Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I believe most Americans have thought that when they go to an airport and they check their luggage, that it is screened before it is put on that airplane. I think it is a surprise to a lot of American travelers when they find that those bags have not been screened. I would like to share one other paragraph from this Columbus Dispatch editorial on airline safety. This is in today's Columbus Dispatch. They say ``The U.S. Transportation Department's Inspector General reported just last Thursday that observations at seven of the Nation's 20 highest risk airports found nearly no screening of checked bags.'' Now, some time ago, $441 million in tax money was used to buy 164 high tech bomb detection machines for about 50 airports and 20 airlines. These largely have been gathering dust or sitting in warehouses. That is why we need a law. We need to make this mandatory so that when we go to the airport and get on an airplane with our families, the people we care about, for vacation or business or for whatever reason, that we can believe that our government has taken those steps that are essentially necessary for us to be as safe as possible. Until we do this, I believe the American public needs to know and to understand that there is a possibility that when they get on that airplane, it may have an explosive device in its cargo hold. The American people deserve that information. I do not want to scare people either. I want people to feel like they can fly and fly safely; but neither do I want to deceive or keep information from the public. The public needs to know that when they get on an airplane today, that it is likely that at least 95 percent of the luggage that is in the belly of that plane has not been screened for explosives. I go back to what I have said before. If we pass this legislation, I believe American lives will be saved. If we neglect to do this, if we play politics with this issue, if we put it off and put it off, if we argue about whether or not we are going to pass a bill or have Federal employees and this matter is continually pushed aside, I believe the lives of American citizens will be lost. What we are dealing with here is a very serious matter. Much of what we talk about in this Chamber and what we vote about does not have life or death implications, but this matter has life and death implications. That is why we should take it seriously. That is why I feel strongly that we should keep at this and every chance we have to come to the floor and talk about this issue, that we do it until the leadership on the other side of the aisle is willing to bring this bill to this floor so that we can have a vote. We are the representatives of the American people. We have a responsibility to do all that we can to protect them. We deserve the right to have this legislation brought to this floor for a vote. It is unconscionable that the leadership on the other side of the aisle would prevent us from bringing this vital legislation before this Chamber.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?

Mr. STRICKLAND. The fact is the American people want us to do this. The American people want to be safe when they fly. Most American citizens that I have talked to, who have flown, some of them for many years, have operated under the belief that when they took a bag and they checked it in at the airport that it was screened for explosives before it was placed aboard that airplane. I think this is something that members of both parties want. And as the gentleman said, if we had a chance to vote, I am absolutely confident that we would pass this bill overwhelmingly. But the fact is that a very small minority of the majority, those in positions of leadership, are preventing this legislation from coming to the floor for a thorough debate and a vote. It just simply is wrong. I believe as the American people find out what is happening they will become enraged and they will start expressing themselves, so that eventually we will get this bill passed; but we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to comment on my friend from Texas and her comment regarding the media and the need for public exposure. I believe it is beginning to happen. I go back to what I have said before here. I think one of the reasons we have not heard more about this is there has been an assumption, a belief, a false belief, that bags are currently being screened. I just point to this editorial in the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch of today, calling attention to this matter. Last evening in Columbus, Channel 10 television had a program where they discussed this need for increased security and bags being checked. So I believe people are starting to understand that what they have assumed for a long time is not necessarily what is happening. And when you consider the fact that probably no more than 5 percent of the luggage that is placed in the belly of a plane is checked, that is alarming. I have shared with my colleagues in the past the fact that I am not even certain that the current screening that is taking place is at all meaningful, because at Dulles International Airport last week, I checked in and put my bag down, and I was informed that my luggage had been randomly selected for further screening for explosives. And then I was asked to voluntarily take my bag down the corridor, go down another hallway, turn down another corridor, and there I would find the machine. I said to the person who gave me those instructions, what makes you think that I would voluntarily if I had an explosive in that luggage, voluntarily, without being escorted, with no one observing me, walk down the corridor and around and in back of this wall here to voluntarily have my bag screened if, in fact, it had explosives in it? Why would I not just decide to leave the airport and maybe come back in the afternoon when my bag may not be chosen at random for further screening for explosives? So what we are doing now, at least certainly at Dulles International Airport, is meaningless in my judgment. We need a law, we need procedures, we need standards, we need training, we need decent pay for these people, and they need to be Federal employees. In that way, the traveling public can have a high level of security and a sense that we have done all that we can do to make sure that they are safe when they fly.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I think many of the security issues perhaps will be addressed in the bill. The one aspect of security that I am fearful will not be included is what we are talking about tonight specifically. That is the screening of all the luggage that is placed in an airplane. For some reason, this has been something that the airlines have objected to for a long, long time. After we introduced the bill this past week, I got a call from a young man in New York City. He said that he had heard about the bill. He said, ``I am outraged because I am going on a vacation in a few weeks with my wife and child, and I thought the plane I was flying on would have the luggage screened.'' He said, ``What can I do to help get this bill passed?'' I said, ``Well, the best thing you can do is contact your Senators and your Congressperson and urge them to sign on to this bill. I think the American people want this.'' I have not talked to a single person in the last few weeks about this bill without encountering enthusiastic support for it. When people buy a ticket and they get on an airplane, they want to be sure that that airplane is not going to explode. It did over Lockerbie, Scotland. There was a suitcase bomb. That plane exploded and killed a lot of young people. One of the fathers this week said that plane that exploded was like a traveling schoolbus, because so many of the people on that plane were very young, in their early twenties, most of them. The fact is that the American public will never be able to feel as safe as they have a right to feel if we do not pass this bill. I have said something that I do not think is an extreme statement. I have said that if we pass this legislation, lives will be saved. If we fail to pass this legislation, it is inevitable, in my judgment, that lives will be lost. What we are talking about tonight is something that is of critical importance to the American people.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was just listening to the gentleman here, and I thought of something that happened on the day of September 11 in the afternoon in Columbus, Ohio. There were gas stations that started charging $5 for a gallon of gasoline on that day. These were individuals who were obviously using what had been a national tragedy in order to enrich themselves. Now, I have been watching what has happened around here over the last couple of weeks; and I have become concerned that there are those who are using the national tragedy that we have all experienced as a way of enacting a preexisting agenda. When the gentleman talked about people thinking on September 12 the way they did on September 10, I think that is exactly the case. What we are seeing here with some of these tax programs is an attempt to get these tax bills passed now when they could not have been passed before this tragedy and, somehow, tying the need for these tax breaks to what happened on September 11. There is much we need to do as a result of the tragedy that has befallen us, and we may need to cut some taxes in a way that gets money to the consumer so that they can spend and get this economy jump- started, but to use this tragedy to advance tax benefits for corporations while leaving out the little guy and the working person and those who have lost their jobs as a result of what happened; we have yet to do anything for the airline workers who lost their jobs. We took care of the airline companies with a $15 billion bailout; but we have yet to step up to the plate and say, the individual men and women who lost their jobs as a result of what happened on September 11, they need our help too.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think what we are dealing with here is a matter of honesty, honesty with the American people. I just heard the President in a press conference a few minutes ago urge the American people to go back to normal lives. And I want the American people to go back to normal living as well, but we also need to be honest. And we need to say to the flying public, when you get on a plane and the bags that are on that plane have not been screened for explosives, that plane is in danger. The people who travel and who fly need to know that information. This argument about the training of those who do the inspection, I would like to share an incident that I had at Dulles airport last Saturday morning that I think my colleagues may find surprising. Saturday morning at 20 minutes after 6 I went to the ticket counter at Dulles airport to catch a flight from Dulles to Columbus, Ohio. I had one bag with me, and I put it there. And I said to the woman behind the counter I would like to check this bag. She fixes my ticket and she gives me the seat assignment, and then she says, sir, your bag has been chosen at random to be further screened, certainly to be screened for explosives. She says this is what I would like you to do. I would like you to get your bag, and if you walk down this corridor about, I do not know, 40 feet, you turn to your left and then you come to the next corridor and you turn to your left, you will find the machine where they are doing the additional screening over to your right. I said to her, ma'am, with all due respect to whoever may have devised this system, what makes you think that if I have got an explosive device in that bag that I will willingly and voluntarily pick it up and carry it out of your sight to a place and have it screened? I would simply take that bag perhaps and leave the airport and come back another time and hope that it was not selected at random for further screening. So even what we are doing now at least on my experience does not make sense. That is why we need, I think, a federalization of this effort. We need standards for training. We need to pay people a decent wage, and we need to hold them accountable as a Federal Government for providing this kind of safety and security to the traveling public. It is just beyond belief that on the one hand we would be saying we want the traveling public to fly, we want to rescue the airline industry from the slump that it is in, we want to restore confidence to the American people. Well, we can do all of these things that we are talking about in terms of stronger cockpit doors, better screening devices for carry-on luggage, we can do all of that, but unless we deal with this giant loophole, unless we screen the baggage that is put into the bellies of these planes, we can never tell the traveling public that they are safe. Just this week, my colleague and I and some others met with two fathers who lost their young sons in the flight that crashed at Lockerbie, Scotland. One father lost a 20-year-old son; one father lost a 24-year-old son. Those two fathers shared with us that for the last many years they have been trying to get this done, and they have just constantly been running up against roadblocks and brick walls. The airline industry does not want to do this, but as was said in our press conference earlier this week, if there is another plane that is blown out of the sky, then the airline industry will suffer perhaps unimaginable devastation because if this happens again, and it is something that could have been prevented, people will give up flying. They will use the train, they will drive, or they will just simply not travel. So, in the long run, it is in the best interest of the airline industries themselves to come on board and say we are going to do this. It is something that makes so much sense. It can be done technologically. It will cost some money, but I fly sometimes twice a week. I am willing to pay a little more if that is what it takes to make sure that when I get on that airplane it is safe, and it will never be safe to fly as long as the bags that are placed in the bellies of these planes are not checked and checked thoroughly. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). A person may choose to do it, they may choose to fly today, even though those bags are not being checked, but they deserve the truth and they deserve to know that those bags are not being checked. And until we check them, we will never be safe as this government is capable of making us.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding. I think most Americans believe that when they go to an airport and they check their luggage, that that luggage will be screened for explosives before it is loaded on the plane that they are going to be flying on, with their families perhaps. I thought that was the case until a couple of years ago when one of my constituents, a young woman, went to Jamaica with two friends for a week's vacation. On the way back as they were screening her luggage in Jamaica, they discovered a handgun in that luggage and she was thrown in jail and remained in a Jamaican jail for several days. It cost her family a lot of money for legal help and so on to get her back to this country. As I was discussing this with her, I said, ``Why did you take a gun with you to Jamaica?'' She said, ``I had no idea the gun was in the luggage. I borrowed the luggage from my mother,'' her mother who had gone on a camping trip the summer before. And I wondered how did this luggage get out of the airport in Columbus, Ohio with a handgun without that being recognized, and that is when I first discovered that luggage is not routinely examined for contraband and weapons and explosives when you check it. As you know, only about, I think, 5 percent of the luggage is even checked today. The theory has always been, well, if someone checks luggage and then gets on the plane and is a passenger, that they certainly would not have put an explosive on the plane, otherwise they would end up killing themselves. We now know after September 11 that there are people who are willing to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. But even the theory that if you check your luggage and you are getting on the plane that it is not likely to have an explosive does not hold up because we do not even follow that procedure well. Two weeks ago in Denver, I had some friends who were flying from Denver to Columbus, Ohio, a young man and his wife and a young child. They went to the Denver airport and they checked their luggage, and they waited to get on their plane. As they were waiting to get on the plane, they became increasingly nervous about flying. At the last minute they decided not to fly but to drive to Columbus, Ohio. But their luggage remained on that plane and a relative picked it up in Columbus, Ohio. So even the procedures that we are supposed to have in place now are not being adequately followed through with. It is a serious thing. I think the American public, the traveling public, will demand that this luggage be screened, because I think that most people assume that it already is. I am glad you are bringing this to our attention and I am really very, very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation with the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, last year a single group of veterans in my district, the 6th District of Ohio, volunteered to perform military honors at over 60 funerals. They perform this solemn duty out of the kindness of their hearts and with the deepest respect for our nation's fallen heroes. A sad fact is that many of these same veterans lack the financial resources necessary to purchase the appropriate uniform for a full rendering of military honors. The Department of Defense (DoD) implemented important provisions with the FY00 Defense Authorization Act, providing support for honor guard details performing military honors to veterans. The bill specifies the Secretary of Defense may provide material, equipment, and training to support non-governmental organizations as necessary to support honor guard details. However, in discussion with DoD about their proposed plans to implement these provisions, I have been told that no uniforms will be provided to a veteran performing military honors. The DoD has even said no to the idea of providing uniforms to veterans who can demonstrate financial hardship. This decision by DoD is arbitrary and indefensible. I am pleased that the committee leadership accepted my amendment as part of the en bloc amendment which passed on September 20, 2001. This provision will require the DoD to supply the appropriate civilian uniforms to those veterans performing an honor guard program who demonstrate a financial need for such support. Posing little difficulty, this authority gives the DoD broad discretion in developing a policy of which we all can be proud. On another matter, I would like to bring to your attention a provision in the Senate Defense Authorization Act that is of importance to workers and their survivors who were made ill as a result of their employment in the nations' nuclear weapons facilities and beryllium suppliers to the energy Department across the nation. One of these facilities, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, enriched uranium for the nation's nuclear deterrent and naval propulsion programs in my district. The Senate included technical corrections to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000--a compensation program that was included in Title 36 of the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act. These changes embodied in Section 3151 of the Senate Committee report include: Expanding the definition of a ``survivor'' for uranium miners and nuclear weapons workers to eliminate a requirement that survivors must have been under the age of 18 when the covered worker died. Adjusting definition of the disease ``silicosis'' to conform to the medically accepted definition of 1/0. Setting a 10% cap on attorney fees for contested compensation claims beyond the 2% cap for the initial filing of compensation claim. Clarifying that rights of third party tort claimants to receive federal benefits who did not receive any recovery from these suite prior to the date of enactment of the FY'02 Defense Authorization Act. Requring a study on residual radiation and beryllium contamination in facilities that supplied materials to the Department of Energy for use in nuclear weapons. Clarifying that leukemia will be covered without regard to age of occupational exposure to radiation (currently the law only covers those exposed after age 20) for those in a Special Exposure Cohort. These amendments were accepted on a biparitsnan basis in the Senate and the costs estimated at $100 million are covered within direct spending authorized for the Defense Authorization Act as part of the FY'02 budget resolution. These amendments respond to concerns that were raised by hundreds of participants at over 50 field meetings conducted by the Department of Labor in its implementation of the EEOICPA. It is my understanding that the Department of Labor has no formal position on these amendments, and has not raised any specific objections. In conclusion, I hope the Armed Services Committee will agree to include in these amendments in the final legislation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I am glad that the House is considering Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education Amendments of 2001, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and my other colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for their strong bipartisan efforts to work in the passage of this legislation. My understanding is there are currently over 300 cosponsors in the House. Mr. Speaker, the muscular dystrophies are a group of genetic diseases that cause the progressive weakness of skeletal muscles. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is the most common of the childhood muscular dystrophies, and is the world's most lethal genetic childhood disease. The disease is characterized by rapidly progressive and painful muscle weakness that almost always results in death, usually by 20 years of age. Duchenne muscular dystrophy primarily affects boys with one in every 3,500 boys worldwide affected. A woman who is a genetic carrier of the disease has a 50 percent chance of passing it on to her son, and a 50 percent chance that her daughter will also be a carrier. Currently there are no specific treatments, although therapies to improve the quality of life of those suffering from muscular dystrophy can be used. Scientists are working to seek ways to increase understanding of muscular dystrophy and its causes, develop better therapies, and ultimately find ways to prevent and cure the disorder. However, research into muscular dystrophy is expensive, and requires an investment in gene therapies. H.R. 717 will focus funding within the National Institutes of Health on muscular dystrophy, expanding research programs, and creating Centers of Excellence that will conduct basic and clinical research into Duchenne and other muscular dystrophies. H.R. 717 also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect, analyze, and to report data about Duchenne and other types of muscular dystrophy. This type of close surveillance and research is critical if we are to truly understand this terrible disease and how we can best treat it or even cure it. In addition, the funding for the CDC will help to coordinate the Institutes of Health and CDC's research efforts. Finally, the bill will create an educational program for family physicians who may fail to recognize the symptoms of muscular dystrophy. Identifying the disease early will ensure that treatment programs will be more effective. Hopefully, strides in gene research will make early identification easier and treatment more effective. H.R. 717 takes important steps toward a cure for muscular dystrophy. Again, I commend my colleagues for their efforts on this legislation. For all of those families who have prematurely lost a son or daughter because of muscular dystrophy, this bill provides some hope that science will find a cure so that others do not suffer the same loss. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, a previous speaker expressed disappointment that this resolution is not an explicit declaration of war. Let me reassure the gentleman. The recipient of America's forthcoming sword of justice will not be able to recognize the difference.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Southern Ohio, I want to express our condolences to all those who have suffered the tragedy of the last few hours. Many years ago, a young missionary was murdered while working in the jungles of South Africa. Later, his parents found in his diary a message that is appropriate for us to contemplate today. The young man had written the following words: ``He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.'' All of us are mortal. We cannot determine the length of our lives or the circumstances of our deaths. That is true of us today as it was true of those innocent Americans who worked in the World Trade Center towers, and in the Pentagon, or were passengers in the hijacked airliners yesterday morning. As the day unfolded, they had no way of knowing the sadistic and barbaric acts which would take their lives. They were innocent victims, and we mourn their deaths. But we also mourn the deaths of those who freely gave their lives while trying to save others. We honor the firefighters, the police officers, and the citizen volunteers who unselfishly gave what they or none of us can forever keep. They gave their lives, and, in doing so, they have gained what they cannot lose, will never lose, and that is the everlasting honor, gratitude, and devotion of the American people. Today I feel unspeakable rage for those who killed our people. But, even more strongly, I feel the sense of pride in our country and the goodness and the decency of our countrymen.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association has said it well when they asked the question, Why should we oppose the Norwood amendment? They said we should because it overturns the good work done by States in protecting patients. We should oppose the Norwood amendment because it reverses developing case law that allows patients to hold plans accountable when they play doctor. We should oppose the Norwood amendment because it contains overly broad language that will remove most cases to Federal court. We should oppose it because it raises barriers for patients to make their case in court. And we should oppose it because it provides patient protections, but does not allow the enforcement of those rights in court. We are dealing with life-and-death matters today. In southern Ohio, Patsy Haynes, a 31-year-old mother who needs a bone marrow transplant in order to live, is being denied that transplant because of her insurance company. We need the right for the Patsy Haynes families and every other family to go to court and to get what they rightly deserve. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is in the larger scheme of things, as we talk about our national budget, certainly not a huge sum of resources or money, but the most important thing we do in this Chamber is to decide how to use the resources available to us. I am struck by the fact that last weekend when I was in my district, I met with a veteran who shared with me his concern that currently, when he went to the VA to get his prescriptions filled, he pays a $2 co-pay for his prescription, and that is likely to be increased to $7 per prescription. He shared with me that he takes 12 prescriptions a month. Going from a $2 copay to a $7 copay is a 250 percent increase for veterans in order for them to be able to get the medicines they need. Mr. Chairman, we make choices around here all the time about how we are going to use our resources. I have another constituent in my district who wrote me, saying that they had a child who was very ill and on oxygen, and they are struggling to keep their electricity from being cut off because they have been unable to pay their electricity bills. Again, we make choices up here about how we are going to use our resources. Now we want to use military funds to pay for the electricity bill at the Vice President's home. Well, in southern Ohio, we have a saying: ``What is good for the goose is good for the gander,'' and I would like to share with my colleagues some quotes from the Vice President that appeared recently in the July 17 issue of The New York Times. I read: ``Several weeks ago, Mr. Cheney said consumers should decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to conserve electricity based on their ability to pay utility bills.'' I quote: ``If you want to leave all the lights on in your house, you can, Mr. Cheney said. There is no law against it. But you will pay for it.'' What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is unwise and I think unconscionable at a time when we are requiring veterans to pay more for their prescription drugs, when we are having constituents communicate with us about their ability to keep the electricity on in their homes, even when they have a sick child in that home, it is wrong to use military resources for this purpose. Mr. Chairman, I simply would urge us to do the right thing. I do not think this is an attack on the Vice President, I really do not. It has been said here today that there is evidence that the Vice President has made efforts to conserve, and we applaud him for that. But there are Americans who are suffering deeply and greatly over this energy problem, and this administration has not responded appropriately, and we are just simply saying to the Vice President and to this administration, what you expect out of the American people in terms of responsibility and of paying their own bills, we should expect out of the Vice President.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for the hard work they put into this bill, which includes a number of programs that are very important to Southern Ohio. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on these Department of Energy programs that directly affect the workers and communities supporting the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant located in Piketon, Ohio. First, I would like to express my support for the $110,784,000 included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for costs associated with winterization of the Portsmouth, Ohio Gaseous Diffusion Plant and maintaining the plant on cold standby. It was just over a year ago today that the United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc. (USEC) announced that it would close the only U.S. uranium enrichment plant capable of meeting industry's nuclear fuel specifications. While I cannot overstate my disagreement, disappointment and disgust with that decision, I am pleased that funding will be available in Fiscal Year 2002 to ensure that the Portsmouth facility remains in a cold standby condition so that it could be restarted if needed in the future. I have been assured by the Department of Energy that the funding levels in this year's appropriations bill will allow the Department to meet its goals as announced in Columbus, Ohio on March 1, 2001 and as stated by then Governor Bush last October. I am aware of report language accompanying the bill which discusses the nonproliferation programs with Russia and, specifically, the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement. I support this incredibly important foreign policy initiative and I agree with the language calling for the Russian HEU to ``be reduced as quickly as possible.'' I am also aware that the purchase of the 500 metric tons of Russian HEU has not always stayed on schedule, and I support exploring ways to accelerate the purchase of the downblended weapons grade material from Russia. However, I would hope that we can accelerate this program without adversely affecting the domestic uranium enrichment industry. Today, we are dependent upon this downblended Russian HEU for approximately 50 percent of our domestic nuclear fuel supply. Increasing that dependence makes no sense to me, particularly at a time when we are debating a national energy strategy calling for greater energy security in order to avoid price volatility and supply uncertainty. We must act in a manner that strikes a reasonable balance between this significant foreign policy objective and the need to maintain a reliable and economic source of domestic nuclear fuel. I am disappointed that the Department of Energy's Worker and Community Transition Office funding falls short of the President's request. I am deeply concerned that the allocated funding is inadequate to address the needs of the Department of Energy workers and communities across the DOE complex who depend on these funds to help minimize the social and economic impacts resulting from the changes in the Department of Energy's mission. Finally, but not least of all, I am concerned about the slight reduction in the funding for the Department of Energy's Environment, Safety and Health Office. I am hopeful that this reduction will not impact the extremely important medical monitoring program at the Portsmouth plant, which also serves to screen past and present workers at other sites throughout the DOE complex. I am hopeful that these funds will be restored as the bill moves through the conference committee. We now know that many workers at DOE sites, including the one in Piketon, Ohio, handled hazardous and radioactive materials with little knowledge and, oftentimes, with inadequate safety practices. In fact, a May 2000 report issued by the Department's Office of Oversight on the Piketon Gaseous Diffusion Plant states, ``Due to weaknesses in monitoring programs, such as the lack of extremity monitoring, exposure limits may have unknowingly been exceeded. In addition, communication of hazards, the rationale for and use of protective measures, accurate information about radiation exposure, and the enforcement of protective equipment use were inadequate. Further, workers were exposed to various chemical hazards for which adverse health effects had not yet been identified.'' Scaling back the medical monitoring program now would be unconscionable knowing what we know today. Furthermore, the compensation program established last fall by passage of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), designed to compensate employees made ill by the work they performed for the government, would be weakened if workers are then denied access to medical screening. Although the EEOICPA is not a perfect bill, it would be a shame to hobble a long overdue program before it is even out of the gate.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Before coming to this House, I practiced psychology in a maximum security prison, working with mentally ill inmates; I worked in a community mental health center; I worked in a large psychiatric hospital; and I have worked with emotionally disturbed children. The fact is that we do need a strong patient's bill of rights. And it is puzzling to me, it is truly puzzling to me that today in America patients can be abused by managed care organizations and have no legal recourse. I would like to share with my colleagues tonight a story of one of my constituents. Every one of us here in the Congress, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, regardless of what part of the country we are from, have constituents who come to us with their problems, and I would like to talk this evening about a young woman who is 31 years of age. She lives in a small town in Highland County, Ohio. Her name is Patsy Haines. Patsy's husband called my office several weeks ago and he asked if we could be helpful. He told us that his wife suffered from chronic leukemia and that she had worked for 5 years at this company until she became too ill to work. She was diagnosed with this life-threatening illness. Her doctor told her that she needed a bone marrow transplant. Patsy has a brother who is willing to participate, who is willing to help her, and he is a perfect match for such a transplant surgery. The problem is that Patsy cannot get her insurance company to agree to pay for this surgery. I went to the James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, possibly one of the premier cancer facilities in this Nation. I spent half a day there, and I talked with the doctor who is over the entire transplant program at the center, and I spent a couple of hours with a young doctor, a very inspiring doctor, who is a specialist when it comes to bone marrow transplant surgery. This young doctor was incredibly sympathetic to Patsy Haines' condition, and agreed to talk with her and her physician. After his consultation, he agreed that this young woman needs this surgery. He told me that if she receives this surgery, she has a very good possibility of recovery, of living a long life, of being a mother to her child, a wife to her husband. But the sad fact is if Patsy Haines does not receive this surgery, she very likely will lose her life. This past Saturday I went to a high school in Hillsboro, Ohio. Community members had brought together items to auction off for Patsy. Patsy was there in a wheelchair because her illness has progressed to the point where her legs are badly swollen and she needs a wheelchair in order to get around. People sat on those high school bleachers, and they bought items which had been offered for auction. Patsy Haines is an incredibly inspiring young woman. I do not know if she is watching tonight or if her family or community members are watching tonight, but she inspires me. I said something at that auction that I truly believe, that none of us are islands. None of us in this world stand alone. As Members of Congress, we should have the attitude that each constituent's joy is joy to us, and each constituent's grief is our own. I feel grief for Patsy Haines tonight. It is shameful in the United States of America in the year 2001 that we have car washes and sell cupcakes and auction off small household items to get the resources necessary to help a young woman get the medical attention that she so desperately needs. The American people do not want us to be in this set of circumstances. The American people are with us on this issue. Poll after poll shows that the American people believe if an HMO or an insurance company makes a medical decision and deprives a person of necessary and needed medical treatment, that they ought to be held responsible in a court of law. As the gentlewoman said, the State of Texas has such a law, the State from whence our President came and where he was governor. During the last Presidential campaign I remember the President talking about the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights, and he displayed some pride in the fact that Texas had done this. What we are trying to do in this Congress with the Ganske-Dingell bill and on the Senate side with the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill is to do basically what they have done in Texas. The gentlewoman is right, in Texas this law has been in effect for 2 years, and there have been literally half a dozen lawsuits. The reason for that is, I believe, once this law is in place and the insurance companies know they are subject to going to court and having to face the consequences of that, it makes them much less likely that they will deny necessary treatment. So tonight we are talking about something really important. I hope the American people are watching. I believe the American people of every persuasion, conservative to liberal, Republican, Democrat, Independent, strongly believe that citizens of this country should be protected from this kind of awful, terrible, treatment. I hope as a result of what we are trying to do here Patsy Haines and her family, and Americans like her, will no longer be subject to this kind of mistreatment. What we are doing in the next 2 or 3 weeks here in Washington is as important as anything that this Congress has done in perhaps decades because we are taking the necessary step to see that American citizens, regular moms and dads and kids, get the kind of care they need. I will close by saying this. A couple of days ago a colleague of mine held a press conference in Columbus, Ohio, and came out in opposition to the Patients' Bill of Rights because of the ability to bring suit that is given to the patient in this legislation. There was a business executive there that had suffered a serious illness and was there to talk about the fact that he had been taken care of by his company. But not all of us are business executives. Some of us are just ordinary citizens like Patsy Haines. Our responsibility here in this Congress is to make sure that ordinary citizens are protected. I thank the gentlewoman for this special order and giving me the chance to talk about my constituent. I believe that the American people are watching, and as a result of the fact that they are watching us, I believe we have a very, very good chance of actually getting this legislation passed and signed into law.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for sharing these few moments with me. I will be very short. I was watching the gentleman on C-Span. I thought of one of my constituents that I wanted to come over and share with him. Tonight in Hillsboro, Ohio, in Highland County, Ohio, there is a constituent of mine who is 31 years old. Her name is Patsy Haines, she is a wife and a mother, and she has chronic leukemia. This Saturday we are going to have an auction. We are going to auction off items that neighbors and friends have contributed to get money to try to help Patsy Haines and her family afford the medical care she needs. I would like to explain something else briefly. Patsy Haines worked for a particular company that had a self-insured policy, insurance plan. She worked there for 5 years, until she became too ill to work. Her husband has worked at that company for 7 years. Patsy Haines has a brother who provides a perfect match for a bone marrow transplant. Her doctor says if Patsy Haines receives this transplant, the chances are she will be cured and live a long life and rear her child and be a wife to her husband. This is the problem: the insurance company refuses to pay for the transplant, saying that it is experimental. I went to the James Cancer Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, where some of the world's leading cancer experts work. I talked to the transplant team there. I talked to a young, very inspirational physician, degrees from Stanford and Harvard and a leading expert in bone marrow transplant. He confirmed that this is exactly what Patsy Haines needs. He said it is the standard treatment. I went to the Ohio Department of Insurance and I shared Patsy Haines' story with them and they were sympathetic but they said we really have no jurisdiction over this situation. So we find ourselves in the United States of America, in the year 2001, where a young woman, a wife, a mother, is facing a situation where she may lose her life. It is shameful. All of us in this Chamber should be ashamed that we have not passed a Patients' Bill of Rights long ago. It is beyond belief almost that we would actually stand in these Chambers and debate whether or not an American citizen should have the right to go into a court of law to have their rights defended when they are denied necessary and needed medical care. I thank the gentleman for this special order. The American people need to know what is going on. If they do know, I believe we will be forced to do the right thing even if we choose not to. So I thank the gentleman for this special order and for this time that has been given to me, and I hope that we can move together in the days and the weeks to come to accomplish this good thing for the American people.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a trend that I find very disturbing; a trend that I encounter again and again across a spectrum of seemingly unrelated issues. It is the trend of privatization, the trend of government forfeiting its responsibilities to those it serves. I believe strongly that certain societal functions are so important that they simply must be carried out by the government, namely the imprisonment of criminals and the maintenance of a health care safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. Now, I realize that these two functions are extremely divergent, but both are vitally important to society. The purpose of imprisonment is to protect the public from dangerous individuals who are paying a debt to society, and the purpose of the public health safety net is to protect the public, particularly the poor, from the ravages of preventable and treatable disease. These two public functions have one very important thing in common: once we privatize them and turn over their missions to profit-making entities, we will never be able to rebuild what we have lost. Public hospitals and public health centers provide a vital service as part of our national health care delivery system; they provide care to those who would be turned away from other institutions for not having health insurance. They often serve the poorest and the sickest populations, and are particularly attuned to the health consequences of delayed care, poverty, poor nutrition and chronic disease. Because these institutions are directly accountable to the public, they serve the public well--better, I would argue, than a privatized counterpart. I am not saying that private hospitals are not important or that they do not provide their share of uncompensated care, because they do, and we need to have them around. I am saying that public health care providers play a very important role in the health care marketplace, and they are unique in that they are more directly accountable to the public than are their private counterparts. More important, once we break our commitment to providing public health care by privatizing this service, we will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to re- establish this vital component of our comprehensive health care delivery system. I fear that we are moving toward this unfortunate state of affairs right now in our nation's capitol with the proposed privatization of DC General Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the plan to privatize DC General is, like most privatization plans, an extremely shortsighted measure that will jeopardize the availability of quality health care for some of the city's poorest citizens. Likewise, the privatization of our nation's prisons is a practice that I find equally repugnant. The need to make a profit creates an incentive for private prison companies to cut comers when it comes to the security of the facility and the quality of correction personnel. The result is understaffing, low wages, inadequate training, poor benefits, and difficult working conditions. Reports from various private facilities reveal a failure to fill staff positions, a failure to provide government mandated programs that involve proper correctional officer training and prisoner rehabilitation programs, and a failure to implement tested, comprehensive security measures. Additionally, when governments contract out with private prison operators, taxpayers lose much in the way of valuable oversight tools. Nevertheless, they are still forced to assume much of the financial and legal liability associated with the operation of private prisons. If there are riots or breakouts, local government authorities are called in to handle the situation. When a private prison official violates an inmates rights, the taxpayers from the community--not the prison corporation--foot the bill for the lawsuit. Whether it's the security of our prison system or the health care of America's poorest citizens, privatization is a risky business that could cost us dearly down the road. I hope that the Congress will take very seriously its responsibility to the American public and not continue efforts to privatize safety net health care providers or the nation's prison system.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the oil companies are recording record profits. The oil companies are getting the profits which they ought to be using to invest in new technologies and in new resources. We ought not to feel sorry for the oil companies. They are doing very well. But I tell you who I feel sorry for. I have got residents in my district who drive one way 85 or 95 miles to work so that they can have a job to support their families. They do that day in and day out, and some of them year in and year out. They are going to the pumps, and they are paying $1.86 up to $2 per gallon to put gasoline in their tanks simply so they can go to work and earn a living. We have got a responsibility to do something about that. It just really, really troubles me. When someone runs for the Presidency, they assume responsibility. The President has a responsibility to the American people to provide leadership and to protect them from being gouged by the oil industry. That is his responsibility. If he did not want to accept that responsibility, he ought not to have sought the Presidency. There is a burden that comes with an office. We share it here in this House, but the President and the Vice President share it as well. They have got a responsibility to step up to the plate to say what is happening is wrong and to take steps to make sure that the American people are protected. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can overestimate the anger of the American people on this issue, and it is going to grow as we enter into the summer months and gasoline goes from $1.86 to $2 and beyond. That is when we are going to see the strong feelings of the American people directed toward us. That is one of the reasons to act. The real reason we should act is because it is the right think to do for our constituents. But even if we did not care about the well-being of our constituents, if our only unworthy motive was our political survival, we ought to care. Mr. Speaker, I hope the President and the Vice President and the leaders of this House are listening to this debate because the American people are expecting action.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and I would like to take a few moments to talk about my district in southern Ohio, because as I have heard my colleagues discuss gas prices in their districts, I was thinking gas prices are so much higher in my poor, rural district. But first, I would like to say some things about the President and his justification for this tax cut, 43 percent of which will be going to the richest 1 percent of the people in our country. Last summer during the campaign he said we needed this large tax cut simply because we had a huge surplus, and this surplus, rather than being spent on government programs, should be returned to the taxpayer. That was the justification a year or so ago. Then just 2 or 3 months ago, he was justifying this huge tax break, most of which is going to the very wealthy, by saying our economy is entering a period of slump and perhaps moving into a recession, so we need a tax break to generate activity within our economy and keep us from going into a recession. Lo and behold a couple of days ago I was flabbergasted to hear the President say we need a tax cut so people can spend it on gasoline so that my friends in the oil industry can reap the benefits of the tax cut, basically. It is just beyond belief that we would have such shallow, superficial thinking going on when the Nation is facing a very serious problem. My colleague said he thinks this concern about gas prices may be near the top of people's concerns. I can tell my colleagues after having gone home to southern Ohio for the last several weekends, in my district it is the primary concern. I can go nowhere in my district without meeting people who are saying to me, Congressman, what can you do about these gasoline prices? I can tell you this weekend the cheapest gasoline I could find in southern Ohio was nearly $1.86 per gallon. That was for the cheapest grade, and the premium was over $2 a gallon. Mr. Speaker, another thing that troubles me, these prices fluctuate overnight. Especially as we move toward the weekend, this happens regularly. As we are moving toward the weekend on Thursday night or Friday morning, prices may escalate 10 or 15 cents or more overnight. This happens weekend after weekend. Now, the American people are fairly wise, and they know when they are being taken advantage of. I believe that there is a quiet but growing anger throughout this country. Those of us in political office who are supposed to be representatives of the people are going to pay a heavy price if we do not deal with this issue. The American people are being gouged. They are being charged unfair prices, and they feel hopeless and helpless; and they are looking to Washington for some relief. Mr. Speaker, to have the President say there is nothing we can do, to have the Vice President say there is nothing we can do is not acceptable. We must do something. I have been trying to search for solutions. I think we should even consider the possibility of a windfall profit tax to be levied on these companies that are gouging the American public. Last summer in the early summer, myself and the two Senators from Ohio, Senator Voinovich and Senator DeWine, both Republican Senators, met with the Federal Trade Commission. We were concerned at that time with what was happening with escalating gasoline prices, and we asked them to look into the situation and try to determine if something illegal was happening, if collusion was occurring between the oil companies. Finally, after several months of looking at this, they came out with a report. The report stated that it was not possible for them to establish indications of collusion which would be illegal, but that there was some strong indication that some of these companies were purposefully withholding supplies in an effort to drive up prices. Now, I want to say a word about supply. I do not like the fact that OPEC has cut back on supplies. The fact is we used our national resources, we put our sons and daughters in danger to protect Kuwait and to keep that part of the world relatively free of the threat of Saddam Hussein. We are supposed to be friendly with Mexico. It troubles me that these companies that use our support and use our protection and use our resources, when they find themselves in need would be so terribly insensitive to the situation facing this country that they would cut back on supplies. But it troubles me even more, Mr. Speaker, that our President is unwilling to expect something out of these OPEC nations that we as a Nation have a right to suspect. It troubles me that he will not urge and insist that they increase their production. Having said that, I suspect that the problem is not a supply problem right now in the immediate future, but the problem is a pricing problem. I do not see any stations running out of gasoline or lines of people waiting to get gasoline. We can buy as much gasoline in southern Ohio as we are willing to pay for. The problem is that we are simply being charged too much. Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be a price to pay, regardless of whether or not we are Democrats or Republicans, or from what part of the country we come. If we do not do something to give relief to the American public, the American public has every right to seek retribution against us at the polls. The American people are patient and tolerant, and I think they are wise; but they also get tired, and there is a line beyond which we must not cross. We owe them protection. I urge the President, I urge the leadership of this House to assume the responsibility that we rightfully have as representatives of the people and think of the various ways in which we can take action to bring some immediate relief this spring, this summer to the American people. I wanted to share those thoughts with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because I know that the American people are paying attention to what we are doing up here, and I think they are also paying attention to what we are not doing up here. I urge all of my colleagues to address all of these issues.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think his actions indicate that he is happy with the high prices. To say that the answer to the high prices is just for the American citizen to get a tax break so he can then take that tax break, use it to pay these high prices so that the oil companies will get their profits, that is very troubling to me.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Their profits are enormous. The supplies are there; otherwise we would not be able to go to the pump and buy the gasoline. I know of nowhere in this country where there seems to be a shortage of gasoline at this time. There is all of the gas that we want to buy if we are willing and able to pay for it. How much profit is enough? How much profit is it going to take to encourage the oil industry to innovate and to do those things that they need to do to bring more supplies to market? Mr. Speaker, if I felt that there was a true shortage of supply, then there may be some reasonable expectation that prices would escalate. But what we have now is apparently a sufficient supply; but ever- increasing costs and ever-increasing profits; and we have got a President and a Vice President who seems to think that is okay. That is very troubling.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)