[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10022-10027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CARING FOR OUR VETERANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with my two friends, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) from Niles in northeast Ohio and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) from a district that runs from 
Portsmouth, along south from the Ohio River, up east including parts of 
Mahoning County near Youngstown. We will talk about the treatment of 
veterans in this country and the problems that we have seen, and the 
strength of the veterans administration, the good things it has done 
but how it really has fallen short, a Federal agency that has done 
remarkably good work for so many, but fallen woefully short in the last 
couple of years.
  I want to continue the theme that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) mentioned, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), 
others, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) earlier this week, 
Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? And I think this 
theme particularly is reinforced when asking about veterans. Are 
veterans in this country today better off today than they were 4 years 
ago?
  And I think we will see as the evening goes on in the next 30, 40, 50 
minutes or an hour, how the veterans really have been shortchanged by 
this administration, how the Veterans Administration does not work as 
well as it did. Our benefits to veterans are not nearly as adequate, 
never really generous, as they used to be. I want to talk about that, 
whether veterans are better off today than they were 4 years ago.
  As I said, I am joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). Last week Secretary Principi and 
President Bush announced that they would close three Veterans 
Administration hospitals in the United States: one in Mississippi; one 
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area; and one in Brecksville, Ohio in 
northeast Ohio. The Ohio facility serves 48,000 veterans in our region 
of northeast Ohio.
  I find it ironic and a little sorrowful that as we head into Memorial 
Day next week, as we prepare to dedicate the World War II memorial, 
that the President and Secretary Principi and his administration 
announce plans to close VA hospitals. Prior to Secretary Principi's 
announcement, I, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) sent a letter to the Secretary 
asking him not to close the Brecksville hospital.
  Our letter echoed the sentiment of more than 5,000 veterans who 
signed petitions; it echoed the sentiment of several thousand more who 
came to rallies and meetings and wrote us letters and made phone calls 
to us saying

[[Page 10023]]

this VA hospital in Brecksville, one of the best in the country, 
treating homeless veterans, a model for the country in treating 
veterans with mental illness, protesting that this hospital be closed.
  I met with hundreds of local veterans who voiced their opposition, as 
has the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and as has the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). Instead of listening to the men and women who 
served this Nation, the administration is foisting upon American 
veterans a plan that will force them to travel further and wait longer 
for health services they depend on.

                              {time}  2115

  In the case of Brecksville, they are closing a facility with a 
leading reputation for mental health services, and for the last 43 
years Brecksville has pioneered innovative, nationally recognized 
programs and services for homeless vets and veterans with mental 
illnesses.
  Since 1971, Brecksville has offered inpatient mental health services, 
including acute substance abuse treatment and acute and long-term 
psychiatric care, to veterans from all 50 States.
  We are creating new veterans. The irony of closing these three 
hospitals, the irony of cutting veterans benefits, health and education 
benefits, which has happened in this House of Representatives on this 
floor and with this President, the irony of doing that, the irony of 
closing these hospitals that lead up to Memorial Day is every day we 
are creating more veterans in this country as soldiers return from 
Iraq, sometimes with scars, emotional scars, physical scars, mental 
scars, where they really do need treatment.
  Approximately one-third of the adult homeless population served their 
country in the armed services. On any given day, as many as a quarter 
million male and female veterans are living on the streets or in 
shelters, and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some 
point during the course of the year.
  For many homeless and mentally ill veterans who struggle with local 
public transportation, closing Brecksville will double, even triple, 
the number of miles they will be forced to travel.
  The administration made big promises to American veterans. George 
Bush can hardly go anywhere without singing the praises of our men and 
women in uniform, even though, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland) has pointed out many times on the floor, they sing their 
praises but do not provide them with safe drinking water, did not 
provide our soldiers with body armor, do not outfit our Humvees with 
metal plate armor underneath the Humvees and on the door of the 
Humvees, so that they are much more dangerous.
  There is hardly a day goes by that the President does not in one of 
his fund-raising speeches around the country, which are almost daily, 
that he does not, the President, sing the praises of our veterans.
  At the same time, this administration has cut veterans benefits, cut 
education and health care benefits, raised the price of prescription 
drugs, and now, strike three, is closing these three hospitals which 
are serving hundreds of thousands of veterans.
  When I think about a veteran in my district who originally was paying 
a relatively small copayment per drug per month, that copayment has 
tripled, and now the administration wants to double that copayment 
again. It is just amazing to me the President of the United States 
would do that in a time of war.
  It is especially amazing when you look at the price of drugs in 
Canada, the price of drugs in France, in Germany and around the world, 
how much less drugs cost in those countries. In fact, every once in a 
while I have taken, over the last 6 years, busloads of seniors to 
Canada to buy less expensive drugs, but how can you look a veteran in 
the eye and say, Hey, you ought to go to Canada and buy your 
prescription drugs? How can you tell a veteran he or she should go to 
Canada and buy their prescription drugs because they are cheap?
  Under this administration, a third of America's veterans have 
unprocessed claims, and 130,000 veterans are waiting for appeals 
decisions.
  New enrollment fees and increased costs of prescription drugs will 
cost veterans $2 billion over the next 5 years.
  This administration is opposed to the renewal of imminent danger pay 
for families of active duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of 
that. The administration and the Secretary of the VA sing the praise of 
American soldiers, and then oppose giving those soldiers a little extra 
money when they are in the face of danger in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We are spending $1.5 billion a week in Iraq turning our young men and 
women into veterans. We ought to be able to ensure when they come home 
that they receive the best health care. Our veterans deserve better.
  It begs the question earlier, are veterans better off than they were 
4 years ago? I think when you look at what this administration has done 
with soldiers and with veterans, it is a decided no.
  I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and I look forward to hearing in a moment from 
another gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), but the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) said something that triggered a recollection that I want to 
share with him.
  I had said earlier here on the floor that this administration 
apparently wants to compensate Iraqi prisoners who were abused in the 
prison in Baghdad, and I understand why Secretary Rumsfeld has reached 
that conclusion, but I also pointed out that I was puzzled that the 
administration, on the other hand, was opposing American ex-POWs who 
had been held in captivity in Iraq during the first Gulf War getting 
compensation from the Iraqi Government. So there seems to be a double 
standard.
  On the one hand, the administration is willing to compensate the 
Iraqi prisoners who were abused and opposes the American prisoners who 
were abused from getting compensation. But there is a second 
contradiction, a second example of where this administration seems to 
favor people in Iraq versus the good old, homegrown American.
  An example is the fact that just last week it was reported that, back 
in December, Paul Bremer, who is our point man in Iraq, had gone to the 
Department of Labor and secured $5 million, and this was $5 million 
that the Congress had no awareness of, in order to pay unemployment 
compensation to former Iraqi soldiers. These were Iraqi soldiers who 
were no longer working as soldiers.
  And so this administration got $5 million in order to pay them 
unemployment compensation at the very same time that the 
administration, for months now, has been fighting extending 
unemployment compensation to unemployed Americans.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would add that 
there are 50,000 Ohioans alone who have seen their unemployment 
benefits expire in the last 6 months, 1 million Americans. These are 
people looking for a job, playing by the rules, but cannot find a job.
  The President said the economy is growing. We heard our friend from 
Iowa and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) saying things are great, 
jobs are coming back, the economy is great. Well, 50,000 Ohioans cannot 
get their unemployment benefits.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, one other point I pointed to throughout 
was a discrepancy between the administration's wanting to compensate 
abused Iraqi prisoners and not compensate America's abused prisoners; 
and then I pointed out that it sought money to pay unemployment 
compensation to unemployed Iraqis while fighting extending unemployment 
benefits to Americans.
  There is a third example of how the administration is favoring the 
Iraqis over Americans, and that is the fact that in Iraq we have 
promised Iraqi citizens health care. We have said that

[[Page 10024]]

we are going to provide universal health care to the Iraqi citizens, 
while we have got millions, some 44 million Americans, with no health 
coverage, and we have got Americans who are losing their health 
coverage on a daily basis, and yet this administration seems to not 
care about that at all.
  So here are three clear-cut examples of where this administration has 
a double standard and where this administration is willing to put 
resources into Iraqis and into Iraq, while refusing to help the people 
right here at home who are in desperate need of help.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), for his comments, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if people were just watching this and 
just tuned in and they hear us talk about some of these issues, I mean 
we go back to our districts every week and we talk to people who are 
not engaged in the day-to-day debates that we have here.
  You would think we are making this up, because it goes on and on and 
on and on, and you would think that the Democrats are just playing 
partisan politics. But if you just clearly look at the facts, you will 
find that we are not making this up, and you may come to understand as 
you listen to a lot of the special orders, you listen to the 1-minute 
speeches, you listen to the debate on the House floor, why some of us 
are so outraged at what is happening here.
  With the veterans' issues that we are talking about and closing down 
of the facility in Brecksville, Ohio, which many of the veterans in my 
district go to for service; and they are moving it into downtown 
Cleveland into Wade Park. We are asked to support this move because the 
administration has told us that there will be no decline in the 
service, there will be more services. There will be more services; it 
will be better for everybody.
  I hate to be the guy to spoil the party, but this administration does 
not have a very good track record on keeping their promises, and 
whether you go to Iraq, whether you go to their economic policy, the 
domestic policy, No Child Left Behind, promises to veterans, promises 
for Pell Grants, whatever it has been, they have not lived up to the 
promises they have made.
  So why should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the 
Congressman down in Mississippi, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Doyle), why should we take this administration at their word that they 
are going to take care of our veterans? Because they have not; they 
have not with our soldiers, they have not with our Reservists. And so 
we are here tonight, I think in part, to hold their feet to the fire 
and to question the kind of leadership that they are getting.
  One or two points that I just want to make: The Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs has said that the budget that is coming out of this, that the 
budget, not that the President recommended, is $1.5 billion short, 
billion with a ``B'', short of what is needed. The veterans 
organizations have said that the President's request is $3 billion 
short of what they need.
  Now, is the veterans organization too high and the Democrats too 
high? I do not think so, but at the very least, the administration 
should at least follow the lead of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
who says $1.5 billion more to meet the needs.
  For this administration to continue its shortsighted approach, along 
with all of its domestic policies, this one is what kills me, and 
especially because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has spent so 
much in the health care field in understanding the needs for 
investment.
  There is a $50 million cut in the award-winning VA medical prosthetic 
research and development program. Now, here is an award-winning program 
that is developing prosthetics for amputees, the best around; and we 
have soldiers in Iraq right now that are losing arms and legs as we 
speak, and we are cutting funding for the research and development of 
better prosthetics.
  It continues, it continues, it continues; and it is just the 
shortsightedness that this administration has. To do it for young kids, 
to do it for the poor, to do it for the uninsured is shameful, but to 
do it to the veterans who have given us this system that we have here 
today, I think it is especially shameful.
  I am glad to join you here tonight to continue this conversation.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), my friend, was 
mentioning that people watching this at home just sometimes might think 
it is almost like we are making this up, this could not be like this. 
Why would people do these kinds of things?
  Why would President Bush talk such a good game about the military? He 
was in the military, and remember when he landed on the ship and was in 
his flight suit, and he certainly showed the American people that he 
was one of the military, but why would he then turn around and make 
these cuts? But these are political choices.
  I mean, we sit in this body, the 435 of us, we come down to the House 
floor with this little plastic card and we vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on 
issues. This is a question. Government is about making choices. We 
decide. What do we do about prescription drugs, what do we do about 
Medicare, and what do we do about the environment?
  Well, the Congress has made a series of choices about tax cuts and 
the budget and expenditure of money, and this Congress and this 
President who has pushed this Congress, and the Congress pretty much 
rubber-stamps, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) pretty much rubber-
stamps what the President wants. This Congress made a choice.
  If you make $1 million a year, you get a $123,000 tax cut. If you are 
worth $100 million and you pass away, rather than $30 or $40 million of 
that going to the government, now, under Republican plans, even though 
that is only one-half of 1 percent of the public that would pay this 
tax, that has been eliminated.
  So when somebody that makes $1 million pays a tax of $123,000 and no 
longer pays it, then that money has got to come from somewhere. So what 
happens is Congress makes a choice. Do you give that millionaire, the 
guy making a million, do you give them the $123,000 tax cut, and when 
you do it, it means you have got to cut veterans benefit? Or do you not 
give him the tax cut and fund these veterans' programs?
  Clearly, my Republican friends have made the decision, as has 
President Bush, to give the millionaire the $123,000 tax cut and to 
deny veterans health care benefits, education benefits, raised their 
prescription drug costs, closed the Brecksville Hospital and Pittsburgh 
Hospital and Mississippi Hospital.
  These are choices that people make. That is why we hold elections. 
The voters will say, Yeah, we like it that George Bush gives a 
millionaire a $123,000 tax cut and cuts veterans benefits; or they will 
say, We should not give these tax cuts to the superwealthy. Instead we 
should meet our commitments on health care and education.
  I had a group of people come into my office today, and it is a little 
off the subject, not much, a group of people with Lou Gehrig's disease, 
ALS, and this government has refused to fund research the way we have 
been funding it the last 4 or 5 years.

                              {time}  2130

  And the question, again, is: Do you give a millionaire a tax cut of 
$123,000 or do you fund programs in research and development that 
really are going to make wonderful scientific discoveries and save 
lives?
  To me, the answer is pretty clear. To my friends on the other side of 
the aisle it is equally clear, but they have a different viewpoint. I 
am not saying they are immoral or sleazy. I am just saying they made 
the choice that they would rather give a millionaire a tax cut than to 
fund veterans benefits, than to keep Brecksville open. They would 
rather give a tax cut to the wealthiest 5 percent. Not somebody making 
$50,000 or $100,000. I am talking about people making $1 million a 
year,

[[Page 10025]]

to give tax cuts to them; and when they do, we end up closing VA 
hospitals, we end up cutting veterans health care benefits, we end up 
cutting veterans education programs, and we end up with State 
university tuitions going up through the roof, at Ohio State, at Kent 
State, and Akron U and all over.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I 
think the most important thing we do is to make choices. That is the 
most important function of a legislator is to make choices, to decide 
how we are going to use the people's resources, what is going to get 
supported and what will not get supported.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said earlier that folks watching 
may think we are making this up because it sounds so outlandish, why 
would an administration favor Iraqi prisoners over American prisoners, 
and why would some of these terrible decisions be made. And it is 
almost as if it is so bad it must not be true.
  But I want to share a letter here which each Member of this Chamber 
received from four veteran service organizations. I am talking about 
the AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Legislative 
Director for the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars. They sent to us this letter. Every Member in this Chamber 
got this letter as we were considering the budget resolution, which 
laid out how much we were going to be willing to spend for our 
veterans. I just want to read a passage from that letter, which we all 
received:
  ``On behalf of the coauthors of the independent budget,'' and the 
independent budget was created by these veteran organizations, so, ``On 
behalf of the coauthors of the independent budget, the AMVETS, the 
Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, we are writing to urge 
you to oppose and vote against H. Con. Res. 393, the House budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2005.''
  And then they continue: ``Passage of the budget resolution as 
presented would be a disservice to those men and women who have served 
this country and are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around 
the world in our fight against terrorism.''
  Now, those words did not come from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland). Those words came from these veteran service organizations, 
these organizations whose sole purpose is to look out for what is right 
for the veterans of this country.
  And so this administration has a credibility problem. And it is fine 
to salute the flag, it is fine to walk around on an aircraft carrier, 
it is fine to stand and get your picture made with veterans; but what 
really counts here is how we spend our resources. And the fact is that 
our veterans are being shortchanged by this President and by this 
administration. It is as simple as that. They are not putting resources 
into veterans health care, the resources that are needed even to 
maintain the current level of services.
  I think we should be expanding services. I think we should get rid of 
this prohibition on priority 8 veterans being excluded from VA health 
care. But that is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about 
just having enough money to maintain our current level of services. And 
even with the President's budget, he was asking in that budget that 
additional financial burdens be placed upon the backs of our veterans. 
The President actually sent us a budget that said that veterans should 
have to pay $15 a prescription rather than $7 a prescription.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that 
point, because this is an important point to make.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I certainly will.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Everyone who in some way receives some kind of 
public assistance, whether it is the veterans, or No Child Left Behind, 
or people going to school, everyone, Medicare, all the social programs 
that we have been asked to make some kind of sacrifice. The only people 
who have not been asked to make any sacrifice at all are the wealthiest 
people in our society.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They have been asked to make no sacrifice at all, 
and these gentlemen were talking before we got up here, about an hour 
ago, and they said, quote, and I wrote it down, ``Republicans will not 
raise taxes.'' And I think there were two words left out of that. 
Republicans will not raise taxes, well, maybe three words, on the rich.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. On the rich, that is right. Excuse me, but they are 
raising taxes or causing taxes to be raised on the working folks of 
this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if you go to Ohio, we now pay more taxes 
in Ohio in part because of the cuts that have been made at the Federal 
Government level. And across this country working people are paying 
more in property taxes, they are paying more in excise taxes, they are 
just paying more in taxes in general while the folks at the very top, 
and as my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), said, we are 
talking about millionaires, we are not talking about the family that 
makes a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. We are talking about 
the millionaires.
  Tonight, in Iraq, we have soldiers sacrificing and their families 
back here at home are sacrificing. And I want to tell you, they are 
about the only ones sacrificing, because this President is not asking 
anything from anybody except our soldiers and their families. In wars 
past, we have paid for those wars. What we are doing is passing the 
cost of this war on to the next generation. It is a rather shameful set 
of circumstances that our country faces today.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, the 
ultimate irony of this whole deal, and this job provides a lot of 
opportunities to have some very great moments, very sentimental 
moments, and one I remember distinctly is when we walked into the 
Cannon caucus room and we were having a veterans' hearing for their 
budget. All the veteran organizations were there and filled this huge, 
beautiful room. They were in wheelchairs, on crutches, bent, amputees, 
just sacrifice written all over their face. Those are the veterans who 
have created and protected the system, the democratic and capitalistic 
system that we have right now and that allows people to create wealth 
for themselves.
  The fundamental aspect of this system is to have a strong economic 
and democratic system which has been given to us by these veterans. And 
these people who are benefiting from this system have not been asked to 
sacrifice. I just wanted to make that point.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think we have 
established pretty well tonight why Republican leaders and George Bush 
do this, why they have made these cuts in veterans benefits, why they 
made cuts to close the Brecksville Hospital. It is a question of 
choices they have made between giving a $123,000 tax cut to a 
millionaire or funding these programs.
  The second question to ask, as we examine the whole question of are 
we better off, are veterans better off today or the American people 
better off today than they were 4 years ago, is to the look at how all 
this happened.
  The three of us, joined by 400 of our colleagues, sat in this Chamber 
in the middle of the night, month after month after month, passing some 
of the worst legislation, legislation that my friends in the Republican 
leadership do not want people to see, so we passed these bills 
literally in the middle of the night, after midnight; and I want to 
talk about a couple of them.
  Starting a year ago, starting literally 14 months ago, at 2:54 a.m. 
on a Friday in March, the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. 
At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April the House slashed education and 
welfare by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House 
passed the leave-no-millionaire-behind tax cut by a handful of

[[Page 10026]]

votes. At 2:33 on a Friday in June, Republicans boarded the midnight 
express and passed the Medicare privatization prescription drug bill by 
one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the Republicans again 
boarded the midnight express and eviscerated Head Start by one vote. 
Then, after returning from summer recess, after the August recess, at 
12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the GOP again boarded the midnight 
express and voted $87 billion for Iraq. Two months later, again in the 
middle of the night, the Medicare bill passed. The debate started at 
midnight, the vote started at 3 a.m. Normally, the vote takes 20 or 30 
minutes. The roll call stayed open until 6 a.m. It was a 3-hour vote.
  In every single case, these bills were passed after the press had 
gone home and people had turned their television sets off, those 
watching C-SPAN, and the country had gone to bed. So not only are they 
passing legislation that cuts veterans benefits, legislation that 
discriminates against veterans, proposals that shut down hospitals and 
cut back drug benefits and reduce education benefits for veterans, they 
are doing it, and again this is not made up, it is documented in the 
Congressional Record, they are doing this in the middle of the night, 
under the cover of darkness, as they board the midnight express.
  So the public does not see this. By the time it gets in the paper on 
Saturday, it is old news. It is a couple of days later. It is never on 
the front page, and the public only learns about it when they realize 
their veterans' benefits have been cut again by the Bush 
administration.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend will yield, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. The gentleman is absolutely correct that much of this 
is being done in this Chamber well after midnight, when most Americans 
are asleep and the press is not here, with the hope that the American 
people will not really fully understand what has been done.
  But I am encouraged, because as I go back to my district and I talk 
to my veterans, as I travel across Ohio and I talk to veterans, I think 
the veterans get it. They understand. They understand their efforts to 
raise the cost of their prescription drugs; they understand that the 
President wants to impose a user fee, an annual user fee of $250 on 
many of our veterans; they understand that if they are a priority 8 
veteran, they may even be a combat-decorated veteran, but if they are a 
priority 8 veteran and this administration thinks they receive a high 
income, of course that could be about $24,000. You know, we make about 
$155,000 in this Chamber and the American people need to know that, 
when this administration is trying to imply that if you make about 
$24,000 or $25,000 and you are a veteran, you are high income and so 
you are no longer able to participate in the VA health care. I want to 
tell you that is quite shameful, and the veterans know it.
  They also know that this disabled veterans tax, which basically says 
that if you retire from the military and you have earned your pension 
and you are disabled as a result of your military service and you are 
entitled to disability compensation, you cannot get both. For every 
dollar of disability pay you get, $1 is deducted from your military 
pension. We have been trying to get rid of that discrimination against 
veterans. And, guess what? The President has said if we do it, he will 
veto the bill. He will veto the bill.
  Here is a letter from Secretary Rumsfeld to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) indicating that if the bill authorizes 
concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability 
compensation benefits, then he would advise the President to veto the 
bill. So what did we do? We half fixed it. We took a baby step, and 
there are veterans in this country tonight who deserve their pensions 
and they deserve their disability compensation, and we are nickel and 
diming them, depriving them, discriminating against them. It is 
absolutely wrong, and I believe the veterans are coming to understand 
what is being done to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, I just wanted to say that that is a letter 
sent from the head of the Department of Defense, the Republican-
controlled administration sent to this Congress saying that if you pass 
a benefit for the veterans, we will veto the bill. It is that clear. It 
is black and white.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend would yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. It is not really passing a benefit. It is a bill to 
try to keep this government from taking something away from the 
veterans that they have earned. If they have served their time in the 
military and they are entitled to receive a pension, they should get 
it. And if they have been disabled and qualify for disability benefits, 
they should get the disability benefits, and there should be no offset.
  If you worked in any other part of the Federal Government, you would 
not be subjected to this discrimination. It is only the veteran that is 
being subjected to this kind of discrimination.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland) filed a lawsuit some time ago.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The lawsuit was basically to force the VA to do 
what it is charged by this Congress to do, and he will explain. But it 
was not just a question of policy decisions that the Congress and the 
President have made to cut benefits, to fail to take care of the 
soldiers with body armor; it was not just bad decisions by Congress and 
the President. It also was incompetence by the VA and underfunding by 
the VA to take care of many of the people who were in their charge. I 
would ask the gentleman from Ohio to explain that.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. It is quite simple. I was shocked many months ago 
when the VA put out a memo, and I am paraphrasing, but I am true to the 
spirit of the memo, which basically said, too many veterans are coming 
in for services and it is costing us too much money. We do not have 
enough money to provide those services. So henceforth, all of you who 
are health care providers are forbidden to market VA services to 
veterans. And it got quite specific.
  These health care providers were told they could not participate in 
community health fairs in their local communities. They were told they 
could not send out newsletters.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so President Bush 
and the Secretary of the VA have decided the VA should offer services 
to American veterans, but they are not allowed to tell anybody that 
they are offering these services?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I call it the ``If they do not ask, we will not tell 
policy.'' If the veteran does not ask what they are entitled to 
receive, the VA will not proactively provide that information.
  I tried to work this out. I went to Secretary Principi, a man that I 
know and admire, as a matter of fact, and we tried to work this out. I 
tried to get them to rescind this gag order, because it is a gag order. 
It is a gag order placed upon the health care providers. We just could 
not get them to budge.
  Finally, I decided to initiate legal action and I got the Vietnam 
Veterans of America to join me. We filed a suit. That suit is currently 
before the court. It is my hope that the court will decide that this 
policy of the VA is, in fact, contrary to the law and will require them 
to rescind this terrible policy.
  It is a terrible policy because there are veterans out there, for 
example, if I can just give an example, veterans out there who may have 
been exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. We now know that 
exposure to Agent Orange, even all of these years later, can lead to 
serious health consequences. For example, certain cancers are more 
likely to be found in those soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange, 
such as prostate cancer, for example.
  There may be veterans out there who have been so exposed and are not 
aware

[[Page 10027]]

that they are at risk, that they should come into the VA facilities for 
an examination, and if they are found to have one of these illnesses, 
that they are entitled to receive medical care from the VA.
  That is just an example of why this outreach to veterans is so 
important and why it is so really quite pathetic that an administration 
that says it cares about veterans would take this action to limit the 
information that is disseminated to veterans who are in need of this 
kind of information.
  This is a matter of health, and it can be a matter of life and death. 
That is why I think it is so shameful that we would have a policy, and 
as the gentleman says, at the same time we are giving tax cuts to 
millionaires, to millionaires, we are taking steps to limit the 
dissemination of information to our veterans because if they come in, 
it may cost too much money to provide them the care they need.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just before I wrap up, this is all 
very puzzling. I understand why President Bush is hostile to good 
environmental policy, because environmentalists do not vote for him. He 
does not seem to care.
  I understand that President Bush pushes legislation that kind of 
restricts the rights of minorities because minorities do not vote for 
him. I understand why he is hostile to organized labor because he does 
not get many labor union votes from steelworkers or auto workers or 
food and commercial workers.
  But I do not understand why he is so hostile to veterans. That really 
puzzles me because a lot of veterans voted for President Bush. They 
liked the fact that his father was a decorated veteran. They liked the 
fact that he served this country through the National Guard honorably 
and fully, at least before the news broke they thought he did, and they 
voted for him because they thought he was sort of a stand-up tough guy 
and would stand up for American interests.
  It astounds me that this President would change our policy and 
military doctrine, would attack Afghanistan, attack Iraq, make noises 
about Iran and other places such as North Korea, but when the veterans 
come home, not treat them any better than he treats them.
  The only answer I can figure is, he is so wedded and focused on his 
tax policy, on cutting taxes for the very wealthy, saving literally 
over a trillion dollars in taxes for the richest 1 percent, that 
everybody else suffers, veterans suffer, school kids get shortchanged, 
seniors through the Medicare program get shortchanged, environmental 
enforcement gets shortchanged, food safety enforcement, research for 
the NIH get shortchanged; and that is the only explanation I can come 
up with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to 
talk about what the Democrats' plan is and what we would do. I think it 
is important not just to criticize, although there is plenty of room 
for criticism in this administration.
  The Democratic budget that we want for veterans would increase the 
tax for those who make more than a million dollars a year, not all of 
it. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said, they get $123,000 back 
from the Bush tax plan. We would say they would only get $100,000 back. 
They would have to give around $20,000 of their tax cut back.
  Part of that money we would use, $2 billion of it, to restore the 
full survivor benefits to families of military retirees. $2.5 billion 
we would put in veterans health care. We would improve military housing 
for 50,000 military families.
  So if anyone is at home asking, what is the Democratic plan, this is 
our plan: $2.5 billion for health care, 50,000 families for military 
housing, $2 billion to restore full survivor benefits. And our 
legislation, if we were controlling this Chamber, the other Chamber and 
possibly the White House, would permanently permit Reservists to buy 
military health care through the TRICARE program.
  Many of the Reservists, almost 2,000 of them, and I hear often about 
the health care issues, our plan would allow them to buy permanently 
into the TRICARE program. We would give them pay raises, things the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) talked about, the combat pay, et 
cetera; our future veterans would be taken care of.
  So the Democrats have a plan. Let the millionaire keep $100,000, we 
are going to take a few thousand away and invest it into our veterans 
and into the research and development for our amputees that will be 
coming back, so they have the best possible health care that the United 
States of America, the wealthiest superpower ever in the history of 
world, can at the very least take care of its veterans.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and I look forward 
to the comments of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

                          ____________________