Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I come here tonight in order to urge the House to support the gentlewoman's motion. It is absolutely clear that the Republican bills, both in the House and the Senate, do encourage people to move away from traditional fee-for-service Medicare. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said earlier, when asked on a television program about the damage that these proposals might do to traditional Medicare, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means said, ``I certainly hope so'' when asked if it would destroy Medicare as we know it. But let us look back at what is happening in the State of Maine. In Maine today there is no private sector health insurance for people on Medicare. It is all Medicare fee-for-service. So when people in Washington say we are going to change your health care system, we are going to move people out of traditional fee-for-service into insurance company coverage, well, they are going to have trouble persuading people from Maine that makes any sense. I speak from personal experience. Both of my parents passed away in the last couple of years. But before they did, in their mid-to-late eighties, they spent 1 year on a plan called Golden Care, a wraparound private insurance plan that included Medicare. It was not golden; it was a nightmare because the insurance company did what insurance companies do: deny coverage. My mother would go to the doctor. She thought she had authorization, and it would come back and the claim would be denied. That is what insurance companies do. We cannot let that happen to seniors on Medicare. My chief of staff has a father who spent most of the last 10 days in the hospital. He had a very serious heart problem. He was in for one test after another test. He was in overnight. His situation on more than one night was extremely grave. At one point, finally, after a week in the hospital with round-the-clock care, he looked up at his wife and he said, thank God for Medicare. Thank God for Medicare. What the Republican bills are doing is making sure that Medicare as we know it gradually withers on the vine and that it is replaced by your friendly insurance company. I do not have a single constituent in Maine who has ever come to me and said I am ready to give up the choice of doctors and hospitals under Medicare, but what I really want is a choice of insurance plans. Send me those brochures, those insurance plans, that is what seniors want at 85 years old. I do not think so. Save Medicare, support the motion.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for leading this Special Order tonight to call attention to the misrepresentations and the consequences that follow on this country as a result of the disastrous economic policies pursued by this administration. One good quarter of economic growth is something to celebrate because we have had so many bad quarters, but it is not an answer to what has gone before. The truth is that the administration of George W. Bush has done more damage to this country in a shorter period of time than any administration in my lifetime, largely because it has pursued economic policies that are reckless and irrational. Let me call up one chart here that I think will be helpful. The line at the bottom of this chart shows the total surplus or deficit without Social Security or Medicare over the last several administrations. What you can see is how the deficit, the non-Social Security deficit exploded during the Reagan and Bush years. And then as President Clinton came to office and instilled a greater sense of fiscal discipline, we drove that deficit down every year until finally we had a surplus. But no sooner had President Bush taken office than he immediately enacted very large tax cuts and drove us back into deficit again. That kind of record, that kind of policy has a consequence for jobs, because this President has racked up the worst private sector job growth record since World War II. Only in the second administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower has there ever been negative job growth during a Presidential term. But today, 1 year from completion of President Bush's term, we are down 3.2 million jobs in this country. And that is the worst record for any President since the Great Depression. What we need in this country is to get back to a sense of fiscal discipline so that we are not having the Federal Government suck up all the revenues that need to go to the private sector, that need to go to investment in this particular country. We had Members down here earlier from the other side of the aisle, and those Members were saying that there is waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government; and surely there is. But Medicare remains the most efficient deliverer of health care services in this country. Medicare does not pay multimillion dollar salaries to its executives, and Medicare is able to hold down the price of those health care services that are so important to people here. What we have in this country today is a neglect of basic principles of the management of the Federal budget, and it seems to me that there is a lot more going on here than simply the inability to pay attention. It seems clear that this third tax cut passed in 2003 can only be explained as an effort to drive down Federal revenues to a point where we are not able, as a country, to preserve Medicare as we know it and to preserve Social Security as we know it. In conclusion, I would call to mind on that point what the chairman, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said the other day when asked on television. Someone said to him in a television interview: Will not this Medicare bill that you are working on destroy Medicare? And he said, I certainly hope so because fee-for-service Medicare is outmoded and not good for the American people. It is the only program we have. What is going on here is, in my opinion, a systematic effort to undermine the Federal budget so that these programs that are in many ways the great achievement of the last half of the 20th century will be not able to be continued in their current form. We need to return to fiscal discipline. We need a concentration on jobs for ordinary Americans instead of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and then maybe we can get this country back on track.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her leadership on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to air quality, Maine is America's tailpipe. We are downwind of industrialized areas to our south and west. Southern Maine endures unhealthy air days during most summers. According to the EPA's analysis, 98 percent of the emissions leading to unhealthy air days in Maine originate outside of our borders. And so as a result of our experience, I sympathize with those areas which also have pollution coming in, blowing into their areas from other parts of the country; but I do not believe this provision is the right answer. I rise today to oppose addressing the transport problem by rewriting the Clean Air Act within the energy bill conference. The Clean Air Act should not, in my opinion, be amended in secret meetings of the energy bill conference committee. If we look back at the secret meetings of the Cheney task force, they were linked to the administration's new source review rule changes, the clearest weakening of the Clean Air Act ever approved, and we do not need to weaken the Clean Air Act and threaten the health of our people. Portland, Maine, could not have attained healthy air by its 1996 deadline if the whole city had packed its bags and moved to Quebec. We have suffered from such a severe transport problem, more severe in percentage terms than Dallas, Texas, that local efforts could not possibly have brought the city into attainment. Like my colleagues who have added this provision to the energy bill, Maine's former Governor complained that the Clean Air Act was flawed back in 1996, some State policymakers even advocating changing the act to alleviate our burden. The same arguments are being made here today, but I do not buy it. No matter how many times flexibility is mentioned or the Clinton administration proposals, the real risk here is that we will weaken the Clean Air Act in a fundamental way. The transport problem is real, but the Clean Air Act gives States the tools to go after upwind sources that risk the health of our citizens. In the mid-1990s, for example, Maine's policymakers used the Clean Air Act by filing a section 126 petition against upwind sources, and other northeastern States did the same. In short, we pushed for a more comprehensive solution to the transport problem; and as a direct result of the section 126 petitions, EPA initiated the NOX SIP Call, which when this administration finally implemented it in 2004, will help us to attain healthy air. The Committee on Energy and Commerce can take appropriate action to address the needs of certain areas, such as Atlanta, without endangering public health. If this provision were reasonable and environmentally benign, the authors, I believe, would show us the text, mark it up in regular order, and place it on the suspension calendar. As I say, I am from an area that suffers from transport; but I do not believe this provision, whatever its exact language, will help the people of my State. We need to stop this effort to help polluters at the expense of children with asthma and grandparents with emphysema. So I want to encourage Members to support the motion to instruct. But I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) if he can answer a simple question. Would the gentleman agree to provide the text of this provision? We are in an odd position here, debating a provision that has been reported, but that we do not have a text of. Would the gentleman agree to provide the provision?

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to settle for the substance.

Mr. ALLEN. My understanding of the current law is that if extensions are granted for any purpose, there is a requirement that stiffer pollution control requirements be implemented in the area. Does the gentleman's provision do away with that requirement for stiffer pollution requirements?

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

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, in August, 2003, Durward Lang retired as the Captain of the Fire Department of Buxton, Maine. Captain Lang's extraordinary service to the town began a half a century ago. He has held every rank from firefighter to Chief, and has been instrumental in many of the department's progressive changes. His contributions are remarkable in many respects, and reflect the can-do spirit of a man who has given his all to his community. For example, Durward purchased a used ladder truck on his own, refurbished it in his garage, and gave it to the Town of Buxton for $1. Not to be deterred, when the truck failed to pass inspection in 2000, he served on the committee formed to purchase another ladder truck. Durward and his wife, Janet, also started the town's emergency dispatch service in their kitchen. They hired people to man the phone 24 hours a day. The service is now the 911 center for the Town. The Langs also ran the town rescue service together, spending many days and nights helping residents in trouble. Fortunately, Durward has been persuaded to remain in service. Since his retirement as captain, he has served as a fire truck driver. I join the people of Buxton in thanking Durward and Janet Lang for their countless hours of service, and the model of civic involvement that they have established for all to emulate.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the administration of George W. Bush has done more damage to our Nation domestically and internationally in a shorter period of time than any administration in my lifetime. In the last 3 years, this Republican Congress has made at least two grievous mistakes by acting on measures without a full and realistic assessment of the consequences. The first mistake made over time was to pass huge tax cuts for the rich, which have drained the Treasury and created record deficits. The second was authorizing a war against Iraq based on poor intelligence and the misrepresentation of the intelligence we had. We cannot afford a third mistake. I believe that approving the supplemental gives us the best chance of managing the consequences of the invasion. This vote is not a vote on the Iraq invasion. That question was decided a year ago. And like 132 others in this Chamber, I voted no to war, but the war was authorized. Today's vote is about where we go from here. Our primary goals are to remove U.S. troops as quickly as possible and to leave the Iraqis with the ability to govern themselves. The sooner we provide safe and stable conditions that allow for self- government, the sooner our troops will come home. That is why, as hard as it is, we need to approve the military and reconstruction package. The alternative is to leave Iraq in a state of anarchy, a power vacuum likely filled by factional militias and terrorists. Because of the majority's obsession with tax cuts, we are financing this $87 billion package with debt that our children will pay in reduced services and higher taxes for decades to come. The generation that made these mistakes should pay this bill, and that is why we should freeze the tax breaks that the President has given away to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. We do not have good choices as we stand here today, but our troops need Kevlar vests and armored Humvees, and Iraq needs money for reconstruction. They are poor choices, but I believe we need to support the supplemental.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 hours, three more American soldiers have died in Iraq. They are part of a group of young Americans who are doing everything they can to stabilize the situation over there in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They deserve our support. There are reports in Iraq of some successes on the ground, but as we look at the situation in Iraq today, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that this was an enormous strategic mistake, because we are now there with 130,000 of our military men and women for a very long time to come if this President's request is to be understood for what it is. Before we invaded Iraq, representatives of the White House and the Pentagon came to Members of Congress and said to the American people that Iraq had developed some of the most lethal weapons ever invented, that it was an imminent threat not only to the neighbors of Iraq, but to this country as well. We were told over and over again that we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told over and over again that, in this case, Iraq, because of its oil resources, could fund its own reconstruction. None of that was true. And today we know it was not true. This is a case where the administration hyped, overstated, distorted the intelligence that we had which was a lot more obscure and uncertain than we were led to believe. But today we are there. We are in Iraq. We have 130,000 people. We have replaced the government. We have a responsibility to try to create stability in that country and restore it to a better place. Now, we should begin, I believe, in trying to figure out what to do. It seems to me there are three basic changes we have to make, three basic policy approaches we have to make. First of all, we have to take this $87 billion request we have been given and scrub it, look at it carefully, review it. There is an enormous waste in this particular request, and we ought to do our best to figure out what some of the cases are. As previous speakers have said, Look, you have got $3.6 million for 600 radios and phones, $6,000 apiece. And according to Business Week on May 12, this is a quote, ``When Baghdad's telephone system was knocked out during the war, small-time Iraqi businessmen ordered up satellite phones from Jordan for $900 each.'' As the previous speaker said, Let us go to Radio Shack. We can do better than that. The $87 billion includes $33,000 apiece for 80 pickup trucks. Well, go down to your local auto dealer. You can buy pickup trucks in this country for $14,000. What are we talking about? And those who paraded up here earlier on the other side of the aisle and said waste, fraud, and abuse is a problem for this government, we can begin with waste by simply looking at the administration's request. One more item. $50,000 per prison bed, double the average cost in the United States. Those who want simply to rubber stamp the administration's proposal are making a big mistake. The second thing we ought to do is we ought to pay for this. We should not be borrowing this money from our children and grandchildren. That is simply an outrage. We ought to reduce, roll back the tax cuts that have been given to people earning over $330,000 a year, the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. And we simply have to do that. If we are going to be fiscally responsible, we have to take that kind of step. Third, we need to step forward and do what the administration is trying to do, although past actions make it difficult, we need to build international support. More international resources, more international police, more international troops to try to get us through what is an extraordinarily difficult problem. But having abused and alienated our allies, it is hard now to get them back into Iraq the way they need to. Fourth, we need to change the way we are doing this postwar reconstruction. It has been another fundamental mistake to have the Pentagon overseeing this operation. The very people who said we would be welcomed as liberators, that Iraqi oil would pay for its own reconstruction, those people are in charge of the postwar planning, and the postwar planning has been bungled. We need to give back authority to the State Department, USAID and those Federal agencies that have shown in the past they can deal with this kind of reconstruction effort. Those who came to this Congress and misrepresented the intelligence that was available to them should also be replaced.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, nearly 4 decades ago, a program was introduced that would forever change the lives of more than 20 million American disadvantaged children and their families. The achievements of Head Start have become so legendary that I thought it was secure. I was wrong. Instead of directly funding community-based Head Start programs, the School Readiness Act would allow some states to receive ``block grant'' funding. States could then use their own untested standards, avoid federal quality oversight, diminish services, weaken the role of parents, and shift money to shore up sagging state budgets. I have seen examples of the positive impact of Head Start throughout Maine. At a meeting earlier this year, for example, a Head Start father movingly told of his struggle with illness and unemployment; he firmly believes that his children are thriving despite this hardship primarily because of their enrollment in Head Start. At the same meeting, a graduate of Head Start credited her own success--being the first in her family to gain an advanced degree--to the program. Another Mainer wrote to me about her son, whose many medical problems at birth led his doctor to predict he would be severely mentally disabled. Enrollment in Early Head Start provided the early intervention that vastly improved his prospects. National studies confirm that Head Start works: the gap is narrowed significantly between Head Start children and other children in vocabulary and writing skills; once in kindergarten, they continue to make substantial progress in language and math skills. Head Start graduates are less likely than similarly situated children to repeat a grade, require special education, or be charged or convicted with a crime. They are more likely to complete high school and college and earn more as adults than those who did not have the benefit of this program. Head Start benefits all Americans in the long term. Numerous studies show that for every dollar spent on Head Start, taxpayers save $4 to $7 in the future due to lower education, crime and welfare expenses. Yet, the President's budget for Head Start does not even keep up with the rate of inflation, let alone provide enough funding to serve all eligible children. If it ain't broke, why does the Administration want to ``fix'' it? The track record of Head Start and those who benefit from its services are evidence that there is no need to restructure the program. We should instead address its real financial needs: to fully fund this program to provide the greatest assistance for low-income children and their families. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute which will expand access to the program for more eligible children, improve teacher and program quality and strengthen the overall program. H.R. 2210 would simply undermine a program which has been a major success.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to offer an amendment which prevents the EPA from placing a lower statistical value on the lives of older Americans than the lives of other adults. The amendment is necessary because last year, under pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, EPA began applying an economic technique that assumes that the value of a life of an elderly person is worth less than other citizens. After a public outcry, EPA Administrator Whitman announced that EPA would stop using that technique. But OMB is still pursuing techniques that discriminate between people based on their age. This amendment prevents EPA from asserting that older Americans are worth less than other adults. The effect of advocating methods that devalue the lives of some Americans makes health regulations that save lives appear less worthwhile. Make no mistake, there is no dispute here over how many lives are saved; this dispute is over whether we are going to let EPA cook the books to make some people's lives worth less than others. This amendment is supported by AARP and a host of different environmental organizations. I appreciate the supports of the Chair and ranking member. I understand the Chair of the subcommittee is willing to accept this amendment to ensure that EPA does not shortchange protections for senior citizens when considering proposals to protect the public health.

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and so many on the Democratic side who have worked so hard on this issue. Seniors in Maine have come to rely on Canada to get their low-cost medicines, and this reimportation bill will make it easier for Americans to take advantage of lower prices that other Nations negotiate on behalf of their citizens. We really should, of course, fix the problem here with a true Medicare prescription drug benefit and giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to negotiate lower prices. I would remind my colleagues that the Medicare prescription drug bills that we have passed in both the House and the Senate actually prohibit the Secretary from negotiating lower prices. The cold, hard truth is that PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry, has had a stranglehold on this Congress, 675 registered lobbyists in this town, $150 million for a lobbying budget this year. This is a concentration of economic and political power that undermines our democratic traditions. Until we break that power, seniors will continue to pay the highest prices in the world. We have an historic opportunity today to give seniors a chance to escape from the anxiety and the frustration that they face every day due to the high cost of their prescription drugs. We can give them hope and we can make this once again not PhRMA's House, but the people's House. Support this rule, support this legislation.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the motion to instruct and I rise to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of my former committee, for his acceptance of this motion. Certainly this motion reflects a bipartisan compromise that has been worked out not just in this Congress but in the past Congress, and when that happens we should seize the moment. It does allow expanded research, but it stops short of allowing the development or the fabrication of new nuclear weapons. That is an essential step for this Congress to take, partly to make sure that we do not send the wrong signal to the rest of the world and partly to make sure that the institutional prerogatives of this House are protected when decisions of that magnitude are faced at any time. There is, of course, an important strategic deterrent role for nuclear weapons, but 10 years ago or more we stepped back from the brink with Russia. We stepped back from maintaining or developing tactical nuclear weapons. We do not need to go down that path again because if we do, we risk losing further our standing in the international community. Our arguments about nonproliferation will seem hollow. We are today continually concerned about weapons of mass destruction held by adversaries or held by other countries where we believe there is some risk to our security in the world. We do not advance those arguments about weapons of mass destruction if we start to develop new nuclear weapons that can only be used in a tactical way, whatever they are called. The nuclear Earth penetrator is one. We really need to make sure that we are exercising the kind of responsible leadership in this area that the world expects of us and that will redound to the benefit of our own national security.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from penalizing a school for failing to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act unless that school receives Federal aid at the full authorized level. With the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress struck a grand bargain with our communities' schools. We asked schools to meet critical accountability standards, and in return we promised them Federal aid to help make those standards a reality. But the underlying bill, the Labor-H bill, H.R. 2660, provides essentially woefully insufficient funds for local school districts and States to meet those requirements. Congress is simply not fulfilling our share of the burden. We are not living up to our end of the bargain and the difference is $6.15 billion in fiscal 2004 alone. Fiscal 2004 alone, the shortfall here below what was authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act was $6.15 billion. That is impacting our States and municipalities in dramatic ways. Back home in Maine, wherever I go, whenever I talk to educators, I always hear the same thing: you have not fully funded special education. We are supporting that at the State level and at the Federal level, and now we get the mandates of No Child Left Behind and we have another burden. States right now are in their worst budget crisis since World War II, and they are struggling to cope with these unfunded Federal mandates, particularly in education. As a result, what is happening in Maine and around the country is that property taxes are going up. The burden is simply being passed down to the local property taxpayer. In Maine, 50 percent of the State budget is education, and in Maine municipalities between 50 percent and 75 percent of the municipal budgets are education. And we at the Federal level are simply making their burden much worse. This amendment is not intended to weaken the standards laid out in the No Child Left Behind Act. I joined with most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the bipartisan majority, in supporting the accountability standards of the No Child Left Behind Act, and we believe still that our schools will benefit from these standards, but only if they receive the promised money. This amendment simply provides a respite during fiscal year 2004 for schools struggling to comply with the law without full Federal assistance. And let me just be clear about this. The way the amendment reads is that none of the funds made available in the act may be used to enforce any of the penalties under No Child Left Behind against municipal or State bodies if the Congress appropriates for this act less than $18.5 billion. That is the amount that was authorized to be appropriated. So if our appropriators do not fully fund No Child Left Behind, then this amendment provides that we cannot impose penalties on so-called failing schools. This amendment will be a real boon to States because they are struggling so much now with so many other costs and challenges in their budget, and this is one way of saying to them the Federal Government is not going to come down and impose penalties for failing to meet an education mandate that the Congress of the United States has not fully funded. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond. Mr. Chairman, wherever I go in the State of Maine, the school districts that are in my district and across the State, they are not looking just at the cost of developing the test, though it is pretty clear that they do not have the money to do that. They are not looking just at the cost of developing the test, they are looking at the cost of how to operate the test, and they are also faced with teacher quality mandates that are a real burden. The General Accounting Office has estimated that for fiscal year 2004, that the administration requested $390 million, $182 million below State 2004 expenditures as estimated. What we are talking about here in different categories, and that is just one, is a failure of the Federal Government to meet the actual amount that our States and local municipalities will have to spend. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has worked with me on this amendment and who has other legislation pending along these lines.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for a response to the preceding statements.