Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague who previously spoke, and I really do not understand why he says what he says. There is no reason why any Member of this House of Representatives should not speak the truth. The Iraq war is unwinnable, it has been a total failure, and if we recognize that fact, then we will not continue to make the same mistakes. Now, that is not to suggest that there is not an exit strategy or a way of leaving Iraq that will not accomplish some goals and that will not perhaps make the situation for the Iraqis better. But for us to sit around here and suggest that somehow the conduct of this war by the President or the Vice President or the Secretary of Defense is helping the cause is simply not true, and we have to speak out and say that. Since the very beginning, with its refusal to truly internationalize the war, the Bush administration has shown nothing but arrogance towards anyone outside its inner-circle, whether that be Congress or the international community; and, unfortunately, the administration is now paying the price and our U.S. troops in Iraq are paying with their lives. There seems to be a sense from Republicans here in Congress that anyone who questions the actions of the Bush administration is not supporting our troops. But, Mr. Speaker, when are congressional Republicans going to realize that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld simply cannot conduct this war, they do not know how? How many more months should we sit by silently enduring the kind of month that we had in April? How many more months can we ignore the fact that the minuscule amount of international support we once had in Iraq continues to shrink? How many more months are we supposed to sit by silently and not question the Bush administration on why it did not develop a post-Saddam plan before going to war? It is time that someone is held accountable in this administration, and it is time for the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to resign. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Iraq, Republicans here in the House of Representatives stand by obediently, wrapping themselves in the American flag, but refusing to ever question any action taken by the Bush administration. Now with the unveiling of these deplorable pictures of abuse from Iraq, House Republicans once again obediently followed their leader, President Bush. Today, House Democrats called on this House to oversee the Bush administration and investigate these awful abuses. In the other Chamber, Secretary Rumsfeld is scheduled to testify tomorrow on his role in the abuses committed by a few American interrogators. I would imagine my colleagues over in the other Chamber will ask Secretary Rumsfeld why he never mentioned these pictures during a visit to Capitol Hill last week, hours before they would appear on the CBS News Magazine. I would imagine my colleagues over in the other Chamber will ask Secretary Rumsfeld why he never bothered to read the Taguba report, even though it had been on his desk for more than a month before these outrageous instances of abuse finally came to light on CBS news. Mr. Speaker, these are valid questions; and they should not only be asked in the U.S. Senate. It is time congressional House Republicans take their oversight responsibilities seriously and call on Secretary Rumsfeld to come over here to the House and answer these questions. Earlier this week, when the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), was asked whether or not he called for an investigation into the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, the gentleman responded, ``A full-fledged investigation, that is like saying we need hearings on every case of police brutality, and I do not think they are warranted.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, for the majority leader to minimize the abuses committed in Iraq does nothing to help our troops in Iraq. The Congress must show the Arab world that it takes this issue seriously, so we can save the lives of American troops in the future. Mr. Speaker, if we truly want to support our troops in combat, the U.S. House of Representatives must oversee actions of the Bush administration. Failing that, in my opinion, we are failing our troops.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know we are going to talk about prescription drugs tonight, but I just want to say that I heard the gentleman from California also, and he kept referencing France and Germany and how their economies were not doing well and the U.S. was doing so well. I do not know how he can make those comparisons because I do not think the United States is doing well at all. I saw an analysis yesterday in terms of what was happening to the United States in terms of job losses as opposed to Canada, and it showed dramatically that even though the Canadian economy is very dependent on the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy actually increased the number of jobs over the 4 years at the same time that jobs were being lost here under President Bush's Presidency. It said the reason was because in Canada, although they gave tax cuts, the tax cuts all went to the middle class and working people, and those people basically got that money and reinvested it and created more jobs, and it also talked about how productivity in Canada and the United States increased at about the same amount over the last 4 years, but in the United States the profits from the increased productivity went to corporate profit whereas in Canada, the increase in productivity was passed on to workers in higher wages and they invested it and created more jobs. The gentleman from California was comparing other countries, and he did not mention Canada. The reality is if we look at the Canadian experience in the last 4 years, it is the Republican policies in the United States, huge tax cuts to the rich, taking the money from increased productivity and giving it back in corporate profits and not giving it to workers, this has resulted in a huge difference between our two countries. We lose the jobs, and in Canada they increase the number of jobs. It is the President's policies which have caused these job losses. It is not something that is inevitable, it is something that he has caused with his Republican majority.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, everything the gentleman said is absolutely true. I saw the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) show the variation cards, and I think he has to make it clear, they are not getting all those cards. They are just going to choose one.

Mr. PALLONE. Also, I do not know how the senior citizens will be able to make a decision which card to use. They have a Web site and you can go on that Website, and they will give you the different cards and tell you what is covered and what the cost is going to be today, but a lot of seniors are not just taking one drug, too. So they are supposed to look through all these different cards and decide which is the best based on the particular cost for the particular medicine or several medicines at a given time, but there is no guarantee of anything. There is no guarantee that discount is going to be there the next day because it can be changed. My understanding is they have to provide some type of drug like Lipitor, but they do not need to provide Lipitor.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, they are only comparing cards on this Web site and the fact of the matter is if we look at any one of these drugs, and I am going to use Lipitor. This is from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, what they did is they not only posted the prices for drug cards, but also what you can get at some drug companies like cvs.com or drugstore.com or costco.com or what the price might be in a Canadian drugstore. Lipitor, for example, the cheapest is actually at drugstore.com. It may very well be there is a card that is not even on the list that will give a better discount, or you can get it online through one of the other companies or drugstores that is offered online; and certainly in almost every case, the price is less in Canada. So the whole notion of trying to give seniors a choice is just based on the notion that somehow these cards sponsored by the government are going to give them a good choice. Reality is they are not. The same drug is cheaper elsewhere on the Internet.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned this $18 million payday. I do not have it in front of us to show, but I wanted to read one of the ads that began airing this week. It shows a line of older people at a pharmacy. Most have Medicare- approved cards that emit a blue light. The announcer says, ``Good news for those with Medicare. You can get savings on prescriptions.'' At the end, there is a disappointed looking man that steps to the pharmacy counter without a Medicare-approved card, and the announcer says, ``Because you either have the power to save, or you do not.'' Essentially, the whole emphasis here is that you are going to save money. As my colleague from Washington said, it is essentially a lie. I guess we cannot use the word ``lie'' here. It is just a total misrepresentation of the truth. In some ways, I do not want to say I am glad, because it is such a tragedy and it is almost immoral, as the gentleman pointed out, but in some ways I am almost glad we have this experience with the discount drug cards for the next 6 months or 2 years before the year 2006 when the so-called Medicare prescription drug benefit gets into place, because I strongly believe that when the seniors see what this discounts card is and what a fraud and sham it is, they are going to want to repeal this whole bill, and maybe we'll have the opportunity over the next 6 months or a year to show what a sham this discount card is and actually get the votes to repeal this lousy bill that is not helping anybody. One of the things that I did not mention, and I think we should, we mentioned the fact there is no guaranteed discount from the card sponsors. We said that. Then we said there is no guaranteed discount on particular medicines. Then we also said there is no guarantee that the discount offered by a particular card will be the lowest price available for a particular individual, because they might be able to get another card or go on the Internet and find a lower price. But what we did not mention is there is no guaranteed access to any particular pharmacy, and that the final price paid for prescriptions will vary from pharmacy to pharmacy. So even if you get the card and you think you are going to get the savings, which you do not necessarily get, because they can change it from day to day, or you do not necessarily get the drug you think you are getting because they can change the drug, you may not be able to go to your local pharmacy or any particular pharmacy nearby, because that pharmacy may decide they are not going to honor the card. Then, in addition to that, the way I understand it, is they can charge a different price, because they can decide at the pharmacy whether they are going to make a little more profit or not on the particular drug they sell. We have also have had some the companies, this web site has only been on, I do not know how long, I guess a few days or maybe a few weeks, but already some of the companies are writing back, and I had one of them, saying that the information that is being given on the web site about their card is not accurate. I just have never seen so much misinformation, untruth. I do not know how to describe it.

Mr. PALLONE. Essentially it is a lie, because it is not the truth, because they are saying that the main goal here is to save money. There is no reason to believe that. But I just go back to what my colleague from Maine said. The purpose of all this is to get people used to privatization, and not used to a government program like Medicare. And I am beginning to believe, maybe I am too optimistic, that when people see how lousy the private sector is, if this is an example of it, they are not going to want it and they are going to reject it. That is the only positive thing I can see coming out of this.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week seniors nationwide will begin to see how ineffective and confusing the Republican prescription drug legislation is. This week, seniors have the opportunity to sign up for a new prescription drug card that will provide supposed savings on prescription drug costs. The program begins on June 1; and while the new Medicare law will not take effect until 2006, it is clear that these drug cards are being used as a ploy to enroll beneficiaries into products sponsored by the private drug and insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, while some seniors will be able to save on their medications when they use these cards, many will not. In fact, I believe these drugs cards are nothing more than window dressing, a weak attempt by the Bush administration to couch the true intent of this Medicare law. As seniors will see in the upcoming weeks, there is no guaranteed discount from drug card sponsors. Medicare discount cards are being marketed as providing a 10 to 25 percent discount, but there is no requirement in the new law that card sponsors must offer any specific discount. The idea of any savings is merely an illusion. Prescription costs rose 17 percent alone last year and drug prices are reported to have increased dramatically between the beginning of the year and now, so any savings have been lost to drug cost inflation. Mr. Speaker, I would point out secondly, there is no guarantee that a particular drug card will offer discounts on all of the medicines taken by seniors. Card sponsors are allowed to pick and choose which drugs will be discounted. In addition, card sponsors may change the discounted prices on medicines weekly. The discounts on a seniors' medicine when advertised when he or she enrolled may change, but that senior will not be allowed to switch to a different card for one whole year. So imagine that, Mr. Speaker, a card sponsor can change prices any time they want, but seniors have to stick with the same drug card for an entire year. There is also no guarantee access to any particular pharmacy. Each discount card sponsor will determine which pharmacies will offer the discount advertised with the card. A seniors' usual pharmacy may not participate in the card that he or she selects. Finally, the final price paid for prescriptions will vary by pharmacy. Because pharmacies can change the prices they charge, seniors must check with each of their local participating pharmacies to find out which one offers the lowest price on the drugs covered under their card. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, how are seniors supposed to decipher all of this information that I mentioned. You would hope they would be able to get it from the Department of Health and Human Services; but that agency is too busy these days producing commercials trying to sell the new prescription drug law, rather than providing reliable information that seniors can use. Consider that drug cards sponsors are now saying that information on the Health and Human Services Web site designed to help seniors shop for the right card contains false information. Mr. Speaker, if Health and Human Services cannot get the information right, how can we expect seniors to decide which plans works best for them? Mr. Speaker, seniors should carefully consider their options. Unfortunately, they must remember that the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans were more concerned about how this legislation would affect the pharmaceutical companies than they were about how it would affect America's seniors. Seniors should remember that Democrats continue our fight to lower prescription drug costs by giving the government the purchasing power of millions of seniors to negotiate drug costs and to allow safe reimportation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that this Medicare prescription drug law should simply be repealed and we should go back to the drawing board. This idea of having these discount cards is too confusing and it will not result in lower drug prices for seniors. Imagine that they have to wait another 2 years after that before the Medicare law with the prescription drug benefit supposedly even comes into effect. We should repeal the law, go back to the drawing board and come up with a prescription drug benefit that really helps senior citizens under Medicare, not this false and illusory drug card, the process which begins this week.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Congressional Research Service concluded that the Bush administration broke the law when it refused to allow a career civil servant to be honest with Members of this House as to the true cost of the Republican prescription drug bill. Since the very beginning of the prescription drug debate, President Bush and this Republican Congress have had a win-at-all-cost attitude about their prescription drug legislation. The sad fact is that the true losers in this scandal are the senior citizens, the very people Republicans claim they are trying to help. This week, seniors nationwide will begin to see how ineffective and confusing the Republican prescription drug legislation is. This week, seniors have the opportunity to sign up for new prescription drug cards that will provide supposed savings on prescription drug costs. But, Mr. Speaker, while some seniors will be able to save on their medications when they use these cards, many will not. In fact, I believe that these drug cards are nothing more than window dressing, a weak attempt by the Bush administration to couch the ineffectiveness of this Medicare law.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans promised us they would create jobs, but their failed policies have left our economy weaker. We have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, the largest decline in over 80 years. We have not seen one month of manufacturing job growth since George Bush took office, and Republicans have no plan to create jobs. For years the Republicans have used their power to provide tax breaks and special deals for corporate interests, standing back while thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas. And now the American workers that have built these companies are paying the price. Democrats want to build a stronger economy and jump-start our manufacturing sector by cutting taxes for domestic manufacturers and helping them create good-paying jobs here in the United States, and we want to end unfair tax breaks that would allow corporations to keep their money and their workers overseas. That is just wrong. We want to stand up for American workers by enforcing the trade agreements that President Bush has not. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans stalling? What are they waiting for? They should simply bring up the Crane-Rangel bipartisan solution to cut taxes for domestic manufacturers and help them create good-paying jobs here in the United States. That is the answer, and it is simple.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I hope we are one step closer to prying the doors of the White House open in regard to Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force. For 3 years now, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the records of the Energy Task Force secret. The secret task force developed President Bush's energy policy, a policy that was then made into legislation here in Congress, legislation that is now stalled in the other body. Nevertheless, the end result was bad energy policy. There is no doubt that the energy industry succeeded with its influence during these secret, closed-door meetings in crafting a policy that benefited them rather than benefiting Americans who at the time desperately needed relief from high energy prices. Mr. Speaker, today Americans face high gas prices, but they should not be fooled by claims from congressional Republicans and President Bush that the legislation they pushed would reduce the cost of energy in this country. Instead, the President's plan was nothing more than a payback to the oil and gas industry numbering in the billions of dollars and embedded in tax incentives, loan guarantees, liability protection and research and development. For 3 years, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made up this Energy Task Force. For 3 years now, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know how and why the task force came to the conclusions that it did. Finally, after 3 years of hiding the information, today the U.S. Supreme Court hears from the Vice President's lawyers why Cheney thinks it is so important that this information remain secret. Today, the Supreme Court hears from the Sierra Club and the conservative group, Judicial Watch, who sued Vice President Cheney seeking an accounting of energy industry participation in crafting the Bush administration's destructive energy policy. A district court has already ordered the administration to provide information about participation from those industries but once again the Bush administration refused to divulge any information. Fortunately, the court denied the request, and last December the Vice President appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. So what does the Vice President do once he realizes the Supreme Court would be hearing the case? He goes duck hunting with one of the Supreme Court justices as a guest of an energy executive. The situation begs several questions. First, was the energy executive hosting the Vice President and Justice Scalia a member of the Energy Task Force? Second, was the Vice President attempting to use this trip to Louisiana as a way to persuade Justice Scalia that the documents being requested should remain secret under the cloak of executive privilege? And, third, how could either Vice President Cheney or Justice Scalia think this trip to Louisiana for duck hunting, in which both flew to and from together on Air Force Two, would not look like a conflict of interest? Justice Scalia should have recused himself from this case, but Vice President Cheney should have realized how this trip would appear to the American public. Think about this for a minute. Imagine that you are a plaintiff in a case and you learn that the defendant and the judge had vacationed together several months before. Would you accept that scenario? The Sierra Club asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself but Justice Scalia refused. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just hope the Cheney decision in this case is not another 5-4 decision in which Justice Scalia is the deciding vote in favor of the Vice President. It is time for the Vice President to come forward with the list of participants on the Energy Task Force. What information is so damaging that the Vice President does not want to make it public? I think the time has come for both President Bush and Vice President Cheney to lift the cloak of secrecy on its national energy plan and basically disclose what happened, who the participants were, and how and in what way they influenced the energy bill that came forward here in the House and is now in the other body. I think it is very wrong for them to continue to not provide this information, not disclose who was involved, and frankly have to go to the Supreme Court to try to make the Supreme Court say that that information should not be divulged.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Norva Maxwell of the Visiting Nurses Association of Central Jersey. Ms. Maxwell was recently chosen as the Visiting Nurse Association of America VNAA, Clinician of the Year among 90,000 VNAA Clinicians nationwide. Norva Maxwell's holistic approach to patient care makes her highly effective as a community health nurse. Her clinical skills are impeccable. Her patience, sensitivity, and thoroughness allow her to detect problems others might have missed. In a number of instances, her experienced assessment has resulted in appropriate interventions for patients with assessment of respiratory distress, changes in mental status, or exacerbated injection. Patients and families aptly describe Norva as ``a credit to the nursing profession.'' There are countless examples of Norva going beyond the requirements of her job, visiting patients on her own time to bring them homemade chicken soup or picking up medications at the pharmacy. Norva provides professional and empathetic care to people of all ethnic, cultural, and financial backgrounds in a very ethnically diverse service area. Due to her extensive knowledge of area social programs, Norva regularly develops a safety net of services for patients ready for discharge. Norva is a member of the Salvation Army, and she and her family have worked at the Salvation Army camps for many years. Norva is always an active volunteer with a shelter for homeless families, and has made it possible for the families to spend a week at the camp each summer. Mr. Speaker, again, I congratulate Norva Maxwell who's strong clinical skills, compassionate spirit and interaction with the community make her a true Ambassador for her agency and for neighborhood nursing.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I attended a ceremony to remember the victims of the Armenian genocide in Times Square in New York City, and I have to say it was a very moving moment. There were several, I would not say many, because there are not that many genocide survivors that are still around, but I did have a chance to talk briefly with maybe 10 or so. It was incredible to hear them tell the stories of the families and atrocities that had occurred 89 years ago now. More and more countries and States and even the media are now in the process of recognizing the genocide, and I just wanted to mention specifically that the Canadian House of Commons last week joined France, Italy, the Vatican and a number of other European countries and the European Parliament in acknowledging this crime against humanity as genocide. Also last week, The New York Times reversed decades of ambiguity by declaring in favor of using the term ``genocide'' to describe the Armenian cataclysm of 1915. The Boston Globe adopted a similar policy change last year. Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing is, although so many other countries and so many of our own States have recognized the Armenian genocide, we in the Congress continue not to recognize it. I think it is important that we do so. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) was here earlier, and he mentioned the House Genocide Resolution, H. Res. 193, which has now 111 cosponsors. The resolution was adopted unanimously by the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 21, 2003, but it has not been brought to the floor for consideration. I would urge the Speaker and the leaders on the Republican side of the aisle to bring this resolution to the floor. It is important that they do so. Now, this year, as we do every year, the members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues put together a letter to the President of the United States asking him to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. This year there were 169 signatures, more than we have ever had before in that letter that we sent to the President; and I just wanted to read, if I could, some sections of that letter, because I think it is important. We say, ``Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to join us in reaffirming the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide in your April 24 commemorative statement. ``By properly recognizing the atrocities committed against the Armenian people as genocide in your statement, you will honor the many Americans who helped launch our first international human rights campaign to end the carnage and protect the survivors. The official U.S. response mirrored the overwhelming reaction by the American public to this crime against humanity and, as such, constitutes a proud, irrefutable and groundbreaking chapter in U.S. diplomatic history. ``Now, more than ever, as your administration seeks to bring an end to global terrorism and to help establish democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, the memory of the genocide underscores our responsibility to help convey our cherished tradition of respect for fundamental human rights and opposition to mass slaughters. The victims of the Armenian genocide deserve our remembrance and their rightful place in history. It is in the best interests of our Nation and the entire global community to remember the past and learn from these crimes against humanity to ensure they are never repeated.'' That is really the essence of what we are trying to achieve here today in asking that the President and this Congress basically reaffirm the Armenian genocide, because we simply do not want it repeated again. We know how many times in the 20th century that genocide occurred. House Resolution H.R. 193, and also its Senate counterpart, Senate Resolution 164, which I would like to add has 37 cosponsors right now, basically state that the purpose of the resolutions are to strengthen America's commitment to the value of the genocide convention that was implemented 15 years ago. This convention recognizes essentially a number of the genocides that occurred in the 20th century. And as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, not only the Armenian genocide, but that in Rwanda, Burundi, and, of course most important, the Nazi Holocaust genocide against the Jews. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about the Armenian genocide, we are simply acknowledging the fact. And we feel very strongly that if at the time the genocide occurred the world and the nations of the world had taken more notice and had tried to prevent it, I think it would have served as a lesson so that the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and so many other atrocities that took place in the 20th century would not have occurred. If we are going to see a situation in the future, in this 21st century, where we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, we must acknowledge the Armenian genocide.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, John Kerry volunteered for service in the Navy during the Vietnam War where he served as skipper on a swift boat that patrolled the Mekong Delta. Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who devised Operation Sea Lord, calculated in his biography that swift boat sailors had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical war. Under Sea Lord, swift boat duty was one of the most dangerous duties you could draw in the entire U.S. Navy. Kerry was wounded three times in Vietnam, received three Purple Hearts for those injuries. He was also awarded a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for his actions in combat. In addition to the individual awards for bravery, Kerry's unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon by President Richard Nixon. I could go on, but I have to say I am ashamed to hear the statements that are being made by Republicans, by my colleagues on the other side, talking about Senator Kerry, who served so honorably, who was a decorated veteran. And if he decided that he wanted to question the Vietnam War after serving in it, that was his right as an American.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 2 days from now the people of Cyprus will take a historical vote on the future of their country, voting on a referendum finalized several weeks ago by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Secretary General Annan has dedicated a great deal of time over the past couple of years to finally resolving the 30-year Cyprus problem. He has been extremely patient in dealing with the intransigence of Turkish-Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, intransigence that continues to this day. Having met with the Secretary General last month, I have no doubt that he understands the concerns of both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots; but unfortunately, his final plan unfairly benefits the Turkish side and does not achieve the goal of truly reunifying the island nation. Mr. Speaker, I have serious reservations about the final Annan plan because it forces the Cypriot people to put too much faith in the Turkish Government. When Cypriots go to the voting booth on the 24th, they are forced to take the Turkish Government at its word that the Turkish parliament will ratify the treaty. The Cypriots are forced to take the Turkish Government at its word that occupied land will be returned to its rightful owners 3 to 5 years down the line, and the Cypriots are forced to believe that Turkey will remove its troops according to the timetable in the Annan plan and are forced to deal with the fact that Turkish troops will remain in Cyprus forever with Turkey having the unilateral right to intervene at any time. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the final Annan plan gives Turkey too much opportunity to either delay or not implement critical property and security issues in the years to come. When I met with the Secretary General, I strongly recommended that the U.N. maintain a presence on the island as long as the Turkish Army remains. The Secretary General assured me that U.N. forces would remain on Cyprus for a considerable amount of time, but his final plan allows Turkish troops to stay indefinitely without an international presence; and I find this simply unacceptable. I am extremely worried about the actions Turkish troops might take with the absence of a neutral international presence to keep them in line. I am also concerned that Turkey will not abide by the final agreement and its troops will contribute to further instability and insecurity. Over the next couple of weeks, the people of Cyprus will carefully analyze this plan and determine if it provides the best framework for the island nation to enter the European Union united. This is their decision alone, and outside forces should not attempt to scare or threaten them into voting a certain way. Whatever the outcome, it is important the international community and the United States honor that decision and work to ensure Cyprus's future remains bright.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask to take the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last week during President Bush's press conference, he had a difficult time with a question from one reporter asking him whether or not he had made any mistakes as President since the fateful events of September 11, 2001. Today I would like to basically join with some of my Democratic colleagues who have already spoken today during their 5 minutes in trying to help out the President to answer the question about any mistakes he has made as President since 9/11. I think one of the President's biggest mistakes over the last year was signing a so-called prescription drug bill into law which he knew would benefit the pharmaceutical companies a lot more than the millions of seniors who need help now with their prescription drug bills. Mr. Speaker, seniors have done the math. I had some opportunities during the district work period, during Easter and Passover, to meet with senior citizens, and they have done the math with regard to the President's so-called prescription drug plan. They realize that the President's law was a mistake because it will not help them with the ever-increasing cost of prescription drugs. I want to use an example because I know I have talked about this many times on the floor about how the so-called prescription drug bill will not really benefit most senior citizens. If one would consider a senior who now pays about $1,000 a year on prescription drugs, who will pay at least $857 a year out of pocket under the President's law, seniors with a bill of $5,000 a year will still pay at least $3,920 under the President's Medicare bill, and as we can see, the problem with the President's bill is that they are going to have to pay so much money out of pocket to get any kind of a meager benefit that for most seniors it is simply not worth the effort. And I know from being back in my district in New Jersey for the 2- week break that the seniors see the minuscule help that they would receive under this legislation, and they realize that it is really not them, but the pharmaceuticals who are benefiting from the law because of all the profit that the pharmaceutical companies plan to make. And as I have said before, one of the reasons why the pharmaceuticals were so involved in this prescription drug legislation was because they wanted to make sure that the government did not do anything to lower the price of prescription drugs, because if the government got involved in negotiating to lower prices, as does the government in almost every other Western nation, they would not see the same level of profit that they wanted under the President's bill. And we, as Democrats, made a point during the debate on the Medicare bill that we wanted the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Medicare Administrator to have the power to negotiate better prices, essentially what we do now with the Veterans Administration, what we do with our military and our military retirees, but because of the support that the President receives and the Republicans receive from the prescription drug industry, that would not happen. That was not going to happen. In effect, what was written into the law was a clause that specifically said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Medicare Administrator could not negotiate lower prices. That was prohibited by law. I would maintain that that was a mistake, a major mistake, on the President's part not to allow the negotiation of lower prices, but the bill itself was a mistake because the bill, as I said, does not really provide any meaningful benefit to seniors who are looking for their prescription drugs to be paid for in a major way by the Federal Government. But the President and his administration made a lot more mistakes than these, Mr. Speaker. The President made a big mistake also when he allowed the Medicare Administrator, Tom Scully, to negotiate the final prescription drug legislation on behalf of the administration here on Capitol Hill. At the same time that Mr. Scully was the Medicare Administrator negotiating the legislation, he was also negotiating a new job with various companies representing health care interests that stand to make millions from this Medicare law. Tom Scully did not do this, as I said, outside. He was doing this at the same time that he was negotiating the Medicare bill. And one might say to oneself, how does he do that? How does someone who is in charge of Medicare in the Bush administration end up basically negotiating a job for himself with those same interests that are now looking for some benefit in the Medicare bill? And the reason is because he received a waiver from the Bush administration that allowed him to participate in job negotiations while he was negotiating the Medicare bill. I would maintain that that is not only a conflict of interest, but also another mistake in the context of this Medicare legislation that President Bush made. Administration officials should not be allowed to interview and go on job searches with the companies at the same time that they are working on legislation that directly impacts these companies. That is why we have laws that bar that as a conflict of interest, and it should not have been waived. That was a mistake of the President. President Bush also knew that this Medicare bill he signed into law had passed Congress, in my opinion, under false pretenses. Members of this House did not know the true cost of the legislation, and the reality is we probably never would have known what the true costs were were it not for the fact that the President's own Medicare actuary actually came forward after the legislation was passed and detailed what the true costs were. But that Medicare actuary was not allowed to give the House Members, be they Democrat or Republican, the true costs of this Medicare legislation when we were voting and negotiating the bill because essentially this actuary was told that his job would be threatened, he might be fired, or he would be fired if he gave out the real information about the cost of the Medicare bill. Last year when Republicans were writing their version of the prescription drug bill that eventually became law, the Republican leadership made assurances to many of the conservative Members in the Republican Party that the total costs of the program over 10 years would not be higher than $400 billion. That is what they put in the budget, and that is what the Republican leadership and the President told the conservative Members that they would be facing, a cost of $400 billion. When the bill finally came up for a vote, the Bush administration said the total cost of the program would be actually $395 billion, close to the 400-. But as my colleagues know, last month we learned that the administration's own analysts had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost $100 billion more than what they said publicly at the time, not $400 billion, but $500 billion, a big increase, about a 20 percent increase, but they never made that information public until the bill was signed into law. The individual who was the chief Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, at the time did come forward and say that the administration knew and that he knew at the time when the bill was being voted on that the true cost would be $100 billion more, that it would be 500- instead of $400 billion, but he was warned that he would be fired if he told his colleagues here in the House the truth; so he never told us. So here we go again. What kind of mistakes did President Bush make in the context of this Medicare bill? Quite a few. In this case he knew, or at least the administration knew, that this information was available about the true cost, but they probably also knew that if that cost had come out, it would kill their chances for passing the bill. So essentially they kept the facts from coming out, and one could argue that the House made a mistake in passing the bill because it was based on misinformation, another mistake that the President made which contributed to the big mistake of this Medicare bill when it finally passed. I just mentioned this because many of my colleagues on the Democratic side would like to point out some of the mistakes that the President made in the last year, and hopefully when he has his next press conference, he will have a little more opportunity to talk about some of those mistakes. If not, we can just give him more information ourselves along the lines of the Medicare bill, which was a huge mistake. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring up some other matters that relate to what I consider the ongoing credibility problem that President Bush and his administration faced, and there are many. There are many cases where information has been given out that is essentially misleading, that Congress relies upon it, as it did in the case of the Medicare bill, or in the case, one of the biggest that I would mention, is the Iraq War. We know now that much of the information that was given to the Congress and they used in making a decision to go to war and to pass a resolution to authorize the war was essentially misleading, information about the threat from Iraq, about the weapons of mass destruction, about links that did not exist between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and those that bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11. And I would like to talk a little bit about the President's credibility gap with regard to the war in Iraq. Again, some of my colleagues mentioned earlier that 100 of our U.S. soldiers have died this month, and not that I want to emphasize that, because I certainly do not, but I do think that this credibility gap has cost lives, and it is not just something that we can sort of toss aside and say, okay, well, we had this misinformation, and what was the impact? It had a major impact on our decision to go to war and upon the people who have lost their lives or have been injured during the war. As concerns rise about the lack of planning for the war in Iraq, it is important that we determine how America got into the mess in Iraq, and probably even more important, because that is the past, how are we going to get out? Concern about the situation in Iraq crosses party lines. The House Republican leadership continues to block any congressional oversight. And, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle talk earlier this day during the Special Orders about the need for congressional oversight. We have congressional oversight on everything. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. We have congressional oversight on what the agencies do with regard to fisheries management. If that is true, why would we not have it for something so important like the war in Iraq? The House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on International Relations are not holding hearings to ask important questions that must be asked about the Bush administration with regard to the war in Iraq. Essentially House Republicans are allowing the President and his administration to do anything they want in Iraq, no questions asked. And I just find that simply unacceptable given the responsibility of this House and the committees of jurisdiction to have oversight over any important matter that we deal with. Yesterday in the other Chamber, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing where Members of both parties asked the tough questions about Iraq. Yet here in the House, Republicans have completely abdicated their power to President Bush and essentially said that he as Commander-in-Chief can do anything he wants without any oversight. Mr. Speaker, the problems in Iraq, I believe, are the direct result of the Bush administration's failure to adequately plan for what would happen after the initial U.S. incursion in Iraq. We know what happened when the U.S. first went to war. We know that it was largely successful in a very short period of time. But what planning was done about the aftermath after the initial incursion and after essentially Saddam Hussein and his forces were defeated and forced to flee? President Bush and his national security team assured the world that Iraq would be a swift and easy mission where U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. This assessment proved dead wrong and is now costing Americans greatly in terms of lives, funding, and international support. And I do not think there is any question when we listen to some of what has come out the last few weeks both before the 9/11 Commission and other venues that the Bush administration was caught off guard. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said last week that he was surprised by the recent level of violence in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ``If you said to me a year ago, describe the situation you would be in today 1 year later, I don't know many people who would have described it. I would not have described it the way it happens to be today.'' Those are Secretary Rumsfeld's very words. The fact is that the Bush administration was warned before the war of the possibility that events might not play out as well as the administration was telling Congress and the American people. General Anthony Zinni, the former CENTCOM Commander, questioned how the escalating war in Iraq could have caught Rumsfeld off guard, and General Zinni said that he was surprised that Secretary Rumsfeld was surprised, because General Zinni said a lot of other people were telling him that it was going to be similar to what we are now seeing. The administration's coalition of the willing is quickly unraveling, meaning more burdens on American troops. We had Secretary Rumsfeld saying that this was going to be quick, and our troops were not going to have to be there that long essentially. But obviously the opposite is the case. The coalition of the willing, of those forces from other countries that are willing to support us, seem to be dissipating. Spain, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic have announced plans to withdraw troops as soon as possible. Poland is also considering withdrawing from Iraq. Lacking troop support from other countries, about 20,000 American soldiers who were due to come home will now have their tours extended, breaking a Pentagon commitment to limit assignments in Iraq to 12 months. Again, the President's credibility is at stake. Mr. Speaker, this is not a war that we had to fight. It comes from an administration that from its very first days in the White House was preparing to take out Saddam Hussein. And I join my colleagues here today to highlight the misrepresentations that the President and his administration included in their public comments. If the Members are interested in reading this comprehensive report, they can find it, and I will give out the information at www.reform.house.gov/min. We can go into that a little more if some of my colleagues want to. But the bottom line is that this misinformation that was given out seriously makes us question the credibility of this administration and what they were doing then and now in terms of the future and what we are doing in Iraq. I see that some of my colleagues have arrived. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington, who has been down on the floor on a regular basis talking about this issue of credibility, particularly with regard to the war in Iraq. I thank him for joining us this afternoon.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman. We started this Special Order today talking about the lack of planning and the cost of the war and how we are getting all kinds of misinformation in that regard, and it continues. This is the problem. We are hearing now the President saying that he wants to go to the U.N. and internationalize the war, but we are still not getting any adequate information about what the strategy is, what the cost is going to be. And I think those are answers that the American people want. I think, again, whether you supported the war in the beginning or you did not, I did not, I know most of us who spoke today did not, but that is not the issue any more. The issue is where are we going from here. We are still being given inaccurate information about where we are going.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our speakers that joined us today.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I just want to stress, if I can briefly, that this did not have to be. I do not want to keep talking about the past, because I believe the President made a huge mistake in going to war. But it was not only that he made the mistake. It is also the way he went about it, and, even more so, the way he continues to go about it. Not only would we have saved tremendous resources if we had not gone to war, as well as the lives of those who have been lost, but also if this had been done in an effort to try to internationalize the war, so that we had our allies not only fighting the burden in terms of their own soldiers, but also the burden of the cost of the war, which was what was done in the case of Bosnia and the Persian Gulf War before. I was here, so I remember. But not only did the President not want to do that, but he continues along the same path. I know he is saying he is going to go to the United Nations; but the attitude, and, in my opinion, the arrogance of the President and the administration in wanting to go it alone, even when they talk about going to the U.N., it does not seem real. I think that is why countries like Spain and some of these others are pulling out. In other words, instead of seeing countries get more involved, not only in terms of men but also resources, we see less. I think that continues. I really question, as much as I would like to see and I think this needs to be, that the U.N. needs to get into Iraq and the situation needs to be internationalized. This whole idea of other countries sharing the burden is very much, I think, something that the President opposes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments and certainly join in them, because I think you have it right on point that this administration simply is not capable of conducting this war. Whether you are for the war, which I voted against it, or you are against it, it does not matter. Bottom line is the administration is just not capable of carrying it out. I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been one of the most vocal persons on the Iraq war from the very beginning. I appreciate what she has been saying for the last few years.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for this ongoing debate that they have been putting forth about the President's credibility gap, whether it relates to the war in Iraq or other issues that have been raised. I just want to mention I think there are about 11 minutes left, and I do not know how many other speakers there are. I think there are maybe three. Please keep that in mind, we have 11 or 12 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman. I was thinking about this whole idea of getting our allies involved, and what immediately comes to mind is after the initial incursion the U.S. had essentially routed the Iraqi Army and Saddam Hussein had fled. If you remember, both France and Germany offered at that point to get involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and the President said absolutely not. He did not want them involved in any way. That is the kind of arrogance we face. I think if we do not have a change of leadership at the top, there is no way to conduct this war. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I have the opportunity to recognize the city of Long Branch in honor of their centennial celebration of incorporation. In 1903, Long Branch was formally incorporated as a city, but its rich history predates this initial incorporation, and dates as far back as 1498, when Long Branch was first explored by John Cabot. The land, which makes up current day Long Branch, was claimed by Henry Hudson in 1664, and then purchased from the Native American Leni Lenape tribe in 1668 by European settlers seeking religious freedom. The newcomers named the settlement ``Long Branch'' after the long branch of the Shrewsbury River that is located at the northern end of the city. Much like their Native American neighbors, the first settlers created a self-sustaining community that relied on hunting, gathering, and fishing to survive. Those hardy people (as well as the town they resided in) existed in relative isolation until the 19th century, which is when Long Branch entered its ``Golden Age.'' During that period, commerce in the American northeast grew, and the Long Branch area began to expand rapidly. Due to the town's proximity to the coast, and the natural beauty of the region, leaders in finance, theatre, politics, and the military flocked to Long Branch by the hundreds to enjoy the area's treasures. Individuals from New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. made Long Branch the premier vacation destination. At the height of its Golden Age, Long Branch became the most glamorous summer resort location of the Northeast. Among the notable visitors were General Winfield Scott, actor ``Buffalo'' Bill Cody, and writers such as Bret Harte and Robert Louis Stevenson. Most importantly, Long Branch became the nation's summer capital. Several United States Presidents summered in Long Branch. Among them were Chester A. Arthur, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson and Ulysses S. Grant, who visited the area every summer during his Presidency and many summers thereafter. President James A. Garfield, after he was mortally wounded by an assassin's bullet, left Washington D.C. for Long Branch to recuperate from his wounds. Unfortunately he died shortly thereafter, in the Elberon section of the city. Long Branch began experiencing major changes in the early 1920's, after gambling was outlawed and other cities began competing for tourism. It became a city of permanent residents with a business and manufacturing center. Long Branch continues to be a city of changes. The beachfront that had lured (and still lures) many tourists is being redeveloped. More small businesses are coming into town and expanding operations. Many of the homes of the Golden Age of Long Branch are being restored as a tribute to the beauty and history of the region. The city is more conscious of its historic sites, but also of the various ethnic groups, religious and cultural organizations that have created the melting pot that is today's Long Branch. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my fellow colleagues to acknowledge the City of Long Branch for its one-hundredth anniversary of incorporation, and join me in wishing the city many more years of rich history and prosperity.