By REP. MAC COLLINS
3rd District U.S. Congress

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.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page