It was not

easy, but Congress passed a prescription drug coverage

plan. It provides access to reasonably-priced medicines

for all Americans on Medicare, yet maintains enough

choice and competition to encourage lower prices and new

drugs.

The Republican prescription

drug plan is not a one-size-fits-all program. Those

seniors who receive the most assistance under the plan

will have a choice of at least two different plans.

Seniors who are satisfied with their own private plans

will be able to keep their own coverage.

The plan also provides all

Americans on Medicare a safety net in the event of

catastrophic drug expenses. It limits out-of-pocket

prescription drug expenses to $6,000 in any given year.

It provides other benefits, as well. Most experts predict

the plan will reduce prescription costs by an average of

25 percent.

The Republican plan also

provides a medication therapy manager who will ensure

that the right drugs are prescribed in the right amounts,

which will avoid the problem of harmful drug interactions

which often affect seniors.

In one area, however, I

believe the Republican plan falls short. To secure

economies in drug purchasing, plan managers can select

which drug stores may participate in the program. I

support a measure offered by my Democratic colleague Rep.

John Tanner of Tennessee, to allow any drug store to

participate if it agrees to sell drugs at the plan's

prices. For many seniors, their relationship with their

pharmacist is as important as their relationship with

their doctor. We should not discriminate against

neighborhood pharmacists.

Prescription drug coverage

is a complicated issue, and I am sure adjustments will be

made in the program as time goes by and we gain more

experience. I will certainly work hard to see that the

issue of pharmacy participation is modified. Nonetheless,

the bill marks a step forward and I support it.

Bill to suspend gas tax

Gasoline is not a

convenience, it is a necessity for Americans. It is

necessary for someone driving to work, picking their

children up from school, or shopping for groceries. Fuel

and transportation costs are built into every item on

every store shelf. I want to see Congress give relief to

the American consumer by putting a moratorium on the

Federal Excise Tax on fuel.

I introduced H.R. 4776, the

Fuel Excise Tax Relief Act (FETRA) to suspend collection

of the Federal excise tax on fuel from the time of

passage until March 31, 2001. This will give a new

administration and Congress the opportunity to form a

coherent energy strategy and decide on what type of

taxes, if any, should be levied on fuel. This is good

common sense policy. The bill will roll back the 18.3

cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline and 24.3 cents

per gallon tax on diesel. It will also roll back the 4.3

cent per gallon tax on aviation jet fuel. FETRA protects

transportation infrastructure projects by using general

revenue to make up any shortfalls in the transportation

trust funds.

Many factors are involved

in the price of a gallon of gas, such as the cost of the

crude oil, and the cost of refining, but another part of

the price is the tax levied by the Federal government.

FETRA would suspend the tax.

My bill also calls for a

study of the impact on fuel prices of environmental

regulations. Environmental gasoline formulation alone may

cost from 25 to 50 cents per gallon, according to one

study by the Congressional Research Service.

One of the most important

parts of the bill is the requirement that the Comptroller

of the United States report to Congress within 60 days on

whether the drivers on the street are seeing a price

reduction at the pump because of the tax moratorium. We

must ensure that the benefit of the tax reduction is

passed through to consumers.

Military appropriations

The Fiscal Year 2001

Military Construction appropriations act moved closer to

law when it passed the House Thursday. The conference

bill is the product of joint deliberations by the Senate

and the House after they each passed their versions of

the $8.8 billion bill. If the Senate also approves the

measure, it will go to the President for his signature.

Religious broadcasters

This past year, a public

outcry stopped a Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

attempt to restrict religious non-commercial

broadcasters. The FCC claimed that religious broadcasts

were not "educational" and therefore these

broadcasters could not fall under the category of

non-commercial educational broadcasting stations.

The question on whether

religious broadcasts qualified as "educational"

arose when the FCC granted a license to station WQED in

Pittsburgh. The FCC rules that more than half of the

station's broadcasting must be for "educational

purposes" and specifically said most religious

programming does not qualify as educational.

Even after the FCC reversed

itself, at least one member said she would continue to

rule as if the new rule had passed. It is time for

Congress to tell the FCC to back off. Unlike the FCC, I

think education in the Ten Commandments would be good for

the country.

Visitors

Maryann Vellanikaran, a

presidential scholar, visited the office, with her

father, Dr. Vellanikaran. They are from Peachtree City.

Frank and Vida Ellis, from Locust Grove also visited. We

spoke about the prescription drug bill the House

considered this past week.