality education. If I can just take a moment before I yield back to talk about veterans. I am on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I keep reminding us in this Chamber that we are underfunding the VA health care system by at least $1.8 billion. Think about that. We have got veterans who are going without health care, who are being denied the ability to enroll in VA health care, who are going to be asked by this administration to pay more copayments for prescription drugs. The President wants to impose a $250 enrollment fee on Priority 7 veterans. And Priority 8 veterans are being told they cannot even enroll in the VA system. They can make as little as $24,000 and be a Priority 8 veteran, and yet we are just, it seems, almost casually talking about spending $21 billion to build schools and roads and bridges and clinics and hospitals in Iraq. I just do not understand what is wrong with this government. I certainly do not understand what is wrong with this President and this administration. We have got a war going on. We are shortchanging our national needs. We are not caring for our soldiers. We have got about 40,000 soldiers in Iraq tonight that have cheap vests that are not capable of stopping bullets. The more expensive protective vests, my understanding is, cost $571 on average. I got a letter from a young soldier, a West Point graduate. He said, Congressman, they are issuing two kind of vests over here. One is capable of stopping a bullet, and the other only stops shrapnel. My men are asking me why they have the cheap vests. I wonder how many of our soldiers may have been wounded or killed wearing a cheap vest, inadequate protective body armor. And the British Broadcasting System has reported that we have made a deal with some of these other countries, I think Poland and some other countries, that if they will contribute soldiers, we will provide them with these higher-cost vests. I want to make doggone sure that no foreign troops get these better vests before every single American soldier that is in Iraq has access to one of these protective garments. I thank my friend for allowing me to express my opinion on this subject, and I yield back to him and thank him for his graciousness this evening.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I just want to elaborate on what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has said. He talked about the increase in poverty. In the New York Times today, ``Big Increase Seen in People Lacking Health Insurance, Largest Rise in a Decade.'' The number of people without health insurance shot up last year by 2.4 million, the largest increase in a decade, raising the total to 43.6 million Americans without health insurance. We have a crisis in this country. Unemployment, health care, prescription drug coverage, an exploding deficit, an ever-increasing debt, we are not building our roads, our bridges, our water and sewer systems, our schools, our VA hospitals, our medical clinics; and yet the President seems so determined to take resources from the American taxpayer and send them to Iraq. And I will tell Members something else which concerns me, and that is the possibility of profiteering off this war. I think we will talk about some of the contracts that have been let a little later tonight, but it troubles me that some people are getting rich off this war. We have young soldiers over there without protective armor. About 40,000 are without the best protection we can provide. Madam Speaker, when they get wounded and come back to Walter Reed Hospital or the Bethesda Naval Hospital and they spend a week or 2 weeks or a month there, when they leave, they are presented with a bill totaling $8.10 a day for the food they have consumed. What has become of us. We have gotten our priorities really confused. That is why I am glad we are talking about this. The American people need to know and I look forward to the gentleman's further elaboration on what is happening to the money we have already appropriated.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I know my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has been waiting patiently and would like to speak. Can I just have 30 seconds? Then I will hear what my good friend and colleague has to say.

Mr. STRICKLAND. What we just heard about this being serious business is absolutely true. I was watching TV not many days ago, and William Crystal, who is one of those who beat the war drums leading up to this war, said something. I was so stunned by what he said and I took a pencil and I wrote it down because I was so offended by it. He said, ``This is our war and we have just got to suck it up, spend some money, and take some casualties.'' I thought to myself, it is easy for him to sit in the safety of that TV studio and talk like that. But what about the moms and dads who this very night who are crying themselves to sleep, worrying about their sons and daughters who may be in harm's way? This is serious business. That is why we are here, and that is why I am looking forward to hearing what my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), has to say to us.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment, the President in his speech today said that he intended to build 1,000, 1,000 new schools in Iraq. And I serve a district where children are going to schools that are unsafe, where they have so many safety violations because of the age of the buildings that if they were a business, they probably would be closed down, where a prisoner that was a ward of the State could not be housed because the safety violations would keep the State from putting the prisoners in those buildings; and we have got school children going to those buildings, and the President is going to use the tax dollars coming from southeastern and southern Ohio where I have one county with unemployment of 13.5 percent, tax dollars are going to come from those moms and dads. They are going to come here from Washington, and the President is going to take those tax dollars and use them to build new schools in Iraq. It just does not make sense.