Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, at a time of pending war, the President has submitted a program to this House referred to as the stimulus package that will direct about $300 billion to the richest 5 percent of America's citizens, and I would like to place that against further decisions made by this administration which affect America's veterans. At a time of possible war, at a time when we talk about our admiration for our military and at a time when we verbalize our appreciation for those who have served our country in military service, we are treating our veterans in the most shabby manner. A case in point, last February the Veterans Administration increased the copayment that veterans must pay for prescription medications by a whopping 350 percent. Now at a time when we find money to give billions to the richest among us, we are nickel and diming America's veterans. Perhaps the most egregious example of how we are shortchanging our veterans is found in a memo that was written on July 19, 2002, a memo that was sent out by the Deputy Under-Secretary for Operations and Management of the Veterans Administration. I would like to read a few comments from that memo. It was sent to all of the health care providers across the country. It says, ``As you are aware, the Veterans Health Administration is currently facing a growing crisis related to the continuing demand for health care services that exceeds our resources. Moreover, actuarial projections indicate a widening gap in the demand versus resource availability.'' And then the shameful conclusion of this memo, ``Therefore, I am directing each network director to ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks.'' Let me read that sentence again. ``I am directing each network director to ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks.'' Even though some sites may have local capacity as a national system, all facilities are expected to abide by this policy. Marketing activities may include generalized mailings to veterans, prohibited. Local newspaper or newspaper articles encouraging veterans to enroll, prohibited, or similar public service announcements. In other words, the policy of the VA is to withhold information from veterans regarding the services that they are legally entitled to. Now, I call this the new ``if they do not ask, we will not tell'' policy. If the veterans do not ask what services they are entitled to under the law, the VA policy is that we will not tell them. And, furthermore, we will prohibit our health care providers from reaching out to sick or disabled veterans and telling them what this body has provided under the law for them. This is shameful. I ask how the American people can tolerate and why the administration would institute such a policy that says to America's veterans that they may be entitled to certain services legally, health services, but we are prohibiting. Think of that, we are prohibiting our network providers from giving veterans information that they deserve, that they need to know in order to get the services that they are legally entitled to receive. This is shameful. I call upon the administration and I call upon those of us who are Members of this body to hold this administration accountable for this shameful act. I wonder how many veterans who have served this country and paid with their health and their bodies understand what this administration is doing to them.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, the companion to a bill introduced in the Senate last week by Senators DeWine, Leahy, Grassley, Cantwell, Brownback, and Domenici. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and many more have co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. The majority of these individuals have illnesses or disorders that are responsive to treatment. With access to this care there is great potential to reduce the number of mentally ill individuals in adult and juvenile corrections facilities and improve public safety. In the 106th Congress, Senator DeWine and I successfully passed America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project (P.L. 106-515), which created a Department of Justice grant program assisting State and local governments with the establishment of mental health courts. Mental health courts provide specialized dockets in non-adversarial settings to bring mental health professionals, social workers, public defenders and prosecutors together to divert mentally ill offenders into a treatment plan. The goal of a mental health court is to expand access to mental health treatment, improve the community's response to mentally ill offenders, and reduce recidivisim among the mentally ill population. The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2002 is phase two of the mental health courts demonstration program and represents a significant commitment to solving the problems caused by the significant proportion of individuals in our criminal justice system who are struggling with mental illness. A main goal of this legislation is to facilitate the necessary collaboration across all levels of government and among all relevant agencies so that the mentally ill receive proper treatment. The bill will create a new competitive grants program in the Department of Justice. Criminal justice and mental health treatment agencies will be required to apply together, compelling the collaboration that is needed to get those who are mentally ill and coming in contact with the criminal justice system, the mental health and substance abuse treatment, education, job training and placement, and housing they need. Grant funds could be used for a variety of types of programs, including pre-booking diversion, jail treatment/diversion, mental health courts and other courts, and transition back into the community. The bill also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the Federal level. Task Force members will include: the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development; and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force will be charged with identifying ways that Federal departments can respond in a coordinated way to the needs of mentally ill adults and juveniles. In addition, the bill directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders from incarceration into treatment. Finally, the bill strives to comprehensively address these issues by providing grant funds for pre-booking diversion, re-entry programs, and community supports such as housing and job-related services. This kind of comprehensive approach is the key to ensuring mentally ill individuals have the support they need to live healthy lives: public safety improves; and our criminal justice system no longer struggles to treat an increasingly mentally ill population. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make our communities safer for all.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to call for action on legislation to ensure that my constituents will continue to have access to quality hospital care. Unfortunately, hospital reimbursements and payments under Medicare and Medicaid are at risk because, despite strong bipartisan support on these specific issues, Congress has failed to complete work on legislation that will provide the necessary relief and avoid rising costs. Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the leadership of the House to pass H.R. 854 or other provider reimbursement legislation now in order to ensure my constituents continue to have access to quality health care. The Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program is an essential piece of our country's health care safety net, protecting children's, public, and other safety net hospitals that care for a much larger volume of Medicaid patients than typical hospitals. The DSH cuts were first enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 but were postponed by the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) in 2000. Despite 190 bipartisan cosponsors on H.R. 854, which would reverse these cuts, they are now scheduled to take full effect, creating financial ruin for public hospitals across the country that provide uncompensated care to those in need. The scheduled cuts in Medicaid DSH is expected to amount to about $53.2 million for Ohio hospitals in fiscal year 2003 alone. This cut skyrockets to $108 million through fiscal year 2004 and $279 million over the next five years. As a result, hospitals will lose an average of 15.7% in payments from Ohio's Hospital Care Assurance Program (HCAP). Hospitals in my district cannot afford these cuts. Already, the program reimburses hospitals for less than half of the uncompensated care they provide. Reductions in DSH will hurt my constituents, who will be forced to pay for overall higher health care costs. I also call on my colleagues to complete our work on relief for hospitals in rural and other small communities. These hospitals face unique challenges compared to those in larger urban areas. Specifically, we should standardize the rural/urban disparity in the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (PPS) so that all hospitals receive the same payment levels as those in large urban areas. We should also expand Medicare's Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program to allow more hospitals to qualify for CAH status, enabling them to provide care to communities, such as those in rural parts of Ohio, where these health care services are desperately needed. In addition, I support a full inflationary update for Medicare PPS payments to sole-community hospitals. I am glad the Medicare legislation that passed the House included several important provisions that are a good first step to the funding problems of rural health care. I hope my colleagues will do all they can to ensure these provisions are enacted before the end of this session. And finally, I conclude with a legislative success story. This year, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which has the potential to address the current nursing workforce shortage by establishing grants and initiatives to encourage students to enter nursing school, increase the number of nursing school faculty and mentors, create scholarships for nursing students who agree to serve in underserved areas, and provide career ladder opportunities for current nurses. Although the nursing workforce shortage is just one part of the health care workforce shortage, passage of this bill is a huge success for both nurses and hospitals who are struggling to meet our health care demands. However, Congress must fully fund this new law through appropriations if its passage will have any positive effect on the nursing workforce shortage. I strongly support full funding and hope these appropriations are committed soon. Ohio hospitals and the patients they serve are depending on it.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation for the provision in the Defense Appropriations Conference Report that helps to reaffirm the certainty of the specialty metals clause of the Berry Amendment. The provision in the conference report directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide Congress with estimates of the amount, value, and overall percentage of foreign and domestic-sourced specialty metals to be used in the fleet of leased aircraft under the Multi-Year Aircraft Lease Pilot Program. The Secretary must compare this data to the specialty metal content of military aircraft the Air Force has procured over the last five years. This measure will provide valuable data to Congress to ensure that the objective of the Berry Amendment and particularly the specialty metals clause of this long- standing procurement rule stands firm. Without proper enforcement of the Berry Amendment, the U.S. titanium industry could shrink and lead the Department of Defense to become dependent on foreign supplies from Russia for this strategic material that is of critical importance to the military aircraft industry.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator and must be contained. But before we send young Americans into the deserts of Iraq, all diplomatic possibilities to avert war must be exhausted, and they have not been. In times like these amid all of the swirling difference of opinion, what we need more than anything else is a good dose of common sense. Just today the Columbus Dispatch offered an editorial opinion which presents a commonsense approach to the challenge we face. I would like to share that editorial as a commonsense message from Ohio, the Heartland of America. The editorial begins, ``In his speech on Monday, President Bush made an excellent case for renewed United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. He did not, however, make a case for war. Though the President continues to paint Iraq as an imminent threat to peace, he offered no new evidence to back that assessment. Iraq appears to be neither more nor less a threat than it was in 1998 when the last U.N. weapons inspectors left the country; nor does it appear to be a bigger threat than Iran, Libya or North Korea, all of whom are developing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction and are hostile to the United States. The speech was a hodgepodge of half-plausible justifications for war with the President hoping that if he strings together enough weak arguments, they will somehow add up to a strong one. For example, the President failed to demonstrate any significant link between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorism network. The truth is it would be far easier to demonstrate links between Iran and al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. But President Bush is not proposing military action against those states whose support for terrorism and terrorist organizations is practically overt. In fact, less than a day after the President's speech, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam apparently has a policy of not supporting terrorism against the United States. The backhanded admission came as Tenet warned that Saddam might change his mind if he believes the United States is serious about attacking Iraq. Next, the President cited the 11-year history of Iraqi attempts to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors as proof that inspectors have failed. But have they? For 11 years Saddam has not fielded a nuclear weapon, nor has he deployed any chemical or biological weapons. This suggests that in spite of Iraqi attempts to thwart inspectors, inspections have thwarted Saddam's ability to build the weapons he seeks. The President also points out that removing Saddam from power would be a blessing to the people from Iraq who have endured his totalitarian boot on their necks for decades. This is true. Saddam idolizes Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and certainly will be skewered on an adjacent spit in hell. But if removing oppressive regimes justifies war, the United States is in for a long, long battle against half of the world that is ruled by bloodthirsty dictators. The weaknesses of the President's arguments only heighten suspicions that the proposed attack on Iraq is intended to divert attention from the so-so progress of the genuine war on terrorism and the sputtering economy. Still, President Bush is correct to demand that the inspectors resume and that inspectors have unimpeded access to all Iraqi sites including the so-called presidential palaces. All diplomatic means now should be deployed to achieve that end. As it stands, Iraq has agreed to readmitting the inspectors, and the United Nations is preparing to send them in. Sure, the United States and the United Nations have been down this road with Saddam before. But, last time, neither Washington nor the world community chose to do anything significant about it. There is time to give peaceful processes one more try. If, as many expect, Saddam intends to block the new inspections, the United States and the United Nations will have all the justifications they need for stronger measures; and at that point the President would have little problem in enlisting the support of the American people and the aid of the international community. This concludes the editorial. And, Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the Spratt amendment because I cannot support H.J. Res. 114. We may have to eventually use military force to disarm Saddam Hussein, but this resolution is too open, too far-reaching. It is wrong. It should be rejected.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to reform the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The Department of Energy (DOE) has conceded that, over the 50 year history of making nuclear weapons, it consistently placed production imperatives ahead of worker health and safety. In the fall of 1999, DOE admitted that it had placed these Cold War Veterans in harm's way without their knowledge or consent and that compensation was due. In the spring of 2000, the President's National Economic Council issued a report that identified 14 DOE facilities where there was an excess rate of cancer which was attributable to radiation. This report also noted that state worker compensation systems were not well-suited for compensating occupational diseases due to a variety of hurdles, such as statutes of limitations. Also in the spring of 2000, the House and Senate introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a federal compensation program for these sick nuclear workers and their survivors. Congress held hearings in the House and Senate on legislation that would provide compensation to employees of DOE who were exposed to radiation, beryllium, silica and numerous other toxic substances used in making nuclear weapons. The compromise which emerged from the conference committee in October 2000 created two separate programs: one for workers exposed to radiation, beryllium and silica which is administered by the Department of Labor, and a second for workers exposed to toxic substances and other hazardous materials which is administered, in part, by the Department of Energy. This second program, codified under Subtitle D, is the primary focus of the reform legislation today. Under Subtitle D, the Department of Energy is required to use a Physician's Panel to review claims related to exposure to toxic substance. This Panel determines whether an illness is work related and relies upon individual state worker compensation programs to make payments for wage loss and medical costs. However, this approach, by DOE's own admission, will not work for these occupational illness cases because at least 50 percent of the claimants will not have a ``willing payor'' who will honor the findings of the Department of Energy Physician's Panel. Congress intended to create a uniform, adequate and equitable federal compensation program for these workers who toiled in the nation's nuclear weapons factories in service to our nation. It is simply unacceptable for the government to tell these workers that help is on the way, and then move forward with a program where potentially there is no one to pay as many as half the claims. This law needs to be fixed. The introduction of REWCA, the Reform of Energy Workers Compensation Act, aims to fulfill Congress' original objectives and ensure all of the nation's nuclear workers who were made sick from their jobs in nuclear weapons factories through no fault of their own receive a measure of just compensation for their disabilities and illnesses.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker. We all carry with us memories of September 11, 2001. It was a profoundly personal day for all of us. No matter what happens in our lives, each of us will forever carry the horror we felt as we watched the unbelievable images on television unfold that fateful day. Even if we had no family or friends who were directly involved, as Americans we were deeply touched by those unspeakable events. One year later, we observe a day of remembrance. Not an anniversary, but a guidepost: a mark against which we measure how far our nation has come since that horrific day one year ago. That day, we witnessed the courage of hundreds of heroes who sacrificed themselves in an effort to save others. We felt rage and despair that a few evil men could purposefully steal so many lives, and at the same time we felt deep pride in the courage of our fellow Americans. We witnessed the best and worst of humanity. We dealt with our sorrow by caring for each other. What began as one of the darkest days in our nation's history will long be remembered as one of America's finest hours. One year later, I see a new America. We have not experienced the enormous sea change many predicted, but we greet each day with a greater sense of responsibility to our families, our communities and our nation. We also know that from now on we will be asked to sacrifice convenience for safety. We now know how vulnerable our freedom makes us. But we also have a newfound appreciation for those freedoms and a renewed sense of the strength that our liberty gives us. We have been reminded that America's strength as a nation comes not only from its military might, but from the tightly woven fabric of the American family, symbolized in the stars and stripes of our flag. It is the solidarity of our national family that I hope will once again bring comfort to the families and friends of those who lost their lives on that fateful day. We should also remember the thousands of Americans who are nobly risking their lives in foreign lands in the effort to wipe out terrorism. This war will continue to be time consuming and costly. But we Americans are a strong and resolute people. We have lived through the dark days of wars past. As FDR said following the attack on Pearl Harbor, ``No matter how long it make take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory . . . With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.'' May God place his blessing on you and yours, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. The following is a statement by Alan Wallace. Alan was a firefighter from my district who was stationed on the heli-paid outside the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. For his bravery that day, Alan was a co-recipient of the Department of Defense Fire Fighter Heroism Award. The following is his account of the events that day. On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was assigned to the Heliport Station at the Pentagon. I was assigned there the day before as well. I should have been assigned to the Pentagon fire station all that week. Fort Myer firefighters were taking a week-long class on Air Field Firefighting, given at the classrooms Building 219. Mark Skipper, Dennis Young and I had already had the training. Mike Thayer, John Pine and Ronnie Willett also had had the training. Thayer, Pine and Willett were scheduled off on 9/11. Chief George Thompson was off because his wife was ill. Mark Skipper, Dennis Young and I were the 3 crew members assigned to the Pentagon fire station on the morning of 9/11. We arrived there about 0730. The fire station was new and we had only been using it since January or February 2001. We also had a new crash truck assigned there, an Emergency One Titan 3000. It carries 1,500 gallons of water and 200 gallons of 3% foam. Our first helicopter flight was around 10 am. But we were expecting Pres. George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks. Mark, Dennis, and I had our turn-out gear either on the crash truck or in the station. About 0830 I decided to pull the crash truck outside of the fire station and place it in a position more accessible to the heliport landing site. The truck was then parked perpendicular to the Pentagon, with the rear of the truck 15-20 feet from the west wall of the Pentagon, and the truck facing west, towards the heliport pad. The right side of the truck was approximately 30 feet from the fire station's apparatus door opening. (I forget to mention the Ford Van we normally use for transport between Fort Myer and the Pentagon. It is a 15 passenger vehicle which was parked west of the fire station facing north, with its rear about 10 feet north of the apparatus end of the fire station and approximately 6 feet from the side of the fire station.) The fire station is approximately 75 feet long, 35 feet wide and 16 feet tall. The flight control tower sits above the fire station. There were two other individuals at the heliport site: Sean Berger (U.S. Army Personnel) and Jackie Kidd, both active duty Army. As I said, we were expecting Pres. Bush about nooon, which would be a Code One Standby. In such situations, one of the problems I see at the heliport is that there are too many people there. Plus there are many vehicles, including Secret Service, Pentagon SWAT, U.S. Park Police, D.C. cops on motorcycles, and the two Presidential limounsines. And some of these vehicles even park in front of the fire station apparatus door, blocking the fire truck from exiting the building! That is why I wanted the crash truck out of the station and parked in a good location, for easy access to the Heliport in the case of an emergency. After checking out the fire truck, eating a bowl of cornflakes, and cleaning the station and apparatus area, I sat in my favorite chair in the apparatus area to read a book about opera. About 0900 Mark and Dennis were inside the fire station in the day room. Mark came out to tell me that an airplane had just crashed into the World Trade Center. I then got up and went into the day room to watch the television coverage from New York City. While we three were watching, a second aircraft struck the second tower. I think we watched the TV for about 10 minutes or so. I then went back outside. I was soon joined by Mark. We both began to work around the crash truck and were talking about the events in New York. About 0920, Chief Charlie Campbell called the Pentagon fire station to inform us of the attacks on the WTC in New York. He actually talked to all three of us: first Dennis, then me and then Skip. He wanted to be sure we were aware of the WTC disaster and that is was definitely a terrorist attack. He wanted to be sure we were aware of everything going on around the fire station. He also said Washington D.C. could very well be a target and if that happened, our fire truck could be dispatched to an incident. Let me say this. After the NYC attack, I began to have ``second thoughts'' about having the fire truck parked where is was. Would it be better for the time being to return it to the fire station until around 1100 or so? But I decided not to move it. Mark and I continued to mess around the fire truck. The last minute or two before the plane hit the Pentagon, Mark and I were working in the right rear compartment where the foam metering valves are located. Mark told me how, if you had to, you could get as much as 50% foam solution out of the roof turret and discharges. We laughed about cheating the government out of some foam! Mark and I then walked toward the right front corner of the truck. We were side-by-side, always within an arm's reach or each other. We had walked past the right front corner of the crash truck (Foam 161) and were maybe 10-15 feet in front of the truck when I looked up toward my left side. I saw a large frame commercial airline crossing Washington Blvd, heading towards the west side of the Pentagon! The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground, and only about 200 YARDS from our location. I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle but later drawings showed it was closer to 60 degrees. The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320-- white, with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines. So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant, I would estimate not longer then half a second. Others didn't understand why we didn't hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1\1/2\-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it we heard the noise, the engines, I'm sure. I described that as a terrible noise--loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane, I said ``LET'S GO!'' and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.) As I recall, I had several clear thoughts and feelings as I was running: (1) the noise from the engines of the airplane; (2) awareness that now WE are being attacked; (3) planning to run until I catch on fire, then maybe dive to the ground and then figure out what to do; (4) hearing the sound of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, which I later described as a ``crunch''; (5) sensation of a lot of pressure; (6) feeling very, very hot very quickly; (7) ``we're certainly not going to burn up!'' Later that morning when I began to look at the distances of everything from the fire truck, I thought the plane hit the building 200 feet south of the front of the fire truck. I had only apparently run about 20 feet when the plane hit the building. I ran another 30 feet or so until I felt I was on fire. I thought I had done everything I could do for myself. I decided to get down below the fire and fireball. So I dove face first to the blacktop. At this time, it just happened that I was right beside the left rear tire of the Ford van. (I presume that the debris from the Pentagon and airplane was being propelled away from the impact site.) I immediately crawled very quickly under the van for cover and safety. At this time, I noticed a lot of heat and decided to crawl to the end of the van. Very soon the heat was unbearable and I decided to get out from under the van and get farther away from the impact site. It was then that I saw Mark Skipper to my left--out in the field 50-75 feet away. He was standing, looking back to the impact site and seemed to be swinging his arms. I immediately ran over to him to ask if he was OK. He said he was, and then said ``I'm glad you saw that airplane!'' I said ``get your gear on--we have a lot of work to do; I'm going to the fire truck.'' It was probably at this time that I first noticed the damage to the Pentagon and the crash truck. A lot of smoke was in the sky above the Pentagon. The rear of the crash truck was on fire with a large blaze. But most noticeable was that everything around the fire truck on the ground was on fire. Also the west side of the Pentagon was on fire, all the way from the first to the fifth (top) floor. I ran about 30 yards back to the damaged crash truck, stepping carefully, not to slip on the burning debris covering the ground. I arrived at the right cab door, opened it and climbed in. I grabbed the radio and put the head set on, then jumped over the radios into the driver's seat. I immediately pushed the 2 engine start buttons and the engine started, to my amazement. I thought if I could pull the fire truck away from the Pentagon and put it in a left turn, I could direct the roof turret nozzle into the impact site using the foam and water on board the truck. I then pushed off the emergency brake and pulled the transmission selector into the drive range and tramped on the accelerator (I still couldn't believe the engine had started.) However, the accelerator would not make the engine run any faster and the truck would not move. (I later found out from Mark then whenever I tramped on the accelerator, the flames on the back of the truck would flare up.) The window in the left door was open and I had left the right cab door open as I entered the truck. There was a lot of smoke coming up along the left side of the truck, and blowing through this open window and filling the cab with smoke, as well as exiting the right door. There was a fire in the left side of the driver's seat back. That must have produced a lot of the smoke in the cab as well. At some point when I was in the cab, I looked to my right and saw Dennis Young walking through the apparatus area, so I knew he was OK. At another point, I called Fort Myer Fire Dispatch on the fire radio and gave the following message: ``Foam 61 to Fort Myer: we have had a commercial airliner crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Blvd. side. We are OK with minor injuries. Aircraft was a Boeing 757 or Air Bus 320.'' It also seemed like I mumbled something else before I removed the head set, shut off the truck engine and began to egress the vehicle. The fire station was to my right and I noticed it was trashed and there was burning material inside the apparatus area. I see Mark outside the right cab door signaling me to shut off the engine. (Note: I feel I had the fire truck engine running in 20 seconds after the plane hit the building. This time included running, crawling, checking on Mark and running back to the burning crash truck.) Just as I was about to get out of the wrecked truck, someone appeared at the cab door asking for a breathing apparatus. He may have been a Pentagon cop. So I handed him one of the S.C.B.A.'s and then handed another one to Mark. Before getting out of the cab. I grabbed my helmet, radio, face piece (for my S.C.B.A.). I carried these items over to the rear of the van, an area I thought would be out of the traffic and easy to find later. Dennis was attempting to use a fire extinguisher on the truck. Mark was removing some of the EMS equipment from the truck. At this time, we all probably thought the truck would be consumed by the damaging fire. At this point, I went into the fire station through the open apparatus door area and attempted to get dressed in my turn-out gear (coat, pants, boots and helmet.) I noticed my boots and pants were covered with debris, with numerous wood, rock and metal fragments filling the boots. One of my elastic suspenders was on fire, which I stamped out (or so I though). When I was considering how best to empty the debris from my boots, I heard a voice back outside saying ``we need help here''. I think it was at this time that Dennis, Mark and I began to assemble at the first floor windows of the Pentagon (behind the crash truck). I was later told by a civilian rescuer that I helped him climb into the window of the Pentagon where most of the victims exited the building. I don't remember helping him up. But I definitely remember him being there. I feel he was instrumental in organizing the rescue effort at this area of the Pentagon. At the time, I described him as a civilian 35- 40 years old wearing black jeans, black polo shirt with a red logo on the shirt. In April, 2002, I learned that the identity of this `civilian' was Blair Bozek. He turns out to be a Lt. Col. USAF, (Ret.). He was one of the SR71 Spy plane pilots. Ha! Mark and I always felt 10-15 people may have exited the Pentagon at our location. All were terrified, most were burned. They had had varying amounts of clothing burned from their bodies, and some were missing shoes. We were assisted in rescuing them by several civilians as well as Armed forces people who, having been uninjured in the attack, had come to aid their fellow employees. I would like to describe how very hostile the working environment was following the airplane attack. We were directly up against the Pentagon building, which was on fire with smoke pouring heavily from all of the windows. The ground was burning all around us. A magnolia tree was burning, which gave a strange sensation of flaming ``things'' floating in the air--I later realized they were magnolia leaves. There were several times the heat was so intense that I thought my pants were on fire. It was especially difficult to breathe because of the smoke and fumes. These conditions definitely limited how long we could assist in the rescue. I do remember helping three men carry an unconscious man all the way out to the guard rail beside Washington Blvd. While carrying him, I noticed the 4 inch fire hose from our Fort Myer Rescue Engine #161. That meant our fellow firefighters were on the scene. This was a relief, because after I called them on the radio, I was certain it would be difficult for them to get to the Pentagon because of traffic. But I learned later that R/E 161, R/E 162 and the Asst. Chief did not have difficulty getting to the Pentagon. A further comment about my radio message: I should have followed it up with a call from one of the portable radios or possibly a phone call to Fort Myer from the heliport station phone (had it been in service). I had not waited for a reply from Dispatcher Bob Connelly. (more on this subject later). Unknown to me, before my radio message, Arlington Dispatch was receiving numerous 911 calls from all around the county. Reports were varied: helicopter crash into east side of the Pentagon, tractor trailer on fire on Washington Blvd, possible airplane crash on or near the 14th Street Bridge. Many of the 911 callers could see smoke but could not determine its source. Some likely saw a low flying aircraft or heard the impact of the crash. Arlington Dispatch advised all listening stations about some of these reports, but of course couldn't confirm exact location, etc. In fact, it is quite possible that one of these callers, recalling the flight #90 crash into the Potomac River many years ago, was instrumental in causing National Airport to dispatch the first big crash truck. According to the firefighters from the classroom at Fort Myer, immediately after the communication from Arlington, they heard my radio message. Therefore apparently my message was successful in informing my fellow firefighters of the exact location. After victims stopped appearing at the Pentagon windows, Mark, Dennis and I began assisting the arriving Fort Myer companies on the fire ground. My next task was to get into my ``fire turn gear''. Returning to the rescue site behind the crash truck, again I looked at my fire boots and pants. They were still full of debris, but now the left suspender had completely burned off down to the end where it had been attached to my pants! I picked up my gear and dumped out the rocks, etc., stepped into my boots and pulled up the fire pants. With only one suspender, I must have looked like Jethro Bodine from the Beverly Hillbillies. I also got on my nylon sock-hood and fire coat. I grabbed a big lantern and two fire extinguishers (one CO2 and the other 20# PurpleK, potassium bicarbonate). I pulled the safety pin on the CO2 and placed the lantern under my left arm, walked around the burning end of the crash truck, sprayed some of the CO2 on it and under it. The extinguisher seemed only about half full, so it was quickly discharged and I threw it aside. Pulling the pin on the PurpleK bottle, I walked behind the truck and into the Pentagon. Holding the illuminated lantern in my left hand, I immediately notice how poor the visibility was. Keep in mind I still had no gloves, no helmet and no S.C.B.A. I do not think I went into the building any further than 20 feet. I would see fire and spray the extinguisher on it. It makes a very loud noise when being discharged and I did so several times. Out of nowhere, I heard the clear voice of a woman yell ``hey!'' She had heard the sound of the fire extinguisher and realized she was near another person. She did not sound panicked. I yelled back ``I can't see you'' and she clapped her hands. I was waving my flashlight. I did not go after her, and later I questioned my courage about why I hadn't. Several days later, I noticed an article in the Washington Post which mentioned me. It also described a woman, Sheila Moody, who heard the swoosh of a fire extinguisher from someone, called out, and was answered by and rescued by a firefighter. I do not remember making contact with her. I believe it has my fire extinguisher she heard, but I also believe she was intercepted by another firefighter. But had I not had the fire extinguisher but had taken the garden hose attached to the fire station, she might not have known she was very near the outside of the building and near rescuers. I then began to assist the fire fighting crews. I got a larger nozzle tip for the attack team and got 50 feet of 4 inch hose off Engine 161 so we could move the deluge gun closer to the Pentagon. Another project I undertook was to begin removing all the equipment off the crash truck: the third S.C.B.A., all the extra air bottles, power cords, floodlights, all the 1\3/4\" hose (200 feet of it), tools, and fire extinguishers. At this point, the truck was still on fire and a lot of fire was right behind the truck in the Pentagon. I also noticed that the two personnel vehicles that had been parked near the impact site, belonging to the two Army Flight Control Tower personnel. Both had been completely destroyed by flying debris and fire. About this time hose line crews from Fort Myer were entering the building with a 2\1/2\" hose with a 1\1/4\" solid nozzle. We added 50 feet of 4" hose to the deluge gun. Capt. Dennis Gilroy noticed the first collapse of a cornice above the fifth floor windows, just above the impact site. Dennis Young and I were at the deluge gun and were told to pull back and allow the deluge gun to operate un-manned. About the time Gilroy ordered our people to get out of the building, there was report of another hijacked airliner, allegedly heading toward Washington D.C. During this period of waiting, Capt. Gilroy was assigning firefighters to hand line teams to attack the fire, which was beginning to spread to the third and fourth floors of the Pentagon. By now, I was feeling the effects of exhaustion from the frantic pace and severe shortness of breath from the lack of air at the impact site where we had assisted victims. I thought Mark and Dennis were in the same shape. Mark and I both told Gilroy not to count on us for the hand line crew. Our fellow Fort Myer firefighters had become aware of our injuries and Gilroy called an EMS crew to tend to us. Our injuries were primarily second degree burns on our necks and forearms. In addition, Mark had a laceration on his hand, Dennis had a sprained ankle, and I had left shoulder pain. (Note: Mark, Dennis and I were only wearing T-shirts, work trousers and boots or heavy shoes at the time of the attack.) A medic unit arrived, Arlington, I believe. They bandaged our burns with wet dressings and wrapped them with gauze. I was given oxygen to breathe; the others weren't experiencing difficulty breathing. We were delivered to the triage area at approximately 1100. There, we three saw Jackie Kidd and Sean Berger from the Control Tower. They looked to be OK. Jackie was really shaking and Sean had his forearms wrapped, much like us. When I saw them, I realized I had not thought once about them after the attack. I felt bad about this. Later I thought I would have at least told Dennis Young to ``check on the people in the Tower'' but I guess there was just far too much to think about in the immediate response to the attack. Sean and Jackie were both given a ride home by a nurse- bystander named Victoria Brunner, who had been working in Triage. (She now works at Fort Myer-Radar Clinic as a counselor.) Mark, Dennis and I had a welcome opportunity to rest in the Triage area, and were given water, bananas, apples and plums. There were probably 50 health care people there. Triage was located in the tunnel under Washington Blvd. on Columbia Pike. By now our word of our experience had spread to the FBI who interviewed us, as well as Kidd and Berger, while we were in Triage. After our interview, I wanted to return to the fire ground to see all the people from Fort Myer. We did so and spent about \1/2\ hour there. Mark, Dennis and I stayed around Triage for about two hours. During this time, I had a chance to use a cell phone to call my Mother in Ohio. She was very relieved to learn I was OK. I also called Donna Houle at the Women's Memorial in Arlington Cemetery and asked her to contact some of my friends. In the next few days, I think I called everyone in my address book. After all the other victims had been removed to hospitals, Mark and I were taken via ambulance to Arlington Hospital by Army Chase-Bethesda Rescue Squad #1. A young medic trainee named Sandra Melnick drove the medic unit. There were 6-8 people in the back of the squad, with one patient placed on a cardiac monitor. I sat in the front with her to give directions to the hospital. After being released from the hospital, I contacted one of the hospital security officers to request a ride back to Fort Myer. He provided a driver within five minutes. Just as we were leaving the hospital, we were questioned by one of the local TV news channels, Fox I believe. We told them about seeing the airplane approach in time to run away from the Pentagon building. Our driver took us as far as the Iwo Jima Memorial, just 200 yards from one of the gates into Fort Myer. Of course by now security had been increased significantly since my arrival there at 0530 earlier in the day. (The MP's had shoulder arms, a vehicle with machine gun mounted on top was nearby.) I was wearing a hospital gown, my fire boots and carried my fire pants in a plastic bag and had no I.D. But fortunately one of the MP's recognized me and allowed us to pass. (Mark did have some I.D.) As soon as we were allowed to pass through the gate, an Air Force Major gave us a ride back to the fire station in his Jaguar. Ha--we were home! We immediately began to tell our story and help out at the fire station. Dennis was there when we arrived. Soon after, Howard Kelly gave Mark a ride home. Dennis drove himself to his W. Va. home. I stayed at the fire house that night. I enjoyed being back with my fellow firefighters and helping get the equipment back on the truck. Our people were exhausted, some were still frightened. I think all were glad they were working that day. Remember the three firefighters who were scheduled off the day of 9/11? Willett, Pine and Thayer all came back in when they heard the news. Thayer told me later ``from 25 miles from the Pentagon, I could see smoke, and I knew you three must be dead.'' He also said he felt bad because he was the person who had assigned us to the Pentagon heliport. I was grateful--and am now amazed--that my injuries were minor. The burns on my forearms and neck healed quickly. My shoulder pain persisted and ultimately required surgery in November, 2001. The surgery went well and the surgeon and I were pleased with my recovery from it. I returned back to work in February, 2002, glad to have a good job. I am very proud of Dennis, Mark and myself. I am SO grateful that none of our firefighters were seriously injured or killed.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friends on this side of the aisle: If you knew for sure that an airplane was going to be blown out of the sky on March 15 of next year, would you dare, would you dare not support this amendment? How ironic, how ironic that in a bill that is supposed to create a new Department of Homeland Security we are taking an action that will make the traveling American public less secure. Mr. Chairman, I am raising my voice because I think this is a serious matter. How would Members feel if they vote against this amendment and in February, March, April, or May of next year, an American passenger plane is blown out of the sky? How will Members feel? The American people are watching us today, but the terrorists are also watching us today. We must not give them an easy way to kill additional Americans. Do not push the wishes of the special interests above the safety of the American people.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, as the founder and cochairman of the Correctional Officers Caucus, I rise in support of this amendment. I rise today in support of the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment. As a co- chairman of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus, I am acutely aware of the placement of thousands of correctional jobs in our Federal prisons on the FAIR Act inventory. Here's a list from the Department of Justice--it lists 10,260 DOJ jobs that are quote-unquote ``commercial activities.'' Of those ten thousand jobs that the OMB would have us turn over to the private sector, 7,670 are from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Quite frankly, anyone who says that a job in a prison is ``not inherently governmental'' has not spent enough time in a prison. I worked in a state correctional facility in Ohio for eight years and I will not accept that OMB should be able to force a prison to replace its trained correctional workers with untrained, private-sector cooks or night-shift janitors just because the cost is cheaper. Prisons can be dangerous, and workers cannot switch between private-sector jobs and prison jobs without risking their own safety and that of others. Now, more than ever, with our increased focus on terrorism, we need trained, Federal, correctional workers in our Federal prisons. These prisons often serve as administrative holding pens for the INS and Federal courts for terrorists. For example, in 1998, two defendants on trial for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing assaulted an employees of a facility in Lower Manhattan, immobilizing him for life. This amendment would prevent OMB from setting prison policy. It would ensure that our Federal correctional workers are just that: Federal. For this House to vote to federalize all baggage screeners at airports, and then to allow OMB to force ill-prepared workers into the ranks of our Federal prisons is abominable. Let's let the agencies manage their own personnel, and let OMB manage itself. Vote ``Yes'' on the Moran-Wolf-Morella amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know what is happening. Wealthy corporations are choosing to leave America, go to Bermuda, get a post office box, simply to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This is happening at a time when our colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), tried to get an amendment to the Postal- Treasury appropriations bill that would say, if a corporation does this, they should not have access to lucrative Federal contracts. But the leadership in this House said oh, no, we cannot do that. At a time when we are raising the cost of prescription drugs on our veterans from $2 to $7 a prescription, and at a time when the pension for wartime veterans' widows is a measly $534 a month, we are allowing wealthy corporations, in a time of war, to avoid their fair share of American taxes. Who is going to pay those taxes? Are veterans?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. I was there and, as the gentleman knows, the next day we worked all day long and all night long; and we finally passed out a bill which only provides coverage for a person who has a prescription drug need of $400 a month. The bill that finally passed out, the Republicans passed it out, would only provide coverage for 4\1/2\ months out of the 12-month year; and yet the poor senior would have to pay premiums every month, even during the months when they were receiving no coverage at all and, as the gentleman knows, they tell us that the premium would be on average $35 a month, but there is no guarantee that it would not be $65 or $85 or $125 a month. So it is quite shameful, I think, that at a time when nearly every person in this Chamber, as they go home and talk to their constituents, say the right words, and they tell their seniors that they want to get them a prescription drug benefit and they want it to be affordable and they want it to provide choice, but when it comes to making the tough decisions here in this Chamber, they simply make the wrong decision. Now, the Democratic proposal would add a voluntary drug benefit to Medicare. Why is that important? I know the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maine have been talking about the fact that every citizen in every other country on Earth pays less for their prescription medications than does the American citizen. That is really quite sad because, as the gentleman knows, so many of these drugs are discovered, developed using tax dollars. So the American citizen pays the taxes to help develop these drugs, and then the pharmaceutical companies decide they are going to charge American citizens more than citizens anywhere else on Earth. That is shameful, and we ought to change it. But there is something that I think is even more shameful than that, and that is the fact that here in America, America's most vulnerable, who are our elderly, our seniors citizens, end up paying more for their drugs than do HMOs or large insurance companies or even the Federal Government. Why is that? It is simply because the individual senior citizen does not have any clout when it comes to buying their medications. They are only one little individual. And the large insurance companies, the large HMOs and the Federal Government, they buy in bulk, they buy in large quantities, and so they can get discounts. But the individual senior citizen, because we have no Medicare benefit, just simply is on their own. It is quite shameful. It is troubling to me that this vulnerable population, the people who are most likely to be on fixed incomes, are seniors; the people most likely to have chronic health conditions that require continuous medications for the rest of life are senior citizens. The population that is most likely to need multiple medications are senior citizens. Yet senior citizens are the ones who are being charged the most for the medications. There is something really fundamentally wrong about that. I believe the American people expect us to fix that problem. I hope the American people are paying attention, because we are going to have an election here in 4 months or so, and I believe that those of us who are willing to stand up to the pharmaceutical companies, to stand for America's senior citizens, to fight for a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is predictable, affordable, voluntary, accessible to any senior who wants to participate, I think we are the ones, quite frankly, who deserve to be returned to this lofty Chamber; and I believe those who will not support America's senior citizens, quite frankly, do not deserve to return to this Chamber. So I hope the American people are paying attention. It is important that they pay attention to the details because, as the gentleman knows, the devil is always in the details, and words are cheap, talk is cheap. Certainly actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to this particular issue. I would like to point out another problem that I think deserves attention. The Congress, I think, must take action in this era of corporate misdeeds. They must look at the drug industry's behavior, including the misstatement of profits and the abuse of patents. Particularly damaging to consumers is when drug companies use patent laws to file frivolous claims that extend their market exclusivity, blocking far more affordable generic drugs from coming to the market. I would just like to use a case in point. Prilosec is a case study of the failure of our current patent law. Many seniors in my district take Prilosec. It is a good medication. It is the number one medication prescribed for seniors for the treatment of heartburn and acid reflux disease. Now, the original patent for Prilosec expired in October of 2001, but the manufacturer delayed market entry of a generic by filing nearly a dozen lawsuits and by claiming that Prilosec has unique benefits when administered with applesauce. As a result, the generic manufacturer had to do time- consuming research on how the generic research works when given with applesauce before it could be approved. In 2001, the company had Prilosec sales of more than, and this is an astounding figure, more than $16 million per day. And during the year, the company raised the price of Prilosec by more than four times that of the rest of the inflation within our economy. Now, this specific scenario and others like it amount to an incredible windfall for the drug industry, one that Congress simply must not allow to continue. These higher drug prices hurt seniors who depend on Medicare the most, because they are not shielded by the full cost of drugs like those who have insurance coverage. During the past 10 years, 10 of the 50 drugs most frequently used by seniors were generic drugs, while the remaining 40 were brand-name drugs. Now, the prices of generic drugs used most frequently by seniors rose 1.8 percent, 1.8 percent from January 2001 to January 2002. During the same period, prices for the brand-name drugs increased by an average of 8.1 percent, or three times the rate of inflation. So I think this brings us to only one reasonable conclusion and that is that we need a voluntary prescription drug benefit with a predictable premium that is a part of the Medicare benefit package that America's seniors can depend upon, just as they depend upon the Medicare system today. As I said, I hope the American people are paying attention, because talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words; and those who do what is right for America's senior citizens, in my judgment, are those who deserve to remain in this institution. And those who turn their back on America's seniors and instead support the pharmaceutical industry, they are the ones that I think have relinquished their right to serve here.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, that provision certainly was influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Basically, they are putting into law a prohibition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is supposed to be representing the American people. They are really going to try to prohibit him by law from doing anything that is going to lower the prices of these prescription drugs.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Why would we do that if it were not simply to satisfy the pharmaceutical industry? I want to tell the gentleman, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue back home at the grassroots. I went to a VFW hall this past Sunday morning for breakfast, and there were people there at that hall that were talking about not being able to afford their medicines. They were Republicans and Democrats. This is an issue that cuts across parties. It cuts across economic levels, as well, because people can be fairly well-to-do and be unable to see that their parents or their relatives or their neighbors, their elderly neighbors, have access to life-saving medications. People are sick of this. They are absolutely outraged at what is happening. Why that outrage does not result in some meaningful action here in the House of Representatives is beyond me. This problem has been with us for quite some time. We talk and we talk, and we have campaigns, and we say we are going to do something about it; yet time passes, and then we go through that kind of farcical exercise that we went through in our committee, where every amendment that we brought up that was designed to make these drugs more affordable was shot down by our Republican friends. They simply would not take the first step in trying to lower the cost of these drugs. They use all kinds of rhetoric. They talk about price controls. Well, I think when a pharmaceutical company charges a large HMO a certain amount for a medication and then charges some elderly, sick, income- limited senior citizen two or three times as much for that same medication, I think that is price discrimination; and I think that is what we should be looking for, getting rid of price discrimination that is directed toward America's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), will continue to yield, I keep going back to the fact, how long are the American people going to tolerate this situation? We can go to Canada, we can go to Mexico, Belgium, England, Japan, we can go anywhere on Earth and buy medications that are developed within this country, many of them, in part using American taxpayer dollars; and we can buy those medications with much less cost to the consumer than the American citizen must pay. How much longer are the American people going to put up with that situation? This is just a matter of gross discrimination. American citizens are subsidizing the costs of prescription medications for citizens all over this world. When are we going to put a stop to it? When are we going to say that our people are being treated unfairly? Then, when are we going to say that in this country, America's seniors are not going to continue to be gouged and charged more than insurance companies or HMOs for the same medication? It seems like a no-brainer to me. I cannot understand why there is so much determination on the other side of the aisle to keep us from taking action against this situation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, for much of the twentieth century, our great steel companies churned and poured out the material used to build our nation creating the skeletons of our battleships, military equipment and installations. Today, during floor consideration of the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2003 (H.R. 5011), I intended to offer an amendment to ensure that only domestic steel could be used for military construction. However, due to restrictions under the rule for funding limitations, my amendment was subject to a point of order and was not offered. For the record, I would like to fully explain the intent of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to Section 108 of H.R. 5011 was designed to help American industry ailing from the effects of globalization. Section 108 currently states that no funds appropriated in H.R. 5011 may be used for procurement of steel for construction projects or activities for which American Steel producers have been denied the opportunity to compete for such steel procurement. While I support this provision, the goal of my amendment was to strengthen that Section and require that the funds made available in H.R. 5011 would be spent on purchasing equipment, products or systems which contain steel manufactured in the United States. In other words, competition is good, but I wanted to go one step further and guarantee our military construction contracts involve U.S. steel. Our national defense depends on a healthy U.S. steel industry and it makes sense to offer some federal guarantees to this struggling industry at this critical time. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to ensure the dollars we spend will protect the security of America, protect American jobs and the livelihood of the American Steel worker.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we need to tell the full truth about veterans and prescription drugs. This administration has raised the co- pay for medications that veterans get at our VA facilities from $2 to $7 per prescription, a $250 increase. That is the fact. Mr. Speaker, the assets test provided under the Republican plan makes a mockery of one of the key objectives of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, to prevent senior citizens from having to pauperize themselves to get the drugs they need. Think what this means. It means that a frail elderly woman who qualifies for a handicapped sticker on her car because she cannot walk a short distance cannot keep a car that she cannot be confident will not break down on the highway if she wants to qualify for the assistance she needs to get the drugs her doctor prescribes. It means that a spouse who has managed to buy a burial plot, a burial plot so that they can lie for eternity next to a husband or wife may have to sell that plot to get the prescription drugs they need to survive. For shame. Those of you who want to give a death tax elimination for the multi- millionaires in this country have no problem with requiring grandma to give up her burial plot in order to qualify for the assistance under this plan. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the chairman of the committee. He says that the States can waive this requirement. In fact, they can not. The asset test was placed under title 18. The States are not able to waive this requirement under this bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the Republican prescription drug bill is a sham, and the unfair rule that brings it to the floor exposed this partisan and shameful process for what it is--a political masquerade designed to convince Americans that we have answered the plea to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Make no mistake, we fall far short of that goal today. I am appalled that the Republican leadership is not willing to allow the American people the decency of comparing the bill before us to a substitute that would provide a real drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. This limited debate available to us speaks volumes about the quality of the proposal before us today and its lack of a meaningful prescription drug benefit for the seniors. The Republican sham prescription drug plan would not provide a guaranteed adequate prescription drug benefit for seniors. The coverage outlined in the bill isn't the kind of coverage most Americans think of when the need for prescription drug coverage for seniors. Coverage if 80/20 only through the first $1,000, when coverage drops to 50/50. And then there is a huge gap in coverage between $2,000, when the initial benefits run out, and $3,700, when catastrophic coverage finally begins. A beneficiary will receive zero benefits between $2,000 and $3,800 in spending, even though she will continue to pay the $35 monthly premium. Perhaps even worse, the bill take the first step toward privitizing Medicare by contracting this new drug benefit out to private insurance plans. In so doing, premiums, deductibles, and copayments will vary across the country--so a senior who lives in Florida will likely pay a different premium than one of my constituents in Ohio. In addition, coverage under the bill we are considering today will be unstable because plans will be able to pull out from an area when they decide it doesn't fit their business plan. Where, then do our seniors turn for prescription drug coverage? The experience of Medicare+Choice illustrates this concern: there were Medicare+Choice HMOs in my district, but every single one left. Thankfully, those seniors who did switch to an M+C plan had traditional Medicare to fall back on. This won't be the case for prescription drugs if we pass the Republican drug plan. Instead, seniors will be left without any drug plan at all if and when the private insurers leave the area. The Democrats' prescription drug plan would provide quality, guaranteed help for seniors. Unlike the Republican plan, the Democrats' proposal would create a prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare, thus avoiding instability or variation in premiums that occur depending on where the beneficiary happens to live. In addition, the Democrats' plan provides much more help for seniors: there is no gap in coverage, catastrophic coverage would begin at $2,000 rather than 3,800, and the monthly premium would be $25. The unfair rule under which we debate this incredibly important issue means that Americans won't get to hear this comparison in detail or see how it fares in a vote. This is exactly what the Republicans want because they know their proposal can't compete with the Democrats' concrete plan, which has been endorsed by a litany of groups, including the Alliance of Retired Persons, the AARP, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, The American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, and Medicare, the National Council on the Aging, the National Partnership for Women and Families, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center. Some of my colleagues will contend that the difference between our plan and theirs is the cost. They will say that the Democrats' are fiscally irresponsible and that our plan breaks the bank. On this point, I stand firm. It is a fact that this Congress has chosen to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. The President told us we could do both: he said we could enact nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts as well as a prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. But Congress chose to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, and we have chosen not to enact a real prescription drug benefit for seniors. If the choice is between enacting a real prescription drug benefit and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, then I am proud to choose to stand on the side of America's seniors. The rule also means that I won't be able to vote for a bill including many commendable provisions that have clear bipartisan support. This year, doctors were hit with a 5.4 percent cut in their Medicare reimbursement, hospitals are struggling with decreases in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) funding and shortages in other payments, home health agencies are facing a 15 percent cut in reimbursement, and most Medicare providers are struggling with an increasingly difficult regulatory burden. Doctors and hospitals in my district provide invaluable care to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and I hope they know that I support fixing all of these problems. I hope they do not interpret my no vote on this bill as a vote against the compromises that have been reached to address these problems. I recognize that our failure to fix these could seriously threaten the quality of care seniors and the disabled receive, and I cannot overstate my determination to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact these important solutions. We have, in some cases, already done this. For example, last year, the House passed a Medicare regulatory reform package that is now also included in this bill. And even though I support a permanent fix to the formula used to calculate the physician update in Medicare, I have worked with my colleagues to reach a temporary compromise that is included in this bill. I support these and other provisions that will go a long way to ensuring providers have the resources they need to continue to offer quality care for seniors. Therefore, it is with regret that I cannot support the bill that includes many of these solutions, and I will continue to work for their enactment this year. I would like for all Americans to understand that the rule bringing this bill to the floor today undermines their ability to hear a full and open debate about developing a prescription drug plan for our seniors. It is shameful that politics is getting in the way of a healthy debate on the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. And it is also shameful that politics is interfering in the needed changes in Medicare reimbursements that will ensure beneficiaries continue to receive quality care. This is no way to develop thoughtful, reasonable, balanced legislation that will best serve the nation. Our seniors deserve much better.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the House is confronted with a major decision this week, and that is, whether or not to provide a prescription drug benefit for our senior population, and if we are to provide a benefit, what that benefit will look like. In my district in southern and southeastern Ohio, I am continuously confronted by seniors who tell me of their difficulty in being able to get the medicines they need at an affordable cost, and so it is incumbent upon this House to take the action necessary to prevent our seniors from choosing between buying food and buying medicine or paying other essential bills. Nearly every Member of this House during the last election process made a commitment to their constituents that they would pass a meaningful, affordable prescription drug benefit; and if we do not do it, then shame on us. The issues, though, that confront us are not only whether or not to provide the benefit but what kind of benefit. Sadly, the majority party in this House is proposing a benefit that, in my judgment, is worse than no benefit at all. It would be the first step toward the privatization of the Medicare system. It would rely on the private insurance market to provide the benefit; and coming from a rural area, my fear is that there would be no company that would be willing to provide a drug-only policy for the constituents that I am charged to represent. In my district, we used to have some Medicare+Choice programs, some HMO Medicare programs. We do not have them anymore because they did not make as much money as they wanted to make; and so they withdrew, leaving literally thousands of my constituents without that coverage. I think the same thing would likely happen with this proposed prescription drug benefit. What seniors need and want is a benefit that is a part of the Medicare benefit package. They want a program that is as predictable and as reliable as is traditional Medicare; and they want a program that provides them with the benefit that is affordable, that has a defined package of benefits, which they know about and can depend upon; and they want a prescription drug benefit that gives them choice. And that is what the Democratic proposal will do. There are differences between the Democrat and Republican proposals, and I would like to mention just a few of them. Our proposal would have a $25-per-month premium. The Republican proposal would have a $35-per- month premium, with no guarantee that that premium would not escalate, $65 or $85 or even more. So there is no predictability to the Republican premium as to affordability. The program that I and my colleagues on this side of the aisle support has a $100 deductible. The Republican proposal has a $250 deductible. My side, the Democratic side, has a copayment of 20 percent, meaning that Medicare would pay 80 percent, and that is the same as the Republican side. However, on our side, we have a \20/80\ copay for all of the drugs that a senior may need; and on the Republican side, there is an 80 percent copay for the first $1,000 in medication. Only 50 percent would be paid by Medicare for the second $1,000; and then there would be a huge gap and until a senior paid over $3,700 out of their own pocket would the catastrophic plan kick in and then all the drugs would be paid for. What is especially problematic is the fact that a charitable group or a friend, a church, would not be able to voluntarily contribute to that senior's medication costs to enable them to reach the catastrophic coverage; and in my district, many times local churches will recognize seniors who are having a difficult time getting the medicines they need and will voluntarily take up a collection or in other ways provide needed assistance. So I hope the American people are watching because this is the defining issue of this session of the House of Representatives, and I hope they pay attention because there are vast differences between the two bills that will be considered on the floor this week.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and congratulate two students from Ohio who have been chosen to present projects at the National History Day national contest, which is taking place this year from June 9 through the 13. Alexandria West, who is from Gallipolis, OH, will present her project, ``Amistad: From Freedom and Back,'' and Katie Marburger, who is from Niles, OH, will present an exhibit called `` . . . And Justice for All? The Imprisoning of the Japanese Americans: A Revolution in Discrimination.'' These projects reflect this year's National History Day theme of ``Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History'' and were selected from more than half a million students across America. The National History Day program seeks to give students the critical thinking and research skills that are essential for excellence in all subject areas. Students research history topics of their choice related to an annual theme and create exhibits, performances, documentaries, and papers, which they may enter into competitions at the district, state, and national levels. The program annually engages more than half a million participants in grades 6 through 12 in 49 States and the District of Columbia.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to urge those Members who are undecided about how to vote on this rule to consider the hundreds of thousands of steelworker jobs that have been lost since the steel crisis began in 1998, all due to the flood of steel imports. Last year alone, over 20,000 jobs were lost in America's basic steel industry, and half of the Nation's bankrupt steel companies have now been forced to cease operations completely. In addition to the job losses, the steel crisis has put the health care benefits of 600,000 industry retirees at risk. Over 100,000 retirees and their dependents have already lost or will lose their health care benefits following bankruptcy. The President's decision to apply 30 percent tariffs to certain steel imports was a step forward in protecting our national security, protecting legacy costs for steel workers' health benefits, and, most importantly, protecting America's jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and stand up in support of rebuilding this Nation's steel industry.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor correctional officers and employees of correctional facilities across this country. This past weekend, correctional officers came here to Washington to celebrate National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. Awards were presented to officers whose exceptional service merited special recognition and wreaths were laid in memory of fallen comrades who made the ultimate sacrifice while on duty. Corrections facilities are a critical component of our criminal justice system. We rely on correctional facilities to do just that, correct the errant behavior of certain members of our society. But a facility comprises more than just a building. It is also made up of correctional officers and other correctional personnel who are all highly trained to work in a challenging and often dangerous environment. I worked for many years as a psychologist at a maximum security prison in Ohio, and the respect that I gained from my coworkers during that time is enormous. Correctional officers are public servants. Most of the officers I know give back to their communities in countless ways. Most recently I was struck by the sense of community exhibited by correctional officers in New York City. While that city was undergoing untold turmoil in those first 2 weeks following September 11, correctional officers worked 20-hour days lending their aid in the makeshift morgue and helping to coordinate the massive logistical effort of keeping the lines of communication open in Lower Manhattan. What we saw in New York is typical of all correctional officers, and I would urge all of my colleagues to recognize correctional officers and employees by joining me in cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 390, a bill that was introduced by the cochairmen of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus to urge the President to establish a National Correctional Officers and Employees Week so that all Americans can join us in honoring these very worthy individuals who contribute so much to our society.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, in response to the President's fiscal year 2003 budget, I am introducing this Sense of Congress to oppose the Administration's recommendation to impose a $1,500 deductible on the health care for ``Priority Group 7'' veterans. Just recently the VA increased the veteran prescription drug co-payment by 250%. The President's budget proposal calls on Congress to legislate a $1,500 deductible for their health care. This deductible is unacceptable and an unnecessary hardship to place upon veterans. It is my hope that by introducing this Resolution, this Congress will speak as one body and make it clear that we will not break America's promises to our veterans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues in this House to sign on to a bill which I have introduced, H.R. 2820. H.R. 2820 is a bill that would help our veterans. In the early part of February, 2002, a decision was made to increase the prescription co-payment for veterans from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription. To me this is an unacceptable action and it hurts our veterans, many of whom live on fixed incomes and simply cannot absorb this increased cost. To put it in perspective, the Veterans Hospital in southern Ohio, where I serve, tells me that the average veteran who gets a prescription medication there on average gets 10 or more prescriptions. So if we take $7 a prescription and we multiply it by 10, that is $70 per month. Many of these veterans receive a 3-month supply of medications at a time. Three times $70 is $210. If I multiply the cost of a 1-month supply of medication at $7 per prescription for 10 prescriptions, that is $840 per year. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an unnecessary burden to place upon our veterans. We hear a lot of lofty rhetoric in this Chamber about how we appreciate the fact that so many American citizens are willing to serve in our military, and many of them give their lives and limb in order to protect our freedoms. It seems so inappropriate at this time in our Nation's history to place this additional burden upon our veterans. So I have introduced H.R. 2820. I have over 75 cosponsors at this time, bipartisan cosponsors, and I am happy to say the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has introduced this legislation with me. This legislation is very simple. It would simply return the cost of the co-payment for a prescription drug from the $7 that has been imposed down to the $2 level where it has been. It would freeze the co-payment at the $2 per prescription level for the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, surely when we can find the resources to give a $15 billion bailout to our airline industry, surely when we can find the resources to give tax breaks, surely when we can find the resources to do a whole host of other things in this Chamber, we can find the resources that will enable us to keep from imposing this additional burden upon our Nation's veterans. So, once again, I ask all of my colleagues of both parties in this House to simply cosponsor H.R. 2820 so that we can remove this burden which has been placed upon our veterans. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to mention another burden for our veterans. For category 7 veterans, there is a proposal that we would place upon them an annual $1,500 deductible when they go to our veterans' health centers and clinics and hospitals to receive medical attention. This also seems like something that we should take action to prevent in this Chamber. I urge my colleagues, this is something that we can do. We ought to do it. I believe if Members talk to veterans around the country, this is something that they are keenly aware of and keenly object to. We can solve this problem regarding the prescription co-pay by passing this very simple but important piece of legislation, H.R. 2820.