Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support HR 2422, legislation I have introduced that 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 correctional facilities face at the beginning of the 21st century. Substance abuse poses a significant health care challenge for correctional facilities. 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 involved in alcohol or drug abuse in the time leading to their arrest. According to an article in the Washington Post entitled, ``Mentally Ill Need Care, Find Prison'', it is estimated that the number of inmates with serious mental illnesses in American prisons and jails is nearly 5 times the number of mentally ill in state mental hospitals. So many of these inmates with mental health needs also have a co-occurring substance abuse problem. This high incarceration rate of the mentally ill, many of whom have substance abuse problems, poses an enormous challenge to the correctional health care system. In the first comprehensive report on mental illness in correctional facilities, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that 7 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. 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, including sexually transmitted diseases, and the possibility of pregnancy either upon entry into the corrections 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, the prevalence of infectious disease is high among inmates. For AIDS, the prevalence is five times that of the general population. Further, inmates coming into correctional facilities are increasingly at risk for HIV infection through risk behaviors such as needle sharing and unprotected sex. Tuberculosis is another important public health issue in prisons and jails according to CDC. TB infection rates are substantially higher among inmates; estimates are anywhere from four to 17 times higher because conditions associated with TB (poverty, drug use, HIV infection, etc.) are more common in the incarcerated population than the general US population. According to CDC, even as we have decreased the number of TB cases overall, it has become a much more focused disease, with outbreaks of TB in correctional facilities starting to count as a major factor in its spread. For Hepatitis C, the prevalence among inmates is nine times higher than that of the general population. Jails, where inmates are held awaiting trial or serve short sentences of two years or less, represent the ``front lines'' of correctional health care. Many inmates lacked good access to health care services before their incarceration and are therefore more likely to come to jails and prisons with chronic illnesses and infectious diseases. Rates of infectious disease are known to be higher among inmates than in the general population. This high incidence of infectious disease among inmates threatens the health and lives of thousands of dedicated corrections officers and staff members who work in prisons and jails across America. Most inmates are released after they've served their time; without treatment, these infected inmates threaten the public health of the community upon release. Every year there are approximately 12 million inmates released into the community. We need to recognize the real opportunity for treatment and prevention services in treating the high- risk corrections population as well as the clear public health implications for the community at large. All of these alarming statistics contribute to the need for the establishment of an Office of Correctional Health within 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, that public safety is enhanced.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we oftentimes speak glowingly in here of our respect for our military personnel and of our appreciation for what our veterans have done for us, but oftentimes our words are inconsistent with our behavior. Many in this Chamber do not realize that just a few weeks ago we increased the copayment for prescription drugs that veterans must pay for these needed medications from $2 to $7 a prescription. Many veterans receive over 10 prescriptions a month. Ten times $7 is $70 a month. Many get a 3-month supply at one time. That is a cost of $210. I have introduced H.R. 2820, which will return the copay from $7 back to $2 and will freeze it at that level for 5 years. This is the least we can do for those who have served our country so nobly.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, we hear lots of lofty words and phrases uttered in this Chamber when it comes to honoring our military men and women and paying our debt of gratitude to our veterans who have served this country so nobly. But I have found that talk is cheap, and if one wants to know what is really important to the people who occupy this Chamber, one watches where the money goes. How do we use our resources? I want to call to this Chamber's attention two things that have happened recently which negatively impact our Nation's veterans. We are in the process of imposing upon many of our veterans an annual deductible of $1,500 in order for them to receive health care at our veterans' facilities. Madam Speaker, $1,500, a new burden being placed upon our veterans. In addition to that burden, there is an additional burden. In the past, veterans have been able to go to our hospitals and receive prescription drugs by giving a $2 per prescription copay; $2 per prescription. But, sadly, in early February of this year, that copay was increased dramatically by 250 percent. So now veterans do not pay $2 when they get a prescription filled, they are required to pay $7 for each prescription. Now, at a VA hospital in my area, the average veteran gets over 10 prescriptions per month. If we take 10 prescriptions per month and we charge $7 copay per prescription, that is $70 a month, and many of our veterans get their medications for 3 months at a time. If we take 70 times 3, that is $210. But what does this mean to the veteran who is living on a fixed income, a veteran who has served this country honorably and nobly, a veteran who has paid the price for the security needs of this Nation? This new burden for a veteran who takes 10 prescriptions a month amounts to $600 per year. This is totally unjustified. Madam Speaker, I would point out that we are doing this at a time when this House voted just a few days ago to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a tax that was placed on wealthy corporations, profitable corporations during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, because back in those days, President Reagan recognized that there were janitors who were literally paying more in taxes than the profitable corporations that they worked for. So the Alternative Minimum Tax was imposed, and it has been in place since 1986. But in this Chamber, just a few days ago, we voted to eliminate that tax and to refund the money that had been paid by these profitable corporations since 1986, what is estimated to be approximately $24 billion that would be given back, with no strings attached. We are doing that at the same time we are putting burdens on the backs of our veterans. What we have done, basically, is to require veterans to pay more for their health care at the same time we are giving huge tax breaks and tax give-backs to profitable corporations. It is unacceptable. Madam Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 2820, a bill that would simply return the copay to $2, at a level it has been for quite some time, and it would freeze it at the $2 level for the next 5 years. It seems to me that this is the least we can do for these men and women who have served our country. Now, I believe this is something that this House will be willing to do, and I am calling upon my colleagues of both political parties to sign on to this legislation. Thus far, I have acquired about 70 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats alike. I would like to point out that the cointroducer of this legislation with me is a Republican, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). The gentleman from Ohio and I are hopeful that all of our colleagues in this House will join us in the effort to reduce this burden upon our veterans, and we will be grateful if they do, and I am sure the veterans in this country will be grateful as well.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the Torricelli language allows Federal candidates to buy premium air time at a dirt cheap price. Some say that if ad time costs less, campaigns will spend less. To the contrary, they will spend more. If my colleagues think people are sick of 30-second attack ads now, imagine how they will feel if we keep the Torricelli language. We have got to get back to the basics, the firm handshake, the sincere look in the eye and the sympathetic ear. Not only would this amendment require us to rely on personal connections with the people, it will also prevent us from placing an unfair burden on the broadcast industry. As Federal candidates we do not deserve special treatment. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us honor our veterans in this Chamber, but what veterans are really interested in is having adequate health care. Just a few days ago, this administration changed the $2-per- prescription copay or deductible that veterans have been required to pay for their prescription medications to $7 a prescription, a whopping $250 one-time increase. Many veterans in my district get 10 or more prescriptions per month. We take 7 times 10, that is $70 a month on veterans with a fixed income. I think we ought to all join in supporting my legislation to return that deductible to $2 per prescription and keep it there for the next 5 years. Why are we imposing a $1,500 deductible, annual deductible, for veterans who get health care at many of our VA facilities? That is a new policy. If we want to help our veterans, we will make sure they get the kind of health care they need rather than putting an additional burden upon them.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the floor on many occasions about the damage brought to our nation's energy security as a result of the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation in July of 1998. Through the thorium cleanup legislation before us today, I am pleased Congress will take out an insurance policy to ensure that we have the capacity to produce the nuclear fuel needed to supply our nation's nuclear power reactors in the event of supply interruptions. That insurance policy authorizes the Secretary of Energy to carry out necessary activities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio to maintain our country's uranium enrichment capability. Such activities include placing 3 million Separative Work Units (SWU) of capacity on cold standby at the Piketon, Ohio facility. I am pleased that the Speaker of the House, the Under Secretary of Energy Bob Card, and the Energy and Commerce Committee were able to work together to craft this legislation. I note that legislation to authorize Cold Standby at the Portsmouth plant was included as an amendment to the ``Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001'' (H.R. 2587) during mark up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, but it was stripped in the Rules Committee and was not ruled in order as part of the package of amendments considered on the floor during debate on H.R. 4. I am pleased that there is bipartisan agreement on authorizing Cold Standby. Today, over 20 percent of our nation's electricity supply comes from nuclear power. While there is general agreement that we should not be dependent on foreign supplies for our energy requirements, our country's nuclear fuel imports have increased dramatically in a few short years. Out nation now depends on imports for approximately 77 percent of the nuclear fuel that powers our nation's nuclear powered electricity plants. U.S. utilities require 11.0 million SWU of enrichment services each year; approximately 8.5 million SWU is imported and the remainder is produced at the Paducah, Kentucky plant operated by USEC. Approximately 5.5 million SWU comes from Russia as part of the US-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement, and 3.0 million SWU are imported from European producers. The Portsmouth uranium enrichment plant was shuttered by USEC, Inc. in June 2001, three years ahead of the earliest closure date agreed to in the ``Treasury Agreement.'' The Treasury Agreement was intended to assure post-privatization compliance by USEC with the statutory requirements contained in the USEC Privatization Act of 1996, including the obligations to maintain a reliable and economic source of domestic uranium enrichment services. The Treasury Agreement also was intended to see that operation of the Department of Energy's two uranium enrichment plants continued until December 31, 2004 or until new, more efficient laser based technology is deployed. USEC terminated its laser-based technology development less than a year after privatization, and today it has no credible prospects for deploying new technology for the foreseeable future. Indeed, NRC and industry reports reveal that USEC's finances are precarious at best. The USEC operated Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky presently operates at a deficit, and there is widespread concern that USEC management will close this plant, leaving the U.S. completely dependent on foreign sources of fuel. I urge the Administration to prevent our nation from losing its entire enrichment industry and to take the steps needed to promote the deployment of competitive centrifuge technology at both Portsmouth and Paducah. It is ironic that 3 years ago the U.S. was in a position to be fully self- reliant for its own nuclear fuel supply and today we are on the verge of losing that capability. A single, uneconomic enrichment plant and no foreseeable prospects for new enrichment technology is not what Congress intended when it authorized privatization of USEC. I note that the Energy Department has sent the Energy and Commerce Committee draft language providing the Secretary with the authority to operate the gaseous diffusion plants and to sell low enriched uranium in order to meet domestic requirements. I believe that once the Energy and Commerce Committee has had the chance to evaluate the proposed framework for assuring domestic enrichment supply, there will be support to take the additional steps to begin to repair the damage caused the USEC Privatization. There are a number of significant policy concerns associated with USEC's premature closing of the Portsmouth enrichment plant and the absence of replacement technology coming on-stream in the interim. Specifically, these challenges are: (1) Loss of approximately one-half of the U.S. capability to produce enriched uranium; (2) Increased dependence on the Russian HEU Agreement such that a disruption could result in USEC's inability to meet its obligations. This raises both energy security concerns at home and national security concerns abroad with respect to enrichment and plutonium recycling (for example, the U.S. committed to supply Japan, South Korea and Taiwan with enriched uranium as an incentive to avoid use of plutonium based fuels for electricity generation); (3) The U.S. government has liabilities and obligations under Sections 3108 and 3109 of the USEC Privatization Act to honor all sales contracts entered into by USEC prior to the date of privatization in the event USEC fails to fulfill its obligations; (4) Today's trend toward just-in-time fuel procurement further increases vulnerability to supply disruption; and (5) Next generation Pebble Bed Modular Reactors being developed by the utility industry require fuel enriched to 8 percent U 235, and the Portsmouth plant is the only facility in the U.S. that is licensed and capable of enriching uranium to that level. This will put the nation in the position of having to rely on imports for the next generation of nuclear reactors. The September 18, 2000 DOE report entitled ``Options for Government Response to Energy Security Challenges Facing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle'' outlines a variety of scenarios where USEC would not be able to assure a reliable supply of uranium fuel. Today's legislation authorizing DOE to maintain the Portsmouth enrichment plant on Cold Standby serves as an insurance policy for the nation's electricity supply against supply disruptions. What exactly is entailed in Cold Standby? Cold Standby involves placing those portions of the uranium enrichment plant needed for 3 million SWU/year production capability in a shut-down non-operational condition and performing surveillance and maintenance activities necessary to retain the ability to resume production after a set of restart activities are conducted. This involves treating the cells to remove uranium deposits, buffering the process cells with dry air to prevent wet air in-leakage (which would destroy the barrier equipment), installation of buffer cell alarms to insure that proper integrity is maintained, and establishing procedures to keep equipment in a safe condition capable of being restarted. Today this takes place under the oversight of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission certificate. I am pleased that the Secretary of Energy was able to reprogram funding in April 2001 in order to place Portsmouth on Cold Standby when the plant closed in June of 2001 and to secure the funds needed to winterize these process buildings. Long term, I believe the best way to fund Cold Standby is to use a portion of the $1.2 billion in funds contained in the USEC Fund that are not already reserved under P.L. 105-204 for conversion of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6). These funds are held in the Treasury and, during the previous administration, these funds were determined by the General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget to be available for meeting the expenses of privatization. I urge the OMB to re-examine this as a source of funding for Cold Standby and to work with Congress to make these funds available. Alternatively, the cost of Cold Standby can be met through the use of appropriated funds, as was accomplished in the FY 02 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Either way, the nation will be purchasing insurance against the type of energy supply disruptions that could be worse than the problems witnessed in California earlier this year. As we discussed in the Energy and Commerce Committee, this authority to fund ``cold standby'' is not intended to compete for funds from the Energy Department's environmental clean-up fund known as the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination & Decommissioning (UED&D) Fund. While we are increasing the amount of funding from the UED&D Fund, it is important to me and my friends from Kentucky and Tennessee that the reimbursement for clean up at the thorium site does not shift funds from clean up activities at the three uranium enrichment sites. It is also important that the burden for cleaning up the thorium site does not fall on nuclear power ratepayers. I know the intent of this substitute is to address both of those issues by holding harmless the uranium enrichment sites' cleanup schedule and protecting our nuclear ratepayers from shouldering the additional cost of cleaning up the site in West Chicago, Illinois. I support this bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I may be the last speaker in this Chamber of this particular session of the House of Representatives. I rise today to say when it comes to the way we treat our veterans in this country, talk is cheap, but actions speak louder than words. Why do I say that? Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands this afternoon a document from the Department of Veterans Affairs entitled, ``Implementation of Medication Co-payment Changes.'' It is a document that details the changes that will take place in the level of co-payment made available to veterans who get their prescription medications at the VA hospitals. What we are proposing is outrageous in my judgment. Currently, most veterans who go to VA hospitals and receive their medications as an outpatient pay a $2 co-pay per prescription. On February 4, according to this document, that co-pay will be increased from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription, a whooping 250 percent increase. An unacceptable increase. Why is this so outrageous? It is outrageous because this House has recently passed a $15 billion bailout for the huge airline companies, $15 billion. This House has recently passed a bill that would have provided $24 billion in tax rebates going all of the way back to 1986, giving profitable companies a give-back of all of the taxes they had paid under the alternative minimum tax since 1986, estimated to be a $24 billion give-back. And yet at the same time, we are in the process of increasing the co-pay for veterans' medicines from $2 to $7. Mr. Speaker, I serve a veterans hospital in southern Ohio, the Chillicothe VA Hospital. I have been told by administration there that the average veteran who gets prescription drugs at that facility will get 10 or more prescriptions per month. If we take a $7 co-pay and multiply that by 10, it is $70, a sizable amount of money for a veteran living on a fixed income. These veterans frequently get not 1-month supply, but a 3-month supply at a time. If we take $70 times 3, it is $210. Why is it that we talk so eloquently in this House about our concern for our military, we honor our veterans, and yet when it comes to taking action, we penalize them at the same time we are willing to give huge, huge tax cuts to profitable corporations, many of them multi-national corporations. A 250 percent increase on our veterans for medicines they need to stay healthy or maybe even to stay alive, and we are doing it at a time when we are passing out money up here like drunken sailors. We have passed so many give-backs and pork barrel spending bills in this session of this House of Representatives, and yet we are penalizing our veterans. It is no wonder that veterans across this country have a right to say when it comes to the actions of this House, talk is cheap, but actions speak louder than words. On February 4 when veterans go to our VA facilities to get their medicines, and they have been used to pay $2 per prescription and they are asked to pay $7 for that prescription, I hope they rebel. I hope they let those of us in this Chamber know how they feel about this outrageous action. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill to place a 5-year moratorium on any increase for veterans' prescription drugs. My bill is H.R. 2820. I currently have 42 cosponsors. I am hopeful that every Member of this Chamber will choose to cosponsor this legislation, and as soon as we get back here after the first of the year, we will pass this legislation so that we will not penalize our veterans and require them to pay more than they are currently paying for their needed prescription medications.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, and I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which will help to ensure that we have enough nurses to care for our increasingly older population. The nursing shortage hits my rural congressional district, where it is difficult to attract and retain almost all health care professionals. Statistics indicate that my State of Ohio is licensing fewer and fewer nurses. According to the Ohio Hospital Association, in 1995, 6,875 new Ohio licenses were issued through the exam process. This number has dropped each year through the year 2000, when only 4,662 licenses were issued. And recently, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services estimated that Ohio will have 2,800 openings for registered nurses by the year 2002 which will probably go unfilled. Inadequate staffing that is the result of our nursing workforce shortage in our nursing homes and other long-term care facilities contributes to poor feeding, malnutrition, dehydration, and the hospitalization of nursing home residents. Studies show that there is a direct correlation between higher nurse staffing levels and better outcomes of nursing home care. This bill addresses these problems by expanding the nurse education loan repayment program to include scholarships if a nurse is willing to commit to serving in an area with a critical shortage of nurses. Like the National Health Service Corps, this provision gives nurses the incentives they may need to work in an area suffering from a critical workforce shortage, such as southern Ohio. The provision also gives nurses a longer list of facilities at which a nurse can complete his or her service commitment, including departments of public health, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. In addition, the bill authorizes public service announcements to educate the public regarding the nursing profession. Ensuring a strong workforce of health professionals would be particularly important in the events of a bioterrorist attack, when trained nurses would be critical to our Nation's effective identification of and response to the dissemination of a biological or chemical weapon. I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). She is a nurse. I am a psychologist. Others in this body are physicians. There was a time when most of us who served here were attorneys. And I think what the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the other nurses in this body have accomplished with this legislation is a testament to the strength that we have and the current diversity of those of us who make up this wonderful House of Representatives.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and especially my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the sponsor of this bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and his staff for their work on the bill. I am pleased that the substitute offered in committee helps to ensure that cleanup activities at the three uranium enrichment sites in our country do not suffer a setback as we increase funding available for the thorium processing site under title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. There is no doubt that all of these sites need to be cleaned up and these activities do not come cheaply. It is important that we clean up the thorium processing site in West Chicago, Illinois; and I completely understand the Speaker's desire to ensure Federal funds are available to do so. However, because the funds to clean up the thorium site come from the Uranium Decommissioning and Decontamination Fund, it is important to me and my friends from Kentucky and Tennessee that the reimbursement for cleanup of the Illinois site does not shift funds from the cleanup activities at the three uranium enrichment sites. It is also important that the burden for cleaning up the thorium site does not fall on nuclear-powered ratepayers. I know the intent of this bill is to address both of those issues by holding harmless the uranium enrichment sites' cleanup schedule and protecting our nuclear ratepayers from shouldering the additional costs of cleaning up the site in West Chicago, Illinois. I would like to say a special thanks to the Speaker, to the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for their help to include a provision in the bill that authorizes the Department of Energy to carry out necessary activities at the Portsmouth, Ohio, enrichment plant so that we can maintain our country's uranium enrichment capability. I have talked about our domestic uranium enrichment industry on numerous occasions before this Chamber, and I am pleased to see this bill includes a cold-standby provision for the Portsmouth site. I would also like to make clear that this cold-standby authority for the Department is not intended to compete for funds from the Department's cleanup Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund. Instead, this important energy security objective should be met by expending funds from the USEC Privatization Fund or from other discretionary funds. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill; and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for their hard work on a significant step towards this country's ability to strongly defend itself against bioterrorist threats. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001 makes important progress toward effective planning and preparedness by our public health system for a bioterrorist attack and the security of our food and water supplies. I am pleased that the bill includes direct funding of giants that will help our state and local public health departments implement emergency response plans, educate health care personnel, and equip the first responders in our emergency rooms and police and fire departments. The bill will do much to make sure our food supply is protected from attempts at contamination by increasing inspection and tightening port security; it also ensures that we have the tools to investigate any suspected contamination of the food supply by the increasing record keeping and requiring registration by the food industry. While I support the legislation we are considering today, I look forward to future work on bioterrorism legislation that will expand on this bill. We must require country of origin labeling at the retail level so that consumers can know the source of retail food offerings and consider that knowledge when selecting their purchases. We should ensure that we enact common sense requirements to protect our food supply that are responsible, not overly burdensome. We must expand on provisions in this bill to facilitate the development, production, and distribution of vaccinations that could protect our population against either an intentional bioterrorist attack or the devastating spread of an infectious disease. I believe we should create a national vaccine authority, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, to coordinate and aid in these efforts. Finally, we must continue to listen to those who will be on the front lines of any bioterrorist attack, including the doctors and nurses in emergency rooms, hospitals, and health centers and the members of fire and other emergency rescue teams, and help their local communities to meet their needs, restricting federal programs to coordination of these crucial local resources. Again, I support this legislation and thank my colleagues for their work in crafting it.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I was just thinking very recently, in fact, just a few days ago, we were able to get an amendment in the defense bill that would require that any steel used in the military apparatus that would be purchased with funds in that bill would have to be American-made steel. I remember as we were discussing and debating that possibility, there were those who said, well, this would be acceptable, because there is an exemption for these kinds of decisions that relate specifically to national security. But what the gentleman is saying, I believe, is that in most cases there could be a decision made by this House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, legislation signed into law by the President, and if it was interpreted to be in violation of these trade agreements as providing perhaps protections to our citizens that under the international trade laws would be deemed inappropriate or inconsistent with those laws, that there could actually be legal action taken against our government by a foreign corporation to try to force a change in the domestic law of this land. Is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to say to my friend from Ohio that as I am standing here listening to what you are saying, it causes me to think there are some in this Chamber who are willing to relinquish their responsibilities to protect the ability of this country to make sovereign decisions in the best interests of the people that we were elected to represent. I mean, to think that we in this body as representatives of the people could come together in a deliberative process, make a decision that we collectively feel is in the best interests of the health and safety of our Nation, and then to have entered into an agreement that would allow a for-profit foreign corporation to bring suit against our government based on their objections to what we think is best for the United States of America, it seems to me if we were to allow that we are relinquishing our constitutional responsibilities. Who are we responsible for representing and protecting, some foreign national company, a multinational company with no particular allegiance to any country, any democratic principles, any form of government, but whose bottom line is in fact profit? It just seems almost unbelievable to me that we would ever allow that to happen. It is an unconscionable thing. It is difficult to even contemplate that this government would ever permit that. What the gentleman says, I assume, is an accurate interpretation of what the circumstances would be.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. We have been talking among ourselves in a bipartisan way about the crisis facing the steel industry in this country. The President himself has said that maintaining a domestic steel industry is a national security issue. I believe it is. How can we produce the military hardware we need if we do not have steel that is produced domestically, without having to rely on foreign steel? These are serious matters. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned transferring our authority, the House and Senate authority, to the executive branch. What really troubles me is then the executive branch transferring that authority to some international body of unelected representatives, so that the American people have no representation, and I think that is what we are facing tomorrow, is the possibility of taking an action which can further erode the sovereignty of this Nation. I think that is a gross mismanagement of the constitutional responsibilities that we took upon ourselves when we stood for an election in this House of Representatives.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding. The gentleman's discussion of the imbalance in our trade reminds me of a friend that I had some years ago who frequently played the Ohio lottery. He would put 50 or more dollars every week into the Ohio lottery, and, occasionally, he would win $10 or $20 or $50. And, guess what, he was very free in telling everyone, oh, I hit the lottery. He was happy that he got his $50, but he seemed to have forgotten that week after week after week he had lost 50 or more dollars. That is the way we talk about the trade situation here. The administration and those who are for Fast Track will say, oh, since NAFTA we send more agricultural products to Mexico. They do not want to talk about the flood of products that are coming in from Mexico and from other countries.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. But I think it is important for those who are listening to us to understand why we are here tonight, and it is because we are going to be called upon tomorrow to cast a vote, and we are going to cast a vote that will protect the sovereignty of our Nation, or we will cast a vote that potentially will turn over all the decisionmaking that is important to all of the multiple millions of people that we collectively represent to this three-panel assemblage. Now, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Texas, and I think I know the answer, but which American citizens are able to vote and select any of those three persons that would be in a position to make decisions regarding the health and safety and security of this Nation? Is any American citizen ever going to be in a position to cast a vote to select these persons who are going to be making decisions for all Americans?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I believe when an American consumer goes to a supermarket to buy food or fresh produce they have a right to know where that food comes from, and I believe we need labelling of country of origin. I believe American consumers, if they are given a choice, will most of the time choose to buy products that are grown and manufactured in our country. But the fact is they do not have a choice because they are deprived of that necessary information, and one of the things they would like to see done is to require that the country of origin be made available to the consumer. Then the consumer can choose. But without that information the consumer is deprived of the opportunity of making the choice to buy the American-produced food or the American-produced product. Why should we keep that information from the American consumer? It just does not seem reasonable to me that this House would not take action to provide this information so that the American consumer can be informed.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. They want to talk about the modest increase in exports, but they do not want to talk about the multiple thousands of jobs that have been lost as a result of the flooding of imports. As we go to the shopping malls to buy our holiday gifts, it is very, very difficult, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), had said, it is very difficult, impossible to find a television that has been constructed and built in this country. It is very difficult to find many products that are American made, and that is because we are being flooded by cheap imports, built in some cases by slave labor, and in countries that are absolutely opposed to our way of life, to our democratic institutions, and yet we continue to do this. It is beyond belief that we could be contemplating doing tomorrow what some want to do.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I absolutely would yield.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a few moments this evening to explain something that is happening to veterans that I think many Members of this House may not be aware of and would like to correct. Currently, a veteran who receives prescription medications as an outpatient for a service-connected disability is charged a $2 copay per prescription, and the Veterans Administration is contemplating increasing that copay from $2 per prescription to $7 per prescription, a 250 percent increase in one fell swoop. Why are we doing this? I have checked with the Chilicothe, Ohio, Veterans Hospital and talked with their CEO. He tells me that, at that hospital, the average veteran who gets prescription medications takes, on average, at least 10 prescriptions per month. If we take $7 per prescription and multiply it by 10, that is $70 a month; and then many veterans get their prescriptions for 3 months at a time. So 70 times 3 finally starts adding up to a sizeable amount of money, especially for a veteran with a service-connected disability who is trying to live on a fixed income. It is unconscionable to me that at this time in our Nation's history, when we are paying honor to those who are fighting for us and for those who have fought for us, that we would increase the costs of prescription medications; and we are doing it at a time, quite frankly, when we are making huge, multibillion dollar tax breaks available to wealthy corporations. Who do we care about in this House? Wealthy corporations or the men and women who have served this country honorably and who are sick and in need of medication and who oftentimes cannot afford that medication, even with a $2 copay? I have introduced H.R. 2820, and it is a simple bill. It just simply says that the Secretary of the Veterans Administration cannot increase this copay amount beyond the $2 for the next 5 years. Surely, surely, we can find the resources to do this good thing. I am calling upon my colleagues, and I am doing this on behalf of those who have served our country, the men and women who have paid the price, given of their time, given of their bodies and been willing to give of their very lives to make sure that those of us who serve in this Chamber can do so in freedom. So I call upon my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 2820. It is the least we can do for those who have done so much for us.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I think veterans across this country would be upset to learn that at a time when we are giving multi-billion dollar tax breaks to wealthy corporations, we are in fact contemplating increasing the cost of prescription medications available to our veterans by a whooping 250 percent. We are in the process of increasing the copay for our veterans from $2 per prescription to $7 per prescription. Now, many veterans receive 10 or more prescriptions per month. Ten times seven is $70 a month. This is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable, when we are providing billions of dollars in tax breaks to profitable corporations, we would burden the veterans in our country by increasing the copay for their medications by 250 percent. This House should support my bill, H.R. 2820, which would freeze the copay for 5 years at its $2 per prescription level.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would just like to point out that many of these corporations are in fact multinational in nature. They have no loyalty to this country in particular or to any set of democratic principles or anything else, except the bottom line, and we allow these multinational corporations to influence American domestic economic policy. It is just absolutely wrong.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, as our Nation feels the effects of our current recession, and Congress discusses economic stimulus package, we must insure we do all we can for the motor which drives our economy, the American Worker. 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 and skyscrapers. But since the 1990s, many of these once great companies have fallen victim to foreign competitors who dump cheap steel on the American market. This year domestic steel producers have been further affected by rising energy prices and a rising dollar exchange rate which favors foreign-based companies. More than two dozen U.S. steel producers have gone into bankruptcy, these include once giant companies such as Bethlehem, LTV, Republic and Wheeling Pittsburgh. Some mills have been forced to shut down entirely. The Strickland, Stupak, LaTourette Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill will help an American industry ailing from the effects of globalization. Steel is a vital part of the economy of my State of Ohio and our nation as a whole. It ensures that none of the funds made available in the Defense Appropriations bill can purchase equipment, products or systems which contain steel not manufactured in the United States. As a Congress we must make sure the dollars we spend to protest the security of America protect the job security and livelihood of the American Steel worker.