Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman coming down tonight to talk about this. I know she has done it before. Particularly when she raises the issues of the ads Halliburton is running, I have seen some of them, but I forgot about the fact in the middle of all this, they are spending money to basically tell people how wonderful they are while an investigation is going on. The bottom line is the Pentagon now is actually finally conducting an investigation. What you and I have said is we should have hearings here in the Congress. I go back again to that New York Times editorial that I mentioned before that says keep in mind that while Halliburton commits all these abuses, the United States is at war. I cannot imagine that if this was World War II or another major conflict, but I will use World War II as an example, it is what we call war profiteering, and anyone who was associated with that, we have seen the old movies where there is an old World War II movie where they picture the war profiteers. They are the enemies of the State. They are like no different in the public's mind than Nazi Germany or the countries that were fighting the United States, because they were making a profit at the expense of the taxpayers during a time of war. So, given the fact that all this has been exposed, and we do not have to go through the facts again, but everyone in the kickbacks on the contract work, which Halliburton actually admitted, the overcharging for the meals, the fact that you have the subsidiary and the questionable aspect that was brought up in 60 Minutes, why in the world are the Republicans not having hearings, bringing out how the United States might be wasting billions of dollars in a time of war? I do not even have to add the deficit and the spending that we might want to see on other things more important for the average citizen. Just the fact this is happening at a time of war and this company may be making a profit on the war, it is just incredible to me. All we are asking is that our Republican colleagues in control of the House have some sort of hearings and bring this up. That is all that you mentioned in the letter from our colleagues on our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), want. That is all they are asking be done, and still the Republicans refuse to do it. We are just going to come down here and continue to come down here until some effort is made by the majority party to have hearings and to have some accountability. We just cannot keep bleeding with all this money that is going into this company. It just does not make any sense.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. And sometimes I think that we forget that not only these abuses are going on, but the circumstances in which they are going on, and all this money is being wasted. And there was an editorial in the New York Times, I guess, January 30, and I am not going to read it all, but just the end. The whole thing was about Halliburton and all their abuses, and they wanted to remind us, and I would like to remind us, just by quoting a couple of sentences, ``The United States is at war. The government is running deficits. Money is tight everywhere. But Halliburton won't even kick in its fair share. It continues to benefit from the Nation's largesse, while scouring the world for places to shelter as much of its American riches as possible.'' It is bad enough that they have a subsidiary that is doing business in Iran and that there are all these overcharges and abuses, but keep in mind that this is happening while we are at war, the government is running record deficits, and money is tight, and things that we really need to spend Federal dollars on cannot be provided for, and in the middle of this they are involved in all this abuse. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has been down here many times to address this same issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Pentagon did something that the House Republican leadership should have done many months ago, and that is they opened a criminal fraud investigation into Halliburton. The Pentagon is expected to investigate the overcharging of at least $61 million for fuel shipped from Iraq to Kuwait. Halliburton has also been accused of charging the government for meals it never served at dining facilities in Iraq and Kuwait. The company agreed to reimburse the government $27.4 million for potential overcharges related to the meals and $6.2 million to cover other potential overcharges. Now, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is it is about time. I have been coming to the floor with a group of my Democratic colleagues to highlight these possible overcharges by Halliburton and called on the House Republican leadership to hold open hearings on whether or not Halliburton is overcharging the American taxpayer with its reconstruction work in Iraq. Instead, the Senate and the House, both controlled by Republicans, continue to turn a blind eye to possible waste and mismanagement by Halliburton in Iraq. Congressional Republicans even refuse to question the Bush administration on the billions of dollars of taxpayer money now going to Halliburton, much less create any special committee to oversee these funds. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are my Republican colleagues afraid of? Why do they refuse to hold Halliburton accountable for the billions it is now spending in Iraq? Could it be that congressional Republicans do not want to draw more attention to the fact that the company profiting from the reconstruction of Iraq, Halliburton, has close ties to Vice President Cheney? Back in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney said these words, and I quote, ``Halliburton is a fine company, and I am pleased that I was associated with the company.'' Now, how can the Vice President say that Halliburton is a fine company? Let us look at some of the facts. Fact number one: Halliburton has acknowledged that it accepted, and I quote, ``accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks in its contract work in Iraq.'' Fact number two: Halliburton is now being investigated by the Pentagon for overcharging the American government for its work in Iraq. Fact No. 3, Halliburton faces criminal charges in a $180 million international bribery scandal during the time that Cheney was the CEO of the company. Fact No. 4, Halliburton has been repeatedly warned by the Pentagon that the food it was serving 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq was dirty, and a Pentagon audit found blood all over the floor of the kitchens Halliburton supplies over in Iraq. Fact No. 5, Halliburton is getting around an American law that forbids doing business with rogue nations. Thanks to a giant loophole, Halliburton is able to do business with Iran, of all nations, through a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. Mr. Speaker, how can the Vice President characterize Halliburton as a fine company? One has to wonder since Vice President Cheney seems to condone such conduct if the company was any different when he was in charge. It probably makes sense for the Vice President to continue to praise Halliburton considering that the company continues to pay the Vice President hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Vice President Cheney tried to squash such a story when he appeared on Meet the Press last year. He stated, ``And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice President, I have severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind, and have not had now for over 3 years.'' That was the Vice President's quote on Meet the Press. But despite the Vice President's claims, the Congressional Research Service issued a report several weeks later concluding that because Cheney receives a deferred salary and continues to hold stock interests, he still has a financial interest in Halliburton. In fact, if the company were to go under, the Vice President could lose the deferred salary, a salary he is expecting to continue to receive this year and next year. While losing around $200,000 a year might not put a dent in the Vice President's wallet, he clearly still has a stake in the success of Halliburton. The Vice President also neglects to mention that he continues to hold more than 433,000 stock options. The Congressional Research Service reports that these stock ties ``represent a continuing financial interest in those employers which make them potential conflicts of interest.'' This was not the first time that Vice President Cheney has misrepresented his role in Halliburton. Just last month the Vice President stated, in reference to government manipulation by Halliburton during his tenure, ``I would not know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to.'' But what the Vice President neglects to say is that Halliburton cashed in after Cheney took over Halliburton. Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton doubled the value of its government contracts. According to a report by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, the company took in revenue of $2.3 billion on government contracts, which was up $1.2 billion from the 5-year period before the Vice President arrived. It is possible that Halliburton is the right company to do this work, but then how does the Bush administration and the Republican Congress explain why there is so much secrecy surrounding the whole deal? Could it be that the Republican Congress and the Bush administration are concerned that the more light that is shed on Halliburton's use of taxpayer money, the more examples of waste and mismanagement are likely to be exposed? Mr. Speaker, earlier this month since congressional Republicans refused to hold hearings on the billions of dollars handed over to Halliburton with no oversight, my Democratic colleagues in the other Chamber held a hearing in which a former Halliburton employee testified about the company's practices. Mr. Bunting purchased supplies for Halliburton in Kuwait last summer. According to Bunting, Halliburton spent too much on supplies for the reconstruction effort in part because it wanted to avoid seeking competitive bids from government suppliers. Bunting charges that Halliburton's supervisors wanted purchasers to buy from a preferred list of companies in Kuwait even when those companies charged high prices. Supervisors also told their workers to keep most purchase orders below $2,500 so that the company would not have to seek bids from multiple vendors. Now Bunting is a former employee of Halliburton's, and he is telling a group of Democratic Senators that the company is overcharging the American taxpayer. Even with all of this information, the House Republicans continue to allow Halliburton to receive billions of dollars without any oversight from Congress. If Democrats were in the majority in the House, we would definitely be making sure that Halliburton was no longer ripping off the American taxpayer. In fact, if it had not been for the resourceful work and the dedication of two of my colleagues, Halliburton would still be robbing the taxpayers blind with outrageous gasoline prices. Last year two of my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, a committee on which I serve, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) exposed the outrageous fact that Halliburton was inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers. In a letter to the OMB Director Mr. Bolten, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wrote that the independent experts that they consulted have been appalled to learn that the U.S. Government has paid Halliburton $1.62 to $1.70 to import gasoline into Iraq. According to these experts, the price that Halliburton was charging the gasoline is outrageously high, potentially a huge rip-off, and highway robbery. During the relevant period, the average wholesale cost of gasoline in the Mideast was around 71 cents a gallon, meaning that Halliburton was charging over 90 cents per gallon just to transport the fuel into Iraq. Let me just repeat that again. The U.S. Government was paying Halliburton $1.62 to $1.70 to import gasoline into Iraq, but at that time the wholesale cost in the Middle East was around 71 cents a gallon. So Halliburton was charging 90 cents per gallon more just to transport the fuel from Kuwait. There is no way that could be justified. According to the experts, this exorbitant transportation charge is inflated many times over. Compounding the cost to the taxpayers, this expensive gasoline is then sold to Iraqis at a price of just 4 to 15 cents per gallon. Although Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, the U.S. taxpayers are in effect subsidizing over 90 percent of the cost of gasoline sold in Iraq. This is just incredible when we think about it. Mr. Speaker, in light of this new information, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) requested that OMB Director Bolten provide copies of all contracts, task orders, invoices and related documents issued to date regarding Halliburton's work in Iraq. The purpose was so Congress could conduct its own independent investigation of these issues on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer. There is no question that this request from my Democratic colleagues was reasonable. After all, if Halliburton was grossly overcharging the American taxpayer for the transportation of oil, it was highly unlikely that the overcharges ended there. Over the past couple of months, we have learned of lots of other overcharges; and yet still my Republican colleagues are silent on the issue. We do not see the waste watchers, a group of Republicans who come down to the floor periodically to rail against waste in the Federal Government, a government that they currently control, and we do not see them coming down to the floor to rail about Halliburton's gouging of the Federal purse. We do not see any Republicans expressing the need for more congressional oversight of the current contracts going to Halliburton and others, even though these problems continue to be exposed in the media on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, it just appears to be another example of how the House Republicans have taken this House away from the people and handed it over to an elite few, corporate executives and other interests. I do not know how many more days are going to go by or how many more weeks are going to go by with continuing charges, often backed up in the media, about what Halliburton is doing and how it is abusing its situation in Iraq before the Republicans in this body finally demand that there be some oversight and some hearings to look into these issues. Mr. Speaker, again we have a huge deficit. We have a lot of spending needs. How can we possibly justify continuing to waste this money on behalf of Halliburton? It just does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is here, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, after 3 years in the White House, President Bush still has not figured out how to create jobs for Americans here in the United States. The economy has yet to grow to the point where companies feel confident in hiring new employees. Accordingly, millions of Americans remain unemployed, some for so long they have actually given up their job search. If the jobs recession does not end soon and the economy does not create 2.1 million jobs this year, then President Bush will be the first President since President Hoover to preside over an economy in which he did not create one net job. One of the major reasons for the current jobs recession is the increased exporting of high-paying white- and blue-collar jobs overseas. Fortunately, this phenomenon has not hit New Jersey as hard as States like Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia. However, New Jersey has still suffered. I want Members to consider several examples from the township of Edison in my congressional district. This week a Ford plant is scheduled to close, leaving more than 900 New Jersey employees without jobs. Last year, the Frigidaire air conditioning plant closed in Edison and shifted production to Brazil, leaving 1,600 people unemployed. One would think that the Bush administration would be concerned about these job losses. Two weeks ago, however, we learned President Bush and his economic advisers view the movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other families as a positive transformation that will in the end enrich our economy. The President's chief economist, Gregory Mankiw, made national headlines earlier this month when he said, ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradeable than were tradeable in the past, and that is a good thing.'' President Bush supported this view in his annual economic report in which he wrote, ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make it or provide it domestically here in the United States.'' It is no wonder the President thinks our economic forecast is so rosy. He is not concerned about creating jobs here in the United States; sending jobs overseas is fine with him. How can we have an economic success if we send jobs overseas, but do not create enough new jobs with comparable wages here in the United States? It is clear the President and his economic team are not concerned about that at all. These statements from President Bush and his economic advisers are particularly worrisome after Congress narrowly approved legislation last year that would give the President free rein to negotiate trade agreements with foreign governments without the ability of Congress to amend the agreements. I opposed the so-called fast track trading negotiation authority because I was concerned the Bush administration would use it to sacrifice American jobs for cheaper imports. In an attempt to further expand international free trade, the administration is now in the process of negotiating an agreement between the United States and Central America that could potentially begin another exodus of American jobs to the south. Mr. Speaker, I would say that such agreements will do nothing to create jobs here in the United States, and perhaps that is why President Bush and some of his leading economic advisers are backing away from another statement in that same annual economic report of the President in which the administration predicted 2.6 million jobs would be created this year. Just 1 week after the release of the report, both Treasury Secretary John Snow and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans refused to embrace President Bush's own economic projections because they know that is not going to happen. Mr. Speaker, it is time the Bush administration realizes shipping jobs overseas and cutting taxes for the wealthy elite in our country will not create jobs. President Bush and congressional Republicans have had 3 years to turn this jobs recession around. They have totally failed. It is time for Congress to pass measures that will encourage companies to keep jobs here in the United States. It is time we level the playing field and protect American jobs here, rather than continuing to export them overseas.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to once again highlight several questionable activities by Republicans during and after the Medicare prescription drug legislation passed the House of Representatives last year. Seniors have already begun to voice their opposition to the new prescription drug bill, as well they should. Seniors know that the Republican bill forces seniors to get their prescription drug benefits outside of Medicare. They have already calculated the supposed prescription drug benefit they would be getting under the law and realize that it is minuscule. Just to cite some examples, consider that seniors with a thousand dollars in annual prescription drug costs would pay $857 out of their own pockets; or that those seniors with prescription drug costs of $5,000 a year would be forced to pay $3,920. Now I ask: What kind of benefit is that? If seniors are not getting the money, where is the $500 billion that it is now estimated that this prescription drug so- called benefit would cost the Federal Government? Where is the money going if it is not coming to the senior citizens? There is no doubt in my mind that both Republicans here in the House and in the Bush administration are concerned that seniors are not buying this plan. Many of our seniors have contacted us and told us that this is a terrible plan and it is not going to help seniors, and it is a boondoggle for the special interests, HMOs, and the pharmaceutical companies. I think what is happening is the Republican leadership here in the House and President Bush and his administration realize that the public thinks, rightly so, that this Republican prescription drug plan for seniors is a farce. So last week we got wind of the fact that the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services was going to spend $22 million to rebut criticism, and this was stated by the administration, to ``rebut criticism of the new Medicare law through an advertising campaign on television and through the mail.'' Some may have already seen these ads. I think it is outrageous. I have to say that here we are talking about how bad this bill is as part of our free speech that we all exercise, and seniors are saying it is a bad bill, and the Bush administration has the gall to now spend $22 million in taxpayer money to try in their own terms, and I quote, to ``rebut criticism of the new Medicare law.'' I think the American public should be concerned that the President is spending $22 million of the taxpayers' money, money that could be used to actually help seniors with their prescription drug bills, than trying to rebut legitimate criticism of the Republican and the Bush administration Medicare prescription drug plan. President Bush should be concerned that seniors are not buying his prescription drug bill, but maybe, instead of spending taxpayers' money to try to rebut legitimate criticism, he should be talking about how he could change the bill. Or, alternatively, if the President wants to use his own campaign dollars, he has amassed about $150 million in campaign contributions over the last couple of years, a lot of which has come from the pharmaceutical and the insurance industry, if he feels that he needs to rebut the criticism, then let him spend money out of his own campaign war chest from those same people that he helped in creating this terrible legislation. Do not use the taxpayers' money to do it. The Republicans are saying, and this is what I have heard, they claim they are just trying to inform seniors about the new prescription drug plan with this taxpayer-paid ad campaign. One of the ways that you know that that is not the case is that the Department of Health and Human Services decided to use the same media firm that is working on advertising for President Bush's reelection campaign. We know there are a lot of advertising agencies out there, but why would the Department of Health and Human Services just happen to choose National Media, Inc., which is the same media firm that is working for the President's reelection campaign? It is not a coincidence. Who knows what benefit or collusion there is in the fact that the taxpayers' money is being used for an ad campaign to rebut the Democrats' and others' criticism and at the same time it is the same agency that the President's reelection campaign has hired. But it is clear from this collusion, if you will, this is not a coincidence. The sole purpose of these taxpayer ads is not to inform seniors about the new prescription drug law but instead to try and convince them that the law is not as bad as they think. Both the television ad and the two-page flyer that they are sending out are oversimplified and distorted and I think they are clearly political propaganda that should not be paid for with taxpayers' funds. Let me just give my colleagues an example, because I have some of the ads now and I can just show them how political they are and why they should not be paid for by the taxpayers. Let me give my colleagues one example of how the Department of Health and Human Services' distortion of the Medicare prescription drug law is played out in these ads. In one of the ads an announcer states, and I quote, it's the same Medicare you've always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage. That is the end of the quote. Any viewer of this ad is naturally going to assume that the prescription drug benefits would be available through Medicare. The ad goes on to claim, and I quote, it's the same Medicare you've always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage. The fact is the supposed prescription drug benefit is not included in Medicare. Instead, seniors have to go outside of Medicare, either to an HMO or a PPO, to get their prescription drug coverage. So the ad is totally inaccurate. It is suggesting to the viewer that you can get your prescription drug coverage through traditional Medicare when in fact you cannot. You have to join an HMO or something like it, like a doctors' group called a PPO in order to get the benefit. So it is not like traditional Medicare and you are just adding the benefit. I think it is simply wrong and it is unacceptable for the Bush administration to use the taxpayers' money for such a misleading and useless ad and flyer, $22 million that could be used to help seniors with a prescription drug benefit rather than thrown away on this ridiculous ad campaign. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Comptroller of the General Accounting Office asking the agency to investigate this misuse of government funds with the ads. Because, frankly, I think it is illegal. Last Friday, the General Accounting Office agreed to investigate the legality of the ads and the flyers. I do not think there is any question it is illegal. The law is clear that Federal law bars the use of public funds for political or propaganda purposes. There is no way anybody can interpret this and say it is not political or propaganda purposes. It is my hope that the GAO will see these ads for what they are and conclude that the taxpayers' dollars should not be used by the Bush administration in an attempt to sell its lousy prescription drug bill. I want to talk about the next step. This is what the administration is doing, using the taxpayers' money to try to distort what this Medicare prescription drug bill, so-called, is all about. But it is not just the Republicans at the Department of Health and Human Services that I am concerned about. Because today's Roll Call newspaper, the Capitol Hill newspaper, includes an article about how the House Republican Conference, that is the Republican Members of Congress, is now coming up with a script described as similar in fashion to the one created by the Department of Health and Human Services that I just talked about that its Republican members could use for public service announcements. These public service announcements again would be taped at taxpayers' expense through Congress' recording studio. So now we have got the Bush administration through its agency spending taxpayers' money, the Members of Congress, if they do these public service announcements, taping them at taxpayers' expense through Congress' recording studio. It is going to be interesting to see how House Republicans try to spin this. They have been trying to spin how this legislation was good. Now they are trying to spin how this taxpayer ad campaign is a good thing. So far, none of this has worked. Because, basically, the American people understand that it is all spin and there is no substance to any of it, and I would suggest that now the ads, I think, in my opinion are illegal. I am just hoping that at some point the House Republicans would wake up and realize the reason seniors do not like their prescription drug law is not because the House Republicans have not explained it properly but just because seniors see through all the rhetoric and already know that this Republican prescription drug bill provides a paltry benefit as I explained before. Why in the world would a senior want to have to spend all this money out of pocket to get a very paltry benefit? The bottom line is that when this bill goes into effect in a couple of years, and it does not go into effect until 2006, which is another reason why you would ask why all this money is being spent on ads to promote it when it does not even go into effect for a couple of more years, but the bottom line is that when it does go into effect most seniors will not even take it. They should not, because it is not giving them any kind of benefit. Mr. Speaker, this prescription drug legislation, in my opinion, is a perfect example of how the Republican majority has turned the people's House of Representatives over to the special interests and to the wealthy elite; and I think seniors should not be and have not been fooled into believing that this legislation was written for their benefit. The Republicans did not write this bill to help the seniors. They wrote it to benefit the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. In fact, many of my colleagues, and I have said for months that this so-called prescription drug bill was being written not here on Capitol Hill but instead downtown in the offices of PhRMA, which is the trade organization for the pharmaceutical industry, and also written by the insurance companies. Here in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the only true voices that matter as far as Republicans are concerned are those of the special interests and the wealthy elite. I have talked about the ad campaign, but I see that some of my colleagues are here. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has been outspoken on the need for a prescription drug benefit and the need for us to be able to import low- cost prescription drugs from Canada. He has been outstanding on this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I know he is being a little sarcastic in talking about how a bill becomes law, but the fact of the matter is we can use his example on so many occasions in what has been happening here in the last few years under this Republican majority. And what happened with this Medicare prescription drug bill is a great example, as the gentleman has said; but there are many others, and it is just like the whole place has just turned over on the Republican side to the special interests, the corporate interests, the wealthy elite. And I never thought I would see the day when that would happen, but that is where we are. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. PALLONE. The other thing, just to add to that, is that when the 17 minutes are up, because I was here, the votes were against the bill. In other words, there were 218 votes, which is a majority, against the bill. So the bill lost at that time. It is just amazing.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman because she has been down here so many times talking about this issue which she has mentioned and which I find incredible. We are talking about over $500 billion now for this program. Where is the money going? It is not going to the seniors. It is going to the special interests. It is going to the HMOs. It is going to the pharmaceutical companies. And now on top of that, the administration has the gall to spend, and she mentioned $9 million, and I think that is just for the TV ads. The total is 22 million if we add all the printed material and everything else they are sending out to promote a bad bill. It is just incredible. All taxpayer funded. But I appreciate her being here. I yield now to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who I have to say is not only the ranking member on our Health Subcommittee, but he has repeatedly pointed out not only the faults of this legislation but also how the special interests wrote the bill, and now the administration is spending money to try to justify the bill, all for these special interests that really have no concern about the senior citizens. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the amazing thing is we started off this evening, and I am sure we are going to hear from our colleague from Illinois who brought this to our attention, about this multi-million dollar ad program that the Health and Human Services Department is putting on to try to justify this Medicare bill. You might say to yourself, well, if it does not come into effect for another 2 years, why do they even need to start a $22 million ad campaign 2 years earlier? The ad campaign I think is totally illegal.

Mr. PALLONE. It is just amazing to think the ad campaign is not only to try to tell people that this bad bill is good, but they have to do it 2 years before it goes into effect? As the gentleman said, the only reason is they are concerned about what happens in November in the election.

Mr. PALLONE. And the spokesman for the President said, or for the department, which is the Bush administration, said the reason we are spending the $22 million on the ad campaign was ``to rebut criticism of the new Medicare law.'' So they are specifically saying the reason they are doing the ad campaign is because they do not like the criticism of the law. How can you say that that is not an illegal expenditure of money, when you are not allowed to spend taxpayers' money for political or propaganda purposes? It is unbelievable. I want to say the gentlewoman from Illinois not only has been out front on this Medicare issue, but she was the first one to bring to our attention on the floor last week that this money was being spent. But as the time goes on, we realize it is even worse than we originally thought.

Mr. PALLONE. What I said earlier, and I strongly believe it when I say it is illegal, is because you cannot spend taxpayers' money on this kind of campaign for political or propaganda purposes. Now the fact that you point out this is the same media firm that is involved with the President's reelection, I think basically proves, or certainly shows dramatically, that it is political. In other words, this company is doing ads for the President's campaign, and now they are doing these ads for the department. They are getting paid now by taxpayers' money. So I think that kind of lends support to the idea that this is political. I will even go one step further, which maybe you will not, but I would like to know at some point, hopefully with your GAO investigation or some other means, we will find out whether they get maybe a little discount on the political side for getting the contract to do the taxpayer-funded campaign. Who knows where this all goes? But it smells. There is no question about that.

Mr. PALLONE. Or, alternatively, that they may not get a prescription drug benefit at all if they keep the traditional fee-for-service plan.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), but of course what the gentlewoman is talking about are the TV ads, but we understand that this is going to be followed up in millions of dollars of print material, brochures that are going to be going out that are basically doing the same thing. So this is just the beginning; the TV ad is just the beginning of what they are going to do to try to distort what this is all about.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what really bothers me, as the gentleman said, since the seniors are so supportive of Medicare and think it is such a good program, when they see these brochures and these other ads going out that are going to have the official Medicare, or government, seal on them, they are going to naturally think, the government is not going to lie to us. The Medicare administration, department is not going to tell us something that is not true. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) mentioned the subliminal aspect. There is a certain sort of seal of authority that comes from the fact that these brochures and these ads and everything are actually from the government; and that really bothers me too, to think that people are going to think that this is an official government enterprise, educating them about the program when, in effect, it is just distorted, what they are being told. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I think it is so important for us to keep talking about this is because if the Bush administration gets away with this, where is it going to end? In other words, now they are spending $9 million on TV, $22 million total. If they think they can get away with it, they will double it. They will triple it. It just sets a terrible precedent. So that is why I think it is so important. I know the gentlewoman from Illinois started talking about it last week. We have to keep at it with the GAO, with the Inspector General to try to stop this, because if not, where is it going to end? It will just continue on over the next 6 months.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate what the gentleman said. The bottom line is we know that the drug companies do a lot of good things; but when they are not doing good things, we have to tell them that it is not good. Otherwise there is no end to it. I think this ad campaign is a perfect example of abuse on the part of the administration.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to again discuss Pakistani government transfer of nuclear technology to rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran and Libya. Pakistan's behavior has been publicized for months and months, but all of the blame for nuclear exchange has thus far been placed on the scientists involved, particularly Abdul Qadeer Khan at the Khan Research Laboratories. Although criminal action has been pursued against Khan, I have remained very concerned over President Musharraf's and his senior advisors' direct role in assisting covert nuclear weapons programs in North Korea, Iran, and Libya. In the past few days, scientists involved in the Pakistani nuclear program as well as opposition leaders in the Pakistani Parliament have charged that Musharraf, in fact, had knowledge of the nuclear exchange, and the Pakistani military was directly involved. Mr. Speaker, I am simply outraged. Musharraf likely knew that the exchanges took place, and is not being honest about his connection to the activity at the Khan Research Laboratories. He is stretching the truth in order to protect himself as well as his relationship to the United States, and to guarantee the continued flow of military funding from international sources, including the United States. In the past, I have requested that President Bush reimpose Symington sanctions on Pakistan. Under the 1977 Symington amendment, these sanctions were imposed banning Pakistan from receiving economic and military assistance as a result of importing uranium enrichment technology. After 9/11, this ban was waived by President Bush. Given the evidence, in combination with Musharraf's intent to deceive us about his knowledge of Pakistan's exports of nuclear technology, I feel that it is more important than ever for President Bush to reimpose Symington sanctions. Furthermore, it is imperative that the United States stop providing military assistance to Pakistan until democracy is restored and terrorist violence in Kashmir comes to an end. Mr. Speaker, Pakistan has been an ally in the war against global terror, but the United States and Pakistan are at a crossroads. Pakistan's government's participation in nuclear exchange, under Musharraf, has helped to create a nuclear black market in Iran, Libya and North Korea to thrive. I shouldn't even have to mention the devastating effects of uranium enrichment materials falling into the hands of terrorist groups, but this in fact is a concern that has been facilitated by Pakistan. The Bush administration has been praising Musharraf for removing Dr. Khan from his position as advisor to the Pakistani Prime Minister, but it is high time that the administration open its eyes to the reality of the situation and take immediate action against Pakistan.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why the ethics law says you cannot do it, it is wrong. So why should any waivers be granted? And there is no basis for the waiver. I asked in the case of Scully why and if there were any special circumstances, and the answer was there was nothing of that nature, they just granted the waiver.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to highlight several questionable activities during and after the Medicare prescription drug legislation passed the House of Representatives last year, and there is no doubt that this legislation, which passed here in the House after the Republican majority kept the vote open more than 3 hours in order to get the results they want, and it would be one thing, Mr. Speaker, if the result were beneficial to seniors who desperately need prescription drug coverage within the Medicare system; however, that is simply not the case. The prescription drug legislation is a perfect example of how the Republican majority has turned the people's House of Representatives over to the special interests and the wealthy elite. Seniors should not be forced or, I should say, be fooled into believing that this Medicare legislation was written for their benefit. How could it have been considering Republicans forcing seniors to actually get the prescription drug benefits out of Medicare? The bill also provides a minuscule benefit, considering that seniors with $1,000 in annual prescription drug costs would pay $857 out of their own pockets and those seniors with prescription drug costs of $5,000 per year would be forced to pay $3,920. What kind of a benefit is that if seniors are not getting the money? Where is the more than $500 billion that now the President and the White House says that this Medicare prescription drug so-called benefit is going to cost the Federal Government? Where is the money going? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is to the special interests. Republicans did not write this bill to help the seniors; instead, they wrote it to benefit insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. Now, I could talk all night about why this bill is bad and how it is not helpful to seniors, and I think that I and my Democratic colleagues have talked many times, including last week, about the problems with this bill and why it should just be repealed. But the amazing thing about it is that now we are hearing that many of those legislators and members of the administration who benefited or who were involved in creating this bill, negotiating this bill, bringing the bill out of committee, working to put together the language of the bill, are now benefiting from leaving their jobs within the administration, or possibly within Congress, in order to join the private sector and working for those same pharmaceutical companies that they worked with when they were up on the Hill or they were in Washington working for the government to put this bill together. In fact, many of my colleagues have been saying for months that this legislation was being written not here on Capitol Hill but instead downtown in the offices of PhRMA, which is the pharmaceutical trade association, and also written by the insurance companies. Here in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives the only true voices that matter, in my opinion, on this bill, are the special interests and the wealthy elite. There is no better example of how the lines have been blurred between Congress writing legislation and legislation being dictated to by special interests than the latest news that the House Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman, and this is my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Republican chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), is now flirting with the possibility of leaving the House in order to lead PhRMA, that very pharmaceutical trade organization that represents those companies here in Washington. And he is one of the few House Republicans who negotiated the final prescription drug bill legislation last year. We just heard, actually within the last few hours, that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) announced that in fact he is going to be stepping down as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 16, within the next week or so, and that he is seriously mulling going to work as the head of PhRMA. Now, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing wrong with Chairman Tauzin deciding to retire and inquiring about future job opportunities. But one has to seriously question whether discussions between him and representatives of PhRMA just months after PhRMA received a cash windfall with the prescription drug legislation are appropriate. It certainly serves as a perfect example of what I was saying before of what interests Republicans represent: the special interests. There has been no indication from Chairman Tauzin's office that he was negotiating a job with PhRMA last summer when he was also negotiating the prescription drug bill, and I hope that is not the case. However, the bottom line is that he was the main person in the House of Representatives responsible for this bill. And for him to now leave Congress and go seek a job with that very trade association that was benefiting from the bill, I think, is a serious ethical question and something that has to be looked into. I see that some of my colleagues are here joining me. We are going to talk not only about this case but others, and I would yield now to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. PALLONE. That is unheard of. I have never heard of that happening.

Mr. PALLONE. So we now are standing here and basically pointing out why this bill does not benefit seniors, and the administration is going to spend taxpayers' money to say the opposite.

Mr. PALLONE. There has to be some way to stop that. It sounds to me like it is blatantly illegal. But we will have to look into it. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. PALLONE. I find that incredible. I have never heard of a situation where the government pays to rebut criticism of the program.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for what she has presented tonight. It is incredible to me that this advertising campaign, I just assumed that it was being paid for by the Republican National Committee, that it is actually being paid for by the taxpayers. That is unheard of. What she brought out about Scully, who was the Medicare administrator, now we have an example with Tauzin of a Member of Congress who was the chairman of the committee that dealt with the Medicare issue and then we have the head of the Medicare administration within the White House, both of them getting jobs now, purporting, in Tauzin's case, it seems likely, to get a job working for the very pharmaceutical industry or the law firm representing the pharmaceutical industry. It is just such a blatant example of special interests. I know that my colleague from Ohio wants to talk about another example. We mentioned before you were on the floor on the night when this vote was taken, that actually the board was left open for almost 3 hours because there was actually a majority of both Democrats and Republicans that were against the bill. Then the President started making calls and Secretary Thompson of Health and Human Services was in a back room there, I saw him, twisting arms. We got to the point where activities were taking place which, in my opinion, were bribery that I know the gentleman wants to talk about. I appreciate his being here. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.