Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has passed and the President has signed into law a tax cut that takes care of the millionaires but leaves many of our children and our veterans behind. Right today, young Americans are serving this Nation in Iraq with young children waiting for them here at home. And ironically, many of those children will not receive any benefit from the child tax credit that was contained in that tax bill. Think of that. Young Americans fighting for this country and their children are going to be left out of the benefit. Not only children, but veterans are getting the shaft. It is shameful, it is shameful that we would drive this country into debt, take care of our millionaires, and leave our children and our veterans behind. It is time for the people of this country, Mr. Speaker, to wake up and realize what is happening.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, not many weeks ago, we sent our sons and daughters into a war where many lost their lives, and in fact, our soldiers are currently under threat in Iraq, and just last week, others were killed. There is a remaining question in the minds of many Americans as to exactly what information led us to make this decision to go into Iraq as we did, and in Sunday's edition of the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, there was a column written by Nicholas Kristof who writes for the New York Times, and the headline for his column is this: ``U.S. Intelligence Officials Incensed Over Manipulating Their Data to Invade Iraq.'' Mr. Kristof begins his column, ``On Thursday, Day 71 of the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, once again nothing turned up. Maybe we'll do better on Day 72 or 73 or 74. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war.'' Then Mr. Kristof says this, A column that he had written earlier in the month ``drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.'' He continues, `` `The American people were manipulated,' bluntly declared one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all of the intelligence there on Iraq. These people are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world--that it should be nonpolitical--and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists.'' He quotes, `` `The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.,' said Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department.'' The last four of those years he was in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He said, ``The administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things. ``The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,'' and they wrote President Bush this month to protest what they called ``a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. `` `While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes,' the letter said, `never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize the launching of a war.' '' ``Some say,'' according to Mr. Kristof, ``that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational tidbits about Iraq and then used them to bludgeon Secretary of State Colin Powell and seduce the President. The Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the past year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his organization.'' Now, Mr. Kristof emphasizes that ``The CIA is examining its record, and that's welcome. But the atmosphere within the intelligence community is so poisonous, and the stakes are so high--for the credibility of America's word and the soundness of information on which we base American foreign policy--that an outside examination is essential.'' Mr. Kristof concludes his column by saying, ``Congress must provide greater oversight, and President Bush should invite Brent Scowcroft, the head of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a man trusted by all sides, to lead an inquiry'' in a public report so that we can restore confidence in America's intelligence agencies. Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. The American people are paying attention, and the President needs to provide us with some answers.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Memorial Day weekend, I think it is important for the veterans across this country to understand what this body is doing. We are placing additional burdens on the backs of our veterans for the health care they receive through the VA system in order to give a larger, more generous tax cut to the richest people in this country, many of whom have never served this country in the military. Why do I say that? We passed a budget in this House supported by the President that asked for a $250 annual enrollment fee so that many of our veterans will be able to participate in the VA health care system. If they do not pay the enrollment fee, they cannot participate. The President has asked for an increase in the co-payment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15 a prescription. They have placed a gag order on their health care providers, saying they can no longer actively inform veterans of the benefits they are legally entitled to receive. So here is what we have: a decision by the President and the Congress to put an additional financial burden on the backs of our veterans so that we can give a more generous tax cut to the richest people in this country. It is wrong.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus, I rise today to honor correctional officers and employees of correctional facilities across our country. Earlier this month, correctional officers came here to Washington to celebrate National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. Awards were presented to officers whose exceptional service merited special recognition, and wreaths were laid in memory of fallen comrades who had made the ultimate sacrifice while on duty. Correctional facilities are a critical component of our public safety and criminal justice systems. We rely on correctional facilities to do just that, correct the errant behavior of certain members of our society. But prisons and jails are more than just buildings. They are made up of correctional officers and other personnel who are highly trained to work in a challenging and often dangerous environment. I worked for many years as a psychologist at a maximum security prison in Ohio, and the respect I gained for my coworkers during that time is enormous. First and foremost, correctional officers are public servants. The officers with whom I have had the honor of being acquainted give back to their communities in countless ways. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives is joining together to honor these men and women who work for our government at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a favorite son of Ohio, a husband, father, grandfather, public servant, and State AMVETS President. I am speaking of John P. Brown, III. Mr. Speaker, John's life story imbues the kind of selflessness and sacrifice that is indicative of so many of our veterans. He served two tours in Vietnam. He was chosen to serve in the elite Honor Guard at the U.S. Naval Station in Philadelphia. John's contributions did not end there, though. He and his wife have raised a wonderful family, including three children, Charlene, Stephanie and Christopher, and seven grandchildren. For 31 years, John worked for Ameritech and its predecessors. And more recently, he worked as a military liaison for Ohio's 17th Congressional District. In Ohio, John's name is synonymous with veterans advocacy. He has given, and he continues to give, greatly to many, many veterans causes. He is a former vice commander for Ohio AMVETS. He is the local post commander, the founder and trustee of the Mahoning Veterans Memorial. He has been the host of a veterans radio talk show for 19 years; and for the last year, he served honorably as the commander of Ohio AMVETS. John's love of country and commitment to military service is shared by his wife, Jan C. Brown, who is retired from the United States Air Force. Together, J.P. and Jan Brown answer in the affirmative the challenge presented by President John F. Kennedy, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Obviously, I could talk for quite some time about John's accomplishments and contributions, but I think it is more important for us to recognize what a decent, honorable, and rare man John is as a person. The truth is that our democracy simply could not function without the sacrifice, dedication, and just plain hard work of people like John Brown. Many veterans are in his debt today, and so are many, many Ohioans. Mr. Speaker, I go to John for guidance and advice regarding veterans health care and other issues important to our Nation's veterans, and he helps me be a better Congressman. In recognition of John's many accomplishments, he is being honored at an AMVETS testimonial dinner in Youngstown, Ohio, on Saturday Evening. I cannot be at that event; but today, on this floor of the United States House of Representatives, I salute my friend, John P. Brown, III; and I honor his service to our country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we have just voted on a large tax cut bill in this House, but I think it is important for the American people to understand how our fiscal irresponsibility is affecting other aspects of our society. I think it is important for the American people to know that the budget the President sent to this House originally and which was passed by this Chamber cut mandatory and discretionary spending for veterans programs by $28.3 billion. It is hard to believe that at a time when our President was asking America's young men and women to go to Iraq and to fight and in many cases give their lives that he sent a budget to this House that cut veterans benefits by $28.3 billion. Let me tell my colleagues what else was in that budget that the President sent over that hurts our Nation's veterans. He was asking that the co-payment for a prescription drug that a veteran would need to pay would go from $7 a prescription up to $15 a prescription. Just about a year and a half ago, we increased that co-payment, or the House did against my objection and the objection of my Democratic colleagues, they increased that co-payment for a prescription drug from $2 up to $7 and now the President is asking that that co-payment be increased from $7 to $15 a prescription? And do my colleagues not understand that many veterans get 10 or more prescriptions a month? That is 10 times 15. That is a lot of money for veterans who may be living on very limited fixed incomes. It is shameful. It is shameful what the President has asked in his budget that he sent to the House. But it gets even worse. The President has suggested that there be an annual enrollment fee imposed upon veterans of $250 annually. Think about that. These are young Americans who have gone and served our country, many of them during wartime. They have served honorably; they have come back to this country. They are participating in the VA healthcare system, and the President says they should be charged an annual enrollment fee of $250 at the very time that we are giving huge, huge tax cuts to the richest people in this country, many of them who have never served in the military. It is just outrageous. But it gets worse because in the President's budget he suggested that the cost for clinic visit be increased. At the time when we are giving large tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country, many of whom have never served in our military, we are putting additional financial burdens on the backs of our Nation's veterans. And then about 1 year ago, this administration's Department of Veterans Affairs put out a gag order, and basically the gag order said this: too many veterans are coming in for services. We do not have enough money to provide those services; so none of our health care providers around the country can any longer make public service announcements encouraging veterans to use the benefits that they are entitled to receive. No longer can our health care professionals participate in health fairs which could identify diseases in their early stages so that they could be prevented. No longer are our health care professionals around the country allowed to put out newsletters describing the services that veterans are legally entitled to and encouraging them to take advantage of those services. Mr. Speaker, we are limiting what we are willing to do for our veterans so that we can give huge tax breaks to the richest people in this country. And the question is this: The President and leadership of this House must make a choice. Are we going to defend and protect and provide for our veterans, or are we going to continue to cut their benefits, to cut services to veterans in order to give money to the richest people in this country? That is a choice that is facing those of us who serve in this House.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago on a bipartisan basis, we voted for the so-called Leave No Child Behind bill. But in the interim period, we have failed to meet our obligations, obligations that we have under that bill. We are underfunding the No Child Left Behind bill by $11 billion. Yet the students across this country are going to be subjected to the tests mandated under that bill, the States are going to be required to fund these unfunded mandates and it is estimated that perhaps as many as 60 to 80 percent of our schools will be called failing schools. Mr. Speaker, our students are not failing, our teachers are not failing, our schools are not failing. I will tell you who is failing: The President and those of us who serve in this Chamber. We are failing our schools, our teachers and our students.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Act, a bill designed to put a stop to the privatization of an extremely important public safety responsibility of government: the incarceration of criminals. The Public Safety Act, which I have introduced in each of the last two Congresses, enjoys the wide support of many groups that represent the interests of correctional officers. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), as well as several other prison interest groups, all support this legislation. When governments contract out their responsibility to incarcerate inmates to private prison corporations, taxpayers lose much of the valuable oversight that they have of government agencies. Nevertheless, taxpayers are still forced to assume much of the financial and legal liability associated with the operation of private prisons. If there are riots or breakouts, local government authorities are often called in to handle the situation. Furthermore, when a private prison official violates an inmate's rights, the taxpayers from the community--not the prison corporation--foot the bill for the lawsuit. To address these growing concerns, I will be reintroducing the Public Safety Act, which would prohibit the privatization of federal prisons. The bill also would prohibit state and local governments from using any federal funds made available to them for the purpose of providing core correctional services (such as the housing, safe-guarding, protecting, and disciplining of inmates) to contract out those services to private corporations. A common argument used by privateers is that the private sector can incarcerate prisoners more cheaply, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. Having worked in a prison, however, I know that the easiest way to cut costs in a correctional facility is to cut the wages and benefits of the personnel. The result of this is to employ a poorly trained staff with little experience, creating a danger for everyone who works in the facility and everyone who lives in the surrounding community. The result of cutting expenses in corrections is cutting corners, and cutting corners is unacceptable when it comes to protecting public safety. My bill will prohibit the Federal Government from contracting out its responsibility to incarcerate criminals. The bill would also prevent States and local governments from using federal funds to contract out core correctional services to private corporations. Even as I speak, the Bureau of Prisons is asking Congress to appropriate money for a new contract facility for female inmates, which is a giant step in the wrong direction from the BOP'S request from last year for dollars to build a government facility for female inmates. The Office of Management and Budget is also forcing the BOP to contract out part of its own workforce. The assault on public safety is not only at the federal level, however. There is even greater concern at the state and local levels that governments experiencing tough financial times may contract out their responsibilities with the hope of saving money. The Public Safety Act will prevent States and local governments from using federal dollars in the form of Homeland Security block grants or otherwise to forfeit their responsibility to administer justice. I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation so that we can ensure that the Federal government fulfills its responsibility to provide for public safety, and I hope that the Public Safety Act will be considered by the House of Representatives soon.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support legislation I am introducing today that will improve the public health of communities throughout America, make worksites safer for thousands of corrections officers and staff, and help to improve the health of inmates in correctional facilities. Every year, more than 11 million people are released from prisons and jails across America, growing numbers of which suffer disproportionately from mental illness, substance abuse, and communicable diseases, such as HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, infectious diseases are more prevalent among correctional inmates than the general population. For AIDS, the prevalence among inmates is 5 times that of the general population. Tuberculosis infection rates are substantially higher among inmates, with estimates from 4 to 17 times higher. And the prevalence of hepatitis C among inmates is 9 to 10 times higher than that of the general population. The health care needs of inmates have expanded as the incarcerated population has aged, succumbing to the same ailments that afflict the elderly in the outside world--such as diabetes, hypertension, and stroke. It is a sad reflection of the inadequate health care system in America that many times inmates receive health care for the first time after they enter correctional facilities. Indeed, it is likely that the majority of inmates with communicable diseases entered correctional systems already infected. Having millions of inmates with serious communicable diseases threatens the health and lives of thousands of dedicated corrections officers and all who work in correctional facilities, as well as the rest of the prison population as well. Most inmates are released after they've served their time. Upon release, the threat to public health becomes clear, as inmates return to live and work in our communities. There is no doubt that correctional facilities play a key role in the battle against the spread of disease. The challenge faced by correctional facilities is enormous. In an era of shrinking resources, corrections staff are called upon to do more with less. My bill is intended to assist them in this challenge. To respond to this critical need, I am introducing legislation which would establish an Office of Correctional Health within the Department of Health and Human Services and would setup a program for States to combat hepatitis in correctional facilities. The proposed office would coordinate all correctional health programs within HHS; provide technical support to State and local correctional agencies on correctional health; cooperate with other Federal agencies carrying out correctional health programs to ensure coordination; and provide outreach and facilitate information exchange regarding correctional health activities. As a result of discussions with a broad range of groups about the need to combat hepatitis, the bill that I am introducing will include a program to provide matching grants to States for the screening, immunization, and treatment of hepatitis A, B, and C in correctional facilities. This new program is based on recommendations in a report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention entitled, Prevention and Control of Infections with Hepatitis Viruses in Correctional Settings. States will have flexibility in this program to screen, treat, or immunize inmates or employees. The public health implications from joining this battle are clear. If we give corrections professionals the tools and resources they need to identify, treat, and prevent communicable disease, we protect those who reside both behind bars and beyond the gates. I urge my colleagues to support this important public health measure.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight talking about something that is close to all of our hearts. I happen to be the youngest son in a family of nine children. My oldest brother was a World War II veteran. My brother-in-law, who is now deceased, lost his leg by stepping on a land mine in Germany during World War II, worked his final years in a Wal- Mart, walking around on an artificial limb; much of the time it was sore. And I just stand here tonight, and I think that we are able to enjoy the kind of freedoms that we all enjoy because of the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, who have suffered immensely. I think of the mothers who grieved. I think of my own mother. Some of my earliest memories as a child were of my mother weeping as she worried about whether or not my brother was safe as he participated in that great war. We ought to honor those who went before us, who have fought for us, who have sacrificed their time and have lost their health, and that is not what we are doing. It is almost beyond belief to me that we, at this time when we have young Americans engaged in a battle, even now risking their lives, that we would be so callous, so callous in our decision-making here in this Chamber that we would pass a budget, and I used the word ``we.'' It certainly did not include most of my Democratic colleagues, but a budget was passed in this House by the majority party, supported by the administration, that cuts benefits, health care benefits and other benefits, to our Nation's veterans by $28 billion. Think of that, $28 billion at the same time that the President and majority party is pushing to pass a $726 billion tax cut, and most of that money is going to go to the richest people in this country. The President has a choice to make. He can either fully fund veterans health care and veterans benefits, or he can ask for his complete $726 billion tax cut. It is a fairly clear choice. We have a unified budget. There is only so much money. If we use the resources we have for this big tax cut, there is going to be an insufficient amount of resources to take care of our other needs, including the needs of our veterans. I have talked on this House floor before about the outrageous things that are being done: increasing the cost of prescription drugs. It went from $2 to $7 a prescription. Now the President is saying we want to charge veterans, many of them, $15 a prescription. Many veterans in my district get 10 or more prescriptions a month. If we take 10 times 15, that is $150 a month. A lot of these veterans are living on fixed incomes. This is simply outrageous. And then they created an entirely new priority group of veterans. They call them priority group 8. These are high-income veterans. Of course, you can be one of those priority group 8 veterans and make as little as $24,000 a year. Now, maybe a lot of my colleagues do not want people watching to know that those of us in this Chamber make about $150,000 or so a year. So maybe a $15 copay would not hurt us. It would not hurt me. I could pay $15 if I was going to have to take medication. I can do that. I make $150,000 a year. But what about the veteran who makes $24,000 a year? And we have the gall to suggest that they are high income and so they just can no longer enroll in the VA health care system. They are priority group 8. And then others who may make a little more than that are priority group 7. Those veterans, those men and women who have honorably served our country, are being told, well, you are in priority group 7 so you can enroll in the VA health care system and continue to participate, but in order to do so you have to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. And then if you go for a doctor visit, we will increase the cost of that. It is as if we are singling out our veterans for a disproportionate share of the burden for caring for this country. I just find it amazing, amazing that at a time when nearly all of us in here find that we want to associate with the military, we want to show our support for our fighting men and women, that we would take these actions that would be so harmful to our veterans. I have talked before about the gag order. I mean, it is unbelievable that the VA decides that too many veterans are coming in for health care. We just do not have the resources to provide that health care, with having long waiting lists and many veterans waiting 6 months or more just to see a doctor. In order to correct that, we should just say we need more money. We need more resources. But the VA has a different approach. They say, well, in order to correct that problem, we will just limit information that is being given to veterans so that fewer veterans will understand what they are entitled to and fewer will come in for services. That is how we are going to solve this problem. It is almost unbelievable. When is it going to stop? When are we going to have our actions match our words? A couple of Fridays ago, about 3 a.m. in the morning, 3 a.m. in the morning, when most of the country was asleep, we were here in this Chamber and we voted a resolution of thankfulness and support for our fighting men and women who are currently risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Within minutes of casting that vote, we cast another vote for the budget. And in that budget we voted to cut veterans benefits and health care by $28 billion. With one hand we saluted the veterans and said thanks, thanks to our servicemen and women. And with the other hand we took our voting card, and we put it in this little gizmo on the back of our chairs here and cast a vote to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. In my judgment that is sheer hypocrisy. How can we justify those two actions? How can we say on the one hand we honor and appreciate the service of our military men and women and on the other hand cast a vote that cuts benefits to those who have already served? I think the veterans in this country are coming to understand what is going on. I think they are coming to realize that they have to listen not only to the words but they have to watch the actions of those of us who serve in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I will finish by telling my colleagues this. Talk is cheap. And we do a lot of talking in this Chamber. Talk is cheap, but health care for veterans costs money. And unless we are willing to spend the money, our words are empty.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about our veterans, the way we are treating our veterans; and I would like to give a little history of what has happened in the recent past. Until about 1 year ago, the veteran that went to one of our VA hospitals or our clinics to get medication was expected to pay $2 in copayment for a prescription. That, unfortunately, was raised; and veterans across this country are aware of the fact that they are now required not to pay $2 per prescription copayment, but they are required to pay $7 per prescription. I thought that was an unwise decision on the part of the VA, and I introduced legislation to repeal that increase and to return it back to the $2 per prescription level. I was absolutely shocked when the President sent his budget to this House and in the President's budget he requested that that copayment not be $7 a prescription but increased to $15 per prescription. Think of that. At a time of war, when we are creating more veterans, when we mouth the words in this Chamber about how thankful we are for those who have fought past battles, that we would actually take an action that could increase the cost of medicines for veterans who need those medicines, veterans who have served this country with honor, veterans who may be on fixed incomes. Now, perhaps if a veteran only has one prescription, a $15 copay would be tolerable. But many of our veterans get 10 or more prescriptions per month. Fifteen times 10 is $150. I am shocked that this administration, that this President, at a time when he and the leadership of the other party are trying to give a $726 billion tax cut that will mostly go to people who are already reasonably wealthy, that we would at the same time want to place an additional burden on our veterans in terms of the cost of their prescription medications. It does not make sense. But, Madam Speaker, it gets worse. The President, in his budget, also asks that we impose a $250 annual enrollment fee on many of our veterans just to participate in the VA health care system. Think of that, an increase in cost for prescription drugs from $7 to $15 and an imposition of an annual $250 enrollment fee. But it gets worse. The VA also, under the direction of the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, has imposed what is, for all practical purposes, a gag order on the VA health care providers. They are no longer able to market VA services to our veterans. In other words, this Congress has passed legislation guaranteeing certain benefits to our veterans. Some of those veterans may not be aware of what they are legally entitled to receive, but the VA is prohibiting the health care providers from proactively spreading the word informing veterans as to what they are entitled to receive. Very specifically, they have been told they cannot make public service announcements about VA health benefits programs. They cannot send out newsletters describing benefits and encouraging veterans to participate. And, quite frankly, most participation in health fairs has been prohibited. I think these actions are shameless and shameful. I just simply do not understand. We are a wealthy country. We are so wealthy that we are taking our Federal resources and we have decided to give those resources in the form of tax breaks to some of the richest people in this country. Millionaires and billionaires will get up to a $90,000 per-year tax cut; but at the same time, we are asking our veterans to pay more for medicine, to pay an annual enrollment fee, and we are prohibiting the marketing of veterans services. This is just shameful. I do not understand it. I simply find it incredulous that we would be pursuing these policies at this time, especially at this time, when we have so many of our young men and women in harm's way. I believe the best way to honor those who are fighting for us today is to show deep respect and to keep our promises to those who have fought our past wars, the people that Tom Brokaw and others have referred to as the Greatest Generation. I think the American people need to be aware of some of the things that I have talked about this afternoon. I could go on, because the shortchanging of our veterans is something that is a deep problem. It is contradictory to much of what is spoken in this Chamber.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am truly puzzled at the leadership on the other side. We are told that the administration sent this bill over here as an emergency. Yet I think they know that this bill is likely to be defeated because of the way it is being dealt with. If it is an emergency, ought we not to work together so that we can pass a bill? What is happening here today will result in the delay of this bill being passed. The chairman of our committee says, of course, we are for the volunteers and I believe he is sincere. But if we are for the volunteers, why do we not listen to the volunteers? In the first 2 months of the administration's smallpox vaccine program, only about 25,000 of a planned 450,000 health workers have received the vaccine. Last week, three people died from heart attacks after receiving the vaccine, two health workers and a 55-year-old National Guard member. All three people had risk factors for heart disease, although it is not currently known whether the vaccine caused the heart attacks. As a result of these challenges, a compensation program is needed, but these health care workers, these first responders are worried that the bill before us will not adequately provide for education and screening of the workers who are being asked to take the vaccine. If we screen the people who are at risk, we may save their lives and we can save money. I am disappointed. I think we all know this bill is likely to go down to defeat, and unnecessarily so. Let us work together in this House. If not on this bill, what bill can we ever work together on? Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record three letters, one from the International Union of Police Associations, one from the American Public Health Association and the other from the American Federation of Teachers in opposition to the administration's plan. International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, Alexandria, VA, March 27, 2003. Hon. Ted Kennedy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, representing law enforcement professionals from more than 500 agencies across the country and in Puerto Rico, I am writing to voice our concern regarding the Smallpox Compensation Program currently being debated in the House. We urge you to work to ensure that this legislation will provide the security demanded and deserved by our first responders who elect to take the smallpox vaccine in order to better serve a nation at war. We hope this would include crucial screening and education for both the emergency personnel and their immediate families. A mandatory funding provision is also needed to ensure that the varying states' workers' compensation laws will not withhold compensation based on the fact that the vaccination is voluntary. We also believe that these should be no five-day waiting period for compensation benefits. Furthermore, we hope to see some protection for those who elect not to take it. We are asking more and more of those health care and public safety workers on the front lines of our nation's homeland security efforts. Providing them with ample security should they become disabled in their duties is critical, necessary, and is clearly and simply the right thing to do. I applaud your efforts to correct the deficiencies in this proposed legislation and will be privileged to assist you and your staff in these efforts. Respectfully, Dennis Slocumb, International Executive Vice President.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I speak on the floor today in opposition to H.R. 5 and in opposition to the closed rule under which we are debating the bill. I have heard from doctors and hospitals throughout my district that they are struggling with high malpractice rates. I think we all recognize that this is a big problem in many regions of the country, and I believe we must take action to ensure patients can continue to access quality and timely health care. In my rural Ohio district, access to care is a constant problem for many of my constituents. I hear the voices of the family practice physicians who tell me they no longer may be able to afford to deliver babies. In some cases in Ohio, pregnant women must travel long distances for prenatal care and delivery services because there is only one doctor providing these services throughout a county. Something must be done, but I do not think HR 5 gets it done. These are the reasons I have cosponsored H.R. 1124, which has been introduced by Rep. Dingell. H.R. 1124 would address high malpractice rates through moderate tort reforms, requiring attorneys to submit a certificate of merit declaring a case to be meritorious, and requiring medical malpractice insurance companies to dedicate at least 50% of the savings from these tort reforms to reducing the insurance premiums paid by physicians and other health professionals. In addition, H.R. 1124 attempts to look at the broad issues that may have contributed to the high malpractice rates doctors across the country are facing by establishing an independent advisory commission on medical malpractice insurance. I wish Congress had acted quickly and in a bipartisan fashion last year--had we done so, we may already have more answers about why rates are now as high as they are. And finally, H.R. 1124 would create a grants program through the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that areas affected by high malpractice rates do not suffer a shortage of providers. However, we will not even hear debate about these provisions or others because the Leadership passed a closed rule that limits debate to the base bill. This does a disservice to the American people, to the House, and to the health care providers we want to help. I believe H.R. 5 will not address the high malpractice rates our doctors are confronting. H.R. 5 fails to address or even acknowledge the complicated nature of this problem: my colleagues who have introduced H.R. 5 haven't considered how the insurance industry may have contributed to the high rates or considered how individual states' systems have affected malpractice rates. Throughout the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 5, 1 spoke about two provisions in, H.R. 5 that I strongly oppose. First, H.R. 5 would limit the liability of HMO'S, drug companies, and nursing homes. These companies have never come to me to explain why their liability should be limited; in fact, I strongly believe consumers should have the right to use every tool possible to collect damages if they are injured by a drug or device company whose product is defective. My constituents have access to prescription drugs--the drugs are there in the pharmacy, ready to be purchased, and the drug companies aren't going out of business. Unfortunately, many of my constituents, especially seniors, can't afford to pay the prices these companies are charging. Since the drug companies are doing quite well, I think it's safe to say that they don't need the further protections H.R. 5 would afford them. Second, I cannot support H.R. 5 because of its $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awarded by a jury to compensate a victim for intangible pain and suffering. These damages are often very important to low income adults, women, and children who often would not recover a large economic damage award when they are injured. In addition, someone whose injury is purely cosmetic may not have economic damages because the injury doesn't directly affect his or her ability to work. For example, the facial disfiguration 17-year-old Heather Lewinski has had to live with for the past 9 years because when she was 8 years old a plastic surgeon committed clear malpractice and scarred her for life. The years of pain and suffering Heather has lived with and testified to before the Energy and Commerce Committee two weeks ago are real. Heather's lawsuit against the plastic surgeon who injured her resulted in zero economic damages, but she did receive compensation in the form of noneconomic damages. H.R. 5 would have limited her award to $250,000. 1 cannot vote for legislation that would arbitrarily limit the damages that might be so important to the average American who finds themselves injured through medical malpractice. Although proponents of H.R. 5 contend that the bill will limit frivolous lawsuits, I believe it will not do so; instead, this provision would arbitrarily cap meritorious claims of malpractice. I ask my colleagues: if we trust our jury system to make decisions about life and death, I believe we must be able to trust that jury system to make decisions about money. The increase in malpractice rates is a huge problem for doctors and hospitals, and that is why I wish this bill had been crafted with input from the leaders of both parties. At the least, I wish we had the benefit of an open rule that would allow real debate here on the floor. I will not support this bill because I think it fails to prevent frivolous lawsuits, fails to address the problems with the insurance industry, and fails to provide direct relief to communities that are struggling with access problems resulting from high malpractice rates.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I came to the Chamber today to speak on this resolution. I intend to vote for it and support it, but there were some comments that I think are relevant regarding this resolution. I am a little troubled that we would presume to tell the American people what they should do to secure the blessings and protections of Providence. It just troubles me that it begins by saying we recognize the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protections of Providence. I really think that is a theological conclusion, a theological belief. It just causes me some difficulty. I think that each of us in our own way have an understanding of how to pray and why we should pray, but it also bothers me that we would pass this resolution without considering it as serious as it is. I would hope, and I am going to make three suggestions related to those of us who in a few moments may be voting on this resolution, that we do three things. That we commit ourselves during this day of fasting to go without food, that we not ask the American people or suggest the American people should do something that each of us as individuals do not do ourselves. I would also suggest that on that day we should forego any political fundraising at which food may be served or consumed; and, thirdly, I would suggest that those of us who would vote for this resolution would ask our leadership to close the Members dining room during that day. I think if we vote for this resolution, we should take it seriously. We should follow its dictates, and we should do what we are asking each of the American citizens to do. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her care and concern for veterans. As I rise tonight, I am thinking of two people, one a veteran and one I hope who will soon be a veteran. One of the people I am thinking about is my oldest brother, Charles, who is 79 years old, currently in the hospital with a broken hip. He served our country during World War II. The other individual I am thinking about tonight is a younger person, 20-year-old Matthew Dingus. Matthew is my nephew's son. We do not know where he is, but we know he is in Kuwait; and tonight our thoughts and prayers are with Matthew as he joins other young Americans in carrying out the orders of his Commander in Chief. I speak tonight not only for veterans, but for all those who are active duty servicemen and women because they hopefully soon will be veterans. It is shocking to me that this Republican administration, that this President who has made the decision to send our young men and women into battle would at the same time preside over a budget that is so harmful to America's veterans. Some of these facts are so shocking as to almost be unbelievable. Mr. Speaker, if there are those watching who think that I and my colleagues are exaggerating tonight, I encourage them to seek out the facts because what this administration is doing to veterans is shameful. I will just mention a few things. About a year and a half ago when most veterans went to a VA Hospital to get a prescription medication, they were charged a $2 copay per prescription, and I was outraged when the Department of Veterans Affairs decided to increase that copayment from $2 to $7 a prescription, and I introduced legislation to roll back that copayment increase because many veterans get 10 or more prescriptions a month, and they get a 3-month supply at a time, and veterans on fixed incomes cannot afford this additional financial burden. But what did the President ask for in his most recent veterans budget? He asked that that copayment be increased from $7 to $15 a prescription. Think about that. An additional burden of that magnitude on our veterans, I just simply find it outrageous. How, at a time when we are literally giving tax breaks to the richest people in this country, can we justify increasing the copayment for prescription drugs for our veterans, a copayment that has already been increased from $2 to $7, and now the President wants that copayment increased from $7 to $15 a prescription? That is outrageous. But the outrage does not stop there. The President in his budget has asked for a $250 annual enrollment fee be imposed upon veterans for enrollment in the VA health care system. So we increase the cost of their prescription drugs, and then we impose a $250 annual enrollment fee. Then we create a special priority group of veterans. We call it priority group 8, and these are veterans who have served our country with honor; and we are saying to these priority group veterans, some of whom make no more than $28,000 a year, you are a high-income veteran. And because they are high-income veterans, they will no longer be allowed to enroll in the VA health care system. I think the American people should know that those of us who serve in this Chamber, the President, his Cabinet, all the Members of the Senate, the Supreme Court and those of us in the House of Representatives make about $150,000 a year. Yet we have the gall to imply that if you make $24,000 or $25,000 a year, you are a high-income veteran and so you should no longer be allowed to enroll in the VA health care system. It is outrageous. It is almost unbelievable when we really look at what they are trying to do to our veterans. It gets worse. About a year ago, the VA decided to impose a gag order on their health care providers. Think of this. All of the health care providers around the country were told, too many veterans are coming in for services and we do not have enough money to provide those services. I guess it is because we want to use our resources to give tax breaks to wealthy people. And so a memo was put out mandating a change in policy. Health care providers were told, you can no longer market our services. You can no longer participate in community health fairs. You can no longer make public service announcements. You can no longer send out newsletters encouraging veterans to take advantage of the services they are entitled to receive under the law. Think of that. It is what I call the VA's if-you-don't-ask-we-won't- tell policy. If you do not ask as a veteran what services you are entitled to receive under the law, services that the Congress has decided that you should receive, if you do not ask, the VA system is not going to make an effort to tell you what services you are legally entitled to receive. Reference has been made here to the VA budget. It is true that the VA budget passed out of this House is a shameful document. No wonder they decided to do it at 3 o'clock in the morning last Friday morning when most of America was asleep. We passed two bills during those late-night hours. One bill was to provide a resolution in support of our troops, the men and women currently fighting for us in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in other parts of this world. Within 5 or 10 minutes of casting that vote, we cast another vote to pass the Republican budget resolution. That Republican budget resolution cuts funding for veterans' benefits and health care by over $28 billion. Think of that. With one hand we salute our troops and we pass a resolution thanking them for their service, and with the other hand we take our voting cards and we vote for a budget that cuts $28 billion out of veterans health care and veterans benefits. I want to say something that I believe deep in my heart. The best way to honor the troops who are fighting for us now is to keep our promises to the troops who have fought for us in the past. When we honor our veterans, we honor our current young men and women who are fighting for us. The American people need to know what is going on. What we are doing in this Chamber is cutting health care benefits for veterans and other benefits for veterans so that we can have the money and so that we can give it to the richest people in this country in the form of tax cuts. That is shameful. The American people need to know it; and the veterans of this country need to rise up, draw a line in the sand and say, no more. We paid the price, we have given the service, we have risked our lives, and in some cases we have given our body parts for the defense of this Nation. This President and this Congress have a responsibility to keep their promises to the veterans. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for having this Special Order and for giving us an opportunity to speak out. I want to thank her for her commitment to America's veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight in support of this resolution not because I agree with the decisions that have brought us to this moment, but because I love, honor and revere those brave young Americans who are fighting for us even as we sit in this Chamber at this late hour. I am troubled tonight because I believe one way we honor our current troops fighting in Iraq and around the world is to honor those who have served before them, our veterans, veterans like my brother who turned 79 years old last week and who served our Nation in World War II. Very soon the vast majority of us will vote for this resolution to honor our troops, as we should. I am troubled that soon thereafter many of my colleagues in this Chamber will cast another vote, a vote that will cut $28 billion from veterans' benefits. I am puzzled that so many would salute the troops with one hand and vote to cut $28 billion from veterans' benefits with the other hand. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this resolution and to vote no for the budget resolution.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I speak on the floor today in opposition to H.R. 5 and in opposition to the closed rule under which we are debating the bill. I have heard from doctors and hospitals throughout my district that they are struggling with high malpractice rates. I think we all recognize that this is a big problem in many regions of the country, and I believe we must take action to ensure patients can continue to access quality and timely health care. In my rural Ohio district, access to care is a constant problem for many of my constituents. I hear the voices of the family practice physicians who tell me they no longer may be able to afford to deliver babies. In some cases in Ohio, pregnant women must travel long distances for prenatal care and delivery services because there is only one doctor providing these services throughout a county. Something must be done, but I do not think H.R. 5 gets it done. These are the reasons I have cosponsored H.R. 1124, which has been introduced by Rep. Dingell. H.R. 1124 would address high malpractice rates through moderate tort reforms, requiring attorneys to submit a certificate of merit declaring a case to be meritorious, and requiring medical malpractice insurance companies to dedicate at least 50 percent of the savings from these tort reforms to reducing the insurance premiums paid by physicians and other health professionals. In addition, H.R. 1124 attempts to look at the broad issues that may have contributed to the high malpractice rates doctors across the country are facing by establishing an independent advisory commission on medical malpractice insurance. I wish Congress had acted quickly and in a bipartisan fashion last year--had we done so, we may already have more answers about why rates are now as high as they are. And finally, H.R. 1124 would create a grants program through the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that areas affected by high malpractice rates do not suffer a shortage of providers. However, we will not even hear debate about these provisions or others because the Leadership passed a closed rule that limits debate to the base bill. This does a disservice to the American people, to the House, and to the health care providers we want to help. I believe H.R. 5 will not address the high malpractice rates our doctors are confronting. H.R. 5 fails to address or even acknowledge the complicated nature of this problem: my colleagues who have introduced H.R. 5 haven't considered how the insurance industry may have contributed to the high rates or considered how individual states' systems have affected malpractice rates. Throughout the Energy and Commerce Committee's consideration of H.R. 5, I spoke about two provisions in H.R. 5 that I strongly oppose. First, H.R. 5 would limit the liability of HMO's, drug companies, and nursing homes. These companies have never come to me to explain why their liability should be limited; in fact, I strongly believe consumers should have the right to use every tool possible to collect damages if they are injured by a drug or device company whose product is defective. My constituents have access to prescription drugs--the drugs are there in the pharmacy, ready to be purchased, and the drug companies aren't going out of business. Unfortunately, many of my constituents, especially seniors, can't afford to pay the prices these companies are charging. Since the drug companies are doing quite well, I think it's safe to say that they don't need the further protections H.R. 5 would afford them. Second, I cannot support H.R. 5 because of its $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awarded by a jury to compensate a victim for intangible pain and suffering. These noneconomic damages compensate for real, permanent harms that are not easily measured in terms of money, including blindness, physical disfigurement, loss of fertility, loss of limb, loss of mobility, and the loss of a child. Noneconomic damages are often very important to low income adults, women, and children who often would not recover a large economic damage award when they are injured. In addition, someone whose injury is purely cosmetic may not have economic damages because the injury doesn't directly affect his or her ability to work. For example, the facial disfiguration 17-year-old Heather Lewinski has had to live with for the past 9 years because when she was 8 years old a plastic surgeon committed clear malpractice and scarred her for life. The years of pain and suffering Heather has lived with and testified to before the Energy and Commerce Committee two weeks ago are real. Heather's lawsuit against the plastic surgeon who injured her resulted in zero economic damages, but she did receive compensation in the form of noneconomic damages. H.R. 5 would have limited her award to $250,000. I cannot vote for legislation that would arbitrarily limit the damages that might be so important to the average American who finds themselves injured through medical malpractice. Although proponents of H.R. 5 contend that the bill will limit frivolous lawsuits, I believe it will not do so; instead, this provision would arbitrarily cap meritorious claims of malpractice. I ask my colleagues: if we trust our jury system to make decisions about life and death, I believe we must be able to trust that jury system to make decisions about money. The increase in malpractice rates is a huge problem for doctors and hospitals, and that is why I wish this bill had been crafted with input from the leaders of both parties. At the least, I wish we had the benefit of an open rule that would allow real debate here on the floor. I will not support this bill because I think it fails to prevent frivolous lawsuits, fails to address the problems with the insurance industry, and fails to provide direct relief to communities that are struggling with access problems resulting from high malpractice rates.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 399, the Organ Donation Improvement Act of 2003. This important measure takes steps to increase donation activity to meet the demand for life-saving human organs. Human anatomical donation is truly the greatest gift one can offer to another. This humanitarian act looks beyond one's self and to those in need--to children, young adults, parents, and family members--whose lives we value and whose future we safeguard. H.R. 399 makes note of the importance of family discussions and encourages families to express their desires and openly pledge to help others through the act of donation. Americans have the ability to choose to give gifts that restore sight, save lives, and improve the health of others through organ, eye and tissue donation. While the need for organs is a well-documented fact, the need for donated tissues and eyes should also be stressed. Many Americans do not realize that those who cannot become donors of organs for various medical reasons can still save sight and improve the health of others through eye and tissue donation. It is therefore of critical importance that when families do discuss their wishes to give anatomical gifts, they are knowledgeable about all of their opportunities: to save lives; restore sight; and improve the health of others through the donation of their organs, eyes, and tissues. These precious gifts give life, improve health and advance medical science for those who often have no alternative hope for treatment and cure. In 2001, there were 24,076 organ transplants giving life; 33,000 cornea transplants restoring sight; and 900,000 tissue transplants improving physical function and health. These impressive statistics demonstrate the generosity of the American people. Yet, more donors are needed to meet the need for life-saving transplants, sight restoration procedures, repair of wounds and severe burns. Education and awareness is the first step toward bridging the gap to meet the need for more anatomical donors. In closing, I encourage all Americans to take the time to discuss with family members the most precious gift a person can give--one's organs, eyes and tissues--to better mankind.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 395, the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. This bill will authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from the telemarketing industry in order to implement and enforce a Do-Not-Call registry. The 1994 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act directed the FTC to include in any rulemaking a requirement to curb unsolicited telephone calls that are coercive or abusive to a consumer's right to privacy. The FTC has interpreted this direction to create the Do-Not- Call List. Let me say in the beginning that I support the concept of a national do-not-call list. I support the notion that we should not have to leave our phones off the hook if we don't want to be disturbed during dinner time. However, I fear the Do-Not-Call List proposed by the Federal Trade Commission is far from perfect; in some instances it leaves gaping holes in its protection of consumers, and in others it is far too damaging to an industry that employs tens of thousands of workers all across this country. Telemarketing firms employ approximately a thousand people in my congressional district. They provide jobs to parents of young children who require flexible hours; they provide jobs to our young people who want to be part of the work force while they develop necessary skills for other occupations. In Gallipolis, Ohio, one call center is the second largest employer in the town, with workers coming across the Ohio River from West Virginia to make calls. Elsewhere in Ohio, in Marietta and Boardman, I have heard from constituents who depend on these jobs for a steady salary and health benefits. These jobs are already threatened by stiff competition from overseas. With the falling cost of international calls, call centers are sprouting up in countries such as India and the Philippines. I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to the economic impact that the FTC's proposed registry will have on many communities across the United States. The FTC has indeed investigated the impact of telemarketing on consumers. But I am concerned that adequate attention has not been given to the importance of telemarketing jobs, especially to economically distressed communities. I do not agree with forecasters who are spelling a doomsday scenario for the industry if the registry goes into effect, but I am concerned that some of the provisions of the FTC rule do not pass the common sense test. A prime example is the maximum $11,000 fine that the FTC may levy on a company for calling someone on the list. I also have other concerns about the viability of a National Do-Not- Call List, that is not truly national, but interstate, and not truly a Do-Not-Call List if a business falls outside the jurisdiction of the FTC. I am pleased, though, that the bill includes provisions that will hopefully reconcile the cross-jurisdiction of the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission, and the States. However, there is a glaring loophole in the FTC's Do-Not-Call List with which I cannot reconcile myself. Calls soliciting political contributions are not covered by the FTC's Do-Not-Call List. With the statutory requirement to prevent ``coercive and abusive'' telephone calls, I can't think of a greater omission to a Do-Not-Call list than leaving out harassing campaign calls. I had planned to offer an amendment when this bill was before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on which I sit, that would have made such political calls non-exempt from the FTC's registry, but calls of a political nature are outside of the FTC's jurisdiction and the bill before us was not the best vehicle to address the larger problems of the FTC's jurisdictional limits. Despite my support for the concept of a national do-not-call list, I cannot support an authorization to collect fees for the FTC's proposed list. I doubt that the issues that I have raised will receive much attention as this bill is rushed through the legislative process. However, I hope that the problems with the FTC's proposed Do-Not-Call list will be revisited by Congress in its oversight of the agency. Specifically, I note that the bill before us requires the FTC to analyze the registry and report to Congress. I sincerely hope that any such report will include analyses of the impact these new regulations will have on legitimate businesses and the economic impact on the communities in which those businesses operate.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I come to this Chamber tonight, and I enjoyed listening to my colleagues talk about this important court nominee. But I wanted to talk about another issue that is important to the American people, and that is the way this government and especially this administration is treating our veterans. I bring this chart to this Chamber as I did last night to illustrate the fact that if a veteran goes to a veterans hospital today and looks upon a bulletin board, they are likely to see this notice. It says: Did you know the medication copayment has changed from $2 to $7. Just about a year ago, the VA decided that they were going to increase the copayment that a veteran must pay for their medicine from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription. And at that time, I thought it was an outrageous act, that we would impose this additional financial burden upon our veterans. But looking at the President's budget which he just released for 2004, he just released it a few days ago, they do not want to charge $7 a prescription as a copay, but they are actually suggesting that this be increased to $15 a prescription. Now, think about that. At a time when we are preparing to send America's young men and women into a war, we are treating our veterans, those who have fought past wars, those who have served our country with honor, we are charging them more for the medicines they need to stay healthy or to simply maintain their lives. From $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription, and now, in the President's budget, $15 a prescription. Many veterans take 10 or more prescriptions a month. That is a lot of money, and many of our veterans are on fixed incomes. Now, in the President's budget for 2004, he is also calling for an elimination of the taxation on dividends. About $674 billion, if that plan is enacted, about $674 billion will go to the richest people in this country, millionaires, multimillionaires. Why would we charge veterans more for their medicines while, at the same time, we are proposing to give $674 billion to the richest people in this country? Not only has the VA decided to raise the cost of medicine, but they have also decided in the President's budget to raise the cost of going to an outpatient clinic for care to see a doctor, from $15 to $20. Why would we raise the cost that a veteran must pay simply to go to see a doctor when, at the same time, we are giving $674 billion to the richest people in this country? About a year ago, the VA put out a memo, and this memo went out to all other health care providers across this Nation. And it basically said, too many veterans are coming to our facilities for services. It is costing us too much money, so you are no longer able to market the services that veterans are entitled to receive. It is a gag order. They are actually telling the health care providers across this country that you cannot tell veterans what they are entitled to receive under the law. They were quite specific in their memo. They told these health care providers that they could no longer participate in community health fairs. They could no longer send out newsletters describing their services. They could no longer go to an American Legion post and sign up veterans for the services that they, under the law, are entitled to receive. I call it the ``if they don't ask, we won't tell'' policy. If the veteran does not ask what they are entitled to receive, the VA will not tell them what they are entitled to receive. Then, a few weeks ago, the VA decided that they would do something else to save money. They decided to create a new priority group called Priority Group 8, and if you are a veteran and you make about $26,000 or $27,000 a year, you are no longer going to be permitted to enroll in the VA health care system. And under the President's budget, they are really suggesting that there be an annual enrollment fee imposed upon veterans, a brand-new enrollment fee. If you make $24,000 a year and you are a veteran, they are asking that you pay $250 a year just to enroll in the VA health care system. Now, I do not think $24,000 is a lot, and people out there in the rest of the world need to know that those of us who serve here in this Chamber make about $150,000 or so a year. Mr. Speaker, $24,000 is not a lot. But in the President's budget, if a veteran makes $24,000 a year, they will be required to pay a $250 annual enrollment fee just to participate in the VA health care system. Why are we doing this? Why do we not take part of that $674 billion that we are giving to the richest people in this country and use it to provide health care for our veterans? It is simply the right thing to do.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the shocking and shabby treatment that this administration is directing toward our Nation's veterans. I would like to share some of the reasons I would make such a statement. Approximately a year ago this administration decided they were going to raise the copay on prescription drugs that veterans would have to pay from $2 to $7 a prescription. So if a veteran goes to a VA hospital today, they are likely to see this poster up on the bulletin board, ``Did you know the medication copayment has changed from $2 to $7?'' I thought that was outrageous, and I introduced legislation in the last Congress to reduce that copayment back to $2, but in the President's most recent budget, he does not just want to charge veterans $7 a prescription, he wants to increase that to $15 per prescription. Think about that. In less than 2 years, the copayment will have gone from $2 to $7 to $15 a prescription. Many of the veterans in Ohio get 10 or more prescriptions a month. If we multiply $15 times 10, that is $150 a month, and then veterans frequently get 3 months supply at a time. That is $150 times 3, for many veterans who are living on fixed income. It is shameful. It is shabby treatment. Now, what else have they tried to do to veterans? Well, about a year ago they put out a memo from the VA headquarters saying that all of the health care providers were forbidden from marketing services that veterans are entitled to receive. In other words, the health care providers can no longer participate in community health fairs. They can no longer send out newsletters describing their services to veterans. They can no longer go to an American Legion post, for example, and sign up veterans for health care services. It is a gag order. I call it the ``if they do not ask, we will not tell'' policy. If the veteran does not ask what they are entitled to receive, the VA will not tell them what they are entitled to receive. Furthermore, they will prohibit their health care providers from simply giving out that information. Then, a few weeks ago, the VA decided to have a new category of veterans; priority 8, they called them. They said if you are a veteran and you are honorably discharged and you have served this country, but you make $26,000-$27,000 a year, you can no longer enroll in the VA health care system. Sorry, veteran, you paid the price, you have served the country, you have been honorably discharged, but we do not want to have anything to do with you because you make too much money. You make $26,000-$27,000 a year. It gets worse. In the President's most recent budget, they are proposing that veterans who make as little as $24,000 a year, and they are referring to them as high-income veterans, would be required to pay a $250 annual enrollment fee just to participate in the VA health care system. Here is what they are doing. They are saying, we are not going to tell veterans what you are entitled to receive, but if you happen to find out about our services, we are going to increase your copay from $2 to $15 a prescription. And then if you make $24,000 a year, which does not sound like a lot of money to me, not compared to those of us who make about $150,000 a year, but if you make $24,000 a year, we want to force you to pay a $250-per-year enrollment fee. And we want to increase the cost of going to a VA outpatient clinic from $15 to $20. I think Members get the point. It is as if this administration has declared war on our Nation's veterans. It is a shameful situation, and I urge this Congress to look at this veterans budget and to reevaluate what we are trying to do; and what we are suggesting needs to be done.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. In just literally a few hours the President is going to walk into this Chamber. It is going to be filled with all of the Representatives and Senators and President's Cabinet, members of the Supreme Court, some members of the diplomatic corps. The press is going in the balcony. It is going to be one of those great occasions, and the President is going to stand and deliver the State of the Union Address, and he is going to talk about priorities, and he is going to use a lot of words. And I have been here long enough to know that talk is easy, action is sometimes difficult, and I want to speak specifically about the priorities that this administration is pursuing. At a time when we are on the brink of war, hundreds of thousands of our young men and women sent across the sea, possibly to engage in a conflict that could cost them their lives, what message are we sending to those who have already fought the battle, who have fought in past wars, who have paid with their health, sometimes their limbs? What message are we sending when we start nickel and diming the veterans of this country? I have an older gentleman who is coming into this chamber tonight as my guest from Woodsfield, Ohio, a little town along the Ohio River. His name is Herman Zerger. Herman is a World War II veteran. He voted for the very first time crouched in a foxhole in France. And he said a runner brought a ballot by and he was able to mark his ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Herman has not missed voting in an election since that very first time that he voted. I asked him to come here tonight because he is a World War II veteran. He is a treasure. He is a treasure to me and to my district. He is the kind of person that this country ought to be honoring and showing respect for and gratitude toward. But what is this administration doing to the Herman Zergers across this country? Let me tell my colleagues what they are doing. About a year ago, the VA made a decision to increase the copayment for the cost of a prescription drug that our veterans must pay from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription. Many veterans that I represent get 10 or more prescriptions a month. That is $70 a month. And then they get a 3-month supply at a time through the VA, which is $210 for a veteran who may be on a fixed income. Think about it. At a time when we are contemplating giving over $600 billion in a tax cut to the richest 5 percent of the people who live in this country, we are increasing the cost of medicine for our veterans. Let me talk about another decision the Veterans Administration has made. Last August, they sent out a memo to all of their health care providers; and they said to their health care providers, too many veterans, and I am paraphrasing obviously, but this is what they said, too many veterans are coming in for services. We do not have enough money to provide those services, and so this is how we are going to deal with it. As a health care provider, you are no longer able to participate in a community health fair to tell veterans what services they are entitled to. You cannot send out newsletters telling veterans what services they are entitled to. You cannot make public service announcements telling veterans what services they are entitled to. It is a gag rule on the VA health providers, an absolute gag rule. I call it the ``If they do not ask, we will not tell policy.'' We are saying to the veterans, if you do not ask what you are entitled to, we will not tell you what you are legally entitled to receive. It is a shameful policy. And then the VA made a more recent decision, which my colleague referred to briefly. There are seven priority groupings within the veterans system. The VA system took group seven, priority group seven, and divided it and made a new priority group, priority group eight they call it. And then they told these priority group eight veterans, and these are people who have served our country honorably, they told them they can no longer participate in the VA health care system. Now, if they are already in there, they will not kick them out. But if they need to enroll, they cannot. How much money does a veteran have to make to be in a priority eight group? Well, it depends on where they live in the country, but somewhere between $26,000 and $30,000 a year. So if a veteran makes more than that, the VA says, no, no, you cannot enroll in our health care system. You may have high prescription drug costs, you may have serious health conditions, but we cannot afford to provide you care. Now, think about it. We are raising the prescription drug costs for our veterans, we are placing a gag order on our VA health care providers, telling them they cannot tell veterans about the services that they are entitled to, and then we take an entire group of veterans and we just say, you make too much money. I want to tell my colleague what a veteran said to me a couple of days ago. He said, ``Congressman Strickland, when they drafted me into the Armed Services and asked me to go fight for my country, they never asked me how much money I made then. But now they are saying, well, if you make $30,000, that is too much money; we cannot afford to provide you with VA health care.'' Let me mention just one more thing in closing. I visited a group of veterans in Steubenville, Ohio, about 4 days ago, and they told me about a health fair that they conduct in this little county, Jefferson County, Ohio. They do it every year at the local high school. They do it on a Saturday, using all volunteers. The nurses and the doctors that participate in this health fair give of their own time on a Saturday. They average annually about 500 veterans coming to that health fair. Last summer, they were able to detect four cases of mouth cancer. Four cases. And those people are now getting treatment. Under this rule that the VA has imposed, this gag order, that group of veterans can no longer conduct this annual health fair. Think about that. Think about that. What have we become if in our country, as rich as we are, we are willing to take over $600 billion and give it to the wealthiest among us and yet we are cutting back on the services that we are providing to those who have served this country in the military? It is a shameful set of circumstances. I hope the President talks about veterans tonight. And when he talks about veterans, I hope he remembers what this administration is doing and that he reverses course. I would love for the President to announce tonight that he is removing the gag order on the veterans health care providers. I would like for the President to say we are reversing the decision to increase the cost of prescription drugs for veterans. I would like for the President to say priority eight veterans are welcome into the VA health care system because they served our country and we owe them. So I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to talk about this issue. It is one that really troubles me because I think it says something about the values that our country is embracing at this point in our historical time period. I believe we need to change course, to reverse course and start treating our veterans with the respect and the honor due them. So I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to speak to that issue, and I look forward to hearing from others of our colleagues as we talk about the economic circumstances facing this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If my colleague will yield, I believe the VA has broken the law when they imposed this gag order. I have asked the General Accounting Office to make a determination regarding whether or not the law was broken. It is my understanding that before such a policy change can be made, that any agency of the Federal Government must bring that policy change back to this Congress for approval or disapproval. The VA has failed to do that. So I am looking forward to getting a determination, perhaps within the next few days; and I believe I am correct in my assumption that the law has not been followed and that the VA is in violation of a law that was passed by this House and by the Senate requiring them to inform the Congress whenever such a policy change occurs. They did not do that in this case.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, tomorrow evening the President of our country will enter this Chamber to deliver to the American people a message concerning the state of our Union. I am sure he will talk about the strength of our military, and he will praise the brave young men and women who even tonight stand ready to defend our country against all enemies. One of the things I hope the President talks about tomorrow night, however, is the rather shabby treatment that this administration is directing toward our Nation's veterans, those who have fought the battles in years past, many of them now quite old and many quite sick. Why do I call the treatment of our veterans today shabby? Could it be because for a veteran to receive an appointment at one of our health care clinics, it is not uncommon for them to have to wait 6 months just to see a doctor? In yesterday's Columbus Dispatch newspaper, Jonathan Riskind wrote a column about veterans' health care, and he started that column with this sentence: ``Warning,'' he wrote. ``Warning: The following tale should send chills through the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers poised to go to war, and it should outrage the rest of us.'' What was he talking about? He was talking about the state of veterans' health care in America today. I would just like to point out, Madam Speaker, that approximately 1 year ago the Veterans Administration sent out a memo to all of its health care providers across this country. That memo represents a major policy change. That memo represents a gag order, because in that memo all of the health care providers are directed that they can no longer market VA services to veterans. It is almost unbelievable that at a time when we are poised on the brink of war that this administration would say to those who provide health care to our veterans, you cannot talk about the services these veterans are legally entitled to receive. You cannot go to community health fairs. You cannot go to veterans' services organizations and sign up veterans for services. You cannot make public service announcements about the services that veterans are legally entitled to receive. You cannot send out newsletters informing veterans what the Congress has provided for them. It is a shameful policy. It is a policy which I think is illegal. I think it is contrary to law. Under the law, before an agency of this government can make such a policy change, they must come to this Congress and give us an opportunity to evaluate that policy and to approve or disapprove. But this policy was instituted without any consultation with those of us in this Congress, and I think it ought to be reversed. Then, just literally a couple of weeks ago, the VA administration decided to create a new priority group within the veterans' groups. Priority 8, they call it. And then they hasten to say, veterans who are in priority 8 cannot sign up for the VA health care system. Now, these are men and women who have served our Nation honorably. They have paid the price, given the time, and we are saying to them, because you may make $26,000 or $30,000 a year, you make too much money, and so you can no longer participate in the VA health care system. It is a shameful decision, and it is one that I hope the President speaks to tomorrow night. I hope he tells us that he is reversing these shameful policies, that he will no longer put a gag rule on our VA health care providers, that he will no longer deny the ability to enroll in the VA health care service to Priority 8 veterans. Madam Speaker, I have spent the last several days visiting VFW halls, American Legion posts and other posts. The veterans of this country are becoming aware of what is being done to them, and I urge this Congress to take action to reverse these policies.