Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, have no other speakers. I would just like to close by thanking the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for his wonderful leadership in this House on health matters. I also thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and all those who have had a part in the fashioning and the passage of this wonderful piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is considering the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act this evening. This is legislation that will improve the health status of many Americans who suffer the inequity of health disparities. I think the need for this bill is demonstrated by the tragic fact that minorities in America lag behind other Americans in nearly every health indicator, including health care coverage, access to care, life expectancy and disease rates. Minorities suffer disproportionately from cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV and AIDS and diabetes. Some of these disparities in health status are linked to problems of access to care and low levels of health care coverage. These characteristics also describe my Appalachian constituents from rural Ohio, even though my district has very few minorities. Not surprisingly, my constituents suffer from some of the same disparities in disease and mortality rates, particularly for cancer and diabetes. S. 1880 is the result of months of bipartisan, bicameral work to craft solutions to this complex problem. The bill will create a Center for Research on Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health, where research into the causes of and solutions to this health crisis will be prompted. It will also create opportunities for researchers who are members of health disparity populations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several Members for their hard work on this piece of legislation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson); the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns); the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. And I would especially like to thank the sponsors of this bill for their willingness to work with me and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) to include our constituencies in this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who was an original cosponsor in the fashioning of this legislation.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the primary sponsor of this bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill which addresses the very serious problem of mentally ill people recycling through our criminal justice system. As a psychologist, and perhaps the only Member of Congress who has ever worked in a maximum security prison, I have personally treated individuals who will live out the rest of their lives behind bars because they have committed crimes that they most likely would not have committed had they been able to receive adequate mental health treatment. I have seen the ravaging effect that a prison environment has upon the mentally ill and the destabilizing effect that the mentally ill have upon the prison environment. Inmates, families, correctional officers, judges, prosecutors, and the police are in unique agreement that our broken system of punting the most seriously mentally ill to the criminal justice system must be fixed. The jails have become America's new mental asylums. Our court systems, our prisons, and our jails are being clogged, literally clogged, with mentally ill individuals who should be taking part in mental health treatment. Law enforcement and correctional officers, who are charged with apprehending and incarcerating the most dangerous criminals in our society, cannot always do their jobs because they are forced to provide makeshift mental health services to hundreds of thousands of mentally ill individuals. Squad cars, jail cells, and courtrooms are being filled with the mentally ill taking up resources that should be directed toward catching real criminals. Mental illness does not discriminate between Republicans or Democrats, rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, none of the dividing lines that so often create partisan politics. That is why I am especially gratified to be working on legislation with distinguished Members from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill to create mechanisms that will bridge the gap between the mental health and the criminal justice systems, the gap through which so many of the mentally ill defendants currently fall. I would like to thank especially Senators DeWine, Domenici, Kennedy and Wellstone, as well as the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), for taking the lead on this legislation to provide criminal justice and mental health professionals the resources they need to work together to keep mentally ill defendants in treatment rather than in jail. In conclusion, I would like to say that I am thankful that this Congress is willing to look closely at a problem from which many of us too often turn away. I believe that there is a welcome consensus among a broad spectrum of stakeholders and political ideologies that there are very practical steps that we can take to stop the criminal justice system from being this country's primary caregiver of the seriously mentally ill. The truth is that law enforcement and correctional officers are not and should not be psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers or nurses with guns. Mr. Speaker, I support my colleagues' support of this legislation, with deep appreciation for all who have worked on this legislation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and a great American, Mr. Gilbert Wolf. On April 1 of this year, Gilbert Wolf retired as Director of the National Plastering Industry's Joint Apprenticeship Trust Fund and Administrator of the Plasterers and Cement Masons Job Corps Training Program. After 49 years in the industry, Mr. Wolf has left a legacy of superior skills training directed toward young people entering the construction trades. A plasterer by trade, Mr. Wolf began his own career as an apprentice and went on to become a journeyman and then apprentice instructor. In 1969, he was instrumental in securing a contract with the Department of the Interior to train economically disadvantaged youth to become plasterers and cement masons. After a successful operation in three Job Corps centers, Mr. Wolf was awarded additional contracts with the Department of the Interior and labor. The Plasterers and Cement Masons Job Corps Training Program, under Gilbert Wolf's guidance, now boasts participation in 41 centers throughout the United States. Training and motivating youth in careers in the construction industry has been Mr. Wolf's major focus for over four decades. He spearheaded several national events to bring the need for youth training to the forefront. Competition was one of his favorite themes. The result was three international apprenticeship competitions over a 5-year period; two Job Corps national competitions and countless skills demonstrations at trade shows and construction industry events throughout the United States. These events consistently showed the public the need for and the importance of solid skills training. The Smithsonian Institute's famous Festival of Life became the setting for another national skills demonstration by Job Corps students from around the country. Mr. Wolf led the committees who organized the 2-week long festivals and won a spot on Good Morning America. Mr. Wolf also coauthored papers on historical preservation and restoration with the Department of the Interior and the National Trust for Historical Preservation. A partnership with the NTHP brought opportunities for Job Corps students to learn and to work on important historical landmarks and to develop specialized skills. Mr. Wolf also coauthored the Incentive Apprenticeship Training Course, which guides instructors through the process of training a number of people at multiple levels. Gilbert Wolf is also credited with pushing hard to increase the number of women and other minorities into skills training and the construction industry. He was the first in the Job Corps to hire a woman as an instructor in a nontraditional trade. When asked what has kept him going in this industry for the last 49 years, Mr. Wolf responded, where are the future skilled crafts people coming from, and who will train them? Passing a legacy of knowledge from one generation to the next is the backbone of our building industry. Young people are our only chance to keep building a strong America. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to express my own personal deep appreciation for the fact that Gilbert Wolf has been a mentor to my brother Roger and a valued friend to me. This Nation would be stronger and we would all be better people if more of us were more like Gil Wolf. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago, the United States Enrichment Corporation made the devastating decision to close its uranium enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, where nearly 2,000 dedicated Americans work. This is devastating not only to my community and to my region of Ohio but it is devastating, I believe, to this country. Some 23 percent of all of the electricity that is generated in our country is generated through nuclear power plants. Nearly all of that material that is necessary to provide the fuel for these nuclear power plants comes from two sites, in Paducah, Kentucky, and in Piketon, Ohio. Until 2 years ago, the industry which produced this vital fuel for our Nation was under the ownership and control of the United States Government. We made the decision to privatize this vital industry. We did so with the hope and belief that the industry would thrive and that the private company would keep its obligations to this Nation and continue to operate the two plants through the year 2004. Sadly, the leadership of this new private company has broken faith with our government and with the American people, and they have announced that they are closing the Piketon plant. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I am upset about this because of its immediate impact upon my district and upon the men and women who work in the facility in my district. But I am equally concerned because this decision can have a terribly adverse effect upon this Nation in terms of our national security and in terms of our energy security. I am convinced that the management of this company cares for neither but simply is determined to do whatever it can to enrich itself, and the American people and the people who work in these plants can be damned. That is why I am very, very pleased that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who is the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, has recently written the CEO of this private company, Mr. Nick Timbers, a letter in which he expresses concern and asks certain questions. I would like to share a couple of paragraphs from Chairman Bliley's letter to Mr. Nick Timbers. He says: ``Dear Mr. Timbers: ``As you know, the Commerce Committee is continuing its review of USEC privatization and its impact on our national security and the domestic uranium industry. I am writing to you with respect to recent troubling statements you have made on this subject and to obtain additional documents and information related to USEC privatization.'' Then Mr. Bliley continues: ``Quoting the Wall Street Journal editorial dated Thursday, June 28, 2000, you indicated that USEC's recent decision to close the Department of Energy's Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant was made in response to congressional intent in privatization legislation. Specifically, you state that USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant was, quote, the reason Congress privatized the company, close quote.'' Then Mr. Bliley says: ``I can assure you that this is not the case. A single operating gaseous diffusion plant with no credible plan for a succeeding enrichment technology is not what Congress intended for the privatized company.'' My understanding is that we will have hearings this fall, and we will delve into the matters surrounding the privatization of this company. I think Mr. Timbers has some explaining to do, and I think those responsible for the decisions that led to privatization within this administration have some explaining to do. I think there was a terrible, unacceptable, conflict of interest that existed when Mr. Timbers was given the authority to advise and to consult and to give direction as to how this company would be privatized because the decisions that he made resulted in his self-enrichment. This man, who was making as a government employee approximately $350,000, ended up with a salary of some $2.48 million.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to inform the House that I am introducing a major piece of legislation which would make it possible for this Government to once again assume the ownership of the nuclear fuel production industry in this country. The act is entitled the Nuclear Fuel Reliability Act of 2000. Why is this legislation necessary? I think it is important for this House to understand that approximately 2 years ago actions were taken that for the first time privatized the industry which is responsible for enriching uranium in this country. What that means, in practical terms, is that the industry that is responsible for producing approximately 20 percent of all of the electricity that is generated in this country has been placed in private hands. Now, that may not be so bad if the company that became the owner of this industry had acted responsibly and had kept faith with this Government once privatization had occurred. One of the obligations placed upon the private company was to operate the two enrichment plants which exist in this country today, one in Paducah, Kentucky, and one in Piketon, Ohio, to operate those plants through the year 2004. Recently, the company has made the decision to close the Piketon, Ohio, plant in June of next year. Who has benefited from privatization, Mr. Speaker? I think the only ones who have benefited from privatization are those select few individuals who oversaw the privatization process and have enriched themselves. And I am speaking specifically of the CEO of that private corporation, Mr. Nick Timbers. As I have said before, as a Government employee, his salary was approximately $350,000, which is a respectable income. He was given permission to oversee privatization, to make recommendations, to advocate; and he did those things and he did so in a way that enriched himself. As the CEO of the now private corporation, his salary is somewhere in the vicinity of $2.48 million; and he has a golden parachute of $3.6 million. What has been the result? Who has benefited other than Mr. Timbers and a select few of Wall Streeters? Well, I will tell my colleagues who has not benefited. Have the investors benefited? Absolutely not. At the point of privatization, the stock of the company was worth approximately $14.50 a share. It is now hovering around $4 a share. So the investors have not benefited. Has the Government benefited? Absolutely not. We find ourselves, as a government, facing a situation where we may become dependent on foreign sources for up to 23 percent of all of the electricity that is generated in this country. Have the communities where these plants are located benefited? Absolutely not. My community is being absolutely annihilated as workers who have spent 25 and 30 years of their lives working in the service of this country are being summarily discharged and dismissed. I am terribly troubled by the actions of this corporation. I am terribly troubled as a result of the process that led to privatization. I think it was a process that was corrupted, it was a process that enabled individuals to benefit themselves, to enrich themselves personally at great expense to the well-being of this Nation and to our local communities and to the investors. That is why I have asked for an investigation of these matters. That is why I look forward this fall to the Commerce Committee's hearings into these matters, because I think they will bring many things to light that the American people need and deserve to know. And so as I introduce my bill this evening, it is my hope that multiple Members of this House will see fit to join me in supporting this legislation. It is the right thing to do for our country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Southern Ohio that is a part of the Appalachian area. I am very proud of my constituents. Many of my constituents throughout the long years of the Cold War worked at a facility in southern Ohio which enriches uranium. During the early days of the Cold War, that facility enriched uranium which went into our nuclear weapons. In more recent years, that facility has produced enriched uranium necessary to create the fuel that produces the nuclear power generated in this country, the electricity through nuclear power. Two years ago, this administration and this Congress privatized that industry; and just a few weeks ago, this new privatized corporation announced that it was closing the facility in my district, thereby terminating the employment of some nearly 2,000 men and women. These are individuals who have served our country well. Many of them have been exposed to dangerous chemicals and to radiation. They have developed cancers. Many have lost their lives. Later on this week, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation which will set in motion a process whereby this government can once again assume ownership of this industry. Why would I do this, and why is it important to the economic and energy security of our Nation? It is because some 23 percent of the electricity generated in this country is generated through nuclear power. Only two facilities in this country enrich the uranium which is necessary to produce the fuel for these nuclear power plants. The direction of this privatized corporation troubles me. I am very concerned that their ultimate goal is not to be producers of enriched uranium, but simply to become brokers of enriched uranium. It is my concern that their ultimate goal is, not only to close my facility, but also to close the facility in Paducah, Kentucky. If that were to happen, Mr. Speaker, this Nation would become totally dependent on foreign sources for at least 20 percent of all of the electricity that is generated in this country. We cannot let that happen. As a body, as a group of elected Representatives of the people, we must not allow ourselves to become dependent on foreign sources for a huge portion of all of the electricity generated within this country. I am calling tonight upon my colleagues to join me in the introduction of this legislation. It is essential and necessary. We made a mistake when we privatized this vital industry. We made a mistake when we turned it over to the private sector who are not necessarily loyal to this country or to the objectives of this government. They are not necessarily loyal to the energy security need of this Nation. Their primary objective is to their investors and their stockholders. I am deeply troubled, Mr. Speaker, that the individual that oversaw the privatization process, the individual who was the CEO of the public corporation before it became private, was dealing with a major, major conflict of interest. As a government employee, he was making approximately $350,000 a year. Once this became a privatized corporation, his salary skyrocketed to $2.48 million a year. Not only that, but he convinced the board of directors to give him a golden parachute of $3.6 million. If he is fired or he loses his job, he can walk away with $3.6 million. The workers in my district, many of them who have served this country as Cold War warriors who have exposed themselves to dangerous conditions, are being terminated of their jobs, many with only weeks to go before they qualify for retirement. It is simply wrong. It is wrong for my constituents. It is wrong for this Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in the efforts to once again take over the ownership of this vital industry and protect our country from being so totally dependent on foreign sources for energy.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this House several times in the last week and a half regarding a matter that is of great importance to this entire Nation, and that is the uranium enrichment industry which was privatized, an industry which was privatized 2 years ago. Just recently, this privatized company made the announcement that one of the two enrichment facilities in this country would be closed, thus displacing nearly 2000 workers from jobs, and, I believe, endangering the economic and the energy security of this Nation. I come to the House floor today because I want to share with Members of this House and with the country a letter which was sent to the CEO of this privatized company by the chairman of my committee, the Committee on Commerce. This letter was sent by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). I would just like to read one paragraph from the letter, because I think it is relevant to what has happened with this industry. Mr. Bliley writes to Mr. Timbers: ``According to a Wall Street Journal editorial dated Thursday, June 28, you indicated that USEC's,'' the private company, that its ``recent decision to close the Department of Energy's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant was made in response to congressional intent in privatization language. Specifically, you state that USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant was the reason Congress privatized the company.'' Then Mr. Bliley says to Mr. Timbers: ``I can assure you that this is not the case. A single operating gaseous diffusion plant with no credible plan for a succeeding enrichment technology is not what Congress intended for the privatized company.'' Mr. Speaker, the reason this is so relevant is the fact that approximately 23 percent of all of the electric generated in our country is generated through nuclear power. Mr. Timbers, through his actions and this private company's decision to close one of our two plants, I believe, puts in grave danger this Nation's economic and energy security. In the letter to Mr. Timbers, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) asks several questions, and I would like to share one of those questions and requests for information. He says to Mr. Timbers: ``In the event of an interruption of the deliveries of material from Russia over the next 5 years, how does USEC plan to meet its committed demands for SWU?'' That is, the nuclear fuel. And then he says: ``Please answer this question separately for each of the following scenarios: What happens if there is a 3-month delay in Russian deliveries, a 6-month delay in Russian deliveries, a 1-year delay in Russian deliveries, a 2- year delay in Russian deliveries, and a delay in Russian deliveries sustained beyond a 2-year period? For each of these scenarios, please assume that the delays begin after USEC has deactivated the Portsmouth plant.'' Mr. Speaker, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be issuing a report soon, and they must verify that USEC can continue to be depended upon to provide a reliable supply of domestic fuel to meet the Nation's energy needs. It is imperative that we define domestic as the material which is produced within the United States of America, and reliable must be defined as providing for 100 percent of our Nation's need for nuclear fuel. If USEC cannot do this, then they can no longer be licensed to operate these gaseous diffusion plants, and that is all the more reason why this Congress should reconsider the privatization of this industry. Next week I will introduce legislation that will enable us to do what we need to do, and that is to assume the Government's ownership of this industry once again and, therefore, protect our country from having to depend upon foreign sources for nuclear fuel for some 23 percent of our Nation's electric needs. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to Mr. William Timbers: The letter referred to is as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, July 11, 2000. Mr. William H. Timbers, President and CEO, USEC, Inc., Bethesda, MD. Dear Mr. Timbers: As you know, the Committee is continuing its review of USEC privatization and its impact on national security and the domestic uranium industry. I am writing to you with respect to recent, troubling statements you have made on this subject, and to obtain additional documents and information related to USEC privatization. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial dated Thursday, June 28, 2000, you indicated that USEC's recent decision to close the Department of Energy's (DOE) Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth plant) was made in response to Congressional intent in privatization legislation. Specifically, you state that USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant was ``the reason Congress privatized the company.'' I can assure you that this is not the case. A single operating gaseous diffusion plant with no credible plan for a succeeding enrichment technology is not what Congress intended for the privatized company. In a recent letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson dated June 20, 2000, you also stated that USEC has ``successfully implemented the HEU agreement,'' and that ``recent Congressional hearings have confirmed [the HEU agreement] has succeeded at the expense of USEC.'' I should remind you that USEC freely negotiated and bound itself to the terms of the current 5-year implementing contract, and in 1998 made public disclosures in support of an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock, which included a complete analysis of what impact the HEU agreement could have on a privatized company. Given the USEC Board of Directors' fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders, I must believe that USEC's decisions last November to continue as Executive Agent--after threats of resignation--was supported by a thorough assessment and conclusions that the HEU agreement is important for USEC's survival. I also am perplexed by the extreme about-face you and your company have demonstrated on several issues in the months since privatization. For instance, in less than 12 months after privatization, the AVLIS technology went from USEC's low-cost solution for future uranium enrichment production, to a useless technology that will not see commercialization. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that ``global business realities'' that ``no one could have foreseen at the time of privatization'' are the cause of USEC's precipitous decline over the past 22 months, as you indicated in your letter to Secretary Richardson. I am now more convinced that USEC's flagging business performance and the threat it presents to domestic energy security is directly related to questionable representations made by USEC to its Board in support of your bid for an IPO, as well as questionable business decisions made by the company since privatization. Accordingly, in order to obtain a better understanding of these issues, I am requesting that, pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, you provide the Committee with the following documents and information by July 25, 2000: 1. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC expects to sell over the next five years. Of this amount, please identify the total amount of SWU USEC expects to sell to domestic nuclear power companies. 2. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC will efficiently produce at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah plant) per year, for over the next five years. 3. Please identify the total amount of SWU USEC currently has in inventory. 4. Please indicate when USEC expects to obtain a license amendment from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase its uranium enrichment capacity at the Paducah plant. 5. Please discuss the earliest date USEC can reasonably construct and begin to operate a new uranium enrichment plant, and at what capacity this new plant would produce SWU. 6. In the event of an interruption in HEU deliveries from Russia over the next five years, how does USEC plan to meet its committed demand for SWU? Please answer this question separately for each of the following scenarios: a three-month delay in Russian deliveries, a six-month delay in Russian deliveries, a one-year delay in Russian deliveries, a two- year delay in Russian deliveries, and a delay in Russian deliveries sustained beyond a two-year period. For each of these scenarios, please assume that the delays begin after USEC has deactivated the Portsmouth plant. 7. If the United States Government decides to terminate USEC as Executive Agent to the HEU agreement, in part or in full, please describe how this would affect USEC and whether the company could meet its committed demand for SWU. 8. Please provide all records relating to communications between USEC or its board (or any of their directors, officers, employees, agents or contractors) and any outside individual or entity, whether governmental or private, regarding the decision whether to proceed with privatization or the choice among competing privatization options. For purposes of this request, you may limit your production to those records created on or after January 1, 1997. Please refer to the attachment for definitions of the terms ``records'' and ``relating.'' Thank you for your cooperation with this request. If you have any questions, please contact me directly, or have a member of your staff contact Dwight Cotes of the Committee staff at (202) 226-2424. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a subject that is of great importance to those who are Members of this House, but also to every citizen in this country. Some 2 years ago, a decision was made to privatize the uranium enrichment industry in this country. The individual who oversaw that privatization, Mr. Nick Timbers, as a government employee was compensated around $350,000 per year. After privatization occurred, Mr. Timbers' salary went to approximately $2.48 million a year. I think it was a terrible conflict of interest to allow an individual who was in a position to enrich himself to be involved in the decisions which led this industry from being privatized. The results of privatization have been very, very grave to this country. The American citizen needs to know that approximately 23 percent of all of the electricity generated in this country is generated through nuclear power, and, as a result of decisions being made by this privatized company, we are in danger of losing the capacity to enrich uranium and to create the fuel necessary to produce 23 percent of our Nation's electricity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is charged with doing an analysis, and they must do an analysis to determine whether or not this private company can be depended upon to continue to produce a reliable domestic supply of nuclear fuel needed to meet our Nation's needs. It has come to my attention that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done their analysis and has taken that analysis to members of the commission, but they have been sent back to the drawing board, so-to- speak. In the interim period, it has also come to my attention that the management of this new privatized corporation, and I have been told that specifically Mr. Timbers himself, is trying to interfere with the conclusions of the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Put simply, this private company is now arguing that ``domestic'' does not include simply the material that is produced within the United States of America, but they are arguing that we should also include the material that is being imported from Russia as a part of the ``domestic supply.'' They are also arguing that ``reliable'' does not mean the ability to produce 100 percent of our Nation's needs, but ``reliable'' could mean 60 percent or 50 percent or 40 percent of our Nation's needs. Mr. Speaker, it is important that this Congress not allow this external influence to affect the conclusions reached by the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is important for us as a Congress and it is important for this administration to say very clearly that ``domestic'' means the material that is produced within the continental United States. We cannot depend upon Russia to meet our domestic needs. We should also make it clear that when we talk about reliable, we mean 100 percent of our Nation's needs should be met, not 60 percent nor 40 percent. These are esoteric matters, but they are important matters, because if this Congress does not take responsible action, and if this administration does not take responsible action, we could find ourselves in a relatively short period of time being dependent upon foreign sources, especially Russian sources, for the fuel that it takes to generate 23 percent of our Nation's electricity. Mr. Speaker, we know what happens when we rely too heavily upon foreign sources for oil. Gasoline prices skyrocket. But this Congress now has an opportunity to prevent a calamity, to prevent a disaster from happening. I am just beseeching my colleagues in this House to pay attention to this critical issue. Do not let this industry disintegrate. We must protect the enrichment industry in this country, we must protect the mining industry, we must protect the conversion industry in this country. If we do not, if we do not, in a few short years this country could find itself in an untenable situation where we must depend totally upon foreign sources for some 23 percent of our Nation's electricity. We cannot let that happen. Mr. Speaker, I beg my colleagues, I beg my colleagues, to pay attention to this vital issue.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we all know what happens when we are too reliant on foreign sources for oil; and, as a result, in my district in southern Ohio and across this country, consumers are paying outrageous prices for a gallon of gasoline. But there is another energy crisis looming that many of us seem not to be aware of. I think it is important for Members of this House and for citizens of this country to be aware of the fact that 23 percent of our Nation's electricity is generated by the use of nuclear power plants, and almost all of that fuel comes from a domestic source. Unfortunately, in July of 1998, the United States Enrichment Corporation, which is the public corporation that was responsible for operating the two existing uranium enrichment facilities in this country, that corporation was privatized. Since privatization, disasters have occurred. The mining industry is on the verge of collapse. The conversion industry, there is only one conversion plant in this country, and that is in Metropolis, Illinois. It is on the verge of collapse. And just 2 weeks ago the United States Enrichment Corporation, the privatized corporation, announced that they were closing one of our two enrichment facilities, the one in my district in Piketon, Ohio; and within a year some 1,800 to 2,000 workers will lose their jobs. How did this disaster happen? Why are we on the verge of having to depend upon foreign sources for perhaps 20 percent of our Nation's electricity? I have in my hand a waiver letter that was written by the chairman of the Public Board, Mr. William Rainer; and in this letter he is addressing the CEO of the Public Board, who is now the CEO of the private corporation. Mr. Rainer says to Mr. Timbers in this letter: ``As employees of a wholly owned government corporation, you may not participate personally or substantially in any particular matter that would have a direct and predictable effect on your financial interests or those of others, such as spouse.'' However, Mr. Rainer granted Mr. Timbers this waiver, giving him permission to advise the board on whether or not USEC should be privatized, how it should be privatized, and the selection of the individuals to serve on the new privatized board. What is the result? Mr. Timbers went from making $350,000 as a government employee and after the company was privatized, Mr. Timbers made $2.48 million. Mr. Speaker, if that is not substantive, I do not know what is. This is a sham and a farce, and this administration and this Congress have an obligation to look into these matters. If someone who worked for the government made $350,000, and then was given the privilege of making decisions which had the benefit of enabling him to enrich himself and then a year-and-a-half later ends up with a salary of $2.48 million, then there is no sense in us having any prohibition on these kinds of government employees being involved in matters that could enrich themselves. Mr. Speaker, I am asking this House, I am asking this administration to come to their senses and to understand that we are facing a looming crisis in this country. If this rogue corporation continues without any prohibition, we find ourselves perhaps facing the demise of the enrichment industry in this country and becoming completely dependent on foreign sources for the essential fuel that is necessary to power our nuclear plants which provide some 23 percent of all of the electricity in this country. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. I am appreciative of the time I have had to share this with my colleagues and with the country. I will include for the Record at this time the letter I referred to earlier in my remarks.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1950s, this Nation constructed two large uranium enrichment facilities, one in Paducah, Kentucky, and one in my district near Portsmouth, Ohio. In the early days, those facilities were used to create the materials that enabled us to create a nuclear arsenal; and I believe, as a result, we were able to win the Cold War. In more recent years, those facilities have enriched uranium so that we can create fuel for our nuclear power plants. Nuclear power provides more than 20 percent of all of the electricity generated in this country, and most of that fuel comes from the Paducah and the Portsmouth facilities. A couple of years ago, this Congress unwisely, I believe, decided to privatize the enrichment industry. The CEO of the public corporation was a gentleman by the name of Nick Timbers. He had come to that position from Wall Street; and in that position, his salary was in the vicinity of $325,000 and, I believe his last year as a government employee he received about $25,000 roughly in bonus pay, for a total compensation package of roughly $350,000. While a government corporation employee, he received a waiver letter from the chairman of the public board, which allowed him to be engaged in certain decision-making activities. Among those was to decide whether or not this industry would be privatized, the manner in which it would be privatized, and to assist in the selection of the board members for the new privatized corporation. I raised the issue at the time with the Department of the Treasury and with the administration that this presented an amazing conflict of interest. This was a man who was working for the government who was being given the privilege of engaging in decision-making where the result could be his personal enrichment. At the time when I raised those issues, they were discounted and ignored. What has happened is this, and the American people need to know it. Once that facility or that industry was privatized, Mr. Nick Timbers received a salary of roughly $600,000 a year. He received a bonus of approximately $500,000 a year. He received stock options which brought his total compensation package to something in the vicinity of $2.5 million. That seems so wrong to me, that someone could be given the privilege of making these decisions, and then could make decisions which resulted in his personal enrichment. What has happened as a result of the privatization under Mr. Nick Timbers' stewardship? The stock initially sold for around $14.50 a share, and it is somewhere in the vicinity of $4 a share today, so investors have lost multiple millions of dollars. But the saddest outcome of Mr. Timbers' stewardship over this industry is the fact that last week the board, with his encouragement, made an announcement that the facility in my district, employing somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000 employees, will be closed within 1 year. This is a major problem for the families who depend upon that industry for employment in southern Ohio, but it is a big problem for the United States of America. We know what happens, we experience today what happens when this Nation is overly dependent upon foreign sources for oil. We can go to the pump and see that we are paying $2 or $2.10 or $2.20 for a gallon of gasoline, and that is because, in large part, we are too dependent on foreign oil. Can Members imagine if this enrichment industry goes the way it is currently going and does not survive under Mr. Timbers' stewardship, what this country would face if 20 percent of our Nation's electricity was dependent on foreign sources for nuclear fuel? It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am preparing and will introduce next week legislation to renationalize this industry. I hope this Congress supports me in that effort.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a sad and tragic headline from the Columbus Dispatch of yesterday. It is a headline that reads, ``Piketon Plant to Close,'' and the subheading says, ``2000 workers will lose jobs because of the shutdown.'' Then they say, ``Less than 2 years ago, the United States Enrichment Corporation vowed to keep the Piketon plant and a sister facility in Paducah, Kentucky open until the year 2005.'' This is the plant that employs 2000 southern Ohio men and women. This industry was privatized less than 2 years ago, and at the time of the privatization, they accepted an obligation, an obligation to operate both the Paducah and the Piketon sites through the year 2004. The day before yesterday, flying in the face of a recommendation from the Department of Treasury and from a strongly worded request from Secretary Richardson, the CEO of this company and the board of directors voted to close this facility. Mr. Nick Timbers, a person that I appropriately refer to as ``Slick Nick'' Timbers, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying, ``It had to be done. It is the reason Congress privatized the company.'' For Mr. Timbers to utter such a statement is sheer hypocrisy. It shows that this man cannot be trusted or believed. He, as the CEO of this company, accepted an obligation, an obligation entered into through a legal agreement with the Department of Treasury, and he has broken that agreement. In response to my criticism and the criticism of Senator Voinovich and Senator DeWine from Ohio and others, Mr. Timbers was quoted in an AP story yesterday as saying, ``Politicians should stop all this old, tiring finger pointing.'' This is a man who negotiated through his own maneuverings a $3.6 million golden parachute. If he is relieved of his job, he walks away with $3.6 million and yet, he is willing to lay off thousands of hard- working Americans without giving them due consideration. Mr. Speaker, privatization of our enrichment industry was an unwise decision. That is why next week I plan to introduce legislation to have the Government renationalize this vital industry. It provides 23 percent of the electricity output in this Nation, and this privatized company is destroying not only the enrichment industry, but the mining industry and the conversion industry as well. Mr. Speaker, if we are not careful, if we as a Congress do not take appropriate and immediate action, it is possible that 3 or 4 or 5 years from now, this country could find itself totally dependent on foreign sources for 23 percent of our Nation's electricity. We know what dependency on foreign sources for oil does to prices. We know what gasoline is selling for today. Can we imagine how we could be brought to our knees if we were totally dependent on Russia or other countries to provide us with the vital fuel that it takes to operate our nuclear power plants. I do not know where the Vice President is today, but I hope he is watching C-SPAN. I do not know what the Secretary of the Treasury is doing today, but I hope he is watching C-SPAN. These individuals and others have an obligation to protect this Nation and to keep their word to these communities. I fought privatization and I lost that battle, and as a result, we find ourselves in these dreadful circumstances. But it is imperative that the Congress pay attention to this matter. We cannot let this situation continue as it is. People who are a lot smarter and better well-informed than I am say that we ought to repurchase this industry and, thereby, protect the energy security and the future of this Nation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, but I think it is important that I share with my colleagues the headline from the Columbus Dispatch today, which says ``Piketon Plant to Close: 2,000 Workers Will Lose Jobs Because of Shutdown.'' And then it says, ``Less than 2 years ago, the United States Enrichment Corporation, which was privatized 2 years ago, vowed to keep the Piketon Plant and a sister facility in Paducah, Kentucky, open until at least 2005. It is late, but I hope the Vice President is awake and listening tonight. I hope the Secretary of the Treasury is awake and listening tonight. Because it was on their watch that this decision has been made and my workers and my community have been let down. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation to protect this industry, which provides 23 percent of the electricity generated within this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, a very sad and tragic thing happened today, and I think the American people need to know about it. But before I explain that in detail, I would like to give a little history regarding this occurrence. From the mid-1950s, there have been two facilities in this country that have produced enriched uranium, first of all for our nuclear arsenal and, more recently, for fuel for our nuclear power plants. Approximately 23 percent of our Nation's electricity is generated through nuclear power, and most of the fuel that generates that electricity is produced in these two domestic plants. A couple of years ago, this Congress and the administration unwisely decided to privatize this vital industry. At the time of privatization, the private company was obligated to continue to operate these two facilities through the year 2004. Today, this privatized company and their irresponsible and parasitic leadership and their board of directors decided to close one of those two facilities. I would like to share with my colleagues why that is so unwise and so unacceptable. We know what happens to our country when we are overly dependent upon foreign sources for energy. We see that in the high gas prices that we are all experiencing today. What will it be when 23 percent of the electricity in this country is dependent upon foreign sources? To their credit, the Department of Energy sent an emergency letter to the director of the United States Enrichment Corporation and the members of the board of directors today explicitly asking them not to take this action. I would read from the letter from Under Secretary Gary Gensler. He said, ``I am writing to urge you and the other members of the board not to vote to initiate a plant closing at today's board meeting.'' In addition to this letter, Secretary Richardson sent a very strongly worded letter to this CEO and to the members of the board asking that they not proceed. Unbelievably, unbelievably, this industry, which was privatized less than 2 years ago, and has very definite public policy purposes and obligations, decided to thumb their nose at the Department of Treasury and the Department of Energy, the governor of Ohio, multiple Members of this House, and Ohio's two Senators and they proceeded to vote to close this vital facility. USEC's announcement that it will seek to close this facility is unwise, unwarranted and unacceptable; and I serve notice that I will fight this plant closure with every fiber of my being. The thousands of working families in my part of Ohio who depend on this industry for their livelihood deserve better from this government and from this corporation. For generations these brave men and women have sacrificed for our national security, and now they are being abandoned by a USEC management that is driven more by short-term profit and self- preservation than by common sense. USEC appears to be dead set on decimating America's ability to produce the fuel that supplies 23 percent of our Nation's electricity. There is a clear solution to this problem, however. I will introduce legislation in this Congress to direct the Federal Government to buy back USEC and to continue operating both the Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, plants. I am also calling for an Inspector General investigation into this decision and into USEC's privatization. It is becoming more and more apparent that national security, energy security, and thousands of hardworking southern Ohioans are suffering as a result of the decisions of this corporation. I cannot overstate my anger at this decision or my ironclad commitment to protect our workers and to make sure that all responsible parties are held accountable. Earlier today, after USEC made this announcement, Secretary Richardson responded, and I read from his response. He says, ``I am extremely disappointed by the United States Enrichment Corporation's decision to close the uranium enrichment plant in Portsmouth, Ohio. First and foremost, I am very concerned about the effect of this closure on the workers. They deserve better treatment than they are getting from USEC.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. I call it to attention of this House, and I am submitting for the Record additional documents relating to this topic. [News Release from Congressman Ted Strickland, June 21, 2000] Strickland Statement on Uranium Plant Closure Washington, D.C.--USEC's announcement that it will seek to close the Portsmouth Uranium Enrichment Plant is unwise, unwarranted and unacceptable. I will fight this plant closure with every fiber of my being. The thousands of working families in our part of Ohio who depend on this industry for their livelihood deserve much better. For generations these brave, hard-working men and women have sacrificed for our national security. Now they are being abandoned by a USEC management that is driven more by short term profit and self- preservation than by common sense. USEC appears to be dead set on decimating America's ability to produce the fuel that supplies 23 percent of our nation's electricity. There is a clear solution to this problem: I will introduce legislation in Congress to direct the Federal Government to buy back USEC and continue operating both the Portsmouth and Paducah plants. I will also call for an Inspector General investigation into this decision and USEC's privatization. It is becoming more and more apparent that this is simply a case of insider enrichment for USEC's management--enrichment at the expense of national security, energy security and thousands of hard-working southern Ohioans. I cannot overstate my anger at this decision or my ironclad commitment to protect our workers and make sure that all responsible are held accountable.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think that those of us who serve in this Chamber need a reality check. I serve a county where the unemployment rate is 17.1 percent. I serve multiple counties that have double digit unemployment. That is why I rise today in strong support of the Jackson amendment to restore funding for programs that help jobless Americans. I guess some people think that things are so good that we do not have any dislocated workers to worry about. I would invite the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to come to my district in southern Ohio and see the conditions there, come and talk with one of the 800 coal miners who are about to lose their jobs in a region that suffers 10.5 percent unemployment, miners who are awaiting word today on a job-training grant they view as their best hope for future employment. I would like for them to come and talk to one of the 550 union workers from the Goodyear plant who lost their jobs last summer and are now back in school thanks to a Federal dislocated workers grant. Without further education, how can they ever expect to land a job in a county with an unemployment rate over 11 percent? I would like for my colleagues here to come to southern Ohio and talk to some of the 619 union workers from Ironton Iron who lost their jobs in March and who just recently received word that there would be trade adjustment assistance for them. This community of just over 12,000 people has lost over 1,200 jobs in the last year and a half. Ten percent of the entire population is jobless. Tell them they do not deserve a second chance. I would like for my colleagues to come to southern Ohio and visit the Piketon uranium enrichment facility and talk to the enrichment workers who will lose their jobs next month because this Government chose to privatize their industry. Go tell them they are not a priority. Mr. Speaker, this Nation may be doing well; but there are people, and many of them are in my district, who are being left behind. This Congress should not be funding tax cuts for the wealthy and at the same time cutting funds for training jobless workers. It is unconscionable. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. My people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, these are salt of the earth people, people who want to work, who want to enjoy the American life as we enjoy it here in this Chamber. Yet they are being deprived oftentimes of getting the skills they need to enable them to go out and to compete. These are folks who have worked at steel foundries, they have worked at heavy manufacturing jobs. Those jobs are disappearing from my district. They need to go back; they need to learn how to become computer literate. They need new technological skills. Without them, they are destined to be jobless. We just simply cannot forget those people. I applaud the fact that we have a booming economy. I applaud the fact that in Redmond, Washington, I have heard some of the average salaries are at six figures. But I have got people who are struggling to survive. This Congress cannot forget those Americans. If we do, we are being negligent and we are failing. We are failing not only our individual constituents, but we are failing this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to make an economic decision, but we are also making a moral decision. I believe that being an American means something. The thousands of men and women who have sacrificed their lives for this country did so out of reverence for its values, individual liberty, personal dignity, self-determination. When we encourage unrestricted trade with a nation like China, which disregards these values, we dishonor America's heroes. China uses child labor, slave labor, and allows abhorrent working conditions to flourish. It persecutes Christians, Buddhists and other religious people, threatening them with fines, imprisonment and even death. I believe our national honor depends on us standing with the persecuted in China, our own workers and against this trade deal for multinational corporations. Mr. Speaker, granting China permanent normal trade relations is a mistake for our workers, our businesses and our democratic values.