Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1,100 people in India died from tuberculosis. Last month in sub-Saharan Africa, 225,000 people died from AIDS. Last year, more than 1 million people died from malaria around the world.

The White House understands that AIDS, in tandem with tuberculosis, is literally the most devastating epidemic the world has seen since the bubonic plague of the 14th century. These diseases have killed millions. They have their sights set on millions more.

The President laid out the problem well: nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus in Africa; yet only 50,000 of them are receiving the medicine they need. The great Black Plague of Europe killed 25 million people in the mid-1300s. Last year, there were an estimated 42 million people living with HIV-AIDS around the world. There is little question that HIV, unless we take unprecedented, dramatic action to both prevent further spread and treat all those who require treatment with antiretrovirals and other medicines, will take a much greater social, political and economic toll than even the black plague.

For the first time, the United States is devoting the necessary funding and joining the global fight against these three killers. The President has committed the funding, $10 billion in new money, to stem the growing tide of this epidemic; but we are not quite there.

The limited number of targeted countries under the President's initiative and the small contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, $1 billion of the $10 billion, has stifled the applause that followed the President's announcement about how this administration would fight AIDS.

The President is aiming at only 14 countries, 12 in sub-Saharan Africa where the devastation is greatest, and two in our hemisphere, Haiti and Guyana. The White House plan excludes Mexico, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, India, Russia and Brazil where half the world's people live. It excludes 15 of the 22 high-burden TB countries which account for 80 percent of the world's TB population. If the administration is committed to addressing AIDS, it must also be committed to TB, the biggest killer of people with AIDS. We cannot fight one without fighting the other.

Dr. Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund, told me last week that a go-it-alone bilateral plan simply will not work. While economist and AIDS expert Jeffrey Sachs acknowledges the significance of the President's plan, he questioned the decision to limit support for the Global Fund. ``What has not worked is each individual donor planting a separate flag,'' and trying to solve the problem alone, he said.

The Global Fund is a public-private partnership begun last year by U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan, which draws contributions from governments, private corporations, faith-based organizations and foundations. The Global Fund already shows signs that it works. Government entities, in coordination with nongovernment organizations, submit 5-year plans. Each plan is unique to each country, not a one- size-fits-all design which traditional foreign aid programs have too often been.

The Global Fund recognizes cultural differences. What works in Christian Uruguay might not work in Moslem Bangladesh. No overriding, international political agenda is attached to the Global Fund's assistance. No litmus tests, only a judgment by the fund in collaboration with local citizens and health workers of what works best in each country.

The Global Fund demands quantifiable results. The money supports activities, including access to health care services and purchase of drugs. If a country or an NGO fails to show results within 2 years, the money is cut off. Although 60 percent of the Global Fund's money goes to HIV-AIDS, 20 percent goes to TB and another 20 percent roughly to fight malaria. Fighting these diseases together is a cost-effective approach. For example, the infrastructure created in the treatment of TB has been proven to help in the treatment of AIDS, malaria and other diseases. To cure TB, a patient takes medication every day for about 6 months given to him by a health care worker at a clinic or by a health care worker who has traveled to his home. Unlike a smallpox vaccine, regular interaction between health care workers and patients is necessary to cure TB.

If we fully commit to the Global Fund, that means a minimum of $500 million per year, 2 million patients will be treated for TB over the next 5 years, most of them for less than $100. Our investment in the Global Fund, rather than a unilateral U.S.-waged effort, will help leverage support from other countries.

Funneling U.S. dollars through U.S. programs alone will not do much to promote a united global front against this global killer. In a very short time, the Global Fund has shown it is capable of tremendous progress. In the first two rounds of grants, the fund has approved 160 proposals in 85 low-income countries.

With significant U.S. funding, the fund will continue to support countries committed to addressing the epidemics killing their people. Without U.S. leadership, it will be a fund in name only and AIDS, TB, and malaria will remain a virtual death sentence in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Power Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue licenses for the construction of new hydroelectric power projects. Section 13 of the act establishes time limits for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project once FERC has issued a license. The licensee must begin construction not more that 2 years from the date the license is issued unless FERC extends the initial deadline.

Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one extension of that deadline for not longer than 2 additional years when not incompatible with the public interest. Accordingly, FERC lacks the authority to extend the deadline beyond a maximum of 2 years from the original deadline for commencement of construction. Therefore, a license is subject to termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4 years of the date of issuance. There are many reasons why construction of a project may not begin within the statutory 4-year period, including lack of a power sales contract or, in the case of the bill before us, the absence of a completed transmission line to carry power from the project to areas where it is needed.

The purpose of the bill before us, H.R. 337, is to direct FERC upon the request of the licensee to issue an order staying a license of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska, pending the construction of an associated transmission line. Once the line is completed, the bill directs FERC to lift the stay and extend the deadline to commence construction for one additional 2-year period. The legislation also directs FERC to extend the deadline to commence construction of the project for one additional 2-year period.

On January 22, 1998, FERC issued a license to the City of Saxman, Alaska, to construct and operate and maintain the 96-megawatt Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The project is located on Upper Mahoney Lake and Upper Mahoney Creek near Ketchikan in

southeast Alaska. The project is not projected to be economically viable until the completion of the associated Swan-Tyee transmission line. The Cape Fox Corporation, which oversees the construction and the operation and the maintenance of the project, stands to lose a substantial investment in the project if the license expires prior to completion of the transmission line.

Last year, S. 1843, a similar bill, was amended and passed the House by unanimous consent. While that bill was amended by the House, the official papers that were delivered to the Senate did not contain the amendment that passed the House. As a result, the version subsequently passed by the Senate did not contain the House amendment, and the Speaker properly did not sign the bill to clear it for the White House since the official papers did not accurately reflect the vote or the will of the House. This was the right thing for the Speaker to do. It is important that the author and supporters of this bill not be penalized unnecessarily for the clerical error that occurred in the House. I am pleased we are able to move this bill quickly to fulfill our commitment to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and to his constituents. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise in support of H.R. 397, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) on the Committee of Energy and Commerce. H.R. 397 extends the deadline for commencement of construction for up to 6 years. Not counting the years in which the license was surrendered, this potentially amounts to 9 years for the licensee to commence construction. The legislation provides for up to three consecutive 2- year extensions instead of a single 6-year extension to ensure that the licensee must continue to meet Federal Power Act section 13 requirements to prosecute construction in good faith and with due diligence before obtaining each 2-year extension.

This requirement to move forward in good faith and due diligence is important because when someone holds a license, but fails to develop a project, that someone is potentially preventing others from developing the site for hydropower or other uses. Sometimes a licensee who is not developing a site may in fact be purposely using license extensions to prevent other potential applicants from developing it, a process known as ``site banking.'' While FERC is not aware of any other party that is interested in this particular case in developing this site, if FERC determines a licensee is not prosecuting construction in good faith and with due diligence, the agency can in fact refuse to grant a request for an additional 2-year extension, can terminate the license, and make the site available for other uses. This is appropriate public policy.

The author deserves credit for crafting the legislation in this manner. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Powell's address today reiterated that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but he did not explain how a preemptive war is in the best interests of the American people. Will a preemptive attack on Iraq without United Nations support make America safer? How will attacking Iraq prevent the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? What will preemptive war do to stability in the Middle East? Are we ready to commit to a decade of American troops policing Iraq and the billions of dollars needed to rebuild and stabilize that country?

Before we start a war that could kill thousands of civilians, could create hundreds of new al Qaeda recruits, could increase the potential of blow-back aimed at innocent American citizens, we must think through the consequences of our actions and be prepared for a long, difficult road in Iraq.

One thing is certain: Any action against Iraq will be much more difficult, much more costly, much more dangerous if we take preemptive action against Iraq without the support of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Speaker, last night the President said that seniors deserve enhanced preventative benefits and prescription drug coverage.

Seniors do deserve these benefits. What they do not deserve is being patronized, manipulated, and short-changed, particularly when the quality of their health care and their future financial security are at stake.

When the President said that seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is, we all applauded. What he obviously means is this: If they are unwilling to leave Medicare and join an HMO, then they actually do not deserve preventative benefits and drug coverage, and they will not get any.

The President has every right to push his privatization agenda, Medicare privatization, Social Security privatization, but not by co- opting an issue as emotional and as important as prescription drug coverage. The President cannot go unchallenged when he mischaracterizes Medicare as a failed program.

My friends on the other side of the aisle continue to lambast, continue to criticize, continue to ridicule the Medicare program as a failed program so that then they can justify their goal of privatizing it.

The President in his budget, in his orders from the White House at HHS, recently dropped provisions to serve the general public, the Medicare public, in seminars asking questions, learning more about Medicare so that when seniors were overcharged, they would have some recourse. The President and his people at HHS are doing all they can to cut those Medicare services to make Medicare function more poorly so that Medicare does not serve the public as well, justifying their privatization of Medicare.

The retirement safety net was not put in place by Democrats because we wanted to make the Federal Government bigger, and it should not be dismantled by conservatives just because they want to make Federal Government smaller. The safety net was put in place because the private sector could not make a profit offering health insurance to seniors; so they did not offer it. That is why when Medicare was begun in 1965 by a Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate, with only 11 Republicans supporting the vote on Medicare. That is why it was created, because 35 years ago 50 percent of seniors in this country had no health insurance. Today almost every senior has health insurance because of one of the greatest programs in American history: Medicare.

But what the President of the United States basically said last night as he sat in this Chamber looking in this direction, looking out at Members of Congress, looking at the Ambassadors, looking at his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, looking at people in the gallery, the President said basically if they want prescription drug benefits, they have got to join an HMO to get it. And that is the story of the President's Medicare privatization. If they want prescription drug coverage, if they want preventative care, then they have got to join an HMO, and that is the President's efforts to privatize Medicare.

So I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, I ask people listening today in this Chamber to understand that the President's plan to privatize Medicare, that the President is using the prescription drug benefit to try to get his plans to privatize Medicare into place.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is about the President saying if you want a prescription drug benefit, then you have to drop out of regular Medicare and join one of those HMOs. In some parts of the country there are no HMOs available. In many parts there are. It means you have to give up your choice of physician.

The President talks about choice, but when you are talking about real choice, it is all about fee-for-service traditional Medicare. You can choose your doctor, you can choose your hospital, you can choose your provider.

Under the President's plan, you have a choice. Your choice is stay in Medicare and not have a prescription drug benefit, or you can take a prescription drug benefit and join an HMO.

The Democrats' prescription drug plan is to include a prescription drug benefit inside traditional Medicare. Medicare works very well for the public. It works even better if there is a

decent voluntary prescription drug plan as part of Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to reject these privatization plans and instead put a prescription drug benefit inside Medicare, and continue to serve the Medicare population as well as Medicare has in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 1 minute p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, January 31, 2003, at 10 a.m.