Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, a point well taken because I have had three of my constituents killed in this war. The last one I heard about today, a 21-year-old Marine who had served time in Iraq came home for a brief period of time and was married, was sent back, and was killed in an explosion last Saturday, 21 years old. Earlier than that, a couple of months ago, a 20-year-old, but a 37-year-old as well with three children, a 15-year-old son and two young daughters. So my friend is correct. Young people, middle-aged people are losing their lives. And I would just say this before I yield to my friend from Texas. This has been the most costly month of this war. We are not through this month yet, but we have already lost over 100 precious American lives just this month, well more than a year after this war started. And I just wonder if the President had told the American people before we went to war that it was going to cost $150 billion plus billions and billions and billions more in the years to come, if it was going to cost more than 700 precious American lives, if it was going to result in about 3,500 to 4,000 being seriously wounded, if we were going to be there not for a year or 2 years, but perhaps 5 or 10 or more years, if there were no weapons of mass destruction, if he had said to the American people Iraq was not responsible for the attack upon our country and we have no reason to believe there is a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorism network, I just wonder under those circumstances what the reaction of the American people would be. But the fact is that Vice President Cheney, we now know as a result of Bob Woodward's book, and Mr. Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl and others had decided that this is what we needed to do and so they manipulated and distorted and exaggerated and shaved the truth, and we find ourselves now in a situation where our troops are not being well equipped, not being well equipped in spite of what the President says in his press conference, not being well equipped, and I believe that those who were responsible for persuading this President to take us to war under these circumstances were immature in their understanding of history, were naive in their understanding of what war is all about, and to this very day refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. Some may say, why talk about the past? We are there now. We have got to deal with this. And that is true. We cannot just leave. We are there, and we have got to deal with this terrible situation. But the reason we need to talk about how we got into this situation is because those who got us there are still in power and they want the ability to make the decisions for the future. They want the ability to make decisions about what this country is going to do with our military, with our foreign policy, years into the future. And that is why we need to talk about this issue, because the American people need to learn the truth, and they need to know the complete story. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers me about this administration and its apparently overwhelming desire to go to war was the fact that according to the Woodward book that in January the President and I believe Mr. Rumsfeld met with Prince Bandar, this Saudi ambassador, this prince, in the White House and informed him of our plans to go to war with Iraq, and according to Mr. Woodward, this happened before the President even told our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Mr. Powell is now disputing that account, I believe. But the fact is why would the President discuss his plans to go to war with this ambassador from Saudi Arabia before he informs the Congress of the United States and talks to the American people about this? Fifteen of the 19 pilots that were involved in the attack upon our country on September 11, 2001, were Saudi Arabian citizens. There is an unusual relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. It is starting to come out. I do not know if that has anything to do with the fact that a few days after the attack upon our country, Saudi citizens were allowed to be flown out of this country at a time when all of the other private aircraft were grounded and planes went all over this country picking up Saudi citizens and some relatives of Osama bin Laden and flew them out of this country before they were thoroughly questioned and vetted by the FBI. Why would that have happened? It is almost beyond belief. Now, Mr. Woodward implies in his book that there may be a secret deal between this administration and the Saudi Government regarding the cost of gasoline; that they have been asked to lower the price of oil before the election so that the election prospects of President Bush may be enhanced. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is true, but I know that is what Mr. Woodward says in his book, and Mr. Woodward is a very credible author, widely respected journalist, who had access to Colin Powell and to the President, and he makes that accusation in his book. Now, the American people are paying outrageously high gasoline prices today, outrageously high. Secretary Abraham, the Secretary of Energy, was before my committee not many days ago, and we asked him in that committee meeting, has the President called the members of the Saudi royal family and asked them to do something about these outrageous oil prices? Well, apparently not. In fact, the Saudi family cooperated with OPEC in voting to cut production, which has had the effect of raising prices. So during the spring and summer, the American citizens are paying these outrageous gasoline prices, and, apparently, if Mr. Woodward is correct, maybe in late fall we will find that the Saudis suddenly decide to increase production, thereby lowering the cost of gasoline and making the President a hero. Now is when the American consumer needs help with these high gasoline prices, not in September or October.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is only one other exception, and that is prescription medications. The administration does not believe in free trade when it comes to prescription medications, because we can trade everything else with Mexico and Canada except medications, and the pharmaceutical companies do not want that.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend, and I yield to my colleague the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for joining us and thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), in closing so the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) can have his time to talk about his concerns. I go back to something that I mentioned earlier in this time together and that is the fact that this very night we have young soldiers and middle-age soldiers in Iraq driving around in Humvees that are not armored. It puts them at greater risk. This problem can be solved much more quickly than the Pentagon is willing to solve it. I talked to a radio personality back in my district today and she said, ``Congressman, what can the people listening do about this?'' I said, ``Call the White House. The message ought to be this: Mr. President, provide our soldiers with armored Humvees as quickly as possible because life and limb are at stake.''

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be leaving Washington, D.C. this afternoon and going back to our home districts, and it saddens me that we are leaving Washington without extending the unemployment benefits that are so desperately needed by so many unemployed Americans. Just in Ohio alone, since George W. Bush became President of our country, we have lost 236,000 jobs, and 170,000 of those jobs have been high-wage jobs with good benefits. Across the Nation, some 3 million jobs have been lost under the President's watch, making him the first President since Herbert Hoover to actually have a net loss of jobs during his tenure as President. That makes it all the more troubling to me that with so much job loss in our country and so many unemployed workers in my State of Ohio, that we would leave Washington, D.C. for this extended vacation without extending unemployment benefits to our unemployed constituents. The fact is that in Ohio alone, already, 31,300 workers have exhausted their benefits; and between now and June, this will be 2,200 workers per week who will have exhausted their unemployment benefits. In my region of eastern Ohio in the Steubenville area, 380 workers have already exhausted their benefits; and by the end of June, that number will swell to 700 workers. Mr. Speaker, these statistics are not merely numbers; they represent workers. They represent the heads of households. They represent parents who need to provide for themselves and their children, to be able to contribute to their communities and their churches. That is what we are facing in Ohio. It just is amazing to me that in light of these circumstances, the President's Treasury Secretary, Mr. John Snow, came to Ohio last week and he verbally defended the outsourcing, the sending of American jobs to other countries, indicating that it strengthens our economy to do so. How can Treasury Secretary Snow or President Bush come to Ohio and look unemployed people in the eye and tell them that they care about them when they deny them these needed resources? The money is there, Mr. Speaker. What I am suggesting and calling for will not result in an increase in taxes. There are multiple billions of dollars in the unemployment fund, money that has been placed there by workers and employees for just such a time as this. Yet it seems to me that perhaps out of an insensitivity to what is really happening, and unawareness of the tragedy of unemployment, or maybe a hardness of heart, this House and this administration will not support the extension of these benefits. I assume it is because if we extended the benefits it would be an admission that we have not solved the problem of joblessness in this country. Maybe we do not want to add to the accounting that would increase the amount of the deficit. But I want to tell my colleagues, the leadership of this House and the President of the United States have no hesitancy in increasing the deficit if it is necessary in order to give tax breaks to the richest people in this country. Think of this: here we are leaving Washington, D.C. today, going home and knowing that there are thousands and thousands of unemployed workers who are, on a weekly basis, exhausting their benefits, and who, through no fault of their own, they have lost their jobs. But through the resources of this government we can help them. We could lessen the pain that they feel. We could make it possible for them to continue to provide the needed resources for their families. And, yet, we are turning our back on them in their hour of need. I hope that when President Bush comes to Ohio for his next visit the constituents in Ohio will ask him, Mr. President, why were you unwilling to support an extension of unemployment benefits to those who are out of work?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take my 5 minutes, but I was standing here, sitting here listening to my colleague from Texas talk about the young man who had been wounded and was recovering. And I am reminded that there are some nearly now 600 soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq and we do not know for sure but somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 have been seriously injured. I think it is a sad and a tragic fact that the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, this administration, sent our troops into battle without providing them with adequate protection. As a result, there are those who probably have lost their lives simply because they did not have body armor; and there are those who have lost their limbs simply because this administration has not taken care of the problem of unarmored Humvees in Iraq. Many, many months ago I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld a letter after I had received a letter from a young soldier in Baghdad, a young soldier who is a West Point graduate and a gung-ho Army guy. In his letter to me he said, ``Congressman, I am so proud of the Army. We are doing everything that we can here to help these people.'' But later on in his letter he said, ``My men are wondering why they do not have the protection of this interceptor vest, this high-tech vest that has the capacity because of its construction and the materials used to actually stop an AK-47 round.'' I started exploring that problem, and what I found was that we sent soldiers in the initial assault into Iraq without this most basic protection. Now these vests were used in Afghanistan, and we found out in the Afghanistan conflict that they were effective. It is thought that as many as 19 lives of our soldiers were saved during the Afghanistan conflict because they had this interceptor vest. And yet when we sent our soldiers into battle in Iraq many went into those fights without this body armor. So I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld; and I got a letter back from Mr. Brownlee, his Chief of Staff, and in that letter I was told that we hoped that we would have all of our soldiers equipped with this body armor by November. That was November of 2003. The war in Iraq started in March. Then a couple of weeks later I get a second letter from General Myers, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his letter General Myers informed me that it probably would be December before our soldiers were fully equipped with this body armor. And I remind you that the war started in March. I asked Mr. Rumsfeld how many soldiers perhaps had lost their lives on the battlefield who were not equipped with this body armor, and he indicated to me he could not answer that question because they do not collect that data. Well, Secretary Rumsfeld said November. General Myers said December. Before we left this city for our holiday period, Christmas, the Pentagon held a briefing; and one of my staff members went to the briefing and the person holding the briefing said it was likely to be January before our soldiers were equipped with this vest. The war began in March. And, lo and behold, about 3 weeks ago I get a letter indicating that finally, finally, a year after the war began, this administration is willing to say that all of our troops have access to the body armor. Now, Chris Matthews visited many of the troops at Walter Reed and he had that on his show this weekend. During that show, near the end of the show, he indicated that the body armor could protect the lives but not the limbs of our soldiers. I end my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that we have unarmored Humvees in Iraq tonight. The only company that produces these armored vehicles is in Ohio. They tell me that they can produce 500 a month, and the Pentagon is only asking for 220 a month. How many soldiers will have their arms and legs destroyed because this administration is not providing them with the equipment that could keep them safe?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I just wanted to share for a few moments a letter that has been sent to each of us regarding the budget, because I think it is timely. We are likely to vote on the budget tomorrow afternoon, and it is a budget that is woefully inadequate. And I know sometimes we stand up here as Democrats and people who may be watching think, well, they are just partisan or what they are saying is simply based upon their political preferences rather than on what is best for public policy. I have a letter here from the Disabled American Veterans and it was sent to every Member of the House of Representatives and I would like to share with my colleague some of the things that are in this letter. It was written and signed by Alan Bower, the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. ``Dear Representative, As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans, I write to urge you to oppose and vote against H. Con. Res. 393, the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2005.'' And then the letter goes on and talks about how we are short-changing VA health care. We are at war and yet the President actually sent us a veterans' budget this year that was woefully inadequate. It called for an increase in the costs of prescription drugs for many of our seniors and our veterans. It called for an annual enrollment fee of $250 for many of our veterans. It continues to shut out many of our Priority 7 and 8 veterans, and literally prevents those that are referred to as Priority 8 veterans from even enrolling in the VA health care system. We continue to have a situation where the VA has literally formulated a policy that prohibits many of their health care providers from actively marketing VA services to veterans. But I think this letter is rather devastating because the DAV is not a partisan group. It is just simply a group that was developed to advocate for the needs of the disabled veterans who have served our Nation. And so this letter that we have received says, ``The inadequate appropriations provided for in this budget resolution will support medical treatments for 170,000 fewer veterans than the Department of Veterans Affairs could treat with the funding which was recommended by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,'' a committee that I serve on. ``It will support 13,000 fewer full-time employees for veterans' medical care. With the level of appropriations in the House budget resolution, VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans and deny it altogether for other sick and disabled veterans, just to enable it to meet inflationary costs, including increases in employee wages.'' And then the National Commander of the DAV writes this paragraph. He says, ``Short-changing veterans in this budget resolution is all the more objectionable because it in no way is necessitated by our fiscal situation, but rather is part of a larger objective to make deep cuts in spending on veterans' and other domestic programs at the same time far more costly cuts are being made in taxes. ``The House budget resolution is also the more objectionable because it is part of a greater plan to impose these cuts on discretionary programs such as veterans' medical care, and to impose a freeze on any improvements or adjustments in benefits programs such as veterans' disability compensation in fiscal years 2006 through 2009. ``To the veterans of this Nation,'' he writes, ``it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars.'' Now, this letter was written not by a Democrat partisan, but by the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. And basically what he says is, we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, at the same time that we are limiting the funding we are providing to our VA, so that medical care will not be available in a timely manner to those who have served this Nation. And then the letter says, in conclusion, the DAV must ask that Congress restore some sense of reason, responsibility and justice to the budget process. There must be some balance between the goal of reducing taxes and the government responsibility of meeting our national obligations to veterans whose contributions and sacrifices have made us the most secure and prosperous nation on Earth. Then they ask that we vote against this budget that is going to be brought to this floor tomorrow afternoon. So my friend from New Jersey is talking about the Vice President and the fact that he tends to remain hidden much of the time. He does come out occasionally for a fundraiser. But I would like the Vice President to explain to us how he and the President can support a budget that wants to make tax cuts permanent for the wealthiest and yet is short- changing the medical care that our veterans need. The fact is that we are creating disabled veterans on a daily basis. We all know that. Sadly, we have seen the loss of really hundreds of lives in Iraq, but what many people do not understand is that for every soldier whose life is lost in Iraq, we are having six soldiers seriously injured. And they are coming back to this country, many of them without their arms or legs. Some have been blinded. Others terribly disfigured, and yet we are not providing adequate resources. I do not understand the President in this regard. I simply do not understand how a President who calls himself a wartime President and who apparently enjoys spending time with our military, we see him standing in front of soldiers with flags waving, having his picture taken, how can this President not fully fund the medical care that is necessary to adequately treat those who have fought for our Nation in the past? It really puzzles me. I do not understand why the administration does not say, here is the money you need, and simply provide the needed funding. Now, tomorrow we are going to have the AMVETS, the American Veterans here in Washington. They are going to be testifying before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and we are going to be having this vote. And I just urge, I would hope that the President, the Vice President, the members of his Cabinet would rethink their priorities and would provide the kind of resources that are needed so that we can have timely health care provided, high-quality health care provided, affordable health care provided to those who have served our country. I thank my friend from New Jersey for allowing me to speak about this subject this evening.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield for one more moment, I read the letter that was signed by the national commander of the Disabled American Veterans, but I have another letter here that has been signed by the national legislative director of AMVETS, the national legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the national legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans and the national legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and in their letter, which was sent to each Member of this House. We all received one. There is not a Member, not a Democrat or Republican in this chamber or who serves in this chamber, that did not receive this letter from these four veterans organizations, and I would just like to share with you one paragraph from that letter. It says, Passage of the budget resolution, and what they are talking about is the Republican budget resolution that is going to be brought to this floor tomorrow, passage of the budget resolution, as presented, would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this country and who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in our fight against terrorism. Now, the President cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, claim to be the wartime President and say we are going to do everything we can to win the war against terror and, on the other hand, fail to fully fund those medical services which will provide care for the wounded who are returning to this country in significant numbers. As I said to my friend from New Jersey, this is not a partisan argument. This is a letter that came to every Member of this House from these four veterans organizations. These are not Democrat or Republican organizations. These are organizations which have been established specifically to advocate for the needs of veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the National AMVETS, and it is a pretty strongly worded letter, I will say that, and it lays it out real clearly to say that this budget will be a disservice, not only to those who have served but to those who are currently serving. We have got men and women, as you and I stand here in the safety of this Chamber, thousands of miles from us who are facing danger every moment of every day that they are there in that country, and the least we can do is say to them we care enough about you and we honor your service to this country sufficiently to provide the kind of health care that you are entitled to receive once you return to this country, especially if you have been terribly wounded or injured in the battle. That is why we have been called upon by these various veterans organizations to reject this budget tomorrow, to vote ``no,'' to force this House to go back and to do the right thing, to restore an adequate level of funding for our veterans health care.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the fact that we have so many wounded coming back from Iraq. I would just like to share with my friend that recently it was reported that during World War II we had three soldiers seriously wounded for every soldier that was killed. That was World War II. During the Vietnam conflict, we had four soldiers wounded for every soldier that was killed. In this war, we are having six soldiers seriously wounded for every soldier whose life is lost. Now, there is some good news, and the good news is this: we are now able to save the lives of many of our soldiers who are seriously injured because of advances in medical technology, and that is good. But consequently, we are having more seriously wounded soldiers coming out of this war who are desperately in need of high-quality, adequate medical care. I was thinking, and I have shared this with the gentleman before, the young man from my district in Ohio who joined the service at 17 years of age and as he was standing guard duty in Baghdad on his 19th birthday, the morning of his birthday a truck bomb exploded, and one whole side of his face was seriously damaged. I visited him at Walter Reed Medical Center near where we are tonight. He is going to be going through several surgeries. They are going to have to take bone from his hip and refashion his jawbone, and he is going to have to go through skin grafts. He is just one of hundreds and hundreds of soldiers who are newly wounded. This is happening in part, and I share this because we want to believe that the administration and those responsible for pursuing this war have the best of intentions. But the fact is that we sent our soldiers into battle when this war began last March without protective body armor. I had a series of communications with Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, over a several month period of time; and I kept asking when are our soldiers going to be protected with this body armor. It took them an entire year before they were able to give me in writing an assurance that all of our soldiers in Iraq were protected. An entire year. I have asked Secretary Rumsfeld how many of our soldiers have lost their lives because they were in danger in battle without protective equipment. Now, I hope that when the Pentagon tells us that all of the soldiers in Iraq have this body armor, they are being accurate. But there is another problem that is every bit as serious, and that is the fact that we have vehicles over there without proper armor. We have Humvees over there that are not armored, and so many of the wounds that are taking place over there are the result of our vehicles passing over bombs that have been placed in the roadway and exploding. We have Humvees that are not armored, and I can tell Members that the company that provides armored Humvees and the kits that can be used to armor the Humvees that are already there without proper armor is an Ohio-based company. It is in Fairfield, Ohio. That company tells me they are capable of producing 500 armored vehicles a month, and yet the Pentagon is only asking for 220 of these vehicles a month, and the Pentagon is saying that it will be the end of 2005 before the vehicles that are being used by our soldiers in Iraq are properly armored. Think about that. We have put about $150 billion into this war effort, and it took this administration a full year to adequately provide body armor for our soldiers, and they still have not provided armored vehicles. So many of our soldiers are being maimed and killed because they are in vehicles that are not properly armored, and we cannot produce those vehicles more rapidly and deploy them in Iraq more rapidly. Why are we not doing it? We simply have an administration that is not willing to spend the money to get it done as quickly as it is possible to get it done. That is something that the American people need to know about. That is something that the families in this country who have loved ones in Iraq need to be aware of. And the Members who serve in this Chamber and the Senators who serve in the other Chamber need to be hearing from the American people about this. There should be no hesitancy to spend whatever is necessary to make sure that our soldiers have the best equipment, and everything that can be done to keep them safe should be done to keep them safe.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude my remarks by saying this, that there is an effort to hide the cost of this war. I think that effort is seen in the fact that when the bodies of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq are brought to Dover Air Force Base, there is a prohibition against having cameras there and pictures being taken of the flag-draped coffins being unloaded. I was just told today that even the families of those soldiers are being prohibited from being there and being present when their loved one is brought back and brought off those planes, and I think that is unconscionable if that is taking place. I want to verify that, but a colleague told me that this afternoon in this Chamber that families are literally being prohibited from being present when their loved ones are brought back. There is an effort to hide that cost and keep that away from the American people. I also think there is an effort to de-emphasize the horrendous wounds and disabilities that are being experienced by those who are coming back; and certainly there is an effort to minimize the financial costs of this war, the fact that we have spent, the estimates are somewhere around $150 billion already, about $1 billion or more a week, and the President is going to come back later this year, probably after the election, and ask for an additional $50 billion or $80 billion. So the gentleman is right, there is an effort to hide the true cost of this war, both in the loss of human life, the serious injuries that are being experienced by our men and women, and the financial burden that is being placed upon this country at a time when we are not meeting our needs right here at home, and we are not fully equipping our troops. To think that someone could be terribly injured unnecessarily or could lose their life simply because they are not well equipped as they are fighting this war is simply unacceptable.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 66 and 67, and ``yes'' on rollcall 68, 69, 70, and 71.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Marvin H. Feldman, the 2004 recipient of the Circle of Life Award of the Million Dollar Roundtable. Mr. Feldman is a native of East Liverpool, Ohio and a nationally recognized leader in the financial services industry. As an agent for New York Life, Marvin is well known in the world of insurance and financial planning as a global leader in sales. His hard work and record of accomplishment earned him a place in the prestigious Million Dollar Roundtable Foundation. Not only has Marvin been a member of this exclusive organization, he also served as past president. Membership in this Foundation requires agreement to a stringent code of ethics and conduct and exceptional professional knowledge and client service. Mr. Feldman is a member of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Mahoning Valley Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Ohio Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the Society of Financial Service Professionals, the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting and the Financial Planning Association. His previous industry experience includes serving as a member of New York Life's Strategic Planning Committee and the Universal Life Product Committee, as well as secretary of New York Life's Agents Advisory Council. Marvin has not only been a leader in his profession, but has also been a civic and philanthropic leader in his hometown of East Liverpool, Ohio. He has contributed to East Liverpool through his work on the Economic Development Committee, the Megafund Committee and the East Liverpool City Hospital Fund Raising Committee. He has also served as chair of the East Liverpool United Jewish Appeal, co-chair of the Kent State University local branch, and Advanced Gifts Capital Campaign Program. Mr. Feldman was a founder and is currently a director of the First National Community Bank in East Liverpool. In addition, he has served as a trustee and chairman of the East Liverpool City Hospital. Before beginning his career with New York Life, Marvin attended Ohio State University in Columbus. He and his wife Vicki are the proud parents of two daughters, Terri and Barbi. Appropriately, Mr. Feldman's outstanding leadership, commitment, and dedication will be honored later this month at a ceremony in Pittsburgh, when he will be named a ``Circle of Life Award Honoree'' by the Million Dollar Roundtable Foundation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as has been noted here on the floor earlier by my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the President came to Ohio yesterday. It was his 15th visit since being elected, or since ascending to the presidency. The fact is that he should come to Ohio, because Ohio is a suffering State. Ohio has lost approximately 300,000 jobs since the President has been in office. About 160,000 of those jobs have been good paying manufacturing jobs, living wage jobs, jobs with good benefits. And, quite frankly, there is no recovery in Ohio as I stand here in this Chamber today. The recovery may be happening on Wall Street, it may be happening in other States, but the recovery has not yet come to Ohio. So I think the President should be concerned. Just yesterday in this Chamber, a group of high school students from my district, from Jefferson County, were visiting here in the Nation's Capital, and during the question and answer session that I had with them in this Chamber, a high school student asked me what I could say to those who had worked at Weirton Steel, those who had retired, had been a part of this community and of this company, and are now being told that their health benefits are no longer there for them, that their pensions are being reduced. Quite frankly, it is difficult to answer a question like that coming from one of my constituents, because the sad, sad fact is, there are good citizens, law-abiding, patriotic Americans, who have worked all their lives and are now finding themselves in the most difficult circumstances. They may be in their mid-fifties, with major health problems, only to find that they are no longer covered with health insurance. So we need to focus on Ohio, and the President needs to be thinking about job creation. But that is why I am so disappointed in the President's recently published economic report to the Nation. In that report there is this sentence: ``If a good or a service can be produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import that product rather than to produce it domestically.'' Now, the fact is that nearly every job in this country can probably be performed at lower cost in another country. The fact is that the Chinese and the Indians, the Vietnamese, those from Australia, they are doing the producing and they are taking jobs from this country. As is the case in Mexico that I visited a couple months ago, paying $38 a week, an American company paying $38 a week for 9\1/2\ hour days, well, of course they can produce it at lower cost there. But the last thing we need is for the President to indicate that this is a good thing. That economic report was issued under President Bush's signature, so he is responsible for that conclusion, that statement, ``if a good or a service can be produced at a lower cost in another country, it makes sense to produce it there, rather than to produce it domestically.'' But what do you say, what do you say, Mr. President, to the unemployed steelworkers, to those along the Ohio River, on both the West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio portions of that river, whose jobs depend on producing china and pottery, these jobs that are being threatened by imports from China, when your administration is wanting to reduce or eliminate the current tariffs of 28 percent? What do you say to them? Of course you can make a plate cheaper in China, if you are going to pay pennies an hour or dollars a week, but that does not make it right. We need a President who is willing to stand up for American jobs, American workers, American communities and American industries.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my colleagues from Texas and Florida who have just spoken and called themselves the Waste Watchers, and they listed all of these wasteful actions of government, and then they said that Democrats want to raise taxes. I would like to remind them that their party controls the presidency. Their party controls this House. Their party controls the Senate. And the last election in Florida demonstrates that their party controls the Supreme Court. If there is all of this waste, why does not their party get rid of it? Why blame the Democrats for something that their party is responsible for doing? I just point out that the Republican party is in charge and, therefore, the Republican party is responsible for the waste that my colleague detailed before us tonight. I would like to speak tonight about veterans health care. I attended a Committee on Veterans Affairs meeting today where the Veterans of Foreign Wars spoke before our committee. And those veterans are asking why it is that we are spending billions and billions of dollars to Iraq, $87 billion the last time we got a request from the President. He is going to come back and ask for probably $50 billion more following the November election, and yet, we are nickel and diming our veterans. We have said priority 8 veterans can enroll in the VA health care system. The President actually sent us a budget during this time of war, and in the President's budget, he is asking that for many of our veterans, the cost of a prescription drug be increased from $7 a prescription to $15 a prescription. Now, for a veteran that is on a fixed income and may have 6 or 8 or 10 prescriptions a month, that is a heavy, intolerable burden. The President's budget also asks that there be a user fee imposed upon veterans, a user fee of $250 per year, just so many of our veterans can participate in the VA health care system. And then we have a request in the President's budget to increase the cost of a clinic visit for our veterans. We are piling burden upon burden upon burden on the backs of our veterans. I simply do not understand why we would do this. In a time of war, when we are creating new veterans, many disabled, veterans with terrible injuries, veterans who have lost their arms and legs, many have been blinded, terribly disfigured, these are veterans who have newly fought for our country, and we are giving them a VA health care system that is woefully underfunded. I simply do not understand why the President does not step up to the plate and put his actions behind his rhetoric and say, I am willing to pay whatever it takes to provide adequate health care for the men and women who have fought and suffered for this country. I call upon the President tonight to rethink his priorities. Rather than spending money to send a man to Mars, we ought to be spending money to take care of our veterans. I have shared this with my colleagues in the Committee on Veterans Affairs. A couple of weeks ago I went to Walter Reed Hospital. I visited a young man from my district who joined the military when he was 17 years of age. On his 19th birthday, while standing guard duty in Baghdad, a truck bomb exploded and removed a large part of one side of his face. This young man who is only 19 years of age was at Walter Reed getting reconstructive surgery on his face. He is just one of thousands, and there probably sadly will be thousands more in the future. This Congress, this President, those of us of both political parties, should put the needs of our disabled, sick, and needy veterans at the top of our priority list. I call upon all of us, myself included, to make our veterans our number 1 priority.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Earlier today I had in my office a large number of members of the different posts of the Ohio American Legion. And we were talking about the fact that we have got so many young Americans and middle-aged Americans in Iraq. And I just want to share with the gentleman something that continues to gnaw at me. It causes me great personal concern because it is a matter that has yet to be recognized, admitted to, and corrected by this administration. I have talked earlier in recent weeks about the fact that we sent our soldiers into harm's way without providing them with the most basic equipment of the body armor that was capable of giving them the fullest protection possible. As a result, I believe young Americans and some middle-aged Americans have lost their lives in Iraq because of the negligence of this administration and this Pentagon. I have gone to Walter Reed Hospital and visited with soldiers; and some of the soldiers there have missing arms and legs, and I believe some of those terrible injuries are the result of our failure to provide them with the right kind of protection. Now, I will talk a minute about the body armor; but I would also like to talk about the vehicles, the Humvees that are not adequately protected as a result of the negligence, the negligence of this Pentagon. Way back in the early spring, I received a letter from one of my constituents who happens to be a West Point graduate, a young man who is serving this very night in Iraq; and he told me that his men did not have the interceptor vests, this high-quality vest that became available, I believe, in 1998. It costs about $1,500 a piece, capable of stopping an AK-47 round. It is made of Kevlar and it has ceramic plates in both the front and back, designed to protect the core of a soldier's body, the vital organs of a soldier's body. So I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld and I asked him when he was going to make sure that all of our soldiers were adequately equipped with this vest. He wrote me back and he said sometime in mid-November. A couple of weeks later, I get a letter from General Myers, and he says, well, it is going to be in December. Before we left this city for our holiday period, the Christmas period, the Pentagon held a briefing, and they said, well, it is going to be January. Now just last week we were told that there is an assumption that all of our soldiers in Iraq are equipped and perhaps all of our soldiers in Afghanistan, we do not know. There is no definitive statement on that, but certainly our soldiers in Kuwait do not yet have this equipment. But there is something that bothers me even more because we have a large number of humvees and other vehicles in Iraq that are not sufficiently provided with armor, that when they drive over a bomb that is planted in the road, for example, the soldiers in those vehicles are protected as best they can possibly be protected. One of the reasons this is of concern to me is because the company that is the sole provider of this armored vehicle, as well as the kits that can be used on the vehicles that are already in the theater and are not yet armored, that company is in Ohio. It is located near Cincinnati, Ohio. The President's going to be in Cleveland tomorrow for his 15th visit to Ohio since being President.

Mr. STRICKLAND. That has not happened.

Mr. STRICKLAND. In Ohio.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be here tomorrow. If I was going to be in Ohio tomorrow and could speak to the President, I would ask him why he has not requested a sufficient amount of funding to provide these armored vehicles and the kits that can provide armory to the vehicles that are already over there so that our soldiers will not have their arms and legs blown off when they drive over these explosives. Many of our soldiers are being killed, but many, many more are sustaining these terrible injuries as a result of the explosions that are occurring in Iraq, and the company officials have been to see me. They tell me that they can produce many more of these vehicles in a more rapid fashion, but the fact is that the President has not requested the money. It is a funding problem. After this House has passed $87 billion and the President's going to come back later and ask for $50 billion for the effort in Iraq, we have got soldiers who have gone without body armor, and as most Americans are sitting in their homes safe and sound and as we stand here in this chamber, we have soldiers that are in harm's way simply because this administration has failed to provide them with the best protection possible. I am not the President, but if I were, I would say to those beneath me, those in charge of the Pentagon and military equipment and the like, I would say correct this problem as quickly as possible, I do not care how much it takes; we are going to make sure our soldiers are protected as best we can protect them. The sad fact is that we cannot protect them from all danger. The sad fact is that there will be continuing loss of life and continuing injuries, but at least we should do everything that we can possibly do within our power to make sure that our troops are adequately protected.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if my friend will yield, I want to believe what you are saying is true, but I have reason to believe that if the administration was willing to spend the necessary funds that we could provide this protection in a more rapid manner. We are told that we did not expect the aftermath of the war to go as it has gone. We were told our soldiers are going to be welcomed; they will be throwing rose petals at us; we will be considered liberators and all of that. So obviously there was inadequate planning, and that is a sad fact, but this war has been going on for almost, what, a year or more?

Mr. STRICKLAND. And the fact is that it should not take a year to correct a problem. It should not take months to get body armor to our troops. Do my colleagues know what the Pentagon is saying now? They are saying it will be at least the end of 2005 before the vehicles in Iraq are provided with this armor. That is much too long. How many soldiers are going to be injured between now and the end of 2005?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people realize who ultimately has to be accountable. Harry Truman said it: ``The buck stops here.'' The Oval Office is where the responsibility lies. I can understand why the American people can be confused. We have talked about several things tonight. We have talked about the body armor and the ill-equipped troops. We have talked about the Medicare bill and the fact it is going to cost more than we were told and will provide an inadequate benefit. I noticed the other side earlier was saying it is not a perfect bill. You can bet your life it is not a perfect bill; it is a terrible bill. It is going to cost much more than we were told it was going to cost. The deficit is going to be well over $500 billion this year, with no end in sight. If I can mention education, we had a primary in Ohio with well over 200 education ballots that people were called to vote upon. More than half failed. People are wondering why are we not funding the No Child Left Behind bill at an adequate level. And then, we all understand that the President, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) said, did not ask for a single dime for the Iraq war in the budget he sent us; but we all know as soon as the election is over, the President is going to come to this House and ask for at least an additional $50 billion for Iraq. I think people are wondering why can we not have affordable drugs for our senior citizens, why can we not adequately fund our schools, why can we not provide the kind of health care that our veterans have been promised and deserve, why can we not adequately equip our troops and start paying down this deficit rather than pushing this burden into the outyears onto the backs of our children. The answer is the President has set out an agenda which is to give massive tax cuts to the richest people in this country, to spend on the building of Iraq and the rebuilding of Iraq. My people are not selfish along the Ohio River in eastern and southeastern Ohio. They are good, hardworking, honest American citizens. They are wondering why our schools cannot be built and rehabbed and modernized, and we are spending that money in Iraq. We are not going to get a transportation bill unless something happens and there is some kind of an agreement. We are told the President may even veto the transportation funding at the Senate-passed level. My constituents are asking, What about our infrastructure? What about our roads and bridges? What about our sewer and water needs? And yet we are pouring our national resources into Iraq, and as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) said, we have no idea what is going to happen with that government over there.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I was watching television over the weekend, and I saw Mr. Richard Pearl being interviewed about why we are trying to provide universal health care for Iraq. He was trying to give the reasons why that was justified. He was asked, What about the American citizen? He said Well, it is a different situation. The problems of health care in Iraq are so terrible, and this is something we ought to pursue. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are kind, caring, gracious people; but they have a hard time understanding why the steelworkers losing their jobs along the Ohio River, and as a result of bankruptcy of the steel industry, losing their health benefits as retirees, many of them in their mid-fifties with health problems, no insurance company wants them; and even if they could get an insurance company that would sell them a policy, they could not possibly afford it because they have no job, and these people are wondering why we have a double standard when it comes to our willingness to do what this administration, this President says he wants to do for Iraq when the people who built this country worked hard, played by the rules, many of them fought in our wars, are wondering why they are considered to be second priorities instead of first priorities. I think that is a legitimate issue. I wish I was in Cleveland tomorrow and had an opportunity to talk to the President while he was there. I would like to ask him those questions on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And be honest with us about the true cost of the No Child Left Behind education bill. It starts adding up.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, I am from Ohio, and Ohio probably as much or more than most States has suffered and is continuing to suffer from job loss. 286,000 jobs have been lost in Ohio, 160,000 manufacturing jobs, and the replacement jobs are estimated to pay on average 34 percent less than the jobs that have been lost. That is the cold, hard facts about Ohio.