Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. The big lie theory. And the fact is that this is being repeated over and over and over in the face of evidence of this bipartisan commission that it is simply not true. Why would a member of this administration continue to say something to the American people that is not true?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman let me say a word about Mr. Wolfowitz, since he brought up his name? He is, in fact, one of the architects of this war, as we know. He is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. And I was appalled a few weeks ago when he was asked how many American soldiers we had lost in Iraq, and this man who pursued this war and who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense did not know. He implied that there may be about 500 who had been killed. At that time there had been 721. Every morning when Mr. Wolfowitz wakes up, he ought to be thinking about the soldiers who have been lost over there. And I am sorry I interrupted my friend.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, I think the reason they have not lost their jobs is because these decisions were made at the very highest levels of this administration. I do not think we can blame the lowly bureaucrats. I think the people in the highest positions of decision making in this administration are responsible. So, are they going to fire themselves? Probably not.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, I agree. Now, if I can just make an observation: I think the American people would accept from this administration, from the President, a statement that things have not gone just the way they hoped they would go; that perhaps mistakes have been made. What I think the American people will not accept is a continuation of a failed policy that grows out of an unwillingness or an inability to accept responsibility for mistakes, to admit those mistakes, and to change course. Quite frankly, I believe it takes strength and courage to admit a mistake. What I see from this administration is a stubbornness and an arrogance that is unwilling to admit even one mistake. My friend mentions sending our troops into Iraq without body armor. The war started in March of 2003. It was March 2004, March of this year, before all of our troops were provided with body armor. I ask, how many troops were unnecessarily wounded and how many lost their lives simply because of the incompetence of those at the Pentagon who sent them into battle without this protection? Right tonight, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), my friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and myself stand here in this Chamber, there are soldiers driving around in Baghdad and in other cities in Iraq who are using Humvees that are not armored Humvees, and many of them are being injured by driving over roadside bombs, and, because those Humvees are not armored, they are being seriously wounded and in some cases losing their lives. Somebody ought to be held accountable for that. If we are going to send our troops into battle, the very least we can do as a government is to make sure that everything we can do to give them adequate equipment and proper protection is done. For us not to do that is shameful.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield further, can I say something? I know our time is coming to an end, but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) talked about building roads and bridges and hospitals and schools in Iraq, neglecting our own domestic needs. If I can quickly share an example of how this administration seems to prefer Iraqis over Americans. As we all have heard, Secretary Rumsfeld wants to compensate the Iraqi prisoners who were abused in the Abu Ghraib prison. I do not have any problem with that. But I do have a problem with this: Seventeen American POWs that were tortured in that same prison, they were tortured with electricity, they were threatened with castration, they were threatened with suicide, their bones were broken, they went to court and sued Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime and a court gave them compensation. This administration appealed that decision, fought the American POWs, and a newspaper in my region read like this. They said it was the United States of America and Saddam Hussein versus American POWs, and the United States and Saddam Hussein won. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Secretary Rumsfeld wants to compensate the Iraqi prisoners, the American ex-POWs deserve equal compensation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, according to The Hill newspaper, former American prisoners tortured by Saddam Hussein's regime in the first Gulf War are criticizing the Bush administration for fighting their compensation claims while planning to compensate the Iraqi victims of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. Rumsfeld told the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week that he is seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered such grievous and brutal abuse at the hands of American Armed Forces. And yet this administration, this President, went to court to keep American POWs, those who were tortured by Saddam Hussein, from getting the compensation that was given to them by a lower court. Why would this administration, why would this President, why would this Secretary of Defense, want to compensate Iraqi prisoners who had been tortured, and fight the compensation of American prisoners who had been tortured? Whose side is this administration on?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding. I watched the special order which preceded this special order, some of our colleagues. Quite frankly, I sat in my apartment watching the television as they spoke, and I was wondering if they are from Michael Jackson's Neverland, because they certainly are not in touch with the real world. The fact is, do these people ever go home and talk to their colleagues on the weekends?

Mr. STRICKLAND. If I could interrupt and say, for him it may be the best economy of his lifetime, and I do not doubt that. But what about the workers there in Washington County in a little town called Marietta that I met with this week who are losing their jobs? What about the workers in Belpre, Ohio, in the same county, working in a factory that makes collectible dolls, the Lee Middleton Doll Company. There are about 35 workers, mostly women, many of them single mothers; one of the workers is 73 years of age, who is working in order to buy her medicine. They have been told on the 25th of this month their jobs are gone, because that doll company is taking that work to China. Now, how much do these people there in Belpre make? The average wage is somewhere between $7 and $11 an hour, and they are going to China for cheaper labor. I would like for my colleagues who preceded us to come to Belpre, Ohio, come to Marietta, Ohio, come to Martins Ferry, Ohio, come to Lisbon, Ohio, come to Salem, Ohio, where the Eljer plant that makes bathroom sinks and tubs, they are closing. They are manufacturing in China probably this very evening as we stand here on this floor and speak to each other. All of those workers are without a paycheck, they are without health care. They are without hope, many of them. Some of these workers are 55, 60 years of age. They do not yet qualify for Medicare. Many of them have health care problems. They are wondering, what are they going to do? I wish I could tell them that we had a President that I could go to and share their plight and expect some positive reaction from. These people, I do not know, they say the economy is booming, jobs are coming back. They need to come to Ohio, and they need to come to Ohio and not go to a prearranged event, where certain people are invited and other people are excluded. They need to come to Ohio and just go from community to community. They will find out what is happening. People are afraid they are going to lose their jobs if they have not already. They are afraid they are going to lose their health care if they have not already. They are wondering what is going to happen to their kids. I want to tell you, I was really offended because the Columbus Dispatch did a series of articles on hunger and the use of food pantries by Ohioans, and they did a series of wonderful series just laying out the problem and what the experience is. When the Bush administration was contacted for a comment, Mr. Eric Bost, B-O-S-T is how you spell his name, the U.S. Under Secretary for Food and Nutrition Services, he had the gall to say, ``Well, there has been a bump up in the number of people using these pantries, but how much of that is due to people taking the easy way out I do not know,'' he said. Well, Mr. Bost, I wish he would come to Ohio. It is a lot of fun, Mr. Bost, to stand in a food line, waiting to get food for you and your family, for your children. It is a nice way to pass the time of day. What an insult, for the person in this administration who is supposed to be concerned about food and caring for people who need proper nutrition to make such an outrageous comment. It shows that he, and I guess many of the others in this administration, are totally out of touch. There are families whose dads and husbands are serving this Nation in Iraq who are showing up at these food pantries. We need to wake up. This is a serious, serious set of circumstances. It is so frustrating, it is so frustrating to know that in a country where we have the wealth to give huge tax breaks to the richest among us, the richest among us, that we have got families whose dad or whose husband is serving this country in Iraq showing up at a food pantry in order to get the food they need to feed their children. I wonder if the President is aware of that.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it is appropriate and proper for an official of the Agriculture Department to really try to scrutinize what is happening, what is being reported by the Columbus Dispatch, to try to understand what may be causing this. But to have the callousness of heart to imply that this bump up in the use of food pantries is due to people wanting ``the easy way out,'' what does he mean by ``the easy way out?'' This man, like myself and many others who serve in this Chamber, probably goes out and spends as much on a single meal as some families may have to try to feed themselves for several days, and for someone in that kind of position to utter a comment like that, if I was George W. Bush, I would fire that man the moment I became aware of the words he had uttered. He does not deserve to serve in this administration and to hold the high position that he holds in the Department of Agriculture. He ought to work somewhere else, but he should not be working in a program that is designed to try to help people who are in need of food and good nutrition. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I represent an Appalachian district, 12 counties along the Ohio River. My district borders Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not have a lot of constituents who would want to go out and buy a $360,000 plane, but I do have a lot of constituents who would like to buy a pair of tennis shoes for their child or maybe some vacation time for the family. Those are the kinds of things my constituents want, not $360,000 planes that they can write off as a tax deduction. I am glad the gentlewoman brought this to our attention, and I would like to hear more about it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Invitation only.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabor this point, but I want to go back to what was said about these Ohioans who find their situation so serious that they have to go to a food pantry to get food for their families, and the fact that a member of this administration said this terrible thing. I just think it is awful what he said. And the President campaigned as a compassionate conservative, and the good book teaches us that we have a responsibility to care for the poor and to feed the hungry, to feed the hungry. That is a responsibility that we have as individuals, as people of faith. And I believe ultimately as a government. And yet the President's man, this Mr. Bost, when confronted with the fact that there are increased numbers of people in food lines as a result of this Columbus Dispatch series, he said, There is a bump but how much of that is due to people taking the easy way out, I do not know, he says. Now, this is the response that comes from the Executive Director of the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Food Banks. Her name is Lisa Hamler-Podolski, and she said, ``Bost makes unfair judgments of people who use Ohio food banks and food pantries and he underestimates the courage it takes for many people to ask for help.'' Now, that is a compassionate attitude. And Mr. Bost's attitude is a callous attitude. And I think the President has got a responsibility here. I think he should hold this man to account. Does this man represent the President's attitude? When the President is informed that there are increased numbers of people standing in line for food throughout Ohio, is he sympathetic? Is he compassionate? Or does he support this person who is a part of his administration and who, quite frankly, used to work for him when he was Governor of Texas. So this is a man he knows apparently pretty well. He brought him from Texas to Washington to oversee this program. So I think the President has a responsibility either to accept this man's attitude as reflective of his own or to reject this callous attitude and his callous comment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think my friend is absolutely correct in pointing out these inconsistencies.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman. I understand that none of us are perfect. No administration is perfect. Every administration makes mistakes. I certainly have made more than my fair share. But the fact is that there is an attitude reflected in these comments and I think in other actions of this administration that indicate that there is a total disconnect between their fantasy land, their world as they imagine it to be, and the real world that you and I and others who go home and spend time with their constituents and listen to their stories and hear their hopes and fears understand.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I absolutely believe that.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think the ability or the willingness, the capability to admit a mistake is a sign of strength and a sign of character. I fear the person who is so self-assured and so arrogant in his or her self-confidence that they refuse to acknowledge the fact that they may have made a mistake or made a misjudgment or made a wrong decision. I think that kind of person tends to be brittle and inflexible. So, consequently, if you get started down a route or pathway that is the wrong pathway, rather than having the ability or the willingness to change course, you continue to plunge headlong into some economic or social or military disaster. The fact is that a lot of mistakes have been made. We made a terrible mistake when we sent our soldiers into battle without having adequate body armor. We made a terrible mistake as a government, as a Pentagon, as an administration, when we had soldiers in Iraq without up-armored Humvees.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we are standing here in the Chamber. We are talking about problems that we see, mistakes that have been made, and some I guess would say why regurgitate that. That is old news. What we need to do is look forward and decide what we are going to do from now forward rather than dredging up mistakes that have been made. My answer to that question, and I think it is a legitimate question, but my answer to that question is this: The same people who made those faulty decisions, who made those misjudgments, who made those mistakes and are unwilling to admit them are the same people who are still in charge and they want to make decisions regarding our future. They want to make decisions regarding our future military actions. They want to make decisions regarding our future health care policy. They want to make decisions regarding our future education policy. They want to make decisions about a whole range of things. The American people, I think, deserve to know that these people who are currently in charge and want to remain in charge are the very ones who have made these mistakes and refused to acknowledge them and are continuing to pursue policies which are harmful to this country. So we need to call attention to the past in order for us to have some sense of what we can do to correct the situation and move this country forward in a positive manner.

Mr. STRICKLAND. The words of the gentleman reminded me of something that happened just 2 weeks ago. We had a forum to discuss the mandatory funding for VA health care. We had a forum and we had representatives of the national veterans organizations before us and they laid out their rationale for mandatory funding for VA health care. The reason it was a forum and not a hearing is because we could not call a hearing. We do not have the authority. Only the majority party can call an actual hearing, and so we had a forum; and in that forum, we did receive information from the American Legion, from the DAV, from the Vietnam Vets, from the purple heart folks, every veterans organization in this country; but it is sad that it could not be an official hearing which would have a different standing within the Congress in terms of its ability to actually deal with legislation and move it forward into a place where it could finally become acted upon. So that is an example of total one-party control of the Supreme Court, of the Senate of the United States, of the House of Representatives and of the Presidency; and that means that they are responsible, totally responsible. They cannot shift the blame. They cannot say it is someone else's fault. It is the fault of the leadership of this party.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I stand here today beside this picture. On the right is President George W. Bush and on the left of the picture is a man by the name of Chalabi, Mr. Chalabi. We have heard a lot about Chalabi in recent days. The President, apparently, indicated recently that he did not know him well, that he may have met him at a rope line. But the fact is that Mr. Chalabi was in this Chamber as the honored guest of the President of the United States, seated right up there near the President's wife, Laura Bush. He was applauded by those gathered in this Chamber. We now know that Mr. Chalabi, who we have reason to believe was paid some $40 million by this government, until just recently, those payments were finally, belatedly, cut off, but Mr. Chalabi was supposed to be providing intelligence to this administration. He is especially, apparently, close to Vice President Cheney and to others within this administration. Based in part on intelligence data that came from Mr. Chalabi, this administration made a decision to go to war. Think about that. What have we learned in recent days about Mr. Chalabi. Well, according to news reports, not only was the information that he gave us distorted, false, and in some cases apparently made up; but we now have news reports, credible news reports that Mr. Chalabi was cooperating with one of the axis of evil nations, that nation being Iran. According to news reports, this government had broken the code that enabled us to intercept communications from the nation of Iran and that Mr. Chalabi told Iran that our government had in fact broken their code. News reports say that Mr. Chalabi further informed the Iranian Government that he received that information from someone within the United States Government who was drunk at the time. If these reports are accurate, it means that our troops and our national security have been placed at greater risk because this administration put its confidence in this man. Not only did we give him our national resources in terms of about $40 million, not only was he invited to the State of the Union, allowed to sit near the First Lady and receive the adulation of this body, not only was he given these millions of dollars in this recognition, but we depended upon the information coming from this man; and now it appears that our national security may have been compromised. Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a thorough investigation of what has happened here. We need to find out if our young men and women have been put in harm's way because of the actions of this man; and the President needs to explain to us why he now indicates he knows little about Mr. Chalabi, when he is here in this picture, he was invited to this Chamber for the State of the Union address, and this government invested more than $40 million into this man. This is something that cries out for explanation and investigation, and it is my hope that the President will accept the responsibility of making sure that the news reports of the last few hours are thoroughly investigated, that all those responsible for the possible leaks regarding national security issues are identified and are thoroughly, utterly, totally discredited.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to apologize for showing up late. I was detained, but I am glad you have been here spreading the truth and letting the American people know the situation. I am struck by the fact that right up there in the balcony during the President's address to this great body with all of the Representatives and Senators and the Supreme Court members and members of the diplomatic corps present, that Mr. Chalabi, who now has been disgraced, was seated right up there near the First Lady in an honored position as a guest of the President right here in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. And we now know, sadly, that not only is he largely responsible for much of the misinformation that was used to take us into this war, and the gentleman is right, it is costing us from our national resources, from our national treasury, but what eats at me is the fact that more than 800 precious American lives have been lost in this war. We went into this war based on bad information received from Mr. Chalabi, this friend of the Vice President, a man who was getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from this government while he was betraying us, quite frankly, betraying us. It hurts me to look up there at that seat in the balcony of this Chamber and know that at one time he was seated up there and he received the applause of this body as the guest of the President at the same time he was deceiving us, taking our resources and ultimately giving information to our enemies. This is a disaster. I think it is a disgrace, and I hope it is thoroughly investigated and we get to the bottom of those who are responsible. It is about time that members of this administration took responsibility for what they have done, took responsibility, and I look forward to further discussion as the American people become increasingly aware of what has happened.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, part of the problem is we took the advice of Chalabi. It was because of information that he had given, apparently to the Vice President, that we decided we could go into Iraq with less force than we actually needed to bring stability to that country; and the result is well over 800 precious American lives have been lost, and more are being lost every day; and thousands of Americans have been terribly wounded and are being wounded every day. We are going to have this handover, and the President boasts that that is a very large milestone in the history of this country. The fact is, the American soldier is going to be there, the American soldier is going to have a target on his or her back, and we are going to continue to lose soldiers and to have soldiers wounded. Now, the President tries to set this up as a two-choice dichotomy. He says, stay the course, and those who question his policies want to cut and run. I do not hear anyone saying they want to cut and run. But neither do we want to stay the course, as the President has laid it out. We want to change the course. We want to internationalize and Iraqitize this situation. We want to give other countries some of the responsibility, have them carry part of the burden. The fact is that I am tired of slogans when it comes to this war. I have talked to too many loved ones who have their sons or daughters or husbands over there fighting this war. I met with a number of them just yesterday, and they are terribly concerned, as they ought to be, and they are wondering what is going on, how long will my loved one be there, and are they being protected as much as possible while they are there. I would just remind my colleagues that we continue to have troops over there driving around in un-armored Humvees. We finally convinced the other side of the aisle that we needed to put more money into that project, but soldiers are still being needlessly wounded, and, in some tragic cases, losing their lives, in part because we are not giving them the proper equipment. Part of it is we were told there would be rose petals, they were going to welcome us as liberators; and much of it was based on the information that came from this Chalabi, a man who we now know was not our friend, in fact, was giving information to our enemies. That is the sad truth. We cannot run from that truth. The administration needs to face up to the facts that they used bad information, they made bad decisions, and, as a result, we find ourselves in this quagmire; and we need to change course and move in a different direction.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today, the seniors of this country are told that they can take advantage of the so-called Medicare discount cards which are available to them. They are being told that these cards will offer them between 10 and 25 percent savings. But there are some things that the seniors need to know as they contemplate the potential use of these cards. First of all, it is the sponsoring company that offers the discounts or determines the size of the discounts, and that sponsoring company can change the level of discount available to the senior frequently. In fact, they can do that every 7 days, if they so choose. The senior also needs to know that these cards only cover some drugs and not others. So if a senior takes four or six or eight prescriptions and they choose a card, and they can only choose one card, they may have one or two of their medicines included and covered by that discount card and other medications may not be covered by that discount card, and the very medicines that are covered can be changed at the whim of the companies. In fact, those medicines can be changed every 7 days. Seniors also need to know that once they choose a card and choose to enroll with that particular company, they are locked in for one full year. So although the companies can change the level of discount frequently and they can change the drugs that are included in their discounts frequently, the senior is locked in to a particular card for one full year. Why is that? Why is all of the advantage being given to the sponsoring companies, rather than to the individual senior citizen? I think it is important for the seniors of this country to know that this discount card offering falls far short of what could or should be done by this government to make drugs affordable to them. One of the things we could do would be to simply allow the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada. There is probably not a senior in this country that is not aware of the fact that Canada sells drugs for just a fraction of what those drugs would cost the American senior citizen, and yet this government, this administration, this President, opposes the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada. That is one of the things that could be done, and could be done quickly and easily; and it would reduce the cost of medications that our seniors face. Well, another thing the administration could do but refuses to do is to allow our Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate discounts for our senior population. Mr. Speaker, our government negotiates discounts for our veterans; and we believe that as a result, those drugs are discounted somewhere between 40 and 60 percent, and this is something that is currently being done on behalf of our veterans. Why would this President and this administration refuse to support such negotiated discounts being made available to our senior citizens? It just simply does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, we need help, our seniors need help with the cost of prescription drugs, and what we need is a prescription benefit that is a part of traditional Medicare. Seniors like and trust Medicare. It is a program that works. It is easily understood. It is easily administered. In fact, the cost of administering Medicare is just fractional compared to the cost of administering private plans. So why do we not just offer a prescription drug benefit that is a part of traditional Medicare? But no, that is not what the President or this administration or the leadership in this Congress wants. In fact, we all know that in this Chamber in the middle of the night, this leadership pushed through a drug plan wherein they called for the vote at 3 o'clock in the morning; and at the end of the voting period, the 15-minute voting period, the bill had lost and it had lost because it is a bad bill. We kept the vote open, and the press says they got the President out of bed at 4 o'clock in the morning so he could twist arms and make phone calls and, finally, after 3 hours, they got a couple of freshmen and they apparently pressured them to change their minds because they came walking down the aisle and, at about 5 minutes to 6 a.m., this bill passed. We are now living with the results. The senior citizens of this country know they have been taken advantage of. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to November when the seniors will have their opportunity to respond.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we are told that these drugs will provide a 10 to 25 percent discount. There is no guarantee of that, obviously. But we are told that is likely to happen. But here is what has happened. The drug companies have raised their prices already. So as someone said earlier today, it is like going to a used car lot to buy a used car, and there is a sign on the windshield which says reduced $300. And the person buying the car does not realize, although they are buying a car that has a sign reduced $300, the day before the car dealer had upped the price by $400. That is what we are seeing here. The drug companies have dramatically increased the cost of their drugs over the last year. Even AARP has complained that drug companies have upped their price. Now these cards come along, and seniors are told you are going to get a 10 to 25 percent discount, when the prices have already gone up so far it has made any discount meaningless. I was here earlier, and I described something that obviously made some of my friends on the other side of the aisle quite upset. My colleague from Georgia was talking about the gentleman from Ohio, and I suppose he was talking about me. The fact is I described what happened in this Chamber. They do not like to hear what happened in this Chamber, but the American people need to know. This over-700-page bill was given to us on a Friday. We began to debate that afternoon and evening, debated until 3 a.m. when most normal Americans are asleep. Now there is nothing wrong with working late or throughout the night if it is necessary; but there was no reason for us to do it in the middle of the night, no reason at all. But at 3 a.m., we are considering what is perhaps the most important domestic piece of legislation that has come before this House in many, many years, a piece of legislation that affects senior citizens. Most senior citizens I know are not likely to be awake and paying attention at 3 in the morning. The press is not likely to be here at 3 in the morning. In fact, they are not here now. So it was done at a time when the American people were not able to pay attention and follow the debate. And at 3 a.m. in the morning, they called the vote. We are all here. A vote usually lasts 15 minutes, sometimes 17 minutes, occasionally as long as 20 minutes, but the usual time is about 15 to 17 minutes. At the end of that time period, this bill had failed. It had failed because it was a bad bill. It did not do what America's seniors wanted, and I believe those who were pushing it were quite frankly to have it debated in the afternoon.

Mr. STRICKLAND. We were all here on the floor, and so the bill had failed. Boy, if the American people could have watched the shenanigans going on on the other side. Quite frankly, there were a few on our side that were stressed by this vote, as well they should have been. It was an important vote. The reports in the media indicate that they got the President out of bed in the morning at perhaps 4 a.m. to use his influence to perhaps change some votes. One hour passed and 2 hours passed, and it was approaching 6 in the morning. One of our colleagues indicated to the media that he had been approached. His son is running for his seat, as he is retiring; and it was indicated maybe if he would change his vote, his son would get $100,000. I do not know what that sounds like to the gentleman, but it does not sound like very good public policy practice to me. I think it would upset the American people if they fully understood what was going on here. So that kind of thing was happening on the floor of the people's House. A bill that should have had the support of nearly all of us, if it had been a good bill, and at 6 in the morning or about 5 minutes to 6, leadership finally convinced a couple of freshmen to change their vote. When a Member changes their vote after all of the time has expired, they cannot do it electronically. The Member has to walk down to that table and take a card and sign their name to it and turn it in to the Clerk and the vote changes on the wall. That is what happened. A couple of freshmen came down the aisle and took a card and signed it; and at 5 minutes to 6 in the morning, they finally got this bill. It has turned sour on them, quite frankly.