Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this rule, in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill, and in opposition to the poison pill amendments. Today's votes present clear choices. If one is a Member of this House and they like spending more and more of their time raising money, vote for the poison pills; but if they prefer working on issues important to their constituents, support Shays- Meehan. If one works for a corporation or a labor union and they like getting hit up for soft money donations again and again, support the status quo; but if they prefer to invest money in their own organization, support Shays-Meehan. If one is a TV viewer and they like endless streams of deceptive anonymous issue ads in election years, oppose reform; but if one prefers honest and less frequent ads, support Shays-Meehan. If one is an American and likes their voice being drowned out by special interests, big money, support the DeLay-Doolittle coalition; but if one wants a greater say in how our laws are made, support Shays- Meehan. I urge approval of the rule, defeat of the poison pill amendments and passage of the underlying legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen/ Hinchey amendment to prohibit the VA from expending funds to implement the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) formula for distribution of health care funds in fiscal year 2000. Last year, during debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I spoke on the negative impact of VERA on the VA's ability to meet the needs of veterans in the Northeast. Since then, the situation has gotten worse, not better for the 150,000 veterans in Maine. Veterans in my state depend on the Togus VA hospital in Augusta for their health care. Togus is located in VISN 1. Last year, the VISN 1 budget shrunk by more than three percent. Despite this bill's $1.7 billion increase in the fiscal year 2000 VA health care budget, VISN 1 would only receive a $9 million increase. Such an increase would still be $15 million less than fiscal year 1998 funding. Moreover, Togus had a $5.5 million shortfall in fiscal year 1999. These cuts have forced Togus to reduce staff, causing severe strains on quality and timeliness of care. A reduced budget means longer wait times and more veterans who must travel further for care out of the region. Mr. Chairman, we have severely disabled veterans who must drive hours to Togus. They are forced to wait long periods of time for care because doctors' appointments are backlogged. Veterans are suffering and the staff is upset because they cannot provide the quality of care they have in the past. The VERA formula needs to be reexamined. The cost of rural health care delivery is higher than in more populated and urban areas, and yet that is not considered in the current funding formula. Mr. Chairman, this Congress' fixation on the huge tax cut for the wealthy is endangering funding for veterans programs, for housing and for other domestic programs. We must get our priorities straight, and keep the promise to the veterans in this country. Support the Frelinghuysen/Hinchey amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. For 25 years, legal services has provided critical legal aid to low-income people, including children, the elderly, and victims of domestic abuse. In those years, legal services has helped low-income Americans fight unjust eviction from their apartments, arbitrary government actions, and consumer fraud. And reflecting their level of concern for low-income Americans, the Republican leadership has slashed funding for the Legal Services Corporation. The Republican leadership is prepared to give a $792 billion tax break to the rich. It is also trying to cut $159 million in legal aid to the poor. The other side of the aisle argues that those who pay little in taxes should get no tax relief, and some of them argue that those with little recourse to our legal system should get no legal aid, but not all of them. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and others who have spoken today have stood up for legal services and have stood up for the principle of equal justice under law. The bill before us cuts funding for the Legal Services Corporation in half. Mr. Chairman, with this cut, more than 250,000 families will be denied access to legal counsel in the courts, and there will be only one Legal Services Corporation for every 24,000 low-income Americans. This drastic cut to Legal Services funding will hurt hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly those who live in rural areas, because legal services programs will have to close neighborhood offices and limit their services. I believe that claims that Legal Services is misrepresenting the number of people it has helped are vastly overstated and have been properly addressed, but it is the latest excuse for those who year after year after year after year come to this floor to do just what they are trying to do today and cut out legal aid for the poor. We should listen to the scores of businesses, religious organizations, seniors' groups and victims' advocacy groups that support the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. Chairman, I would have thought that legal services for the poor to help ensure equal justice under law was a conservative ideal, an ideal rooted in our Constitution. I believe it is simply wrong to slam the courthouse doors shut on the poor simply because they do not have the money to obtain legal counsel. In Maine, one of the great advocates for legal services for the poor is a man named Howard Dana. He was appointed to the Legal Services Board, I believe, by President Reagan, and year after year after year in the 1980s he fought to make sure that the Legal Services Corporation remained in existence and was adequately funded. He was and remains a conservative Republican. As I said, this is a conservative ideal: equal justice under law. He is now a distinguished judge on the Maine Supreme Court, and I know he stands by the beliefs that he held as a member of the board. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember that although Legal Services attorneys may not be convenient, they may be inconvenient, for landlords, for corporations, and even for this government, inconvenience is no argument for subverting a fundamental principle of our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support the bi- partisan Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment which would restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. All Americans deserve equal justice under law, not just those who cannot afford it. Keep the courthouse door open for all Americans.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1999, a bill to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent nationwide. I am pleased to be joined by 27 of my colleagues who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this important bipartisan legislation. Although mercury is a naturally occurring element, it has built up to dangerous levels in the environment. Mercury pollution impairs the reproductive and nervous systems of freshwater fish and wildlife, especially loons. It can be extremely harmful when ingested by humans. It is especially dangerous to pregnant women, children, and developing fetuses. Ingesting mercury can severely damage the central nervous system, causing numbness in extremities, impaired vision, kidney disease, and in some cases even death. According to EPA's mercury study report to Congress, exposure to mercury poses a significant threat to human health, and concentrations of mercury in the environment are increasing. The report concludes that mercury pollution in the U.S. comes primarily from a few categories of combustion units and incinerators. Together, these sources emit more than 155 tons of mercury into our environment each year. These emissions can be suspended in the air for up to a year and travel hundreds of miles before settling in bodies of water and soil. Nearly every State confronts the health risks posed by mercury pollution and the problem is growing. Just 6 years ago, 27 States had issued mercury advisories warning the public about consuming freshwater fish contaminated with mercury. Today, the number of States issuing advisories has risen to 40, and the number of water bodies covered by the warnings has nearly doubled. In some States, including my home State of Maine, every single river, lake, and stream is under a mercury advisory, and that applies to the States shown in black on this chart. The growing problem has already prompted action at the State and regional level. Last year, the New England governors and Eastern Canadians premiers enacted a plan to reduce emissions, educate the public, and label products that contain mercury. Maine and Vermont have passed legislation to cut mercury pollution, and Massachusetts and New Jersey have enacted strict mercury emission standards on waste incinerators. Although there is a clear consensus that mercury pollution poses a significant threat, State and regional initiatives alone are not sufficient to deal with this problem. As Congress recognized when it passed the Clean Air Act nearly 30 years ago, Federal legislation is the only effective way to deal with airborne pollutants that know no State boundaries. That is why I am introducing legislation to reduce the amount of mercury emitted from the largest polluters. This bill sets mercury emission standards for coal-fired utilities, waste combustors, commercial and industrial boilers, chlor-alkali plants, and Portland cement plants. According to the EPA's report to Congress, these sources are responsible for more than 87 percent of all mercury emissions in the U.S. My bill also phases out the use of mercury in products and ensures that municipalities work with waste incinerators that keep products that contain mercury out of the waste stream. It would also require a recycling program for products that contain mercury as an essential component and increases research into the effects of mercury pollution. With mercury levels in the environment growing every year, it is long past time to enact a comprehensive strategy for controlling mercury pollution. We have the technology for companies to meet these standards, and this bill will allow them to choose the best approach for their facility. We have reduced or eliminated other toxins without the catastrophic effects that some industries predicted. Now we should eliminate dangerous levels of mercury. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stop mercury from polluting our waters, infecting our fish and wildlife, and threatening the health of our children.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, anyone who has been paying attention in this country in the last year would think, would know, that we have got some problems with Medicare. The program becomes insolvent in the year 2015. So let us look at this Republican tax cut proposal. It devotes $792 billion for tax cuts and does absolutely nothing to strengthen and modernize Medicare. The GOP plan does not extend the solvency of Medicare by one day. By contrast, the Democratic plan invests $325 billion of the on- budget surplus over the next 10 years in the Medicare Trust Fund and extends it out to 2027. The GOP plan contains absolutely nothing for prescription drug benefits. The Democratic plan contains $45 billion over 10 years to help provide our seniors with help in buying their prescription drugs. There is no question, this tax cut and helping Medicare, improving Medicare, providing the prescription drug benefit, they cannot both be done. Moreover, the surplus, frankly, is not there.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1999, a bill to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent nationwide. I am pleased to be joined by 27 of my colleagues who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this important legislation. Although mercury is a naturally occurring element, it has built up to dangerous levels in the environment. Mercury pollution impairs the reproductive and nervous systems of fish and wildlife, and can be extremely harmful when ingested by humans. It is especially dangerous to pregnant women, children and developing fetuses. Ingesting mercury can severely damage the central nervous system, causing numbness in extremities, impaired vision, kidney disease, and, in some cases, even death. According to EPA's ``Mercury Study Report to Congress,'' exposure to mercury poses a significant threat to human health, and concentrations of mercury in the environment are increasing. The report concludes that mercury pollution in the U.S. comes primarily from a few categories of combustion units and incinerators. Together, these sources emit more than 155 tons of mercury into our environment each year. These emissions can be suspended in the air for up to a year, and travel hundreds of miles before settling in bodies of water and soil. Nearly every State confronts the health risks posed by mercury pollution, and the problem is growing. Just six years ago, 27 States had issued mercury advisories warning the public about consuming fish contaminated with mercury. Today, the number of States issuing advisories has risen to 40, and the number of water bodies covered by the warnings has nearly doubled. In some States, including my home State of Maine, every single river, lake, and stream is under a mercury advisory. This growing problem has already prompted action at the State and regional level. Last year the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers enacted a plan to reduce emissions, educate the public and label products that contain mercury. Maine and Vermont have passed legislation to cut mercury pollution, and Massachusetts and New Jersey have enacted strict mercury emissions standards on waste incinerators. Although there is a clear consensus that mercury pollution poses a serious threat, State and regional initiatives alone are not sufficient to deal with this problem. As Congress recognized when it passed the Clean Air Act nearly 30 years ago, Federal legislation is the only effective way to deal with airborne pollutants that know no State boundaries. That is why I am introducing legislation to reduce the amount of mercury emitted from the largest polluters. This bill sets mercury emissions standards for coal-fired utilities, waste combustors, commercial and industrial boilers, chlor-alkali plants and Portland cement plants. According to EPA's report to Congress, these sources are responsible for more than 87 percent of all mercury emissions in the U.S. My bill also phases out the use of mercury in products and ensures that municipalities work with waste incinerators to keep products that contain mercury out of the waste stream. It would also require a recycling program for products that contain mercury as an essential component, and increases research into the effects of mercury pollution. With mercury levels in the environment growing every year, it is long past time to enact a comprehensive strategy for controlling mercury pollution. We have the technology for companies to meet these standards, and this bill will allow them to choose the best approach for their facility. We have reduced or eliminated other toxins, without the catastrophic effects that some industries predicted. Now we should eliminate dangerous levels of mercury. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stop mercury from polluting our waters, infecting our fish and wildlife, and threatening the health of our children.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I take the contrary view. The Republican tax bill is the new definition of fiscal irresponsibility. We have a historic opportunity to pay down the national debt. But the Republican plan not only ignores debt retirement, it requires $155 billion in additional spending on interest on the national debt. The party that says it loathes government spending proposes $155 billion in extra spending, not on education, not on veterans health care, not on the environment, but on the Federal equivalent of a credit card service charge. Moreover, the Republicans refuse to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and instead give a huge tax break for the wealthy and special interests. They rejected the democratic plan that makes Social Security and Medicare the first priority. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's current and future retirees deserve more than that. Finally, the Republican tax bill gives 65 percent of the tax breaks to the wealthiest 10 percent. The richest 10 percent do not have trouble paying for their children's education, their parents' long-term care, or their own health care premiums. Only the Democratic plan offers targeted class relief for the middle class.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of this debate agree that the Chinese government behaves badly, and does things we don't like. We agree that we want a future China that is more democratic, more respectful of the rights of its citizens, and a member of the international community that plays by the rules. We also agree that U.S. policy should promote a better China. But we disagree on the best way to do that. One side argues that the best way is to punish China for past behavior. The other side argues that the best way is to engage China to encourage better behavior in the future. I agree with the latter. If we approve this resolution, and cut off Normal Trade Relations with China, we can say we have punished China for bad behavior. But will it cause them to release the members of the Fulan Gong religious group? Will it cause them to stop threatening Taiwan? Will it cause them to drop market barriers to our products, and equalize our trade balance? I have not heard a convincing case that, if we withdraw NTR, China will make these improvements we seek. China has 1.3 billion people. It has a larger landmass than the U.S. We can't push China around. Dictates by our government will have minimal, if any, effect on the degree of freedom and democracy with China. These values are more effectively transmitted to the Chinese people through non-governmental means: business engagement, global financial linkage, cultural and educational exchange, non-governmental organization involvement and, most of all, the Internet. The United States-China relationship is very complex, and requires careful management and diplomacy. The sledgehammer approach will not solicit better behavior, and will likely backfire on us. Change in China will not happen overnight. We must be firm and strong in communicating our differences with the Chinese government. But at the same time, we must recognize that long-term change is best nurtured through engagement with the Chinese people. I urge members to vote against H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this Republican tax cut plan is a bonanza for the rich and privileged. The GOP rationalizes this giveaway by saying that government spending is inherently evil. What they are really saying is the middle class in this country are on their own. They have a lot of explaining to do to the American people if these tax cuts ever take effect. The majority whip here said Democrats support big-government programs. Well, one of those big-government programs is Head Start, and their plan will cut 400,000 kids out of the Head Start program in the next 10 years. One of those programs is the Veterans Administration health care for our veterans, and they will cut 1.5 million veterans out of health care that they are getting now. One of those plans is Medicare. One of them is Social Security. And this plan does absolutely nothing to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare. They will have to explain to the American people why, with the best chance in a generation, they do nothing to pay down the national debt. Mr. Speaker, this reckless tax break must be defeated and the Democratic substitute passed.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and urge my colleagues to support this modest $30 million allocation for state-side Land and Water Conservation funding. Since its inception in 1964, the LWCF has been an American success story, enjoying support from both Republican and Democratic administrations. For the past five years, however, this House has ignored the needs of states and communities that want to preserve open space. Cutting out State-side LWCF funding has handcuffed communities that want to purchase athletic fields, preserve historic sites, and ensure public access to pristine wilderness. In Maine $32 million of state side funding has supported more than 700 projects--from the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, to Wolf's Neck Park, to the Deering Oaks Playground. Today, the need for state-side funding is greater than ever. In just the past year, more than four million acres of Maine's ten million acre north woods has changed hands. Much of this land, which has traditionally been held by Maine-based companies, is now in the hands of out of state and multi-national corporations. A lack of funding has prevented the state from taking full advantage of the once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to protect more of Maine's most valuable natural resources. The Maine state legislature, with strong bipartisan support, recently approved a fifty million dollar bond package for land acquisition. But to have a significant impact, these funds will have to be matched with private and federal dollars. State-side funding is absolutely critical for Maine, and communities throughout this country, to achieve their land preservation goals. It's time for Congress to right the wrong of the past five years and fulfill its promise of funds for states and communities to preserve open space. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and empower local communities to preserve their natural resources for generations to come.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. The gentleman has it, that is right.

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

Mr. ALLEN. To some extent. Certainly some veterans get their prescription drugs free through the Veterans Administration. It does not apply to all veterans, but it does apply to some. There are some benefits for veterans, that is true.

Mr. ALLEN. I would agree with that, except there might be some small administrative cost, but virtually no cost.

Mr. ALLEN. If the gentleman will yield again, basically this is a question of market power. The best prices are given by the manufacturers, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, to hospitals, HMOs, or the Federal government, all of which have some negotiating power. What my legislation does and what the President's proposal does, to an extent, is basically say, for those people who are already under a Federal health care plan, namely, Medicare, they ought to get a similar discount. That is all that we are saying with the legislation that I have introduced.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a good day. The President's proposal to reform Medicare is a giant step forward to preserve, protect and strengthen a program that is one of the best things that we do, that the Federal Government does, for senior citizens. Together, Medicare and Social Security keep 40 to 50 percent of our seniors out of poverty and yet these programs both face some challenges. In the case of Social Security, the challenge is largely demographic, simply more people are growing older. And as the baby boom generation retires, there will be extra pressure on the program. Medicare has a demographic problem but also a cost problem and a quality problem. I thought what I would do today is talk a little bit about the prescription drug benefit that is contained in the President's proposal and then talk a little bit about some other aspects of the proposal that I think are very important. Last year, I asked for a study in my district on the cost of prescription drugs to the elderly, and that study was done by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Government Reform, and they found that, on average, seniors are paying twice as much for their prescription medications as the drug companies' best customers, and the best customers are hospitals, HMOs, and the Federal Government through the purchases it makes for veterans or through medicaid. As a consequence, I introduced last year and again this year what is now H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. Now, this legislation would allow pharmacies to buy drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the best price given to the Federal Government. We think it would reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by 40 percent, 40 percent, at virtually no cost to the Federal Government. Now, when I introduced this legislation, I thought we would have some support on the Republican side of the aisle, because I thought, naively, that a bill which provided a substantial discount on prescription drugs to seniors, at virtually no cost to the Federal Government, with no new bureaucracy, would have broad bipartisan support, but that has not happened. I am very pleased that in the President's proposal this concept, though not the bill, is included. The concept is included in the President's proposal by the suggestion that Medicare would contract with pharmacy benefit managers and that those pharmacy benefit managers would get at least a 10 percent discount from the manufacturers for prescription drugs. I think we could do better. I think we could be more aggressive, but it is really a step in the right direction. The President's prescription drug benefit is a modest step, but again the right sort of step. What he is proposing is this: For an initial premium of $24, rising to $44 by 2009, Medicare beneficiaries could sign up for a prescription drug benefit that would pay them initially $1,000 maximum toward their prescription drug costs, one half of their total costs, covered costs, and that benefit would rise to $2,500 by the year 2009. So for those seniors who have $2,000 in prescription drug costs right now or $5,000 in prescription drug costs by the year 2009, the government would basically pay one half of all their costs in return for a modest premium. That is a good plan and a real step forward. What is interesting is the reaction of the Republicans to these various proposals. On the one hand, the Republican reaction to the President's plan has been, well, two-thirds of seniors have coverage for their prescription drugs; we do not need this plan. But the two- thirds is not quite right. Thirty-seven percent of all seniors have no coverage at all for their prescription medications. That percentage in rural areas is 50 percent. Fifty percent of seniors in rural areas have no coverage whatsoever. Another significant percentage have inadequate coverage. So at the very least, we are talking about half the seniors on Medicare and we cannot just dismiss them out of hand and say because it is only half the seniors on Medicare we should therefore forget about them. These seniors have very serious problems paying for their food and for their medication. A couple of stories. I have seniors in my district who have written me, women who have written me and said, I do not want my husband to know, but I am not taking my prescription medication because my husband is sicker than I am, and we cannot both afford our medications. It should not be that way in this country, not when all of those people are already on a Federal health care plan called Medicare. The Republican reaction to our bill, which has virtually no cost to the Federal Government, is, oh, dear, it may involve price controls, which it does not; pharmaceutical companies may not be as willing to do research and development. I do not believe that for a moment. They have not signed on to a bill with virtually no cost to the Federal Government, and when it comes to the President's plan they say it costs too much. What is uniform here is a refusal to recognize the seriousness of the problem that seniors are having paying for their prescription medications and their food and their rent or whatever, an unwillingness to come to grips with it. The President's plan comes to grips with this problem. He is basically saying, if we were inventing Medicare today, no one, no one, would leave out a prescription drug benefit. So the question in this time of unprecedented economic growth, with budget projections that are better than any this country has seen in the last 30 or 40 or 50 years, the question is, cannot we take care of our seniors? I really believe that we can. There is another piece of the proposal that I wanted to mention. I think this is an important piece of the proposal. What the President is saying is we need a competitive defined benefit plan. It builds on the security and the stability that we have in Medicare today. Now, what do I mean by that? Well, today the benefits that people have under Medicare remain the same, from year to year to year, unless Congress acts to change them. There is stability. There is predictability. There is continuity in that benefit structure. But if private insurance companies come into Medicare, take over Medicare, what we will find is the benefits will start changing; prescription drugs that are covered today will not be covered next year; the benefits will change; the premiums will change, and we will wind up with confusion, with lack of clarity, with instability and with lack of predictability. That is not what seniors in this country need. Now, what the President is saying to the extent that there are managed care companies, HMOs, operating under Medicare, and that is about 14 percent of the Medicare market right now, they ought to be providing a basic, defined benefit plan which cannot be changed. Stability, continuity, predictability, that is the kind of competition we need, over price, over quality, but not over variation in benefits. Private health insurance companies will also act to exclude the sickest and the poorest and to cover the healthy and the wealthy. That, again, is not what our seniors need. We want the equity of this existing Medicare system to continue under any reform proposal. What is exciting about the President's proposal is that he has made the commitment to preserve the equity in the system, he has made the commitment to expand and improve on the benefit structure by adding a Medicare benefit, and he has also insured the solvency of Medicare out to the year 2027. This is a remarkable achievement. We should not let this opportunity pass by. We have a chance in this country now to take the two programs that mean the most to our seniors, social security and Medicare, and use the surplus that we have, set it aside, save it, and take care of these two major commitments of the Federal government. The message is clear, first things first. We have a commitment to our seniors, social security, and Medicare. We have the resources to make sure that the government follows through on that commitment, and we ought not to let this opportunity pass by. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sadly misnamed Child Custody Protection Act. This bill does not encourage young women to ask a trusted adult for much-needed assistance. Instead, this bill will cause some young women to face decisions about their pregnancy alone. Parental involvement in a minor's decision about her pregnancy is, of course, the ideal. For most teens it is the reality. But some teenagers, for various reasons, simply cannot or will not confide in a parent. This bill will make criminals of some grandmothers, aunts, or other relatives that help pregnant teenagers exercise their legal rights. This bill would endanger the health and lives of young women who, for a variety of reasons, including fear of abuse, are unable to involve a parent in their decision-making. This bill is about politics, not sound legislation. We should be talking today about what we can agree on, how to involve adults in the decision-making process. We should look at policies that work, like the Adult Involvement Law that exists in my home State of Maine. The Maine Adult Involvement Law recognizes that parental involvement and guidance is the ideal for young women facing decisions regarding a pregnancy. However, when parental involvement is not possible, teens should not be alone. Maine's Adult Involvement Law allows young women to turn to a trusted adult for advice and counsel. A young woman considering an abortion may turn to a parent or another family member, such as an aunt or grandmother or a judge or a counselor. And a counselor would cover a number of different types of people: A physician, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, a member of the clergy, physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, a guidance counselor, registered nurse, or a licensed practical nurse. The counselor must discuss with the young woman all of her options, including adoption, parenting, and abortion. In Maine, all minors seeking an abortion must receive counseling even if that young woman has the consent of another adult. This provides the maximum guidance and support for the young woman. The Child Custody Protection Act is designed to restrict the young woman's access to abortion, not to ensure the involvement of an adult in her decision-making process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the so-called Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this special order on the Patients' Bill of Rights, and as you indicated, I have been spending a lot of time trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs for elderly. I think it is a very important issue and one we ought to be dealing with. In fact, that is one of the frustrations these days of being in this Congress. It seems hard to get good legislation up to the floor here for a vote. As my colleagues know, last year the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation failed by just five votes, and in the past year the need for that legislation has not diminished. We ought to be able to get it up for a vote, but the Republican leadership is preventing that from happening. So I am proud that we as Democrats today took the first step to filing a discharge petition, and lots of people around the country do not know what a discharge petition is, but it is a procedure by which we can bring legislation to the floor if we get 218 signatures on that petition without having it to go through the Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules. As my colleagues know, we have already had to start a discharge petition in this House to try to get campaign finance reform legislation to the floor. Again, there was legislation that passed in the last Congress by 252 votes. With 252 Members supporting the legislation we still cannot bring that up. So we are going to try the same procedural tactic that we have used there. As my colleagues know, my home State of Maine has been slow to move to managed care particularly under Medicare. We only have a few hundred people signed up for managed care under Medicare. But people are still anxious about HMOs and about managed care. In many respects what managed care companies are doing is good. The emphasis on prevention, when it is there is a real step forward in helping people take care of themselves in ways that perhaps they have not before. But it is very important that managed care be more than managed cost. In the early days of managed care it has been clear that the companies have been successful in driving down costs. All we are saying with the Patients' Bill of Rights is we want to make sure that driving down costs does not come at the expense of quality care. That is really what this is all about. We want to make sure that certain provisions are really there for everyone. Some States have enacted patient protections. My home State of Maine has, but there are still people because of Federal preemption who are not covered by those State laws. In Maine there are 250,000 people roughly who are not covered by the State patient protection provisions. My constituents recognize we need a national solution to a national problem, and that national solution is the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. I know you have mentioned this before, but I want to go over what it would do. First of all, it would guarantee access to necessary care. The bill provides direct access to a specialist for patients with serious ongoing conditions. The bill requires access to and payment for emergency service. People who go to the emergency room when they are hurting need to know that as long as a reasonably prudent lay person would do that, they are going to be paid, they are going to get coverage for that service. The bill also allows doctors to prescribe prescription drugs that are not on an HMO's predetermined list so that the doctor is making the decision, the doctor and the patient are making the decision, about the most appropriate care. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act also provides a fair and timely appeal process when health plans deny care. The bill holds managed care plans accountable when their decisions to withhold or limit care injures patients, and it also guarantees protections for the provider patient relationship. The bill bans gag clauses as well as bonuses and other financial incentives to doctors to deny care. The bill protects providers who advocate on behalf of their patients with the insurance company. And furthermore, the bill prevents drive-through mastectomies and other arbitrary medically inappropriate decisions by plans. The American people are clear on this issue. They want real protection, they do not want a watered down bill, and we have a chance in this Congress to enact real reform, and that real reform would make health care plans accountable for their mistakes just as everyone else in this country except foreign diplomats are responsible for their mistakes. I think this is a case where, as my colleagues know, we know the problem, we are just this far away from finding the right solution to the problem. We ought to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. I regret that we have to go through this discharge petition process in order to try to bring this matter to the floor. It ought to come to the floor now. We have had some Republicans in the past Congress who have been willing to sign on and support this legislation, and I hope we will have Republicans supporting this again, but for now we are simply going to do everything we can as Democrats just to say: Give us a vote, give the American people a chance to express their opinion, and let their representatives cast the vote on the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. We ask for support for that particular legislation. And I just want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my friend and colleague, ``We really appreciate all the work you do on health care in general, and in particular, on the Patients' Bill of Rights Act.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, we have a peace plan for Kosovo. Milosevic's troops are moving out, peacekeepers are moving in, the refugees are going home. America can claim a victory by the outstanding young men and women in our armed services. Yet this House could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We must support the agreement, provide the funds, back the peacekeepers. Instead, in this bill, the Republican majority has chosen to cut the funds, to pull back the peacekeepers. This bill prohibits funding after September 30 for any U.S. military involvement in Kosovo, even to help secure the peace. Not only that, two other Republicans, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have amendments that would undermine the peace plan by banning peacekeepers. We should defeat these and approve the Skelton amendment to strike the provisions in the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, faced with tough choices, the President concluded that the risks of action were outweighed by the risks of inaction. Turns out he was right and the naysayers were wrong. The naysayers said to ignore this ethnic cleansing, it is not our problem. The President said Milosevic's brutality must not stand. The naysayers said, never mind. The President said, never again. The naysayers warned of American battle deaths, but not one American has been lost in combat. The naysayers said the conflict would spread, but it has been contained. The naysayers said it would sever relations with Russia, but Russia is our partner in the peace plan. Criticism is easy, but leadership takes courage. This House has not shown courage on Kosovo. It has acted irresponsibly, voting against withdrawing troops, voting against the air campaign, yet doubling funds for the campaign. If we vote today to cut off funding and renege on our commitment to NATO, Russia and the world, we bring further shame to this House. Mr. Chairman, we are better than that. Our country deserves more than that. Bring peace in the Balkans, preserve America's role as a world leader, reject these ill-advised efforts to undermine a peace in Kosovo. Reject the Souder and Fowler amendments. Vote for the Skelton amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. There were many reasons to vote against the original House bill, H.R. 4. There are even more reasons to vote against the bill as amended by the Senate. H.R. 4 provided that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense. I opposed all 15 words of H.R. 4 because of what it did not say. It failed to acknowledge how much national missile defense would cost, whether it would undermine arms control and whether a national missile defense would actually work. On the other hand, the authors of H.R. 4, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), saw virtue in what it did not say. As I look at the Senate amendment, I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) have a point. The Senate's version says that it is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system. As soon as technologically possible, what does that mean? One test? Two tests? A really good simulation? There is a huge difference between technologically possible and technologically viable, or technologically reliable. We should not commit to deploy until a system is fully and successfully demonstrated. Rushing deployment leaves us vulnerable to failure. This bill may only be a national missile defense policy statement but it sets us on a slippery slope. Hit-to-kill technology has only succeeded in 5 of 19 intercept tests. Now to be sure, some of those failures are in the booster phase and people believe they can be corrected, but if we have another THAAD, which has failed on all six flight tests, we should not deploy NMD. For other major defense systems, we fly before we buy; but for NMD, however, we are buying before we fly, and that is not right. The U.S. should decide to deploy a national missile defense not today but only if it is tested rigorously and proven to work; only if it does not undermine overall U.S. national security, by jeopardizing mutual nuclear reductions and the ABM treaty, and only if it is needed as a cost effective defense available against nations with ballistic missiles. Let me provide some perspective on this Congress' approach to national security. This bill rushes to deploy an unproven national missile defense to defend against an ill-defined future threat. Yet this House recently refused to support the deployment of our men and women in uniform to save lives and bring peace to the Balkans. Madam Speaker, in the Middle Ages the king would command the alchemist to turn lead into gold but no amount of money or political will could turn lead into gold. Unlike alchemy, national missile defense may work some day but we cannot deny that there is more to national missile defense than wishing it into existence. Please defeat this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) we appreciate her support and hard work on this issue. I yield now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. She has done great work on this issue. We appreciate her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). We have talked about this issue on numerous occasions and he has told me a good many stories about how the high cost of prescription drugs affects people in his district.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his good work. He is working hard on this, and the story that he told about his constituent is repeated in stories from others all across this country, because everywhere across this country there are people who are unable to pay for all their prescription drugs and their food and their electricity and their other living expenses that they have. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who as a registered pharmacist took the lead in setting up the prescription drug task force. I can say honestly no one has worked harder on this legislation than the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As I said before, no one has worked harder on this legislation than the gentleman has, and I agree with the gentleman, we will pass this legislation before we are done. I would now like to recognize one of our new Members, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I read some of the material that came out when the gentleman did his report in New Mexico and it was compelling information. I am so glad to have the gentleman working with us on this issue. I would like now to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the distinguished and more-senior-than-many-of-us-Member from Ohio who has shown great enthusiasm and leadership on this issue since we started. I really appreciate all of the gentleman's help. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).