Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 588, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, I sat yesterday with the superintendent of schools in the city of Portland and members of the school committee in Portland, Maine; and they do not want block grants. They want class size reduction above all else. Mr. Speaker, this session is winding down and the Republican Congress has a sorry record. We have not done very much this session, and much of what we have done has been done wrong. Many Democrats worked hard to pass campaign finance reform with the help of some Republicans here, but the leadership has killed it. Democrats tried to make our schools safer by passing modest gun safety laws, but Republicans said no. Democrats have worked to make health care safer for patients by passing a patients' bill of rights, but Republicans said no. Democrats in this administration tried to make the world safer by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Republicans said no. Democrats have been working hard to get prescription drug legislation passed, but Republicans in the Committee on Ways and Means the other day said no. Next year let us say yes to an agenda for American families. Let us say yes and get this agenda enacted.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, when the Speaker of this House was sworn in, he promised to get the appropriations bills done on time. Well, we are into November, the second month of the new fiscal year, and it is not done. The Republican leadership cannot do the regular business of this House on time. But the greater tragedy is our failure to make progress on substantive challenges. Democrats and some dedicated Republicans worked to pass campaign finance reform, but Republicans killed it in the other body. Democrats tried to make our streets and our schools safer for children by passing modest gun safety provisions; Republicans killed it. Democrats tried to make health care safer for patients by passing a Patients' Bill of Rights; Republicans killed it. Democrats tried to make this world safer by passing the comprehensive test ban treaty; Republicans killed it. Democrats tried to help our seniors pay for their prescription drugs, and Republicans killed it. With this sorry record of nonachievement, it is time to go home and work harder next year to make progress on the issues that matter to America's families.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his leadership and his knowledge on this particular issue. It is good to be here tonight to have a chance to bring some common sense and some realistic discussion into a debate that is now going onto the airwaves in this country. I want to start by trying to really talk about a couple of things that you hear all the time but really are not true. When I talk to young people in my district back in Maine, particularly high school students, I ask them, how many of you think that Social Security will be there for you? And very few, if any, hands go up in the room. They think that, somehow, Social Security is going away. But the truth is that as long as people in this country are working, Social Security will be there. There will always be Social Security revenues coming in, as they do now, that are turned around and going out to pay benefits to people who need them. The problem is that in 2034, the Social Security authority runs out, the solvency of the system runs out, unless we make some changes, and then there really will not be the authority to pay out funds at that point in time. But even in the worst of all possible worlds, where this Congress did not meet its responsibility to make appropriate changes, benefits would be three-quarters of what they are today. The system does not just disappear and go away. What you would have is a reduced level of benefits. Social Security will be there, but it will never be a retirement system. It is a social insurance system. It is meant to protect people from the worst kinds of poverty, and, in that regard, it is probably the most successful program in this country's history. But what we have to do as Members of Congress, as elected officials, is to make sure that the benefits are not reduced, that we figure out a way to cover people so that they will have the security in the future that they have today. The second topic I want to mention is all this talk about raiding the Social Security surplus. In fact, there are Republican ads out there on air waves in this country accusing Democrats of theft, people coming in in the dark of night to steal hard-earned Social Security dollars. No one, and I say this about my Republican colleagues as well as Democrats, no one is raiding the Social Security surplus. No one is stealing that money and taking it away so it will not be available for benefits. What is happening is this: The Treasury is borrowing the Social Security surplus, promising to pay back to the Social Security trust fund interest on the money that is borrowed. If the U.S. Treasury will not pay back its money to the Social Security trust fund, no one will. The Treasury has always done that. Social Security benefits have always been paid to beneficiaries. What is going on here? What is going on here is politics, the politics of a kind that is really very disturbing, because the benefits that people get from Social Security are not at risk in this debate. The long-term solvency of Social Security is not at risk in this debate. What is going on has really a lot to do with politics, partisan positioning. The Washington Post the other day had an editorial headlined ``Fake Debate.'' What they were talking about was all this controversy about raiding the Social Security surplus. It is a diversion. We have a problem, we have a serious problem, but it is a manageable problem, and it has very little to do with raiding. It is all about how we deal with the long-term consequences of this plan. As I said, Republicans are running TV ads accusing Democrats of theft. Democrats are rightfully saying, ``you are saying you are not borrowing the Social Security surplus, but in fact you have already done that to the tune of $13 billion, and before we are done here, probably some more will be `borrowed,' '' but it does not put benefits at risk or the long-term health of the system at risk. It is important. It is important that if we borrow, if we wind up borrowing at all, and, as I say, the Republican appropriations bills have already borrowed $13 billion, that ought to be kept to a minimum. Why? Because there is one thing we need to do in this country. We need to pay down the national debt. The most important thing we can do for the long-term solvency of Social Security is pay down the national debt, so that this country is stronger economically, better able to pay Social Security benefits when the baby-boomers retire, and that is what we are doing. From 1980 to the present there are only 3 years when any debt from any of the national debt has been paid down with the Social Security surplus, only 3 years: The year we are going into, we can already project that; the year we are going into, fiscal year 2000 we expect to pay down the national debt by about $124 billion; the year we are in, the year 1999 is about $124 billion of paying down the national debt with the Social Security surplus; last year, 1998, paying down the national debt by about $98 billion. This is unprecedented in these two decades. We are doing well. We are getting our fiscal house in order. Democrats are leading the way. What we have been able to do is assert some fiscal discipline and do it in a way that will benefit the Social Security system in the long term. But it is not enough. As the gentleman from North Dakota has pointed out on many occasions, in 2034 this system becomes insolvent, so we need to make changes now that will extend the life of the system beyond that date. I applaud the President for the plan that he has announced, because it is a way of extending the solvency of the system to 2050. By contrast, the folks on the other side of the aisle have not come up with a proposal that I am aware of that would extend the life of the Social Security system by one day, not one day, and all the charts and all the exhibits and all this talk about raiding the Social Security system has nothing to do at all with extending the life of the system and making sure that it will be there for baby-boomers when they retire, when their needs are the same as seniors today. That is why it is a little bit discouraging to hear some of the things we have heard, both on TV ads and on the floor of this body over the last few weeks, because, frankly, if we are not dealing with the facts, if we are not being honest with each other, if we are making allegations that are simply untrue, it is the people of this country who lose. There is no question that we Democrats created Social Security, extended Social Security, protected Social Security and will fight for Social Security as long as we are here. There is no question about that. What we need to do is make sure that that basic commitment is not undermined by wild allegations that have no basis in fact. That is what I am disturbed to say I am hearing from the other side of the aisle this day. But I believe, more than anything, that the commitment to Social Security is so strong that we will protect it, that we will protect it for those who receive it now, that we will protect it for the baby-boom generation, and that we will protect it for those kids back in the high school in Maine who do not really believe it will be there for them. We have a responsibility to do that. But this is a manageable problem, and if we maintain our fiscal discipline, if we pay down the national debt, if we adopt a plan that will extend the life of the Social Security system, it will be there well into the 22d century, not just the 21st. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for leading this discussion tonight, and I appreciate all the hard work that he has been doing on this work.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink/Woolsey/Sanchez/ Morella amendment which restores current gender equity provisions to ensure that girls succeed in school. We need to support gender equity and diversity through all levels of education. For decades, title I has included essential programs to address the gender gap in education. Now arguments have been made that gender inequities no longer warrant our attention. While it is true that girls have made some improvements, the statistics show there are still major gaps in areas such as technology. In our fast-paced global economy, it is essential that girls receive the technology skills to compete successfully. Another continuing problem is inequitable teaching. In 1998, an American Association of University Women report showed that gender inequities still persist in teacher practices. While in most cases teacher biases are unintentional, we need to develop and implement strategies to prevent classroom gender biases. These and other examples show why we must continue to address the need for gender equity in education. We should make this good bipartisan bill better and adopt the Mink amendment. First, this amendment includes provisions to keep pregnant and parenting teenagers in schools. This is one of the most common reasons girls give for dropping out of high school. We should not and cannot turn our back on those who are at risk. Second, the amendment continues to encourage title I schools to meet the educational needs of underserved populations, including girls. Schools should develop strategies to treat boys and girls fairly in the classroom and to encourage girls to pursue higher degrees and careers in math, science, and technology. Finally, this amendment would reauthorize the Women's Educational Equity Act, WEEA, which was enacted in 1974 under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), to help schools and teachers meet the title IX requirements that prohibit sex discrimination in educational programs that receive Federal funding. WEEA provides resources for teachers and schools seeking equitable education models and methods. Girls all over this country have realized the success of WEEA and other currently working programs; and given the current continuing evidence of the need, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that girls have choices in the future that are not limited by gender; and therefore I urge my colleagues to adopt the Mink/Woolsey/ Sanchez/Morella amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Norwood- Dingell Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act. This debate pits doctors and patients against the health insurance industry. The insurance industry has weighed into this debate to protect its pocketbooks, not its patients. In TV ads and on this floor, opponents of a patients' bill of rights have tried to demonize trial lawyers. But this debate is how to encourage HMOs to provide better care to their patients. The substitutes to Norwood-Dingell preserve some or all of the legal immunity that the insurers now have even when their decisions kill or injure patients. If HMOs can be held liable for their own negligence, they will pay more attention to patients. They will be more careful. That is all. It is simple. That is what this debate is about. Pass the Dingell-Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Clean Power Plant Act of 1999, a bill to set uniform emissions standards for all electric generating units operating in the United States. I am pleased to be joined by 18 original cosponsors of both parties and from throughout the country. As we approach the 30-year anniversary of the Clean Air Act, we should take stock of all that it has accomplished to clean our air, improve public health and create a better environment. We must also, however, recognize that the clean air act and its amendments have not fully solved the problem of the air pollution in this country. In my home State of Maine we routinely see unhealthy levels of smog during the summer ozone season. We still suffer the effects of acid rain and mercury pollution in our rivers, lakes, and streams; and we are only beginning to understand the effect of greenhouse gases which have helped make the 1990's the hottest decade on record. When we look at the sources of air pollution in America today, one sector stands out as a glaring problem, eclipsing virtually every other source of pollution in the Nation. It is the electric generating sector which for nearly 30 years has evaded the full regulations of the Clean Air Act. More than three out of every four power plants in the U.S. are grandfathered from having to comply with the act's emission standards and legally pollute at four to 10 times the rates allowed for new plants. When Congress passed the clean air act, it assumed that these grandfathered plants would soon become obsolete, retiring to make way for new plants that would be covered by clean air regulations. Unfortunately, dirty power is often cheap power, and the economic advantage enjoyed by grandfathered plants has allowed them to survive much longer than Congress ever expected. Most of the power plants in the U.S. began operation in the 1960s or before. The operating cost for grandfathered plants are often half that of new clean generators. With the U.S. moving toward a deregulated electricity market, it is now time to remove the economic advantage of dirty power. If we do not close the grandfather loophole and level the playing field for new clean generation, clean energy will be disadvantaged. The Clean Power Plant Act of 1999 sets uniform emissions standards for all plants regardless of when they began operation. It addresses the four major pollutants that come from utilities and closes several loopholes that allow the electric generating industry to pollute at higher rates than other industries. This bill, however, also recognizes the importance of fuel diversity for electricity generation and the need to make a smooth transition to cleaner technology. The bill sets an overall cap of 1.914 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from the utility sector. This cap is consistent with the Rio Treaty on global climate change which was signed by the Bush administration and ratified by the Senate. It requires EPA to distribute emissions allowances to power plants based on a generation performance standard. Because the effects of carbon emissions are global rather than local in nature, the bill allows the trading of extra emissions allowances between utilities. For nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, the bill sets both a maximum emissions rate and a per-unit cap on total annual emissions. The emissions rates of 1.5 pounds per megawatt hour for nitrogen oxides and 3 pounds per megawatt hour for sulfur dioxides will ensure that all plants must meet standards similar to those required for new generators. The bill does not allow dirty plants to purchase emissions credits to meet these requirements. While capping total emissions and allowing plants to trade pollution credits will limit overall pollution, it may not protect upwind States from downwind emissions or protect communities around older plants from the local effects of ozone smog or acid rain. The bill also sets a total per-unit cap on emissions based on the amount of electricity generate by each unit during the period from 1996 to 1998. This provision ensures that if energy demand increases, older plants will not simply run longer at lower emissions rate resulting in no net reduction in pollution. Instead, new energy demands will be met with new clean more efficient energy sources that are subject to all new source emissions standards. My bill also sets strict standards for mercury emissions, which under current law are left unregulated. The bill calls for a 70 percent reduction in the more than 50 tons of mercury that are emitted from power plants each year. This 70 percent level is what EPA in a March 1999 report estimated is the level of reduction that plants could achieve with currently available technology. This level is a floor, however, so that EPA can require greater reductions as technology improves. The bill does not simply address emissions of mercury, however. It also closes a loophole in the Solid Waste Disposal Act that allows utilities to dispose of waste that contains mercury without consideration of mercury's severe environmental and health effects. My bill ensures that all mercury waste, including the solid waste created in the combustion process and the mercury that is captured by smoke stack scrubbers, must be disposed of in a way that ensures the mercury will not find its way back into the environment. This makes my bill the most stringent proposal to reducing the amount of mercury released by power plants. Finally, my bill closes a loophole that allows utilities to escape regulations on hazardous air pollutants. Currently, utilities are not required to use technology that removes heavy metals and volatile organic compounds from their emissions. These pollutants, which include many carcinogens, can cause severe damage to human health and the environment. My bill ends the exemption for utilities and will require them to implement the maximum available technology to limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants. This bill is not simply crafted to cut emissions, however, without regard for the economic effects of shifting away from fossil fuels. Instead, it recognizes that, to make clean energy economically as well as environmentally successful, we must ease the transition from old technology to new. The bill contains grants for communities and workers who are affected by changes in fuel consumption. It also authorizes grants for property tax relief for towns that derive a large amount of their tax base from older power plants that will be replaced by cleaner technology. Mr. Speaker, quality of our air is not just an environmental problem. It is an economic and public health issue as well. Whatever the initial costs of switching to new, clean generating technology, it pales compared to the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution, the cost of treating smog related illnesses, or the costs of a rapid rise in global temperature. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to level the playing field for clean energy and fulfill the promise of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I would be glad to do that. Again, I believe the gentleman is right. We have to encourage the EPA to take action. We have to encourage the Northeastern States and the Midwest States to continue to try to come together. But we also need a change in law. I have become convinced that it is irresponsible of this Congress to leave this critical environmental, economic and public health issue to be decided by these long dormant legal doctrines, long battles in court, battles in the EPA over the extent of its authority. Congress can and should deal with this issue now. Tomorrow, I am going to introduce legislation that I believe will take a major step forward. It is called the Clean Power Plant Act of 1999. It deals directly with the largest source of industrial air pollution in the country, fossil fuel-fired power plants. In the Northeast, States have taken steps to reduce pollution from electric utilities, but nationwide the problem of utility pollution is overwhelming. Nearly three out of every four power plants in the U.S. are grandfathered from having to comply with the full standards of the Clean Air Act. These plants legally pollute at four to 10 times the rates that are required for new plants. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act 30 years ago, and then the Clear Air Act Amendments 10 years ago, it assumed that these grandfathered plants would be replaced, that they would become obsolete and new plants would be constructed that would be covered by clean air regulations. Well, it has not happened. What has happened is this: Because those plants do not have to meet new source performance standards, because they can pollute more than other plants, they have an economic incentive to stay in business, to keep running. Dirty power is often cheap power, and the economic advantage gained by these grandfathered plants has allowed them to survive much longer than Congress ever expected. Most of the power plants in the U.S. began operation in the 1960s or before, which is hardly surprising when we consider that their operating costs are often half as much as the cost of running a new, clean plant. If we are going to control air pollution, whether it is smog, mercury emissions, acid rain or greenhouse gases, we must close the grandfather loophole that allows these ancient plants to continue polluting. Tomorrow, I will introduce the Clean Power Plant Act of 1999, a bill that will set uniform standards for all utilities no matter when they began operation. It aims to replace or upgrade the oldest and dirtiest plants in the country and level the economic playing field so that new, clean generation can compete in a deregulated electricity market. My bill sets the same emission standards for nitrogen oxides that EPA included in its SIP call. It covers four pollutants: Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxide, which is a major greenhouse gas and which we need to contain over time, and it is setting no higher standard there than was accepted by the Bush administration in the Rio negotiation; and finally, it covers mercury. Mercury is a pollutant, a heavy metal which is emitted into the air. It comes down hundreds of miles away from the source and has very serious effects on our fish, fresh water fish, and wildlife that consume fish; and so there are now 40 States in this country which have mercury advisories primarily advising pregnant women and children not to eat fresh water fish. Mr. Speaker, it is a looming crisis. We need to do something about it, and the legislation I am introducing tomorrow will be a major step forward. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), for being a cosponsor of that legislation and for all that he is doing to try to make sure that we have a sensible national clean air policy that adapts to the situation we find ourselves in today, which is that these old grandfathered plans have stayed in practice, stayed in operation, much longer than we ever expected and are now contributing enormously to pollution in local areas around the country, but particularly in the Northeast where, as I say, Mr. Speaker, the wind blows all those emissions to.

Mr. ALLEN. As we are having this conversation, I was looking at a recent report, and there is something here that is directly on point. I thought I would mention it. Within the Ohio River Valley, this report says, there is a large and persistent area of high ozone during the summer months compared to air in other parts of the country, and in this region winds intermingle ozone pollution from different power plant fumes, as well as from other sources. Somewhat surprisingly, people living in the Ohio River Valley are exposed to higher average smog levels over a more prolonged period of time than people living in Chicago or Boston, and that goes back to what we have been talking about, that this is not just about the Northeast. If the smog in the Ohio River Valley, where a number of these plants are located is higher on average than the smog in Boston and Chicago, it is pretty clear we have got a national problem and it needs a national solution.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking so much about the Northeast because, after all, as my colleagues know, the wind, as I say, does blow west to east, so the Northeast is impacted. But it is worth pointing out, I think, that in many local areas where these grandfathered plants are in existence the local smog, the ozone, is a real health concern, and that can be true in the Midwest, in the South and in the West itself. Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is that many of these plants have been allowed to engage in what is called the ``cap-and-trade approach''; that is, they can effectively buy clean air credits without cleaning up their own plant, and they still get by and meet the existing standards. What I am trying to say in this legislation is that with respect to nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, which produce ozone, smog and acid rain, there would not be any provision for capping and trading; so the result will be that many of the dirtiest plants scattered in the Midwest, in the South and the West itself, will have to be cleaned up. That will be an enormous advantage to people who live in those local areas. And so this is not just a Northeastern bill; this is a national bill. And I trust that many Members from around the country will be willing to support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really appreciate the gentleman from Maine calling this special order and giving us a chance to talk about what is an extraordinarily difficult and complicated problem for not just those of us in Maine but the entire Northeast. Basically to go over a little history which he may already have touched on, but in November of 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule to control the interstate transport of nitrogen oxides, which are a precursor to ozone smog. This call for State implementation plans, usually referred to as the NOX SIP call, was based upon the recommendations of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group which consisted of the 37 easternmost States and the District of Columbia. So that this proposal is not just New England or the Northeast but the 37 easternmost States and the District. The SIP call required the 22 downwind States to submit State implementation plans to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Maine was not one of the States that was covered, but our governor pledged to achieve the same reduction of nitrogen oxides as required in the SIP call States. In May of 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the NOX SIP call, if we can continue to speak in some jargon, by ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to issue the regulations. But the Court cited a doctrine, described as the nondelegation doctrine, which had been dormant for almost 60 years. That is why I think there is good ground to believe that this decision could be overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Negotiations between the Northeast States and the Midwest States to find a compromise in lieu of the NOX SIP call have broken down without an agreement. Now, in Maine we know that smog is not just an urban problem. We know that in the State of Maine, we are a rural State, we are not heavily developed, we only have 1.2 million people. We are as large as the rest of New England combined. Millions of tourists visit Maine every year, and we welcome them, and most of them come to enjoy our pristine natural resources. They come to hike, fish, boat and simply take in the majestic views of the Appalachian Trail or Acadia National Park. Imagine their surprise when on occasion they go to Acadia National Park and find the air is dirtier than what they left behind in the city. During the summer ozone season, southern Maine often exceeds EPA's health standard for ozone smog. In fact, this past summer, the 3 million visitors to Acadia National Park would occasionally find that pollution levels there were on a par with those in the city of Philadelphia. And further down the Gulf of Maine, the Cape Cod National Seashore had twice the number of days where the ozone level exceeded standards as did the city of Boston. So what we have got here is an environmental issue but also an economic issue and a public health issue, because smog increases the instances of asthma in children and severely affects all people with respiratory problems. Even highly conditioned athletes experience a 25 percent reduction in lung function on days that do not meet EPA's health standards for ozone. Some studies have shown that emergency room visits for respiratory problems double on bad ozone days, creating a greatly increased burden on our health care system. Now, the wind blows west to east. It always has, it always will. That is really why the pollution technology that is adopted in the Midwest and the South affects those of us in the Northeast. As long as the wind blows west to east, New England will have an enormous stake in the smog that is created in the South and in the Midwest. If there is any area where we know that State action is not enough, it has to do with air pollution. We have no way of controlling the air that comes across our borders. Maine is doing everything it can to clean up its own air and water and make sure that on mercury, for example, where the State has taken action, but there is only so much we can do. This is a national problem. It calls for a nationwide approach to controlling air pollution.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by recognizing the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) on this most important issue and to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for bringing this amendment forward. The fact is that I believe this amendment is needed. The bill, as it stands, does allow research into the costs of health-care services and access to such services, and I agree with the chairman that conduct into the research of prescription drugs could be seen to be within that issue, but it is better to make it clear. Therefore, the Tierney amendment, which specifically mentions the conduct of research on methods to reduce the cost to consumers to obtain prescription drugs is the right sort of amendment. Whenever I talk to seniors in my district in Maine, the subject of prescription drugs comes up and particularly the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors are not the only ones affected, however. The fact is that the most profitable industry in the country, which is the pharmaceutical industry, is charging the highest prices in the world to those people who can least afford it in this country; and those people are seniors and others without prescription drug coverage. Seniors make up 12 percent of the population, but they buy 33 percent of all prescription drugs. Spending on prescription drugs in this country is going up at the rate of 15 percent every single year. We are dealing with an issue that is of immediate importance to men and women all across this country who thought, when they retired, they would be able to figure out how to get by. But now they find that their next trip to the doctor may leave them unable to pay the electric light bill or the rent or to buy food. This is a burning issue for America's seniors, 37 percent of whom have no prescription drug coverage at all, and a significant additional portion do not have adequate, reliable coverage. In the midst of all of this, the pharmaceutical industry is running a national TV campaign to try to stop any reform, to try to prevent a benefit under Medicare and to stop the kind of discount that I and others here have been urging. This is an important issue. We need to do research. We need to figure out why prices in this country for people least able to afford it are the highest in the world. That is an appropriate area of research. Therefore, I rise to support the Tierney amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a problem that affects millions of seniors across this country and, in fact, millions of other people as well. I am talking about those people who do not have prescription drug coverage. No insurance for their prescription drugs. This problem affects seniors more than others, because although seniors make up 12 percent of the population, they buy 33 percent of all prescription drugs. And studies done in my district in Maine and, indeed, around the country, in approximately 65 to 70 districts, have shown, on average, that seniors pay twice as much for their prescription medications as the drug companies' favored customers. Well, who are the favored customers? The favored customers are HMOs, big hospitals and, in fact, the Federal Government, buying either for those who are on Medicare or for veterans, who get their drugs through the Veterans Administration. That price discrimination has to stop. That price discrimination is making it impossible for many seniors to take the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. What we have in this country now is a situation where many seniors are having to choose between food on the table, the electric bill, the rent, and taking the prescription drugs that their doctors have given them. So some people are taking one pill out of three. Some people are not taking their prescription medications at all. I have had a couple of women write to me and say, I do not want my husband to know, but I am not taking my prescription medication because he is sicker than I am and we cannot both afford to take our medications. That should not happen in this country, but it happens because under Medicare there is no coverage for prescription drugs. In fact, 37 percent of all seniors have no coverage at all for their prescription drugs. Twenty-eight percent have some form of private coverage through a retiree plan, but that number is declining and will decline further. About 8 percent have coverage through medigap, but medigap policies are expensive and often are really not worth the coverage. Seventeen percent have coverage under Medicare managed care. But, frankly, the managed care prescription drug benefits are being cut back, people are being dropped from the rolls, and the benefit, where it still exists, is more expensive than it used to be. Now, what is happening? I have a bill that would lower the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly. It is H.R. 664, called the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act. It does not cost the Federal Government any significant amount of money and creates no new bureaucracy, but it would reduce the prices by as much as 40 percent. There are those out there attacking both my discount plan and the President's plan for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. There are ads. This is a picture of Flo. Flo is appearing in newspaper ads and she is also appearing in television ads. Who is paying for the ads that Flo brings? Well, something called Citizens for Better Medicare. Well, who are Citizens for Better Medicare? What a great name. It is the pharmaceutical industry primarily. The drug manufacturers. What they are telling us all is that we need to keep the government out of the medicine cabinet, but in fact what they are really trying to do is make sure that their profits continue. This is the most profitable industry in the country, and it spends its money, millions of dollars, $30 million, to try to persuade people that what they really want is a program that will continue the high prices that people pay for Medicare. Now, Flo, of course, is a fake. She is an actress. She is not a real person. There are lots of real people in my district who are having trouble paying for their prescription drugs, but Flo is one of the 28 percent, arguably, who actually have prescription drug coverage. But she feels no compunction, her pharmaceutical manufacturer sponsors feel no compunction in trying to make sure that the 37 percent with no coverage at all do not get any further breaks. It is outrageous. There is price discrimination going on in this industry against seniors right now. It needs to stop. Flo says, ``We don't want big government in our medicine cabinet.'' But without the Food and Drug Administration, we could not be sure that the drugs in the medicine cabinet are safe and effective. Without the government, people on Medicaid would have no drugs in the medicine cabinet at all. So the poorer people in this country are getting their prescription drugs paid for but people who are just above the poverty line are not. They are the people who often have several hundred dollars a month in prescription drug costs and they cannot do it. We need to pass H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. We need to resist what Flo is trying to say. We need to stop big money in politics.

Mr. ALLEN

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

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. No one here created this price structure; the industry created this price structure. They have just decided that they are going to get whatever they can out of Canadians and Mexicans and HMOs and hospitals, and then they have decided that they would set prices so that the highest prices in the world are paid by seniors, especially those seniors who do not have any coverage for their prescription drugs, and that is 37 percent of all of the seniors in the country. And there is another 8 percent with really inadequate coverage.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, because I think they are completely accurate in terms of how we analyze this particular problem. We have been talking about the problem tonight and what our seniors are going through, and I thought it would be worthwhile to come back to the legislation just for a moment and talk about the prescription Drug Fair necessary for seniors act, H.R. 664. What we have done here is outlined the principal points of this legislation. It allows pharmacies to buy drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the best price given to the Federal Government. That may be a price that the Federal Government negotiates through the veterans administration or through Medicaid or some other program. In other words, what it really does is give seniors the benefit of the same discount received by hospitals, big HMOs, and the Federal Government itself. As we have said, it does not increase Federal spending, it does not establish a new Federal bureaucracy, and it would reduce prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries by as much as 40 percent. So why is not everyone on this bill? That has to do with the nature of the pharmaceutical industry, with the role of money in politics, and we will get to that. But first, I think we could agree that there is another kind of proposal out there which is also needed, and I know all of us support, and that is a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. A discount is not enough; we need a benefit under Medicare as well, because even with this discount, there will be those who still struggle to pay for their prescription drugs. What is then interesting about the pharmaceutical industry is it opposes, it opposes the discount approach; it opposes a prescription drug benefit under Medicare unless, they say, unless Medicare is changed dramatically, unless Medicare essentially is turned over to HMOs. Let us talk for just a moment about this chart. We have talked about seniors who can barely afford to buy their prescription drugs, some who cannot afford to buy their prescription drugs, some who take one pill out of three or skip whole weeks entirely when they seem to be feeling relatively good. No doctor would recommend that course of treatment. On the other side of this struggle is the pharmaceutical industry. Now, the interesting thing about the pharmaceutical industry which claims that if this legislation passed they would not be able to do research and development at the same level and seniors would be hurt and new drugs would not be developed, is that when we look at all of the industries in this country, all of them, this is the single most profitable industry in the country. In this Fortune 500 analysis, the pharmaceutical industry is first in return on revenues, first in return on assets, first in return on equity. In other words, to simplify it, no matter how we calculate profits, this is the most profitable industry in the country, and the problem we are talking about is real simple. The most profitable industry in the country is charging the highest prices in the world to people who can least afford it. That is why we are here; that is why the system has got to change, and that is why we are doing everything we can to make sure that it does change.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we probably should talk for a moment about the nature of the opposition and what is happening right now. Well, several things. People have probably noticed a set of television ads running all across this country featuring Flo. Flo is a bowler, and in these ads, she is urging us all to pay attention to what is going on in the debate on this issue and making it clear, as she said, that ``I don't want big Government in my medicine cabinet.'' Now, if we want to know who pays for Flo, it is some group called the Citizens for Better Medicare. Well, here is one, here is a full-page ad run in a local paper here in Washington, and Flo is featured in television ads. Citizens For a Better Medicare is delivering a message, and that message is, we want the right kind of Medicare reform, and only the right kind of Medicare reform.

Mr. ALLEN. We do, Mr. Speaker. Guess who is paying for them? It turns out it is the pharmaceutical industry. Is that not surprising? What has happened is the coalition, it is called Citizens for Better Medicare, it includes the National Association of Manufacturers, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the United Seniors Association, and the National Kidney Cancer Association. The executive director of this coalition, until just recently, was working for PRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. That is the industry association for the pharmaceutical industry. In this recent story, a person named Martin Corey, who works for AARP, was criticizing these advertisements and I quote what he said in this article in The New York Times. He said, ``This phony coalition, created and financed by the pharmaceutical industry, is what we have come to expect from drug companies over the last decade. Fundamentally, they are in favor of the status quo, which leaves millions of older Americans without drug coverage.'' Now, I know that the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) has some points to make, but we really need to understand the role of money in politics. What the pharmaceutical industry is doing is taking this, and this is an industry that is near the top in lobbying contributions, it is near the top in campaign contributions, both money to candidates and soft money to the national parties. Now they are running up to a $30 million national media campaign basically to make sure that no discount approach is enacted and no Medicare prescription drug benefit is enacted by this Congress. This industry wants the status quo, or, alternatively, it wants to turn over Medicare to HMOs. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), she was just pointing out that as recently as July 1, 340,000 people in Medicare HMO plans were simply dropped by the plans because it was not economically profitable to cover them, just dropped. Millions of other Americans who were in these Medicare managed care plans are having their prescription drug benefits cut arbitrarily because the company is not making enough money, so they cut the prescription drug benefits. That is not a system that works for our seniors, and that is why we need to change it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. ALLEN. The people that we have been talking about tonight, our constituents, are real people. Flo is a fake. Flo is a TV ad. Flo is someone, a creation of the pharmaceutical industry. Flo means big bucks, and what Flo is trying to do is persuade people in this country that they do not want any government involvement in Medicare, which is a Federal health care program, if it is going to provide either a prescription drug benefit or a discount for seniors. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), was saying that, after all, the government is involved in her medicine cabinet. The gentleman mentioned one way, but there are some other ways. The Food and Drug Administration in this country is there to make sure that the drugs that are sold by the pharmaceutical industry are, number one, safe, and number two, effective; that is, they work. That is what the purpose of the Food and Drug Administration is. We all want to make sure that continues, because if this industry were simply allowed to sell any drug, regardless of whether it had been tested and was assured to be safe or whether it was going to actually work, we would all be worse off. If Flo were a real person, she is one of a minority. She is one of the 28 percent of the people in this country who have prescription drug coverage through a retirement plan, but the rest of the population does not. Thirty-seven percent have no coverage at all. 8 percent have some coverage under a MediGap policy, but those are really pretty ineffective and not very cost-effective. Then there is 17 percent who have some sort of coverage, or used to, under Medicare managed care, but as we have seen, managed care companies that serve Medicare beneficiaries are cutting back on the benefits, they are dropping the limits, increasing the co-pay, or they are just dropping people altogether. The bottom line, this is about money. The industry is charging the highest prices in the world to people who can least afford it. This is an industry which made $26 billion last year, $26 billion. Now they are spending millions of dollars of that money to try to persuade people in this country that we should not have a discount on prescription drugs and that we should not have a benefit under Medicare. It is an outrage. This system has to change. It is not sustainable. What our seniors are spending on prescription drugs is going up 15 percent a year. That is one reason the industry is so profitable. Yet, the industry is simply saying no to the kinds of changes that would make sure that people get the drugs, get the prescription drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) says it well, and I want to thank him for his participation tonight and for his leadership on this issue along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and so many others in this Congress who are working hard on this issue. What is striking about where we are, to me, about this legislation is that a bill that creates no Federal bureaucracy and involves no significant Federal expense and would reduce prices for prescription drugs for seniors by as much as 40 percent has not one Republican cosponsor, not one. Now, when we try to explain that, I drafted this legislation so that it would appeal to Members on the other side of the aisle, but not one has come over to support this legislation. When my colleagues ask why, they have to look at political contributions to the parties and candidates. The pharmaceutical industry gives overwhelmingly to Republicans rather than Democrats. It gives to Democrats as well. My colleagues have to ask themselves whether or not it is the role of big money and politics that is shaping this debate. I believe that we cannot leave this Congress without doing something about the high cost of prescription drugs. We need to do at least two things. One is to pass H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act, and one is to get a benefit, coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare. This country is big enough and strong enough and wealthy enough to take care of those seniors particularly who are having a very difficult time affording the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. We can do better as a country. We can do much better. But to do better means that we cannot let the pharmaceutical industry dictate the results. We are not going to allow Medicare to be taken over by HMOs, and we are not going to allow the pricing of prescription drugs to continue solely at the determination of the pharmaceutical industry. There needs to be some countervailing market power. All we are saying is that, just as the Federal Government buys toilet paper and automobiles and desks and lamps and tries to get the best deal for the taxpayer, it should try to negotiate a discount for those seniors who are already on a Federal health care plan called Medicare. If we do that, if we do that, many more seniors all across this country will be able to sleep at night knowing that they can afford both their meals and their prescription drugs and their rent, and they may just, maybe, have a chance to live out their lives the way they thought they could, the way they thought they could when they figured out how much they would have for retirement, instead of living in a world where every trip to a doctor may mean another $100 a month in a prescription drug cost that they simply cannot handle. This system does not work. It needs to change. I believe, in this Congress, it will be changed. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for implementing legislation to substantially reduce the exorbitant prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Our current Medicare program drastically fails to offer protection against the costs of most outpatient prescription drugs. H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999 aims to create an affordable prescription drug benefit program what will expand the accessibility and autonomy of all Medicare patients. This bill will protect Medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers and make prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. Currently, Medicare offers a very limited prescription drug benefit plan for the 39 million aged and disabled persons obtaining its services. Many of these beneficiaries have to supplement their Medicare health insurance program with private or public health insurance in order to cover the astronomical costs not met by Medicare. Unfortunately, most of these plans offer very little drug cost coverage, if any at all. Therefore, Medicare patients across the U.S. are forced to pay over half of their total drug expenses out-of-pocket as compared to 34 percent paid by the population as a whole. Due to these burdensome circumstances, patients are forced to spend more of their limited resources on drugs which hampers access to adequate medication needed to successfully treat conditions for many of these individuals. In 1995, we found that persons with supplementary prescription drug coverage used 20.3 prescriptions per year compared to 15.3 for those individuals lacking supplementary coverage. The patients without supplementary coverage were forced to compromise their health because they could not afford to pay for the additional drugs that they needed. The quality and life of these individuals continues to deteriorate while we continued to limit their access to basic health necessities. H.R. 664 will tackle this problem by allowing our patients to purchase prescription drugs at a lower price. Why should senior citizens have to continually compromise their health by being forced to decide which prescription drugs to buy and which drugs not to take, simply because of budgetary caps that limit their access to treat the health problems they struggle with? These patients cannot afford to pay these burdensome costs. We must work together to expand Medicare by making it more competitive, efficient, and accessible to the demanding needs of patients. By investing directly in Medicare, we choose to invest in the lives, health, and future of our patients. By denying them access to affordable prescription drugs, we deny these individuals the right to a healthy life which continues to deteriorate their well-being and quality of life. The House Committee on Government Reform conducted several studies identifying the price differential for commonly used drugs by senior citizens on Medicare and those with insurance plans. These surveys found that drug manufacturers engaged in widespread price discrimination, forcing senior citizens and other individual purchasers to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than favored customers, such as large HMOs, insurance companies, and the federal government. According to these reports, older Americans pay exorbitant prices for commonly used drugs for high blood pressure, ulcers, heart problems, and other serious conditions. The report reveals that the price differential between favored customers and senior citizens for the cholesterol drug Zocor (Zo-Kor) is 213%; while favored customers-- corporate, governmental, and institutional customers--pay $34.80 for the drug, senior citizens in my Congressional District may pay an average of $109.00 for the same medication. The study reports similar findings for four other drugs investigated in the study: Norvase (Nor- Vask) (high blood pressure): $59.71 for favored customers and $129.19 for seniors; Prilosec (Pry-low-Sec) (ulcers); $59.10 for favored customers and $127.30 for seniors; Procardia (Pro-car-dia) XL (heart problems): $68.35 for favored customers and $142.21 for seniors; and Zoloft (Zo-loft) (depression): $115.70 for favored customers and $235.09 for seniors. If Medicare is not paying for these drugs, then the patient is left to pay out-of-pocket. Numerous patients are forced to gamble with their health when they cannot afford to pay for the drugs needed to treat their conditions. Every day, these patients have to live with the fear of having to encounter major medical problems because they were denied access to prescription drugs they could not afford to pay out of their pocket. Often times, senior citizens must choose between buying food or medicine. This is wrong. Reports studying comparisons in prescription drug prices in the United States, Canada, and Mexico reveal that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than our neighboring countries. In 1991, the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that prescription drugs in the U.S. were priced at 34 percent higher than the same pharmaceutical drugs in Canada. Studies administered on comparisons between the U.S. and Mexico also reveal that drug prices in Mexico are considerably lower than in the United States. In both Canada and Mexico, the government is one of the largest payers for prescription drugs which gives them significant power to establish prices as well as influence what drugs they will pay for. Many Medicare patients have significant health care needs. They are forced to survive on very limited resources. They are entitled to medical treatments at affordable prices. H.R. 664 will benefit millions of patients each year. This bill will address many of the problems relating to prescription drugs and will ensure that patients have adequate access to their basic health needs. Let's stop gambling with the lives of Medicare patients and support this plan to strengthen and modernize Medicare by finally making prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. It is a matter of life or death.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, after listening to my colleagues from North Carolina, that the rest of us in this Chamber feel deeply about the plight of so many people in North Carolina who have suffered greatly through Hurricane Floyd and the resulting floods. No area of the country, Mr. Speaker, has been hit as hard even though people all up and down the East coast have suffered from this tragedy, and I know that I and other colleagues of mine are determined to do what we can to make sure that North Carolinians get the kind of assistance that they need and deserve after this tragedy. We are here tonight to talk about another situation that calls for action by this Congress, and that has to do with the high cost of prescription drugs for seniors in this country. Thirty-seven percent of our seniors in America have no coverage at all for their prescription drugs. To be sure, they are on Medicare, which is a Federal health care program; they are all on Medicare. But Medicare does not provide for prescription drug coverage; and so many people are struggling, trying to figure out how to pay the electric bill or the rent or buy food and still take the drugs that their doctors tell them they have to take. I started hearing about this issue shortly after I was elected to Congress, and whenever I talk to seniors groups I might start out talking about Medicare reform or Social Security reform, but pretty soon we wound up talking about prescription drugs because it was a daily worry for so many people who thought that when they retired they would have enough money to make ends meet. But many of them do not. I have had people write to me and say that between themselves and their husband they have $600 a month in prescription drug expenses and they only have $1300 or $1350 in a Social Security check. The math does not work; they cannot do it. I have had women write to me and say I do not want my husband to know, but I am not taking my prescription medication because he is sicker than I am, and we cannot both afford to take our medications. So last year when the Democratic staff on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight came to me and said we would like to do a study for you of some kind in your district to call attention to a problem or to deal with an issue that you think needs attention, I asked them to do a study on prescription drugs, and the results were astonishing. What we found is that for the 5 or the 10, makes no difference, for the 5 most commonly prescribed prescription drugs for seniors, seniors, on average, pay twice as much for their medications as the pharmaceutical company's best customers. The best customers are HMOs, hospital chains, and yes, the Federal Government itself. And let us take a look before turning to some of my colleagues who are here with me tonight, let us just take a look at the chart which shows a comparison between the average retail price that older Americans pay in my First District in Maine compared to the prices that the drug companies charge their most-favored customers. Whether you pick Zocor or Norvasc or Prilosec or Procardia XL or Zoloft, in any event, when you add those up, the average price differential in my district when this was taken last year is over 100 percent. Seniors are paying twice as much for their drugs as the drug company's best customers. A subsequent study showed that seniors in Maine pay 72 percent more than citizens in Canada for the same drugs, same amount, same quantity, and they pay 102 percent more than Mexicans do for their medications, same drug, same quantity, same quality. That study has now been replicated in a number of areas around the country, and with me tonight are the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who has done a lot of work on this issue, been a leader on the prescription drug issue, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) who has had a study done in her district and is working hard to make sure that seniors get the kind of coverage they deserve. Before turning over to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), I would say as a result of these studies we all worked together and developed legislation called the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, H.R. 664, which has 125 cosponsors in the House. This is a bill that creates no new Federal bureaucracy. It involves virtually no expense to the Federal Government, but it puts the Federal Government on the side of seniors on Medicare; in fact, all Medicare beneficiaries. Basically, the Federal Government would negotiate reduced prices for seniors as a block. The legislation is very simple. It allows pharmacies to buy drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the best price given to the Federal Government. We think this would probably lead to price reductions for seniors in their prescription medication by up to 40 percent, at virtually no cost to the Federal Government, with no new Federal bureaucracy. This is a bill that is simple, cost-free, but the opposition is unbelievable. We will get into the opposition and the big money opposition that is trying to stop this legislation. I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who has been working very hard to make sure that her constituents in Florida get the benefit of the kinds of reduced prices for seniors that we know we can achieve.

Mr. ALLEN. It should be a matter of some passionate concern for all of us because our seniors out there are not getting by, a great many of them. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who has been battling away on this issue since the middle of last year and has really done yeoman's work as far as making sure that the people in his district and really around the country understand the effect that these high prices are having on seniors and what we need to do about it.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLay amendment. It is a poison pill that jeopardizes today's bipartisan effort to reform our campaign finance system. The DeLay amendment exempts activities on the Internet from federal campaign finance laws. While proponents say they are protecting the Internet and protecting political speech, the DeLay proposal, if enacted, would endanger the Internet and stifle the voice of the average citizen. It is a step backwards; it is anti-reform. First, it creates a potentially huge loophole through which big donors, corporations, and unions could pour unlimited funds into Internet ad campaigns to directly promote the election or defeat of a candidate. This would spread the disease of sham issue ads from the TV to the Internet. Second, the DeLay amendment opens a loophole that would allow State parties to suspend unlimited amounts of soft money on Internet activities to influence federal elections. Third, the DeLay amendment could undermine the FEC's authority to require mandatory electronic filing of campaign reports. That is hardly in the spirit of full disclosure so strongly advocated by the majority whip. Despite the claims of the DeLay proponents, Shays-Meehan specifically allows nonpartisan voter guides to be distributed on the Internet as well as other venues. Despite the claim of DeLay proponents, the Shays- Meehan reform bill does not impose restrictions on users of e-mail or Internet chat rooms. Political discussion there is as protected and cherished as it is in the corner barber shop or a neighbor's living room. Shays-Meehan does not require people to list their Web sites with the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, the Internet is growing at an exponential rate. Congress thus far has taken a hands-off policy to let the Internet grow and flourish. The DeLay amendment, however, could undermine the freedom of the Internet by making it the favored conduit for special interests to fund soft money and stealth issue ads into federal campaigns. Let us not poison the Internet and poison our democracy with this poison pill.