Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Just a few. One of the interesting things I found in Johannesburg is people look at us the same way that we look at other countries. That is, we look at the policies set by the current administration, whether it is Britain or France or Germany, Russia, wherever, as being sort of the beginning and end of opinion on that subject in that country. And I think that one function that the six of us served who were over there is that we had a different view from the current administration, and that seemed to be of great comfort to a lot of people, that we were having a debate in this country, that it was not simply the case that people in the United States were saying, ``No, we're putting our head in the sand. We're pretending that climate change isn't going on. We've decided to adapt somehow.'' I do not know about you, but in my State, every summer is warmer than the last. We used to have snow all the time at Christmas. Now it is relatively rare. The changes are visible to most people even though they are hard to quantify. But when you look at them, when you look at the numbers, and I can take one State, Alaska. In the last 30 years the average temperature in Alaska has increased by 5.4 degrees. That is an enormous increase. In many places the permafrost is melting, the roads are sagging, trees are tipping over, buildings have less secure foundations. It is leading to dramatic changes. I just think that what we have got to do here at home, those of us who believe this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, is keep urging our friends and colleagues to take this issue seriously, because as soon as you take climate change seriously, a whole set of things follow. You have to have an increasing emphasis on renewable energy of all kinds, small hydro, wind, solar, fuel cells and all of those technologies. I suspect that all of the estimates of cost are a little out of whack, because what we are saying is, with the right commitment, we are going to stimulate new technologies, the development of new technologies, the implementation of new technologies that will give an additional boost to significant parts of our economy. The rest of the world understands that. That was evident at Johannesburg. It is time we caught up with the rest of the world.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and it certainly was true that being in Johannesburg for the time we were there was a very interesting experience. My colleague mentioned the meeting I chaired on renewable energy, and that in itself was an eye opener, I guess I would say, because we had around the table several representatives from Japan, two from Slovenia, two from Sweden, one from Thailand, one from the Philippines, one from Uruguay, and I am sure some others. It was a cross-section of nations large and small from really all around the globe. South Africa was included as well. The interesting thing, to me, is how much different countries are trying to make sure that these international goals that are being talked about more elsewhere than here in the United States somehow fit their own countries and their own experience. And that is basically what you would expect. But what is true, I think, from this experience and from others is that most other countries realize that the climate is changing fast; that it is due to human emissions, carbon emissions in particular, and that, and this is where the United States is not following, that we need to do something about it. We need to do something fairly serious quickly. It is clear that the Europeans are taking the lead in a number of renewable energy technologies, wind and solar and small hydro and others, and we are being left behind. I happened to go to an exhibit by BMW, where they were describing an engine that can run both on gasoline or alternatively on hydrogen, and they were arguing that this kind of internal combustion engine that can run on hydrogen is a transition to a hydrogen future. One of the problems is that, of course, if we are going to have cars that run on hydrogen, and in fact where the by-product is not carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or whatever, but water, where you could get to zero emissions quickly, we do not have a lot of hydrogen filling stations around this country or in Europe. And they were talking about this as a way to do a transition.

Mr. ALLEN. I have no doubt that the gentleman is right. A couple of things. It is clear that the EU legislature and individual European countries are setting higher standards. They are setting some standards. They are setting higher standards, obviously, than the Federal Government here for carbon emissions. And the result is that they are triggering the need to do a substantial amount of research and development in renewable fuels, in ways of converting to new fuels, and to having more renewable technologies. I think it is likely, based on what I heard in Johannesburg, that Europe is going to go roaring by the United States when it comes to developing new technologies of this kind. That is going to leave us, in the long run, at a disadvantage in the European market. And when carbon restrictions come in this country, as they surely will, it will leave U.S. automakers and others really behind the 8 ball.

Mr. ALLEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I do not think people realize that one-third of all carbon emissions in this country come from these old coal-fired and oil-fired power plants that are grandfathered under the Clean Air Act. If we just bring them up to new source review standards, we will do an enormous amount to improve the carbon emissions situation in this country. That is probably the easiest step to take. It is probably the first step that we will take at some point to deal with these old power plants, and it makes no sense to keep putting it off. I thought it was interesting, the meeting that GLOBE held. They had all sorts of meetings. In fact, GLOBE was a very active organization in Johannesburg. They did a terrific job. But the meeting I was chairing was all about the most controversial topic in Johannesburg, which is whether we should set targets and timetables for renewable energy. Right now, globally, renewable energy sources, as defined by the U.N., represent about 2 percent of all power generated in the world. And the question was should we move to a target of getting, as I recall, a 10 percent increase by 2020 over the 2 percent that was applicable today and in 2000. It was a major goal but an achievable goal. At least the rest of the world thought it was achievable. But it struck me that the problem the United States has, and particularly the Bush administration right now, is we cannot argue for a position to be adopted internationally if we are not willing to advocate for that position at home. And the fact is that the President's Clear Skies Initiative, so-called Clear Skies Initiative, basically would reduce carbon emissions in this country by about as much as if we did nothing at all. Carbon emissions are continuing to go up, but they are going up slightly less than they did in the past. Under the President's proposal, they will continue to go up at a significant rate but slightly less than they did in the past. The rest of Europe, the Japanese, and countries in Africa and in South America, are saying what good does that do? You have to first stabilize the emissions; stop them from growing. And that is really what we need to do. So that was a tremendous point of contention throughout Johannesburg. The U.S. never gave in. They never agreed to any targets or timetables. But I believe that the reason is clear: The President has basically said global warming is a problem. Adjust to it. And that is not the kind of response that the rest of the world believes is responsible.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, his point is an excellent one. One thing that we need to do more of with both China and India, they are going to be using some coal. Both have supplies of coal. They are developing their economies faster than other countries around the world, both are in different ways. But the best technology we have for clean coal use we ought to be making sure gets transferred to the Chinese and the Indians so they can do the best they can in holding down emissions. I want to say a couple of other things about the U.S. position. It struck me that the problem was not that the United States did nothing, but that our reach was so short. By rejecting any effort to set targets and timetables for getting to more renewable energy, we were basically sitting back on the primary issue before the conference. I would say the administration took several positions. They said we want to establish partnerships, partnerships between governments and the private sector and the nonprofit sector. Many of them were rolled out, and many of them I think are going to make a contribution. There is nothing wrong with a proposal for partnerships that deal with some of these environmental issues. The administration was also saying that we need to insist on good governance because so often aid money has been wasted when it goes to governments that are corrupt or inefficient; and that, too, makes good sense. But, it fell so far short of what the expectations were around the world, and I think in many quarters here in the United States. It was only right near the end of the conference, probably a day before I left, which was the day before Colin Powell spoke, that we actually agreed to one target which had to do with sanitation, trying to move and I do not remember the exact number, but to cut in half the number of people living without sanitary and sewage facilities around the globe by 2020. But there was a case where at last, after a lot of negotiation, the U.S. finally came around to the position that the rest of the world had arrived at a long time before, and we were the lingering holdout. I just want to make one more point about the mood. At a number of different meetings, I got the sense that we do face a crisis. Sustainable development is more than the environment. In fact, it is more than the economy of a country plus its environment. It also involves how people are living and whether they have a standard of living that is appropriate and one that is reasonable for them to expect given the circumstances of that country. In other words, sustainable development to the rest of the world has an economic component, an environmental component, and a social component. Often here in the United States we kind of leave out that social component, perhaps because we are at least generally the wealthiest country in the world. But it did seem to me that there was a sense both in a meeting that I went to on Latin America and in some of the conversations on Africa that this globalizing system, this growing uniformity of financial structures in developing countries, was not working very well for ordinary people. In too many countries around the world which have been forced to open their markets both to goods and capital from other countries, they have found that the capital that comes rushing in can go rushing out just as fast; and they are concerned that their economies are not growing. They are stagnating. In Eastern Europe, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, in Africa, even Latin America, the rates of growth have been negative or so slow as to cause serious social problems. Mr. Speaker, that is a component of this debate that needs to be addressed; and I think it needs to be addressed by making sure that when we set policies, whether trade policies or aid policies, we are doing things that empower people at the grass roots in countries so they can go out and make a living and start a business and have the kind of economic growth that we have experienced so often in this country.

Mr. ALLEN. I have done the same thing with a vacation property I have in Maine, which is convert to solar power. It is absolutely wonderful. We all need to take whatever steps we can. The gentleman from Oregon referred to the hybrid cars that exist. I do understand that Ford next year is going to come out with a hybrid. I have not seen it yet, but I understand they are working on one. It may be out next year. So there are going to be opportunities for the American public to save energy, save money and contribute to making this a cleaner planet. I thank the gentleman very much for organizing this special order.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have returned from Johannesburg, South Africa where I attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The summit produced some achievements such as the agreement to improve water and sewer sanitation in the Third World. The U.S. delegation also successfully promoted public-private partnerships to solve some environmental problems. But when it came to climate change, it had no interest in partnerships. The Bush administration stands alone in refusing to deal with global warming. As a former executive, President Bush knows that no business plan will succeed without targets and timetables, yet the President's negotiators succeeded in blocking targets and timetables to reduce the use of oil and gas and increase the use of renewable energy. The goal of the summit was to implement a vision for a healthier and more sustainable future, but it fell short because the Bush administration has no vision beyond short-term gains for the oil and gas industry. The U.S. risks falling behind our competitors who will develop innovative and profitable clean and efficient technologies. For the sake of our economy and our health, I urge the administration to abandon its idealogical resistance to real action against climate change.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Quinn amendment which weakens the already weak civil service provisions of the underlying bill. Federal employees want more than the right to consult with their employers. They want to be partners with the government in the effort to defend our Nation. Workplace rights for employees will not undermine homeland security. After all, if the first responders, the heroes of September 11, can belong to unions and enjoy workplace protections, surely the staff of the Department of Homeland Security can do the same. Flexibility and consultation rights, with these words, the Republican majority puts lipstick on their attack on existing civil service and collective bargaining rights of Federal employees. If this new Department is to succeed, Federal employees will make it work. We should treat these professionals with the respect they deserve. Defeat the Quinn amendment and support the Waxman-Frost amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate both the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for bringing this legislation before us. I rise in support of the legislation. I particularly appreciate the language that the committee has included in section 2 pertaining to the scope of the authorization in the bill. Section 2 states that the $10 billion authorized in this legislation ``are authorized for the conduct of operations in continuation of the war on terrorism in accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 USC 1541 note) and, to the extent appropriations are made pursuant to such authorizations, shall only be expended in a manner consistent with the purposes in section 2(a) thereof.'' Section 2(a) of the Use of Force resolution authorizes the President ``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.'' Therefore, it is clear that the committee intends that funds authorized in this bill are only to be used for military operations against entities responsible for the September 11 attacks, or entities that harbor those responsible. Likewise, I believe funds in this bill cannot be used to expand the war on terrorism to other nations absent clear and compelling evidence that a nation was responsible for the September 11 attacks or is actively and willingly harboring those responsible unless subsequently authorized for such a purpose by Congress.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier this afternoon. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 299, ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 300, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 301.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when I go back to my district in Maine and I try to explain what goes on in the people's House, I try to explain that only in this House, as contrasted with my constituents' houses, do we talk about revenues and expenditures at different times, and it is as if they were completely disconnected from each other. And I think in some places I should tape this discussion on the proposed amendment and send it back to the people in Maine and say, this is what I am talking about, because I rise in opposition to the amendment. But what I have heard tonight calls for fiscal discipline, calls for being tough on spending, not one mention of the revenue side. If I went to a businessman, businesswoman in Maine and they said to me, Here is my plan for next year: I am going to reduce my revenues, reduce my sales significantly by discontinuing a product line, but I am going to increase my expenses dramatically by spending more on staff, and I know that we will be in deficit for the next year and the year after that, but I have a plan. The plan is I am going to borrow money from my children in order to get me through the next few years. There is not a businessman, a businesswoman in the State of Maine that would think that is the right approach. They would say go back and take another look. Sure, take a look at the spending, but in this House, at this moment in our history, we have some serious security and defense expenditures that we all agree on. The alternative is to go back and take a look at our revenues, and last year, when the rallying cry in this House from those who supported the President's tax cut was it is not the government's money, it is your money, there were those of us who said, wait a minute, we can support a tax cut of an appropriate size but not one that uses all of the non-Social Security surplus for the next 6 or 7 years. Today, and what we see when taxes are discussed in the House here at other times, it is always that we have to make permanent the damage that was done last year. The urge to make permanent the tax cuts is a determination to make sure that people earning $1 million a year, $1 million a year, will be able to enjoy an average tax cut of $53,000 every single year. That $53,000 is more than 60 percent of what the American people make in a year. All I am asking, Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side is if we are going to talk about fiscal discipline, if we are going to talk about balanced budgets, if we are going to worry about the spending of the Social Security surplus, the least we should do is what every American family who is fiscally responsible does when they sit down to do their family budget and every responsible American businessman or businesswoman does when they sit down and do their budget for their company. They look at revenues and expenditures together and they say what is the right balance, how can we do this in a responsible way. I submit that this House will never do its budgeting in a responsible way if it does not look at revenues and expenditures together. We are not doing that tonight. It is irresponsible not to do it.

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I align myself with the comments of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations.

Mr. ALLEN. I certainly will yield.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the need for land acquisition funding at the Rachel Carson Natural Wildlife Refuge at my district in Maine. I appreciate the chairman's past support for the refuge and its land acquisition program, which purchases critical coastal, estuarine and upland properties from willing sellers in order to conserve critical wildlife habitat that is being lost to development up and down the coast of Maine. While I understand the difficulties the chairman faced in crafting this bill, I also must point out that in fiscal year 2003, there was a continuing need for funding to acquire a number of properties within the Rachel Carson refuge boundary. The refuge, working in partnership with other organizations, has agreements with willing landowners to purchase several properties. If funds are not available this year, these critical natural resource lands could be lost forever to development. As the chairman is aware, the Senate Interior appropriations includes $3 million for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. I respectfully urge the chairman to consider including this amount in the final conference report.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me and for his leadership on this issue; for constantly trying to articulate to the American people the profound differences between the Republican prescription drug plan and the Democratic alternative here in the House. As the gentleman knows, the Republican plan that was passed last month in this House was really a remarkable plan. Members on the Republican side stood up and said there is a $35-a-month premium. They repeated it over and over again, $35-a-month premium. Yet when we go to the bill and try to find the $35 figure in the bill, it is not there. It is only an estimate. This is a bill with no guaranteed monthly premium, no guaranteed copayment, no guaranteed reduction in price. It is one of those marvelous things that my friends on the other side of the aisle think will somehow emerge from the wonders of the private sector; that we will have a private stand-alone insurance policy that will take care of seniors. It is remarkable that they can imagine a world in which the insurance industry, which has said repeatedly we really do not want to provide these kinds of insurance policies, will have a change of heart and will step forward and will provide a policy that will not change year to year, will have a consistent premium, a consistent copay, and some reduction in price. We know it will not happen. Anybody who has been paying any attention to politics in the last 2 years knows that if this prescription drug coverage for seniors were a priority for the Republican Party, it would have been brought up last year; that it would have been brought up before the tax cut. But for Republicans, tax cuts for the wealthy are far more important than prescription drug coverage for seniors. Now we can see that, as the gentleman referred to a few moments ago, the pharmaceutical company is thanking our friends on the Republican side of the aisle for coming up with this sham proposal and voting for it. This is a hope, which has proved successful in the past, that if you repeat something often enough to a large enough group of people, a certain percentage of them will actually believe it. And that is basically what is going on. Almost $10 million spent by the pharmaceutical industry in the last 15 months or so, $4.6 million in the last 2 months alone, thanking Republicans for supporting a bill that has no guaranteed premium, no guaranteed benefit, no guaranteed reduction in price, no guaranteed copay, but sounds good. It is another election year inoculation. And if we are not successful this year in passing a real prescription drug benefit, then 2 years from now Republicans will step forward and they will say, just before the next election, we have a plan. We have a plan, and somehow it will, like magic, emerge. There was a physician in Bangor, Maine, who wrote recently in a letter to the editor, and I quote, ``The bill would be dropped like a bad date by House Republicans if they and President Bush did not need it in reelection campaigns.'' It seems to me that this really comes down to a question of values, and the fundamental value is whether the first priority, when it comes to prescription drugs, is to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry or whether the first priority is to make sure that our seniors can afford to buy the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. Now, the first half of last year, as my colleague will remember, the President traveled all across the country, and there was not any talk of prescription drugs for seniors then. It was one theme repeated over and over and over and over again: It was simply, ``It is not the government's money, it is your money.'' Mr. Speaker, it was an appeal to the American people to think of themselves first, to think of their own individual interests before the common good. That appeal was pounded in in the first 6 months of the administration, pounded in over and over again. It is not the government's money; it is your money. What is the refrain today? Now that we are deep in deficit with $165 billion projected deficit for this year with a comparable deficit projected for next year, is there an effort to say, We are in this problem together and we have to work out of it together? No. What we see is the same kind of appeal to individual interests over the common good and the common interest. Mr. Speaker, the question really is when it comes to prescription drugs and the other issues that we face before us, whether the governing ideal of this House of Representatives will be me first or all of us together. That really is the fundamental choice. Those who come and say we are going to rely on private stand-alone insurance for prescription drugs for seniors are really saying that each individual should go out and buy his or her own insurance policy rather than having the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as in the Democratic bill, negotiate lower prices on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries. That is what we have done in our legislation. We have said seniors belong to the largest health care plan in the country. It is called Medicare. Well, they ought to get a discount. If they are in the largest health care plan and 39 million Americans are getting their prescription drugs through Medicare, there ought to be a discount that reflects the market power of that buying group; but seniors on Medicare do not have the buying power of Aetna beneficiaries or Cigna beneficiaries. They do not have bargaining power at all today. We have this anomaly. We have the largest group of health care beneficiaries in the country, Medicare beneficiaries, paying the highest prices not just in the United States but in the world for their prescription drugs. Here we have a group of seniors that make up 12 percent of the population, but they buy one-third of all prescription drugs, 33 percent of all prescription drugs. Half of them have either no coverage or very inadequate coverage for their prescription drugs, and our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, for fear of strengthening Medicare because it is a Federal health care plan, are basically saying no, no, you have to rely on the private insurance market. In Maine and many other rural States, 15 to be exact, there is no private managed care under Medicare, no options at all. And those who say the private market provides more choice ignore the fact when private insurance companies do not want to offer prescription drug coverage or health insurance in a particular area, they just pull up and leave. We have a program that works. It is called Medicare. It has kept our seniors with affordable health care despite its flaws, despite its problems. There is not a health care plan in the world that does not have problems. It has lifted seniors out of the condition where a trip to the hospital meant a trip to the bankruptcy court as well. That is something we have to preserve. But coming back to this question of values, what we have seen in all of the corporate scandals over the last few years is an attitude at the top in too many American corporations which basically comes down to the same thing, me first. I will get mine. We will cook the books, drive up the stock price, and then the CEOs and officers sellout. And who gets hit in the end? The shareholders get hit in the pocketbook. Shareholders find that their pensions have dropped dramatically. What happens to the workers? They get laid off. They do not have all this money tucked away. They cannot party on their yachts when they leave the company, as some CEOs have done. They are stuck. This is fundamentally a question about values. Are we going to take our common problems and deal with them as common problems, or are we going to say to the American people, as our friends on the other side of the aisle do all the time, each person on his own? Each person stands alone. Do the best you can with what you have got, but we are certainly not going to all work together. Well, it is time for this country to pull together. It is time for us to take our common challenges, our economic challenges, our health care challenges, our environmental challenges and work together to build a better and stronger America. I know we can do it; but we have to shed that old motto, the ``me first'' motto and get to something that really reflects how much we depend on each other and how much we need to work together to build a better country. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, they may be spending millions and millions on contributions to candidates, on TV ads promoting their point of view, or the feel-good ads about the industry itself as a way of trying to resurrect the industry's image; but it is also the case that many of the drugs that they have been developing these days are so close to drugs that already exist on the market that they cannot get the kind of sales volumes they want without a very heavy investment into direct-to- consumer advertising. Last year the industry spent $2.5 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising. We can feel what has happened to the industry. It really has become a marketing operation. They depend very much on blockbuster drugs. Some of those drugs are blockbuster. This is an industry that does some remarkable things, but they move from the argument that we are earning very high profits right now to the conclusion that we have to sustain those profits at exactly the level we are at; and more particularly, that we have to charge our seniors the highest prices in the world in order to get enough money to do research. That is not true. Just think about it. We are 280 million people in this country. Thirty-nine million are on Medicare. That is a very small percentage of the total market for prescription drugs in this country. There are 330 million people living in Europe, 125 million living in Japan, 25 million living in Canada. There are lots of people around the world who are buying prescription drugs. They are all paying lower prices than the seniors, that 39 million or maybe half that, really, half that group which is buying their prescription drugs from the pharmacist with no support from an insurance company. Mr. Speaker, it just cannot be the 20 million Americans, very high prices charged to 20 million Americans, is the salvation of the pharmaceutical industry. It cannot be. It is not true. But if we give enough money to groups like United Seniors Association, which sounds like a legitimate seniors organization, and they will run ads supporting the pharmaceutical industry's solution to the issue that is raised here, thanking our friends on the Republican side of the aisle for supporting a bill that will do virtually nothing for America's seniors, then we begin to understand how money has distorted the policy-making process in this House. It is profoundly troubling that we cannot get a clean vote even. We could not get a clean vote from the Republican Committee on Rules on the Democratic alternative. That, I think, is a scandal that if people fully understood, they would be outraged about. They expect us to have a debate here. They expect us to have a choice between competing alternative plans, and we do not. The Democratic plan gets buried in a few minutes of debate on a procedural motion. That is another part of the scandal that really we need to deal with. If we do not pass a real Medicare prescription drug bill this year, we will just do it again 2 years down the road. They will come in with a bogus plan and hope that once again for the third cycle in a row that enough of the American people will be fooled into thinking that for them, prescription drugs is as important as tax cuts for the wealthy. It is not. We know it is not; but that is the continuing effort, to try to prove that they care.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that they do. They do, in fact, understand that. The evidence I would give for that is the largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, has offered to seniors living under 200 percent of the poverty level, with incomes of less than 200 percent of the poverty level, they have said that we will sell to you all of our drugs, which average in retail $61 or $62 a month; we will sell all of our drugs to you for $15 a month. That is a 75 percent discount; $61 and $62 drugs on average, all of them for $15 a month. How can they do that? Well, they will sell more medication. They will sell more drugs. We can bet that the cost of producing pills is a very, very small amount of the sale price. There is a lot that goes into research and development, no question. There is a lot, obviously, that goes into marketing. But the cost of production itself is a minor thing.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would distinguish between what they say and what they believe. Because if we look at all of the pharmaceutical industry drug discount card plans, they are out there advertising their discounts at being between 25 and 40 percent. That is what we have been talking about with my legislation and with other bills, getting to a 25 to 40 percent discount for all seniors. The pharmaceutical industry is out there saying, we have discount cards that will do that; we have discount prices that will do that. Now, the question is, if they are willing to do that, what is the problem with the legislation that requires them to do that? Well, the answer is, we do not want to be hemmed in. We do not want to be required. We do not want the government to be able to tell us what to charge. In fact, a promise that is made on a temporary basis to say, we are going to promise you 25 to 40 percent does not mean they can actually deliver that or will deliver it. They will, in all likelihood, do what they have done with all of their other markets, which is charge what the market will bear; and if they give a little bit of a discount today, they may take it away tomorrow. Seniors need predictability and continuity and stability in their Medicare plan. They need to know what the benefits are; they need to know what the premiums are for whatever services they are getting. If it is a physician service or if it is, as we have proposed, a prescription drug benefit on top of that, they need to have predictability. The pharmaceutical industry is not willing to provide it voluntarily. That is why we need legislation, so that seniors can sleep at night knowing that they are going to be able to take the medication that their doctors tell them they have to take. That ultimately is the goal, because ultimately, lifesaving prescription drugs should not be dispensed on the basis of seniors' income. They ought to be dispensed on the basis that everyone who needs the medication will be able to get it; everyone should be able to have to pay some portion of the cost, but people who need lifesaving drugs ought to be able to get them.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, that this is really an issue of price discrimination. Why do seniors in America pay the highest prices in the world? It is because, frankly, they do not have any bargaining power or leverage now. The only way they can get that leverage, get that bargaining power, is through Medicare, through giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to bargain on their behalf. I have to smile sometimes when we hear about how competition is going to drive down price. Well, I am open to hearing from anybody the last time there was a price war among brand-name pharmaceutical companies, where first one cut prices and then another cut prices, and then the original one responded with a further cut in prices. I do not remember that happening, ever. In fact, the prices basically keep going up, even though the utilization is also going up. Even though people are using more drugs, they are buying more drugs; and it does not cost that much to make them. So when people use more Prilosec, or whatever, the profits go up at a very rapid rate; but even so, the pharmaceutical companies are increasing prices on brand-name drugs. We do not have competition.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has been half awake for the last 2 years knows that for Republicans tax cuts for the wealthy are far more important than prescription drugs for seniors. In the room upstairs, Republicans can call Medicare a Soviet-style program; but down here on television, they say they are providing a Medicare benefit. The Republican plan relies on private, stand-alone prescription drug insurance plans. They do not even exist now, and they probably never will. No guaranteed benefits, no guaranteed premium, no guaranteed reduction in price. Their plan is an empty promise. We have been asked where is our plan. The truth is my colleagues will not let us vote on it. Why? Because they know that a real Medicare benefit would reduce prescription drug prices. That is not acceptable to the pharmaceutical companies, so it is not part of the Republican bill. Many Americans may be confused by this debate. All these numbers, estimates, projections. Just remember that Republicans get most of the money from HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. This bill is great for them, but it is a fraud on America's seniors.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4070, the Social Security Program Protection Act of 2002. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for their work on this bill. I want to speak regarding section 415, which will directly benefit one of my constituents, Mrs. Nancy Wilson of Bremen, Maine. In both the 105th and 106th Congresses, private legislation passed this House that I sponsored that would have helped Nancy Wilson, but it was not acted upon by the other body. In the 107th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means raised objections to the private legislation. However, the committee has graciously worked with me to include in H.R. 4070 language from my bill, H.R. 319, that will help Mrs. Wilson. She has been denied Social Security benefits for more than 10 years due to a quirk in the law. H.R. 4070 will fix that problem and give her relief. In 1950, Nancy and Al Wilson began living together in Massachusetts. Al Wilson's previous wife, Edna, had been committed to a mental institution and was never going to come out. Massachusetts law at that time prevented divorce on the grounds of insanity so Al could not divorce Edna. The law has since been changed. Al and Nancy lived together for 19 years, raised children together, but were not allowed to marry until Edna's death in 1969. Then they got married, but Al died of cancer 7 months later. When Nancy tried to claim widow's benefits, she was denied because her marriage to Al had lasted only 7 months, not 9 months. She exhausted her options under the administrative appeals process and then came to her congressional delegation. Well, Nancy Wilson is a tenacious battler. She will not give up. She will not let her elected representatives give up; and I hope and believe that with passage of this bill, she will finally get the relief to which she is entitled. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois, who has been such a terrific fighter for this issue since he came to the Congress. I will be very brief. I just wanted to say, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) was saying, he was trying to explain to people back home what the difference is between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on this issue. I would add, in addition to what he said, that we Democrats do not believe we can fool all the people all of the time. For the second election cycle in a row, the Republican Party has put up a plan which is an illusion, will not provide prescription drug coverage to seniors because the private insurance market will not provide what they say it will provide. This plan will not become law. If it becomes law, it will not provide help to seniors because it relies on the private insurance market. There is no guaranteed benefit, no guaranteed copay. It is whatever the insurance companies want to charge. The fundamental problem is that the people who will sign up for the plan are those who have very high prescription drug bills. The insurance industry will not be able to make money, and so they will stop providing the coverage. We have already been through this with managed care under Medicare. This kind of approach does not work. Everyone else in this country who is employed and has prescription drug coverage gets their prescription drug coverage through their health care plan. For seniors, it is Medicare. All we are saying as Democrats is let us have a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Let us not try year after year, election after election, to cloud this issue, pretend we have a plan as the Republicans do and not do anything. The aversion to strengthening Medicare from our friends on the other side of the aisle is so strong that they will never do it. They will never do it. Only a Medicare benefit, only strengthening Medicare, will provide the solution. That is what the Democratic plan is. That is what the Republican plan is not. That is why we need to pass the Democratic plan.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has developed a prescription drug plan for seniors, but it is an illusion. The pharmaceutical industry is pleased: they win, seniors lose under the Republican plan. Seniors rely on Medicare for their health care, but they are going to have to get their prescription drug coverage from an insurance company, if any company is willing to provide it, and that is not likely in rural America or perhaps anywhere in this country. No guaranteed benefits, no guaranteed premium, no guaranteed reduction in price. The Republican plan is a vaccine to inoculate Republicans for yet another election against the truth that they continue to protect the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of seniors. Why did they do it? Today's Washington Post: ``Drug Firms Among Big Donors at GOP Event.'' Today's New York Times: ``Drug Makers Sponsor Event for GOP As Bill Is Debated.'' Corporate greed and political self- interest are married in this Republican bill, and it should be rejected.