Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5252. I regret that leadership did not allow votes on key amendments important to municipalities and community television. Each of us wants more competition in video. That can happen today. There is no legal impediment to a telephone company offering video over its lines. There are two towns in Maine wired for video, but the service has not been turned on. If the current local franchising regime is as cumbersome as the phone companies say, then let's figure out a way to streamline the process. The municipalities are open to streamlining. We should negotiate a consensus bill involving all of the stakeholders. Unfortunately, this bill did not follow that process. Twice the Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I serve struck bipartisan deals that gave all stakeholders a voice in the legislation; and twice the bipartisan deals were scuttled by external forces that preferred a divisive bill to a consensus one. My substantive concerns are threefold: First, local control. The current cable franchising process gives communities the ability to meet their needs. Municipalities can ensure that every resident gets service and that access to public access channels. They retain management of public rights-of-way. This bill goes too far by federalizing the process of streamlining. It makes the FCC the arbiter of consumer complaints, for example; and the FCC has neither the resources nor expertise to do that. Second, universal access. The new video providers have been honest. They are going to the swanky neighborhoods first. Maine is a rural State. Without a build-out requirement, companies are free to ignore northern and eastern Maine. If we abandon universal access, we will leave rural areas behind. Third, net neutrality. I support the Markey amendment. Allowing toll booths on the Internet will undermine the freedom of the Internet and hurt consumers. Lastly, any franchising bill that becomes law should include reform of the universal service fund to bring broadband and video competition to rural and underserved counties. I urge defeat of the bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the circumstances of the small business community in Maine and across the country. Regardless of size or industry, small businesses throughout the country share a common set of challenges: skyrocketing health care and fuel costs, an unstable and outdated Federal tax structure, an insufficient labor supply and lack of qualified workers, a lack of access to Federal contracts and inadequate funding for entrepreneurial assistance programs for start-up businesses and businesses that want to grow. And it is my experience here that many of the organizations in Washington that hold themselves out as small business organizations are really advocating, in reality, a big business agenda. Back in my home State of Maine, small business is big business. Maine is home to over 140,000 small businesses, and we have nearly 100,000 Mainers who are self-employed. Our prosperity depends on the growth and the success of small business. I have two bills, H.R. 5288, the Small Business Health Plans Act, and H.R. 5058, the Small Business Investment and Promotion Act, that would both aid small businesses by addressing many of the challenges that they face today. Small businesses across America are struggling to maintain health care coverage for their workers. Really, most of the people I talk to every year find their premiums going up and find it very difficult to predict how much their health insurance will cost for the next year, assuming they have coverage. My plan, under the bill H.R. 5288, makes quality health insurance more affordable and makes it easier for small businesses to obtain coverage for their employees. I believe that employees are entitled to the same coverage that Members of Congress and other Federal employees have. That is what my Small Business Health Plans bill provides. The legislation would establish a small employer health benefits program for employers with 50 or fewer employees by creating new purchasing tools that would guarantee quality coverage at affordable rates to small businesses and their employees without preempting State requirements, much the way the coverage for Federal employees works. One aspect of the bill would be to attract insurance companies by subsidizing the cost of catastrophic health care cases, and that would bring private insurers into this market and make the plan attractive. Second, we would provide some premium assistance for smaller businesses and lower-wage workers. Now, the second bill, H.R. 5058, has six different sections that cover the other difficulties that I mentioned at the beginning. First, the high cost of fuel for transportation and heat in winter is breaking the backs of small business owners, and no relief is in sight. H.R. 5058 creates a 2-year tax credit to cover the increased cost of fuel for businesses that are especially dependent on transportation fuel or the fuel to heat businesses and buildings. Second, the Research and Development Tax Credit has never been made permanent, and that creates a great deal of uncertainty among businesses, large and small. This tax credit, if made permanent, would help companies stay afloat until they become profitable and would benefit all manufacturers for products that they develop by expending money on R&D. And my bill would make the credit permanent, and allow biotech and high-tech companies to make innovation a part of their long-term business plan. Third, the Federal Government must do a better job of providing opportunity for small business to compete and win Federal contracts. My bill expands opportunities for small business by including overseas contracts which are currently excluded from Federal small business contracting targets. This is a real gap. Big business can compete for overseas contracts, but small businesses are shut out simply by the fact of the size of their business. Fourth, the President's budget request this year called for cuts or elimination of 75 percent of the programs that benefit small business. It is hard to believe that an administration that says it favors business is, in fact, trying to kill the section 7(a) loan program for the Small Business Administration and trying to eliminate the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The final two provisions: We would create a 39-year tax depreciation rule for restaurants and small retailers and make it easier for businesses to obtain H-1B and H-2B visas.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. That was my amendment. It was rejected by the Rules Committee. We should at least have had a vote on that amendment on the floor and we do not.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia said earlier, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. I really want to focus on section 5 of the bill, and I would urge all my colleagues to read this bill, together with the BRAC statutes and regulations in order to understand what we are doing here. But as written, section 5 of the bill requires the President to designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil refineries, and then it requires the local redevelopment authorities, or LRAs, to develop a reuse plan for an oil refinery. The BRAC statute and the BRAC regulations give the final decision to the Secretary of Defense, not to the local community. Under current law, the LRA is charged with developing a reuse plan for a closed base. Successful LRAs develop their plans in consultation with a myriad of stakeholders in the local community, as well as representatives from State and Federal agencies and private industry. Over a period of time, often 18 to 24 months, the LRA painstakingly designs a plan that takes into account the specific needs of the local community and has local support. The reuse plan is then submitted to the Secretary of Defense who has the authority to approve the plan or reject it and require the LRA to start over. Now, I have no problem with an LRA or any local community deciding that an oil refinery represents the best use of their closed facility. If it makes sense for such a community, then they should do it. There is nothing, nothing, in current law or in the regulations put forth by the Office of Economic Adjustment at DOD that is an obstacle to building a refinery. There is no problem. We do not need section 5, but if you look at section 5, Designation of Closed Military Bases, the presidential designate, it is mandatory, no less than three closed military installations as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery. Part B, the redevelopment authority shall consider the feasibility and practicality of siting a refinery on the installation. The next section contemplates that they will do that in the context of the redevelopment plan for the installation, and then it provides the rest of it shall be carried out under the BRAC law. So here we have a situation where the President of the United States is going to designate, is going to order such a plan, and in that case, the Secretary of Defense is almost certain to carry it out. The LRA has no power to stop them. And do not think that this language applies only to the 2005 BRAC round. It applies to all bases closed pursuant to a BRAC round back to 1988 that still have an open or partially open reuse plan. Now, supporters of this are circulating a Dear Colleague which says that the redevelopment authority for each closed base will consider the President's suggestions but is not required to accept them. Frankly, that is just wrong. The bill says that it requires the Secretary of Defense to consult, and they define and the regs define consultation as explaining and discussing an issue, considering objections, modifications and alternatives, but without a requirement to reach agreement. The supporters also say, and consistent with the language of the bill, that it requires the Secretary of Defense to give, and I quote, significant deference to the wishes of the LRA, and I want you to hold this concept in your head for a moment. Secretary Rumsfeld, giving significant deference to anybody, any agency, especially a local redevelopment authority? That is simply not going to happen. The fact is that there is no requirement that an LRA accept a reuse plan in this bill. Of course not. The underlying BRAC statute makes it clear that the reuse plan is not binding on DOD. LRAs do not accept reuse plans. They propose them. The Secretary of Defense accepts reuse plans or rejects them. That is his role. Now, Mr. Speaker, communities that have suffered major base closings like Brunswick in my district are reeling from the economic impact. Jobs will be lost, the fabric of a community torn apart. These communities need to plan for their future, but they do not need interference from this Congress or from the President of the United States. Please oppose this bill.

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, well, I would need to see the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my amendment was to delete section 5 of the bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Boucher- Dingell motion to recommit. Passage of this motion would do a great deal to improve refinery capacity and enhance the Nation's capability to respond to natural disasters. The motion would also strike section 5, that section of the underlying bill that requires the President to designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil refineries. Passage of this motion would guarantee that communities which have had a base closed through the BRAC process will not be forced by Presidential fiat to accept an oil refinery. If you have a closed military base in your community or you believe in local control concerning decisions of siting oil refineries, support the Boucher- Dingell motion. If this motion fails and you care about the fate of a closed military base in your community, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge its defeat. It is sadly typical of the way this Republican House has operated that the members of the committee of jurisdiction, including the distinguished ranking member Mr. Dingell, are not allowed to offered amendments during floor debate. I say that is typical, but it doesn't make it right. We need reform of the way this House is being run. Mr. Speaker, I offered a simple amendment in the Rules Committee to strike section 5 of the bill, the section of the bill that requires the President to designate three closed military bases as sites for an oil refinery. For bases that are chosen, section 5 requires local redevelopment authorities, or LRAs, to halt their re-use planning and consider an oil refinery even if the local community doesn't want one. My amendment was denied. I would have offered the amendment in an Energy and Commerce Committee markup, but the committee never held a markup. So the bill will arrive on the floor not once, but twice, without the opportunity to debate amendments and without a committee markup. Communities that have suffered under the impact of a closed military base do not need the President of the United States or the Congress usurping authority for local land use decision making. Moreover, section 5 is unnecessary. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing in the current statutes or Defense Department regulations that prevents a community from developing a closed base into an oil refinery. If the local community wants an oil refinery, then it certainly can develop one on a closed military base. Here is the main point: The underlying bill, when read together with the BRAC statutes and regulations, has the effect of forcing an LRA, if designated by the President, to spend local resources and valuable time developing a reuse plan for an oil refinery, even if the community the LRA represents has no interest in a refinery. Moreover, because under the BRAC law the Secretary of Defense has the final and sole authority to accept a reuse plan and to determine the future use of the base, the effect of section 5 of this bill is to force a community to accept an oil refinery, even if it doesn't want one. I have no problem with an oil refinery being built in a closed military base in a community that wants the refinery built. But that should be decided by the community, not by the President, not by the Secretary of Defense and not by the Congress. My amendment protected local control. It should have been allowed. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I believe the gentleman from Arizona is really looking for savings in all the wrong places. To take just one example, the Medicare Advisory Commission has pointed out there is $50 billion, with a B, $50 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage, HMOs, and PPOs that could easily be drawn back. So that $50 billion is one place to look. But these funds for scientific research are critically important, and I wanted to describe at the University of Maine the wood utilization project that has been going on there for some significant period of time. It has had a significant effect in the spinoffs of businesses, because the wood composite program, the research that has been done there, married to fiberglass technology and other forms of plastics that I don't understand, has led to a variety of new projects. I really disagree with the gentleman from Arizona. The public sector and the private sector in this country are intertwined, for good or ill sometimes. But this is a case where we are generating economic development that is very important. I would go beyond that and say with this particular project at the University of Maine, you haven't yet heard about all they are doing, but they are basically making products for the Coast Guard and for the Army that will materially strengthen the ability of our military at home and around the globe. They have developed a lightweight bridge that is easily transported because it is using these composite materials. And you haven't heard the concept yet of up-armored tents, but that is the next product line. It is going to make our tents in Iraq much safer than they ever have been from IEDs or incoming mortars. I think it is wrong to all too quickly decide that these research projects, like the one we are discussing today, don't have economic spinoffs or, in this case, security spinoffs that are fundamentally important to this country. With that, I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget we are voting on tonight does nothing to address the plight of the 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance. It does not improve our health care infrastructure. It does not ensure that physicians receive adequate Medicare reimbursement. It does not continue the level of Federal investment in medical research that has led to great advances in new treatments and cures for disease. Instead, this budget increases the deficit and adds to our Nation's exploding national debt. The Democratic budget, on the other hand, rejects the Republicans' disastrous cuts to health care and other domestic priorities. The Republican budget does not address the flawed sustainable growth rate formula for physician payments. Under the Republican budget, physicians will see a 4.6 percent cut to their Medicare payments in 2006, when their costs are going up continuously. The Democratic budget creates a reserve fund to increase Medicare payments to physicians, just like an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that passed unanimously. The Republican budget echoes the President's insufficient level of funding for public health programs, shortchanging critical medical research, treatment, prevention and training programs. Programs facing cuts include 18 of 19 institutes at the National Institutes of Health, critical prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control, Graduate Medical Education for Children's Hospitals and scores of other health programs that the President cut or eliminated. The Democratic budget rejects the funding cuts to public health and ensures that these important programs maintain their purchasing power by providing $18 billion more than the Republican budget over 5 years. I urge you to vote for the Democratic substitute and respect, respect, the claims that have been made to us by people with cancer, by people with ALS, just today in our offices saying if those research funds are not increased, their lives and the lives of those like them will be endangered.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there is no amount of public relations spin or resolutions which can cover up the frustration that people felt in the beginning. People in my office, on this side of the aisle, all of us, were trying to help people sign up because we knew that this bill would help some of our constituents. This is one area where we agree. There are some people who are helped by this legislation. Not surprising, we are moving over half a trillion dollars into this program over 10 years, billions and billions of dollars in excess funds to the pharmaceutical companies, billions and billions of dollars in excess funds to the insurance companies, but it is absolutely true. Seniors do get some of it. But the problem with this legislation is, from the beginning, confusion, inability of people to understand the program. The frustration has been just remarkable. The problem here today is that the people who have not signed up for this program are often the people who need the drug assistance the most. They are the ones who are not signing up. Nationally, only about 1.7 million of the 7.2 million low income seniors are actually receiving the low income subsidies that this legislation should provide. That is what is happening in Maine. We have 6,000 low income residents who have been in the State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program, and, as of today, we still don't have word from CMS that these people are eligible to receive the low income subsidy, so they are not getting the coverage they need. What is wrong with some additional time? Why slam the door on these people, make them pay this Bush prescription drug tax for the rest of their lives? Why not give them the extra time and do this program right? That is what we ought to be doing, so the people who need the coverage the most can get it. One final comment: The gentlewoman from Connecticut said millions have signed up. Many of those millions didn't sign up at all. They were automatically enrolled.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is being rushed to the floor under expedited consideration with limited debate, no opportunity for amendments, no hearings, no markup. In fact, as of yesterday, the bill hadn't even been introduced. This is yet another example of the ``ready, fire, aim'' approach that passes for legislating in the Republican-controlled House. Unfortunately, some communities in this country that are suffering the most right now are caught in the crossfire. They are the communities that are coping with a military base closed through the BRAC process. This bill resurrects the bad idea that communities with closed military bases become dumping grounds for refineries. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in existing statutes or regulations that prohibits a local redevelopment authority from developing a closed base into a refinery complex. In fact, for some communities, a refinery may make sense. But that decision should be made by the local community, not by the President or the Secretary of Defense. Proponents of this bill say they aren't forcing an LRA to build a refinery, only to consider one. But under current law, the Secretary of Defense has the final say about a reuse plan, and this bill requires an LRA to put a refinery into the reuse plan. Moreover, the Secretary has the power to transfer the land at little or no cost, if he chooses to do so. So if Donald Rumsfeld wants to give away a closed military base in your community to ExxonMobil to build a refinery, there is nothing your community can do to stop it. Nothing. In fact, your community could have been forced to spend its own resources to draw up a plan to build a refinery, even if the community didn't want one. The BRAC process has already punished these communities enough, including the town of Brunswick in my district. Congress should not add insult to injury by punishing them again. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill advised Republican refinery bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and also for her leadership on this issue. She and I both have bills to make U.S. policy that there be no permanent military bases in Iraq; and that is what we are, an amendment to that effect is here today. It reads that none of the funds made available under this act may be used by the government of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq. It is true that the administration is unclear on this. Secretary Rumsfeld has said we have no plans or no discussions under way to have permanent bases in that country. But I just got off the phone with a reporter from Maine who said his son served there and those aren't temporary bases that we have there. General Casey has said that we should gradually reduce the visibility of coalition forces across Iraq because that would take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency. What we have learned in a very painful way is that the opinions of other people matter. The opinions of the Iraqis matter. They believe we came there to take their oil, and they believe that we are going to stay there permanently. We have to make an official U.S. policy that we will not stay in Iraq on a permanent basis, that we are going to withdraw our troops, that we will not have military bases there; and that will help diminish somewhat the insurgency that is raging there today. Just last week General Abizaid testified that the United States may still wish to maintain a long-term presence in the region. It is that kind of confusion, those kinds of mixed signals that we need to clear up with this amendment today. The Zogby poll recently indicated that 70 percent of American troops believe we should be out of Iraq within the year. Our troops deserve to be told that we are not going to stay. The Iraqis need to be assured that we are not going to say, and this amendment is the path to that result.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that the United States has a sufficient supply of drugs to combat avian flu in the event of a pandemic. My bill authorizes the importation of generic medicines when the U.S. patent holder cannot make enough medicine to meet domestic public health needs, and removes a trade policy barrier to such imports. The prospect of an avian flu pandemic has gripped health officials around the world. Part of the response would involve treating victims with drugs to lessen the spread of the flu virus. The World Health Organization has urged all nations to stockpile reserves of antiviral flu drugs, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America has recommended that the United States stockpile enough drugs to treat 25 to 40 percent of the population. The drug believed to be most effective against the flu is Tamiflu. The exclusive right in the United States to manufacture Tamilfu is owned by Roche, a pharmaceutical manufacturer based in Switzerland. As Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee on November 8, Roche has insufficient manufacturing capacity in the U.S. to meet the stockpile needs. At its maximum production, Roche could only produce 13 million treatment courses by the end of this year, far short of the 75 million we need to treat 25 percent of the population. If Roche does not voluntarily license other companies to produce Tamiflu, the U.S. government has the authority to issue compulsory licenses to gain access to other sources of production of the drug. India, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Phillipines, South Korea and Argentina are among the countries considering plans to manufacture versions of Tamiflu to prepare for a possible flu pandemic. However, Americans facing a pandemic today could not get anti-flu drugs from those countries, because in 2003 the U.S. Trade Representative agreed to make the U.S. ineligible to import drugs produced abroad under compulsory licenses. World Trade Organization rules allow for countries with ``insufficient'' manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector to import pharmaceutical products produced under a compulsory license in other countries in order to meet public health needs. This authority is contained in paragraph 6 of the 2001 ``Doha Declaration'' on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health. The August 30, 2003, decision of the WTO TRIPS Council spelled out implementation of this authority. At the urging of U.S. negotiators, the August 30 decision created an ``opt out'' list, whereby countries could voluntarily agree not to use the import authority. The U.S. is on the ``opt out'' list. Therefore, we find ourselves in a situation where the United States government voluntarily restricted its access to critical drugs to fight a pandemic. That makes no sense. The solution is simple. We can ``opt in'' to the system. That is what my bill does. It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to notify the WTO that the U.S. declares itself an ``opt in'' country and thus eligible to import drugs made under compulsory licenses in order to meet public health needs. It also affirms that the President has the authority to import such drugs in such cases, as long as the drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Americans should have the comfort of knowing that if the public needs a particular drug to stop an avian flu pandemic, the U.S. government will have access to all available production sources for the drug. My bill would make sure that our government can do what it takes to combat an avian flu pandemic or other health emergency.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership today demonstrates that they have no sense of decency left. No question before Congress requires a more measured, thoughtful discussion than matters of war and peace. Our national security and the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines depend on our ability to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities with dignity and respect. That measured, thoughtful discussion will not occur today, because the Republican leadership does not want it to occur. They want a quick vote, with limited debate, on a same-day resolution that they hope will divide Democrats. They have taken Representative Jack Murtha's proposal, rewritten to make it irresponsible, and brought it to the floor for a vote. Almost everything we were told by the advocates of invading Iraq before the war has turned out to be false. This administration and its congressional allies hyped the threat and manipulated American intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program and its alleged connection to al Qaeda. Today, there is only one question about our occupation of Iraq. It weighs on the minds of almost all Americans, especially those with loved ones in the military. That question is, simply, when and under what conditions will we withdraw our troops and bring them home? Opinions differ. After 2\1/2\ years, over 2,000 deaths and 15,000 wounded, millions of Americans and many Members of Congress believe it is time for us to start the process of withdrawal from Iraq. Some believe in a date certain for beginning or completing the withdrawal. Some believe our withdrawal should be tied to achievement of certain benchmarks of progress. President Bush appears to believe that only total ``victory over the terrorists,'' whatever that is, would justify withdrawal. The historic task of this Congress in foreign policy is to participate in a constructive debate that will inform the decisions of the administration and others. The Republican leadership has dishonored the people's House by foregoing debate on alternatives, not just debate but hearings, in favor of bringing one resolution to the floor in the hope of dividing critics of the administration's ``stay the course'' war strategy. I voted against giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq without building a broad international coalition and obtaining explicit U.N. authority. I did not believe he would do anything, given the authority from Congress, but rush to war. And that is what he did. No Member of Congress is more respected or more knowledgeable about the American military than Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. His statement yesterday calling for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, including his conviction that we cannot accomplish more militarily, deserves thoughtful consideration. He will not get that today. Instead, Jack Murtha, decorated Marine, distinguished Member of Congress, has been vilified by the Speaker of this House, who wrongly accused him of adopting ``a policy of cut and run'' and preferring that ``the United States surrender to the terrorists.'' The White House spokesman accused Mr. Murtha of endorsing ``Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.'' I doubt that Jack Murtha knows Michael Moore, and no one here that I know ever called him a liberal. We call him Mr. Murtha because he is one tough Marine. If I were the author of his resolution, I would have written it somewhat differently. I would have called for the withdrawal of American forces to begin next year and be concluded except for a very small training force of advisors in 2007. We cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state where al Qaeda forces can be trained with impunity. Therefore, some rapid reaction force in the region, as Jack Murtha suggested, should be available. But on the big picture, Jack Murtha is right. Our troops have become not only the targets of the insurgents, but the inspiration for the insurgency. Political success for the Iraqi government and people is still possible, but it will have to be won largely by political means. The Administration is, as he said, pursuing ``a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.'' The Republican Leadership has rigged this debate to serve their own political interests. I believe that the Murtha resolution calling for withdrawal is the right policy going forward, though we should continue to debate timing and benchmarks. A vote against the Murtha resolution, if it were offered, could be interpreted as support for the Administration's flawed and failed ``stay the course'' policy. Jack Murtha is on the right track. The President is not. Our national security and the lives and well-being of our troops depend on changing course, not doing the same old thing in Iraq. If the Murtha Resolution had been brought to the floor today, I would have voted in favor of it.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on the issues we are debating tonight, Republicans can only see numbers on a page; they are blind to the people whose interests they are sacrificing to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. This bill provides fewer services to fewer people. That is a cut. This Republican bill allows States to impose higher copayments and premiums on Medicaid beneficiaries who are on Medicaid precisely because they are poor. Take, for example, people who are chronically ill. Most people with diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's or other chronic conditions are dependent on multiple medications. Once you charge higher copayments for their medications, they will start to skip their drugs. Studies have shown that doubling copayments by the chronically ill will reduce their use of prescription drugs by 8 to 23 percent. When people on Medicaid can no longer afford their medicines, when they cannot afford to call a doctor, they do not disappear, they do not get well, they just get sicker or they go to the emergency room. The CBO has concluded that 80 percent of this bill's so-called savings from raising costs to beneficiaries comes from decreased use. In short, you are just taking health care away from people who need it. Moreover, you are cutting health care services to Medicaid beneficiaries and calling it reform. Immoral and inhumane would be better and more accurate words. This bill strips health care from all types of Medicaid beneficiaries, from children and their parents, the disabled, the elderly and the chronically ill. No amount of Republican rhetoric can hide that truth. America can do better. Vote down this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, although I support the Science-State- Commerce-Justice Appropriations conference report, I rise today to call attention to the need for more funding for our coasts and oceans. When, together with Representatives Weldon and Farr and former Congressman Jim Greenwood, I co-founded the Bipartisan House Oceans Caucus in 1999 in order to inform my colleagues about the oceans, we faced major policy challenges. Americans were faced with declining fish stocks, beach closures due to poor water quality, and laws that were inadequate to protect America's oceans. My constituents were asking why. In 2000, Congress finally asked why also. The Oceans Act of 2000 called for a National Commission on Ocean Policy and charged the Commissioners with conducting a nationwide fact-finding mission on the state of our oceans. The goal was to develop policy recommendations that would lead to a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. The independent Pew Oceans Commission underwent a similar process, touring the country to listen to testimony from scientists, stakeholders, and others to identify the root problems threatening our nations' oceans. The products of these two commissions are nothing short of remarkable. Two comprehensive guides, based on the knowledge of our nation's experts, came to many comparable conclusions. Specifically, the two reports call on Congress to increase our investment in the study, management, and protection of our oceans. Relative to their size and economic' value, funding for ocean research and management pales in comparison for other natural resource programs. The federal government spends over $10 billion to manage public lands and more than $16 billion on space exploration. In 2001, the Pew Commission recommended a doubling of the NOAA budget to $6 billion over 5 years. Similarly, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended an additional $3.9 billion in new spending on top of what we already allocate to NOAA. Yet, the legislation we are debating today sets NOAA's budget for Fiscal Year 2006 at only $3.95 billion. This level is only a modest increase of $28 million over funding levels enacted in FY '05 ($3.92 billion total). Now I have a great deal of respect for the Chairman, Mr. Wolf, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Mollohan, and I know that they did the best they could with this bill under the tight budget allocations that they were forced to deal with. In this conference report there are modest increases to fishery and coastal management programs but these are unfortunately accompanied by cuts to other vital programs such as marine sanctuaries, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, and the National Sea Grant Program. Our economy, security, and health all hinge on healthy ocean ecosystems. I look forward to working with the Chairman and the Ranking Member on implementing the recommendations of the Ocean Commissions and investing appropriately in our coasts and oceans in the FY 2007 budget.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the opportunity to speak out on this poorly named reconciliation bill which will expand the Federal deficit and does enormous damage to people in this country. When 8.2 million children in America do not have health insurance, cutting Medicaid is wrong. When millions of children in America are abused and neglected, cutting child protection is wrong. When millions of children do not have access to early childhood programs, cutting child care is wrong. Let us go back over these areas. Medicaid, the House bill would allow States to charge low-income working families substantial new premiums and co-payments in order for their children to participate in the Medicaid program, access health care services, or obtain prescription drugs. While the House bill would permit States to impose costly new fees on nearly all Medicaid beneficiaries, those most likely to face significantly higher premiums and co-payments are the 6 million children who receive their health care through the Medicaid program and whose families have income just above the poverty line or above 133 percent of the poverty line for children under six. Most families with incomes just above the poverty line are working families struggling to get by. Let us turn to child support and faster care. CBO projects that the cuts in Federal Child Support Enforcement funding will mean that an additional $24 billion in child support will go uncollected. In this Congress we have been so proud in the past that we have finally been able to create a system in this country so that deadbeat dads will be forced to pay the child support that the courts have ordered them to pay. Now, in this Republican budget, they have decided that they are going to reduce dramatically the support for child support funding. In addition, the House budget reconciliation bill would reduce Federal supports for children in foster care and for grandparents and other relatives who are taking care of these children. This cut comes at a time when the overall child welfare system is struggling to address the needs of over 800,000 children in need. When you look at this package, it is beyond belief. Their food stamp cuts, reductions in food stamps, that will mean 225,000 individuals, according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of whom live in low- income working families, will be cut off the food stamp program. Basically, when you take this whole package together, you have a reconciliation bill described as a deficit reduction bill which increases the deficit. But what we are really talking about here is sacrifice. We have been saying for years that if you do trillions of dollars of tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest people in this country, when you spend a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are simply borrowed money, finally, the Republicans say we have to sacrifice. And the people at the head of the line to sacrifice are our children, the disabled, people from low-income families, that is who the Republicans want to sacrifice to pay for the tax cuts to pay for Iraq and to pay for Katrina. There is no more immoral set of priorities in this country than what we see in this bill today and what we see in the Republican agenda in the House.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1606, the soft money loophole ban. Three years ago, Congress spoke: corrupting soft money should not be part of the Federal election process. When President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, he made unlimited Federal soft money donations illegal. Democracy was enhanced. Today, however, the House is debating an attempt to make soft money legal again. H.R. 1606 would allow corporations, labor unions, and wealthy financiers to make unlimited soft money donations for campaign ads on the Internet coordinated by candidates. Bloggers should be free to write whatever they want about candidates for office. But if this bill passes, the public will have no idea whether or not Internet campaign ads are being financed by secret soft money. Why is this bill on the suspension calendar? Americans are frustrated by the majority's corrupt habits of ramming through legislation in the middle of the night without an opportunity to read or amend proposed legislation. Today, the majority is pushing through a bill that would enable monied interests to regain undue influence on Federal elections. The bill should be considered through regular order with consideration of amendments. Mr. Speaker, the better way is the bill that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have proposed. Mr. Speaker, that should be an amendment to this bill on the floor. It cannot be under this procedure. This bill should be defeated.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Committee because it funds programs important to Maine and the Nation. However, I oppose Sec. 797 because it amends the definition of organic food without a Congressional hearing or agreement by the National Organic Standards Board. On January 26, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Harvey v. Veneman, a lawsuit brought by Arthur Harvey, an organic blueberry farmer from Maine with operations in Hartford and Buckfield, against the Secretary of Agriculture. Harvey claimed that several provisions of the USDA's National Organic Regulations were in conflict with the Organic Foods Production Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued its Consent Final Judgment and Order on June 9, 2005. The court ruled in Harvey's favor on three counts. Specifically, the court found that existing regulations allowing the use of synthetic substances in the handling and processing of products labeled with the USDA ``Organic'' label and seal are contrary to the intent and language of the OFPA. This final judgment requires USDA to develop new rules within one year. It also allows producers, handlers, and processors to operate and sell products under the old rules until June 2007. Regulatory changes are a viable means to resolve the inconsistencies between the law (OFPA) and the National Organic Program regulations. The organic farming community opposes the broadening of the definition of organic to include synthetic ingredients. Changes in this area should have been made in an open manner under regular order and not inserted as a rider to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 65, to disapprove the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--BRAC. Closing surplus military infrastructure makes sense, but only if it is done in a proper strategic context and through a rational, deliberative, and fair process. The 2005 base closure round does not meet these tests. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld proposed this BRAC in 2001, before September 11 and our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The world changed, but the Defense Department's BRAC process did not. I voted against this BRAC in 2001, on the grounds that it presumptively put infrastructure decisions before force structure decisions. At the time, I said that with ``uncertainty about our future military needs in the new security environment, I believe that this is not the right time to add a new layer of uncertainty to our military communities in Maine by approving a new base closure round.'' My view has been validated by the statements of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission itself. In its final report, the commission faulted the Department of Defense--DOD--for making infrastructure decisions prior to conducting a ``comprehensive review of the underlying strategic issues that is to be set forth in the [2006] Quadrennial Defense Review [which] may have better informed and assisted the Commission in making its final recommendations.'' The commission also criticized DOD for failing to provide necessary source data on its proposals for as long as a month after the DOD list was submitted. This delay hampered the ability of the commission to do proper analysis and hamstrung communities trying to defend their bases. My view has been validated by the Overseas Basing Commission, which found that the ``massive realignment of forces requires that the pace of events be slowed and reordered.'' It faulted the administration's plans to bring 70,000 troops home from overseas without a full analysis of the infrastructure to accommodate them. My view has been validated by a recent revelation by BRAC Commissioner Phillip Coyle that information gathered to support some of DOD's BRAC recommendations were based largely on Google searches. The commission observed that several DOD plans to consolidate multiple military facilities were based not on in-depth analytic work but on Internet search engine queries used only to match facility names and functions. Lastly, my view has been validated by the questions my constituents repeatedly asked me: Why are we closing military installations when we are at war? Why are we building new bases in Iraq while closing them in America? Will our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have the right facilities to come home to? I don't have good answers to those questions, but neither does the Pentagon. By pushing BRAC at the wrong time, our Nation risks losing key assets that can never be reconstituted. We jeopardize our security if we close infrastructure before we first come to consensus on an overall defense and homeland security strategy. The BRAC Commission's decision to remove several major bases from DOD's list demonstrates that the Pentagon put the cart before the horse. For example, the commission voted to keep open the submarine base at New London, CT, and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in my district. The commission expressed serious doubts about DOD's force structure plan and the submarine force's ability to confront uncertain future threats. In addition, I object to this BRAC list due to the inexplicable and unwise closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station--NASB. This facility is the last remaining fully operational military airfield in the northeast. Its loss will hamper our capability to perform homeland defense and maritime patrol missions in the region, leaving a vulnerable flank for the entire Nation. NASB was the only major base closed by the commission that was not recommended for closure by DOD. I believe the commission failed to adequately justify its decision that the base was ``not needed.'' The commission completely ignored the combined military value judgment of combatant commanders that Brunswick is a vital strategic asset. It failed to explain how, or at what monetary or mission cost, the military could perform essential maritime patrol missions in the northeast without Brunswick. In closing NASB, the commission appeared to deviate from its own charter. It justified closing the base merely in order to ``reduce excess capacity and result in significant savings,'' despite its own directive to seek a balance between the goals of realizing savings and rationalizing our military infrastructure to meet the needs of future missions. I was pleased that the commission listened to the arguments put forth to them and voted to reject the closure of two facilities in Maine: the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Limestone, where the commission also agreed to double the number of jobs. Despite these positive outcomes, however, the unjustified closure of Brunswick affirms my opposition to this BRAC list, as well as the underlying fact that this was the wrong time in our Nation's history for this BRAC. The fundamental purpose of BRAC is to save money. Let's put its ``savings'' in perspective. The 20-year savings (approximately $800 million) from the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station is the equivalent to half a week of operations in Iraq. The entire projected 20-year savings from the BRAC list--$36 billion--are exhausted by just 6 months in Iraq. The entire savings is also merely half that of the President's proposed tax cuts this year--$70 billion, and minuscule compared to the $4 trillion in Federal revenue losses from upper-income tax breaks passed since 2001. The BRAC process is also a huge unfunded mandate on communities. I commend my congressional colleagues from Maine and New Hampshire, Governors John Baldacci and John Lynch, the employees, unions, management, local government officials, task force members and volunteers for the long hours devoted to defending Maine's defense facilities. While it was a worthy cause, I regret that we were forced to spend so much time on BRAC, rather than on new initiatives to improve our communities. The lost human productivity caused by BRAC, not only for communities but on DOD personnel as well, is something we must calculate if we ever debate a future BRAC round. Again, I urge passage of H.J. Res. 65 to reject this BRAC list. In a time of uncertainty, we risk losing national assets we can never recover.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893. This bill is a laundry list of giveaways to the oil industry, one of the most profitable industries in America and one that is right now gouging American consumers. Big oil and its supporters are exploiting the tragedy and human suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina to ram through Congress ideas so bad they were rejected just 2 months ago when Congress last approved a laundry list of giveaways to the oil industry. For example, the bill guts key environmental and human health protections of the Clean Air Act by limiting the States ability to use specialized blends of gasoline to achieve their clean air goals, and permitting up-wind States to continue to send pollution downwind. The result: More dirty air at higher emissions rates for a longer period of time. Supporters of this bill will tell you that environmental regulations make it impossible to build or expand refineries. But that simply is not true. Environmental regulations are not the problem. The truth is that the oil industry's profits will decline if the capacity is increased, so they have not really tried to keep up with demand. The oil companies are making billions these days. They do not need another subsidy. Moreover, there are no offsets for subsidies to big oil in this bill. Apparently, the Republican operation offset applies only to programs that help poor people, like Medicaid and food stamps, and not to oil industry subsidies. I am pleased that the manager's amendment appropriately modified the provision requiring the President to designate three closed military bases for construction of a refinery against the will of the local community. I am also pleased that the chairman deleted the section of the bill that eviscerated the Clean Air Act's new source review program. But these welcome programs do not make the underlying bill a good one. I believe that we should act to increase refinery capacity, and that the Stupak-Boucher amendment is the right approach. Let us reject this bill and move forward on a better solution to our energy crisis.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with the section of the manager's amendment that covers the manatees. Buried in this manager's amendment in dry language is a contest between Florida developers on the one hand and Florida manatees on the other. In this Republican Congress, guess who wins, the developers or the manatees? It is not even close. This is an unprecedented move to exempt a single type of activity, dock-building, from a key provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. After losing in court, some boaters and marine contractors have come to Congress asking for special favors so they can continue their development without addressing the impacts on the endangered manatee. It is not only bad policy, but it also undermines recovery efforts by the State of Florida and the Fish and Wildlife Service. By way of background, this section would allow those applying for dock permits to simply prove that their activities would not, quote- unquote, jeopardize, would not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened marine mammal species as mandated by the Endangered Species Act, section 7. Today, under existing law they must prove that their activities would have only a negligible impact on these species as mandated by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, section 101. This simple change in wording lowers our national standard for protection of this well-loved species. Why? Because no single dock is likely to jeopardize manatees, but a whole succession of docks is likely to do exactly that. This amendment clearly targets manatees in Florida, but we really have no idea what kind of precedent or implications this would have for other critically endangered marine mammals. Now, it did not take long for the developers to get here. They lost a lawsuit on July 13, 2005, against the Fish and Wildlife Service in which the court found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act does in fact apply to dock-building activities that would lead to incidental take of marine mammals, and specifically manatees in Florida's inland waters. This amendment, therefore, is rushed into this particular bill, just part of the manager's amendment; it would undermine the process that has gone on for several years that the State of Florida and the Fish and Wildlife Service have engaged in to recover manatees in Florida. It would completely short-circuit the progress made by the State and those Federal agencies. Finally, the minority and majority have already reached agreements and passed a version of the Marine Mammal Protection Act out of the Committee on Resources, and this amendment flies directly in the face of that process. So here is the situation: Florida developers are not pleased by a court case in July. They rush in here, they get a provision in this bill to make sure that they win and the Florida manatees lose. Bad policy, bad politics.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with my colleagues, Representatives Simmons and Delahunt, to introduce the Fishing Quota Standards Act of 2005. This bipartisan bill would amend the fishing quota programs section of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to ensure that national standards are in place during the development and implementation of individual fishing quota systems. Poorly designed and regulated quota systems often degrade fishing communities, create monopolies, and lead to overexploitation of fishery resources. If individual fishing quotas are to be an effective management tool, strong national standards must be in place to ensure a healthy future for small businesses in the fishing industry. The intent of this legislation is to guarantee that any fishery quota established by a regional management council fairly allocates the resource among fishermen of all gear types, prevents excessive industry consolidation and protects the sustainability of the fishery. The bill retains current law stating that individual fishing quotas are not compensable property rights and are revocable. This principle is strengthened by limiting fishing quota systems and shares to a period not to exceed 7 years, after which time they will be renewed if they are meeting defined criteria. Well designed Individual Fishing Quota systems can increase seafood quality and value, foster resource conservation, and promote safety-at- sea, but Individual Fishing Quota systems, in and of themselves, do not guarantee that a fishery will be sustainably managed or result in appropriate socio-economic benefits. It is my hope that this bill will give the entire fishing industry a voice in the debate over the future of their industry.