Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are playing games here on the House floor this week. America's consumers should not be fooled into believing that the energy bills on the floor will do anything to lower gas prices in the immediate future. Back in 2001, the FTC concluded that during the summer of 2000 price spike certain suppliers had pursued a profit-maximizing strategy, intentionally withholding gasoline supplies or delaying shipping as a tactic to drive up prices. Such collusion would be easier today, with the top 10 refiners now controlling 78 percent of the supply. That is a 22 percent increase over a decade ago. Today, 48 of my Democratic colleagues joined me in sending a letter to the FTC asking that it begin a thorough investigation into whether or not gas companies are colluding to artificially increase prices. We cannot let the Bush administration's cozy relationship with big oil companies hold Americans hostage at the pump. If Congressional Republicans were really interested in doing something today, they would call on the Bush administration to launch an investigation to determine whether oil companies are purposefully inflating prices at the pump.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to stress the whole enforcement aspect. I understand what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has said and I understand a lot of the comments that are being made here today. But the problem is, and again I am being critical of this administration, without some enforcement mechanism, without some hammer which does not exist now with the executive order, we have no guarantee that any of these Federal agencies, whether it be BLM or any of the agencies that affect Indian Country, are actually going to pay attention to this executive order. That is the problem that we face here. Mr. Chairman, every year more and more of these sacred lands are being destroyed simply because our government has failed to enforce or enact the necessary protections to preserve them. A large number of these sites, and more of them, get destroyed every day. It is not like we can just wait around and hope something will happen because the Federal and other land managers routinely take into account the needs of developers and recreational users in making management decisions, but they are not so diligent in taking into account the often profound effect of these undertakings upon sacred and ceremonial places that are critical to Native American populations, tribes and cultures. I just say, Mr. Chairman, the time has come that this body recognize the spiritual and cultural significance of Native American sacred sites. We must stop the bulldozing of Native American culture and begin to afford American Indians the strong legal protections necessary to preserve these lands. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Rahall amendment. I think its time has come.

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman, and I know he always has been in the forefront in caring for the concerns of American Indians. But I just believe very strongly that if there is not some kind of a hammer here, and that is why I use the term enforcement, we are never going to see any action on behalf of this administration. I am being critical. This administration has been here 4 years. They have not dealt with this subject. They have ignored it by simply acting as if the executive order was not there, and I am just fearful that unless we put something in the statute as part of the appropriations bill we simply will not see anything. The inaction will continue.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and his amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. This amendment, as has been mentioned, would seek to preserve Native American sacred sites by putting in place significant protections under the law. Today, far too many sacred places are being desecrated or threatened by development, pollution, poisons, recreational activities, looting, vandalism, and by Federal or federally authorized undertakings. I have listened to some of my colleagues, and I certainly want to indicate that the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) has been a very good chairman in terms of his willingness to bring up issues and hear the concerns of the minority party and have hearings. But as was mentioned by my colleague, our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), there have been hearings on this bill. We have dealt in the committee with this issue for a number of years, and we have not moved forward with it. So I think under the circumstances, it makes perfect sense for our ranking member to seek action here today through an amendment. In response to what the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies said, I would point out that what we are really trying to do here, and I guess it is obvious, is to have some enforcement of the executive order. The problem with the executive order is it has been in place since 1996. It was actually a Clinton executive order but it is not being enforced. This administration simply has not enforced it. I do not think there is any problem with the definition. A definition existed under the Clinton White House for at least 4 years before the current President took office. No one questioned the definition then. No one questioned the way it was working in those 4 years. The problem though is that under this administration, and I think I clearly want to fault them for that, they have not repealed it but they have not enforced it. They simply do not do anything about it. So the only way that we have legislatively as legislators to try to deal with this is try to put it in the statute as part of the appropriations bill. That is what we are up to. That is what we want to enforce. Now, some may say that they think it should be redefined, but I do not think that was an issue before and I do not think it is an issue now.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are making a mockery of the House floor this week. They are bringing up at least four pieces of legislation they claim will address our Nation's energy needs and begin the process of lowering prices at the pump but the American people should not be fooled. Over the past 3 years, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have done nothing to help consumers who are now struggling to pay higher gas prices. Instead, the Bush administration is in the pocket of the oil and gas companies and House Republicans are doing their dirty work. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are claiming the energy legislation they passed last year which we are again voting on this week will provide some much-needed relief at the pump. What Republicans will not say is that a study from the Energy Information Administration concluded the Republican bill would actually increase the average gasoline price by three cents per gallon. Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration are not interested in lowering gas prices. One might ask why, and that is because high gas prices mean high profits for big oil and gas companies. In fact, it was the executives at these very companies that worked in secret with Vice President Cheney in crafting the Republican energy bill that Republicans are now touting this week. For 3 years now, the Vice President has done everything he can to keep the records of his energy task force secret. This secret task force developed President Bush's energy policy, a policy that was then made into legislation here in Congress, legislation that has 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 now that Americans are paying that price at the pump. For 3 years, the Vice President has refused to let the American people know who made up his 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, it appeared that we would finally get some of the information Cheney was fighting so hard to keep secret thanks to the Sierra Club and the conservative group Judicial Watch who sued Vice President Cheney in the courts. The two groups wanted to find out exactly who from the energy industry participated in crafting the Bush administration's destructive energy policy. A district court ordered the administration to provide the information last year but the Bush administration still refuses to turn it over. The administration's reason, constitutional immunity from such inquiries. The district court rejected that contention, pointing out that the administration was attempting, and I quote, to cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of executive power with the legitimacy of precedent where none exists. But, Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Vice President refused to give in. He has appealed the district court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and last December the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and heard arguments this spring. I have to point out that it does not make any sense to me why the Vice President would be so concerned about keeping his energy task force records secret. I would like to know or ask the congressional Republicans why they continue to allow the Bush administration to get away with this secrecy. Could it be that they know if the records are ever made public that the American people would finally realize that the Republican energy bill was never intended to help the American consumer but instead from the very first day its main goal was to provide oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax breaks? Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out a problem with a potential conflict of interest, I think clearly a conflict of interest with regard to Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court. It appears in my opinion that Vice President Cheney will do anything to keep these documents of the energy task force secret. That is why I think that what happened is that 3 weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear Vice President Cheney's appeal of the case, Justice Scalia accompanied Vice President Cheney on an Air Force Two flight from Washington, D.C. to Morgan City, Louisiana for a duck hunting visit. There, according to news reports, Justice Scalia and the Vice President were guests of Wallace Carline, president of an energy services company. Neither the Vice President nor Justice Scalia made this duck hunting vacation public. Had it not been for the investigative work of the L.A. Times, we might still not know that these two spent several days together hunting duck in Louisiana. One would think that these two bright men would realize how such a vacation would look to the American people if it ever became public but unfortunately it does not seem like either one of them cared. What happened is, and I think there is no doubt, that this vacation serves as a conflict of interest, and because of that, I believe that Justice Scalia should recuse himself from hearing the Cheney case in the Supreme Court. But even more importantly, Vice President Cheney should have realized how this would look and should have cancelled the trip before he even went. But regardless of that, there is no disputing that Justice Scalia should recuse himself on ruling on the case involving the energy task force. The Sierra Club asked Justice Scalia to do just that, but Justice Scalia continues to refuse to recuse himself. What he did instead was to defend his decision in a 21-page memo. In the memo Scalia describes how he enjoyed going hunting every year with his friend Wallace Carline. And Scalia writes: ``During my December, 2002, visit, I learned that Mr. Carline was an admirer of Vice President Cheney. Knowing that the Vice President, with whom I am well acquainted, is an enthusiastic duck hunter, I asked whether Mr. Carline would like to invite him to our next year's hunt.'' And Scalia continues in this memo that ``The answer was yes. I conveyed the invitation, with my own warm recommendation, in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance, subject, of course, to any superseding demands on the Vice President's time. The Vice President said that if he did go to Louisiana, I would be welcome to fly down with him.'' Mr. Speaker, just think about this explanation that Justice Scalia is giving for not recusing himself in this case involving Vice President Cheney. Think about the apparent relationship these two men have, a relationship between two men who have worked in Washington for so many years and even worked in the Ford administration together. And then try to look at it another way. The columnist E.J. Dionne did a Washington Post column earlier this year, and he said: ``Imagine you were in a bitter court fight with a former business partner. Would you want the judge in your case to be someone who went duck hunting with your opponent and flew to the hunt on your opponent's plane?'' That is the reality here. Dionne continues: ``And now consider that you, as a citizen, have a right to know with whom Cheney consulted in writing an energy bill that was overwhelmingly tilted toward the interests of an industry in which the Vice President was once a central player.'' Scalia admits that recusal might be in order where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue. And Dionne writes that one should not worry because what is at stake here are only Cheney's political fortunes, the interests of the industry that Cheney once worked for, and the public's right to know, and that is no big deal. But it is a big deal. Vice President Cheney should have realized the conflict of interest and declined to join the Supreme Court Justice once he knew the Supreme Court would be hearing Cheney's case. I do not know. It just does not seem like Vice President Cheney cares and he just basically will do anything to ensure that the records of his energy task force are never made public. I would like to ask a question because, again, this is the energy task force, remember, put together by the Vice President that put together the energy legislation that my colleagues on the other side are saying is a good bill and is something that we should pass here again this week. But I have to say if all that is true, if it is such a great bill and if they continue to tout, as my colleagues did just before I spoke tonight, how wonderful this legislation is that came out of this task force, then what are they trying to hide? What is the Vice President trying to hide? Why does he not just say who was on the task force and when the task force met and what they did? Why would anybody have a problem with it if my colleagues on the Republican side think that this is such a great bill that is going to benefit the American people? But I think we have to think about it. Would it be an embarrassment maybe to the Bush administration to have to admit that every member of this task force was an oil or gas executive? I do not think so. I mean I think that is pretty obvious. I do not think they are trying to hide that in any way. I think that would be nothing new. So there has to be something else that they are trying to hide. What is so damaging in these documents? And I would venture to ask could it be that somewhere within these documents there is proof that the Bush administration was looking at taking out Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in order to take control of that nation's rich oil reserves? I am not just saying that as a matter of speculation. There is some evidence that that may be, in fact, the case. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated in a book that he wrote recently that Vice President Cheney strongly suggested U.S. intervention in Iraq well before the terrorist attacks of September 11. Then this spring President Bush's former top anti-terrorism adviser also talked about how almost from day one the Bush administration was consumed with taking out Saddam Hussein. It began back in 2001, months after the new administration came to power. Clarke says that he had been trying to schedule a cabinet-level priority meeting on terrorism. His first opportunity was a meeting with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Clarke said that he started the meeting by saying that we needed to deal with bin Laden. And Wolfowitz's response: ``No. No. No. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'' Clarke then responded to Wolfowitz: ``Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in 8 years.'' Clarke turned to the deputy director of the CIA, who agreed with his assessment. This conversation took place 3 months after Bush and Cheney took control of the White House. Clarke's assessment seems to support that of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Clarke goes on to detail conversations with both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld after 9-11. Both wanted to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Additional evidence exists that Cheney played an early planning role in the war in a National Security Council document dated February 3, 2001, months before September 11. According to a report in New Yorker Magazine, the document, written by a high National Security Council staffer, directed the NSC staff to cooperate fully with the energy task force as it considered the melding of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: the review of operational policies towards rogue states, such as Iraq, and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields. So now we have the melding of the national security policy and the energy task force policy. This document that I mentioned is essentially instructing the National Security Council staff to fully cooperate with the energy task force in melding together two different policies, one, a foreign policy towards Iraq versus an energy policy towards Iraq, and once again the document mentions the review of actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields. Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that somewhere within the energy task force documents there is a possible strategy towards taking control of Iraqi oil and gas fields? Keep in mind this was before 9-11 and well before the administration now claims it began looking into the possibility of going to war against Iraq. So my question is, Mr. Speaker, does Vice President Cheney want to keep his energy task force secret because he does not want to admit that the administration was exploring ways of taking out Saddam Hussein before 9-11 strictly for the purpose of taking control of Iraq's oil fields? I do not know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think the American people know either. But the reason we do not know is because Vice President Cheney again refuses to allow the American people to see these documents of the energy task force. Another possibility, and again I am not just speculating, there is some evidence, is whether these energy task force documents were potentially hiding documents involving Enron. Could it be that the Bush administration also wants to keep the records of its energy task force secret because it wants to continue to distance itself from the Enron scandal? According to a 2002 report by the Committee on Government Reform, seven of the eight recommendations that then Enron Chairman Ken Lay gave to Vice President Cheney miraculously made their way into the final energy task force report. Back in January, 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle released a memo given by Enron Chairman Lay to Vice President Cheney at a meeting on April 17, 2001. Enron's memo contains recommendations in eight areas. In total, the White House energy plan adopts all or significant portions of Enron's recommendations in seven of these eight areas. Enron representatives had six meetings with the White House energy task force, including four meetings that occurred before release of the final report. The White House has consistently refused to disclose what Enron requested during these meetings. And despite all these meetings and the fact that Enron Chairman Ken Lay was President Bush's largest financial supporter, another reason the administration may want to keep these documents secret is that they do not want the American people to see more collaboration between the Bush administration and former Enron executives. Now, once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not these documents would reveal the collaboration between Enron and President Bush, and neither do the American people. But we will never find out if the documents continue to remain secret. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this evening, and, of course, I listened to some of the comments that my colleagues on the Republican side made earlier before I spoke about energy policy, but I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans really want to address our Nation's current energy crisis, which they say they do, then they should finally wrestle legislation authorship away from the oil and gas executives and craft bipartisan legislation between Democrats and Republicans that truly modernizes our Nation's energy needs and finally ends our dependence on foreign oil. The Republicans have to get away from the special interests and get away from writing legislation that just is for the benefit of the oil and gas executives. Otherwise, we are never going to see something pass here that actually helps the average American. The facts about the Republican energy bill are clear: It provides billions in benefits to companies run by over 20 executives who have raised more than $100,000 each for the President's reelection campaign. One thing we do know, is when the policy was being written, the task force met with 118 energy groups, but only 13 environmental groups, and only one consumer group. Based on those statistics, who do you really think would benefit from this Republican energy bill? For over 3 years, Democrats have been fighting for a short-term plan to bring down high prices and a long-term plan for energy independence. We want to create a more reliable power grid, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and encourage research on new energy technologies and alternative fuels. Democrats want to lower gas prices. We want to force OPEC to make a meaningful increase in production, and we want to defer deliveries of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and put it into the marketplace. Lastly, and maybe most important, we want the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, to investigate, to make sure that oil and gas companies are not working together to keep prices high. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are doing everything they can to create a diversion. This week with their Energy Week they are creating a diversion and trying to shift attention away from their failed energy policy. I have often said they are in the majority; they are the majority here, they are in the majority in the other House, and they also have a Republican President. If they pass a bill here which they think is a good bill, then why is it they cannot pass it in the Senate where they have the majority? Why is it they cannot collectively pass a good energy bill? The reason is, it is not a good bill. It is a terrible bill. The other body will not pass it because they know it is not a good bill. What we have here is a failed energy policy, and this Republican Energy Week is nothing more than an effort to create a diversion, to keep passing the same old legislation in different forms. But, again, it is not working. This is a ruse by the Republican leadership. Americans know that it is not working, and they are reminded of it every time they fill their tank and see the high gas prices. So I would say to the Republicans, stop fooling around; stop with this mockery, if you will, of the legislative process by keep passing the same failed legislation. Nobody out there is paying any attention. Americans realize that gas prices are high and that nothing is happening here in Congress to make a difference. Instead, the Republicans should sit down with the Democrats on a bipartisan basis and try to put together an energy policy that will really work to lower gas prices and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, particularly Mideast oil, and, until they do that, no one is going to seriously believe that their so-called Energy Week really matters or makes any difference.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened both on TV and also here in the well in person to the previous Special Order delivered by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. I realize that they are well motivated and have the best of intentions in trying to put forward this prescription drug discount card program, but I have to say that I never believed it would work or accomplish anything to help seniors with their drug prices. Certainly what has happened today and the fact that so few seniors have signed up is a strong indication that it is unlikely to be effective and that it is unlikely to even be tried by most of America's seniors because they realize it is not really going to do much in terms of offering them discounts or providing lower prescription drug costs. I think AARP was quoted in The New York Times today saying that they only had 400 seniors nationwide from the membership of their organization that had signed up for the prescription drug cards. Their card. What is that, about, I do not know, five or so per State? It is unbelievable how few. Overall, I think there was another group that said about a thousand seniors had signed up for their card. Most of the other card sponsors would not even give out numbers. But it is clear very few seniors are signing up for it. I think it is also true that when the Republican so-called prescription drug benefit kicks in in 2 years, in 2006, we will have the same phenomena, very few people will sign up, because it really does not provide much of a benefit. But before I get into the whole issue of the discount drug cards, I want to mention, because I think a lot of times we forget, that the Democrats in the Congress, when this prescription drug proposal was being put forward by the Republicans, basically had a very simple proposal. We recognized the fact that Medicare has not traditionally included a prescription drug benefit and that the best way to include such a benefit was simply to expand Medicare in the traditional way and provide for the prescription drug benefit. So our alternative to the Republican proposal essentially followed the outlines of Medicare part B. I think most seniors realize that their hospitalization is covered by Medicare part A and their doctor bills are covered by Medicare part B. Medicare part B is essentially a voluntary program. A senior pays, I do not know what it is now, say approximately $50 a month for the coverage of their doctors' bills, with a $100 deductible, a 20 percent copay, and with 80 percent of the cost provided by the Federal Government. They can go to any doctor they choose and basically have it covered, 80 percent of the cost, by Medicare. What we proposed, as Democrats, is to do the same thing with prescription drugs. Essentially, a senior would have a $25 per month premium, with the first $100 being deductible. Starting January 1, the first $100 the individual had to put out for prescription drugs they had to pay out of pocket; and then, after that, 80 percent of the prescription drug costs would be paid for by the Federal Government and the individual would pay a 20 percent copay. There was no restriction. A senior could go to any pharmacy and buy any drug, name brand, generic, whatever was desired or whatever the doctor ordered that was necessary. Also, we had a provision in our bill, in the Democratic bill, that said that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the administrator of the Medicare program, would be required to negotiate lower prices. We estimate that that would result in price discounts of about 30 to 40 percent. I did not just pull that figure out of the air. That is what the Federal Government does with the Veterans' Administration. That is what they do with the military, the active as well as the retired military. They negotiate price reductions, and they get reductions of something like 30 and 40 percent. So it sounded like a very good idea. Democrats put it forward, figured this is an opportunity to expand a very successful program like Medicare and to include prescription drug coverage. But the Republicans said, no, we cannot do that. Frankly, I think a lot of them do not even like Medicare. But, whether they like it or not, they are very much into the ideology, at least the House Republican leadership and the President are into the ideology that everything should be privatized and that Medicare is not a good program because it is a public, government-run program and the best thing is to privatize. So we got into this very confusing privatization of Medicare in order to provide some kind of prescription drug benefit, which does not even start until the year 2006. So I have all along said it is a very political thing to do. If you want to provide a benefit, you provide it immediately. You do not wait until after the next election, or really way beyond even the next election. I want to talk about the discount card program, but if we look at the benefit that is supposedly to be provided beginning in the year 2006, we find that you have to put more money out of pocket into it than it is worth in terms of what a senior actually gets. There is a huge gap, some call it a donut hole, where you do not get any benefits, but you keep paying the premium. There is no designated premium, and there is no guaranteed discount. In fact, there is a provision in the Republican-passed bill that was sponsored by the Republicans and supported by the President that says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Medicare administrator, cannot negotiate prices because they do not want the Federal government negotiating prices or providing any discount. And, frankly, that is because the Republican bill was written by the drug industry; and they want to make money. They do not want to lose money by having discounts. We can get into what is going to happen in 2006, in another couple years, because we have a lot of time. But, in the meantime, what the Republicans put in their bill was that, beginning June 1, which is today, and until the time that the so-called benefit kicks in, more than 2 years from now, that they would provide these discount cards. And that was, of course, the discussion by my Republican colleagues in the last hour and what I would like to get into tonight. I would say just the opposite of what my Republican colleagues said earlier, that there is no benefit to these discount cards. I do not even see how anyone will get a discount because the prices of drugs have gone up way beyond whatever discount might be provided. And this system is so terribly confusing, there is really no way to even figure it out unless you have access to the Internet, which many seniors in my district do not. And when they do sit down on the Internet, seniors are going to be so confused trying to figure out which card to buy or whether to buy any card that, ultimately, they will not even bother. That is why so few seniors have signed up. Imagine, an organization like AARP, the largest senior organization, they are offering a discount card. A lot of people signed up for their health care plans, for their medigap plans, and only 400 people nationwide signing up for their discount card. That really shows that people have a lot of skepticism, as they should, about whether or not this is something that is really beneficial to them. Now, I just wanted to say that over the last month, in preparation for today, June 1, seniors faced the confusing tasks of shopping on line, looking on the Internet, and basically having to decide between 73 discount cards for more than 60,000 prescription drugs at more than 50,000 pharmacies around the country. Now, this chart, to me, kind of tells it all. This is what I call mass confusion. This basically describes President Bush's drug card: Fifty steps, no promises. Fifty ways of trying to figure out which card to buy and whether you are going to get a discount and how it might help you, with no promises you are going to get any kind of discount whatsoever. It is just unbelievable how difficult it is for seniors. There was a research firm that concluded, I think it was in today's New York Times, that the Medicare Web site was riddled with flaws that make it difficult for seniors to identify which card best fits their needs. And for those seniors who do not have access to a computer, and there are lots of them, they are forced to rely on a 1-800 Medicare number, I think my colleagues on the Republican side mentioned that. Now, I tried that number a couple of weeks ago. I sat on the line for 30 minutes going through different menus before I actually got the chance to talk to a human being. Does anyone think seniors should have to sit on a line for 30 minutes before they are able to even talk to someone about this or have to go on the Internet, when they may not even have a computer? The confusion is massive. The New York Times reported today that the discount cards are off to a slow start. Fewer than one million seniors have signed up, well off the Bush administration's prediction of 7.3 million. I do not even think it is anywhere near the million, to be honest. The New York Times reported that AARP said that, ``While it had received thousands of inquiries, only 400 people had signed up for its Medicare-approved discount card.'' Prime Therapeutics, which manages drug services for seven Blue Cross/ Blue Shield plans offering cards, said fewer than a thousand people had signed up. And several other companies refused to tell The New York Times how many people have enrolled, probably because so few have enrolled. Now, one might ask why, are seniors not more enthused about signing up for these discount prescription drug cards? Basically, it is because there is no guarantee they are going to get any discount. Medicare discount cards are being marketed as providing a 10 to 25 percent discount, but there is no requirement in the new law that the card sponsors must offer any specific discount. The idea of a savings is simply illusory. Prescription drug 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. In today's New York Times, Thomas Dickman, President of Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefits company, said in many cases the rise in retail drug prices over the last year had wiped out savings already negotiated for members of Blue Cross plans his company helps manage. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, seniors discovered there is no guarantee that a particular card will offer discounts on all 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 discount on a senior's medicine that was 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. If I have not lost you already, Mr. Speaker, let me go on. Imagine that a card sponsor can change prices any time they want, but seniors have to stick with the card for a whole year. Over the last month, seniors have also discovered there is no guaranteed access to any particular pharmacy. Each discount card sponsor will determine which pharmacies will offer the discount advertised with the cards. A senior's usual pharmacy may not participate in the card he or she selects. Finally, after all this confusion, the actual 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 offers the lowest price on the drugs covered under their card. I do not know how you could not be skeptical and wonder why so few seniors have signed up for the discount cards over the last month up to today. President Bush says, and one of my colleagues from Ohio is here, but I will say just one more thing before I yield to the gentleman. The President has said that these cards will cut bills by 10 to 25 percent. A new report out by Families U.S.A. shows prices on the five top-selling drugs for seniors increased 9.9 percent over the last year, wiping out any savings from the discount card. We cannot do anything to help seniors out with their prescription drug bills, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, until we actually do something about the drug prices. Democrats are fighting to lower drug costs in a straightforward way. We should allow the government to use the purchasing power of millions of seniors to negotiate lower drug costs. This is what we do with the VA. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) has mentioned that before. This is what we do with the military, and also we should allow the safe reimportation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Until we do these things and address the price issue, these cards are not going to provide any meaningful relief. They are a sad commentary on the ruse being pulled by the Republicans and by the President on such an important issue for seniors. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has talked about this many times.

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, there is still an investigation within the Department as to whether or not that was a violation of law, too, because the actuary is supposed to be nonpartisan and give out true figures. The fact he was told if you reveal those figures to Congress, which he is required to do, that you will lose your job, may also have been a violation of the law. We are still waiting for the result of that investigation.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, at that point there were a majority who voted ``no.'' It was not even like we were waiting around to see who was left to vote. Sometimes we wait to see because Members have not voted. It was 218, which is a majority, voted ``no.''

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman remembers when the votes were switched and there were now 218 for it, how long did they wait to close the board?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on two things that the gentleman mentioned with this chart. The gentleman spoke about the reimportation from Canada which is not allowed now, and the other is negotiating the prices, which the VA does. And the gentleman is a champion of the veterans; and even though the Republican Congress and the President have cut back on a lot of health care funding for veterans, they at least allow the negotiated discount, but they will not allow it for seniors. Earlier this year, the Committee on Government Reform senior Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), conducted a comprehensive report comparing the new Republican discount drug cards with three other sets of prices; and what the gentleman did was compare the drug card prices to those that individuals pay for the same drug in Canada; and, second, compare prices of those for drugs purchased by the Federal Government on the Federal Supply Schedule, and those are the prices that are negotiated by the Department of Veteran Affairs and are available to a number of Federal agencies, including the VA, Department of Defense, and also the Coast Guard. Now, what this chart shows, and I just took some of the drugs, the prices are indicative of the prices available, and let me just show some examples. Some people may not know what these drugs are, so I have another little sheet which tells me what they are. The first one is Aricept, I do not know if I am pronouncing it right, which is basically for Alzheimer's. If we look across, some of the prices available through the new Medicare cards for Aricept, this drug, Pharmacy Care Alliance, $139; Walgreens, $135; RxSavings, $132. This is the Federal Supply Schedule which is the negotiated price that the VA uses, $76 which is half, approximately, of what the discount cards are quoting. If we look at Canada, $119, less also than those three. I will just go through a few more. Celebrex which is for pain, again the discount cards, Pharmacy Care Alliance, $121; Walgreens, $81; RxSavings, $85; Federal Supply Schedule, which is negotiated with the VA, $62. So they are significantly less. Canada, $38.

Mr. PALLONE. There is no question about it. I went to a forum a couple of months ago, the Bloomberg Forum, a program on TV, and there was a professor from Princeton, and the rest of the representatives on the show were from the pharmaceuticals, and it was clear that they saw this prescription drug benefit and discount card as a way to make more money. That is all it was. I wanted to mention, I am not going to go through all these, because you can just generally see how much cheaper it is with the negotiated VA price or even lower with the Canadian price, but we keep talking about seniors because we care about seniors, and that is what this Medicare program is supposed to be all about. But I would like to remind people that these figures for Canada, that is for the public at large. That is not just for senior citizens. In other words, we have to remember I think constantly that people who are not seniors are totally subject to whatever the price is, whereas in other countries, like Canada, these discount prices are available to the general public.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the other thing I wanted to point out, and not to necessarily keep pointing to this chart, but I think it says so much, you can look on the Internet, we have made an issue, and the gentleman and I know well that a lot of seniors do not have access to an Internet, but if you do have access, what do you need the cards for? You can look on the Internet for a Drugstore.com, Costco.com, and there are a lot of other Internet sites, where they have the same drugs for either about the same cost or slightly less.

Mr. PALLONE. So one of the things that a number of my seniors told me, they said, I have finally got the Web site, and I got on it, and I compared the prices to figure out whether or not I wanted to take one of these cards; and then I went to one of the other Internet sites, and the prices were less. So why buy a card at all? It is so absurd. I listened to my colleagues on the Republican side tonight, and I know they mean well. I am not suggesting they do not. I know they feel strongly about this issue, as we do. But it is either their ideology or allegiance to the pharmaceuticals, as the gentleman says, or something that is getting in the way of reality here, and it should not. This is important. We have got to do something that is helpful to seniors, not worry about the ideology or whether or not you have got a prescription drug company in your district or all these other things that they seem to be concerned about.

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman might also want to mention the cost paid for the ads. They had an initial ad campaign that was $20 million and another one subsequent, I think another $18 million, that basically promotes the prescription drug cards. In my opinion, they are not really honest about what people would get. I guess it was the week before the break, a couple of weeks ago, the GAO came out and said it was probably illegal to spend the money because it was essentially a ruse, it was really propaganda, it was not really informational, and they should not have been spending taxpayer dollars on it. So between the ad campaign and the extra people hired on the phone, the cost has got to be unbelievable. I do not know what the cost is, but it is huge.

Mr. PALLONE. I do not want to belabor the point, but I just wanted to say a few more things before we conclude tonight, and that is that when we talk about the reimportation from Canada, and we are going to continue to fight to try to get that, we realize it is only a stopgap measure, that really what we should have is a comprehensive program that provides for lower cost drugs. But it certainly is something that could be done in the interim in order to create, as the gentleman said, true competition. What we are seeing on this chart with these discount drug cards is not true competition. This is just a ruse. But, as the gentleman said, if you had reimportation from Canada, you would have true competition. I have to say I have been a little disgusted with the way that the Bush administration has treated this issue. Because from time to time the Department of Health and Human Services gives the impression that they would maybe allow reimportation. We have even heard some of our Republican colleagues come on the Floor and suggest that Republican leadership might allow reimportation. But they always put an obstacle in the way. The argument that they use most frequently is that it is a health or safety problem to reimport the drugs. I laugh at that. Not that I laugh, it is a serious thing. But it is not a problem. Because, as we know, the bill that we tried to pass basically said that you could only import drugs from FDA-approved facilities. These are the same facilities that are now being used to import the drugs that the name brand companies here are using. I tried to explain this to one of my constituents the other day. When I finally explained it, they just said, how can that be? One of the drugs that is on here, I forget which one it is, but one of the drugs on here, actually the majority of the raw material is manufactured in Ireland, something like 60 or 70 percent, and it is packaged in Ireland and sent over here for the major brand companies, and then they sell it in the United States. That is an FDA-approved facility, where the FDA goes in, inspects it, does the same type of thing they would do at a facility in the United States, and it is being used now. So how in the world, if you say that these drugs have to come from an FDA-approved facility in Ireland or France or Italy or wherever it happens to be, that there is a safety problem? It is just absurd. We are using them now.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say one more thing if I could in conclusion tonight. One of the things that the Republicans keep saying is that they wanted to put this 2-year program with the discount drug cards in effect first, before the larger so-called benefit, prescription drug benefit, came into effect in 2006 because they wanted to show that privatization and the kind of competition, if you will, that is created under this very confusing system was the way to go, rather than the traditional Medicare; and that was supposedly to show the public that what was to come was going to be a good thing. I have always said, and that is why I think today, June 1, is so significant, that when the public actually sees what this benefit is that the Republicans are offering them, they are just going to talk with their feet and not participate in it. I think that today, the fact that we found out today that for AARP there were like 400 of their members who signed up and for the other one I mentioned, with Blue Cross and Blue Shield, there were less than 1,000, that that is exactly what is happening. People have clearly looked into this. If they have a computer, they have looked on the Web site and they decided not to participate. And I think that is very telling, because what it says to me is, if the seniors are not going to participate in this program because they realize it is not worth anything, hopefully that sends a message that the larger program to come in 2006, which is no less beneficial, in my opinion, also is not going to be helping any seniors. I hope that we do not have to wait until 2006 and that we can get rid of all of this garbage, really, this experiment in confusion before then, before 2006 and actually get the political wherewithal to pass a real prescription drug benefit. The gentleman from Ohio and I, because we are on the Committee on Commerce and we are on the Health Care Task Force, and we were part of the group that put together this alternative proposal that would just expand Medicare, and I am just going to say one more time, because it is so simple. It is just like part B. Part B is voluntary for their doctor bills, and 99.99 percent of seniors participate. Most seniors do not even know it is voluntary, because they would not think of not participating in it. In that program, you have a $100 deductible, 80 percent of the cost is paid for by the Federal Government, 20 percent co-pay, you go to any doctor you choose. We are just saying do the same thing with prescription drugs. Have a $25 month premium. If you cannot afford it, then you would not pay it, but most seniors would pay it; a $100 deductible, 80 percent paid for by the Federal Government, 20 percent co-pay and, most important, that there is a negotiated price reduction which will bring the cost down, as the gentleman said happens in the VA, 40 percent, 50 percent, sometimes even more. I am just hoping that when the seniors see that this is worthless and they do not participate in it, that we can build some political momentum over the next few months or the next year to actually put in place a good program, because I would like to see this whole Republican plan just repealed. There is nothing to be saved here, no money to be saved and no benefit.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, he will remember that when they first proposed the Medicare bill, they had a privatization component for not only the prescription drug program but the whole of Medicare; I think it was by the year 2010. Essentially, you were going to get a voucher, and you would just be given a certain amount of money to go around, and it would be the same type of thing. You would probably go on some Internet site and you would see what kind of programs were available that you could use your voucher to buy. But if you wanted to do something that cost more than the voucher, then you had to pay out of pocket. And there was so much opposition to that, that they ended up making it just a pilot program. But under the law that was passed that includes the discount drug card, that pilot program does go into effect in 2010 in a number of, I think, 20 percent of the different regions of the country. We are not talking just about prescription drugs now; we are talking about the entire Medicare program.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that we are going to be down here, and we are going to continue to fight for what we think is right on this issue. I know today is June 1, which is the first day that this discount drug program goes into effect; but it is very important to point out that it has so far failed, and the reason it has failed are the same reasons that I think that the larger program itself does not make any sense; and we need to keep fighting to make sure that the public understands.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today, the discount prescription drug cards Republicans have been touting take effect. Over the last month, seniors faced the confusing task of shopping online between 73 discount cards for more than 60,000 prescription drugs. The New York Times reported today that less than 1 million seniors have signed up, well off the Bush administration's prediction of 7.3 million. Seniors should be skeptical. While the Bush administration says that these cards will cut bills by 10 to 25 percent, a new report out from Families U.S.A. shows prices on the top-selling five drugs for seniors increased 9.9 percent over the last year, wiping out any savings from the discount cards. We cannot do anything to help seniors out with their prescription drug bills until we actually do something about the skyrocketing drug prices. Until then, these cards will not provide any meaningful relief, and the program will continue to be a failure.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary work of Clean Ocean Action, and to recognize their significant contributions over the years, as they celebrate their 20th Anniversary this weekend. Clean Ocean Action (COA) was established in 1984, by individuals who had a deep-rooted concern for the environment, as well as a desire to help maintain the cleanliness of our oceans. Today, we can say with great certainty that the waters off the New Jersey and New York coast have benefited a great deal thanks to the efforts of COA, and its volunteers and the many citizens who have participated in COA activities. In commemorating their 20th Anniversary, COA certainly has much to celebrate. Since its inception, this group has organized over 30,600 volunteers for bi-annual beach clean-ups that have led to the removal of millions of pieces of trash and debris that typically pollute our coast. COA has compiled statistical information on the trash collected during their sweeps, which provide a very valuable tool to determine the leading source of debris pollution on our beaches and in our coastal waters. The Beach Sweeps were also chosen as a ``Local Legacy,'' for the 200th celebration of the Library of Congress. As a passionate supporter of our oceans and our coastline, I am mindful of the world of indebtedness that we owe to this organization. The selfless acts of groups such as the COA, and the volunteers they organize, often go without official recognition or praise. However, we all benefit and are grateful for the work that they do and it is imperative that we support their efforts. Therefore, I pause today to thank Clean Ocean Action for their tireless efforts and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate COA on their anniversary, and offer them the highest praise for the fine and important work they have done over the past twenty years.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just interrupt, I think the gentlewoman makes some very valid points, and I think it relates back to what we were talking about before. You can call it abuse of power. You can to call it arrogance, this arrogance that we see here in this House on the part of the Republican majority and the Bush administration which essentially says, my way or the highway. We are not really interested in your input. We do not want to hear what the Democrats have to say. We are not interested in whatever suggestions you have, we see playing out with regard to the Bush administration's foreign policy, which is essentially unilateral, the cowboy. We are not interested in other countries' views. They were not interested in other countries, views or the U.N., which is sort of a manifestation of all the other countries together because we want to do everything on our own. So that is why we went into Iraq without having our NATO allies or the major ones supportive or without having the U.N. support it because the idea is we do not need other people. We do not need help. That is why the effort, the gentleman mentions Haiti, was pretty much the same thing. We will unilaterally decide that it is time for Aristide to go, without really thinking about what the consequences might be. And the U.N. has suffered because we do not give any credence to it. We suggest that the U.N. is incompetent or that somehow they are not something that we favor, and so then we are forced to go it alone and not have the help of our allies. In the case of Iraq, it means that we end up mostly having our own soldiers fight the battles and our own resources being used. And then what are the consequences here? The consequences are that we go further and further into debt, and that is, of course, only multiplied by the fact that we do all these tax cuts that you and I have been talking about all evening. So we have the deficit situation. We do not have the money for domestic problems because we are spending all the money unilaterally in Iraq and other places, and we are cutting taxes at the same time, mostly for the wealthy. So given those circumstances, there is no money to pay for education programs or for health care or for housing or for all the other priorities that are important, particularly for people at a time when the middle-class person is hurting and they probably need some help from the Federal Government for some of these things. This is all part of this arrogance, this abuse of power. I think it is domestic policy, as well as the foreign policy, and it does not seem to be getting any better. If you talk about Iraq, what countries want to help us now? The President says he wants to go to the U.N.; he wants other countries to help us, but the opposite is happening. The countries are leaving because of our arrogance and our unwillingness to get them involved, and our unwillingness to reach out and say we need your help. When does the President ever say, we need your help? I never hear him say that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add to the gentlewoman's comments because I think they are very appropriate for ending this special order tonight, and I thank the gentlewoman for being here.