Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I would like to say a couple of personal words. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good and dear friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), for the work we have been able to do together. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). This is the right thing to do. This is one of the joys that I have experienced in this House, working together on this particular issue. I just have a heart full of thanks for these Members.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this sense of the Congress resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. This past Monday, Senator DeWine held a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, on the need for a Federal compensation program for our Cold War veterans who were exposed to radiation, beryllium, and other heavy metals and toxic substances while working for the Department of Energy and its contractors. At that hearing, we were told of Governor Taft's support ``for a federal program to compensate the workers at Federal nuclear sites.'' The state of Ohio made it clear that it would not see a federal workers' compensation program for DOE employees as an incursion on States' rights. It was pointed out that many individuals worked at numerous sites under multiple employers across the complex. This creates jurisdictional questions and calls for separate State workers' compensation systems to pay the injured workers. In other words, the unique circumstances faced by these DOE workers warrant Federal intervention. We also heard that altered, falsified or missing medical records deny us adequate scientific evidence on which to base a compensation program. At some sites, correction factors were invented and some workers were given a negative radiation dose. Mr. Chairman, a negative radiation dose does not exist in nature. At last year's hearing of the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we learned that contractors made conscious decisions not to test certain workers. We must not establish a program that makes it impossible for workers to receive compensation. We must not deny workers' compensation simply because we lack certain medical documentation or because records were destroyed. If there is any doubt, the benefit of the doubt must go to the workers who were put in harm's way. We must pass and fund comprehensive workers' compensation legislation this year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that no Member has risen in opposition to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would establish an Office of Correctional Health within the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States is second only to Russia among industrialized nations in incarceration rates with nearly 2 million people in jail or prison. The fuel that feeds this prison population explosion is comprised of several components. Mandatory minimum and ``three-strikes'' sentencing laws have resulted in longer sentences and more frequent incarcerations. A look at the changing demographics in American prisons and jails sheds light on the challenges correction facilities face at the beginning of the 21st century. According to DOJ, 57 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners surveyed in 1997 said they had used drugs in the month before their offense. A whopping 83 percent of state prisoners and 73 percent of federal prisoners had used drugs at some time in the past. It is estimated that about three-quarters of all inmates can be characterized as being involving in alcohol or drug abuse in the time leading to their arrest. In the first comprehensive report on mental illness in correctional facilities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that seven percent of federal inmates and 16 percent of those in state prisons or local jails or on probation said they either had a mental condition or had stayed over night in a mental hospital unit or treatment program. The highest rate of mental illness was among white females in state prisons at 29 percent. For white females age 24 or younger this level rose to almost 40 percent. When compared to other inmates, mentally ill inmates and probationers reported higher rates of prior physical and sexual abuse. According to BJS, nearly 6 in 10 mentally ill offenders reported they were under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time of their current offense. Many people do not know that the Los Angeles City jail is now the largest mental institution in the United States, holding 3,300 seriously mentally ill inmates on any given night. The increased incarceration rate of women also presents new health care challenges to correctional facilities. According to BJS, in 1998 an estimated 950,000 women were under custody, care or control of correctional agencies. Nearly 6 in 10 women in state prisons had experienced physical or sexual abuse in the past. This statistic, coupled with the reality that 7 in 10 women under correctional sanction have minor children, points to the acute need for counseling services. Women inmates utilize health care services at higher rates than men. Because of their need for reproductive health care, including sexually transmitted diseases, and the possibility of pregnancy either upon entry into the correction system or during, women's special health care needs must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. The health care needs of inmates have expanded as the incarcerated population has aged. As inmates grow old in prison they succumb to the same ailments which afflict the elderly in the outside world--diabetes, heart disease and stroke. These geriatric health care needs represent another challenge to correctional agencies in providing adequate care. In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention formed an ad hoc working group, the Cross Centers Correctional Work Group made up of health professionals from across CDC. The purpose of the group is to focus attention on the complex health needs of incarcerated men, women, and youth in the United States. I commend the work of this group and the fine efforts of CDC in addressing the very complex health issues associated with correctional facilities. According to CDC, in 1994 AIDS diagnoses were almost six times more prevalent among the incarcerated population than among the general U.S. population. Further, inmates coming into correctional facilities are increasingly at risk for HIV infection through risk behaviors such as needle sharing and unprotected sex. Also, tuberculosis (TB) is another important public health issue in prisons and jails according to CDC. TB infection rates are substantially higher among inmates because conditions associated with TB (poverty, drug use, HIV infection, etc.) are more common in the incarcerated population than the general U.S. population. Rates of infectious disease are known to be higher among inmates than in the general population and because most inmates are released after they've served their time, without treatment, these infected inmates threaten the public health of the community upon release. All of these alarming statistics contribute to the need for the establishment of an Office of Correctional Health with HHS. Such an office would coordinate all correctional health programs within HHS; provide technical support to State and local correctional agencies on correctional health; cooperate with other Federal agencies carrying out correctional health programs to ensure coordination; provide outreach to State directors of correctional health and providers; and facilitate the exchange of information regarding correctional health activities. Mr. Speaker, with a growing diverse and medically complex population in America's prisons and jails, we must ensure that inmates are provided the health care they need, that staff members operate in a safe working environment, and as a result, public safety is enhanced.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 100 days since this House passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, 100 days. Nothing has happened. I have here in my hand a little booklet ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' We give this booklet to schoolchildren so they will understand. I suggest the leadership of this House read this book. It is rather simple. The House passes a bill. The Senate passes a bill. And then conferees are appointed, and they come together and come up with a consensus that is then sent to the President for his signature. We have done step one. We have done step two. It is time for step three. I urge the leadership of this House to read this pamphlet and to get on with the business of the people of this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, we should all feel some trepidation at what has just been spoken in this Chamber. As a former United Methodist minister, I know and I believe that there is an appropriate role that religious organizations play in social services. In fact, they are already doing wonderful things with Federal funding through such secular affiliations as Catholic Charities and Jewish Federations. We are grateful to them for providing desperately needed services. But when we cross the line and let specific churches receive Federal grants and then engage in discriminatory practices, we are setting back the clock of civil rights in our country. This bill would allow churches and synagogues to receive Federal money directly which would in turn allow them to use those Federal funds to discriminate in hiring practices. Do we want to open that door? Do we really want to see a sign in front of a church getting Federal funds that says, ``Jews need not apply''? Do we want to see a sign in front of a protestant church saying ``Catholics will not be considered for this position''? I think not. I hope not. I pray not.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is of great importance to our Nation and I believe to our Nation's national security. A few months ago we chose unwisely, I believe, to privatize the uranium enrichment industry, taking this from a government-owned and operated industry and turning it over to the private sector. Now, the Government supposedly received about $1.9 billion from the sale of this industry, but immediately after privatization, or shortly after privatization, we forced the taxpayers to spend $325 million to keep a deal with the Russians, enabling us to bring materiel from their dismantled warheads into our country. This private industry is now asking for an additional $200 million bailout from this Congress and from the taxpayer. Jonathan Riskind, who writes for the Columbus Dispatch, has recently authored an article on this privatization arrangement and the request for $200 million, and I would like to share some of the comments that were contained in Mr. Riskind's Columbus Dispatch article. He begins by saying the Federal corporation that was created to cut the costs of running Southern Ohio's uranium enrichment plant wants a $200 million bailout from the taxpayer. Critics, ranging from lawmakers to arms control experts, say the request is further evidence, further evidence, that officials made a bad decision in privatizing the United States Enrichment Corporation. At its plants in Piketon, Ohio, and in Paducah, Kentucky, USEC converts low-grade Russian uranium into enriched uranium to be used for fuel for nuclear power plants as part of the Swords-Into-Plowshares deal entered into with Russia in 1993. Mr. Riskind further says that this bailout request might intensify the push for congressional hearings about the Clinton administration's decision to push forward with privatization of the Nation's uranium enrichment operations. A privatization investigation launched by the House Committee on Commerce was first disclosed in August by the Columbus Dispatch. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a case where a company has been privatized and over the course of the last year, they have given dividends to their private investors of about $100 million, dividends which exceeded the profits of that company. They also are paying exceedingly high salaries to their executive staff, in some cases including stock options worth well over $2 million. They also have spent this last year about $100 million to purchase back their own stock in order to prop up the value of their own stock, and yet they are now coming to the taxpayers of this country saying we need a $200 million bailout or else we may have to withdraw as the executive agent of the Russian HEU deal. This, in my judgment, is a rip-off of the taxpayer, and I plead with the Members of this body not to let this happen. If this private company wants a $200 million bailout from the taxpayer, there ought to be some strings attached. They ought to open up their books. We ought to know exactly why they are paying such exceedingly high dividends, dividends which exceed the profits of the company, why they are paying such high executive salaries, why they spent $100 million to purchase back their own stock, and then they are crying that without a government bailout they may have to withdraw as the executive agent of this exceedingly important national security issue. I plead with my colleagues to investigate this issue. I know it is esoteric, I know it is complex, I know it is not easily understood; but it is a matter that is of critical importance to the national security of this Nation, and communities may face economic decimation if we allow this corporation to continue to look after itself and its employees and its shareholders, and to ignore what is right and best for this country and for our local domestic workers and for the local communities who have borne the burden of winning the Cold War for this country over the years.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to my colleague, I was thinking what the American people must wonder about us as they sit at home and they watch us argue this matter and supposedly well- meaning and intellectually honest individuals differing so sharply on what the real situation is. That is the benefit of having the Congressional Budget Office, because the Congressional Budget Office is not beholden to either political party, it is not beholden to any particular position. It was established to give us accurate and valid information. The American people, I believe, need to know that the leadership in this House has corrupted the Congressional Budget Office. It is a sad day, I think, for us. Because if we cannot have some clear standard that we can all look to and that the American people can look to, then the American people are left out there to wonder who can they believe, which ones of us can they trust. I think it is important for us to get this word out that the Congressional Budget Office, which is supposed to serve all of us who represent constituents across this country, was established to give us accurate, valid information and then we can take that information and use it to make decisions. But if that information is corrupted by directions from the leadership of this House, then where do we go for valid information? And we are left to flounder and then we end up, as I think we are experiencing during this end game with the budget process, with simply trading accusations back and forth. It is not our side that has corrupted the Congressional Budget Office. It is the leadership. It is the Republican leadership in this House. And the American people, I believe, need to hold them responsible. What they have done, I think, transcends this current crisis that we are experiencing up here, but it has the potential for a long time in the future to prevent us from making the kinds of wise and thoughtful decisions that the CBO enables us to make if they can do their job without unnecessary and unwarranted interference.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I have introduced today a sense-of- Congress resolution. This sense-of-Congress resolution simply says that if we are going to engage in an across-the-board cut in all the Federal agencies, then Members of Congress should accept a similar cut in their salaries. I would like to share the contents of my resolution: ``Whereas, Congress may pass an across-the-board funding reduction for Federal agencies to bring closure to the debate on Fiscal Year 2000 funding levels; Whereas, lawmakers voted themselves a 3.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment this year; Whereas, salaries of Members of Congress would not be affected by an across-the-board reduction; Whereas, the rest of the Government's payroll would be affected by the proposed reduction, which would likely result in layoffs and temporary furloughs; Whereas, it is estimated that the reductions could force layoffs of 39,000 military personnel; and Whereas, programs at the Department of Education, Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services, programs such as Meals on Wheels, the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, and the Safe and Drug Free Schools program would be reduced. Now, therefore, be it resolved that any across-the-board funding reduction for agencies in Fiscal Year 2000 should also include the same reduction for salaries of Members of Congress.'' Why have I introduced this resolution? It is because a 1.4 percent reduction, as is being discussed, would lead to approximately 103,000 fewer women, infants, and children from benefiting from the food assistance and nutrition programs offered under the WIC program. Title I, which provides educational benefits for disadvantaged students, would be cut by $109 million. Head Start would be cut so that some 6,700 fewer children would be able to benefit from Head Start programs. The Centers for Disease Control would be cut by approximately $6.7 million. And a reduction of $35.7 million would take place in the area of substance abuse and mental health services, thereby denying over 5,000 American citizens access to mental health treatment and drug abuse services. Vital programs for our farming community would be cut by $124 million. A 1.4 percent reduction would result in $3.9 billion being cuts from defense. This cut would require that military services make cuts in recruiting and engage in force separations of up to 39,000 military personnel. Madam Speaker, I think blanket cuts are unwise and unnecessary. But if the leadership of this House is intent on forcing such cuts indiscriminately on good programs as well as bad, then they ought to be willing to bear some of the burden themselves and take a pay cut. It is unseemly for this Congress to ask the American people to tighten their belts while not doing the same itself. With this sense-of Congress-resolution, I am simply asking that Members of Congress be consistent. If they really think it is wise to make blind cuts, then they should not be exempting their own salaries. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the leadership up here treating themselves as special people while imposing hardships on ordinary Americans. As we say in southern Ohio, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the issue before the House today is a complex one, but the answer is fairly simple. We are being given a forced choice today. We can either choose to put medical care back into the hands of physicians and patients, or we can allow those medical decisions to remain in the hands of insurance bureaucrats. All across America today, citizens are being harmed and I believe are losing their lives because we have allowed the insurance companies and the HMOs to make medical decisions. This is a matter of value. It is a matter of ethics. It is a matter of priorities. Who are we going to put first? Patients? And are we going to honor the sacred relationship between the physician and the patient, or are we going to continue to allow the HMOs and the insurance companies to put profits above patient welfare? It is a simple choice. The American people are watching, and every one of us ought to be held accountable for what we do in this chamber today.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am angry today. I am angry because the constituents that I represent from southern Ohio are being denied their rightful medical care under today's system. I am angry because the health care insurance lobbyists are lining our walkways as we walk to this chamber. I am angry because hundreds of thousands of dollars have been poured into influencing the decisions of Members in this chamber in the last few days and weeks. I am angry because I believe Americans, moms and dads and children, are being injured and are losing their lives today because we have not had the courage to stand up and do the right thing for the American people. I hope the American people are watching us today. I hope they take note of our votes today, because we have a forced choice. We can either support patients or we can support insurance companies. It is as simple as that. This substitute is a nonhelpful bill. We need to support the Norwood-Dingell bill and give the American citizens true protections in their health care coverage.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I believe that crime ought not to pay and the public agrees with me that crime should not pay and that is why a recent national survey has concluded that a vast majority of the American people oppose the privatization of America's jails and prisons. In fact, 51 percent oppose and 34 percent strongly oppose the privatization of these institutions. Voters believe that government-run prisons are more accountable to the public, do a better job of preventing escape and do a better job of protecting public safety. Further, voters also think that prisons run by private companies are more likely to be understaffed, to have poorly trained staff, and to be less accountable by cutting corners. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the public safety act, which is an act which would prevent the further privatization of our Federal institutions and would discourage our States from privatizing their jails and prisons.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that sometimes in this Chamber we stand and say things that we ought not to say. We criticize people that we have no right to criticize. We recently voted to condemn a scientific study and an organization, an organization that has done as much as any organization in this country to fight child abuse. I wonder how many of us read the study before we were willing to vote to say that the methodology was flawed. I wonder how many of us were technically competent to make that decision. I believe that we ought to observe the Ten Commandments. One of those Commandments says, you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbor. When we say things about an organization or about an individual scientist that are untrue or unsubstantiated, in my judgment, we have violated that Commandment. We ought to have the decency not to vote to condemn something until we know what it is we are voting to condemn.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the importance of the Department of Energy's Worker and Community Transition Program. I am greatly concerned and disappointed with the report language regarding this program. This year's energy and water report states that, ``Funding at DOE cleanup sites in the nuclear weapons complex has stabilized. The need for enhanced severance payments to contract employees and grants to local communities has declined. Worker and community transition is not an enduring mission of the government. The committee does not intend to continue to fund this program, and the Department should prepare for significantly decreased or no funding in fiscal year 2001.'' Mr. Chairman, I represent one of two uranium enrichment facilities which is located in Piketon, Ohio. The other plant is located in Paducah, Kentucky; and I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), my friend and colleague, has been very supportive of this program. Our plants were privatized last summer and since privatization, both sites have experienced significant layoffs. Our communities are bracing for more layoffs this summer with future workforce reductions imminent. Now is not the time to eliminate funding for the Worker and Community Transition Program, because we would effectively leave numerous Cold War veterans without the assistance others have received over the years. I urge the committee to revisit this issue.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the previous speaker would not be suggesting that teachers should assign prayers to our schoolchildren in public schools. Talk is cheap, and often in this Chamber rhetoric is empty. Last week this body voted to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments from the Hebrew Scriptures in our public schools. I think there are additional teachings from the New Testament that are also important and just as relevant to our daily lives. As an example, I would like to share a passage from the book of St. James, Chapter 2, verses 14 through 17. It reads ``What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or a sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, and keep warm, and eat your fill,' and yet you do not supply their bodily need, what is the good of that?'' So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. The resolution before us focuses on faith, but it is lacking in its call for good works. I agree with President John Kennedy, who said in his inaugural address, ``In this world, God's work must truly be our own.'' I would feel more positive about this resolution if, along with its call to prayer and fasting, we also committed ourselves to effective legislative action, action to provide health care for all of America's children, action to guarantee access to affordable prescription drugs for our senior citizens, and meaningful action to stamp out discrimination and intolerance in our society. But we do not call for those things in this resolution. For that reason, if there is a recorded vote, I will vote present on this measure, because I agree with St. James when he said that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in a colloquy. First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the hard work they put into this legislation, which authorizes the important programs ensuring safe and efficient air travel. I would like to take this opportunity to express to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) my strong support for the extension of the runway at the Ohio University Airport in Athens, Ohio, from 4,200 feet to 5,600 feet. It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration has already approved the airport layout design and the environmental assessment on the project will be completed at the end of this summer. I hope that this worthy project will be a priority for the FAA in the fiscal year 2000.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, let me also say that I appreciate the understanding of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the needs of an area like rural southern Ohio.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 1999, due to a prior personal commitment, I was unable to cast my vote on H. Con. Res. 42. Had this scheduling conflict not prevented me from being in the House on the evening of March 11, I would have voted the following: ``Yea''-- H. Con. Res. 42 [Roll No. 49]--on agreeing to the resolution-- peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. ``Nay''--H. Con. Res. 42 [Roll No. 48]--on agreeing to the amendment--Fowler of Florida to Gejdenson of Connecticut

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 707. This legislation streamlines the process used by individuals and families in applying for disaster assistance through FEMA. H.R. 707 consolidates two existing programs, the Temporary Housing Assistance Program and the Individual and Family Grant Program into one. This change will help speed relief to families who are hit hard by a disaster. Under current law, a family faced with damage due to flooding or another natural disaster must first apply for temporary housing assistance, a fully Federal program, and for a small business loan. If they do not qualify for either of these programs, they are then often referred to the State-run Individual and Family Grant Program for help. The Individual and Family Grant Program generally assists low-income families. Because of this two-part approach, families who are least capable of shouldering the burden of a disaster often wait the longest for relief. Consolidation of the Temporary Housing Assistance and Individual and Family Grant Programs will relieve this pressure and speed relief to those who need it most. I am particularly pleased that this legislation also permits homeowners to obtain grant funds to replace homes that are damaged in a disaster. Under current law, homeowners who sustain minimal damage to their homes receive grants of up to $10,000 to restore their home to pre-disaster conditions. However, homeowners who sustain substantial damage, or whose homes are destroyed, are not eligible for the $10,000 grant. Tragically, the disaster victims who have been shut out of this grant program are owners of mobile homes and other less expensive residences, the very people who need the grant the most. For example, consider this story about a young couple in southern Ohio. Their combined income was less than $30,000 when their mobile home was destroyed by a flood in March of 1997. Two days after the flood hit, a baby was born into their family. They had no home and were unable to recover the $10,000 grant that their neighbors, whose homes were not destroyed, received. This couple was forced to move in with parents in a room, one room in a small home, and they were forced to take out a loan to purchase a new mobile home. Ironically, if they had owned a more expensive home, they well could have received $10,000 in grant funds and been able to return to their homes quickly. Last Congress, I introduced H.R. 2257, the Disaster Assistance Fairness Act, to correct this inequity. I am pleased that the goals of that bill have been met by H.R. 707 today. The citizens of southern Ohio, which I represent, have had extensive dealings with FEMA-run disaster programs over the last several years. In most instances, FEMA employees have performed above and beyond the call of duty. However, current law has hampered their ability to respond quickly to some of the most difficult disaster cases. The changes envisioned in H.R. 707 should help restore fairness to the process, and I thank those who are responsible for this worthy bill.