Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a very serious issue related to the well-being of our Nation. Recently it has come to the attention of the Central Intelligence Agency that nongovernmental entities within Russia have participated in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to the country of Iran. This specific trade practice threatens the security of the United States and our allies and, quite simply, it endangers our ability to maintain world peace. Furthermore, the advancement of weapons of mass destruction to Iran happens to be in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. For these reasons alone, this trade between Iran and Russia must stop. As history illustrates, Iran has nurtured a reputation for terrorism and has consistently displayed open hostility toward United States' interests. Although Russia has acknowledged previous weapons trade with Iran, the most extreme action they have taken to end the current proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is to initiate an investigation. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, an investigation does not adequately address this critical situation. Nevertheless, Russia continues to enjoy foreign aid from the United States and the financial profits of trade with Iran. Russia is enjoying the best of both worlds at the expense of the safety of innocent victims who all too often fall prey to the hostilities instigated from Iran's terrorist regime. We now have reached a point where agreements and investigations are simply not enough. It is time to eradicate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction between Russia and Iran. Congress and the President should demand that the Russian government take steps necessary to stop all involvement, including the involvement of nongovernmental entities, in the disbursement of weapons of mass destruction, especially when the country of Iran is involved. Furthermore, should Russia ignore our request, we must not simply disregard their failure to succumb to peacekeeping efforts, but rather, we must take the most serious and effective steps to end this dangerous activity and impose sanctions on the responsible parties. House Concurrent Resolution 121 expresses congressional concern regarding the proliferation of missile technology from Russia to Iran, and I strongly urge my colleagues in this House to give their support to this worthy resolution.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the American people are probably confused. Part of the confusion may come from the fact that we have so many millionaires serving in this House and in the Senate that I think the two bodies oftentimes lose touch with average Americans. The average family in my district earns $22,000 a year. Under the Republican plan, most of those families would receive nothing from the $500-per-child tax credit. If they earned $60,000 they would receive benefits, but those who earn $20,000 would receive nothing. Even Gary Bower, head of the Conservative Family Research Council, has criticized the Republican plan for denying tax relief to these working families who make less than $30,000 a year. He has said, ``The family tax credit ought to go to any working family that pays income or payroll taxes.'' When we provide tax relief to America's working families, it is not welfare, it is common sense and justice.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William ``B.J.'' Hannon. Born September 18, 1927, in Ironton, OH, B.J. has shown throughout his life that one man, by dedicating himself to his work and his community, can make a real and lasting difference in people's lives. After has graduation from Ironton High School, B.J. proudly served his country in the U.S. Navy from June 1945 to August 1946. After this period of service, B.J. returned home to Ironton and began working at the Wilson Sporting Goods Co., where he was employed for 36 years. Through his love of sports, B.J. gave every member of the Ironton community the opportunity to become a star athlete. Both children and adults alike have benefited from B.J.'s knowledge of sports and devotion to his hometown. A coach since 1960, B.J. has coached almost every sport conceivable including football, basketball, baseball, softball, and track. He still coaches youth football, bringing countless hours of fun and hard work to the youth of Ironton. The impact that a positive role model can have on children is immeasurable, and B.J. has not taken his responsibility lightly. One can only imagine how many little league kids might have been inspired to work a little harder after realizing that what they accomplish on the field can be duplicated in others aspects of their lives. Maybe some of the players on his high school girls' basketball team were inspired to take their game to the next level, college. And the hours of fun and relaxation that playing for his women's softball team or men's basketball team provides have let the adults in Ironton have as much fun as their children. For these reasons, in 1987 B.J. was an Ironton Sports Day honoree. B.J. has also taken this responsibility to the civic level. He is a member of the Ironton City School Board, the city recreation board, and the Ironton Little League board of directors. These positions have allowed him the opportunity to provide his insight on issues affecting the entire community, and have established him as a greatly respected figure in the Ironton area. The best part is that B.J. doesn't think of these positions as jobs, but as a way to improve the quality of life in Ironton. At the end of this month, B.J. will be retiring from Cabletron--a company he helped build over the past 10 years. He began with the company on day one when Cabletron first set up operations in Ironton with just 25 employees. And he has left his mark. I recently attended the dedication of Cabletron's new state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Ironton which now employs over 550 employees. There is no historical document stating when the last industrial facility was built in the city of Ironton. But we know it has been a long time. The construction of this new facility shows that Cabletron sees its future in southern Ohio. There is no doubt that Cabletron's presence and growth in Ohio are the result of the skills and commitment of our work force. There truly has been an outstanding group of men and women who have contributed to the growth of Cabletron. And B.J. has been at the center of it all. As human resources director, B.J. put together and led this world-class work force. During the dedication of Cabletron's new facility, every time B.J.'s name was mentioned the workers erupted with applause. The feeling seems mutual. B.J. excels in his ability to work with people. He treats everyone as an individual, and respects them and their opinions. One of my favorite stories about B.J. involves an incident on a hot summer day when the air conditioning went out at the plant. B.J. showed up with boxes of popsicles for the 120 employees who were working at the plant at that time, and invited them all to take a break and share a popsicle with him. No matter what the situation, you can always count on B.J. to look out for those he works with. B.J.'s noteworthy professional and public life has paralleled an equally happy home life. Married since 1952, B.J. and his wife Lavena have a son, Jeffrey, and three grandchildren. In his leisure hours, B.J. enjoys getting in some rounds of golf, and not surprisingly, enjoys watching his grandchildren participate in sports. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to honor a man who, simply by going about his work and being dedicated to his hometown, has given so much to the Ironton community. People of all ages, athletes, spectators, and fellow employees have had their lives touched by Mr. Hannon, whether they knew him or not. People like Mr. Hannon are what make smalltown America a great place to live. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Hannon on his retirement and thanking him for his years of dedication to his community.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am from Ohio, and I think Ohio has a stake in this debate because it is my colleague from Ohio who would like to eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities. The charge has been made that this is an endowment which supports the cultural elite. Now, it is true that the city of Cincinnati, OH, is one of the great cities in this country. It is a city where the arts are valued and the humanities are valued and where many wealthy people contribute to both. However, I represent a different part of Ohio. My part of Ohio is a part of Ohio where the largest city is only 25,000 in number. In my part of Ohio the median family income is $22,000 a year. My part of Ohio needs the National Endowment for the Humanities. I can say that in my district alone, since 1970, the National Endowment for the Humanities has contributed nearly $80,000, but that has been used to leverage almost $350,000. In my small counties numerous worthy projects depend upon funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. In Athens County, WOUB radio, Ohio University; the telecommunications center at Ohio University; in Clinton County, Wilmington College benefits, as well as does the local library; in Gallia County, the University of Rio Grande and the French Art Colony; in Jackson County, the local library; in Meigs County, the Pioneer and Historical Society benefits from the National Endowment for the Humanities; in Ross County, the Ross County Public Library and the Ross County Historical Society; in Scioto County, my home county, the Southern Ohio Museum and Cultural Center benefits; Shawnee State University, which is Ohio's newest and smallest State university, benefits from the National Endowment for the Humanities; in Vinton County, which is Ohio's smallest and poorest county, the local library benefits; in Warren County, the county library; in Washington County, Marietta College and the local library. On and on and on. These are not cultural elites. These are citizens in small communities in one of the most historic and beautiful parts of our Nation who need the National Endowment for the Humanities in order to continue very worthy programs. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to reconsider, to reconsider this misguided attempt to eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman on the other side of the aisle says what we are doing as we try to speak for our constituents is a charade and that this is theater, I am reminded of Shakespeare who says ``thou dost protest too much.'' We have got a responsibility in this Chamber to speak up for our constituents and that is what we are going to do. We should be expanding health care opportunities for the most vulnerable among us, the old and the young, and not reducing those opportunities. How many millions of our mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles will be without health insurance because of the Senate's action? For many Americans who work with their hands in grueling jobs, I am talking about steel workers, carpenters, machinists, road builders, it is simply not physically possible for many of these workers to work beyond 65 years of age. We cannot afford to let them languish without health insurance. I think of my niece, Beverly, a mother who has four children and who works as a pipefitter. Beverly cannot work beyond 65 years of age, I think. I am worried about Beverly and all the other hard-working Americans who could face the age of 65 and know that they have no guarantee of health insurance. That is what we are talking about. That is why it is important. My colleague can call it absurd, my colleague can call it theater, but it is important business that we are talking about today.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel sorry for the American people who have to sit and watch and listen to the rhetoric that comes from this Chamber. I believe the American people are troubled and sometimes ask themselves, who can we believe? Who can we believe, when people stand and give such contradictory conclusions? The fact is, in 1993 this country was facing nearly $300 billion in annual deficits. This year, the deficit is likely to be less than $50 billion. That is because a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress did what needed to be done. That is why we can talk about a balanced budget today. That is why we can talk about giving the American people a tax cut. We now know that there will be a tax cut. The argument that we have in this Chamber is what part of the American family community will benefit. My district has a median income of $22,000. My responsibility is to represent the working people and the working families in this country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to the previous speaker, only people who work qualify for the earned income tax credit. This is not money going to people who do not work. If they do not work, they do not qualify. Sadly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to embrace a survival of the fittest mentality. If people are wealthy, if they are healthy, they are deemed to be good and worthy. If they are old or sick or poor, somehow they do not deserve a part of the American dream. They do not deserve a tax break. We are going to get a tax bill, but I hope the American people are watching us, because this tax bill must be a fair bill. Under the Republican bill, if a family has four children and makes $18,000 a year, they will get nothing, nothing under the child tax credit provision. But if a similar family makes $80,000 a year, they will get $2,000. Nothing for the poor family; $2,000 for the well-to-do family. The Republican bill takes care of the well-to-do. We have got a responsibility to stand up for America's working families.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I walked over to the Capitol tonight and saw the lights on the dome, I felt, as I always feel as I look at this magnificent structure, I felt a deep appreciation for the opportunity to serve in this place and I felt a deep responsibility to my constituents who have sent me here. To represent the people of southern Ohio I consider a sacred responsibility. I come to the floor again tonight to talk about a little village in my district located on the Ohio River in Lawrence County, OH, a little village called Chesapeake, OH, a place where people for years have decided to build their homes and their lives on the banks of the beautiful Ohio River because they love the river, they love the environment, they love the community. A few months ago, a large barge towing company applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to build a large fleeting facility directly across the river from Chesapeake, OH. Now, I recognize the fact that the Ohio River is a river of great commerce and that we need to utilize it to its fullest to provide jobs and transportation for coal and products. I am not against a fleeting facility, and I am not against this particular company's location of a fleeting facility along the Ohio River. I simply object to the fact that this facility would be permitted to be located directly across the river from Chesapeake, OH. It would greatly diminish the property values of my constituents. I believe it would provide additional safety problems, air and water pollution, perhaps soil erosion. The Congressman before me requested that the Army Corps of Engineers require that an environmental impact statement be made and conducted before such a permit was granted. After I came to this office, I requested the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an environmental impact study leading to an environmental impact statement. Such a study would require the corps to look at a range of issues, certainly the commercial aspects of the permit, but also factors like quality of life, air, water and soil issues, recreational problems that may be encountered as a result of such a facility, and property values. The corps steadfastly refused to conduct such a study. I would say that the citizens of this country would not have been required to pay for such a study, that would have been the responsibility of the corporation, a large, wealthy corporation that was asking for the permit. Why did the Corps refuse to conduct a study? I think it is because such a study would have revealed factors which would have made it nearly impossible for them to have legitimately issued a permit. Some 2,000 of my constituents signed petitions directed to the Corps of Engineers asking them for the study. Two Members of Congress requested such a study. And yet the Army Corps of Engineers put the well-being of a large corporation above the well-being of my constituents, of hundreds, even thousands, of the citizens who live in the vicinity of Chesapeake, Ohio. The company claimed that they would create 30 jobs. They were certainly not able to convince me, nor were they able to say with surety that these would be 30 new jobs rather than simply a consolidation of existing jobs. I am not against fleeting operations. I am not against the barge and towing industry. In fact, I strongly and enthusiastically support the commercial use of the Ohio River. We need it to provide jobs and transport for our goods. The question is should this facility have been located directly across the river from an established community. I think any reasonable consideration of the facts would lead to the conclusion that this was an unwise decision. The truth is that the Army Corps of Engineers ignored the representative of the people, it ignored the petitions of the people, and it decided that the well-being and the interests of a single large corporation should take priority and precedence over the well-being and the safety of hundreds, even thousands, of my constituents. What the Army Corps has done is wrong. Their policies and procedures need to be evaluated. I ask my constituents to continue the fight, and I ask my colleagues in this body for their assistance in righting this terrible wrong.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to express a sentiment. The longer I live and the more I am involved in public life, the more convinced I become that the ordinary citizen is at a great disadvantage when they come up against the heavy hand of government or the all-powerful reach of a large corporation. Case in point: I represent many small wonderful communities in southern Ohio. One of those communities is located on the banks of the beautiful Ohio River. It is a little village called Chesapeake. In Chesapeake, OH, many citizens have chosen to build their homes and to locate on the river because they appreciate the community spirit and the quality of life there. A few months ago, a large corporation decided they wanted to establish a barge fleeting facility directly across the river from Chesapeake, OH; and, so, they approached the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to do so. Early on, the Congressman who preceded me in this office asked the Army Corps of Engineers to demand and require an environmental impact study leading to a statement which would determine whether or not the citizens, my constituents in Chesapeake, OH, would be damaged as a result of this fleeting facility. When I was elected, I also asked the Army Corps of Engineers to have an environmental impact study completed before granting this permit. Nearly 2,000 of my constituents signed a petition to the Army Corps of Engineers. I met with the Army Corps in Huntington, WV. I met with the Assistant Secretary of the Army in charge of civil works in my office here in Washington. I simply asked that my constituents be protected. I said that if this permit was granted, it ought not to be granted until a study was done to make sure that all of the factors that should be considered were considered. A few days ago, the headlines appeared in a local newspaper which said, ``Corps Approves Barge Facility.'' And although I had been told that all the factors had been considered, I had been told that the aesthetic factors, property values, safety issues, recreational interference, water and air pollution, that all of these factors had been considered, it is my judgment that they were not and that the Army Corps of Engineers disregarded hundreds, even thousands of my constituents in order to support a large corporation. This troubles me greatly. There is something wrong when ordinary citizens living in the small communities of this country do not get a fair shake. And I think the real attitude of the Army Corps of Engineers was expressed by a spokesperson who said recently, I quote spokesman Steve Wright of the Huntington office, said, Officials heard comments about the facility's effect on the environment, air quality and noise factors and the aesthetics of where this barge facility will be built. And then he said, and I quote, The people in Chesapeake who have concerns about the aesthetics might want to consider that they are on a super highway of commerce. This attitude sickens me, Mr. Speaker. It shows a callous disregard and insensitivity to American citizens who have a right to believe that their government and the agencies of their government care about them and are willing to protect them. I believe the Army Corps of Engineers needs a careful look. Perhaps their decisionmaking process needs to be reevaluated. Perhaps their funding needs to be reevaluated, because any time a part of this government shows disregard for American citizens, they have gone too far. They may have won this battle, but I believe that the Army Corps of Engineers has damaged itself. It certainly has damaged itself in the eyes of this Member of Congress. I will never feel as positive toward the Army Corps of Engineers or have the kind of respect that I have had in the past for the Army Corps of Engineers until they change their mode of operation and put the interests of ordinary American citizens above the interests of large corporations.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not come to this Chamber for special orders very often, Mr. Speaker, but there are some times when I think those of us who have been sent here to represent our constituents have a responsibility to speak out. This is one of those times. My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, indicated that the Republican plan could explode the deficit. We have worked hard as Democrats. In 1993 in this Chamber, Democrats took the tough action that reduced our deficit from nearly $300 billion a year down to less than $60 billion a year now. Democrats did that. We were the fiscally responsible party. If the Republicans have their way with this tax bill, after the year 2002 the deficit can explode. These are irresponsible plans that the Republicans have. I come from a poor district. The average family income in my district is less than $22,000 a year, and the Republican plan will do almost nothing for the people that I represent. Not many of my constituents earn $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 a year, and yet tomorrow in this Chamber we will make decisions that will redistribute wealth. The rap on Democrats has been that we want to redistribute wealth, just as they have called us the party that engages in class warfare. But as my friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], has said, this is not class warfare, but the fact is that the Republican plan will redistribute the wealth of this country, and this growing gap between the super rich and the rest of America will get ever greater, and it will be accelerated. So I am here tonight to join with my friends just to say that I am very concerned about this tax plan that the Republicans have put forth, because it is deceptive. It is attractive in certain ways, and they can stand on this floor and they can say we are giving a tax break to the American people, but they are not specific about who benefits. I think as Democrats we have a responsibility to talk about the fact that we need to advocate and work for and stand up for America's working families, those families in my district. Represented by the pictures here tonight are people who deserve a break, and they need Representatives who will be willing to stand for them. So I am here tonight just to say that I am proud to be a Democrat tonight. I am proud that when we compare our tax plan to the Republican tax plan, it is very clear that our tax plan gives tax breaks to working Americans, and their tax plan will give most of the benefits to the super rich, and that is just simply unfair.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Missouri. I taught at a small State school before I was elected to this body. Under the Democratic plan, students going to that school would qualify for $1,500 per year for the first 2 years of college which would basically pay for the cost of tuition at that institution. But under the Republican plan, that student would get probably $600. That just simply is wrong. It is breaking the agreement. As I understand it, the President was assured that we would have a $1,500 per year tax credit for the first 2 years of college. I urge my colleagues to make an issue out of the fact that education is important and the education part of this deal has been broken by the Republicans.

Mr. STRICKLAND

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

Mr. STRICKLAND. H.R. 1119 provides funding to support a unified effort by academic, commercial, and governmental entities administered by the National Automobile Center to develop and assess promising alternative vehicle propulsion technologies that provide innovative improvement for military applications. The Army has recognized that Giesel technology holds the promise of significantly improved propulsion. I firmly believe it is critical for us to provide funding for this technology that will allow development to be completed and will permit testing of these engines. I would urge that an appropriate portion of these funds be used for further development of the Giesel.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on National Security in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, our military vehicles need dependable, high-powered economical engines to support the increasing requirements for mobility on the modern digitized battlefield.

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

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, the Scripture tells us or asks us, ``What then is required of us but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God?" Mr. Speaker, there is very little justice in the Republican tax plan that is going to be presented to this House. According to the Treasury Department, the vast majority of the tax cuts in the Republican bill would go to the wealthiest of Americans. Specifically, the Treasury Department information tells us that two-thirds of the Republican tax cuts would benefit families with incomes of over $100,000 per year. The richest 1 percent would receive an average tax break of over $12,000. Not many of my constituents earn $100,000 a year. There is no justice, no fairness, in the Republican tax bill. We need tax relief for America's working families.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would just like to point out that this is an issue that I would hope and I believe cuts across the political spectrum of different political philosophies. I really do not believe that if we were to search the hearts of any Member of this body that there is any Member in this body that would believe that we should have children in this country without health care coverage. The question is how to achieve it and how to achieve it in a way that is acceptable to conservatives and liberals and those of us who try to make up the middle ground. I think what my colleague is describing, what he has described tonight, is a plan that is efficient, that does not create a new program as such but simply builds on what we already have, something that is already working, but that gives the individual States greater resources and some flexibility in choosing how best to provide this kind of coverage. So I know that we do a lot of arguing and debating in this Chamber and sometimes it is nonsense and sometimes it is serious, but I would hope that this is an issue that would rise above all others in terms of its ability to pull together both sides of the Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, as well as trying to find an agreement with the Administration. I think if this 105th Congress were to achieve health care coverage for America's children in spite of whatever failures that we may find ourselves having to admit to, that we would truly be able to say we had accomplished something that was of very significant importance to the entire country. I think my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Pallone is right when he indicated that if we do not do it now, the problem is going to get worse and that it will be more difficult perhaps in the months and years to come if we continue to let this number escalate and mushroom. I guess I would end by saying it is the right thing to do. It is absolutely the right thing to do, and I cannot believe that, given the resources of this rich country, we cannot do this. It may require us to make some choices. It may require us to say that children are more important than something else. But we ought to be willing to do that. If we are not willing to do that, then I would suggest that some of my Members who use children as a way to express their values, we see a lot of Members, myself included, who walk around this Chamber with ``save the children'' ties on, with images of children hanging around their neck, and I assume that is in order to make a public display of their commitment to children. I think if we as a Congress do not take this step and make the decisions that are necessary to set our priorities such that children come first, we talk about families coming first, but I really believe that we ought to get even more specific than that, we ought to say that children come first. They are the most vulnerable, defenseless part of our society, and we need to commit ourselves to this effort. I commit myself, as I know my colleague does and the Members of the Democratic task force, and I also believe that there are a number of our Republican colleagues who share our concerns. So, hopefully, as this budget scenario plays itself out, we will find that we do what we need to do here. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to share these comments with him.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding me this time. It is disturbing to me that in a country which is making progress on many fronts, where the economy is doing well for most Americans, where the deficit is shrinking, that we continue to have a health care crisis in this country. Some 40 million Americans are without health insurance, and the sad, tragic fact is that over 10 million of that number is composed of America's children. We are a country that claims to value our children. We use children in commercials to sell products, everything from toilet paper to new houses. We talk about how much we value children and that we are a child centered society. But I believe that a country's values are best reflected, most accurately reflected in the behaviors and the public policies that it pursues rather than in the words that its leaders speak. Ten million children without health insurance. And who are these kids? Some think that they are only composed of children whose parents are not working or who are on welfare, but of course that is absolutely not the case. Currently, children whose parents receive welfare benefits, and are qualified to do so, the parents of those children do have access to quality health care through the Medicaid program. But many of the children, in fact most of the children that are without health care coverage in this country today, are the children whose mothers and fathers work. They work full time, most of them. Most of them are from two-parent homes, and yet their parents work for employers that, for sometimes good reasons, other times for not good reasons, do not have health care benefits as a part of the employment package of benefits. And yet their wages are so low that they could not possibly go on the open market and purchase health insurance for their children. So these kids do without. They do without timely and appropriate dental care. Many of them do without those kinds of annual examinations which every pediatrician recommends in order to identify problems early so that they can be promptly treated and remediated. So today, in this country, a rich country, a country that boasts of a booming economy, low unemployment, a shrinking deficit, at a time when we are talking about having a balanced budget, there are many Americans, and many in this Congress, I am sad to say, who seem to be unconcerned about 10 million American kids. I am happy that the President is proposing in this budget agreement that we extend benefits to at least five additional million, but it troubles me, it really troubles me that we are not talking in terms of all of our children and making a commitment to using our national resources as they ought to be used to make sure as a priority that America's children, regardless of their economic situation, regardless of what families they come from, that those children have access to quality, timely, appropriate health care. So as we look forward to the next weeks and months in this chamber, it is my hope that the American people will begin to express themselves, and that conservatives and liberals alike will say that 10 million American children without health insurance is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it for a longer time.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, Americans are generous, compassionate, giving people. When disaster strikes, they respond by pitching in to do whatever is necessary to save lives and to reduce suffering. I saw this in my southern Ohio district as recent flood waters created disasters in 12 of my 14 counties. I was inspired by their efforts, proud to be their representative. Tragically, this Congress has not followed the model set forth by those who have actually suffered these natural disasters in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Dakota and other States and communities throughout this great Nation. It is almost beyond belief that we were sent home for a week's recess rather than staying here to pass the disaster relief bill. It is past time we stop playing games. I call upon the Republican leadership of this House to remove the superfluous provisions from the disaster relief bill so that the people can get the help they need. This House needs mature, responsible leadership. The American people and the disaster victims deserve nothing less.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am happy to join the gentleman tonight. I want to thank him for taking the time and the effort to bring this critical problem to our awareness. Young people unfortunately oftentimes do not plan ahead as they should. They sometimes act impulsively when they should not. As I have visited many high schools in my district, recently have been encouraged to see banners decorating the hallways and the lobby areas reminding young people that, as prom season approaches, this is a very critical time. It is a time when they need to be sensitized to the dangers of drinking and driving. I would like to say that I am encouraged as I have seen high schools especially making special efforts to see that prom night is a time of safety as well as entertainment and enjoyment for our young people. And they have done that by not only trying to educate the young people regarding the dangers of drinking and driving but also making after- prom activities available which in some cases last all night in a safe and secure and well-supervised setting. I think the gentleman is right. The greatest effort that we can make in terms of keeping our young people safe during this prom season is to educate them to the dangers and then to take those steps necessary to make sure that their activities are well supervised. Nearly every year in my State of Ohio, we read some tragic story about young people who have gone to the prom and then had a tragic accident. I am hopeful that this year in my State and in my district as well as across the country that the efforts that the gentleman and others are making to raise this issue in terms of public awareness will prevent such a tragedy from happening. I am happy to join the gentleman and to thank him for his efforts.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to ensure that the proper agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, maintains its authority over adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. I oppose efforts to change the CPI by congressional fiat. Such a proposal is nothing more than a quick-fix gimmick, an attempt to balance the budget by indiscriminately reducing cost of living and retirement benefits and, in the process, harming the most vulnerable in our society. Some have argued that a lower CPI would only reduce Social Security checks by a few dollars. But in my district, a few dollars can often mean the difference between being able to pay for food, medicine and rent and not being able to pay for these essentials of daily living. I believe in a balanced budget and I intend to fight for one, but it must be done fairly. Let us not balance the budget with tricks and gimmicks on the backs of seniors and children, but let us balance the budget by asking everyone to contribute their fair share.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Allen Bias, a great Ohioan. Mr. Bias has inspired a community, a country, and a family. It is a great honor to pay tribute today to such an esteemed individual. Mr. Bias grew up during the Depression with six brothers and sisters on a poor 60-acre hillside farm. Raised by their mother, they were taught the values of honesty and integrity. Despite their modest beginnings, Mr. Bias and his siblings have had successful careers and led productive lives. At age 17, Mr. Bias joined the Navy to fight for his country in World War II. He volunteered for a special unit in the South Pacific Islands. A member of Marine Aircraft Group Twelve, Mr. Bias displayed tremendous heroism while engaging enemy forces in the South Pacific. He and other members of the Marine Aircraft Group Twelve received the Presidential Unit Citation presented by the President of the United States. Mr. Bias served this country with courage, dedication, and honor. Mr. Bias has always had a strong work ethic which enabled him to have a long and highly respected career in the baking industry. He held several key management positions with one of the largest companies in the baking industry. He knew how to succeed in business, but more importantly, he knew how to treat employees and coworkers with respect and dignity. When it was time to retire, Mr. Bias took the opportunity to continue his service to others by working at a center for the mentally disabled. Once again he gained the respect and admiration from those around him. Mr. Bias has served his country, his community, and his family. He has taught his children honesty and integrity. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to share his accomplishments with this Congress and the country.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed by a letter I received yesterday from the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. It seems that he considers the Appalachian Regional Commission's road- building program corporate welfare, saying that it is used to, quote, ``link well-to-do urban centers with other well-to-do urban centers''. Now, perhaps that is the case with road-building programs in Columbus, OH, but I can assure my colleagues that, in my part of Ohio, ARC road funds are used to bring economic development and jobs to remote communities. Other regions take good roads for granted while the Appalachian people do without. The ARC road program was a promise the Federal Government made to the American people of Appalachia in 1965. It is now 77 percent complete. It is not corporate welfare, it is basic infrastructure. I am hopeful that the good chairman will reconsider his assertions about the worth of this essential program. We need to finish the job and to keep our commitment to the people. The taxpayers in my district want concrete results. We need pavement, not broken promises.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as you all are aware, over the past week, the Midwest has experienced devastating flood waters. Because of these floods, major portions of the Sixth Congressional District of Ohio have been declared a Federal disaster area. To help the people back home, I remained in the district last week and therefore missed the following votes: Wednesday, March 5, 1997: Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 29, House Concurrent Resolution 17, the Guatemalan Peace Process; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 30, House Concurrent Resolution 18, the Nicaraguan Democratic Elections; and ``nay'' on Rollcall Vote 31, House Concurrent Resolution 31, Display of the Ten Commandments. Thursday, March 6, 1997: ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 32, Motion to Adjourn; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 33, the Journal; ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 34, Washington, DC, City Council Contract Reform; and ``yea'' on Rollcall Vote 35, Motion to Adjourn.