Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, a recent editorial in the Columbus Ohio Dispatch reads thusly: ``The steady stream of revelations of colossal waste, mismanagement, and possible corruption by Halliburton and other U.S. contractors in Iraq demands an immediate and thorough investigation. At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney should be forthcoming with the House Committee on Government Reform.'' Among the accusations, a former logistics specialist said that Halliburton housed employees at $10,000 per day, a five-star hotel in Kuwait. A woman who handled subcontracts said the company paid $100 per bag for laundry service. A former employee said that Halliburton ordered that spare parts be removed from $85,000 trucks; if they got a flat tire, just burn the vehicle. These reports come on top of the fact that when one contract for Halliburton to provide meals was cancelled, the cost of food service decreased by 40 percent. Halliburton and Cheney owe the American people answers about how our tax dollars are being spent.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, my friend, for yielding; and I want to thank each of my colleagues for talking about this important subject. I do come from Ohio, the heartland of our country. I have so many veterans in my district, people who are intensely patriotic, people who honor our country by service, and they have historically. The people in my district are concerned. They are concerned about the continuing deaths that are occurring in Iraq. Well over 850 of our American soldiers have now lost their lives. Many thousands, 4,000 seriously injured, many more injured with less serious situations. But the fact is that we just went through the celebration of the 4th of July; and throughout my district as I went to parades and festivals and celebrations, I talked with a lot of veterans. Many of these guys are old World War II guys. They know what war is like. Many of them are so deeply troubled by what is happening to our soldiers. The fact that we sent them to battle without adequate equipment, the fact that even tonight, I would emphasize as we stand here in the safety and security of this hallowed hall of the House of Representatives, we have American soldiers in Iraq and they are continuing to drive unarmored Humvees well after more than a year, certainly, when they should have been equipped. So as was said earlier, the planning that went into this war was so inadequate and inept and, quite frankly, the immaturity of the decisionmakers. I am talking about from the Vice President on down to Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl and others. They were so naive. These folks who were so intent on sending our young men and women into battle; had these assumptions that were so inadequate and incorrect and, as a result, we sent soldiers to battle without adequate equipment, without adequate planning; and it is a tragic result, an absolute tragic result. Every precious life that has been lost affects families, children, spouses, moms and dads, aunts and uncles, and the community that that person has come from. It just seems to me that we have an administration that somehow does not understand what is happening. Maybe it is because they know of no one who is personally involved. It has been pointed out that out of the 435 Members of the House and 100 Senators, that only one of us, out of the 535 of us, only one of us has a son who is an active duty soldier engaged in this conflict. So many of us who serve here do not know anyone who is a soldier in Iraq or in Afghanistan. We do not know of anyone who has lost a son or a daughter. So it seems to be something that is removed. I would like to say just one thing before I yield to my colleagues, and I say this to the parents in my district; and I think the parents across this country need to be aware of this. We are now calling up soldiers for further duties who have already fulfilled their contractual obligation as soldiers, and the reason we are doing that is that our military is spread so thin. What would we do if there was an episode that resulted in the overthrow of the regime in Saudi Arabia, for example? What would we do? We do not have the soldiers we need to meet our obligations. Many parents who listen to these proceedings here in the Chamber may not feel personally involved in this war effort. They may feel like that is the President's decision, and we are going to trust the President. But if they have children, 14, 15, 16, 17 years of age, they should be paying attention, because if this administration continues in office and does not change its policies, I think it is inevitable that we will have a mandatory military draft. Now, I think that is a fact of life. The President may not want to admit it. The Secretary of Defense may not want to own up to it. But I think the facts are that we cannot continue to meet our military obligations without a military draft under the policies that are being pursued by this administration. So the moms and dads in this country who have children may ought to pay attention. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Those who listen to these proceedings may rightly ask the question, why are we talking about the failures of the past? Why are we not talking about what we are going to do in the future? I think it is relevant to remind ourselves that the very people who made such blunders of judgment, who deceived the American people, who promoted this war based on false assumptions, they are the people who are still in charge. They are the people who are continuing to make the day-to-day decisions which are resulting in these terrible miscalculations and terrible blunders. And what is the result? The result is we are continuing to lose precious American lives. Now, we had a perfunctory turnover supposedly of authority to the Iraqis, but every American knows that it is the American soldier that is continuing to be the target. It is the American soldier that is continuing to provide whatever security exists in that country, and it is the blood of the American soldier that is being shed. I get a little tired of all of this talk about coalitions. The fact is that it is the American soldier that is bearing the burden. It is the American taxpayer that is paying the bill, and we need to end that, and it is going to continue that way until we have a change in policy. Now, the President has got some answers to give us. I mean, the American people deserve to know are we going to have the continuation of bad judgment, bad decisions that is going to just perpetuated this thing for 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 years. We need to have some answers from the administration.

Mr. STRICKLAND. One of my constituents, a young West Point graduate, a gung-ho Army guy, a guy who loves the Army and who would write me these e-mails and say, I am so proud of what my soldiers are doing here in Iraq. So he is not a disgruntled Army guy. But he tells me that Halliburton is importing Filipinos and paying them very little to do work that was previously done by the American soldier. So that is an example of what the gentleman is saying. This company, Halliburton, my goodness, when are we going to face the facts? It has been reported, by the way, in an editorial in the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch that insiders have now said that Halliburton is housing some of their employees in hotels that cost $10,000 per night, $10,000 per night, but that is what you can do when you have a cost plus contract. There is no incentive to hold down cost. They were paying $100 to get a laundry bag of clothing washed, $100 a bag; $10,000 a night for a hotel room. And it is the American taxpayer that is paying that kind of exceedingly high cost. We are being gouged by Halliburton, the company that Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of. We all know it. The American people know it. This company is taking the American taxpayer for a ride. And I believe this administrations needs to step up and say, we are going to put a stop to it.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. It is great to be here with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). The fact is that we are here because we are concerned about veterans and the fact that this administration is woefully underfunding VA health care. The truth is that since President Bush came to office, he has sent to this Congress budgets which ask for greatly increased costs to our veterans. The President has asked that the cost of a prescription drug be increased from $7 a prescription to $15 a prescription. The President has asked in his budget that a $250 annual user fee be imposed upon our veterans. The President has asked that the cost of a clinic visit be increased. And the President through his administration has created a new category of veterans which they call priority group 8. These are veterans who are told that they can no longer participate in VA health care. These people can be combat decorated veterans and still be told by this administration that they cannot participate in VA health care. What the President has already done is harmful enough to veterans, but just recently a memo surfaced from this administration from the Office of Management and Budget. It outlines what the President will likely do if he is reelected when it comes time to create the budget for 2006. In that memo, we find out that the Bush administration plans to cut about $900 million out of VA health care funding in the 2006 budget. The reason that is so bad is because we are already underfunding VA health care. We are already imposing additional costs on our veterans. Veterans are waiting months just to see their doctor for the first time in many cases and in many places around this country. Yet the President wants to fund VA health care at an even lower level for the 2006 budget period. What would that mean in Ohio? Ohio is a big State. We have 1,069,132 veterans in Ohio. These are men and women who have served the country with great honor. If the President's proposed cut were to happen, that would result in a cut of $36 million beneath the current levels of funding just for the State of Ohio alone. We cannot let that happen. That is why I think it is important that we meet as we are meeting here on the floor of the House tonight to discuss this issue, to inform not only our colleagues but to inform the American people and especially America's veterans as to what is being planned by this administration.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. What the gentleman is describing here are the values embraced by this Congress, and some people seem to think it is more important to give tax cuts to people who make over $200,000 a year than it is to put sufficient resources into caring for our sick and disabled veterans. That is an argument we can have, but I think the American people are going to side with us. Especially during this time of war, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) knows this, as he visits his district, as I visit my district, as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) visits his district, we hear from people that they honor and revere the service that our veterans have given to our country, and they want us to put the needs of our sick and our disabled veterans at the top of the list. They do not want them to be at the bottom and get the leftovers. They want them to be at the top. Sadly, this administration has decided that it is more important to take the resources we have and give those resources to the richest people among us in the form of tax breaks than to put sufficient resources into our health care.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I want to comment on what the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has said. The fact is that we are more concerned about millionaires getting a few dollars in tax breaks than we are in providing health care to our veterans. It is a simple fact. The President and the leadership of this House can argue otherwise, but it is true. If we would just simply not be so concerned about giving millionaires more money in tax breaks, we could take care of America's sick and disabled veterans. These people who have fought the battles, paid the price by shedding their blood, losing their limbs. Some have been blinded, disfigured, and horribly wounded in a variety of ways. But this administration cares more for millionaires in terms of getting more money through tax breaks than caring for our veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think some people do not fully understand what is meant by concurrent receipt. Some people do not really understand what we mean when we talk about the disabled veterans tax. But it is a discrimination against veterans. If a veteran is an individual who has served the country and has qualified to receive a pension, they get a pension. But if they have become disabled in some way and they qualify for disability benefits, they get disability benefits, or they qualify for disability benefits. But the tragic fact is, for every dollar that a veteran, a disabled veteran, gets in disability benefits, $1 is subtracted from their pension. So, in other words, the disabled veteran is actually paying for his or her disability, and it is a discrimination, it is an injustice that needs to be corrected. We would have corrected it. The Democrats in this House have been trying for months to correct this injustice, and the President fights our attempt to get rid of this disabled tax.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will not yield right now, but I will as soon as I finish my statement. The fact is that we have been trying to get rid of this disabled veterans tax, and it is the Republican leadership in this House and the president of the United States who has fought our attempts to get rid of this terrible injustice. And it will not change, I believe, until the veterans of this country understand what is going on and speak out and speak up and demand change. You know, talk is cheap, and it does not cost us anything to salute the flag or to appear with veterans in a parade. But the real reflection of our values as a people and as a Congress is seen in how we spend our money, those things which we are willing to support with our budget. The fact is that this Congress has failed disabled veterans, and I just call upon the President, upon my colleagues in this House, to change their attitudes and change their minds and step up to the plate and allow the Republican Members to come down here and sign this discharge petition. Let us bring this bill to the floor, so that all Members of this Chamber can have a recorded vote, a public vote, so that the veterans know where we stand; not just what we say, but what we are willing to do with our vote to get rid of this injustice. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the issue is this: a vast majority of the Members of this House have signed on as sponsors of a bill to solve this disabled veterans problem, to get rid of it. The leadership of this House will not allow that bill to be brought to the floor so that all of us; you, sir, as well as every other Member of this body, will have a chance to cast a public vote so that the veterans of this country know where we stand.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will not yield. The fact is that we deserve a chance to have a public vote so that the veterans in your district and in Mr. Michaud's district and in my district can look at the record and see how we vote. Now, why will not those who are sponsoring that legislation walk down here and sign their name to the discharge petition and allow that bill to be brought to the floor? All we are asking for is a public vote. Members can vote however they choose to vote. But the people of this country, especially the veterans of this country, deserve to know where we stand. Talk is cheap in this chamber. It is the vote that counts.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will not yield. It is the vote that gives the benefits to the veteran, not the talk, and what we have is talk. As I have said before, rhetoric is empty unless it is followed up with the willingness to cast the vote to make the resources available to the veterans. We are talking about disabled veterans, veterans who have suffered bodily injury as a result of their service to this country. For too long, these disabled veterans have been denied justice. We are simply asking for justice.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for reserving a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment; but, first of all, I would like to take some moments to speak about it, because I think it is an issue that needs to be brought to the attention of this body. We all know that during the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq savagely tortured American POWs by inflicting beatings, starvation, electric shock, whippings, mock executions, threatened castration, broken bones, and burst eardrums. These actions were condemned by this Congress on three different resolutions. In April of 2002, these ex-POWs filed suit against the Iraqi regime under the law that this Congress had passed that allowed torture victims to file suit against terrorist states. If successful in court, these victims are then ensured access to the blocked assets of that terrorist state to obtain payment. Through their suit, the POWs sought to raise public awareness about POWs, to hold Saddam Hussein and his regime accountable, and to deter the torture of American servicemen and -women in the future, and to obtain compensation for their injuries. Last year, a Federal judge ruled in favor of the 17 POWs that filed suit. However, the Bush administration has stood in the way of these POWs getting the payments awarded them by claiming that the compensation would hamper the reconstruction of Iraq. The administration even appealed the judgment and spent tax dollars fighting the American POWs in court. Sadly, the administration was recently successful in overturning the judgment that allowed the compensation of these ex-POWs. Now, at the same time the administration was opposing these American POWs in court, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services saying, ``I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation'' to the Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. So while compensating Iraqi prisoners may be the right thing to do, we should not do this at the very same time that we are refusing to work with the 17 American POWs who won compensation under a law that many of us voted for. A newspaper back in Ohio read like this: ``It was the United States of America and Saddam Hussein versus American POWs, and the United States and Saddam Hussein won.'' My amendment, if it was not objected to, would prohibit the Department of Defense from providing compensation to the Iraqi detainees abused at Abu Ghraib until that compensation plan also addressed the injuries suffered by the 17 Americans held as prisoners of war under the regime of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. Now, over on the Senate side, over on the Senate side they passed by unanimous consent as a part of the Defense authorization bill language identical to the language I have in this amendment. It was offered by Senator Reid, and it was co-sponsored by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. So, Mr. Chairman, although I am withdrawing this amendment due to the objection, I would hope that this body would recognize the injustice. How can we justify providing compensation to Iraqi POWs and fight the compensation for American POWs who were abused in the same way at the very same prison? So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the days and weeks to come. I intend to find some vehicle, some mechanism to make sure that this injustice is corrected. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about yet one more example of how the Bush administration seems to put the needs of Iraq and Iraqis over the needs of America and Americans. We all know that during the first Gulf War there were a significant number of American soldiers who were taken prisoner of war. Under the law passed by this House, we have given permission for those who have been tortured to take legal action against a terrorist state that was responsible for that torture. So 17 American prisoners of war, who were prisoner during the time of Saddam Hussein's regime, brought legal action; and the courts determined that they were, in fact, entitled to just compensation and granted them compensation. Then the Bush administration spent tax dollars to fight that decision, took it to a higher court, and had that decision overturned. Now, these prisoners of war were not seeking money from America. They were seeking money from the Iraqi regime that had tortured them. What kind of torture did they experience? They described being tortured with electric shocks, being threatened with castration, being threatened with execution, being beaten so severely that their bones were broken and that they were permanently disabled as a result of those beatings. This country had frozen over $1 billion in Iraqi assets that would have been used to pay these ex-prisoners of war just compensation, but the Bush administration said this money is needed for the reconstruction of Iraq. That is more important than compensating the American POWs; and so the Bush administration has returned that money back to Iraq, and our American ex-POWs have been told that there is nothing for them. This is even more egregious when we consider what Secretary Rumsfeld has recently said. He said that he believes the Iraqi prisoners who were tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison, the very same prison where the Americans were tortured, Secretary Rumsfeld believes that this country should, in fact, compensate them because they were tortured. So here is what we have. American POWs having been tortured in Iraq and told by the Bush administration they are entitled to no compensation. The Iraqi prisoners were tortured in this very same prison, and our Secretary of Defense is saying American tax dollars should be used to compensate them. One of the newspapers in my region had a story that went like this: it was the United States of America and Saddam Hussein versus American ex-POWs, and the United States and Saddam Hussein won. The Senate had taken action. Unanimously the Senate voted last week to approve an amendment submitted by Senator Reid, cosponsored by Senator Warner and Senator Levin, to say that no Iraqi prisoner would be compensated for the abuse they endured unless the American POWs were compensated for the abuse that they endured. It seems to me that if we are going to use resources to compensate the Iraqi prisoners, that the American POWs are entitled to at least similar compensation; and I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will recognize the injustice of compensating the Iraqi prisoners while we fight the compensation for American prisoners of war. So during the next weeks and months, I am going to be looking for ways to attach this language to a piece of legislation that will guarantee this fairness and will correct this unjust situation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would just say to my friend from Washington State, why is this important? And the American people may be asking why we stand here and talk about the decisions in the past that led to this war, and I would just simply say it is important, because we have lost somewhere in the vicinity of 850 precious American lives. We have well over 4,000 precious American soldiers who have been terribly wounded. Many of them have lost their arms and their legs and their sight, and they have been damaged for the rest of their lives. That is why it is important. And it is important, because the same people, the same people who took us into this war based, as was said, on false assumptions and false premises are the same people who are still in charge and who are making decisions for what is happening right now and want to be in power to make decisions about what happens next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is why it is important for the American people to understand what has happened, because we need a change of leadership. Before I yield to my friend from Massachusetts, just let me say this. There may be people who observe this debate and feel somehow disconnected from this war. They may have no one fighting in Iraq that they love or are related to or even know, but if they have got children, if there are parents watching who have 13, 14, 15, 17-year- old sons and daughters, they ought to pay attention to this debate, because we have stretched our military so thin, and that is why we are extending the months of service for our National Guardspersons and our Reserve persons. We do not have the capacity, in my judgment, to really respond to something if it happens in Iran, or in North Korea. What are we going to do? I will tell you what we are going to do if this administration gets another term. We are going to have to impose a military draft. If we impose a military draft, the next time there are not going to be the exceptions that many of us had available to us in years past. There will not be exceptions for educational studies, I do not believe, something that I took advantage of and that Vice President Dick Cheney took advantage of. So the parents in this country need to be watching this debate. If they have got children and they do not want their sons and daughters to be subject to a military draft, then they ought to be involved and engaged in what is happening in the United States of America today, because our military is stretched thin. We do need more troops in Iraq, as General Shinseki warned us many, many months ago, before he was pushed aside and mocked, and quite frankly, made fun of and ridiculed by the Vice President and others in this administration. That is why I have constituents, we all have constituents, who have been pulled from their communities, separated from their families, sent to Iraq, expecting to be there for a limited, set period of months. And now what are they being told? They are being told, we have got a stop loss policy in place. You cannot even leave to return home or to leave the service when your contractual obligation is up, because we simply do not have a sufficient number of men and women in our Armed Forces. That is the sad truth that we face as we debate this tonight.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to read another paragraph or two from the Dallas Morning News. This is no left-wing newspaper. This is the Dallas Morning News, a major newspaper in the President's home State. They said at the beginning of their editorial: A time comes in most administrations when supporters tell the President he has a problem. Bob Dole told Ronald Reagan that he should worry about the deficit. Tip O'Neill told Jimmy Carter that he had better improve his icy relationship with Capitol Hill. And George W. Bush told his father that White House chief of staff John Sununu needed to go. The supporters find themselves like skunks at the garden party. They back the President but see a problem. And they decide to speak out. We find ourselves in that position with President Bush and the war in Iraq. We supported the President when he ran for office. We backed the war in Iraq. But now we wonder, what happened?'' What happened is this, that the American people and this Congress were given information that was false and we were encouraged to believe something that was not true. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, as evil and despicable as he was, had anything to do with the attack upon the United States of America. And the American people needed to know that before our sons and daughters were sent to war in Iraq. It is true that Osama bin Laden was responsible. It is true the Taliban were responsible. That is why every Member of this Chamber, save one, supported our decision to go to war in Afghanistan. We supported the overthrow of the Taliban. Many of us have been calling for months for an increased effort to find, apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden. He was the one who orchestrated the attack upon this country, and tonight he is roaming free somewhere on the face of this earth planning the next attack. Can we imagine that if we had taken the resources and put the effort into finding Osama bin Laden that we have invested in Iraq, do any of us believe that we would not have found this man and have put him out of business? I think it is beyond question that if we had put the resources into finding Osama bin Laden and fighting al Qaeda, we would not be worrying tonight about what that man may be planning in terms of the next attack upon our Nation. But we did not do that. We diverted resources to Iraq and consequently the real enemy, the real threat to our country, is roaming free this very night.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, former Governor Kean, the Chair of the 9/11 Commission, a Republican, a highly respected Republican ex- Governor, has said, and he said it over the weekend, I heard him, that there were many more reasons to believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iran.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, that is a question that needs to be explored. And, quite frankly, now we know that Iran apparently is going to pursue their nuclear capabilities. And what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about it? With 135,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, how can we pose a credible threat to Iran to try to get them not to pursue nuclear capabilities? I think we have overextended ourselves, we are exhausting our troops, and we are putting ourselves in great jeopardy as a Nation. And our national security is in jeopardy, I believe, because we have overextended ourselves; we have miscalculated in Iraq. And we will find ourselves hard pressed to meet a threat anywhere else on Earth if we were in need of a significant number of troops anywhere else. And I think that is a serious problem that this entire Chamber should be addressing.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, let me say this, if I may. Some people think if you repeat something often enough even if it is not true, people will come to believe that it is true.