Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are demanding an additional $10 to $30 billion in Medicare cuts. Why? Not to extend the life of the Medicare part A trust fund, not to improve the program for the 38 million seniors and disabled who depend on it. No, the additional cuts proposed by the majority are needed to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. The new crown jewel, costing $300 billion over the next 5 years, involves eliminating all estate and capital gains taxes. Some tax relief makes sense, but only after we balance the Federal budget and invest in our future. Tax breaks for the wealthy are the wrong priority for this Congress. Our children must be our top priority. Children's health insurance, quality, affordable child care, improved education, and confronting drug and alcohol abuse, that is the heart of our future and ought to be part of our budget.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a private relief bill that would provide Social Security widow benefits for my constituent, Nancy B. Wilson of Bremen, ME. I appreciate the opportunity to help resolve Nancy Wilson's unjust restriction of benefits. Section 216(c) of the Social Security Act requires that a widow be married for at least 9 months to collect her spouse's benefit. Nancy Wilson is not eligible for her husband's Social Security benefit because she was legally married to Al Wilson for only 7 months. In the mid 1940's, Al Wilson's first wife was committed to a mental institution in Massachusetts. Mr. Wilson wanted a divorce, but was unable to proceed due to Massachusetts State law. According to a study conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the existing State law excluded insanity or institutionalization as grounds for a divorce. In 1950, Nancy had a common-law marriage with Mr. Wilson. For 19 years, these two people lived as husband and wife. Al had two children from his original marriage. Nancy also had a child. They raised their children together as a family. Nancy stayed at home, allowing Al to work and support the Family. Through his employment, Mr. Wilson paid into the Social Security trust fund. In 1969, Al Wilson's wife passed away in the institution where she had spent her last 25 years. Within 20 days, Nancy and Al Wilson were legally married. After waiting 19 years to be legally recognized as husband and wife, Al and Nancy's marriage lasted less than 1 year. Seven months after their marriage, Al passed away. In 1991, upon turning 64, Nancy Wilson applied for widow benefits. She was refused on the grounds that the duration of her marriage did not satisfy the 9 month requirement. She went through the full appeal process, but was again denied. A spouse forgoes employment to work in the home. Work in the home helps the family, but hurts the individual who, as a result, does not accumulate Social Security benefits. The intent of the Social Security Act is that widows and widowers be entitled to their spouse's benefit to offset their personal lack of sufficient benefits. This private relief bill seeks to fulfill this intent in the case of Nancy Wilson. The 9 month requirement for Social Security widow benefits is not disputed by this bill. Nancy Wilson's situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act. Al and Nancy were prohibited from marrying. It was their choice to coexist as husband and wife, and as a family. Nancy raised the couple's children while Al provided financially for the family. Clearly, Nancy and Al Wilson would have married if the law would have allowed. Now, after a lifetime together, Nancy cannot collect the widow benefits she deserves. This private relief bill makes Nancy Wilson eligible for widow benefits. The bill establishes that Nancy and Al were married for no less than 9 months. This unique situation is an exception that will not be repeated. Since their marriage, the no-fault divorce statute has been enacted in Massachusetts, which prevents this situation from reoccurring. Thank you Mr. Speaker for this opportunity to advocate for my constituent, Nancy Wilson. Clearly, Nancy's unfortunate situation deserves to be addressed.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, bring this down to a different level. I rise to urge Members of this body to vote in opposition to the motion for the previous question and I do so because I want to raise the issue of campaign finance reform. I think it is time for us to deal with it, and I want to mention a couple of points. First, according to a recent poll, 85 percent of Americans think that there is a crisis or a problem with the way candidates raise and spend campaign funds, and according to another recent poll, 85 percent of the people think that special interest groups have more influence than voters. Now, when I was back in my district over the last 2 weeks, people did raise the issue of campaign finance reform, and do my colleagues know what a couple of them said? They said, ``Why are you spending millions of dollars on investigations and doing nothing to help us? Why are you spending millions of dollars on investigations and doing nothing to help us?'' I believe that from my experience if we cannot find people who care about campaign finance reform we are not looking very hard. It may not deal with their jobs, it may not deal with their education, it may not be Social Security or Medicare. They are things that matter to their personal lives, but they care about our democracy and they care about this system of campaign funding. It is important because the relationship between those who elect us and those who sit in elective offices is critically important. It is a matter of trust. If our citizens continue to believe, as they do now, that money has more influence than votes, then we are diminished, they are diminished, and this democracy is diminished. There is too much money in politics, and we need to do something about it. I am a cochair of a freshman task force, a bipartisan group, six Republicans and six Democrats, and we want to work on this issue through this Congress, and what I ask all the Members here is to make sure that the year 2000 is not a repeat of the year 1996 and we deal with campaign finance reform now.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, last weekend half of the Members in this House participated in a bipartisan congressional retreat to help restore civility in our debate. The American people want us to do the people's work and to do so in a bipartisan fashion. Today's resolution requesting the President to submit a second balanced budget is partisan and counterproductive. The President submitted a balanced budget in February. While we may honestly disagree about the President's budget priorities, the Constitution gives this Congress the power of the purse. Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires this Congress to complete action on the budget resolution on or before April 15, 1997. That date is less than 5 weeks away. To request a second balanced budget from the President is simply irresponsible. He has done his job. The Committee on the Budget must not duck the tough choices necessary to balance the Federal budget, but that is what is going on today. Let us do our job. Let us vote against this resolution and urge the Committee on the Budget to submit a budget resolution to this Congress by April 15.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 513 is a bipartisan bill authored by the District of Columbia Subcommittee's chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [(Mr. Davis], and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], its ranking member. It would simply exempt contracts over $1 million entered into by the District's Water and Sewer Authority and Convention Center Authority from review and approval by the city council. These two authorities were established by the Council during the last 2 years as corporate bodies with a legal existence apart from the District government. Each authority has its own board of directors, financial system, and revenue sources. Their independence was an essential element of their design, and it is critical to the realization of their respective missions. Two years ago, Congress approved legislation developed by the D.C. Subcommittee establishing the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, Public Law 104-8. This bill contained a provision amending the District's home rule charter to require council review of all contracts over $1 million. This was done in order to inject greater control and accountability into the District's procurement process. It has since been learned through consultation with various financial advisers that we could lower the risk associated with any borrowing by the two authorities and thereby reduce their borrowing costs if we insulated the larger contracts of the two authorities from the review process and the politics which sometimes affect it. Finally, the bill would permit the city council at its option to exempt from its review any Federal aid highway program contract over $1 million. The council has indicated that it would prefer to annually approve a schedule of projects to be undertaken under this program rather than consider project contracts on an individual basis. This approach will expedite the procurement process and ensure work can get started during the construction season. I should point out that all of the contracts which this bill will exempt from council review will still be subject to review and approval by the District's Financial Authority, the Control Board. The authority will ensure that they have been executed appropriately and are consistent with the District's budget and financial plan. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill does nothing more than streamline an administrative review process of the council. It enjoys the support of the District's local officials. Accordingly, I urge its approval by this body.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution regarding the Ten Commandments on the grounds that religious doctrine is the cornerstone of a just and fair society. Yet there are 61 countries around the world that ensure or provide health care for all of their workers and dependents. The United States is not one of them. In this country our children are falling behind on many crucial health indicators. Ten million American children have no health insurance. Millions more do not have meaningful access to health care providers. Their parents have to rely on emergency services to care for their children. This is unconscionable. Ninety percent of uninsured children have parents that work but they have no coverage for their children through their employers. We must take action to require insurance companies to provide kids-only health insurance and to provide a tax credit to help parents pay the premiums. A fair and just society provides for the health and welfare of its children, our future.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic leadership's proposal to add children's health care to the priorities we address this session. Today more than 10 million American children have no health insurance coverage. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that over the past 5 years the number of children without insurance has risen twice as fast as the number of adults. Most of these are the children of working families earning between $15,000 and $45,000 per year. In my State, the Maine Health Care Commission estimated that in 1996, 36,000 Maine children had no health insurance coverage. Ninety-one percent of Maine's uninsured children live in families with at least one working parent. Ten million American children relying on emergency room treatment instead of a family doctor is wrong--and expensive. We can and must do better. This Congress should encourage kids only insurance policies and expand basic Medicaid coverage to uninsured children.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Democratic leadership's proposal to add children's health care to the priorities we address this session. Today more than 10 million American children have no health insurance coverage. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the New York Times reported that over the past 5 years the number of children without insurance has risen twice as fast as the number of adults. Most of these are the children of working families earning between $15,000 and $45,000 per year. In my State the Maine Health Care Commission estimated that in 1996 36,000 Maine children had no health insurance coverage, and 91 percent of Maine's uninsured children live in families with at least one working parent. Ten million American children relying on emergency room treatment instead of a family physician is wrong and expensive. We can and must do better. This Congress should encourage kids-only insurance policies and expand basic Medicaid coverage to uninsured children.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 36 in the hope that this House will recognize that international family planning funds are a good investment for America. These funds reduce unintended pregnancies, they reduce the number of maternal and infant deaths, they reduce the number of abortions. All we are asking is that much-needed funds be released on March 1 instead of July 1. Three months. It seems like a small matter, but it is not. It is not to the women and children around the globe whose lives will be changed by our vote today. Opponents say this is a vote to fund abortions. That is not true. This resolution preserves the existing ban on the use of Federal funds for abortions overseas. These funds have already been appropriated by this Congress. We seek no additional funds. We ask only that the gap in services not be extended. As David Broder wrote recently, ``The women and children around the world who have the most at stake will not have a vote.'' We do. We should use it wisely.