Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, so if a senior is on a fixed income and the Social Security premium goes up less than 3 percent and yet the Medicare premium goes up 17.4 percent, what is that senior on a fixed income to do when they are already living on the edge, they are already having a struggle to buy food and get their medicines, pay their bills, heat their homes? What are they to do? What does this President say to an 80-year-old man or woman who is living at the edge in terms of their income? What does this President say? What do the leaders in this House have to say to those folks?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I was just standing here thinking if you are a working person, if you are a senior citizen, if you are a veteran in this country, you had better look out, because this administration is out to get you. They are cutting veterans' health care funding. They certainly are not doing anything for the working people, who are seeing the tax burden of this Nation shifted more and more from the very wealthy on to the backs of the working folks. And then when it comes to the older people in this country, when it comes to our senior citizens, they are really getting the shaft. The fact is that since George Bush became President, Medicare part B premiums have increased 56 percent. In less than 4 years they have increased 56 percent. But back home in Ohio, in Southeastern Ohio, we have an old saying about the chickens coming home to roost. I think the chickens are coming home to roost for the Republicans, because the senior citizens are starting to understand what is happening to them. A story in the Columbus Dispatch, September 12, it says: ``Medicare expense becoming a big issue in the election fight.'' If I can just share the opening paragraph, it says: ``Medicare has emerged as a volatile issue in this year's elections as Democrats vow to roll back a sharp increase in premiums announced this month.'' Those premiums are increasing, as has been said here, 17.4 percent. That means that beginning in January, and that is after the election, but beginning in January a senior citizen will be required to pay for part B, their Medicare part B premium, $78.20. That amounts to $938.40 a year. I repeat to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the question I asked him a little earlier: If you are a senior citizen and you have health problems that require medication to keep you healthy or to keep you alive, in many cases, and you are on a fixed income, as many of our seniors are, and this President decides to increase your premium 17.4 percent, and your Social Security cost of living increase is less than 3 percent, what can you do? Where can you go to get what you need to buy your medicine, to pay for your food, to heat your home, to pay your rent? That question is facing hundreds of thousands of American senior citizens tonight, and this President has an obligation to speak to that question, because he is the one who is responsible for putting this additional burden on the backs of our senior citizens.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think it is appropriate for us to ask how would this country be without Medicare. There are some people in this administration who never believed in Medicare from the beginning. They opposed it from the very beginning. They think it is something like socialized medicine, and they think that the private sector is not being able to get its fair share. So, quite frankly, what we face with this administration, and I believe with the President, are individuals who simply do not believe in Medicare as such. Otherwise when they talked about a prescription drug benefit, they simply would have made this benefit a part of traditional Medicare. They would simply have added A, B, C, and part D and said that is the prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We would have had a modest premium, and it would have been a part of traditional Medicare. But no, no, no, they want to go to the private sector. As a result of going to the private sector, as the gentleman has said, it is costing more, seniors are more limited in their choices, their premiums are going up, their deductibles are going it up, and they will continue to go up. This year, it is 17.4 percent. Next year, when there is no election facing the administration, if they happen to retain power, it could be 25 percent. No one knows what is going to happen, because this administration, I believe, fundamentally does not believe in traditional Medicare. So what do you do when you do not believe in a program? Well, you try to change it fundamentally, and that is what they are trying to do. This is the first step in the privatization of medicare, to relieve the government of this responsibility. And I ask, what would America be like tonight without Medicare? If George Bush and the leadership of this House and the Senate of this country have their way, we may find out what America will be like without Medicare.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, listening to this discussion and listening to the things the gentleman said about this bill and how it came into being, I would say that for a senior citizen to continue to vote for those in power would be not unlike a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Now, we all know down in Kentucky and Ohio and around there that Colonel Sanders sells Kentucky Fried Chicken. It is pretty good stuff. But quite frankly, Colonel Sanders is no friend of the chicken, and I believe that this administration is no friend to America's senior citizens. When we think about what is being discussed here, it is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. What we are talking about is not theoretical. We are talking about real people, older Americans. We are talking about tax dollars that are being given to pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. We are talking about decisions being made that are almost irrational, if we consider them in a serious manner. This administration pushed through a law that says, we cannot negotiate discounts. I mean, Sam's Club negotiates discounts. As the gentleman said, the gentleman from Ohio, the Veterans Administration negotiates discounts for pharmaceutical medications. Yet, this President and the leadership in this House said oh, no, no, no. Medicare cannot negotiate discounts for our senior citizens. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies wanted that provision in the law. It is outrageous.

Mr. STRICKLAND. So it is fair to say that President Bush believes that America's senior citizens should pay more for their drugs than Canadian senior citizens. He believes that American senior citizens should pay more for their drugs than English senior citizens or German senior citizens or Belgium senior citizens or Swedish or French senior citizens. That is what we have. America's senior citizens are paying more, senior citizens in other countries are paying less; and this President says that is the way it ought to be. He is standing in the way, with the leadership in this House, of those of us who feel that this is wrong, having the ability to change it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the problems with this bill. What is the solution? Well, I think these problems could be solved if the President would pick up the phone and call the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and say, Speaker Hastert, I want a bill that allows the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada into this country. And if the President said to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), Mr. Speaker, I want a bill that allows our government to negotiate cheaper prices for our senior citizens with the pharmaceutical industry, the President could do that, and I believe the Speaker would accommodate him. A bill could be brought to this floor; and with the President's support, it would pass overwhelmingly. So what is the problem? The problem is the President is on the wrong side of these two issues. He is on the wrong side of other issues as well regarding this bill, but especially on the issue of importing cheaper drugs from Canada, something that most Americans want. Americans cannot understand, they just simply cannot understand why a drug can be sold in Canada at a profit, at a profit. The drug companies are not losing money when they sell these drugs in Canada. So the American people ask, how can a drug company sell a drug in Canada and make a profit and then sell that same drug in this country for two or three or four times as much as they are charging in Canada? What is right about that, when we have older people on fixed incomes who are desperate? I do not know if the President, as he is out and about the country campaigning, encounters the same kind of people that I do, but every time I go back to my southeastern and southern Ohio district, I encounter older people who are desperate. They simply do not know how they are going to make it. It would be so simple. We could accomplish this in a few hours' time if the President would simply take the leadership and do it, but thus far, he is leading in the opposite direction. I think the American people need to know that, that if they are concerned about high drug costs and they are concerned about Canada and France and all these other countries getting the drugs more cheaply, they need to know that the President is one of the reasons for that, because he refuses to speak up and speak out and to provide the leadership.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as we contemplate what is happening in Iraq with the continued loss of life, the continued injuries, I would just remind my colleagues in this chamber that the only people who are being asked to sacrifice for this war are the soldiers and the people who love them. No one else is being asked to sacrifice for this war. We are not paying for this war. The President has decided that future generations should pay for this war, so we are using borrowed money, passing the bill on to the next generation. So the taxpayer is not being asked to pay for the war at the present time. Of course, future taxpayers will pay for it. The President is not sacrificing for this war. No one in this chamber is sacrificing for this war. No one in the Senate is sacrificing. Well, I think we may have two colleagues out of the 535 Members of both the House and the Senate who have active duty sons or daughters in the military, but most of us do not have anyone in our families that we know who are in harm's way or who have been killed or who have been seriously injured. Yet, we stand here in this chamber and the President stands and he talks in glowing terms about, we need to stay the course and we are totally committed. I wish we were totally committed. I wish the President was totally committed in terms of paying for this war without expecting future generations to pay. I wish the President was committed enough to continue to provide the money that our Veterans' Administration needs to provide adequate care for our veterans who are coming back from this war in desperate need of VA medical care. But no, only the soldiers and their loved ones are sacrificing or are being asked to sacrifice. I think that is very troubling. It is easy to make decisions when it involves someone else's child. Maybe the only thing that will bring common sense back to this chamber and to this administration is to have the burden shared by all of us so that all of us who have loved ones who may be subject to military service would be asked to serve. Would that make a difference in our thinking? I believe if the people who are so supportive of our current policies in Iraq so firmly believe that the direction in which we are going is the correct direction, I think they should be willing to see their sons and their daughters join the military, take up the battle, share the risk. And those who are not willing to have their loved ones put at risk should think very, very carefully about how enthusiastic they are about our current course of action. We voted in this chamber, 434 to 1, I believe, when we pursued the war in Afghanistan, because we all understood that was the war on terror. It was Afghanistan and the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden that attacked our country. And somehow there has been a bait and switch. We have taken the attack upon our country, and we have used it to go into Iraq. The President spoke for 63 minutes when he gave his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, and he never mentioned Osama bin Laden's name one time. All the talk there in New York about September 11, about the attack upon our country, but the man who was responsible for attacking our country was not even mentioned by the President. Saddam Hussein's name was mentioned many times, but not the one who was responsible. Tonight, somewhere on the face of God's good Earth, Osama bin Laden is walking free, planning the next attack upon our country. And our resources were diverted from Iraq and from the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan to Iraq. We need to rethink our policies.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to me on that point?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I just wanted to point out to my friend from Washington, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this gentleman that he is talking about responsible for some of the beheadings, the reports are that he himself, he himself has been the individual that has actually carried out the beheadings of Americans.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield once again.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why are these Members of the House of Representatives standing here talking about past history? Why are they not talking about what is happening today? Well, sadly, we lost three more American soldiers today. Three more today. Every day we are losing American soldiers. But we are talking about what has happened in the past and the mistakes that were made in the past because the very people who are responsible for that terrible misjudgment or those misjudgments are the very same people who want to remain in power so that they can make decisions for the future. So, in a sense, as we talk about what happened in the past tonight, we are doing it because we are concerned about the future. We are concerned about the same people who made such terrible misjudgments, who misled the American people, want to continue to be in those positions of power. I would agree with my friend that we have misplaced our priorities. During the Republican convention in New York, the President spoke for 63 minutes during his acceptance speech. And all during that convention there were multiple references to the tragedy of September 11, when so many Americans were killed. But it is almost beyond belief to know that the President talked for 63 minutes, and never once did he mention Osama bin Laden. There are multiple references throughout that week to Saddam Hussein, but not one reference on the part of the President to Osama bin Laden, the man who was responsible, the one who attacked our country, the one who masterminded that terrible day of September 11. It is as though he has disappeared. We do not hear his name mentioned even by the President. He is the one the President referred to in this very chamber when he said, ``He can run, but he cannot hide.'' The sad truth is, he ran, and he has successfully hidden. And in his hiding, he is planning the next attack upon this country. That is the sad truth. It is almost as if we have decided that Osama bin Laden is no longer important, this one who was the major person responsible for attacking us. It is almost beyond belief that we could find ourselves in this situation at this point in time after all that has happened. I just think we should remind ourselves that we have not yet apprehended the person who attacked our country. Sure, we have gone into Iraq. We have spent about $200 billion. We have seen about 6,000 or 7,000 of our soldiers injured. We have lost well over 1,000 American lives. Yet the man who was responsible for attacking us is a free man tonight, and he continues to be a danger to us.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is true that in spite of all evidence to the contrary and in spite of the report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that the Vice President continues to insist that there was a connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and the attack upon our country. It is amazing to me that in spite of all of this evidence that the Vice President would continue to say that. I mean, it is contrary to every expert, every study, the 9/11 Commission. Even the President himself has disassociated himself from that contention. And yet the Vice President continues to make the accusation. Why did the Vice President say something like that that has been so discredited?

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it takes strength and it takes confidence to be willing to admit a mistake. And, quite frankly, we have not heard the President or the Vice President admit any mistakes, any mistakes. Anytime there is bad news coming out of Iraq, and it is coming out on a daily basis, the word we get from the White House is, we expected that.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on one point, returning soldiers have told me that Halliburton is literally importing Filipinos to do much of the work in Iraq. As the gentleman said, the Iraqi people are unemployed. They have no source of support for themselves and their families. They are just unemployed with no incomes. And yet Halliburton is importing Filipinos and workers from other parts of the world who will provide cheap labor for them while the Iraqis go unemployed. That is just one example of the terrible policy that this administration is following right now.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes to his fourth point, these no-go zones are made up of the largest cities in Iraq. The largest cities in Iraq are no-go zones right now. The gentleman is right. We are not going into those cities now. But the elections are scheduled for the end of January next year. And there is every intention that we are going to go into those cities before the Iraqi elections. If they have the Iraqi elections and much of the country cannot participate, it will be considered an invalid election. People will not be able to accept it. So we know that the intention of this Pentagon, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, is to go into these no-go zones before the end of January. But they are not doing it now, and I think my friend has indicated why we are not doing it now. We are not doing it now because it is going to be a tough thing to do. We are 41 days in front of our elections, and so basically we are letting these no-go zones fester. Even members of the Taliban now are moving into some of these no-go zones. So we have the terrorists, the insurgents, building up their networks within these no-go zones, and when we do go in, it is going to be terribly difficult to dislodge them, to overcome them and overtake them. But every day that passes that they have these sanctuaries, basically, they are able to increase their strength, to increase their ability to resist once we do decide to go into these areas.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, as I am standing here listening to the two of you talk I have a chilling thought, and that thought is this: In spite of all that has gone wrong, even today it seems as if military decisions are being affected by political considerations. Now, I understand what a serious charge that is, that military decisions would be affected or mandated or influenced by political considerations. But why would we allow these no-go zones in Iraq to remain no-go zones when we know that that cannot continue, that we have got to change that situation before the end of January, if in fact the Iraqi elections take place as planned, and the administration insists that they will take place? That means that at some period of time between now and the elections in Iraq in January we are going to have to deal with these no-go zones. And if it is true, and I believe it is, that as each day passes the insurgents who are occupying these areas increase their strength, increase their ability to resist our Armed Forces or the Iraqi forces once they do go into those areas, then it leads me to the only conclusion that I think is rational or logical, and that is that military decisions are being influenced by political considerations, namely the November 2 election in this country, and that is terribly troubling. I think the American people ought to understand what is going on here, because it involves the well-being of our soldiers, and I think it involves the credibility of our government as we reach out to the world for partners and partnerships.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend will yield, just one example of the incompetence was the fact that our soldiers were sent into Iraq without body armor. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about body armor. We have heard a lot of accusations that somehow a particular person running for President other than the President himself is responsible for voting against body armor. But the fact is that initially, when our troops went into battle, they were sent into battle without body armor. Thousands of them were there without body armor. I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld about that and asked him to give me a date certain when they all would be well-equipped with this armor, because I had heard from a young soldier, who happened to be a West Point graduate, one of my constituents, he said, ``Congressman, my men are wondering why they don't have body armor?'' The fact is that that decision was made to send our troops into battle without body armor, and the war started months before the vote on the $87 billion that is now being used to accuse others of depriving our troops of this vital equipment. That is just one example. But we also know that they were sent there without armored Humvees and in insufficient numbers. These are examples that I would consider incompetent leadership. Incompetent leadership. It continues to this very day. Now, the President was asked this past week how he could defend his statements about how well things were going in Iraq in light of the recent report from the intelligence community saying things were not going well. He answered this way. He said, ``Well, they laid out three possibilities: One, things would be lousy; two, things would not be so good; and things would be better.'' Well, ``things being better'' was not one of the possible outcomes, as we heard from the intelligence community. The best that they said we could expect was just more of the same, of what we have right now, and the worst was out-and-out civil war within Iraq. There was no better scenario. The President seems incapable of just speaking forthrightly and in a candid manner about the real situation to the American people. So we hear this happy talk, and every day, more and more and more of our soldiers are being lost.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if we go back and recall the circumstances surrounding that $87 billion, remember when the President went on national television and announced to the American people he was going to ask for an additional $87 billion, his approval rating fell like a rock, because the American people were upset that the needs here at home were being so woefully neglected, and here the President was, coming, asking for an additional $87 billion. So many of us thought that the fair thing to do was to take that portion of the $87 billion that was going to Iraq for the rebuilding of schools and clinics and roads and bridges in Iraq, and to make that available as a loan that would be paid back to this country once Iraq was stable and they had these huge oil sales which was going to make it possible for them to repay that loan. And the White House said, no, no, no. We will only make this money available as an out-and-out gift.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, a give-away. So they went to Madrid to this so- called donors' conference and they came back and they were trying to convince us as a Congress and as the American people that all of these other countries had ponied up, had given their fair share. And what did we find out, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has said here, all of these countries that made monies available made them available in the form of a loan. They will, in fact, at some point be repaid for whatever they give, but not the good old USA. We gave our money away, and now the President is criticizing those of us who fought to have this given as a loan, implying, I guess, that somehow we did not care about the troops. Which is, quite frankly, a little outrageous.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this evening, the only people sacrificing for this war are the soldiers and the people who love them. They are the only ones who are sacrificing, and that is sad.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to my colleagues from Florida talking about the disaster that Florida has experienced, and I thought about my own experience in Ohio over the last 2 or 3 days. Ohio is a long way from Florida, but Ohio has been affected, seriously affected by the results of the hurricane, the flooding that has occurred in a number of Ohio counties, which has absolutely been devastating. In Columbiana County, where I was earlier today, one small township, it is estimated that they have public damages of between $400,000 and $500,000. Many roads have been completely washed out. The day before yesterday, I was in another county in my district, Belmont County, a little town called Ness, and in that community there were homes that were completely destroyed and demolished, homes where people will never be able to return to live because they were so terribly damaged. And the damage was caused, in large part, by rain that occurred as a result of the hurricanes that had come in and through Florida. So it is true that we are very sympathetic with the good people of Florida who have suffered so deeply. We are happy that help and hope is on the way for them. But just this day, I faxed a letter to the White House asking the President to act expeditiously on a request for a Federal declaration which has been sent to him by Ohio's Governor, Bob Taft, asking that these communities in Ohio which have been so terribly, terribly affected be also declared a Federal disaster area, so that appropriate Federal resources can be made available to them. We need FEMA to come in, to provide temporary housing. I spoke just the day before yesterday with a lady nearly 80 years old who lived by herself, whose total monthly income was $655 a month. She also was receiving, I think, $70 per month in food stamps. But her home had been literally destroyed. Her medicine costs were very high, and she was asking what kind of help would be available. And I told her that as soon as the offices opened this morning, Monday morning, that I would be on the phone to the office of FEMA here in D.C. When I contacted them this morning and asked about the request that Governor Taft had submitted for one of the counties, for Columbiana County in Ohio, we were told that the request was under consideration. But the fact is that we can wait no longer. There are people who are living in cars. There are children who are being kept in fold-out campers. People are without water. We are concerned about the spread of disease. The bottom line is people are suffering terribly in Ohio. I call upon the administration, the President, to recognize what people are going through there. The geographic area is much smaller than that which was affected in Florida, obviously; but I would contend that there is no one in Florida that has suffered any more than some of the people that I represent. Because when you have lost all that you have, all of your material possessions, when you have no clothing, no personal items, no furniture, when your home has been destroyed and you are with nothing, you are in desperate circumstances; and those are the circumstances that exist across part of Ohio tonight. I am hopeful that by tomorrow I will get a positive response from the President and the White House, and my hope is the help from the Federal level will be flowing into Ohio just as it is flowing into Florida. I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that even the Red Cross has diverted so much of their personnel and their equipment and their resources to Florida that I am afraid that many of my constituents will fall between the cracks, so to speak, and that their terrible plight will not be expeditiously and properly recognized by our Federal Government. Iraq Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, and I will be joined later by some of my colleagues, to talk about Iraq and what is happening in Iraq. This is an effort that we began literally several months ago, myself and some of my colleagues, coming here to the floor to talk about the policies that we are pursuing in Iraq and trying to point out some of the concerns that we have. I would just begin our Iraq Watch tonight by sharing an editorial from the Columbus Dispatch, which is the capital city newspaper in Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch has been publishing since 1871. They ran an editorial this past Saturday in observance of the anniversary of September 11. I see my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), has joined me. Before I yield to him, I would just like to share some thoughts from the Columbus Dispatch because I think they are very relevant to our discussions here regarding Iraq. The editorial is entitled, ``Remember Everything.'' It begins this way: ``Three years ago, 3,000 people were murdered in coordinated terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Yet, the man who orchestrated those atrocities remains free. For what he did, Osama bin Laden should be dead or in U.S. custody. No evidence suggests that he is dead, and he is not in custody. Because he remains free, extraordinary security precautions surround today's Ohio State football game.'' And, as I said, this is an editorial that appeared last Saturday when Ohio State was playing Marshall University. So the editorial says: ``These security precautions will surround today's Ohio State football game, considered a terrorist target because 100,000 spectators will be gathered in the heart of a State that is key to the Presidential election.'' The editorial continues: ``Because bin Laden is at liberty, election and law enforcement officials nationwide are busy planning extra security at polling places on November 2. Because bin Laden has not been captured, the Nation's Capital and national monuments, including the Statue of Liberty, have been militarized and fortified. The Bush administration can claim that bin Laden and his cohorts are on the run, but bin Laden and his cohorts plausibly can claim the opposite. All bin Laden has to do is point to the armed men and surveillance helicopters around Ohio Stadium.'' How did the destruction of bin Laden slip so far down the Nation's to-do list, the Columbus Dispatch asks? Why are the bulk of U.S. military and intelligence assets tied up in Iraq, which pose only a hypothetical threat, while pursuit of the man who slaughtered thousands of Americans on their own soil is on the back burner? Where is the anger, asks the Columbus Dispatch? Where is the anger? The September 11 victims were not killed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, which cannot be brought to justice and against which rage is futile. They were killed by a man. A man can be made to pay a price. Why has he not paid? The Columbus Dispatch continues in their editorial. This is the question that President Bush should be answering today and tomorrow and every day until November 2. And the Columbus Dispatch asks, where is Senator John Kerry, who loudly proclaims his determination to strike back at any attack on the United States? The attack has occurred. Where is his pledge to make apprehension of bin Laden dead or alive job number one? The Dispatch continues. Would bin Laden's death eliminate terrorism? Well, of course not. Quick victory over this kind of nihilism and barbarism is impossible, but every day that bin Laden remains free is a defeat for justice and for civilization. His continued existence, his ability to poison a seemingly impotent world, incites and encourages his followers and imitators. Now, this is what we have heard from the heartland of America, from Columbus, Ohio, from the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, and I would just point out that the President told us, Mr. Speaker, at one time soon after the September 11 attacks, when bin Laden had been identified as the person responsible for attacking our country, the President told us he can run but he cannot hide. But the fact is that he ran, and thus far he has hidden successfully, and somewhere on God's Earth tonight bin Laden is planning the next attack upon our country. Tonight, now, I ask my colleagues in this Chamber, why did we divert our attention from Afghanistan and from Osama bin Laden and focus on Iraq? At the Republican National Convention in New York, they talked a lot about September 11. The President gave a 63-minute speech and never once did he mention Osama bin Laden. Never once did the President mention the man who is responsible for attacking our country and who today, tonight, is free planning the next attack. I think the American people deserve an answer to that. Why, after all of the resources that we have spent, some $200 billion, the over 1,000 lives that have been lost, the nearly 7,000 soldiers that have been wounded, why do we not know where bin Laden is and why have we not captured him and why have we diverted our attention from the effort to find this man? He is the enemy of America. He is the one who attacked us, and yet, somehow, his name is not uttered by our President anymore, and there seems to be no real attention directed toward bringing him to justice. Now, the fact is we heard a lot about Saddam Hussein.