Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I stand today to speak for the heartland of America. My Congressional district runs for about 300 miles along the edge of the Ohio River, bordering Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. In one of my counties the unemployment rate is 11.4 percent, and in the City of Youngstown, Ohio, the unemployment rate is 18.2 percent. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues express concern for those who live in Chile, and I am not insensitive to the needs of the folks in Chile, but I think our first obligation is to look after the folks right here in the good old USA.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. We heard that same rhetoric about NAFTA. Does anyone seriously believe that NAFTA has been good for this country? The people that I represent, who are without work, do not believe that NAFTA has been good for this country. What about the WTO, this body that tries to dictate policy for those of us who serve in this body? We have been elected by Americans to represent Americans, and in these trade deals, sadly, it seems to me that we are taking the authority that is invested in us through the Constitution and the responsibilities that we have as elected representatives and we are giving that responsibility to an external international organization.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I would hope that government could learn from its mistakes, and, if there ever was a mistake, it was America's entry into the North America Free Trade Agreement. The victims of that colossal disaster reside in all of our Congressional districts. They are the unemployed auto workers, the steelworkers, the truckers and the textile workers. They are families who are struggling just to get by. They remember better times. They remember life before America entered the ``race to the bottom,'' before their jobs moved overseas. Let us consider where NAFTA has brought us. The U.S. trade deficit in 2002 was $500 billion, the highest deficit ever recorded, and the combined trade deficit with Canada and Mexico is now more than ten times what it was before NAFTA went into effect. Think of that; our combined trade deficit with Canada and Mexico is now ten times more than it was before NAFTA went into effect. But, sadly, Madam Speaker, it seems that some either did not learn, or just simply do not care, because this Congress is now being presented with more free trade agreements, this time with Chile and Singapore, and they are just more of the same; more jobs lost, more hard times for Americans. It is deja vu all over again. I will be voting against both the Chile and the Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts, because they mean nothing but hardship for American workers. Oh, but now we are being told that these agreements may require Chile and Singapore to meet international standards on workers' rights. Oh, but, of course, they provide absolutely no enforcement mechanisms. Foreign labor costs and practices will continue to undercut those of America's workers in this global race to the bottom, which simply means more jobs lost right here at home. What is worse, these two agreements appear to be just the beginning of the NAFTA legacy. Next we are told there is going to be a so-called Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, that is currently being negotiated by the United States trade representatives. CAFTA has the potential to create a free trade zone in the Western Hemisphere that would flood our borders with cheap imports, and our only export, Madam Speaker, would be our good-paying jobs. Madam Speaker, it is time we took a stand. It is time we put America's workers first. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to just simply look at the record. Our country has taken the wrong path. We cannot afford to go down this dangerous road any further. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and the Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. It is time we got our country back on track. Madam Speaker, I represent 12 counties that stretch along the eastern and southern portion of Ohio. In one of my counties, Mahoning county, the unemployment rate this very day is 11.4 percent. In the City of Youngstown, the unemployment rate is 18.2 percent. I have people who have worked in steel mills and are now jobless. We have steel mills that are under threat. The china and pottery industry along the Ohio River is under threat. The titanium industry is under threat. Our country is under threat, and I would urge the President and this Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to recognize reality, to turn from our foolish ways and to return to the attitude that I believe our forefathers had before us, who believed that our first obligation as representatives in this body is to put this country and our communities and our constituents first.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Murphy and I are introducing the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2003, which will dramatically improve Medicare for millions of the program's beneficiaries by phasing out over six years the discriminatory 50- percent copayment required for outpatient mental health services. If this bill is enacted, Medicare beneficiaries will pay a 20 percent copayment for outpatient mental health care, just as they do for all other outpatient health services under Medicare by the year 2009. This bill is identical to S. 853, which was introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe earlier this year. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, nearly 2 million Americans over the age of 65 suffer from depression. The 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental illness found that 20 percent of Americans 55 and older experience mental disorders that are not considered a normal part of aging, such as anxiety, alcoholism, and Alzheimer's disease. As many as one in two new residents of nursing facilities are at risk of depression. Perhaps most strikingly, seniors have the highest rate of suicide of any age group in this country. A Medpac report titled ``Assessing Medicare Benefits'' issued in June 2002 confirms that the Medicare senior population faces serious problems accessing mental health care: Medicare beneficiaries are apparently having difficulty in obtaining needed mental health services. Despite the availability of proven treatments, one recent analysis found that of those beneficiaries over 65 who needed treatment, 63% did not receive it. The likelihood of people with mental health conditions receiving services was significantly lower if they were Medicare beneficiaries, compared with those who had employment-based insurance or Medicaid coverage. The Medpac report also states that the access problems will be reduced if the discrepancy between the mental health copayment and the copayment required for all other outpatient care under Medicare is eliminated: Beneficiaries face a 50 percent coinsurance for most outpatient mental health services, compared with 20 percent for most other outpatient services. Equalizing cost sharing for outpatient mental health and other outpatient care would reduce a financial barrier to mental health care and provide parity to beneficiaries with mental disorders and those with other illnesses, with a small increase in Medicare spending . . . This change also would simplify Medicare's cost-sharing structure. Medicare beneficiaries need and deserve access to affordable mental health care. I urge my colleagues to end Medicare's random discrimination and improve the health of seniors in this country by acting quickly to pass this legislation into law.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, that is incredible. This House should know of what I think is a direct conflict of interest. Does the gentleman have evidence to support what he is saying?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. As I listened to the remarks of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), I was struck by something the gentleman said. Did I hear that the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor who is in charge of the proposed rule regarding coal dust rules was the very person who petitioned for these regulations when he served in the private sector?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for exposing this conflict of interest. The fact of the matter is black lung disease continues to be a problem. It has not been eradicated. Over 1,400 coal miners still perish this year in this country, and here we have an administration which is pushing a proposed rule which could increase dust levels in the mines fourfold. This is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. In closing, I believe this is an insult to the working people of America. It can spell certain death to some of the bravest souls in this country. We should support this amendment so this proposed rule is withdrawn and done right.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I will be voting against H.R. 2660, Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, because, among many other deficiencies, the bill underfunds our nation's elementary and secondary schools and increases funding for the National Institutes of Health at a rate that does not keep up with that of medical research inflation. But I rise in support of language in the accompanying report regarding the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Over the course of the past year, the PBGC has grown increasingly aggressive in terminating early the pension plans of private companies before the companies have asked PBGC to take control of their plans. PBGC has terminated the pension plans of many companies, specifically of those in the steel industry, during the last year to avoid paying benefits negotiated between a company and its workers prior to a plant's shutdown. I applaud the Appropriations Committee's attention to this matter and hope that the PBGC will discontinue this unfair practice and move to redress pensioners who have suffered from this past year's adjustment in policy.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am here to expose the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues. The previous speaker just said that this bill has nothing to do with current Members of Congress. Well, we will just wait and see. Over on the Senate side, Senator Dayton successfully offered an amendment to the Medicare prescription bill to ensure that no Member of Congress would receive a better prescription drug benefit than that which is included in the Medicare bill. And guess what? It passed, 93 to 3. And Roll Call reported the following hypocrisy. According to Roll Call, indeed, many Republicans, 50 of whom helped add the Dayton provision to the Senate version of the Medicare bill this week, acknowledged that they were told by their leaders to vote for the Dayton amendment with the understanding that it would not show up in the final version of the legislation. That is hypocrisy. What is good enough for America's senior citizens is good enough for those of us who serve in this Chamber. I am circulating a letter to the Speaker, and I am asking all Members of this House to sign this letter in support of the Dayton amendment. If this House, if this Congress does not support the Dayton amendment, we are little more than hypocrites. If this language is stripped from the conference report, it can only mean that Members of Congress believe that they deserve better health coverage than the seniors they represent. America's seniors are watching us, and I hope my Republican colleagues will sign my letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and I hope all of my Democratic colleagues will sign my letter in support of the Dayton amendment. We ought not to do for ourselves what we are unwilling to do for America's senior citizens. It is as simple as that. And to do less is to be hypocritical.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friend, the gentleman who just spoke, my understanding is that he voted recently to give $800 billion to about 200,000 people. Surely to God we can do a little better than that for our 40 million senior citizens. Make no mistake about it. This bill will provide no stable, affordable prescription drug benefit for our seniors, but I will tell my colleagues what it will do. It will ultimately destroy Medicare's social insurance structure, a structure that has provided successful services to our seniors since 1965. Let me give a clear example of how this bill will fail. The Republicans claim that premiums offered by the private plans will be about $35 a month. But there is no provision in this bill that will guarantee a $35 monthly premium or even a range of premiums near $35. Despite what we have heard, despite what we have heard, understand this: there is nothing in this bill to keep the private plans from charging any premium they choose to charge. Now, in fact, Nevada is the only place this model has been tried; and in Nevada, the premiums were $85 a month. Furthermore, premiums will be different from State to State, from county to county, even from ZIP code to ZIP code. Finally, private plans will be able to increase their premiums each year without any regulation, leaving seniors subject to the possibility of wildly fluctuating premiums. Now, I offered a simple amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce last week that would have corrected this problem and guaranteed seniors a $35 monthly premium, regardless of which drug plan they chose to enroll in or where they lived. Every single Republican voted against that amendment. Last night, I asked the Committee on Rules. On a party line vote, they denied me the right to offer this amendment. Republicans continue to say their bill will cost $35 a month. It is not true. They ought to stop saying it.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the funding of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The bill before us includes $1.8 billion in disaster assistance for FEMA to use in fiscal year 2004 to assist the many communities across the country that will encounter natural disasters such as ice storms, tornadoes, and forest fires. Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today that would have given FEMA an additional $1.6 billion that it needs just to cover a shortfall in disaster assistance for the 2003 year. But the communities that are waiting for this money cannot wait any longer. They cannot wait for the new fiscal year to begin in October when FEMA's coffers will be replenished. The administration has an obligation to ask Congress immediately to provide FEMA with the money it needs to help the communities that were promised assistance by the President when he declared those cities and towns disaster areas. FEMA is running so low on money right now that I understand the agency is only fulfilling a part of its mission under the Stafford Act, parts A and B for debris removal and emergency protection measures. While I believe it is very important for FEMA to provide funds for these important categories of assistance, relief under categories C through G of the Public Assistance Program are also vitally important. Unfortunately, I have been informed that FEMA has frozen funding for the Public Assistance Programs that help communities rebuild roads and bridges as well as public buildings and utilities. This is unacceptable. I know that the communities in the 29 counties in Ohio that the President declared disaster areas this winter have already expended money to rebuild the local infrastructure required to get these towns back on their feet. In one of my counties, Monroe County, Ohio, the county engineer has already spent so much money and has failed to be reimbursed for it that he has had to lay off five county employees. Five workers in Monroe County, Ohio, are unemployed tonight because FEMA has not met its obligations. In southern Ohio, FEMA approved 1,363 projects across 29 counties to be funded following this winter's ice storms that occurred in my district and districts of many other Members throughout the region, both Republican and Democratic Members. Because of FEMA's funding shortfall, however, 293 reconstruction projects remain to be funded. Only 80 percent of approved projects in Ohio have been completed since last winter's ice storm. The State is still waiting for $11 million from FEMA to finish up the remaining 293 projects, but across this country the situation is the same. The National Emergency Management Association has indicated in a letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that thousands of applications will go unanswered if supplemental appropriations in the range of $1.6 billion are not passed immediately. More than 35 States and Territories have experienced disasters just this year and thousands of projects in those States will go unfunded unless the administration asks Congress for supplemental appropriations. I am circulating a letter to Secretary Ridge today, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me. We should ask Secretary Ridge to work with the administration to ensure that a request for supplemental appropriations is made immediately so that the appropriations committees in the House and Senate can begin work on a bill to provide FEMA with the money the agency needs to continue disaster payments to the States. The States cannot wait for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process to run its course. They need assistance now, as do the thousands of communities across the country that are waiting to be reimbursed for the important rebuilding projects that they have already begun or for the funds that they need to begin these projects. Mr. Chairman, I just call this issue to the attention of my colleagues and to this House. This is a critical matter. It needs to be addressed. As I said, I am calling upon Secretary Ridge and I hope all of my colleagues in the House will be willing to sign a letter to the Secretary asking that this request for supplemental funds be coming forthwith.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made me very happy. I appreciate the gentleman's concern and personal commitment, and we look forward to getting this done so these communities can get the help they so desperately need.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. But what I want to say more than anything else is that I think that those of us who serve in this Chamber deserve to tell the American people the truth. I believe that most moms and dads who get on an airplane and this summer when they take their families on vacations and they get on an airplane, they believe that those of us who serve in this Chamber have taken the necessary steps to see that they are not blown out of the sky as a result of a bomb being placed in cargo that is on that plane. I think most Americans think we are already doing this. We want the airlines to succeed. We have given billions of dollars in aid to the airline industry. Can you imagine what will happen to passenger travel in this country if an airplane is blown out of our sky this summer with vacationers, travelers, businesspeople on it? This is something that we have got to face up to. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I and others stood on this floor months ago when we argued night after night after night that there needed to be complete screening and inspection of everything that went onto an airplane. The American people heard that, and I think most of them agreed with us. But for us to say we cannot do it because we do not have the money is a hollow argument. We find money around here for everything we think is important. Everything that we truly believe is important, that is of value to us, we fund. It ought to be a value to make sure that those who travel on our aircraft can do so with the confidence that we have done everything humanly possible to protect them. It is beyond me why we would not embrace this amendment. It is just beyond me. I hope we do not have to stand here in this Chamber at some time in the future and talk in somber tones about those who have lost their lives to a terrorist act when we could have taken an action that prevented that terrible tragedy from happening.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as we are in the safety and security of this Chamber tonight, we should not forget that at this very moment there are young Americans who are in harm's way in Iraq. Many have been killed and others, seem like, are placed in danger and are being killed certainly on a weekly basis; and we should never forget that. This war is not over. Danger continues to exist. Some of these young people will be wounded, and they will come back to this country, and they will join the ranks of the others who have served this country. They will be America's newest veterans, many of them with terrible injuries. That is why I rise tonight to talk about the veterans, and especially about veterans health care in this country. I am increasingly concerned as I talk to veterans in my own district, and I am from the State of Ohio, where we have about 11 million citizens in the State, but well over 1 million of those are veterans. About 10 percent of all of the citizens in the State of Ohio are veterans who have served their country in the military. The facts are that this administration and this government is not doing what it should do to keep its word to our veterans and to provide them with the kind of high quality health care that they have been promised and that they are entitled to receive. I would like to once again remind this Chamber of a proposal that has come from the President to greatly increase the financial burden that our veterans must carry in order to get health care through the VA system. The President has asked that a new $250 annual enrollment fee be imposed upon many of our veterans, those who are within the Priority Group 7 and Priority Group 8 veterans; a $250 annual enrollment fee, just to be able to participate in the VA system. The President has asked that the cost that a veteran must pay for a prescription drug be increased from $7 a prescription to $15 a prescription, after we increased it from $2 to $7 just about a year- and-a-half ago. So that is an additional financial burden that many of our veterans will be expected to pay. Then the President has asked that the cost of a clinic visit be increased from $15 a visit to $20 a visit. This represents a rather substantial financial burden, and these burdens are going to be placed on veterans, many of them who make as little as $22,000 a year. In addition to these financial burdens, a decision was made recently by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to create a new priority group of veterans which is called Priority Group 8. These are veterans who have need for medical care but their conditions are not directly related to their military service, and they can make as little as $22,000 a year in certain regions of the country because the standard for the income levels changes regarding where the person lives. If they live in one part of the country, the standard may be a little different than it is in a different part of the country. But in my part of the country, where there is high unemployment and poverty, a veteran can make as little as $22,000 a year and be considered higher income and be told, ``You cannot participate in the VA health care service. You served our country and were discharged with an honorable discharge, but you make too much money, and you are in Priority Group 8, so you can no longer sign up for VA health care services.'' I just think that is wrong. We spend a lot of money around here, and it is just wrong that we would charge our veterans more for drugs, charge them more for the health care they need and the health care that many of them cannot get anywhere else. Many veterans have lost their jobs, they have been downsized, their plants have closed, and they simply have nowhere else to go. So I call this to the attention of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I think we should take action to make sure that our veterans are properly cared for.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult days for our country. The war is not over. We continue to have young Americans killed, almost on a daily basis in Iraq, and that country is very unsettled. But that is not why I rise to speak tonight. I rise to speak about soldiers of wars passed. Just this past weekend in Marietta, Ohio, I attended a meeting of the Purple Heart Association; and later on that evening I spoke to a group of veterans who had served on the LST ships, those large ships that transported cargo and goods and soldiers, landing them on the beaches of Normandy and elsewhere; and I was struck by the fact that these veterans are full of goodwill and wonderful stories about their lives as members of the United States Armed Forces. They went through some hellish experiences, things that we can only imagine, I guess, in our darkest moments. But I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this country, as rich as we are and as willing as we are to take care of the well-off among us, that this country is failing to live up to its obligations to our Nation's veterans. I would just like to share some of the actions that have been recently taken by the President and this administration that I think are so harmful to veterans. Approximately a year and a half or so ago, the VA made a decision that they were going to increase the cost of a prescription drug that a veteran would have to pay from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription, and I thought that was outrageous at the time, and I introduced legislation to roll back that decision. But the matter has gotten worse. In the President's budget which he sent to us a few months ago, in fact, the budget that he sent to us in January at the very time when we were preparing to send our young men and women into harm's way in Iraq, the President sent us a budget that asked that the cost of a prescription drug be increased, the copayment, not at $7, but that that be increased up to $15 a prescription. I felt like that was a shameful act. But the President also asked in his budget that the cost of a clinic visit be increased from $15 to $20. The President asked in his budget that there be an annual enrollment fee of $250 imposed upon Priority 7 and 8 veterans. It just seems as if it does not stop. Then, Secretary Principi created a new priority group of veterans, which is now known as Priority Group 8, and these are veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities and are considered higher- income veterans. So the decision was made that these Priority 8 veterans simply could no longer enroll in the VA health care system. Now, how much money does one have to make in order to be considered a higher-income Priority 8 veteran? Well, in my district and in other parts of the country, one can make as little as $22,000 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, those of us who serve in this Chamber make over $150,000 a year, and maybe we just cannot understand what it is like to make $22,000 a year. Maybe we just think if one makes $22,000 a year, one is going to have all one needs to pay their bills and support their families and so on. But, quite frankly, I think it is shameful that at a time when we are giving huge tax breaks to the richest among us, that we would impose a $250 annual enrollment fee on veterans who have honorably served this Nation, whose incomes are as little as $22,000 a year. Well, I do not know what the solution is. I know some of my colleagues in this Chamber say, well, we are never going to have these requests that the President has made passed into law; but just this week, I am on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and just this week we had representatives from the Veterans Affairs Department before our committee. And I asked them if it was current administration policy to pursue these efforts to increase the cost of prescription drugs to impose an annual enrollment fee on veterans, and to exclude Priority 8 veterans from even participation in the VA system. I was told that it continues to be the intention of this administration of the President to pursue these efforts. There is something else I would like to mention tonight. About a year or so ago, the VA put out a memo to all of its health care providers around the country, a memo which consists of, in my judgment, little more than a gag order. The memo basically said, and I am certainly paraphrasing, but what I am saying is true to the spirit of the memo, the memo said: too many veterans are coming in for service. We do not have enough money to provide those services, and so you are no longer able to actively pursue the dissemination of information to our veterans. So, Mr. Speaker, these are troublesome things, and I would just ask that my colleagues in this Chamber rethink the direction in which we are going.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out the shabby treatment that this House and the administration is directing toward our Nation's veterans and our Nation's children. Just yesterday it was confirmed in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the administration continues to push for a $250 annual enrollment fee for many of our veterans just to be able to participate in the VA health care system. They want to increase the cost of a prescription drug from $7 to $15 a prescription. They want to increase the cost of a clinic visit from $15 to $20. At a time when our young men and women are fighting for this country in Iraq, this President and this Congress want to impose additional financial hardships on the backs of our veterans. It does not make sense. It is time for the people of this country to become aware of what is happening. This administration is treating our veterans in a shabby manner and it ought to stop.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, the companion to a bill introduced in the Senate today by Senator DeWine. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and many more have co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. These statistics, however, cannot adequately describe how devastating the combination of untreated mental illness and the criminal justice system can be for both an individual and the system. Today I had the pleasure to meet Tom Lane. Tom, a 43-year-old man who lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, now works for the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill (NAMI) as the Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs. However, just a few years ago in July 1997, Tom was suffering from severe depression. He was a cabinetmaker who had sustained a head injury from a construction accident that caused him to have seizures and prevented him from working. When he called a suicide hotline, police were dispatched. The officers put him in jail, where he did not receive treatment for depression and was not allowed to take his anti- seizure medication. When he started suffering two seizures a day, he was hospitalized. Upon his release from the hospital he still did not receive any treatment or recommendation of treatment for his mental illness and for days he slept in the bushes outside the hospital. Fortunately, Tom was eventually able to contact his family from a pay phone and they came to his rescue. Once he began receiving treatment, Tom was able to get back on his feet. Today he is a highly functioning, highly effective professional advocate for people with mental illness. Tom's story illustrates how easy it is for a person with mentally illness to become entangled with the criminal justice system. Untreated mental illness often leads to behaviors that attract the attention of police officers. If a person with mentally illness does not receive treatment, his or her condition almost definitely will worsen when they are in custody. Generally, the criminal justice system is not equipped to identify and ensure people with mentally illness find appropriate treatment programs, either through diversion into community treatment or within a jail or prison. The bill I am introducing seeks to make sure people like Tom Lane don't fall through the cracks. It encourages collaboration between the mental health treatment and the criminal justice systems. This collaboration is essential for ensuring mentally ill offenders are given the treatment they need. The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 is phase two of an effort that started in the 106th Congress, when Senator DeWine and I successfully passed America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project (P.L. 106-515). This bill created a Department of Justice grant program assisting State and local governments with the establishment of mental health courts. Mental health courts--which are modeled on drug courts--provide specialized dockets in non-adversarial settings to bring mental health professionals, social workers, public defenders and prosecutors together to divert mentally ill offenders into a treatment plan. The goals of a mental health court are to expand access to mental health treatment, improve the community's response to mentally ill offenders, and reduce recidivism among the mentally ill population. I am pleased that this program has been incredibly popular. The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 will build on America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project by providing additional resources for communities that wish to create mental health courts. The new bill represents a significant commitment to addressing the needs of both the criminal justice system and the mentally ill offender population. The bill will create a grants program for communities that will provide resources for diversion programs across the spectrum of the criminal justice community, including prebooking diversion programs like those that have been so successful in Los Angeles, California and Memphis, Tennessee. Communities will be able to design programs that provide mental health treatment in jails and in prisons. And finally, grants will be available for transitional or aftercare programs that seek to ensure offenders are provided appropriate treatment and care when they transition from jail or prison back into the community when they have completed their sentences. The bill is intended to give communities much flexibility to design and operate the programs they identify as most appropriate for meeting their needs, and grant funds will be able to be used for planning, establishing a structure, and funding treatment. All successful grant applicants will be required to demonstrate collaboration between the criminal justice and mental health treatment agencies in a community. Too often, mentally ill offenders fall through the cracks because the relevant systems in a community do not work together. This lack of collaboration is detrimental to both the mentally ill offender as well as the stability of the criminal justice system. Therefore, criminal justice and mental health treatment agencies will be required to apply together for the grants established by the bill, compelling the collaboration that is needed to get those who are mentally ill and coming in contact with the criminal justice system the mental health and substance abuse treatment they need. In addition, the bill requires that grant applicants ensure mentally ill offenders are connected to education, job training and placement, and housing programs. In addition, the bill calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the Federal level. Task Force members will include: the Attorney General; the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development; and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force will be charged with identifying ways that Federal departments can respond collaboratively to the needs of mentally ill adults and juveniles. I strongly believe that encouraging collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels of government is essential to ensuring that people with mental illness are able to access the mental health treatment and other support programs they need. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make our communities safer for all.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Republican colleagues in this House. Why would you, in a fit of anger because you were not able to get the size of the tax cut you wanted, hold poor little children hostage in order to extract a larger tax cut for those who were already wealthy? It is a fair question. In the middle of the night, over one-half million Ohio children were excluded from this benefit. Those are children who have moms and dads who are working but their incomes are so low that they may not be required to pay income taxes. But let me tell you, they pay property taxes. They pay Social Security/payroll taxes. They pay all kinds of other taxes. Oh, it is very clever of you to say they do not pay income tax. I am absolutely disgusted with what has happened in this House. CNN reported that the conservative leader of your party, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), brushed aside criticism that the tax bill did not expand the child tax credit and make it available to millions of poor families. But, he said, House Republicans might support doing so if it prodded senators to vote for a broader tax package. In other words, you may be willing to help the poor kids if it means you can get more money for your rich friends. It is as simple as that, as simple as that. These are just not the rantings of a Democrat. Let me tell you what Senator John McCain said about it. Senator McCain said, My God, what kind of message are we sending when we leave out low-income families, exactly those who are in that category of the enlisted men and women who are fighting for us in Iraq today? It is beyond belief. And it is beyond belief, but you have got time to redeem yourself. You have got time to change this policy and take care of the kids, 500,000 in Ohio, who need your help. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, this House recently passed a budget which woefully underfunds veterans' health care by $6.2 billion. The result: Many veterans will no longer be able to get health care through the VA system. It is a shame that we are rationing health care for our veterans. This House also passed a tax bill that takes care of the millionaires, but leaves thousands of children behind, even children whose moms and dads at this very moment are serving in Iraq. So this is what my Republican colleagues have done. They have taken care of the millionaires and they have left our veterans and our children behind. Shame on them.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I think the folks watching C-SPAN may sometimes get confused because they hear us stand here and give confusing or contradictory arguments. They do not know perhaps who to believe, but I want to speak about two things that we have done in the House recently, and I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or the leadership within this administration to contradict what I am saying. This House passed a budget not many weeks ago that cut veterans benefits over the next 10 years by $6.2 billion. That is a fact. It is an absolute fact, and tonight, in the United States of America, while we have young men and women defending our Nation in Iraq, we are rationing health care to our Nation's veterans, rationing health care. This administration has decided to say to a whole host of veterans, which they call priority eight veterans, you are high income and, consequently, you are out of here, you cannot participate in the VA health care system. What do they mean by high income? In my District, they can be making as little as $22,000 a year and be considered high income. Think of that. Not only are they wanting to simply deny care for many veterans, but for others they want to impose additional financial burdens. They want to increase the cost of a prescription drug from $7 to $15 a prescription. They want to add a new annual enrollment fee of $250. They want to increase the cost of a clinic visit from $15 to $20. Mr. Speaker, when is it going to stop? When are we going to stop requiring more out of our veterans so that we can give larger tax cuts to the richest people in this country, many of whom have never served in the military? But we did something else in this House a few days ago. We passed a tax cut bill. And in that tax cut bill we took care of the millionaires. In fact, in that bill, if you have an annual income of $1 million, you get a tax cut of about $93,000. But we did something else that is shameful. We actually excluded children of poor working families from receiving the child tax credit benefit. It was not a mistake. It was done purposefully. We excluded about 12 million of America's children from that benefit. Think of that. CNN reported that ``Mr. DeLay, the conservative Texan, brushed aside criticism that the last bill didn't make an expanded child tax credit available to millions of poor families. But he said the House Republicans might support doing so if it prodded seniors to vote for a broader tax relief package.'' In other words, the majority leader is going to hold poor children hostage in an attempt to get a larger tax break for his wealthy friends. I think that is shameful. I know of no other word that accurately describes that policy. But do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I hope those watching on C-SPAN do not just assume that because I am a Democrat that I am standing up here and taking an unfair shot at the Republicans. Senator John McCain is quoted in this same CNN story as saying, in regard to this leaving out 12 million children in the Republican tax plan, ``My God, what kind of message are we sending when we leave out low-income families?'' And exactly in that category are the enlisted men and women who are fighting in Iraq. At this moment, in Iraq, are moms and dads who have children waiting here in this country. And the Republican tax plan excludes those children from this tax credit benefit. Senator McCain concludes his remarks by saying, ``it's beyond belief.'' That is not a Democrat talking, that is Republican Senator John McCain. Mr. Speaker, this issue gets to the heart of who we are as a people. We are willing to give huge tax cuts to the richest among us and exclude 12 million of America's children who live in poor families.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about veterans, to talk about children, and to talk about greedy, unpatriotic corporations. First of all, I would like to say a word about our veterans. We passed a budget in this Congress which, over the 10-year budget cycle, will underfund veterans' programs by $6.2 billion. And included in that budget are certain assumptions which will greatly increase the financial burdens that will be placed upon the backs of our veterans. First of all, a decision has been made that if you are a priority-eight veteran, considered high-income, and, quite frankly, in my district that could be someone who makes as little as $22,000 a year, you are considered high-income, and so you would no longer be able to enroll in the VA health care system. Now that is fairly shameful. In the Committee on Veterans Affairs earlier today, one of my colleagues said that he was a priority-eight veteran and he really did not object to being excluded. Well, the fact is that I and all of the rest of us who serve in this body make about $150,000 a year. It is probably a little easier for us to pay for our health care than it would be for a veteran who makes as little as $22,000 a year. Well, there are other things that this budget does. It assumes that we will charge priority-seven and -eight veterans an annual $250 enrollment fee, something that we have never done in the past. So these veterans are now going to be asked to pay an additional $250 annual enrollment fee. But it gets worse: the budget assumption that the cost of a prescription drug for these veterans will go from $7 a prescription all the way up to $15 a prescription. Now, we just increased this co- payment from $2 to $7 about a year and a half ago, and now we want to take it up to $15 a prescription. If you are on a fixed income and you make $22,000 a year and you get eight or 10 prescriptions a month, that is a big chunk of your disposable income. Well, it gets worse. The budget also assumes that we will increase the cost of a clinic visit for a veteran. I think the American people are getting the picture. We applaud our servicemen and women. We thank them for their service. But when they really need help from our government, we nickel and dime our veterans. What about our children? In this tax cut we passed a week before last, we left 12 million children out; 12 million children whose parents make somewhere between something like 11,000 to 25 or $26,000 a year will end up getting nothing, while a child whose parents make 40,000 or $60,000 a year will get an additional $400 tax credit. It is just simply unfair. There is something else that ought to make every one of us who serves in this Chamber stay up at night and worry about our actions: many children of young men and women who at this very moment are serving this country in Iraq will have their children excluded in this tax package. Think of that. Moms and dads being sent to Iraq to defend the freedoms of this country and their children are going to be excluded from the benefits of this increased child tax credit. But I want to tell you, we can solve some of these problems if we are willing to do one thing. If we are willing to close the loophole, the tax loophole that allows large profitable corporations to go to Bermuda and get a post office box while keeping all of their operations in this country and doing that simply so they will not have to pay their fair share of taxes. Think of that. And many of these corporations who have chosen to engage in this tactic, which I consider highly unpatriotic, are benefiting by getting multimillion dollar contracts under the Department of Homeland Security. So here is what we have: corporations that do not want to pay their taxes going to Bermuda and yet getting multiple millions of dollars from this government under the Department of Homeland Security. We take care of the wealthy in this Chamber, but the veterans and the children are too often left behind.