Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. What this discussion needs is some maturity. I was just sitting here listening to you, and what you say is absolutely true. But I just will point out that under the President's plan, if you make more than $20,000 a year, you can expect a significant reduction in your benefits. Think of that. Now, they can call these people higher income if they want to, but today $20,000 is not a huge salary. So the statistics you gave for the $37,000 income and the $58,000 income and the $90,000 income brackets were accurate, but you can make as little as $21,000 and you are going to experience a significant reduction in benefits under the President's plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my young friend from Ohio.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise a company located in my Congressional district. Solvay Advanced Polymers is a company in Washington County, Ohio that is on the cutting edge. But despite its success, Solvay hasn't lost its connection and commitment to our southeastern Ohio communities. Just a few months ago, we had a very big reminder of Solvay's commitment to the community of Marietta, Ohio. As many in this House know, in January most of the state of Ohio was hit by a brutal snowstorm and torrential rain. In Washington County, the storm produced 40-year high flooding levels for the second time in five months. As you can imagine, the resources of community groups were already stretched thin from the previous flood. The Washington Morgan Community Action Agency was faced with the dual challenge of taking care of its own flood damage while helping its low-income clients through their devastating flood losses. It was in this trying time that Solvay stepped in and offered assistance and support that went well beyond what anyone could expect. The employees and management of the local Solvay plant put their own personal needs aside to serve the neediest in their community at a time when many of them were likely suffering from the flood themselves. As the board of the Washington-Morgan Community Action Agency said to the company in a recent letter: ``Solvay Advanced Polymers was one of the first businesses to respond to our request for flood relief supplies. Going beyond that you offered both people and transportation to help deliver the supplies we received. For two days your maintenance department employees took supplies throughout the area going door to door and business to business delivering cleaning supplies and water. Without you, getting needed items to the community would have taken much more time, slowing down the recovery period. In January our health clinic was inundated by flood water for the second time in four months. Solvay Advanced Polymers volunteered to provide the needed construction supplies and labor to restore the dry wall and carpeting to better than the original condition. Without your assistance we would have been much delayed in returning the building to a condition in which we could provide health services to the low and moderate income women that depend on the clinic's services. While a number of Solvay employees were responsible for the wonderful assistance described above we wish to especially thank Max Blake, Maintenance Superintendent, Bob Bagley Maintenance Supervisor, Mark Martin, Maintenance Foreman and Grover Wallace, Human Resources Director. The contribution to this agency and the community made possible by your caring efforts cannot be over emphasized.'' Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all in southeastern Ohio, I would like to thank Solvay and its Washington County employees for their selflessness and service during last January's flooding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share the story of Solvay and to give this company a recognition they most certainly deserve.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to recommit because it provides added financial protections for veterans, military personnel and their families who are enduring financial hardships as a direct result of serving this country. Additionally, this motion to recommit offers help to members of the Reserves and National Guard who all too often must leave behind their family jobs and businesses. It provides protection not just during service but also for the 2 years after service when our veterans make the transition back to civilian life. This measure will guarantee what the Servicemembers Relief Act does not. It will provide exemptions from the means test, financial assistance and time, something our servicemembers selflessly give to the Nation and something we should give to them. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not provide substantial bankruptcy protections. Rather, it provides a simple, temporary 90-day delay in bankruptcy proceedings once a servicemember is released from active duty. Let us be clear. No bankruptcy safe harbor or exemption exists for our citizen soldiers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act currently. This motion is not an attempt to kill the bill. It is simply a reaction to a real problem that has been highlighted in countless news stories, by the National Military Families Association, Disabled Veterans of America, and individual servicemembers. These are people experiencing real and difficult financial situations. I support this motion to provide this narrow protection for those men and women who have served our country, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank my dear colleague for her efforts in this behalf.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), for sharing these moments with me as we stand here in the Chamber of the people's House, the House of Representatives, to honor those from our region. Ohio is a patriotic State, and the great Mahoning Valley is certainly a patriotic region of Ohio. Over the years, literally thousands of young men and women have left the great Mahoning Valley and have served in this country's Armed Forces. They are serving today, so many of them, in harm's way, unselfishly giving up of their time and their talents, while their loving families wait at home, hoping and praying that they will be safe. Both the gentleman and I have visited Walter Reed Hospital. We have talked with Americans who have lost their legs, many have been blinded, so many have sustained brain injuries. I have been to the Bethesda Naval Hospital and seen young people walking down the hallways with their families walking with them, young people who have been terribly disfigured. We are paying a great price for the war that is currently under way; and the least we can do, the very least we can do as a Nation is to make sure that when these honored people come home that they are treated with justice and fairness, that they are able to receive the health care that they have been promised and that they deserve. As we stand here in the safety of this great Chamber, we should never forget that many of our friends and the families and loved ones from the great Mahoning Valley are in harm's way. So we honor them, and we honor their families, because they have joined in the sacrifice as well.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter for the Congressional Record: Dear Representatives Strickland and Murphy: The undersigned organizations in the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing patients, health professionals and family members, are pleased to support your legislation, the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act. Under your legislation, Medicare's historic discriminatory 50 percent coinsurance for outpatient mental health care would be reduced over six years to 20 percent, bringing the coinsurance into line with that required of Medicare beneficiaries for other Part B services. Simply put, current law discriminates against Medicare beneficiaries who seek treatment for mental illness. This affects elderly and non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries alike when they seek mental health care. According to the 1999 U.S. Surgeon General's report on mental health, almost 20 percent of elderly individuals have some type of mental disorder uncommon in typical aging. In addition, elderly individuals have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S., often the result of depression. The Surgeon General's report states, ``Late-life depression is particularly costly because of the excess disability that it causes and its deleterious interaction with physical health. Older primary care patients with depression visit the doctor and emergency rooms more often, use more medication, incur higher outpatient charges, and stay longer at the hospital.'' The 50 percent coinsurance requirement also is unfair to the non-elderly disabled Medicare population. Because many of these individuals have severe mental illnesses combined with low incomes and high medical expenses, a 50 percent coinsurance obligation is a serious patient burden. For elderly and non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries alike, Medicare is a critical source of care. Your legislation to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries needing mental health care incur only the same cost-sharing obligations as required of all other Medicare patients would end the statutory discrimination against Medicare beneficiaries seeking treatment for mental disorders. Thank you for your leadership in addressing this important issue for the nation's 40 million Medicare patients. Sincerely, Alliance for Children and Families. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. American Association of Children's Residential Centers. American Association of Pastoral Counselors. American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists. American Group Psychotherapy Association. American Mental Health Counselors Association. American Occupational Therapy Association. American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Nurses Association. American Psychoanalytic Association. American Psychological Association. American Psychotherapy Association. Anxiety Disorders Association of America. Association for the Advancement of Psychology. Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Clinical Social Work Federation. Clinical Social Work Guild. Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance. Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action. Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems. International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses. NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. National Association for Children's Behavioral Health. National Association for Rural Mental Health. National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders (ANAD). National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory Councils. National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems. National Mental Health Association. Suicide Prevention Action Network USA.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I do not think is it is a good message to the rest of the Republicans who serve there. The message is if you challenge us, you are in trouble. So it silences even their own Members. It keeps them from having the ability to speak up and speak out. I have said before, we are elected to come here to represent the people who vote for us and make us their representative. We do not come here to serve the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert). We do not come here to serve the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). We come here to represent the people who send us here. If my Republican friends do not have the freedom to speak up and speak out about what they think is right for their constituents without getting a committee taken away from them or getting a position taken away from them, well, then they become impotent, quite frankly. They are not able to be a true representative. I ask this question: Where are the friends of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)? Where are they in the Republican caucus? I want to tell you, if that happened to my friend from Washington State, if our Democratic leadership did that, or if our Democratic leadership did that to my colleague from the State of Ohio, I would be outraged, and I think Members of our caucus would be outraged. We would not stand for it. But there is a silence over there that is very, very troubling. What it means is there is one or two or three people who are in charge of what happens in this House, and the others go a long to get along. I quoted this statement from Ben Franklin before. I think it is good and applicable. Ben Franklin said, ``If you act like sheep, the wolves will eat you.'' I wonder if my colleagues over there are not acting like sheep? They are being awfully quiet. They let an honored, respected, hard-working, committed, devoted, dedicated member of their caucus be treated in that manner, be treated in that manner, and I did not hear any public outcry at all. None at all. I think it must be because of fear, because I know there are people over there who respected the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who believed he was right in his thinking and in the position he was trying to take as an advocate for veterans. Yet I did not hear any public outcry. I think it is a shame that this House would be so constrained out of fear of what the leadership may do if the individual members speak up and speak out.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, why is there not an outcry about this? I think one of the reasons is that the American people are not fully aware of what is happening and find it hard to believe. I can understand why someone listening to us tonight would find it hard to believe what we have said, because it is so outrageous. It is outrageous. As I said a little earlier, it is contrary to the public image we get from this administration, because if you listen to rhetoric coming from the White House and coming from the leadership in this House here, you would think that they really appreciate the veterans and they care for veterans and they were going to do everything they could to care for veterans. But the facts just do not match the rhetoric. You could also wonder why is there not an outcry from many of the Republicans who I know care about veterans? I have friends on that side of the aisle that I know are veterans themselves, and they deeply in their hearts care for veterans. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was one such person that I mentioned, the former Chair of the committee. But I think there is a hesitancy to speak out, because if you speak out and you challenge the leadership over there, there is a price to pay. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) found that out. When he spoke up for veterans, he was stripped of his chairman position and he was taken off of a committee that he had been on for 24 years. That is almost unbelievable. Twenty-four years, a quarter of a century almost, this man had served on that committee.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, we are standing here and talking about this, and there are probably Americans watching and perhaps a few listening to us, and what we are saying sounds almost unbelievable. I understand how someone listening to this may be puzzled, because there is no rational explanation, as far as I am concerned. Why should this government put a greater value on compensating Iraqis than on compensating tortured Americans? It just does not make sense. And it does not fit the image that is usually presented to the American people by this administration, because you hear a lot of rhetoric about how much we appreciate our soldiers, how much we appreciate what the military does for us, but the world now knows, and certainly most Americans that have paid attention, that we did send our soldiers into battle without adequate body armor, and we have them driving around in vehicles in Iraq that are not properly armored, and we have people over there conducting patrols and driving long distances and taking fuel from one part of Iraq to the other part of Iraq without night vision goggles. So we know there has been that kind of neglect. But what my friend has brought to our attention here tonight regarding these tortured Americans and the administration's fighting them through the courts to keep them from getting compensated by the Iraqi government is nearly unbelievable.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And Reservists and Nation Guard.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And the soldiers that are active duty.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it shows a moral blindness. I really do. I mean, we are talking here about decisions that are made that affect the lives of American soldiers, and in this case soldiers who were tortured. There is no question that they were tortured. There is no question about that. There is no question as to who was responsible. It was the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein. Now this administration is trying to play, I think, word games because they are saying, well, that was the government that existed under Saddam Hussein and now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from office, this new government is not responsible for what happened under Saddam Hussein. But I would remind the gentleman from Washington State the money that we were holding on to here was money that was from the Saddam Hussein government and regime. So I would like to ask the President if I had a chance to talk with him, I would like to say: Mr. President, why do you think Iraqis who were mistreated at Abu Ghraib deserve to be compensated with American tax dollars and at the same time you do not believe that American soldiers who were tortured when they were captured and held in Iraq should be compensated with Iraqi dollars? That seems like a fairly straightforward question, and I just wonder how the President would answer that.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to make this government stop what they are doing, stop fighting these veterans, these tortured veterans. The gentleman explained it well, but I would like to just take a stab at it as well because what we have here is these are soldiers that were captured during the first Gulf War, and they were terribly tortured under Saddam Hussein's regime. This government, as my colleagues recall, had held on to billions of dollars that were Iraqi dollars, and when these tortured Americans sued and won their suit, they were laying claim on those dollars that this country had possession of, and this administration returned that money to Iraq and literally used the Justice Department to go to court to try to set aside that judgment that would compensate these soldiers. And the gentleman from Washington State is right. At the same time, here is Secretary Rumsfeld speaking of the Iraqis who were abused at Abu Ghraib prison saying they are going to be compensated. So our Secretary of Defense is willing to use American dollars to compensate Iraqis who had been abused by Americans, and at the same time this government is fighting to keep our American troops who were tortured in Iraq from being compensated with Iraqi dollars. How can one explain that to the American people? It is unbelievable.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as I understand it, about $9 billion is unaccounted for.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I say, I would invite any of my Republican friends to come down here and challenge what we are saying because what we are saying is the truth.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman says is true. There are several ways we can find the money to pay for veterans health care. For one thing, we can cut back on these tax cuts that have gone to the richest people. There are people in this country who have never served in the military, never put their lives on the line; and yet this President, during this time of war, has decided to give them a huge, huge tax cut, while our veterans, many of them becoming increasingly elderly and disabled, are being deprived of adequate health care, having to wait for weeks and months to get a doctor's appointment. That is just wrong. So the President had a choice: tax cuts for the richest people in America or adequate funding for VA health care. He chose tax cuts for the richest among us. There is something else I would like to share with my friend from Ohio. We are spending in Iraq today about $1.25 billion a week. Think of that. And we cannot find an additional $3.5 billion for our veterans, all of our veterans. I do not want to choose among our veterans. I do not want to say this veteran is worthy and this veteran is not worthy. All of these people have served the country. They are in need of help and health care, and I am getting sick and tired of hearing about focusing on the core constituency. Of course we need to focus on the core constituency. But that does not mean that we should neglect other veterans as well. And that is what is happening. And I hope the people in this country, especially the veterans and the families of veterans, are paying attention because we are treating our veterans in a shabby manner. The President's budget that he sent us a couple of weeks ago is a shameful document. It cuts back on nursing home care for veterans. It is a shameful document. And I do not want to hear my colleagues over there say these are tight budgetary times, we just do not have the money. We have the money, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we think is important. We have the money for that. The fact is that President Bush and this leadership do not consider America's veterans a priority. They cannot run from that fact. And I would just invite any of my Republican friends to come to this floor and let us discuss this openly. Let us discuss the fact that President Bush is asking that our veterans pay increased costs for medications, that he wants to impose a $250 annual user fee for many of our veterans to use a hospital. I think it is shameful. I really think it is shameful.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. We also have with us tonight the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). There are some things that I think the American people need to understand about what is happening here in Washington, D.C., especially as we discuss the budget and its relevance to the veterans population. I am amazed. I am truly amazed and puzzled. I really do not understand why the President and why the Republican leadership in this House would choose to treat veterans with such disdain. Why do I say that? I will share with you some recent history with this administration. One of the first things the President did after becoming President during his first term was to increase the cost that a veteran pays for a prescription drug from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription. I introduced legislation to repeal that increase but unfortunately I was unable to get that legislation passed. So now many veterans, thousands of veterans, pay $7 for each prescription they get through the VA. Seven dollars may not sound like a lot of money, but many of the veterans who are in need of medication take 10 or more prescriptions a month, and many of these people are on fixed incomes. Many of them have fought our wars. In fact, you can be a combat- decorated veteran and you can be a priority 8 veteran. That is the veteran that the administration says makes too much money to currently qualify to participate in VA health care. Or you can be a priority 7 veteran, and a priority 7 veteran is a veteran that has a medical need but the medical need is not a direct result of the military service, and so they are charged more for the VA health care they receive. So the President increased the cost of a prescription drug from $2 to $7. Shortly after, the VA issued a new policy. It was in the form of a memo that went to all the VA health care providers. It said basically, and I am summarizing, but it said too many veterans are coming in for service and we cannot afford to treat all these veterans and consequently there are waiting lines; and so we are going to solve this problem by rationing care to veterans, and we are going to ration care by prohibiting our nurses and social workers and physicians from proactively informing veterans of the services they are entitled to receive under the law. We are talking about services that lawfully were made available to them by the actions of this Congress. I thought that was egregious. I have filed suit against the Veterans' Administration in conjunction with the Vietnam Veterans of America to try to overturn this egregious policy. That suit is currently before the court. I am hopeful the court will recognize that the VA is in violation of law and will force them to withdraw this onerous gag order. We see a pattern developing here. Because then the VA decided that they were going to create a brand-new category or priority group for veterans, and they called that new category priority group 8. They said, this group just simply can no longer enroll and receive VA health care. And why? Well, because they make too much money, so they should not be able to get health care. The formula that is used to determine if a veteran is high income and no longer entitled to receive VA health care is based on a Housing and Urban Development formula. In my district, you can make as little as $22,000 a year and the VA will consider you high income and tell you that you can no longer receive VA health care. Think of that. Those of us who serve in this Chamber, the American people have a right to know that, make over $150,000 a year. Maybe we can pay $7 a prescription for our prescription medications if we need to. Maybe we can find the ability to afford the kind of health insurance that will take care of our medical needs if we need to. But I submit to you that if you make $22,000 a year, you are not high income. I think it is shameful, I use that word, but it is shameful that this government would make a decision to treat our veterans in that manner. And now, before I yield back to my friend from Ohio, the Republican leadership in this House has done something just very recently that the American people have a right to know about. Because over the last Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together on the VA Committee to preserve adequate funding. It was not as much as I wanted it to be, but at least it was enough to maintain at least the current level of services. And we did that with the help of some of our Republican colleagues. The chairman of the VA Committee in the last Congress really enabled us to keep VA funding at a level that enabled current services to continue. That Republican Congressman's name was Chris Smith. He is a Republican Congressman from the State of New Jersey. Many people who watch C-SPAN know Chris Smith because he frequently stands in this Chamber and he argues and advocates for an end to abortion. I would call Chris Smith, at least in my judgment, he is the most pro-life Member of this House. I just point that out to emphasize that he is a true conservative. He is a true conservative. Chris Smith had served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years, nearly a quarter of a century. He had been the chair of the VA Committee for the last 4 years. But because he was an advocate for veterans, Speaker Hastert and the leadership in this House decided they were going to strip him of his chair's position. Not only did they do that, they removed him from this committee that he had served on for 24 years, and they did that in the face of opposition from 10 of the national veterans service organizations. I am talking about the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Vietnam Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Noncommissioned Officers, the Jewish War Veterans. All of these veterans organizations wrote Speaker Hastert a letter, they all signed their name to that letter, and they said to Speaker Hastert, it would really be a shame for Chris Smith to be taken out of the chair's position and to be removed from this committee because he has been our friend. He has been an advocate for veterans. What was Speaker Hastert's response? Chris Smith was stripped of his chair's position, removed from the VA Committee. I am asking my friend from Ohio, do you see a pattern here? It seemed that time after time after time, this administration and the leadership in this House of Representatives, they are taking steps that are harmful to veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the President has sent his budget dealing a blow to veterans health care, and I would like to share with you what the veterans' organizations across the country think about it. Paralyzed American Veterans say the release of the 2006 budget request by the administration demonstrates a callous disregard for the services of America's veterans. The VFW says the President has delivered a disappointing funding request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This budget will cause veterans' health care to be delayed. The DAV, the Disabled American Veterans, says the administration has proposed one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans' programs in recent memory. As a result, VA facilities across the country are cutting staff and limiting services even as the number of veterans seeking care is on the rise. The American Legion says veterans' health care is an ongoing expense of war. You do not thank veterans for serving their country and then tell them, Oh, by the way, you had better not get wounded or you will have to pay extra for your health care. Shame on this terrible veterans budget.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. In closing, I just say this. We have said a lot of things tonight. Some of those hearing what we said may object to what we have said. I would invite any Member of this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, to join us some time next week and we can debate these issues. If my Republican friends think that I am being unfair in what I am saying, I would welcome them to come to this Chamber next week so we can talk back and forth, because these are serious matters and I do not want to be unfair to anyone. But I tell you, I do not want the President to get by with this budget without its being exposed. I do not want the leaders of this House to get by and say, these are tough budgetary times and everybody has got to take a hit. The veterans have already taken a hit. They have fought our wars. I do not think they should have to fight for the health care they need.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that I think what we are talking about here is a moral issue. We hear a lot of talk from politicians these days about moral behavior and immoral behavior. And quite frankly, I think that the way we treat the most vulnerable among us says something about our character. I think whether or not we keep the promises, the promises that have been made to our children, to our older people, to our veterans says something about our character. So I think what we are talking about here is more than just a political disagreement or a matter of judgment. I think it says something about the kind of people we are; and I would hope that those who are responsible for this terrible budget would reflect upon this. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say I am so happy that our good ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is here. The gentleman has been on the committee for much longer than I have, so he has the benefit of having the historical point of view, knowing from whence we have come. We appreciate his leadership. I would just like to say to my friend from Florida, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here tonight and for assisting in this special order. I was wondering if the gentlewoman has something to say in conclusion.