Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as an original cosponsor of H.R. 434. My name was inadvertently included as a cosponsor of that bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hand a cloth filled with coal dust sent to me by a principal from a southern Ohio school saying: Congressman, this is what our teachers must use to wipe the coal dust from our desks and the computers before our students can use them. Ohio, Ohio ranks 50 among the States in terms of the physical condition of our school buildings, and yet in Ohio we use public tax dollars to build sports stadiums. The average school in my district is 46 years old. Students in my district go to schools that are unsafe. Ten percent do not meet local fire codes. We need federal assistance, not federal control, but federal assistance to enable our local schools to build, repair and modernize the schools our children attend. In Ohio prisoners could not be housed in some of our school buildings because the courts would say they were unfit for prisoners, and yet we send our students there.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Economic Development Administration. These two programs work to uplift those regions in this nation that have been left out of many of the rapid improvements in transportation systems, infrastructure development, communications capabilities, and health care accessibility. In my District in southern Ohio, the median family income is less than $22,000 a year, and the college-going rate is less than half the national average. The area is medically underserved, and unemployment rates are consistently above the state and national average. My constitutents want to participate in the economic recovery in this country. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), under the direction of Dr. Singerman and Dr. White, target the specific needs of areas like southern Ohio with health care grants, highway construction, incentives to encourage entrepreneurship, and basic infrastructure development. Residents in the Sixth Congressional District can attest to the tremendous value of these two programs by pointing to numerous projects that would have been impossible without the support of EDA and ARC. I am pleased to support today's reauthorization legislation, which will ensure the ongoing mission of these two important agencies. I would like to thank the Transportation and Commerce Committees for their work on this important bill, and commend Federal Co-Chair Jesse White and Assistant Commerce Secretary Singerman for their emergetic labor. And I look forward to working with both of them as the ARC and the EDA move forward into the 21st Century.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4017, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998. The bill supports the continued funding of worthy programs that stemmed from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Energy Conservation and Production Act. During the mark-up of H.R. 4017 in the Commerce Committee, the bill was amended to include a provision that would make our Nation less dependent on foreign oil supplies by promoting the use of biodiesel fuel in the Federal Government. I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of a provision that will provide credit for those who consume the biodiesel blend, B-20, an alternative fuel. Currently, Federal, local, and municipal agencies must add alternatively fueled vehicles to their fleets. B-20 is an easily- accessible alternative fuel that is a combination of many of the farm products produced in southern Ohio. The bill authorizes fleet managers using biodiesel in their motor vehicles to receive credit toward the requirements for alternatively fueled vehicles established under current law. Of equal importance is the positive effect this bill will have on farming communities across the country including those in the Sixth Congressional District of Ohio. This bill supports farm incomes by increasing demand for soybeans, natural fats, and other farm products. This measure is critical, given the current economic woes of farmers in Ohio and the rest of this country. H.R. 4017 does not create any new mandates on covered fleets, and actually provides fleet operators greater flexibility in compliance with existing law. The Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act modified the purchase requirement program to reward the use of alternative fuel sources. In sum, the bill promotes U.S. energy security and regulatory flexibility while assisting America's farmers.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is true that patients in this country are being deprived of essential and necessary health care, oftentimes resulting in their death, because managed care companies are placing profits above the needs of patients. I would like to share with my colleagues two stories, two real-life stories from my district. One involved a long-time friend of mine, and I will use his name, because before his death he gave me permission to talk about his situation on the floor of this House. His name was Jim Bartee. He was a person younger than I am, someone that I had known for many, many years. Jim grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio. He went to Florida and became a publisher of a small newspaper. He developed leukemia, and he came back home for treatments. While he was in the hospital, getting chemotherapy, he called his managed care case manager and he was talking about his situation. She said to him, ``How are you doing, Jim?'' He said to her, ``Well, I am feeling a little sick now because of the chemotherapy.'' She said, ``Well, if you need a couple of more days in the hospital, I can approve that for you.'' He said, ``Well, what I really needed to talk with you about was a conversation I had with my doctor this morning.'' He said, ``My doctor came in and told me that I have perhaps as little as 3 weeks to live, and that my only hope for survival may be a bone marrow transplant.'' She responded, this managed care case manager responded, by saying, ``Oh, we could never get it approved that quickly.'' He said to her, ``How much would it cost?'' She said, ``Probably somewhere in the vicinity of $120,000.'' She said, ``Jim, we just could not get it approved that quickly.'' So, my friend, who had been a newspaper publisher, called his newspaper in Florida and told them what his managed care case manager had said to him. They said to him, ``Jim, whatever you need, medically, do not worry about the cost. We will make sure it is paid for.'' As it turned out, a bone marrow transplant was not indicated, according to his doctor, eventually, and so Jim passed away. I spoke at his funeral. He was one of the bravest, one of the kindest people I have ever known in my life. I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, my reason for sharing this story is this: No one facing a death threatening medical set of circumstances should be told by an insurance bureaucrat, we cannot approve this treatment in time. That is a decision that ought to be made by a physician and the patient. I share this story because before Jim Bartee died, he told me that he would like for me to share with others what his experience had been. Then a second circumstance that occurred in my district was a young man who grew up in one of my counties and went to California to go to college, and he affiliated with a managed care organization out there. He came back home for a visit and went hiking and fell some 80-some feet and damaged his brain, and he has been in a coma ever since. After the fall, he was immediately taken to surgery in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a few days after surgery the managed care company informed his parents that they would no longer provide medical coverage unless he was in one of their facilities. So the patients allowed this young man to be air transported to California. The mother took a leave of absence. She is a schoolteacher. She took a leave of absence to go to California to be near her son. The week before Christmas, they contacted my office and they told me the care that he had received there: Lack of physical therapy, his teeth rarely being brushed, his body not being turned every two hours as it needed to be turned in order to keep him from getting bed sores. When they contacted me, they told me that the managed care company told them that his coverage would expire on January 1, and that thereafter they would be responsible for his medical costs. At that point, they asked if he would be returned to Ohio. They said it is against our company policy. It was not until my office got involved and we literally threatened to make this the Christmas story of 1997 that on Christmas Eve day they finally relinquished and told his parents that they would fly him back to Ohio. He is now in Ohio in a nursing home and he remains in a coma. I talked to the father recently, and he said while his son was in California, a large swollen area developed on his skull and that they tried to get the managed care company to have him seen by a specialist, and it was put off and put off and put off until his coverage expired. Once he got back to Ohio and the physician saw him in Ohio, they said, this needs immediate attention. They discovered that he had an existing serious infection that had been neglected for a long, long time. The father believes that that managed care company refused to evaluate his condition simply because they did not want to bear the cost of the necessary treatment. These are the things that are happening to my constituents and to real Americans, and every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat alike, should stand together to say, we are no longer going to tolerate American citizens being abused in these kinds of ways. That is why I am really proud of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). Many people may not know that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is himself a physician. He has joined with some of the rest of us to fight this fight to make sure that patients come first, and that profits, while essential and necessary for any corporation or any business, should not be put first and patient needs put second or third or fourth. So I am pleased that you have given me the time to talk about my constituents and the problems they have had. I encourage you, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, to continue your fight for all of us.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 4049. My name was inadvertently added as a cosponsor when I asked to cosponsor H.R. 872.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, in order to allow the gentleman to explain his request, I yield to the gentleman for an explanation.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, although I do not intend to object, I would like to take an opportunity to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) for working with me to make this unanimous consent possible. What this will accomplish is very important. It means that money that was collected for the cleanup will be used for its intended purpose. Jobs will be created in the Piketon, Ohio and the Paducah, Kentucky communities, jobs that are desperately needed by those who may lose their jobs as a result of the privatization of this industry. These are men and women who have helped our country win the Cold War and we need to look out after their well-being. This bill will also make it possible for our constituents in Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky to live in safer, healthier communities, and for that we should all be thankful.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for a further explanation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern for funding the management of the depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) currently stored at the facilities in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky and Depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) is hazardous and extremely corrosive. These materials are known as ``tails'' and are the result of years of enriching uranium for nuclear fuel in commercial power plants. Atmospheric releases of DUF6, if they occurred, would pose a significant threat to workers at the sites and communities surrounding those sites. The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) was established in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to assume responsibility for the Department of Energy's (DOE) uranium enrichment program. Currently, USEC has accrued approximately $400 million from the private sector which is supposed to be utilized to clean up the ``tails'' it has generated. The 1992 Energy Policy Act not only transferred the Department's uranium enrichment program to USEC, but it also included a requirement that USEC prepare a strategic plan to privatize the corporation, and today, that privatization plan is near completion. The $400 million specifically earmarked for cleaning up the ``tails'' will be transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury upon completion of privatization. I am anxious to see that these funds accrued by USEC for cleaning up the ``tails'' are used to meet that need after privatization. I have been greatly disturbed to learn that the plans for privatization call for job losses totaling between 600 and 1700 workers at the Ohio and Kentucky facilities. Ensuring that the $400 million is spent to dispose of USEC's DUF6 at both of the Gaseous Diffusion plants would certainly help to mitigate the workforce reductions by employing the displaced workers. It would make sense to ensure that the $400 million currently accrued by USEC to fund the management and disposition of the USEC ``tails'' continue to be earmarked for cleaning up the ``tails'' rather than diverted to some purpose for which it was not intended. I will continue to work to ensure that a solution is reached before the final sale of USEC.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see the House of Representatives take up the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom bill. This legislation will allow the U.S. Park Service to initiate public-private partnerships in order to interpret and commemorate the many sites and stories that make up the Underground Railroad. The spirit and history of the Underground Railroad cannot be confined in a single museum or monument or National Park. Underground Railroad sites are scattered across my district in Southern Ohio, where slaves escaped the states to the South by crossing the Ohio River into freedom. Ohio has the longest border with slave states of any other free state in the union. Many families in Southern Ohio took great risks in order to help their brothers and sisters from the South shed the shackles of slavery. Most of these people had never even met the fugitives they harbored, and never saw them again. The Underground Railroad Network to Freedom bill will establish a national list of the sites and trails where these daring rescues took place, so that future generations can learn more about the courage and fortitude of the passengers and conductors on the Underground Railroad. I look forward to the implementation of this bill, and I would like to thank my colleagues from Ohio, Representative Stokes and Representative Portman for their hard work on this important legislation.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, the Assisting Acquisition of Russian Material (AARM) Act, along with my colleague Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, which would provide the Department of Energy with ``standby'' authority to purchase Russian uranium under the U.S.-Russian-HEU Agreement signed in 1993. The Russian Federation and the United States entered into this agreement to ensure that highly enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled nuclear warheads would be used for peaceful purposes only. In January 1994, President Clinton announced that the U.S. and Russia signed a contract to purchase $12 billion of highly enriched uranium over a 20-year period. The U.S. purchase of 500 metric tons of this material is clearly a crucial national security initiative. This foreign policy measure provides an important incentive to the Russian Federation to continue dismantling its nuclear weapons and ultimately helps to safeguard the U.S. and the rest of the world from the threat of a nuclear incident. I strongly support this foreign policy objective which serves our national security interests and those interests of the entire world. However, under this U.S.-Russian Agreement, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) will serve as the Executive Agent responsible for acquiring the downblended Russian uranium which it will then sell as commercial nuclear reactor fuel. The status of USEC as the Executive Agent under this agreement troubles me because, at this time, the government is privatizing the industry responsible for implementing the U.S.-Russian HEU Agreement. A private USEC acting as the Executive Agent will face conflicting obligations to maximize profits and to fulfill its requirements under both the U.S.-Russian Agreement and the statutory purposes guiding the privatization process of the corporation. Under the laws governing privatization of USEC, Congress specifically outlined eight statutory criteria, including a requirement that privatization lead to ``continued operation'' of the gaseous diffusion plants in Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky. However, if USEC is forced to purchase significant quantities of Russian uranium under the HEU Agreement, the corporation may be forced to reduce work at the plants or to close one entirely. Clearly, the role of USEC as the Executive Agent under the Agreement could lead the newly privatized corporation to choose between the national security purpose of importing higher priced Russian material and its own desire to maximize profits. Furthermore, the public objective of purchasing specific quantities of Russian uranium directly conflicts with and adversely affects the statutory criteria calling for continued operation of the gaseous diffusion plants. In order to help resolve these potential conflicts and ensure that U.S. foreign and domestic policy objectives are met, the AARM Act states that the Department of Energy will have the authority to purchase, hold and resell the downblended HEU imported from Russia under the U.S.-Russian Agreement. This legislation helps to preserve the livelihoods of those in the communities surrounding the gaseous diffusion plants while ensuring that the U.S. continues to purchase Russian uranium to reduce the threat posed to the world by dismantled nuclear warheads. The bill represents a common-sense solution, ensuring that the government maintains responsibility over our national security interests and that the private sector can function without being saddled with unnecessary burdens.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague Mr. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, which would guarantee that an amount equal to the tax windfall the federal government receives from the privatized United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) would help to assist job creation and stimulate economic development in southern Ohio and western Kentucky. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the government-owned corporation USEC was created to assume responsibility for the Department of Energy's (DOE) uranium enrichment program. The 1992 Energy Policy Act not only transferred the Department's uranium enrichment program to USEC, but it also included a requirement that USEC prepare a strategic plan to privatize the corporation. On June 30, 1995, USEC issued its privatization plan. Today, that privatization plan is near completion and the transfer of this public asset will take place as soon as this summer. Back in the 1950's the Department of Energy's gaseous diffusion plants in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky operated to supply enriched uranium for U.S. nuclear weapons and later for reactor fuel for nuclear submarines. Today, the Piketon and Paducah facilities provide an essential service in the production of fuel for commercial nuclear power plants operated by electric utilities. Unfortunately, the changes in DOE's mission have led to significant workforce reductions at the plant in southern Ohio, and this downsizing dramatically affects a region which has not experienced the unparalleled economic recovery so many other communities throughout the country have enjoyed. Under privatization, USEC intends to restructure its operation and there is a growing uncertainty about the security of existing jobs at the plant. Therefore, I believe the bill we are introducing today provides a reasonable approach to addressing the needs of the workers, their families and the communities of Ohio and Kentucky that supported our efforts during the Cold War. Specifically, the bill directs the Department of Energy's Worker and Community Transition Office to set up and manage a fund dedicated to improve economic security of the communities which depend on and support the operation of the two uranium enrichment plants located in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky. The appropriation to this fund would be authorized at a level equal to the tax windfall received by the federal government from the privatized USEC. Under the management of DOE's Worker and Community Transition Office, the allocation of funds to the regions would be directly related to the economic distress factors in the local communities surrounding the facilities and could provide the resources necessary to improve the economic health in these regions. Those counties experiencing the highest unemployment rates would receive larger allocations than counties with unemployment rates closer to the state average unemployment rate. These financial resources would be used to help train displaced employees and market the region for future business opportunities. This dedicated fund would dissolve when the local unemployment rates of the affected counties reach the average unemployment rate of the respective states for a period equal to at least one year. While I recognize that downsizing at DOE facilities adversely affects local communities across the country, I doubt whether many of these communities have the pressing need that exists near the Piketon, Ohio plant. Recent unemployment statistics indicate that the average unemployment rate of the four counties surrounding the Piketon, Ohio plant is greater than 10%. The average unemployment rate in the state of Ohio is 4.3%, seasonally adjusted, and the national adjusted average unemployment rate is 4.7%. This bill is designed to address this unacceptable disparity and help to ensure that southern Ohio has an equal opportunity to contribute to this nation's economic recovery.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Marietta, Ohio I had a chance to talk with the newly appointed Chinese ambassador, and I raised with him the issue of Christians and others of religious faith who are imprisoned in China. He denied that that was the case. Following that exchange, a young student attending Ohio University came to me and thanked me for raising the issue, saying that he had been a part of the Tiananmen Square student uprising, and he could attest to the fact that China imprisons people of faith. It is almost impossible for us to imagine a place where worship and fellowship is illegal, but The New York Times has reported and others have substantiated that for people who live in China and other oppressive countries, religious persecution is a constant reality. The Chinese Government likes to claim that it allows religious pursuits and only arrests Christians who are troublemakers. But what they do not say is that the so-called churches they point to, the State-sanctioned churches, are actually under the control of the Communist Party. China prohibits Christians from worshipping in any churches except those they deem patriotic ones, that submit to the Communist Party's religious domination, registration, regulation, control of clerical appointments, and censorship reached to the pulpit and to the altar, like forbidding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. China is by no means the only country that denies religious liberty. The Government of Sudan, for instance, uses tactics such as slavery, forced conversion, starvation, torture and the kidnapping of children against Christians and even Muslims they do not agree with. All of this is why I urge support for the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. This act seeks to use America's leverage as the world's only superpower to pressure oppressive countries into allowing more religious freedom. If we do not act, who will? If not now, when?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the Freedom from Religious Persecution bill, which this House will consider this week. While in southern Ohio this past weekend, I had the unique opportunity of meeting and speaking with China's newly appointed ambassador to our country, Mr. Li Zhaoxing. I must admit that my concerns about religious persecution, both inside China's borders and around the world, have been significantly reinforced by my discussions with Ambassador Li. I believe it is imperative that Congress convey unambiguously its resolve and to take action to defend the inalienable rights of self- expression and the pursuit of intellectual and religious freedom, which are fundamental human rights. They demand our attention and are in need of safeguarding. If we choose not to act, China and many other nations around the world will continue with strong-arm tactics and repressive actions in an attempt to stifle free thinking. We owe it to the thousands of prisoners of conscience to take a stand on this issue. If we do not, who will?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, today's financial services marketplace is an increasingly complex web of interconnecting products and service providers. In the 1990's, consumers are going to their bank not just to deposit money in a traditional passbook savings account, but also, increasingly, to purchase insurance products. They visit their insurance broker not only for simple, term life insurance, but also for insurance products that include a long-term investment component. Consumers are no longer content with the choices of the past, but are demanding more advanced financial products and often want the convenience of ``one stop shopping.'' At the same time, financial institutions are consolidating at an increasing rate--banks are merging with other banks and insurance and securities dealers are combining forces--leading to new types of financial entities. These changes are enhancing the success of U.S. financial markets. They stimulate the economy and provide consumers with more savings and investment options. Unfortunately, the Depression era laws that regulate our financial markets have not kept pace with these market forces, leaving American consumers faced with a ``catch 22''. Consumers have access to more advanced, enhanced financial products, but are not adequately protected from fraud and abuse by the laws that currently regulate their financial investments and savings. As a result, the regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing those laws are forced to deal with new entities using old formulas that fail to fully appreciate the complexities of the evolving marketplace. The world recently witnessed in Asia that unregulated financial markets can lead to corruption and weakened economic conditions. With America's financial markets slowly evolving in the same direction as those in Asia, it is crucial that our country learns from Asia's misfortune and take the initiative to develop appropriate measures that will deter similar negative repercussions in our own financial markets. In the House of Representatives, the House Committees on Commerce and Banking have worked to develop a legislative response to these changes for the past year and a half. We recently reached a critical juncture in the legislative process--the Committees have devised a plan that lays the groundwork for carrying our financial markets safely and soundly into the 21st century. As a member of the House Commerce Committee, I support initiatives that address our antiquated laws and am committed to ensuring that the legislative process continues unhindered by powerful special interest groups. H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act, permits financial entities, such as banks, insurance and securities groups, to merge, affiliate and associate activities. One of the most pivotal components of H.R. 10 is the concept of functional regulation. Functional regulation would certify that all financial providers would be regulated according to the services which they provide. For example, a financial holding company that has an insurance entity as an operating subsidiary would be regulated by both the state insurance commission (insurance activities) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve (banking activities). As a result, financial activities would be regulated by experts in that respective financial field. The House leadership has reached an agreement on a financial package that I believe is fair to all industries and best serves the public interest. The compromise on H.R. 10 will create a modernized financial system that will allow our country to be financially competitive into the next century. However, H.R. 10 can still be improved with the adoption of a package of consumer protection amendments which will be offered by commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Dingell (D-MI). This amendment will provide the necessary safeguards for consumers while providing enough freedoms to financial providers to compete globally on a level playing field. Congress has waited long enough to enact legislation to guarantee the solvency of American financial markets. Congress must move the process forward and provide the necessary consumer protections and regulations to guarantee that all players, big and small, private and public, benefit from the financial prosperity of a developing and growing financial market in the U.S.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as we envision the American soldier of the future, we imagine that soldier with state-of-the-art equipment, weapons, and training. Would it surprise us to see that soldier wearing a uniform made of Chinese fabric assembled in Taiwan? Would it trouble us to imagine him in the trenches wearing a helmet cast from German steel and eating rations imported from Sweden? Does it shock us to learn that the Department of Defense wants Congress to allow the purchasing of foreign materials and food for American soldiers? With apologies to my fellow Ohioan, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we should all be beamed up on this one. I plan to see that American soldiers are not clothed and fed by foreign companies and that the Department of Defense's Buy American laws are not circumvented with slick legislative language. I urge every Member of this body to join me and my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) in cosponsoring the Strickland-LoBiondo resolution to maintain current domestic sourcing standards.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are watching the proceedings that are happening in this Chamber this weekend, because if they watch what they will see is a monumental battle being fought out between a Democratic administration in conjunction with the Republican leadership versus the working class American family. The multinational corporations, with the support of our Democratic President and our Republican leadership, are taking sides against America's working families. How are they doing this? They are cutting deals that in my judgment are shameful. They are contributing to the cynicism that Americans feel about what happens in this Chamber. We are supposed to come here, Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the people, to vote on the basis of principle, to follow our own conscience, and to do what we believe in our heart is best for our constituents. But this weekend multinational corporations in conjunction with a Democratic President and a Republican leadership are selling out the American people.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was walking down the sidewalk in a small town in my district recently, and an older woman in a wheelchair called to me. I went over and sat down and talked with her for a while. During the course of that conversation, she said to me, ``Congressman, I wish you would just chew up the IRS and spit it out.'' I asked that sweet, gentle, older woman why she felt as strongly as she did, and she said, ``I believe the IRS contributed to my husband's death because they hounded him,'' and she said, ``It didn't bother me as much as him because I'm a tough old bird.'' I walked away thinking that it is sad that any American would ever feel that way about an agency of our Government. And so I came to the floor today mostly to say thank you to my Ohio colleague [Mr. Portman] for all the work he has done on this. I know many have worked on this legislation. This may be the most significant piece of legislation directly affecting the lives of American citizens that this Congress deals with.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. St. Francis de Sales I think has conveyed a profound truth when he said, ``There is nothing so strong as gentleness, and there is nothing so gentle as real strength.'' Our friend and our colleague, Walter Capps, was gentle and he was strong. Mr. Speaker, I have been amazed in the last couple of days as we have heard each other talk about Walter Capps. It has caused me at 56 years of age to reflect upon my own life and my own mortality; to ask myself if I were to leave this Earth, would people say about me what they say about Walter? Could they say about me what they say about Walter? Those of us who serve in this place do so for a variety of reasons, some noble and some perhaps not so noble. Politicians are described in different ways, as smart, skillful, crafty, successful, weak, corrupt. Many words are used to describe politicians. I think I would like to be described as a loving person, as a loving politician. And if I can just share with you what Walter's death has done for me, it has caused me to reflect upon the people that I know, my constituents, my family, my colleagues. We are talking of Walter's goodness, his gracefulness, his gentleness, his greatness. It has caused me to wonder if every day in this place people like Walter walk past us in these aisleways and sit beside us in these chairs, people on both sides of the aisle, people who are truly good and decent and caring, and we get so caught up in our day-to-day activities and our efforts that we fail to recognize the goodness and the strength and the gentleness that is all about us. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for Walter Capps, for his wife Lois. We lived together in the Methodist Building. I was able to see him occasionally as he would come and go. But I hope that Walter's death teaches us a lesson that is somewhat lasting. The scripture asks the question, ``O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?'' And I guess I would like to think that for me and perhaps many of us, we can learn from Walter's death as we learned from Walter's life, that we should pause and reflect and be grateful for Walter, but also be grateful for each other.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, John Gardner has written that ``some people strengthen this society just by being the kind of people they are.'' Walter Capps was such a person. I would like to say that some Members strengthen the House of Representatives just by being the kind of person they are, and Walter Capps was such a Member. I admired him greatly. And Lois, I would like to say that when it comes time for me to leave this Earth, I hope that people can feel about me the way we all obviously feel about your Walter.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of the bill of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. I believe as the Chinese leadership is in this country meeting at the White House, the most appropriate response for those of us who are concerned about human rights abuses and the persecution of those in China simply because they wish to practice their religious faith, the most appropriate response for those of us who are Members of this House would be to sign on as cosponsors of the Wolf bill. We need to send a message to the Chinese government and to the Clinton administration that we will not continue to tolerate the religious persecution of people of faith in China and throughout the rest of the world.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak about a silent crime that victimizes 1.8 million individuals annually, most often in the place where they should be the most safe and secure, in their homes. This criminal act is multifaceted and nondiscriminatory in choosing its victims. It knows no boundaries of age, race, social class, income level or education. Its predominant traits are those of emotional and physical abuse. I am speaking of domestic violence. In recent years an increasing number of new stories involving public figures both as victims and as perpetrators of domestic violence have raised our awareness of this problem. Through media coverage we are slowly beginning to realize the massive extent of this crime which is most often committed in secret. Although these stories are difficult to comprehend and painful to hear, we all need to be aware that this tragedy is more prevalent than we think and more horrible than we can even imagine. Sometimes the evidence of this abuse is obvious. At other times it goes undetected and leaves its victims suffering in silence. Unfortunately, this problem still seems to be very distant to most of us until someone we know becomes a victim. A few years ago in Hillsboro, Ohio I met a young woman who was in the process of rebuilding her life after the end of a very violent marriage. She returned to school, received her high school diploma and found a combination of jobs to support herself and her young child. I was impressed that this self-assured woman had shown such incredible strength by removing herself and her child from a dangerous, intolerable situation. But only a few weeks after I met her, I learned that she had been killed by her estranged husband as she approached the Highland County Courthouse. She was on her way to seek legal protection from the man she had married, who on that awful night became her killer. This incident impressed upon me the heartbreaking circumstances that many victims, usually women and children, are subjected to every day all over this country. Unfortunately, many victims feel that they do not have the resources and the support available to remove themselves from such threatening and dangerous situations, and all too often, even if they can escape the immediate circumstances, they remain potential victims. Thankfully, domestic violence is being driven from the shadows and exposed for the heinous crime that it is. Many individuals and groups now focus their energies on seeking ways to prevent domestic violence and to reach out to the victims and their families. In my district a community-wide domestic violence protocol is being developed. This will help outline how agencies can handle the incidents of domestic violence in a cooperative way. Our hope is that we can establish a stronger effort to break this cycle of violence. I am proud of the fact that in one of the counties in my district, Highland County, Ohio, men and women have joined together to help those in need. They are committed to reassuring victims of domestic violence that they are not alone and that hope is available. At the Federal level, the Department of Justice has developed programs that train law enforcement officers, emergency room attendants and family physicians on how to recognize a domestic violence situation and how to appropriately assist victims who have suffered from this crime. All of these local, State and Federal efforts are working to reach victims like the young mother who recently and unnecessarily lost her life. Preventing domestic violence is a task to which all of us should be absolutely committed. I applaud all individuals and groups, especially my constituents in Hillsboro, Ohio, who are working to combat this despicable crime.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that is of great concern not only to myself but to other Members of this body. Under our current system, the United States Postal Service allows employees of the service to choose where to purchase their uniforms. Consequently, literally hundreds of small manufacturing companies and vendors from throughout this country are now supplying these needed uniforms on a choice basis to those who work for the Postal Service. My concern and the concern of many of my colleagues is that the Postal Service is contemplating a change of policy, and rather than working with these large number of vendors and manufacturers, they are contemplating the selection of a single large vendor that would take over the responsibility for the procurement of postal uniforms. Now, why does this concern me? The Postal Service contends that such a change in policy would save them money. My concern is that it would cost American jobs. I believe that the Postal Service should be required to purchase uniforms that are American-made, and that they should only purchase uniforms from companies which uphold and maintain certain high standards for the way they treat their workers and the fact that they are good corporate citizens. In my district, in the small town of Nelsonville, OH, we have Rocky Shoes, Rocky Shoes and Boots, and a significant percentage of Rocky Shoes and Boots' business goes to provide shoes for those who work for the Postal Service. It is a good deal for Rocky Boots, and I believe it is a good deal for the men and women who work for our Postal Service. So it troubles me that an institution, an agency such as the postal system which currently is very profitable and is realizing significant yearly profits, would in the name of cost savings take action which could cost my constituents and the constituents of many other Members of this body their livelihoods and their jobs. Now, nearly 70 Members of this body have signed letters to the postal system and the Postmaster General expressing our concern about this proposed policy. I am happy with the fact that the postal system has at least temporarily put a moratorium on this proposed policy change. I remain concerned, however, that in the name of cost savings and efficiency, an action could be taken and is currently under consideration that would be very, very damaging to working men and women and working families in this country. I believe that the best way to realize cost savings is to maintain a system where there is fair competition, where small manufacturers and vendors must compete for the business, rather than placing this responsibility in the hands of a single large vendor. Over 100 manufacturers and over 800 vendors are at risk. So I come to the floor this evening to express in this venue my concern for this proposal and to ask Members of this body to join me as we request a face-to-face meeting with the Postmaster General of this country, so that as elected representatives of the people we can sit down and express directly to the Postmaster General what our concerns are, and to seek from the Postmaster General guarantees and assurances that the people that we represent, the small American companies and these American workers, will not have to pay this heavy price in terms of job loss. So I close my remarks by saying that it is my intention within the next few days to approach other Members of this body and to ask them to join me in this effort as we carry on these discussions with the Postal Service.