Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ALLEN. I believe that in this, as in many other areas of law, that the law, the standard, will be developed. It will be developed by the FEC, it will be developed by the courts over time until we have a fairly clear understanding of what that standard is. And we do this all the time. We write standards into law, and we hope they are clear enough to be effectively enforced.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment like others is a poison pill. It is designed to undermine campaign reform. It is designed to change the Shays-Meehan bill in a way to reduce its support. I simply want to raise a couple of things, go back to a couple of things that have been said here. This is not about denying any group its right to speak in American politics. This is not about preventing groups from sending postcards. It is not about preventing people from communicating about their representatives. What it is about is saying, if you are going to communicate in a way that pretends to be about an issue but in fact is meant to influence an election, we need to know who is paying for the ads. We need to get disclosure. That is what this is about. There are those on the other side who preach disclosure, disclosure, disclosure as one approach to the abuses of this campaign season, except when it comes to outside groups running ads. And then they say, ``Oh, no, we can't have disclosure.'' We need disclosure when it comes to issue advocacy. That is why I think this is an amendment that needs to be defeated. The second point I will make is just this. It was asked earlier how much money is too much money in politics. Well, this is not about free speech. It is about big money. It is not about protecting the free speech of a constituent. It is about preserving big money in this system. Too much money is unlimited money flowing to the national parties to run ads. Too much money in politics is unlimited money with no disclosure of who it is that is spending that money by outside groups. The Shays-Meehan bill is a good approach to campaign reform. I believe there are other approaches.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 629, and urge all Members to support this agreement. I have spoken on this issue now many times in the past. The issue is still the same. This is simply the opportunity for Texas, Maine, and Vermont to do what 41 other States have already done, enter into a compact for the disposal of their low-level radioactive waste. Last November the House overwhelmingly approved this compact by a vote of 309 to 107. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act places the responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste on the States. In order to dispose of waste safely and properly, States are allowed to enter into compacts. Under the Act, the States of Maine, Vermont, and Texas have crafted a compact to meet their needs. Maine's voters approved the compact by a 3 to 1 margin at referendum, so it has not only been approved by the Governor and by the State legislature, but also by the people voting at referendum. Over the past years, several years, Congress has approved nine such compacts covering 41 States, and the time has come to add to that list. We have heard Members stand up and argue that amendments were stripped in conference, and therefore the bill should be voted down. But not one of the other nine compacts, not one of them, had amendments to their agreements. Not one of them, in not one of those cases did the Congress try to impose on the parties that were agreeing additional requirements. In particular, the amendment that has been proposed, we will not find that as part of any of the other compacts. This compact is like the others. It does not need a different amendment, and it should not have it. I would say this, as well. We are opposed to this amendment because we have checked with the Governors of all three States. They are opposed to the amendments. There is no question that if this agreement, if this compact is amended here, it has to go back to the States and we start this process all over again. That spells delay. Frankly, we have had enough delay in this process. We need to move ahead today. We need to vote to approve this compact. We do not need delay and added cost due to likely litigation. The compact was the result of years of negotiation and good faith by the three member States. They do not deserve additional costs and delays due to unwanted amendments. Mr. Speaker, we must move this issue forward and allow Texas, Maine, and Vermont the opportunity to dispose of their low-level radioactive waste. I urge all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of this particular rule. This matter, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) just said, has come before this House now on several occasions and all we are asking is to give the citizens of Texas, Vermont, and Maine a chance to enter into an agreement to dispose of their low-level nuclear waste in a way that makes sense. I would say this, the reason that it is important to do this without any amendment is that an amendment means delay. The agreement that was reached in Maine, it was adopted by referendum of all the people. Then it went to the State legislature. In both Vermont and Texas, it has the support of the legislature and the governors of those States. This is a matter that has come to us with unanimous approval of the State bodies that have jurisdiction over this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, all we are asking is to get it through and allow us to dispose of our low-level radioactive waste in a way that makes sense. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) was reminding those from that State that they are not going to see a flood of low-level radioactive waste from Maine and Vermont, and that is accurate. We are not generating low-level radioactive waste at such a level that it should be a burden. But we are committed to help pay for this facility. We are sharing in the cost of this. For that reason, what I am asking all Members to do today is respect what these three States have accomplished, support the rule, and I urge passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief today, but this is an important amendment. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to prohibit the VA from using the VERA system for the distribution of funds in the fiscal year 1999. Veterans in Maine receive their health care from one primary hospital and that is the Togas VA hospital in Augusta. I have heard statements on the floor that the VERA system is working. Maybe in some places it is working, but it is not working in Maine for the veterans of Maine. In recent years, Togas has experienced an increasing patient load, not a declining load. And at the same time, it suffered from declining budgets and reduced staffing. The result has put a severe strain on the quality and the timeliness of care provided to veterans in Maine. VISN 1 is the region that includes Togas. VISN 1 has seen its budget cut by over 5 percent, despite the level funding in VA. That must be distributed among the hospitals in that region, and the result is Togas in Maine has an increasing workload but a 3 percent cut in funding from over last year. Increasing workloads with reduced budgets means longer wait times for health care, increased numbers of veterans sent out of the region to receive care, and a general reduction in staffing and health care quality. Let me just say a word about what we hear. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and I and the two Senators from Maine spend more time on Togas than on any other single issue that we deal with. And it is not because the care is so great that no one is complaining. Mr. Chairman, we have 100 percent disabled veterans who wait a year and a half for any attention to their dental work. We have veterans who are having a variety of different problems that take too long to provide attention. The staff is upset because they cannot provide the quality of care that they used to provide in the past. This is having a significant serious adverse impact on veterans in Maine. We need to take a closer look at VERA. The GAO is already reviewing the VA's implementation of VERA and its impact on VA hospitals and veterans. And while we await the GAO report and examine the impact of VERA in more detail, we should delay its implementation. One final word. Those on the other side who voted for the Republican budget resolution should think about that resolution. It includes flat funding for veterans' health care. If that is the policy of this Congress, we will be back here year after year after year arguing about this allocation among States. It is a mistake. Not only was that a mistake to cut Head Start and to cut Title I, it was a mistake to flat fund veteran's health care. We cannot keep going this way. We have a surplus. We ought to make things right for the veterans in this country.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ganske-Dingell substitute to H.R. 4250, the Republican HMO health care bill. We have an opportunity in this Congress to enact real reform in our health care system. Months ago, Democrats introduced the Patients' Bill of Rights Act to protect patients against HMO abuses. Now that we are a few months away from an election, the Republicans have decided that they need their own version of a managed care ``reform'' bill. This republican bill is being rushed to the House floor without the benefit of even one public hearing or any committee mark-up. As of 1 a.m. this morning, this bill was still being drafted. While the Republican leadership has been willing to spend more than a year and millions of dollars on committee investigations, they are not willing to allow even one hearing on legislation which could significantly affect Americans' lives. Health care financing is in transition. Private and public purchasers of health care are turning to managed care. The shift to managed care has raised concerns about the implications for health care quality. I believe that managed care must be more than managed cost. Last month I held community health care forums in my district. This was an opportunity for my constituents to come and share their experiences. I wanted to hear from them about health care costs, quality and access for Maine children and families. I did not hear the managed care horror stories to the extent that many of my colleagues have heard. Maine has been slow to move to managed care. People did, however, express their fears about this system. I heard from a mother who works an extra job to pay for an indemnity health insurance policy for her daughter who has a severe disability. It was clear that purchasing this health plan was a financial hardship for this family. This mother was too fearful to move to a managed care plan which may be less expensive because it could limit the care that her daughter needs. Others also shared their concerns about managed care. Could some of the same horror stories that they hear about on the national news happen to them? My constituents are not alone in their fears about managed care. There is a crisis of confidence in American health care: Eighty percent of all consumers believe that insurance plans often compromise the quality of care to save money. The worst problems are often reported by those who need good care the most--those with chronic conditions who experienced an illness serious enough to require hospitalization. More than one half of this group reported problems with their health insurance. 36 percent said that their condition worsened as a result of the insurance problem. 35 percent said the problem led to an additional condition, And 17 percent developed permanent disabilities. Problems ranged from delays in care to failure to refer to a specialist to problems with payment, billing, and coverage. As I mentioned, Maine has not moved to managed care as rapidly as other areas. Furthermore, strong patient protections have been enacted at the state level. However, because of federal preemptions to state protections, at least 250,000 people in Maine are left unprotected. My constituents recognize that we need a national solution to a national problem. The Republican legislation only applies to Americans in self insured plans. They ignore two-thirds of Americans with private health insurance. This means that Americans with individual policies, state and local government employees and people whose employers purchase coverage through an HMO or insurance policy are left unprotected. 113 million Americans are left out in the cold by the Republican bill. The Republican bill is clearly designed for political cover rather than real patient protections. For example, the Republican bill does not: Provide patients with access to clinical trials; Permit doctors to prescribe prescription drugs that are not on an HMO's predetermined list; Provide ongoing access to specialty care; Protect health care workers who report quality problems; Provide choice of doctors within a plan; or Hold managed care plans accountable when a patient is injured by a plan's decision to withhold or limit care. By contrast, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act does provide all of these protections. In addition to empty promises, the Republican bill is laced with poison pills such as healthmarts and malpractice limits. I plan to hold more community health care forums in my district during the August in district work period. It is my sincere hope that I will be able to assure my constituents that they do not need to fear the health care system in this country. The American people have been clear. They want real protections. They do not want a watered down bill. They want the Ganske-Dingell substitute, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my colleague and I expect that the information to be concluded in the GAO report may assist the subcommittee and all Members in examining the reallocations that are underway. It would have been our wish, and I suspect the wish of the chairman and the ranking member, to have this information in hand before considering this legislation. At a minimum, we hope that it will be given careful consideration during conference.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Togus, Maine VA Medical Center has been recognized in the past as a center of excellence. Now, however, the Maine delegation is hearing continual complaints from Veterans that they are having to wait longer for appointments; that they are being asked to travel out of Maine to receive services; and that their doctors do not have time enough to spend with them. I am concerned that VISN 1 is not receiving adequate resources under the VERA system to serve Maine's Veterans.

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

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, waiting for duplicate studies before we act will only achieve further delay in the agency's efforts to address the risk from mercury exposure. We know there is a link between mercury emissions from power plants and the contamination in our Nation's lakes, rivers and streams. It is in our neighborhoods. It is affecting our children. We do not need additional reports to tell us that. I urge my colleagues to protect the public's right to know and support the Waxman amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I had planned today to offer my own amendment to nullify one of the antienvironmental riders attached to the VA-HUD appropriations bill but instead my language will be included in this amendment and I want to thank the gentleman from California for his support and leadership on this matter. This bill includes detrimental report language that would seriously and unnecessarily delay the EPA's efforts to address the risk of exposure to mercury contamination from utility emissions. Let me be perfectly clear. The effect of the language is to say that EPA can issue no regulations with respect to utility emissions for 3 years. That is the effect of this language. It is significant, and that is why those on the other side are fighting so hard to keep it in. Mercury is a naturally occurring element that has built up to dangerous levels in the environment due to releases from coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators and other types of manufacturing plants. After mercury is released into the air, it can travel great distances. It eventually settles in water, and, unlike other pollutants, it accumulates in the aquatic food chain and becomes more, not less, toxic over time in the tissue of fish. There in its most toxic form, methyl mercury, it contaminates humans who eat the fish. The health risks related to mercury exposure are significant. The most vulnerable to mercury contamination are pregnant and nursing women and young children. Mercury poisoning can result in severe neurological damage to developing fetuses. Older children and adults can see effects such as paralysis, numbness in extremities and kidney disease. In my home State of Maine, loons hold a special place in our hearts, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have shown that loons in Maine have the highest level of mercury recorded in this country, far higher than in States to the west. The 1990 Clean Air Act did not address mercury utility emissions but it did require the EPA to report to Congress on the impacts, sources and control strategies for mercury. That long-awaited report, and, I would say, delayed report finally was delivered to Congress this past September. Here it is. This is the executive summary of that EPA report to Congress. The whole report is huge. Here is another report. The States are acting on their own. The northeastern States together with the maritime provincial governors have gotten together and done a study of mercury. We have studies. We have got plenty of studies on mercury. What we need now is for EPA not to fall behind but to keep up with our State departments of environmental protection. Now, those reports conclude that there are serious health risks involved with mercury exposure and that contamination is on the rise. We have heard statements tonight about the big, bad Federal agency, the EPA. Take a look at this chart. Thirty-nine States have water body advisories related to mercury contamination. Thirty-nine States. I ask those on the other side, take a good look at this map. Chances are your State is one of those States that has a mercury water body advisory. This is not the EPA. This is your State Department of Environmental Protection, the biologists. To those that oppose the Waxman amendment, what I say is what are you going to tell your States, what are you going to tell your State biologists, what are you going to tell the mothers and children in your States who are at risk of mercury contamination, and frankly many of them do not know that. Are you going to tell them that, well, we ought to do nothing for 3 years? I do not think that is an acceptable approach. These reports conclude that coal-fired power plants emit more mercury into the air than any other source. Estimates are that they release 52 tons of mercury every year, one-third of the annual emissions. Now, what we are asking is for EPA to go to the utilities and gather information about utility emissions. We do not want to stop that. We want that to continue because the public has a right to know. They have got a right to know this information. Right now EPA is finalizing its information request to utilities. We know the problem. We know the sources. And accurate monitoring data by the EPA is necessary. We need to know. The report language would require several studies to address what are claimed to be current gaps in the scientific understanding of mercury. But the studies that we are waiting for, that those on the other side want to wait for, are not expected to be completed until 2002.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees. The Balanced Budget Agreement demands that we live within our means and that we make choices. In the defense authorization bill, we must prioritize among competing programs. As the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, mentioned, our troops in uniform must receive our highest priority. This motion offers a clear choice: Do we support the House position and help protect American troops from today's ballistic missile threats, or do we go with the Senate and revive the fanciful, futuristic, and fruitless Star Wars program? The Senate defense bill provides over $200 million less for theater missile defense than the House bill, yet gives $94 million more for the Space Based Laser. Theater missile defense entails systems like the Patriot that seek to shoot down short- to medium-range missiles. While the technological challenges are great, these defenses are realistic. They protect our troops and they have bipartisan support. The Space Based Laser, on the other hand, exists only on paper and in the minds of those nostalgic for Star Wars ideology. As envisioned, this weapon would fire a chemically-powered laser from space at ascending missiles. But a chemical laser may be too heavy to launch on any rocket and we would only get a few shots from the laser before it is depleted and we cannot reload it. The Space Based laser is a very risky and costly venture and it does not deserve high priority. Earlier this year, a panel of missile defense experts commissioned by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization reported, and I quote, a ``rush to failure in current missile defense programs.'' They concluded that one problem was a ``perceived urgency of the need'' for these systems, especially the dubious National Missile Defense Program. The report cited steep technological challenges, recommended realistic program schedules with adequate tests and evaluation periods, and warned against rushing development under political pressures. The Senate bill ignores these warnings by dictating the launch of a Space Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator as early as 2006. In a time of limited resources, we cannot afford that. It is a dangerous policy, and it will not help our troops. I urge Members to support this motion to instruct, affirm the House position, and vote to protect our servicemen and women in the field.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, in view of those last comments, I would point out that although we have investigations in this House galore, we have not had one hearing on the subject of managed care reform. Health care financing is in transition and the shift to managed care has raised concerns about implications for health care quality. Managed care must be more than managed cost. Every American deserves quality health care. Managed care reforms are necessary at the Federal level to ensure that managed care is quality care. Even in my home State of Maine where strong patient protections have been enacted at the State level, my constituents know that we need a national solution to a national problem. The Republican legislation only applies to Americans in self-insured plans. They ignore two-thirds of Americans with private health insurance. One hundred thirteen million Americans are left out in the cold by the Republican bill. The Republicans have a patchwork approach to dealing with the real problems such as access to specialty care and the choice of physicians. Furthermore, the Republican bill is laced with poison pills such as health marts and malpractice limits. My constituents want real protections. They do not want a watered down bill. They want the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this body makes laws. We do not generally try to interpret them. And when we do interpret them, we do not do very well in a number of cases. And this proposed amendment is one case where we are not doing very well, in my opinion. Now, I recognize that this is a sense of Congress, that is, this amendment if attached to the Shays-Meehan substitute would not be binding law. This is a sense of Congress. We are not really here making campaign finance reform law. We are trying to embarrass the Vice President. That is what we are trying to do here today, at least those on the other side are. Now, I know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) are willing to accept this amendment. It is kind of hard to explain the other side of it. And I understand that. There are many people on this side of the aisle who will vote for it, and they will vote for it because it ought to be the law and it ought to be clearly the law that they do not do fund-raising on Federal property. But the fact is that the law is not that clear. We are talking about the Pendleton Act. That is what controls fund-raising from Federal property. And not once in the history of this Republic has someone been prosecuted for fund-raising from Federal property. There is case law out there which suggests that the point of solicitation is not on the Federal property if you are making a telephone call but it is where the call is received. The fact is the law is not clear. But it ought to be clear, and that is why it is important that we pass campaign reform in this session. That is why it is important, despite the objections on the other side, that we go further than the Pendleton Act, that we have a soft- money ban, that we deal with issue advocacy, and that we tighten up these campaign abuses that have occurred not just on one side, not just with Democrats, but with both sides and with Republicans as well as Democrats. That is what we need to do here. We need real campaign finance reform. And those who have been pushing this particular amendment have not been supporters of real campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is that we are governed by the Pendleton Act and the Pendleton Act is not clear.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) who is a strong advocate of campaign finance reform.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his continuing leadership on campaign reform. I have been the democratic chair of a bipartisan freshman effort on campaign reform for the last year and a half. I point that out because the only way to do campaign reform is on a bipartisan basis. This amendment, however well-intentioned, is a poison pill. This amendment, if added to the Shays-Meehan bill, will kill campaign reform, will kill the Shays-Meehan bill. That is one reason why it needs to be defeated. I will talk in a moment about some of my problems with the merits; but just for a moment, let us begin with just how different different districts are around this country. I think it is fair to say that, if you look at the Senate races around the country, some cost more, and some cost less. For example, it may cost tens of millions of dollars to run a Senate campaign in California. But in my home State of Maine, it may be a $1 million or $2 million proposition. But the basic campaigns are more or less the same: A certain amount of television, a certain amount of get out the vote drive. They look more or less alike, even though they are on the same scale. The same is not true in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, there are some districts where television is a factor. There are some districts in the House where television is not a factor because you cannot raise the money to run ads in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles in most cases. The districts across this House are very, very different. Some, like the district of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), are wealthy. Some others are very poor. It is not true, in my opinion, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) said that everyone is subject to the same limits, and everyone is subject to the same effects if you have this kind of limit. What this amendment would do is to magnify the effect of wealth, because in a very poor district, the man with deep pockets or the woman with deep pockets has a much greater advantage than he or she would in another district where it is possible to raise money. That is why I believe that this amendment is bad policy because it magnifies the effect of personal wealth where what we are trying to do is contain that, trying to get control of the amount of money in politics. We are trying to strengthen the voices of the ordinary citizen. That is what campaign reform is all about. This amendment moves in a different direction. The fact is, as I said before, we simply cannot pass campaign reform with this kind of amendment tacked on. There are many Members of the minority caucus. There are many Members who come from very poor districts who cannot support the campaign reform bill with this proposal. One of the things our freshman task force did at the beginning of our process, we said what are the poison pills? Let us identify them. This kind of in-district limit was clearly identified right at the beginning as a poison pill. It will not work. It will kill campaign reform for this session. We cannot let that happen. Therefore, I urge all Members to vote against the Calvert amendment and make sure that we support the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the proper number, if we could determine one, is different for different districts. I was talking about how varied the districts may be. In some districts, it is now the practice for very large amounts, maybe 70, maybe 80, maybe more percent that money may come from out of district. In some districts, that may be the only way to fund a congressional campaign. So what is right for that district is not what is right for the district of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or my district or the gentleman from California's district. When we sit here with a great variety of districts around the country and try to come up with one number, I think we are on a chase that is not going to lead us in a healthy direction. It is not going to get us to pass a campaign reform bill. I think it is a mistake.

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

Mr. ALLEN. I absolutely agree with the gentleman that there has got to be a connection between the candidate and the district. That is very, very important.