Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, when Americans turn on their televisions today, they are inundated by television advertisements promoting particular prescription drugs. Doctors are overwhelmed by detailers from the pharmaceutical industry coming to praise the virtues of the particular drugs that are manufactured by the people who employ them. But what patients and physicians in this country really need is quality information, evidence-based information about the comparative effectiveness of different drugs that are advertised to treat the same illness or condition. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act provides for research on outcomes of health care items and services, including the comparative clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs. Today I am pleased to join my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) in offering an amendment to fund that provision in the new Medicare law. Section 1013 of the new Medicare law authorizes $50 million in fiscal year 2004 for the Agency For Health Care Research and Quality to conduct outcomes research on prescription drugs and other treatments. Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget contained no funding for this initiative. Currently, there really is a dearth of evidence-based information available to assist practitioners in choosing the most appropriate medication for their patients. The $50 million we seek would fund new research and literature surveys to improve scientific evidence about the comparative effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs and other treatments. Additionally, funds would be used to communicate the results of this research to health care practitioners, health care purchasers and consumers. All we are asking is for better information to be available to doctors and patients. And if we can make that better information, independent research not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, if we make that information available, we will have better health care quality in this country; and we will have lower prices as well. It is very important that we ensure that our prescription drug spending is not based on the latest television or glossy magazine advertisement, but on science-based and tested information. Physicians and their patients need access to credible, unbiased, evidence-based data on the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs so they can make informed decisions about their purchases. As the cost of health care continues to rise, obtaining the greatest health care value is essential. More objective research will improve the quality of care and help to reduce costs. This spring, Members from both sides of the aisle joined me in sending a letter to the chairman and ranking member urging $75 million for this provision. In addition, the Senate approved an amendment in support of $75 million for prescription drug comparative effectiveness studies, indicating the high level of bipartisan support for this initiative. I do hope that the chairman agrees that this provision, which has been authorized, is a worthy initiative. I look forward to working with him and the committee to provide some funding in conference and to encourage the administration to add money for this purpose in next year's budget. Though I would urge support for this amendment, I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but first I would like to give an opportunity to my friend from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) to speak on it.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments. Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for holding this Special Order on whether or not Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago. I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, because I thought that was a great example of how the very wealthiest among us can benefit enormously from the administration's tax cuts, and yet the rest of the people are basically left high and dry. That is why 50 percent of the American people have not noticed any benefit at all from the Bush tax cuts. But that is a very good example, because it is possible, as we all know in politics, to repeat something over and over again, even if it is not true, and persuade a certain number of people that it is. I give my colleagues this example. I was coming down from Maine on the plane today and talking to the fellow on the plane and we got talking about these tax cuts which most people know are weighted for the wealthiest people in this country. And he said, Well, but don't these small businessmen and women, aren't they the ones who create most of the jobs? And you realize what the administration has been able to do. They have been able to hoodwink a certain percentage of the American people into believing that the very, very wealthiest people in this country are the small businessmen and women. Well, small businessmen and women in my State are not making $1 million a year. Maybe a few are, and I hope we will have more of them. But the cold, hard truth is, a lot of them are struggling to get by. They are really struggling with the rapid rise in their health care costs, but it simply is not true that the Bush tax cuts go to the small business community in general. But what the administration has done and what the Republicans in Congress have done is marvelous. They have described as a small businessman the typical person who is worth a half a billion dollars, a half a billion dollars, and just because he or she has some investment somewhere in some small business, they are described as a small businessman. That is what they have done to distort the truth. If you stand back and go to the question that you posed earlier, are most Americans better off today than they were 4 years ago? That is an appropriate question to ask. Because though elections are about the future, the record of the incumbent is really something that needs to be examined. The President and the congressional Republicans are saying, stay the course. We are back on track. The economy is doing well. Well, when the election hits, we will still be down a million private sector jobs over 4 years. This is not a 12-month problem, an 18-month problem, it is a 4-year problem. We have lost over a million private sector jobs during the Bush administration. No President since Herbert Hoover, 80 years ago, no President has had that poor of a record on job creation. So let us think about this problem generally. Do we want to know how the economy is doing? Let us talk about jobs. We are down a million in the last 4 years; wages, median incomes in terms of real dollars adjusted for inflation are down; and health care. And what has happened in health care? Two things. The cost of health care, the premiums that people are paying, particularly in the small business community, are going up and going up rapidly. In my State of Maine, small businessmen and women will tell me, their premiums are going up 20, 30 percent a year, year after year after year. So that is one problem. The second problem is, we have seen an increase of 5 million people during George Bush's first term, 5 million people who no longer have any health insurance at all. Stay the course? Support the President? We are on the right track? It makes no sense. The cold, hard truth reflected in these numbers is that this administration has paid attention to the stock market and to people earning $1 million or more a year, tried to provide them the benefit and tried to hoodwink the rest of the American public into believing, if only we take care of the very wealthy and we give them tax breaks, then all of the benefits will trickle down and jobs will be created. Well, the proof is in the pudding. If that strategy made sense, then the 2001 tax cut and the 2003 tax cut should have produced, according to the President's estimates, according to his Council of Economic Advisors, 7 million new jobs. And instead we are down 1 million, more than 1 million. So all one has to do is see what they promised and look at the results. This is not a strategy that worked in the 1980s; it is not a strategy that is working today. One other factor that ought to be thrown in, we have something over 1 million, 1.2 million, I am not sure of the exact number, people who have now fallen below the poverty line in the last 4 years. And we have detected what Alan Greenspan calls a softening in the economy already. For job creation, this year is worse than any single year during the Clinton administration. This is worse than any single year in the Clinton administration, and this is the year of recovery. So it is pretty clear when you look at the numbers, when you look at the record, this administration has an abysmal record. And for most Americans, staying the course with this administration and the Republicans in Congress would be a foolhardy undertaking. And that is why I am so pleased that my colleague has held this Special Order tonight, because we have a lot to say and the numbers, frankly, speak for themselves.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been reading this book called ``The Two-Income Trap. Why Middle Class Parents Are Going Broke'' by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. There are trends going on in our economy, have been for some time, that are making life very, very hard for middle-income Americans. One is the explosion in the cost of housing. Absolute explosion. If you want to buy a house on a safe street in a place where there are good schools, you have to pay much, much more money than you did 4 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Second is the cost of education. Whether one is talking about preschool or college, the fact is that education costs a lot more than it used to, and yet it is more critical than ever before. And the third is the cost of health care. The cost of health care is going up in a way that is just putting middle-income families right on the financial edge. And this is a world that the congressional leadership here, the Republican leadership and the administration just do not understand. And the reason I say that is because they never talk about it; they never talk about it. And their economic policy is not directed at these people; it is directed to making sure that the wealthiest people in the country get very large tax cuts. Hopefully, the theory was, I remember when the 2003 tax cut was being debated last year, the theory was if we could gin up the stock market, then that will lift up the whole economy. Well, Main Street is more important than Wall Street. It comes down to ordinary people earning enough to be able to buy the goods that American manufacturers and American service providers have to offer. And what we are seeing with outsourcing, with the squeeze and downward pressure on wages, more productivity as you say, but less hours worked and lower wages, now, this is really a very, very serious economic policy. That is why I think that it is time for a change in direction in leadership. Now, the administration will say anything. And what they always say if one criticizes their economic policies or any other policies they say you are being a pessimist. You are being a pessimist. So if one points out the truth, he is criticized for being pessimistic. Frankly, John Kerry has the right answer: we can do better. I mean, this country can do a lot better for the Republicans in Congress and the administration to be satisfied with net negative job growth over 4 years, with a decline in the median income wage level, with a dramatic explosion in the number of Americans who do not have health insurance, and rapidly rising premiums for those who do not. That is a record of failure. And why any American would vote for those who have espoused that kind of record of failure is really beyond me. We need to have this debate to make sure that people understand that what they are saying about their economic policies is, frankly, not true, not grounded in sound economics, but is grounded, as it has been in the past, in wishful thinking. That if they help the very wealthiest, somehow the rest of us will benefit. We have had 4 years of it. It has not worked. It is time for a change.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if I could continue that thought, one of the points that Elizabeth Warren makes in this book, ``The Two-Income Trap. Why Middle-class Parents Are Going Broke,'' is that often it takes two incomes in order to be able to buy a home. But once you have bought the home and you have signed the mortgage, that is a fixed expense. You cannot get out of it. It is not discretionary income. It is not like cutting back on food, skipping going out to a restaurant once in a while. These expenses have become the most important expenses. And the reason why middle-income families today have less discretionary income than middle-income families 20 years ago is because their money is all tied up in fixed expenses. It may be a car payment; it often is a house payment. One has got to have health insurance. Those costs are there. And we need a President and we need a Congress that will focus on the real world, not some dream world which does not take account of what is going on in the lives of middle-income Americans. I thank the gentleman again for holding this Special Order.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, but with strong reservations about its pharmaceutical provisions. On balance, the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses in both countries by lowering barriers to trade in goods and services. However, the administration has included provisions sought by the drug industry that could raise barriers to free trade in pharmaceuticals. My concerns are as follows: first, one provision gives drug companies the right to block reimportation of their products into the United States. Since Australian law already prohibits this practice, the provision is not necessary. So why is it here? To set a precedent. If applied to trade relations with Canada, this provision would allow legal challenges under trade law to the reimportation bill that many of us favor as a source of affordable medicines for our constituents. The intent of the Bush administration is clear. USTR has testified that the pharmaceutical provisions in the Australia FTA ``lay the groundwork for future FTAs'' and will be applied to ``upcoming FTA negotiations with Canada and other major trading partners.'' Second, the FTA opens up Medicare for potential changes. While USTR says no changes to existing Medicare law are needed under this agreement, we should all be concerned about the precedent of subjecting our domestic health laws to modification through trade negotiations where Congress has less say and the pharmaceutical industry has more influence. Lastly, it is not appropriate to use trade policy to interfere in other nations' health systems. The administration is working to use trade pacts to raise drug prices overseas under the illusion, the grand illusion, that that will reduce prices here at home. The U.S. will win no friends if our trade policy becomes a heavy-handed tool to raise drug prices on the citizens of our trading partners. I support the Australia FTA. This agreement by itself will have little or no impact on U.S. health care laws, but I want to make clear that similar provisions must be kept out of future trade agreements.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, but with strong reservations about the pharmaceutical provisions. Australia is the 12th largest foreign market for the State of Maine. The State exported $29 million in goods and services to Australia last year. That amount will likely grow with this agreement, which eliminates 99 percent of all tariffs on manufactured goods, including on paper and wood products, and reduces barriers to Maine agricultural and services exporters. Since Australia is a developed country with strong labor and environmental laws, this FTA does not involve a significant debate over the need to promote effective labor and environmental standards through trade agreements. On balance, the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses in both countries by lowering barriers to trade in goods and services. However, the administration has included provisions, sought by the drug industry, that raise barriers to free trade in pharmaceuticals. This represents the first trade agreement to force changes in a trading partner's health regulations. Australia is the first country to implement a comprehensive system that evaluates the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of drugs. Under their innovative Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, the reimbursement rate for pharmaceuticals is based on the therapeutic value of a drug, rather than on the price that the manufacturer wants to charge. The system allows for higher reimbursements for truly innovative drugs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are given ample opportunity to prove the value of their products, which results in a negotiation over the price at which the government will reimburse the manufacturer. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry dislikes the Australian system because it shifts decision-making power over drug prices from industry executives to doctors and health professionals. Consequently, the Bush administration signaled that it wanted to make changes to the PBS through the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement. I am the sponsor, with Representative Jo Ann Emerson, of bipartisan legislation (H.R. 2356) to provide Federal funding for comparative effectiveness studies in the U.S. In October 2003, we sent a bipartisan letter to U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, Robert Zoellick expressing concerns that changes to the PBS could undermine our domestic efforts to promote comparative effectiveness. An exchange of letters followed. Last winter, USTR offered a proposal to the Australians which, reportedly, would have undermined the pricing structure of the PBS. Fortunately, following objections by Members of Congress, public health groups, and the Government of Australia, that onerous provision was not adopted. The pharmaceutical provisions that ultimately were included in the FTA were more limited, but not insignificant. My concerns are as follows: First, Article 17.9.4 grants a patent holder like a pharmaceutical company the right to block re-importation of its patented product into the U.S. by contract or other means. By contrast, S. 2328, the Dorgan- McCain re-importation bill, contains provisions designed to prevent drug companies from restricting the ability of pharmacists or wholesalers to import drugs from approved countries (the bill lists Australia). The Senate re-importation bill, if enacted, could thus be challenged as inconsistent with trade law. The U.S. could be found to be in violation of obligations under the U.S.-Australia FTA, and subject to sanctions until the re- importation law is repealed. However, Australian law already prohibits this practice. Thus, the provision is not necessary. So why is it here? To set a precedent. Deputy USTR Josette Shiner testified before the Senate Finance Committee on April 27 that the pharmaceutical provisions in the Australia FTA ``lay the groundwork for future FTAs,'' which will ``steer us in ongoing and future global, regional and bilateral negotiations--including upcoming FTA negotiations and consultations with Canada and other major trading partners bilaterally and in international fora like the OECD.'' The intent of the Bush Administration is clear. If the provision in this FTA were applied to trade relations with Canada (where re-export is legal), it would permit legal challenges, under trade law, to the re-importation bill that many of us favor as a source of affordable medicines for our constituents. Second, the FTA opens up our Medicare program for potential changes, a fact acknowledged by USTR. Annex 2-C of the FTA imposes transparency obligations not only on Australia's PBS, but also on the pharmaceutical reimbursement policies of the Medicare Part B program. While USTR claims that these obligations do not require changes in U.S. law or regulation, it does set a worrisome precedent for modifying domestic health policies through trade agreements, where Congress has less say and the pharmaceutical industry has more influence. Third, there are questions about whether the Australian FTA will affect the Department of Veterans Affairs' prescription drug benefit. An analysis by the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health concludes that the Government Procurement Chapter of the U.S.-Australia FTA grants pharmaceutical companies standing to challenge VA procurement decisions, including decisions about the coverage and pricing of pharmaceuticals, as an unfair trade practice. USTR responds that the FTA imposes no new obligations on the VA beyond those already required by the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement. This question bears further investigation. I have met with USTR officials, and came away with the impression that they went to great lengths to ensure that the pharmaceutical provisions in the U.S.-Australia FTA did not force changes to current U.S. health law or regulation. Even with the limited provision in the FTA, which makes relatively minor changes to the Australian PBS, U.S. negotiators couldn't avoid subjecting our Medicare program to the Agreement's obligations. They treaded carefully, but still crossed the line. By the Administration's own admission, this FTA is part of a larger policy designed to dismantle so-called drug price control/reference pricing systems in other countries. Given the Australian experience, it is inconceivable that more aggressive pharmaceutical provisions in future FTAs won't have reciprocal, and likely adverse, effects on U.S. federal health programs. Basically, by the same definition that labels the Australian, Canadian or German systems as ``price controls,'' our VA and DOD drug programs are price controls. Those who would use trade policy to dismantle price controls overseas will endanger the prescription drug benefits we offer to American veterans and military personnel. Regardless of one's position on re-importation, the Australia FTA in general or the pharmaceutical provisions in particular, each of us should question whether it is appropriate to subject U.S. health laws to changes through trade negotiations. Under the Trade Promotion Authority procedure, Congress does not have the ability to amend an agreement once negotiated, and the principal House and Senate health policy committees are given little if any role. Lastly, I question whether it is appropriate to use trade policy to interfere in other nations' health systems. We certainly wouldn't accept such a demand from other countries. The United States will win no friends if our trade agenda becomes a heavy handed tool to raise drug prices on the citizens of our trading partners. The Bush Administration's excuse for not insisting on strong labor and environmental standards in trade agreements is that the U.S. has no business dictating other nations' labor and environmental laws. It is hypocritical for the Administration to take the opposite approach when it comes to health laws. Australians like their PBS and believe it is a balanced and scientifically sound way of assessing value for money for pharmaceuticals. Who are we to conclude otherwise? Australians can get any drug they want that is approved by their equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration. There is a viable private market for the few drugs not listed on the PBS. In my opinion, USTR's cited justification under the Trade Act for the pharmaceutical provisions is wrong. Australians are not denied full market access to U.S. drug products. The PBS section in the U.S.-Australian FTA has emerged as a major point of contention in Australia. Allegations that it will raise prices have forced a sensitive domestic political debate. This experience leads me to believe that a sure way for the Administration to slow down its trade agenda is to keep insisting on similar pharmaceutical provisions. To conclude, I support the Australian FTA. This agreement by itself will have little or no impact on U.S. health care laws. But I want to make clear that similar provisions must be kept out of future trade agreements.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, this summer marks the 40th anniversary season of the world-renowned Bowdoin International Music Festival. I take particular pride in this program, which is housed on the beautiful campus of my alma mater, Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, in my Congressional District. Each summer for 6 weeks, more than 200 gifted young musicians of graduate, college and high school levels gather here from around the globe. They learn from and perform with some of the best teaching and performing musicians in the world. In this international community, students and faculty thrive in an intense but joyful atmosphere. The program consists of individual classes and practice, chamber coaching and group practice, master classes, and numerous performance opportunities. These include student concerts and an outreach program, in which students perform at local venues such as retirement homes and resorts. The public is also invited to the festival's ``MusicFest,'' a formal chamber music series that features festival artists and internationally-renowned guest artists, ``Upbeat!,''a mix of contemporary and traditional music in an informal atmosphere, and the week-long Charles E. Gamper Festival of Contemporary Music. The Bowdoin International Music Festival has furthered the artistic mastery of numerous students, enriched Maine's educational and cultural environment, and brought pleasure to thousands of listeners. I am confident that its success will continue for decades to come.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This is a Maine/Ohio event tonight. I am not sure we are ready to play basketball with Hoosiers, but we are happy to talk with them tonight about the problems our veterans face. We have 150,000 people over in Iraq and Afghanistan doing their level best to carry out an extraordinarily difficult assignment. And it is simply astonishing, it is a disgrace, that President Bush and the Republican leadership in this Congress have made tax cuts for the richest Americans a higher priority than funding health care for our veterans. Just to put these numbers in perspective, Secretary Principi asked the administration for $1.2 billion in next year's budget that he could not get. He asked for $1.2 billion. That seems like a lot of money. How much are we spending every week in Iraq? A little over $1 billion. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, and we cannot find, the administration cannot find, $1 billion extra a year to fully fund veterans' health care in this country. It is just unbelievable. In Maine we are doing better in some respects because we have got some additional clinics. We have got the CARES report that has been done and offers some hope that we are going to do a little better in the future. But nationally we are underfunding veterans' health care. There is no doubt about it. What is really going on, I think, is because the cost of health care, particularly the cost of prescription drugs, is rising so rapidly that more and more veterans are coming into the system, flooding the system, asking for help. And where is the United States Government, where is the United States Congress, when our veterans need extra help? Sadly, missing in action is where we have been. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) was just talking about the White House budget memo for the next fiscal year, not the one we are debating this year but the next fiscal year. That is a cut. In fiscal year 2006 President Bush's proposal is to cut VA health care by another $910 million, almost $1 billion, 1 week's worth of spending in Iraq. And if they succeed in driving veterans' health care down by that much, they will have cut veterans' health care to below the 2004 level, below the level that we are spending this year. And I find this proposal just absolutely shameful, especially when our servicemen and women and their families are sacrificing so much in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We should be at this time showing renewed appreciation for our veterans, and that is why I support the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) resolution, H. Res. 685, that would reorder the Nation's budget priorities to increase the investments in veterans' health care. This House will vote on the resolution tomorrow, and H. Res. 685 would increase funding available for VA health care for fiscal year 2005 by an additional $1.3 billion, just slightly more than Secretary Principi asked the President for and did not get. The resolution would be paid for by limiting unfair and disproportionate tax breaks for people making $1 million annually. And think about this. That would save just under $19 billion. In other words, here we are, the conflict going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in 1 year alone, people earning $1 million a year or more are going to take home $18.9 billion that they would not have had without these tax breaks. And we cannot find, the administration cannot find, the Republican Congress cannot find, $1.3 billion a year to help our veterans. If we were not in Washington, we would not believe it. What is happening is just absolutely unbelievable and needs to be changed.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Forest Legacy Program preserves working forests and protects critical forest resources. Since its inception, the Forest Legacy program has protected 360,000 acres of forested land, while helping to preserve the working forest economies of many States, including Maine. The FY05 Interior Appropriations bill before the House today drastically cuts this program. The $43 million in the bill for forest conservation projects is $26 million (38 percent) less than last year's level; $57 million less than the President requested in his budget; $107 million (71 percent) less than sought by 92 House Members in a letter to the Interior appropriations committee that I led with Representatives Bass and Marshall; and a whopping $193 million below the level of projects proposed by States. The bill eliminates 10 projects recommended by the President, cuts funding--by as much as 75 percent--for 37 projects in 30 States and territories, and eliminates funds for 6 new States to join the program. The Forest Legacy Program has strong support from the Administration, which proposed more than a 40-percent increase in this year's budget. The Forest Legacy Program provides multiple public benefits. The program enables landowners to retain ownership of their land and continue to earn income from it; conserves open space, scenic lands, wildlife habitat, and clean water; and ensures continued opportunities for outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and hiking. Given its record of assisting private landowners, leveraging non- federal funds and ensuring long-term conservation benefits, the Forest Legacy Program is a successful example of a public-private, non- regulatory partnership approach to land conservation. For limited dollars, the program brings multiple public benefits. We should not be cutting this program.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act, as it is called; but I did want to say it is a pleasure to have our friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), back on the floor today. I did want to respond to one of his comments. He said that he could not believe that the energy bill that we passed before and passed again yesterday had so much opposition. I might remind him that every single New England Senator, five Republicans and seven Democrats, every single New England Senator voted against that bill. In the United States House, 20 of 22 Members of the House from New England voted against that bill. The bill is flawed. That is why it has not gone anywhere yet in the Senate. Also, my friend from Georgia talked about pitiful Democratic excuses. He was tired of pitiful Democratic excuses that he has heard on this legislation that we are considering today. Well, if a person has asthma, and there is an asthma epidemic in this country, if a person has asthma, clean air is not a pitiful excuse. It is a real thing that affects a person's life and how they get along in the world. The fact is, the truth about this legislation is that it could allow more. It could allow polluting facilities to emit more pollution than the health-based standards of the Clean Air Act can do today. Refineries are significant emitters of volatile organic compounds which form tropospheric ozones. The facilities pose a threat to human health and are regulated today under the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4517 undermines Clean Air Act standards at these facilities. Here is what this bill says: ``The best available control technology, as appropriate, shall be employed on all refineries located within a refinery revitalization zone.'' But in places where the air already contains unhealthy levels of pollution, the Clean Air Act holds new and modified refineries to an even higher standard described as the ``lowest achievable emissions rate.'' The act also demands offsets for new sources of pollution so that the air does not get dirtier. A weaker standard and no offsets would lead to more pollution than the health-based standards permit. In short, this bill lays out a path to more pollution. Furthermore, the bill requires refineries to use best available control technology only as appropriate. What does that mean? Well, no hearings, no conversation. We do not know. Does this legislation authorize the Secretary of Energy to label best available control technology inappropriate in certain circumstances? If so, this legislation would permit the Secretary to authorize even less pollution control than he so desired. Finally, H.R. 4517 would make it harder for EPA to assess the health impacts of new refineries. The legislation would place the Secretary of Energy in charge of the permitting process, the official record and the only environmental review document. Even if EPA's experts conclude that a proposed refinery project fails to comply with the substantive standards set forth in the Clean Air Act, the Secretary of Energy may issue the necessary authorization anyway. Under the law, EPA's 3 decades of expertise would be supplanted by an agency with no experience enforcing the Clean Air Act. My friend from Texas a few moments ago told a story and said pollution tastes better than poverty. Well, it all depends. This legislation does not give the power to decide whether a refinery is built in an area of high unemployment to the unemployed. It gives it to the Secretary of Energy. If a person has asthma, pollution is a very big deal to them. We can find a better balance. I urge my colleagues to reject this act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carol Carothers, who was recently named a 2004 national Community Health Leader by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for her work to prevent inappropriate incarceration and improve the treatment of people with mental illnesses. Ms. Carothers was one of only ten people nationally to be selected for this prestigious award, which includes a grant of more than $105,000 to support her work. Ms. Carothers is executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) Maine. During her tenure, Ms. Carothers has dedicated herself to assisting families of people who have mental illness. Under her leadership, NAMI Maine has become a respected source for information on effective practices in treatment and diversion of the incarcerated mentally ill. Ms. Carothers has successfully assembled a broad-based coalition of families, inmates, providers, corrections and law enforcement professionals, State officials, and advocates to identify problems and solutions for inmates with mental illness. The program Ms. Carothers pioneered in Maine has become a model for other States seeking to train prison personnel to recognize the signs of mental illness and provide appropriate responses. The suicide of an 18 year-old man in a maximum security prison 3 years ago inspired Ms. Carothers' interest in the plight of the incarcerated mentally ill. She now assists the State government in assessing the quality of prison programs, and provides education and training to law enforcement and corrections officers to promote more humane treatment. NAMI Maine's Assistant Director put it best by saying, ``[Carol is] propelled by the personal situations that illustrate the inhumane and immoral quality of inadequate treatment in the criminal justice system.'' Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. I'm honored to recognize Ms. Carothers for this national award, and express my gratitude for her determination and leadership. She has inspired many others in Maine and elsewhere to take action. This well-deserved award is confirmation of the importance of her work.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, perhaps not in the dramatic fashion of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), but I do want to point out that this is probably the finest title I have seen to a bill in a very long time, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act. That is a marvelous title. If it did not have any text, I would vote for it. If we changed the text so it actually reduced gasoline prices, I would vote for it, and so would my colleagues on this side; but that is not the case. Let me begin with a couple of responses to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He said this legislation is not different from the current waiver authority of the EPA. We disagree entirely. It is true there are occasions when EPA has not enforced what would otherwise be violations of the Clean Air Act, but that is enforcement discretion. What this legislation does is it puts into legislation language unlimited waiver authority for the EPA administrator. Let me go through a couple of other points here. Part of the problem with this bill is process. This bill was never considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I got onto the Committee on Energy and Commerce so we could deal with these important types of energy and environmental issues, but here we did not even bother. This was simply brought to the floor by the leadership. We have no testimony from the Bush administration indicating we need this bill. We have no testimony from industry to explain how this bill would address our ever- increasing demand for fuel. We have seen no research from the Energy Information Administration estimating the effect of this bill on fuel prices. We have no studies by the EPA quantifying the human health impact of this Clean Air Act repeal; and that is what it is, a repeal of critical portions of the Clean Air Act. The Washington Post today had a telling comment. Here is the quote from The Post today: ``Some are calling this Congress' answer to high gasoline prices. But if this is the answer, maybe it is time to ask whether Congress even understands the question. The Gasoline Price Reduction Act would give the EPA administrator permission to waive the Clean Air Act for unlimited periods of time at its own discretion in the case of a gasoline supply disruption.'' Once again, the majority thinks that the Clean Air Act costs too much, but the Clean Air Act is not the problem. We agree that a gasoline supply disruption such as a refinery or pipeline shutting down unexpectedly can cause significant shortage of needed fuels. As a result, the EPA already may issue short-term waivers for some fuels under current regulations, not these, but some fuels. The administrator can and has used this regulatory authority in an appropriate manner, and that is why it has not been challenged. This authority, this legislation, gives the administrator broad authority to issue waivers that undermine the Clean Air Act. The bill does not define ``significant fuel supply disruption,'' but it allows the administrator to define the term. Furthermore, here is a reading from the bill: ``Such waiver shall remain in effect for such period as the administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel supply disruption.'' There is no limit on the length of the waivers; therefore, the administrator has free rein to waive cleaner burning gasoline or diesel requirements in the Clean Air Act anywhere at any time. This bill would make enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. That is what it does. It makes enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. Now it also does cap the number of boutique fuels that may be approved to the number that currently exist. Frankly, there are about 43 or 45 different blends and we agree, we agree that that number should be capped at around that number because there are too many blends, and it does make it difficult for refineries to meet demand in different States at different times. But this is not the way to go. This language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) referred to has never been reviewed in a hearing. There is no way to know whether the provision will have the intended effect. We conclude on our side of the aisle this bill is about politics, not sound legislation. The title is wonderful; the text undermines the Clean Air Act in fundamental ways; and the Clean Air Act is simply too important to our citizens to allow this important piece of legislation to pass. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly hope the voters are paying attention as well, because we do have a policy. We do have a plan. We presented it. Part of it was in the motion to recommit where we made a proposal dealing with the SPR. This debate is a good example of why this is not a can-do Congress, this is a can't-do Congress, because this legislation is not that difficult. If we had had hearings, if it had been worked out on a bipartisan basis in the committee, it would come to the floor and pass overwhelmingly, because what we are really arguing about is whether or not the waiver that is given to the EPA Administrator in this legislation should be unlimited as it is in this legislation or whether it should be time limited. That is the core of the debate that we are having right now, and the fact that this bill has been brought to the floor with no limit on the waiver authority of the EPA Administrator, no consultation with us, no hearings, that is what has led to our opposition. Let me run through a few things. The majority speakers have been saying we have got a problem with the number of boutique fuels. So do we. We think we need to contain the number of boutique fuels that are out there. It is reasonable to work that out. We do not object to doing that. But we do have a policy and it is real clear. Let me tell you what should be in this legislation if we were going to actually reduce gasoline prices and not just have legislation with a title that says we should reduce gasoline prices. We need legislation that would hold refineries accountable for market manipulation and market concentration. We need legislation that would at least deal with the question of how to think about and how to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when gas prices are so high. We need action by this administration that would create stability in the Middle East and other oil-producing regions. We certainly do not have that now. We need to help families increase the efficiency of their homes and thereby reduce oil use. There is nothing of that in this legislation. This legislation does not require or create incentives to increase fuel efficiency in our vehicle fleet, which is at its lowest level since 1980. That issue has been brought up in front of the Committee on Energy and Commerce time and again to increase and improve CAFE standards and save fuel and it has been voted down. This legislation does not invest in hybrid and hydrogen technology. I drive a hybrid vehicle. I get 45 miles to the gallon. I tell all my constituents, next time you buy a vehicle make sure that you pay attention to how efficient it is in terms of fuel. This legislation does not extend the tax breaks for the purchase of high efficiency vehicles. It does not end the tax breaks for Hummers and large SUVs. It does not reduce heavy truck idling. It does not improve air traffic management. What we have got is what we said at the beginning. We have got a title. We have one of the best titles for legislation ever to come before this Congress, at least this year. We just do not have the text to go with it. Just a couple of additional points. There was talk about we have held hearings. The truth is there have not been any hearings on this legislation. Sure we have had hearings on energy issues but not on this waiver authority put forth in here. There was one other comment I wanted to respond to. This legislation, one speaker said, is so small, it is so short that it cannot possibly repeal the Clean Air Act. All you need to do is to give the EPA Administrator the authority, the simple authority to waive, on a broad base, parts of the Clean Air Act and you have made enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. It does not take much to undermine the Clean Air Act. It does not take much to do that in a way that risks the health of our population. That is what this legislation does. That is why we believe it should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauscher amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. The amendment improves the military's ability to penetrate deeply buried targets by redirecting funds from nuclear options that will never be used to conventional methods that could be. For too long, the debate over the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator has focused on the utility of the weapon and not its consequences. In the real world, no President or operational commander is going to be launching a nuclear device to strike a deep bunker. The fallout would render the target area off limits to reconnaissance by U.S. troops for too long. The harm to any local population would be devastating. The geopolitical reaction would be severe. The Tauscher amendment invests $25 million in conventional penetrating technologies, which represent a much more realistic alternative to meeting the requirement. Why on Earth should we spend millions of dollars to study or produce a weapon we will never use? It is a definition of wasteful government spending. Vote for the Tauscher amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues an essay titled ``My Commitment to America's Future,'' by Joseph B. Faucher of Augusta, Maine. Mr. Faucher is a winner of the 2004 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary hold a Voice of Democracy audio essay competition for high school students. This year's theme was ``My Commitment to America's Future.'' I congratulate all of this year's 59 Voice of Democracy Scholarship winners. It is vitally important that we encourage our young people in their understanding of and commitment to civic virtue. The life and health of our democracy are dependent on citizen engagement. Democracy must be constantly re-created. In Mr. Faucher's words, a commitment to America is ``a commitment to protect the freedoms, liberties, and rights that this country was founded on . . . to make this country an even better place for the next generation . . . to put time, effort, and thought into being American.'' The rest of his essay speaks for itself. ``My Commitment to America's Future'' (By Joseph Faucher) I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. . . . By the time I was four, I could recite the Pledge of Allegiance verbatim. I would stand straight, place my hand over my heart, and say those words without much thought. Pledging allegiance to one's country should never be taken lightly. It was not until I was in the fifth grade and learning about American history that I began to understand and appreciate the Pledge of Allegiance. And, I can honestly say, each year my depth of understanding for those words increases as does my commitment to this great country. ``I pledge allegiance,'' what does it truly mean? To me, it is promising my commitment to America. A commitment to protect the freedoms, liberties, and rights that his country was founded upon. A commitment to make this country an even better place for the next generation. A commitment to put time, effort, and thought into being an American! The founding fathers provided America with a very solid foundation, the Constitution, the living, written backbone of our country. Imagine, in less than 100 working days, in a document of just 4543 words, fifty-five men with many conflicting and diverse ideas drafted a constitution that has served this country for over 216 years. In all that time, in spite of all the advances in science and technology, changes in culture and society, and influences from other countries and peoples, there have only been 17 revisions in the form of amendments. It is important to note that people in the 18th century were not all that different than people in the 21st century. There have always been differences in philosophy, political ideology, and priorities. But in spite of these differences, the founding fathers were able to produce a document that has survived the test of time and has influenced all countries that have developed constitutions since then. We should not let our differences in political ideologies impact negatively on America. Differences can spawn creativity. Differences should not divide a country but make it stronger. America, not a person, not a group, not a people, but a united nation. A united nation as a whole has one mind set and one set of goals. We should not let our differences affect our allegiance. My commitment to America will not waver regardless of whether I agree or disagree with a particular person or group whether it be my neighbor, the mayor of my city, the governor of my state, my Representatives in the House and Senate, or even the President. After September 11th, American flags were flown everywhere in our country. They were on houses, cars, pins, and other items. Where are all those flags now? My commitment to America cannot come just at times of great tragedy and trauma. It is not enough to remember that I am an American when tragedy strikes. Our commitment must be consistent, every day, every minute, every second. It simply does not take long to do something to remind myself, and others that we are Americans, and that everyone has the responsibility to make a tangible, visible commitment to America. Commitment is not just enjoying all of the freedoms, rights, and liberties America has to offer. Commitment is not just taking a stand when I think one of my freedoms or rights has been violated. My commitment to America must include getting involved; to be active in civic organizations, to communicate and give input to my representatives, to voice my opinion without putting anyone else's down, from the time of my 18th birthday onward to vote in every election no matter how small, and to take the time to truly understand the issues, to encourage others to become involved, and to cherish and never take for granted all that America provides. As part of my commitment to America, I will not take for granted what it means to pledge allegiance to the flag. I will take my commitment seriously and work toward fulfilling it every day for the rest of my life. I will stand straight, place my hand over my heart, and say the words with great pride, strength, and meaning; I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and what it stands for and what it means to me.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, today our Republican colleagues are talking about reforming government regulation. There is a big problem with government regulation, and especially environmental regulation under the Bush administration. This administration has turned regulatory decision-making over to big campaign donors with polluting industries. We all know what happens to public health and the environment when industry writes rules. I want to mention three areas: the utility industry, the livestock industry and industrial laundries. Consider the EPA's recently proposed rule on mercury pollution from power plants. A few years ago, EPA set up a process to involve all of the interested parties, States and localities, public health representatives, fish and wildlife advocates, power plant owners and others. These stakeholders worked for over a year. They gave EPA a set of regulatory recommendations, and they were working on other technical recommendations. Then last spring, EPA halted the process and went behind closed doors. Nine months later, EPA emerged with an entirely new proposal based on another section of the Clean Air Act, and it allows many power plants to do nothing to control mercury emissions, perhaps for years, perhaps even for decades. Now, as we now know, key parts of this deregulatory proposal were actually written by the power industry, which is one of President Bush's largest donors. The EPA Inspector General is now looking into the proposal and the new administrator has promised to go back to do further analysis. This is simply not the way agencies are supposed to do regulation. Yesterday, we learned from the Chicago Tribune that livestock industry lobbyists are also setting environmental policy. The livestock industry sold the EPA on a proposal to let factory farms off the hook for air pollution violations. In exchange, the industry would conduct some monitoring, and monitoring only. Livestock lobbyists did not just come up with the idea; they also worked on all the details. EPA then publicly presented the proposal using, as EPA materials, slides that had been prepared by the lobbyists. The livestock industry is also an important source of campaign contributions to Republicans. On the same day as the Chicago Tribune story, the Washington Post detailed how industrial laundry lobbyists influenced an EPA rule on hazardous waste disposal. The key company in this industry is owned by a Bush Pioneer who had raised at least $100,000 for the President's 2000 campaign. The Post reports that EPA gave industrial laundry lobbyists an advance copy of a portion of the proposed rule, the lobbyist edited the rule and EPA adopted the changes. EPA did not grant such access to any other interested parties, which included environmental advocates, a labor union, hazardous waste landfill operators and competitive industries. These are not accidents or isolated incidents. The Bush administration defends these proposals. Apparently, the administration sees nothing wrong with providing special access to large donors who own or represent polluting industries. But when industry buys the regulatory process, all Americans pay the bills. The prices are health, polluted air, dirty water, poisoned land, tainted fish and dying forests. We do need regulatory reform, but this bill would only make the real problems worse.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, several people are saying how much seniors are going to have to pay for these drugs. The trouble is, one part of the problem is, it is their tax money that is being used to promote the program. We have just seen the Federal Government spend tens of millions of dollars to promote the underlying prescription drug benefit that will not take effect until January of 2006. Now there is an $18 million taxpayer-funded campaign hitting the airwaves to promote these new Medicare cards. So the public has to pay for the TV advertising, to persuade them of something that is not true, that is, that these cards will actually help them. There was an article in the Portland paper today quoting one woman, 70-year-old Jean Houston of Waterville, Maine, who said she has already tried calling the Federal Government's toll-free number to enroll. She has not gotten through yet. ``I tried to sign up,'' she said. ``I called five times yesterday and three times today.'' How long will it take Jean Houston just to get through? Now, CMS says, well, they have got a Web site. They can just go to the Web site. Most seniors do not have computers that are linked to the Internet. That is just a fact. And the idea that they are going to sit down and try to choose among 50 different cards with all sorts of different drugs when the pharmaceutical companies can change the drugs that are on the cards any given week, week after week after week, this is just absolutely nonsense. But there is an explanation. My staff tells me that CMS has now admitted that if we get seniors to work through this absolute maze, this absolute nightmare of 50 different prescription drug cards, it will help prepare them. It will get seniors used to working with private plans, private insurance plans. Instead of the Medicare plan, which has the same benefit and the same additional premium for everyone in the country no matter where they live, we are going to have lots and lots of private insurance plans. The systems that are failing the small business community today are going to be inflicted on seniors in Medicare, and it is not right.