Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I certainly did.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for yielding. We should all know that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is a registered pharmacist. He is, with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and myself, a co-chair of our prescription drug task force. Really, no one has done more than he has to bring these issues out so the American people can understand that we in Congress are trying to do something about it. I thought what I would do is take a little time and talk first about our seniors, then review the current status of some of the pharmaceutical companies and then talk about H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act that I introduced yesterday with 66 cosponsors. Let us talk first about our seniors. All across this country, as we speak, seniors are not following their doctors' orders. Some of them have been given prescriptions which they cannot afford to fill. Others have filled prescriptions which they cannot afford to take as directed. What happens is, because they cannot pay the rent, pay the electrical bills, buy food and take very expensive prescription drugs, they are out there taking one pill out of three, mixing and matching. They are doing things that in the long run really are detrimental to their health. I know for the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and others, we get letters in our Congressional offices, and I want to share some of those letters. I received a letter last July, and I have had others like this since then, from a woman who said here is a list of the prescription drugs that my husband and I are expected to take, and when you added up the cost it came to $600 a month. Then she said, here is a copy of our two Social Security statements, and when you added up their two Social Security statements, which is all they had on a monthly basis, it was $1,350. One cannot get there from here. The math does not work. There is no way that couple could afford to take the prescription drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. Perhaps the most poignant letters come to me from people who write and say, I do not want my husband to know but I am not taking my drug medication because we cannot afford both his and mine and it is more important that he take his medication than I take mine. So we have women out there, or men, not taking their own drugs so that their spouse can take his or hers. It is not right in this country and it should not continue. The reason is, the study that we did in my district in Maine, back in July of 1998, which has since been replicated in 19 districts across the country, including the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and a variety of other people, and the findings are always the same. The findings show that seniors who have no coverage for prescription drugs walk into their local pharmacy and pay a price for their drugs that is, on average, twice what the drug companies' best customers are paying. The best customers are big HMOs, the Federal Government, and others, who can buy in bulk and control market share. It is not right. This degree of cost shifting has a result. This price structure in the pharmaceutical industry right now means that the pharmaceutical industry, in effect, is charging its highest prices to those who are least able to pay; and those least able to pay are a big group. They are 37 percent of all seniors in this country. When Medicare was created in 1965, there was no prescription drug benefit because, frankly, it was not a big deal then. The drug companies have made enormous progress in developing new drugs. They have helped millions of Americans, old and young, live more productive lives. What we have got now is a degree of cost shifting in the industry that is imposing the highest costs on those seniors who do not have any coverage for their prescription drugs. Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. Most medigap policies, when they cover prescription drugs, and often they do cover only a portion of the cost, and the result is that, as I said, 37 percent of all seniors have no coverage and others are uninsured. The drug industry, pharmaceutical industry, is the single most profitable industry in the country. Last year, Fortune Magazine indicated they had the highest return on equity, the highest return on assets of any industry in the country. They are making their profits on the back of uninsured seniors who simply cannot take all the medications that their doctors tell them they have to take. If I can talk about the bill just for a moment and then defer to others, the bill we introduced yesterday, H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, is probably one of the simplest pieces of legislation we could possibly introduce in this area. We are not creating a big new government program. We are making a suggestion that would involve very little expense to the Federal Government. All we are saying is that the Federal Government should, in effect, be the negotiating agent for Medicare beneficiaries so that they can get the best price that is given to the Federal Government through the Veterans Administration, off the Federal Supply Schedule or through medicaid. That is all we are saying. They ought to have advantage, those people, Medicare beneficiaries, all of whom are now on a Federal health care program, Medicare, which is saying they ought to be able to get the best price from the drug companies that the Federal Government gets now, and the way that would work is through the Department of Health and Human Services. Participating pharmacists would be able to buy drugs for resale to Medicare beneficiaries at the best price the Federal Government buys those drugs. Simple bill, very simple, as close to a free market solution as you can get. The pharmaceutical industry objects. I would thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for yielding me this time and would ask to come back later, after others have spoken, to address a few of the arguments that I expect we will see as this debate moves along.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her support. It means a lot to us to have her come down and be with us in this debate. I just wanted to say, in closing, one thing. I said earlier that what is happening out there is that the pharmaceutical companies are charging their highest prices to those least able to pay. And by those least able to pay, I mean those Medicare beneficiaries, those seniors who do not qualify for Medicaid but are not wealthy enough to buy and use prescription drug insurance coverage. So they are left on their own, paying out of their own pocket. The industry is going to say that this bill involves price controls, and my final point is that that is flat out wrong. This bill will allow the Federal Government to act as a negotiating agent to make sure that it gets the best prices for our seniors across the country. It does not involve price controls. It simply puts a big negotiator, a big buyer, into a market where right now seniors or, more accurately, those wholesalers who sell to retail pharmacies really do not control market share and really do not buy in the kind of bulk that is necessary to get big discounts. H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act, is the right bill at the right time at a low cost, a bill that would be effective in lowering the prices for seniors all across this country. I just want to say in conclusion how much I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) on this issue, the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) on this issue. We are going to make a difference in this Congress and pass this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my congratulations to Bernard Kazon of Portland, Maine, on the occasion of his 75th birthday on February 27th, and to share with my colleagues Mr. Kazon's recent generosity to the people of Maine. ``Bernie'' Kazon and his wife Shirley have resided in Portland, Maine, for the last 33 years, where they raised their two children, Paula and Peter. Mr. Kazon is Executive Vice President of Eastland Shoe Corporation headquartered in Freeport, Maine. Eastland's shoe manufacturing facility has been an important component of the local economy, employing more than 300 people. While Bernie and Shirley have long been involved in local community affairs, I want to take the opportunity today to share with my colleagues Bernie's long-time interest in history and politics. About ten years ago, he began to collect political biographies, election pamphlets, letters and other materials that reflect the history of political campaigns in the United States dating back to the 18th century. The collection, which began when Shirley gave him several old political biographies, has now grown to more than 700 items and offers a unique perspective on the history of American politics. Last year, Bernie generously acted to share this wonderful collection with a new generation of students of American history. Bernie has made arrangements to donate his collection to the University of Maine, where it will be housed in a new library that is being built in Portland. The collection will provide an invaluable resource to the students at the University who, like him, share a strong intellectual curiosity in the history of our American political system. The Kazons have generously augmented the collection by endowing a fund that will assist in maintaining the collection for the University, as well as provide for an annual prize for scholarly works based on its material. Among the materials the Kazons have donated was a bound 1791 edition of Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense. As Paine himself wrote, ``Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must . . . undergo the fatigue of supporting it.'' We are fortunate in Maine to have men like Bernie Kazon who recognize that they have reaped the blessings of our free society, and are generous in their efforts to support it and the generations who follow them. Please join me in extending the best wishes of the people of Maine to this generous and thoughtful man, as his family comes together in celebration of his 75th birthday.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the ``Defense of the Environment'' amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I want to begin by responding to the analysis just made by the gentleman on the other side. His argument is that this analysis, this legislation, this amendment requires an analysis by CBO that is too complex for CBO to undertake. The truth is that the analysis is very simple because all that is required of CBO is to identify, that is the word in the amendment, to ``identify'' any provision which removes, prevents the imposition of, or prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement or makes less stringent any Federal private-sector mandate established to protect human health, safety, or the environment. That is all we are talking about. So that what CBO is being asked to do is simply to identify a provision, and that I suggest is well within its competence. This amendment, the Waxman amendment, takes common-sense steps to ensure that no legislation to weaken environmental protections can be approved unless it is specifically considered and approved by the House. Despite a public outcry over the last four years, the majority has tried to roll back environmental regulations. The 105th Congress saw too many harmful riders tacked onto must-pass appropriations bills. These hidden attempts to weaken our environmental laws only work against the public interest. I would like to cite one example that is very important to my home State of Maine, and that is mercury pollution. Maine suffers some of the worst mercury pollution in the United States, but Maine is not alone. Thirty-nine states have already issued health advisories warning the public about consuming fish containing mercury. In some States, including Maine, every single lake, pond, stream, or river is under a mercury advisory. Now, why is this important? Last year's VA-HUD appropriations bill contained language to prevent the EPA from taking steps, from taking regulatory action to limit pollution. The EPA had already concluded that there are serious health risks involved with mercury exposure and that contamination is on the rise, but this language handcuffed the agency from curbing harmful emissions. We voted last year on that amendment, on an amendment that would have removed this particular language. But the vast majority of these anti- environmental riders do not receive adequate debate or a separate vote. All environmentally harmful riders deserve our most careful scrutiny. At the very least, we should ensure that the public knows where this Congress stands on the important environmental issues that affect our nation. Now, I come from a State where George Mitchell and Ed Muskie helped to write the clean air and clean water laws that now govern this country, and I am not going to stand by and watch an attempt, under cover of procedural laws, to try to unravel those protections. I think that we need to ensure that the debate over environmental policy is open and direct. I urge Members to support the Waxman amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply point out that the matter of identifying the effect of a regulation is a lot easier than determining what the effect of the cost may be, trying to evaluate the cost of particular legislation in the private sector. I still believe this is the kind of relatively simple task that CBO can perform.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has disgraced himself and diminished the office he holds. While this House may not censure Bill Clinton, history will. But by failing to respond in a fair and measured way to the President's conduct, the Republican leadership has assured that history will also condemn the 105th Congress. Others in this debate have made the point simply: the proven offenses are not impeachable and the impeachable offenses are not proven. ``To depose the constitutional chief magistrate of a great nation, elected by the people, on grounds so slight, would * * * be an abuse of power.'' These are not my words, but the temperate statement 130 years ago of a Maine Republican. William Pitt Fessenden was one of seven courageous Republican Senators who voted against the attempt by the Radical Republicans to remove Andrew Johnson from office in 1868. Fessenden understood the meaning of the Constitution's words, ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' An impeachable offense, Fessenden said, must be ``of such a character to commend itself at once to the minds of all right thinking men, as beyond all question, an adequate cause for impeachment. It should leave no reasonable ground of suspicion upon the motives of those who inflict the penalty.'' Fessenden knew what the framers meant and what the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee professed to believe at the outset of this inquiry--a partisan vote of impeachment will be forever suspect. History will find, as people across America and around the world already know, that there is more than ``reasonable ground of suspicion upon the motives'' of the Republican leadership of the 105th Congress. Just as the Radicals of 1868 abandoned the principles of Abraham Lincoln in pursuit of a political vendetta, they have ignored the wise counsel of cooler heads like Gerald Ford and Bob Dole and recklessly abused the awesome power of impeachment for partisan purposes. December 19, 1998 will go down with February 24, 1868 as sad days for America. More than the tawdry behavior admitted by Bill Clinton, today will be remembered for the failure of this Congress to honor our constitutional responsibility to act with fairness and justice before recommending removal of a President elected by the people. Let us all pray that the Senate has enough William Pitt Fessendens to correct the mistake this House will make today.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the omnibus appropriations bill, as it provides funs for eight Federal departments and key education priorities such as class size reduction and Head Start, as well as the summer jobs program, LIHEAP, IMF, home health care, and hurricane and farm relief. However, I have great concerns about the national security aspects of the bill, and the way it was put together. Specifically, I take issue with the bill's inclusion of $1 billion in ``emergency'' spending for ballistic missile defense. This money could have gone to pay back our debts to the United Nations. The $1 billion could have been used to finance bonds for construction and repair needs for 1,500 schools, or to pay the fiscal year 2000 costs of improving retirement benefits to encourage retention of military personnel. Congress had the entire year to review the nation's defense needs. It approved the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization and appropriations bills after agreeing to the President's overall funding level and, generally, to the Pentagon's priorities. In the omnibus bill, Congress also agreed to the valid requests to fund our Bosnia mission and the Federal Government's year 2000 computer problem. The extra $1 billion for ballistic missile defense, however, was a last-minute stealth insertion into the omnibus appropriations bill, and not reviewed by the authorizing or appropriations committees. For a Congress that has balanced the budget for the first time In three decades, and for a Republican leadership that rails against wasteful spending, this is wrong. There is little disagreement that theater missile defenses are prudent, realistic, and help protect our troops deployed overseas. But throwing money at these programs won't make them work better or deploy faster. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre testified on October 2 that ``This is as close as the Department of Defense can get to the Manhattan Project. We are moving as fast as possible.'' The Pentagon is doing its best to make it work. But you just can't legislate physics. Regrettably, it appears that this $1 billion was promoted by those who see national missile defense as the answer to all our security threats, regardless of cost, treaty implications or whether it actually works. National missile defense is an exceedingly complex endeavor. The system relies on ``hit-to-kill'' technology--hitting a bullet with a bullet--whose success rate is only 22 percent in 18 tests. The technology is unproven. Faith and money in themselves cannot guarantee success. Earlier this year, a panel of missile defense experts issued a report (the ``Welch report'') that reviewed the national missile defense (NMD) program. It concluded that the effort to rush deployment had caused test failures, program slippage and increased risk--in short, they called it a ``rush to failure.'' GAO confirmed that this acceleration had greatly increased risk in the NMD program. Our Nation's senior military leaders agree with these assessments. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, said before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29 that ``putting more money into it [NMD] won't produce a product any sooner,'' and that ``money will not help solve the engineering and integration challenges that are being faced by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization right now.'' The GOP has joined the Service Chiefs in complaining about readiness shortfalls. But when it came time to fund readiness in the supplemental bill, the GOP leadership siphoned off $1 billion for missile defense. They also rejected an Administration request to change military pensions sought to keep quality people in the service. The $1 billion for missile defense could have paid for most of the fiscal year 2000 cost for these changes. At the end of the day, it appears that GOP leadership cared more about Ronald Reagan's ``star wars'' legacy than about the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. On balance, the omnibus appropriations bill is worthy of support. But not every provision is wise. As we consider the wide-ranging programs in this bill, Members should know that this $1 billion add-on for missile defense was not requested by the administration and not reviewed by any congressional defense committee. Missile defense is too important and too technologically challenging to be driven by partisan politics.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of talk these days about the education proposals that the Democrats are fighting for, and those on the other side of the aisle say it is a matter of federal control versus local control. Democrats, they say, want federal control. They made the same arguments when we tried to get 100,000 police on the streets of this country, and that is local control. It may be federal money, but it is local control, and that is what Democrats are arguing for now. Education is simply too important in this country to leave it to someone else. We all have to participate. We all have to participate in fighting crime, and that is what we did when we asked for 100,000 new police on the streets, and we got them in every district around this country. Now what we are saying is education is too important to leave the federal government out of it. The public servants who work for this government, for the state government and the local governments have to join together. Mr. Speaker, we need support for 100,000 new teachers in this country. That is what we are fighting for as Democrats right now, and we are not going home until we have that as part of this agenda. There has been plenty of time in this Congress for votes on vouchers, but this issue has not come up before.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, this Congress lacks standing to criticize the President. This is a do-nothing Congress. Look what this Congress has accomplished under the Republican leadership. They have killed a national child care initiative. They have killed a Patients' Bill of Rights. They have killed the tobacco settlement, and they have killed campaign finance reform. We Democrats are here today fighting for education, trying to salvage something out of a pathetic year. We want smaller class sizes for our kids. We want better school buildings in this country. We want higher education standards for this country. We have got to salvage something because every child in this country deserves a chance to be a productive citizen in this global economy. The Republican leadership in this Congress cannot run a railroad. It is because they do not want the train to leave the station. And we Democrats are going to stay here fighting for education as long as it takes.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues to address a very serious problem, the high price of prescription drugs. We only have a few remaining days left in this Congress. I would like to spend this time discussing the issues which matter to the American people such as HMO reform, reducing class size, and yes, improving the health and well being of our seniors. As I travel throughout the first district of Maine, people, particularly seniors, share their experiences regarding the high cost of prescription drugs. The high cost of prescription drugs is particularly difficult for seniors, who use one third of all prescriptions. While the average American under 65 uses only four prescriptions a year, the average senior uses 14 prescriptions a year. Furthermore, most older Americans suffer from more than one chronic condition, such as hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, glaucoma and circulatory problems. Medicare does not provide prescription drug coverage, so many seniors do not have prescription drug coverage and must incur these expenditures out-of-pocket. To bring attention to some of the above mentioned problems, and to consider appropriate action, I have joined my colleagues, Representative Marion Berry and Representative Jim Turner in establishing the Prescription Drug Task Force. Last June I requested that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigate whether pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of older Americans through price discrimination, and, if so, whether this is part of the explanation for the high drug prices being paid by older Americans. According to a recent Standard & Poor's report on the pharmaceutical industry, ``drugmakers have historically raised prices to private customers to compensate for the discounts they grant to managed care companies. This practice is known as `cost shifting.' '' I understand that this is the first study which attempts to quantify the extent of price discrimination and how it affects seniors. The study investigated the prices of the 10 brand name drugs with the highest sales to the elderly (Zocor, Prilosec, Fosamax, Norvasc, Relafen, Procardia XL, Cardizem CD, Zoloft, Vasotec & Ticlid). The study estimates the differential between the price charged to the drug companies' most favored customers, such as large insurance companies and HMOs, and the price charged to seniors. The results are based on a survey of retail prescription drug prices in chain and independently owned drug stores in the first district of Maine. These prices are compared to the prices paid by the drug companies most favored customers. Then, for comparison purposes, the study estimates the differential between retail prices and prices for favored customers for other consumer items. This study has since been conducted in a number of congressional districts across the country. This is clearly a problem not only in Maine--but nationwide. A national report summarizing the investigations in our districts has been completed. I would like to take a few moments to share some of the findings of the national report. Older Americans and others who pay for their own drugs are charged far more for their prescription drugs than are the drug companies' most favored customers, such as large insurance companies and health maintenance organizations. A senior paying for his or her own prescription drugs must pay, on average, almost twice as much for the drugs as the drug companies' favored customers. This unusually large price differential is approximately four times greater than the average price differential for other consumer goods. The average price differential for the ten prescription drugs used in this study was 86 percent, while the average price differential for the other items was only 22 percent. Other drugs commonly used by seniors that are not among the top ten have even higher price differentials. For example, an equivalent dose of Synthroid, a commonly used hormone treatment, would cost the favored customers only $1.75, but would cost the average senior almost $30.00! This is a price differential of 1,603 percent! The high price of prescription drugs is not the fault of our pharmacists. Pharmacies have relatively small markups for prescription drugs--somewhere between 3-22 percent. Large pharmaceutical companies drive up the prices. Drug manufacturers make six times more profit on prescriptions than retail pharmacies. A recent lawsuit alleged that pharmaceutical companies have created a dual price system of drug distribution. Drug companies give discounts to the big managed care companies and HMOs, while charging higher prices to independent drugstores and pharmacy chains. Four of the pharmaceutical companies chose to settle for $350 million. Other cases are still pending. Drug companies make unusually high profits compared to other companies. The average manufacturer of brand name consumer goods, such as Proctor & Gamble of Colgate-Palmalive, has an operating profit margin of 10.5 percent. Drug manufacturers, however, have an operating profit margin of 28.7 percent--nearly three times greater. Unquestionably, pharmaceuticals have improved the lives of millions of people with very serious illnesses and chronic disabilities. Each year, drug companies introduce new drugs that restore the health, extend the life expectancy and improve the quality of life for people. However, these contributions are not a license for profiteering and price gouging. The problems outlined in these reports, are not simply a series of numbers and charts and dollar amounts. These problems affect real people, everyday, in Maine and throughout the nation. Recently, I joined several of my colleagues to introduce H.R. 4627, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. When we introduced the bill we were joined by one of my constituents, Vi Quirion. Vi traveled from Maine to Washington to speak not only of her difficulties, but also of those of her friends and neighbors. Vi has arthritis and stomach troubles. She lives on about $900 per month from Social Security and cannot afford supplemental coverage for her prescriptions. Vi, like many seniors, cuts back on her medication or does not take it at all. As she said: ``I can't afford to pay my prescriptions and gas and eat too. If I don't take Relafen it won't kill me, but it will certainly change my life. I won't be able to walk. We should not have to live like that.'' It was for Vi and those like her that we introduced the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. No older American should ever again have to choose between buying the drugs prescribed by their doctors and buying food for their tables or heat for their homes. The legislation achieves these goals by allowing pharmacies that serve Medicare beneficiaries to purchase prescription drugs at the low price available under the federal supply schedule through the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The legislation has been estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by over 40 percent. I understand that Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America President Alan Homer recently said: ``the well-meaning efforts of the bill's sponsors unfortunately are likely to backfire on America's seniors. In a very real sense, this bill is a dagger pointed at the hearts of America's senior citizens.'' This quote comes from an industry whose annual profits of the top ten drug companies is nearly $20 billion. Pharmaceuticals rank as the number one industry in return in revenues and return on assets. Yes, pharmaceuticals rate well above the telecommunications and computer industries. It is time to level the playing field and stop this price discrimination. It is time to put seniors' lives ahead of pharmaceutical profits. Support the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a solemn moment, but as theater, it is overdone. It is overdone because this vote is not about whether or not we should have an impeachment inquiry. Both resolutions call for such an inquiry, so we will have one. This vote is about what kind of impeachment inquiry we will conduct. That question is important. The majority wants an open-ended impeachment inquiry with no limits on its scope or duration. Under their plan, the Committee on the Judiciary can investigate anything and everything it wants for 6 months, a year, or even longer. I believe their plan will inflame partisanship, and if prolonged, weaken the institution of the presidency and this country. This is not Watergate. That committee conducted a factual inquiry. We have piles of facts from the special prosecutor. Our task is to find an appropriate consequence for behavior we know is wrong. Our alternative will provide for thorough consideration of the Starr alternative, of the Starr referral, by December 31, 1998. What is wrong with that? I urge my colleagues to oppose an inquiry resolution that does not say when it will end or what it will cover, and instead, support the focused, fair, and expeditious Democratic alternative.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) that I appreciate his organizing this Special Order today and for his leadership on this particular issue. I found, as many of us have back in our districts as we travel around and talk to seniors, that the high price of prescription drugs comes up at every meeting of seniors. It does not matter where we are or who we are talking to. As long as there is a senior in the room, it seems, this subject will come up, particularly if we give people an opening. There are some reasons for that. Seniors use one-third of all prescriptions in this country. While the average American under age 65 uses only 4 prescriptions a year, the average senior uses 14 prescriptions a year. In particular, older Americans suffer more from those chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, glaucoma and circulatory problems that require the taking of regular prescription drugs. When Medicare was created in 1965, it was designed as a system of acute care, so it did not cover prescription drugs. Now, the number of hospital beds is shrinking, people are not spending as much time in the hospital, and they are not there because of advancements in prescription drugs, and yet 37 percent of all seniors have zero coverage for prescription drugs. We all know that the prices have been going up at a rapid rate. The studies that have now been replicated in a number of districts are very revealing. Last June I requested that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight staff investigate whether pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of older Americans because of the high price of prescription drugs. There is a recent statement in a report on the pharmaceutical industry which reads, ``Drugmakers have historically raised prices to private customers to compensate for the discounts they grant to managed care companies. This practice is known as cost- shifting.'' I understand that the studies that have now been replicated in our districts around the country are the first studies to quantify the extent of price discrimination and how it affects seniors. The study investigated the prices of the 10 brand name drugs with the highest sales to the elderly. Ticlid, Zocor, Fosamax, Prilosec, Norvasc, Relafen, Procardia XL, Cardizem CD, Zoloft and Vasotec. The study looked at the price differential between what seniors pay when they walk into a local pharmacy and what the best customers of the pharmaceutical companies pay. And the best customers are big HMOs, the Federal Government, like the VA. The study found in my district, and it is pretty much the same I believe in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and in the district of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), that seniors pay 105 percent of the price, on average, that the drug companies' most favored customers get. Now, for comparison purposes, one thing is clear: That is, the markup or the price discrimination on prescription drugs is far higher than it is on other consumer goods. In fact, the price differential is about 5 times greater than the average price differential for other consumer goods. Now, I wanted to say a couple of things about the pharmacists, because one of the things we found in the study is that the high price of prescription drugs is not the fault of pharmacies. Whether one is a chain drugstore or a local pharmacy, the markup is on average 3 and at times all the way up to 22 percent, but more often it is a reasonable markup of 3, 4, 5, 6 percent. In fact, it is the large pharmaceutical companies that are driving up the prices. Drug manufacturers makes 6 times more profit on prescriptions than retail pharmacies. Mr. Speaker, I think that we obviously have to do something about this, and I am pleased that the release of a report in my district showed what it did, that the study has been replicated in districts around the country. This is, as we well know, a nationwide problem, not just a local problem. Despite the very important contributions that the pharmaceutical companies have made in improving the quality and the effect of prescription drugs, the fact remains, bring it down right to the grassroots level. The gentleman knows, the gentlewoman knows, I know people in our district who get about $600 or $700 a month in a Social Security check and that is all they have, and a good number of them are paying $100, $200, $300 a month are for prescription drugs. The math does not work. They cannot pay for food and rent and other necessities and still pay the cost of their prescription drugs. So what do they do? They do not take the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. That is the bottom line. Seniors in this country are not taking the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. Vi Karion from Maine traveled down to our press conference last week and she spoke of her difficulties and those of her friends and neighbors. She gets about $900 a month from Social Security, but cannot afford supplemental coverage for her prescription medication and she cannot always afford all of her prescription drugs. That is why I introduced the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act, very similar to the bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and others have introduced. These two pieces of legislation are complementary, not competitive. We believe that the legislation will drive down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors by over 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is too late in this session to have this bill become law, but I can tell my colleagues this: We are going to be back next year. This issue will not go away. We need to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs, and what our legislation would do, without adding to the Federal budget, without fixing prices, we would put the Federal Government on the side of every senior buying pharmaceutical drugs. And if we do that, the buying power of the Federal Government is strong enough to compensate for the high prices charged by the pharmaceutical companies, to drive down the cost of prescription drugs and really give our seniors a chance to eat the food they are supposed to eat and still take the medication that their doctors tell them they have to take. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am very pleased to have been here today.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican tax bill. We should leave Social Security alone. I rise today very disappointed with the Republican majority. Their tax bill is both fiscally irresponsible and socially bankrupt. It calls for $80 billion in tax cuts over the next five years by raiding projected Social Security surpluses. Surpluses that Congress designed to secure retirement benefits for current and future retirees. The long-term solvency of Social Security depends on sound policy choices and fiscal discipline. With an aging population and the onset of the baby-boom generation entering retirement years, tampering with Social Security is dangerous and irresponsible. I strongly support extending tax credits, such as work opportunity and research and development, and accelerating the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100%. I have cosponsored bills to do just that but with the belief that offsets would be real and fair. While I support these provisions and others in the Republican tax bill, the bill is clearly in violation of the pay-as-you-go budget rule this House championed for budget discipline. PAYGO has worked. We have offset spending and revenue proposals with real spending cuts or revenue increases. We have also shielded Social Security from budget gimmickry. We have promised not to use Social Security surpluses to mask the Federal deficit. Just as we balanced the Federal budget the Republican majority has turned its back on fiscal responsibility. Adoption of this tax bill will unravel the budget discipline by which we have operating in the last few years. With the adoption of President Clinton's deficit reduction and economic growth package in 1993, we have put our fiscal house in order. For the first time in thirty years we have balanced the Federal budget. We have made hard choices, and we have respected the PAYGO rule that proposals be budget neutral. Offsetting a tax bill with projected Social Security surpluses is irresponsible and wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican tax bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so-called Dollars to the Classroom Act which would turn critically important elementary and secondary education programs into one giant block grant. Republicans want to eliminate 31 programs that work, including the Eisenhower professional development grants, women's educational equality, school-to-work, and gifted and talented education grants. In the last Congress, Republicans tried to eliminate the Department of Education. Today they are trying to kill any chance of Federal leadership in education. Education is primarily a State and local responsibility. But the President and the Congress must provide national leadership on national issues and no issue is more important than improving education for our kids. Instead of focusing on what works, reducing class size, improving school facilities, raising standards and improving the training of our teachers, the Republicans want to destroy critically important programs. Do not let them succeed. Oppose H.R. 3248.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 432 on September 15, 1998, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been an outstanding member of the Freshman Task Force. (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who has been a member of the Freshman Task Force that produced the freshman bill, a strong advocate of campaign finance reform. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is about whose voices will be heard in this system. It is about voices. It is about speech, who speaks up in this system and who is heard. The other day the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority whip, who has been the prime opponent of campaign reform, said that money is the lifeblood of politics. Money is the lifeblood of politics. If that is true, the people lose. The Constitution begins, ``We the people of these United States.'' It does not say, we the big contributors to politicians in Washington. It says, ``We the people.'' It means the citizens. It means the voters. The Doolittle proposal is anti-reform. This is a suggestion not to contain the influence of money but to expand it. Under the Doolittle proposal, it is okay for someone to give a candidate for Congress $500,000. Now an individual is limited to giving $1,000. But $500,000, $300,000, any amount we want, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) says is okay. That is the influence of big money in politics. We have to contain it. Disclosure is not enough. The Doolittle proposal is going in the wrong direction. What is going on here? What is going on here has been a strategy from March to May to June to July and now to August, and here is what it is. The leadership strategy of the GOP as set out by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) again in a moment of great candor. ``The timing kills them,'' said the gentleman from Texas. ``The DeLay strategy worked. Delay, delay, delay.'' The fact is the time for reform is long past. We need to pass out of this House today the Shays-Meehan bill or the Hutchinson-Allen bill. We have to send major campaign finance reform to the Senate in order to restore the voice of the ordinary citizens, the ordinary people in this country who are being overwhelmed and outshouted by big money.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who has been a real leader in the effort on campaign finance reform.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), one of the class officers who has worked on this issue throughout the course of the past two years.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the freshman task force process began because we were veterans of the 1996 elections. We came to this House, and we knew we wanted to do something about what had happened to us in the 1996 elections. We had survived that process because we were here. But we were not happy with the process. We were not happy with the amount of soft money that had been poured into campaigns, on both the Republican side and the Democratic side. We were not happy with the amount of issue advocacy money that had been poured into campaigns from groups on the left and groups on the right. We created a freshman task force, which I was proud to cochair with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and, over the past year and a half, we have worked on this issue diligently. We have never given up. There have been those reformist groups on the outside who have said we have not gone far enough. There have been groups on the outside who have said we are doing too much. We have kept our course, we have stood by the product, and we have stood by the process. I have to say that my cochair, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), has, throughout this process, demonstrated the kind of courage and commitment that you need to survive in this place and get anything done, and it has been. I am proud to have served with him. Mr. Chairman, let me address just a couple of issues about the freshman bill. There are those who say there is a loophole, and it will allow state money to be raised at the state level. Well, let us face it: Minor differences become major differences when you get to the final point between two bills that in fact are very close together. What do we do? We take Federal elected officials, we take Federal candidates, we take national parties, national party committees and their agents, and we take them out of the business of raising soft money. That is real reform. That is a real soft money ban. It is a soft money ban that works. We do not go as far on issue advocacy as Shays-Meehan does in many respects, but if you listen to the diversity of opinion in this Chamber, you understand that this is the most complicated issue we have to deal with. It is personal to every Member. We are all experts. What we have done is created a good, solid campaign reform bill. I am going to be proud to vote for it today. I voted for Shays-Meehan, but I will vote for this freshman task force substitute. I am proud of the committee, and I am proud of what we have done. It is good, solid substantial reform.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been one of our class officers in the freshman class and a staunch supporter of the Freshman Task Force process.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform.