Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman would yield, I was thinking about what you said today with the meals and Halliburton. I would venture to say if this were another time, say it was World War II and something like that happened, Halliburton would be out of business the next day.

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I just want to add that I think my colleague from Massachusetts brought up the main point, which is that the problem is that Halliburton is doing all these things, now admitting, I guess, in two or maybe three cases they have done the wrong thing, but the penalty is not sufficient for them to stop doing it.

Mr. PALLONE. The oil contracts, they were charged a $64 million penalty, but they are making billions, almost a trillion dollars I think in terms of the amount of money they are taking in. As our colleague from Massachusetts said, they are not going to stop doing it, because what do they care if they pay a few million dollar penalty when they are making billions of dollars? That is the problem. As I said before, if this had been a different time, like World War II, they would have been out of business; that would have been it. Now, twice, and it is probably going to be more. It is just unbelievable.

Mr. PALLONE. We were talking before about the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the allegations that there were efforts to bribe him. We talked about it, but I do not know if we mentioned that he talked about this in his own words. I just want to read a couple of sentences. This was from the column the gentleman mentioned in the newspaper, where he said after the vote, and this is his quote, ``The House passed a deeply flawed Medicare prescription drug bill by a vote of 220 to 215 at 6 a.m. Votes in the House usually last 15 minutes plus a traditional 2-minute cushion. But because the leadership did not have the votes to prevail, this vote was held open for a record 2 hours and 51 minutes as bribes and special deals were offered to convince Members to vote yes.'' This is Congressman Smith's quote. He continued: ``I was targeted by lobbyists and the congressional leadership to change my vote. Other Members and groups made offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son Brad who is running for my seat. They also made threats about working against Brad if I voted no.'' These are his own words. Just so there is no doubt here about what the gentleman said or our colleague from Massachusetts said, he is saying this himself.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleagues for not only raising these issues with regard to Medicare, but also with regard to Halliburton. I would certainly say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would be glad to join in that effort that the gentleman described tonight. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Massachusetts for participating in this special order tonight.

Mr. PALLONE. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, I just wanted to highlight two things the gentleman said that I think are so important. One is that whole thing about how there really is no set premium, set deductible, set anything really in this bill. The Republicans go out there and they say, oh, your premium is going to be $35 a month, your deductible, I think they say, is going to be $250 a year, the government is going to pay 75 percent of the cost, you are going to pay 25 percent. There is nothing in the bill about any of that. I have to stop using the term Medicare prescription drug benefit when I talk about this because this is not even under Medicare. The people that are in Medicare are eligible for it, but there is no guarantee that they are going to get it. And none of these things are guaranteed. They can charge $85 a month, they could have a $1,000 deductible, they could, as the gentleman says, not cover certain drugs. We do not even know if it is going to be available in most areas. So this is why they are out there talking about advertising and trying to promote this thing, because there is nothing to it. It is like an empty suit. The other thing the gentleman pointed out, which is very special interest-oriented, is the fact there is this specific prohibition in the bill on any kind of negotiation on the price. The Medicare administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, cannot negotiate lower prices. This is an excerpt from last Sunday's New York Times where they talk about how bad the bill is and they specifically say that ``the ban on government intervention with regard to negotiated price reflects the Republicans' aversion to government price controls, but it is also a testament to the lobbying clout of the drug industry, a major patron of the Republican Party.'' Then of course they talk about how the Democrats have tried to introduce legislation that would allow for negotiated prices. This is the very kind of special interest we are talking about. This is what was put in by PhRMA, and now we have the chairman of our committee that was negotiating this bill and bringing this bill on the floor and through the committee with this prohibition on any kind of price controls or negotiated prices going to work to be the chief lobbyist for PhRMA.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the amazing thing to me, the fact that the White House, I guess because of the public pressure, because of people speaking out about what Scully did, are now saying that the department cannot grant the waiver, but the White House can. It seems to me the goal should be that there not be any waivers at all. Under what the Bush administration is now saying, they can still grant another waiver to somebody else to negotiate a bill, and then go work for the very company that they were negotiating with. I cannot believe that they said no more waivers by the department, but we can still grant the waiver.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman probably remembers within the last week or two that the President announced that he was significantly increasing the reimbursement for HMOs. The reason that was given was because so many of the HMOs dropped out of Medicare, did not want to cover seniors within the Medicare program, that they needed to provide significantly more resources to the HMOs if they wanted to get them back into the Medicare program. It is obvious that under this bill that the HMOs are going to get significantly more money in terms of reimbursement rate than traditional Medicare. Again, that is just a function of the fact that the HMO industry was basically calling the shots at the White House, and here we go again with an example of someone within the industry now working at the White House on the very program that is increasing the amount of money that the HMOs will get.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could just throw this in a second, in that New York Times editorial that I mentioned, they specifically say, ``Less well known is the likelihood that the drug coverage will actually become worse with each passing year. The premiums, deductibles and out-of- pocket expenditures will all increase rapidly, tied to increases in per capita drug expenditures under Medicare. By 2013, for example, the out- of-pocket spending required before a person qualifies for catastrophic coverage will probably be $6,400, well above the $3,000 required in the first year. That could be devastating for those struggling to survive on these benefits.'' It is built into the bill, but it keeps going up.

Mr. PALLONE. Can I ask you again, you said that this is paid for by taxpayers?

Mr. PALLONE. Explain that to me again?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I have the opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual, John L. Winterstella, for a remarkable career of public service. Throughout his life, Mayor Winterstella has devoted himself to working for the people of his community, through serving not only as an elected official, but participating on a wide variety of boards and charities. Mr. Winterstella began his career in the early 1970's working with the Environmental Commission and the Planning Board in the borough of Manasquan, the latter of which he continues to tirelessly serve. He was elected as a Manasquan councilman from 1977 through 1981, and was subsequently elected Mayor of the borough in 1984. During his tenure as Mayor, John Winterstella has served on the Monmouth Community Development Block Grant Committee from 1984 until the present, served as the Commissioner on the Sewage Authority from 1990 to 1999, and also served on the Executive Board of the New Jersey League of Municipalities from 1990 to 1998. The Mayor served as President of that League from 1997-1998, and was enshrined in the League's Hall of Fame in the year 2000. In addition to keeping his busy schedule, Mayor Winterstella has testified before the Senate and Congress on the topic of clean air and water reform, subjects close to his heart. A career such as this merits strong praise, so Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my dearest gratitude to Mayor Winterstella for his indelible service to the people of Monmouth County and the borough of Manasquan. In addition, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a personal friend for a storied career that has positively shaped the lives of all people whom he has served.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Robert E. West, who has recently retired from the position of Executive Director to the Neptune Township Authority. Robert E. West was born in New York, and moved to Neptune, NJ at an early age. After graduating as valedictorian of his high school class, and finishing his education at Monmouth Junior College, he began work as an insurance agent in New York, eventually moving to the prestigious North Carolina Mutual Insurance Company. In addition to selling insurance, Mr. West worked with Haso Maintenance Inc., working to dispatch taxis to the city's Bronx borough. After 15 years working in the private sector, Mr. West's heart wished to stay in the place that he had resided since childhood, and began what would be a storied career in the Neptune Township Housing Authority. From humble beginnings as a rent collector, Robert West rose through the ranks of the Authority to the prestigious position of Executive Director. Mr. West's distinguished period of public service included affiliations to the Neptune Lions Club, Jersey Shore Medical Center and stints as the President of the Neptune Board of Education, who's most notable contribution was to save the school marching band through personal endeavors and vigorous fundraising efforts. Under Mr. West's tenure as Executive Director, the Neptune Housing Authority has experienced growth unlike anything that it has ever seen. Director West implemented programs to improve the quality of life for tenants, improve the quality of the residences in which they resided, and helped to make the administrative offices of the NTHA handicap accessible. For his work, the United States Housing and Urban Development Association awarded Mr. West several outstanding achievement awards. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my dearest gratitude to Mr. West for his indelible service to the community in which he lived. A career such as his truly merits praise, and I too ask, that my colleagues join me in honoring Mr. Robert E. West for a storied career that has touched the lives of all those whom he had served.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues and the Bush administration to once again take a look at Pakistan through a critical and analytical lens. Pakistan is one of our strongest allies in the war against terror, yet I am deeply disturbed by our supposed ally's involvement in supplying nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. There is ample evidence of these ties, and I find it very convenient that President Musharraf takes a position of denial and that he blames everyone besides the Pakistani Government. Mr. Speaker, we must understand that Musharraf's response to these serious international violations of transferring nuclear weapons to rogue nations is simply inadequate. By blaming the scientists involved, and by detaching the Pakistani Government's role in preventing further transfer of nuclear equipment, Musharraf is insulating himself, when in fact he should be proposing steps to ensure the world that Pakistan will no longer be participating in such criminal activities. As an ally in the war against terror, we deserve such assurances, commitment and action from Pakistan that their programs to assist in nuclear proliferation have been terminated. Unfortunately, Musharraf is in denial about his country's participation in aiding such countries as North Korea, Iran, and Libya; but the denial must come to a close immediately. The same situation was true regarding Pakistani fundamentalist infiltration into Kashmir. While cold-blooded murders of innocent Kashmiri citizens were taking place on a daily basis, President Musharraf for years denied that he was providing anything but moral support to the infiltrators. While the murders have continued, Musharraf has recognized that infiltration is a problem that requires his intervention, and he has pledged to end terrorism in Kashmir. Although Kashmiri citizens continue to endure terrorism and infiltration at the Line of Control, the situation seems to have improved to a certain degree since the cease-fire between India and Pakistan and the countries' plan on holding talks within the next several weeks. Mr. Speaker, my point is that the issue of Pakistan transferring nuclear equipment requires as much focus and intervention on President Musharraf's part. In contrast to the situation in Pakistan, I wanted to take a moment to highlight India's nuclear program. In reflection of what I saw earlier this month during my visit to India, I applaud the government for maintaining an open nuclear science program. The three most important ways in which India's program is a model to be emulated by Pakistan are the following: first, India's program is defensive in nature; second, it is civilian controlled; and, third, technology is shared in accordance with international nuclear transfer laws. As a result of India's nuclear policies, India has a strong defense relationship with the United States and a strong science partnership with the United States. In fact, a recent agreement between the United States and India would call for increased exchange of scientists, particularly in the area of nuclear technology. Moreover, as part of a new space and nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India, the two countries will work as partners to bring stability to South Asia and the world, including efforts to end proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a statement that was made jointly by the President of India and by the President of the United States in that regard. Next Steps in Strategic Partnership With India In November 2001, Prime Minister Vajpayee and I committed our countries to a strategic partnership. Since then, our two countries have strengthened bilateral cooperation significantly in several areas. Today we announce the next steps in implementing our shared vision. The United States and India agree to expand cooperation in three specific areas: civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programs, and high-technology trade. In addition, we agree to expand our dialogue on missile defense. Cooperation in these areas will deepen the ties of commerce and friendship between our two nations, and will increase stability in Asia and beyond. The proposed cooperation will progress through a series of reciprocal steps that will build on each other. It will include expanded engagement on nuclear regulatory and safety issues and missile defense, ways to enhance cooperation in peaceful uses of space technology, and steps to create the appropriate environment for successful high technology commerce. In order to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, relevant laws, regulations and procedures will be strengthened, and measures to increase bilateral and international cooperation in this area will be employed. These cooperative efforts will be undertaken in accordance with our respective national laws and international obligations. The expanded cooperation launched today is an important milestone in transforming the relationship between the United States and India. That relationship is based increasingly on common values and common interests. We are working together to promote global peace and prosperity. We are partners in the war on terrorism and we are partners in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The vision of U.S.-India strategic partnership that Prime Minister Vajpayee and I share is now becoming a reality. Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion, in order for there to be peace and stability in the South Asia region, it is necessary for President Musharraf to move Pakistan forward by taking responsibility for its reprehensible actions, such as transferring nuclear technology and infiltrating Kashmir. Until President Musharraf's leadership is applied and he is not only willing to accept responsibility but turn his words into actions, our safety continues to be in jeopardy.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill that was signed into law by the President last year, which I consider a huge missed opportunity on behalf of the Congress because we really needed a meaningful prescription drug bill for seniors. That is not what we received. What we received really is nothing more than an attempt to privatize Medicare and not provide a meaningful prescription drug plan for seniors. I wanted to particularly highlight tonight the fact that on the Republican side of the aisle there now are a series of events that have occurred with regard to members of the administration, Members of this House of Representatives, who have, in my opinion, taken advantage of the situation and of their position relative to either negotiating or passing this prescription drug measure that highlight again the fact that special interests and the pharmaceutical companies and the HMOs and the insurance companies were basically out to pass a prescription drug bill that would not provide meaningful coverage; that would not lower costs; and that essentially creates a hoax on the American people that we are somehow doing something about the issue of prescription drugs for seniors. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies and, yes, even our own Members of Congress and even a member of the administration continue to benefit personally from the fact that they were involved in these negotiations and now have taken jobs or opportunities in the private sector with those same prescription drug companies with whom they worked to negotiate what was essentially a bad bill. Before I get into some of the specifics in that regard, I just wanted to highlight again why I think this prescription drug measure was a missed opportunity and does not really do anything to help America's seniors. The bill, H.R. 1, in my opinion, simply weakens the Medicare program and falls short of meeting the prescription drug needs of seniors. H.R. 1, as we know, provides woefully inadequate prescription drug coverage due to a giant gap in coverage in which seniors receive no assistance with costs between $2,250 and $5,100 annually. About half of all seniors will not have drug coverage for part of the year, even though they will continue to pay monthly premiums. I would like to explain what I mean by that. The problem with the Republican bill, unlike with what the Democrats had proposed, is that the Republican bill basically makes you pay so much out of pocket for what you are getting back in your benefit that it is not even worth having; and since it is a voluntary program, I would venture to guess that when this bill finally goes into effect in a couple of years, most seniors would simply not opt for it because they have to pay out more than it is worth essentially. I have a little chart here that highlights what I mean. For example, if a senior in the course of a year were to run up a bill of about $1,000 for their prescription drug needs, under the Republican bill, they would have to pay $857.50 for $1,000 worth of coverage. If their annual drug costs were $2,000, they would be paying about $1,107 out of pocket. If their annual drug costs were $3,000, they would be paying $1,920 out of pocket; and if their annual drug costs were $5,000, they would be paying $3,920 out of pocket. You might say to yourself who in the world would want to take advantage of a bill that forces you to pay so much out of pocket to get a very meager amount back in coverage by the Federal Government? And that is really the point. The second thing that is so important about this Republican prescription drug measure, if you want to call it that, is that it does nothing to reduce the costs of prescription drugs. When you talk to most seniors, they will say that the biggest problem they face is the price of the actual cost of the prescription drugs. What the bill does is it prohibits Medicare from using the bargaining power of 40 million seniors to negotiate lower prices. In other words, all of the sudden, if you have a Medicare prescription drug program, you have about 40 million seniors that the Medicare administration or the Secretary of Health and Human Services can go to the drug companies and say, look, I represent 40 million seniors, I am not going to buy prescription drugs from you, pharmaceutical company, unless you reduce the price; and since I represent all these people, I can buy a lot of drugs if you give me a good price. This is how you negotiate. We do this with the VA. We do this with the Defense Department for our United States military. But under the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill, the Federal Government, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Medicare administrator was specifically forbidden from doing that kind of price negotiation to reduce prices. I mean, this is an outrage, but this is the reality. The other thing is that the Republican bill pushes seniors into private plans through either an HMO or a PPO. In other words, if they want to get the prescription drugs, they are probably going have to join an HMO in order to get any kind of benefit whatsoever, which means that they lose their choice of doctors. There are so many problems with the bill I do not want to get into all of the problems tonight because I want to kind of highlight how this relates to some of the people that were negotiating the bill and some of the people here in Congress, as well as within the Bush administration, that are benefiting from the fact that they were in charge of negotiating this very bad bill. I wanted to also point out that the Democrats had an alternative to the Republican plan that would have actually accomplished the goal of providing a good benefit, reducing the cost of prescription drugs. And would have been immediately available as opposed to available in 2 years under the Republican proposal. What the Democrats proposed to do was to simply follow the lead of what we do now with part B. Most seniors know that they pay a premium of about $40, $50 a month under part B of Medicare. That covers their doctors' bills, and they have a $100 deductible. They have a 20 percent co-pay, but essentially it starts with the first prescription. There is no donut hole. There is no lack of coverage, and a certain amount at a catastrophic level, the government pays all the costs. Also, under the Democratic proposal we have specifically instructed the Medicare administrator and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate price reductions to reduce the costs of the prescription drugs. Very simple. You keep your doctor. You do not have to go through the HMO. Everybody's eligible for this prescription drug plan, and you pay a premium of about $25 a month. This is not what we got. This is not what the President signed into law. The bill that the President signed into law essentially, the Republican bill, says you are not going to get the coverage unless you go private, join an HMO or something like it. The coverage is very limited. You have to pay a tremendous amount out of pocket, the way I described; and there is actually a prohibition on the reduction or the negotiating of prices to try to bring the prices down. You might say to yourself, why did this happen? Why is it that the Republican proposal and the one that was signed into law is so bad, and why did it not just follow what we had done traditionally with Medicare with part B, for example, with your doctor bills, the way the Democrats had proposed? The answer, in my opinion, is very simple, and that is because this bill was written by the pharmaceutical companies and by the insurance companies. The insurance companies wanted to make sure that you had to go private with an HMO or something like it in order to get the benefit, and the pharmaceutical companies wanted to make sure that there were no cost controls whatsoever in this benefit so that they would not lose money essentially from having to lower the cost of their prescription drugs. This is what I would like to get into tonight, and I do not like to cast aspersions, but I do not think we have any choice. The irony of it is two of the key people or at least two of the key people that were involved in negotiating and working on this legislation have now or are about to either join the pharmaceutical companies and leave, in one case, Congress; or in the other case, the Medicare administrator has already left the Bush administration to join a law firm that represents the drug companies; and I just want to talk about that a little bit tonight. This is an article from today's Washington Post that says that the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on the House side, which is my committee that I serve on, the committee that had jurisdiction over the Medicare legislation, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), I am reading from The Washington Post today, ``is close to a decision to leave Congress to head the pharmaceutical industry's trade association after turning down an offer from Hollywood to succeed Jack Valenti as the movie industry's top lobbyist, sources in Washington and California said yesterday.'' Tauzin telephoned Valenti and declined the offer from the Motion Picture Association, but The Washington Post goes on to say that he ``is now considering an offer from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, the trade group that represents trade giants such as Pfizer and Merck and Company.'' He chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. ``He was one of the principal authors of the Medicare prescription drug bill that included several provisions expected to vastly expand the market for prescription drugs . . . in addition to adding hundreds of billions of dollars for drug benefits, the law bars the Federal Government from directly bargaining down the price of drugs, a provision PhRMA pressed for.'' So the bottom line is PhRMA, representing the pharmaceutical companies, comes in here, negotiates with the committee to ban any kind of cost controls, any kind of negotiated prices. Now that the Republican chairman of the committee, a nice gentleman but nonetheless the Republican chairman of the committee, is likely, according to this, to take a job at PhRMA, the pharmaceutical trade company's top representative, the head of it. At some point, you have to say to yourself, Mr. Speaker, where does it end? Where does the special interests, in this case of the drug companies, I could probably use the same example with the HMOs and the insurance companies, where does their ability to influence legislation in what I consider a bad way because it in this case means there was no effort to negotiate prices and lower prices for seniors, where does their ability to influence what goes on here and when we have this revolving door, where they come in here and get the committee and the Congress to ban any kind of negotiated prices, and then the person who is the chairman of the committee decides maybe that he will go on to represent this trade group? I want to use another example because I mentioned the Medicare administrator. The person who was the Medicare administrator within the Department of Health and Human Services at the time when this prescription drug bill was being debated and negotiated here in Congress, again under the Bush administration, a Republican by the name of Tom Scully, last month took a job with a law firm in an investment company that represents these pharmaceutical companies. So here we have again the top person in the Bush administration who is negotiating this bill, a bad bill, one that is not helping the senior citizens, after the bill is passed, leaves the Bush administration, the Medicare administrator position, and goes to work for a law firm that essentially represents these same pharmaceutical companies. Now, it was interesting because there was an article, again in The Washington Post, about a week ago, January 14, that says, ``Now the White House has ordered Federal agencies to stop issuing ethics waivers that allow key officials to negotiate jobs while they are shaping policies important to potential private employers.'' So this was a memo that was issued by the White House Chief of Staff about a week ago saying that ``Effective immediately only the White House can approve such waivers.'' The problem here is that Federal law bars Presidential appointees, such as Tom Scully, who is the Medicare Administrator, from discussing possible employment with firms involved in or hoping to be involved in matters handled by those officials. So Scully was negotiating the Medicare prescription drug bill in a way that helped the pharmaceutical companies and did a disservice to the senior citizens of this country by not allowing any kind of negotiated price reductions. There actually is Federal law that says that he cannot, while he holds that Medicare Administrator position, he cannot look for another job with a company or a law firm that is involved in those negotiations. But he can get a waiver, which was granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a waiver to seek that job and talk to those companies to get a job at the same time that he is negotiating this Medicare prescription bill. The waiver was granted. And now they are saying, well, maybe it should not have been granted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In the future, we will only let the White House, I guess the President himself, grant those kind of waivers. Well, these waivers should not be allowed at all. It is outrageous, in my opinion, that the Medicare Administrator, who is negotiating and trying to come up with a prescription drug bill, is allowed to go out and seek a job at the same time with those same law firms or companies that he is now negotiating to put in a provision that would ban the ability to negotiate price reductions. He had a waiver so that he was allowed to do it. That was given by the same administration, the Bush administration, ultimately the White House as well, so that he could go about trying to look for a job with those same law firms or companies that were trying to get him to bargain for some provisions in the bill that were to their liking. I mean, where are we going with this whole issue of special interests and the ability of special interests to influence not only the White House and the Medicare Administrator who is working under the President, but also the Republican chairman of the committee that also has jurisdiction over this Medicare prescription drug bill? I do not know where it ends. I just want to give one more example, which I know has already been mentioned by others, but many of us remember the night here on the floor of the House of Representatives when we were voting on this Medicare prescription drug bill; and when the vote first took place and the 15 or 17 minutes were up, when we are supposed to vote and put our cards in the machines and post our names and how we voted up on the wall here, the bill had actually lost. There was a majority against the bill. An absolute majority was against the bill, so that the bill should have been defeated. But what the Republican leadership in the House here did, the Speaker, the majority leader, they spent the next 3 or 4 hours, I do not know how long it was, but it was at least 3 hours, twisting arms and trying to use whatever means they could to convince Republican Members to change their votes. And they actually were able to get enough to change their votes so that they switched the majority from defeating the bill to passing the bill several hours after the machines were supposed to close. I mean, there are all kinds of examples of the kinds of arm-twisting that was taking place and the kind of special interests that were being used. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was here on the floor twisting arms. I saw him personally. But I want to give the most egregious example, which has been mentioned before. In fact, in an effort to show how much the Republican leadership is willing to go to do the bidding of the special interests, in this case the pharmaceutical industry and the insurers, this is an editorial from The Washington Post on December 30, during our congressional recess. And I am not going to read the whole thing, but I want to read part of it, because I think it is part of this whole thing, and what I need to do to expose what is going on around here. It says, ``Mr. Smith Leaves Washington,'' talking about the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a Republican. It says, ``Something ugly happened to Representative Nick Smith on the long night of the House Medicare vote last month that seems beyond dispute. With his party lacking the votes to muscle the prescription drug bill through, Mr. Smith was subjected to intense and quite possibly criminal pressure to induce him to abandon his opposition to the Medicare bill. As Mr. Smith related it the next day, Members and groups offered financial and political support for his son Brad, who is running for his father's seat, if only he would vote for the bill. The first offer was to give him $100,000-plus for his campaign and endorsements by national GOP leadership, Mr. Smith elaborated a few days later. When he refused, he said he was threatened that, ``Well, if you do not change your vote, then some of us are going to work to make sure your son does not get into Congress.'' Again, it goes on to talk about how the House Speaker was among those importuning the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) in the final hours of the Medicare vote. And, of course, The Washington Post goes on to say that ``The Justice Department should fully investigate the matter. If Justice declines to proceed, the ethics committee must step up to the plate.'' To my knowledge, neither of those things has happened. But, again, I just want to highlight this because that prescription drug bill was so important to seniors and it was such a missed opportunity to do something that would have actually been helpful to seniors as opposed to doing something that only helps the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies. And you just get a little flavor of what goes on here and what contributed to the fact that this bad bill passed: arm-twisting to get Members to change their votes with threats of giving money or withholding donations from candidates, and members of the administration in charge of the Medicare program being offered jobs to work for the very companies that were pharmaceutical companies and their representatives that were benefiting from the legislation; and now the possibility, and we will find out, I guess, in a few days, of the Republican chairman of the committee that had jurisdiction actually going to become the chief representative of PhRMA, the trade group for these very same pharmaceutical interests. It is a very sad day, and the consequences to America's seniors are very bad. Just in case anybody has any doubt about why this bill is not good and what it means to the industry and what goes on around here, I just wanted to make reference to an editorial that was in The New York Times this Sunday. It says, ``Patches For the Drug Program.'' And I am not going to read it all, Mr. Speaker, but I want to read some relevant parts because I think it sums up the problem that we face. The New York Times says in the Sunday editorial, ``In the weeks since the Medicare prescription drug bill was signed into law, the changes that need to be made in this vital legislation have become increasingly apparent. It is not likely that Congress will act in a political year, but Democrats who criticize the bill should lay markers down now on what has to change, and those amendments should be brought up as soon as possible, either before or after the election.'' They go on to say in The New York Times that ``Anyone who followed the rancorous congressional debate knows that the new program has a huge coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole, that exposes many beneficiaries to $3,600 in out-of-pocket costs before catastrophic coverage kicks in. That makes no sense from an insurance perspective, but was intended to keep the program's costs from getting out of control. Less well-known,'' and I have not even mentioned this, Mr. Speaker, ``is the likelihood that the drug coverage will actually become worse with each passing year. The premiums, deductibles and out- of-pocket expenditures will all increase rapidly, tied to increases in per capita drug expenditures under Medicare. By 2013,'' about another 10 years, ``for example, the out-of-pocket spending required before a person qualifies for catastrophic coverage will probably be $6,400 a year, well above the $3,600 required in the first year. That could be devastating for those struggling to survive on Social Security benefits.'' It is so sad. I mean, what The New York Times is saying is what I talked about earlier in terms of out-of-pocket expenditures; that they are only going to get worse as time goes on. I do not think most people will even sign up for this when it goes into effect in 2 years because their out-of-pocket costs are so bad compared to what they would actually benefit. But what The New York Times is saying is that that differential is going to get even worse as time goes on. The New York Times editorial from Sunday goes on to talk about the drug pricing that I mentioned before. They say, ``Drug prices must also be controlled. Unfortunately, the most glaring fault in the bill is its failure to employ the strongest weapon for reining in drug costs. As the political price for passing the bill, congressional Republicans inserted language prohibiting the Medicare program from using its substantial market power to negotiate low prices from the drug companies. Instead, the program will rely on private insurance plans or pharmacy benefit managers to negotiate. That was a mistake. The ban on government intervention reflects the Republicans aversion to government price controls, but it is also testimony to the lobbying clout of the drug industry, a major patron of the Republican Party. Democratic leaders have introduced bills to allow Medicare to negotiate directly, but that will be a tough sell in a Republican Congress that opposes any changes before the law has had a chance to work. The AARP has now suggested that Congress should allow the government to negotiate drug prices if private efforts fail to produce big discounts.'' Well, I do not have to go on. The New York Times is just confirming what I have said all along. This was nothing but a bone thrown to the pharmaceutical industry that did not want any kind of effort to negotiate lower prices; and now we see that the representatives, be they Members of the House, Republican Members, or members of the administration who were directly involved in these negotiations to make sure that there was this ban on any effort to lower prices, are now joining those same drug companies or the law firms that represent them. The special interests just reign supreme here in the Republican- controlled Congress and in the White House. And worst of all, and this is the last thing I will mention on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I could not believe that on Saturday there was an article in The New York Times about how the Department of Health and Human Services is now stepping up efforts against drug imports. Those of us who were here back in November when we had this debate know full well that there was an effort that was successful on the part of mostly Democrats but also some Republicans to put into the Republican Medicare prescription drug bill a provision that would have allowed reimportation of drugs from Canada, if not from other countries, where the FDA has certified the production and the factory where the drugs are being produced. We actually were successful in getting language in the bill, believe it or not. I do not know how we did it, but we managed on a bipartisan basis to get language in the bill that would allow and legalize reimportation from Canada as a way of trying to reduce the prices of drugs. We know that in Canada, unlike in the United States, they negotiate price reductions on behalf of not only seniors but all their citizens, so the prices for the prescription drugs are significantly lower. But what this Bush administration does is, after the law passes, they say that they will refuse to certify that drugs being reimported from Canada are safe and, therefore, because they will not certify that those drugs are safe, they now say that it is still illegal to reimport the drugs from Canada. What the Bush administration is now doing, what the FDA is now doing, is basically trying to prevent the reimportation of the drugs. This is what was in The New York Times on Saturday, January 24. And, again, I just want to read some sections from it because it is unbelievable to me how far they will go to protect the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of the average senior in the United States who is trying to find some way, albeit even having to reimport the drugs from Canada, to try to reduce their drug prices, because they simply cannot afford to pay these steep prices for these prescription drugs. This article says that ``A second 'blitz' inspection by Federal drug and Customs officials of medicines imported from Canada has found that nearly all of almost 2,000 packages opened contained foreign versions of American pharmaceuticals that officials said might not be safe.'' And I use that, ``might not be safe.'' They are not saying they are not safe, they are saying they might not be safe. Well, what is the basis for their saying they might not be safe? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the article and nothing that they did to show that in fact these reimported drugs were not safe. In fact, in The New York Times article, it says, ``Asked if the pills reviewed in the latest survey that they were inspecting were unsafe, Dr. McClellan,'' who is the FDA Commissioner and a Bush appointee, answered, ``We just don't know because it's so hard to tell.'' Well, what kind of answer is that, Mr. Speaker? Americans are trying to get drugs reimported from Canada, and there is every reason to believe they are safe, there is no reason to believe they are not; and they are seizing all these drugs. And when the commissioner is asked if they are safe, he said we do not know because it is so hard to tell. There is nothing in this article that indicates that they have found anything that indicates that these drugs are not safe. I think they are harassing those who are trying to do the reimportation. Mr. Speaker, Governors and mayors around the country, because they are so concerned about the cost of prescription drugs for their own citizens, for their seniors, are trying to come up with ways of providing a government program, either in the case of the mayors for their cities or Governors for their States, to reimport these drugs from Canada at a low cost. I do not have to give all of the examples here, but I think one of the States that has taken a lead on this is Illinois, which has talked about a major program to try to accomplish this goal. But what the Bush administration says, and this is again from the New York Times, the Bush administration is hoping to use a combination of aggressive inspections and pointed political advice to persuade local and State officials to back away from the border drug trade. This is Dr. McClellan that is being paraphrased. And the State officials who are trying to set up these programs are turning their heads because they do not know what to do. They think it is ridiculous what the FDA is trying to do. This is not even a partisan issue. Some of the Governors trying to set up the programs and that are objecting to what the Bush administration is doing on the Canadian reimportation issue are Republicans. There is one quote here from Governor Tom Pawlenty, a Republican from Minnesota; and he says that the FDA will sue somebody or throw somebody in jail over this, the pharmaceutical companies choke off supply, or the FDA comes to their senses. He is very concerned about what the administration is trying to do to stop the supply of drugs going into Minnesota, which he believes are safe. It goes on and on and talks about all of the things that the FDA is trying to do to cut the supply; that the drug companies are sending fewer drugs to Canada and are trying to choke off the supply. Everything is being done to try to help the pharmaceutical companies not have to provide lower-cost drugs. The actions of my fellow Congressman and the Bush administration officials in this regard are just outrageous. I think it is imperative to keep speaking out against what is going on, against those Republican officials within the administration and in our case the chairman of our committee who are now taking jobs with these companies after they negotiated this legislation, this bad bill. Somehow the public has to be made aware, Mr. Speaker, of all these activities. I know that I am going to be back again on another night talking about this and have some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle join with me. Before I close, I just wanted to move to another topic which is totally unrelated to this, but it is timely. I would like to take 5 minutes to switch to this topic that relates to foreign policy, not only to U.S. foreign policy, but also to activities at the U.N. Tomorrow, President Bush is meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey, and I know there are a number of things that they are going to discuss; but I would like to discuss this evening what I would like our President to do, which is to basically have President Bush exert pressure on the Turkish Government to convince the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, to return to the negotiating table on Cyprus and truly work for a peace settlement over the Cyprus issue. I was in Cyprus this summer. Some may know that Cyprus is about to join the European Union as of May 1 of this year; but Cyprus is still a divided island. The Turkish Government invaded Cyprus in 1974. They occupy about a third of the northern part of the island; and every effort that has been made over the last few years, and it really came to the point where we thought there was really a possibility last spring that there would be an agreement between the Turkish Cypriot government and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to unify the island and have the Turkish troops leave before Cyprus joined the European Union. So far that has not happened, but I still think there is an opportunity for that to happen. I would like to see if President Bush can put some pressure on the Turkish Prime Minister tomorrow to have him essentially exert some influence over the Turkish Cypriot government in the northern occupied part of Cyprus to come to agreement and unify the island under one government before Cyprus' accession to the European Union. This weekend, before his trip to the United States, the Turkish Prime Minister said he would allow the United Nations to ``fill in the blanks'' of a settlement to the Cyprus issue. The Prime Minister also urged U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan to appoint a new Cyprus negotiator and said he would urge the Turkish Cypriot leader to go along with settlement proposals. While these words are encouraging from the Prime Minister, one has to remember they were made right before his trip to the United States. In the past, Turkish leaders have made statements showing the importance of a peace settlement; but, unfortunately, these words have not translated into action. In fact, just days before Prime Minister Erdogan made this pledge, Denktash continued his intransigence, stating that the whole world is trying to take Cyprus away from the Turks. Denktash even joked in reference to the Turkish Government when he said, ``Come, give Cyprus away to the Greek Cypriots and get over with it.'' Mr. Speaker, Denktash is not just going to listen to Turkish leaders. But Denktash's comments show an uneasiness with the perception that Turkey is finally willing to agree to a settlement with the framework created by the U.N. Now would be the perfect time for Turkey to exert pressure on Denktash and his government, and this is something that President Bush should strongly urge during his meeting tomorrow. At a time when Turkey is interested in joining the European Union, its lack of cooperation in the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem can only result in a setback for Turkey's candidacy. On May 1, Cyprus will join the European Union. Last week, the European Enlargement Commissioner, Genter Verheugen, warned that the status quo would damage everyone, whereas a solution would be a clear win/win situation for Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and Europe as a whole. In an article in the Financial Times, it was pointed out by the European Enlargement Commissioner that ``the absence of a solution when we reach May 1 would deepen the island's division.'' He stressed that a settlement of the Cyprus problem does not constitute an additional criterion for Turkey's bid to join the European Union, but also questioned whether it would be likely that all 25 member states, including the Republic of Cyprus, will decide unanimously at the end of this year to start accession negotiations with Turkey as long as the island remains divided. Again, I would stress being particularly for Turkey, which wants to join and hopes by the end of this year that there will be some movement towards its own accession to the European Union. There is really very little time for Turkey to play a role to settle the Cyprus issue. I would hope with a little pressure from President Bush tomorrow, the Turkish Prime Minister will return to Ankara and stress to Denktash like never before the importance that the Turkish Cypriot leadership put aside unreasonable and unacceptable demands and finally negotiate in good faith with the leadership of the Republic of Cyprus. Ultimately, the victims of these shortsighted policies from Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot leadership are the people of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community, who will continue to be deprived of an opportunity to share in the economic, social, and other benefits of European Union membership. Again I would say that the statements made by the Turkish Prime Minister over the weekend and the Turkish military seem to indicate that they want the Turkish Cypriot government to move ahead with the settlement that could be accomplished possibly by May 1. But we have heard this before. I think the best course is if our President Bush can really make it clear to the Turkish Prime Minister tomorrow how important this is and how timely it is that some action be taken to achieve a unified Cyprus by May 1. I know that President Bush is interested in accomplishing this, and I hope that he does put sufficient pressure on the Prime Minister of Turkey so we can see some progress.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to one of the most important dates on the calendar for the people of India, as well as for the people of Indian descent who have settled in the United States and around the world. January 26th is Republic Day, an occasion that inspires pride and patriotism for the people of India. On January 26, 1950, India became a Republic, devoted to the principles of democracy and secularism. At that time, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as the nation's first president. Since then, despite the challenges of sustaining economic development and promoting tolerance and cooperation amongst its many ethnic, religious and linguistic communities, India has stuck to the path of free and fair elections, a multi-party political system and the orderly transfer of power from one government to its successor. On that special day in 1950, India adopted its Constitution. It should be noted that India derived key aspects of her Constitution, particularly its statement of Fundamental Rights, from our own Bill Of Rights. On the eve of Republic Day several years ago, India's President K.R. Narayanan stated in his address to the nation: ``Let us remember, it is under the flexible and spacious provisions of our Constitution, that democracy has flourished during the last fifty years and that India has achieved an unprecedented unity and cohesion as a nation and made remarkable progress in the social and economic fields.'' India and the United States both proclaimed their independence from British colonial rule. The Indian independence movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had strong moral support from American intellectuals, political leaders and journalists. Just last weekend, we paid tribute to one of our greatest American leaders, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King derived many of his ideas of non-violent resistance to injustice from the teachings and the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. As the world's two largest democracies, the United States and India have a natural relationship, based on their shared values of diversity, democracy and prosperity. These two countries have steadily grown closer for the past ten years, and most recently, the United States' campaign to fight global terrorism has brought the two countries even closer. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 India was one of the first countries to come forward to the United States with an offer of full assistance and cooperation in this new global fight against terrorism. India has sadly been afflicted with terrorism from Pakistani-based terrorist groups throughout the last 15 years, and since September 11th, there have been terrorist attacks against India on a near daily basis. It is only natural that these two countries are united in the global fight against terrorism, as well as on many other fronts. Lastly, I want to note that throughout the South Asian region, India stands alone as a pillar of democracy, stability and growth. I join both Indians in India and over 1.8 million Indians living here in the United States in celebrating India's Republic Day.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office once again confirmed that President Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible President in our Nation's history. Yesterday CBO forecast a budget deficit for the 2004 fiscal year of $477 billion, the largest deficit in history. Furthermore, CBO said the overall Federal deficit will total nearly $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is nearly $1 trillion worse than what CBO forecast last fall. After the estimates were released, Treasury Secretary John Snow commented from London that the administration remains committed to deficit reduction, stating, ``Make no mistake; President Bush is serious about the deficit.'' Mr. Speaker, who is Secretary Snow trying to fool? President Bush being serious about the deficit? This is the same President Bush who inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus from President Clinton. Over the past 3 years, thanks mainly to three large tax breaks primarily benefiting America's millionaires, President Bush has presided over an $8.5 trillion fiscal collapse. And our Nation's fiscal situation could get even worse this year if Congress continues to listen to President Bush and the House Republican leadership. That is because CBO's estimates only take into account existing policies. And just last week, during the State of the Union address, President Bush asked Congress to make all his fiscally irresponsible tax policies permanent. Last year CBO estimated that such action would cost the Federal Government an additional $1 trillion. The President also once again proposed partially privatizing Social Security at an additional expense of at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the next decade, and that is $2 trillion right there to add to the already gloomy deficit forecast. And this is not even including the $700 billion the President wants to spend for a mission to Mars, the $50 billion that the President will propose for the continuing war in Iraq, and the $1.5 billion throwaway to the far right in his party to help train couples to develop better interpersonal skills that sustain ``healthy marriages.'' Based on these facts, how can Secretary Snow say that President Bush is serious about the deficit? Let us be clear. It is the policies of President Bush and my Republican colleagues that have put us in this situation. Democrats do not control the White House. Democrats do not control the Congress, either the House or the Senate. And yet I would not be shocked if conservative Republicans do not come to the floor today and try to blame Democrats for the fiscal mess our Nation now faces. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, President Bush now sees the huge budget deficit as a threat to his reelection campaign, and that is why he vowed to cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years during his State of the Union address last week. But we might be asking ourselves how the President plans to cut the deficit in half with the more than $2 trillion in tax cuts and other new spending he wants Congress to approve this year. The President and Republicans will say holding down domestic spending to 1 percent during the next year will put a huge dent in the deficit, but that is simply not the case, considering that domestic spending only amounts to 17 percent of all the Federal spending expected this year. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker: The fiscal record of the Bush administration and congressional Republicans is clear. As long as Republicans control the Federal budget, our Nation's fiscal future is seriously in question; and in order to prevent a total fiscal collapse, it is time for President Bush and my Republican colleagues to face reality and repeal the President's tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. It is time President Bush and congressional Republicans stand with our Nation's children, who will be forced to bear the brunt of the cost of their fiscal irresponsibility. It is time the President and congressional Republicans stand with our Nation's seniors and baby boomers that need Social Security and Medicare strengthened and not raided. Yesterday's CBO report should serve as a wake-up call to Washington Republicans. And let us hope they finally listen to the alarms before this mess gets even worse.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I just want to reiterate in closing what the gentleman said again about the need to work with Democrats. Really, the hallmark of this administration, and also the Republican leadership in this House, has been to exclude the Democrats and not have us be part of the debate. That has got to change because otherwise I think we will never get to a situation where we can have consensus proposals for job creation, for health care, on the environment that are really going to be meaningful. I think that Congress suffers from the fact that this bipartisanship has essentially disappeared under the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree and I appreciate the gentleman coming down here. I wanted to say one last thing. The manufacturing sector is very crucial in terms of job creation and job retention, for the gentleman's State, for my State, and all over. The thing that is amazing about it is when I listened to the President last night, when we look at other countries, whether it is Canada or Western Europe or certainly true for China and the Asian countries, they have a national policy that basically dictates trying to create jobs. If there is going to be a free-trade agreement with Singapore, for example, I am sure that Singapore has figured out how they are going to gain and benefit. If they are going to lose jobs, they will retrain people to create more jobs in another sector. If you listened to the President last night, it is almost like, that is not my job, that is not my responsibility. He talked about job training, but he did not suggest how job training would be worked in such a way to train for a new job. We talked about the manufacturing sector. In New Jersey, in my district, we consider ourselves sort of like a little Silicon Valley, the IT sector; health care is a big sector. And even those jobs are now being lost overseas. We have radiologists complaining about how the radiology is being done in Asia, or the IT sector where the computer jobs are going overseas. So we have to have some kind of national policy with regard to job retention and job creation. And he does not even mention that. That is not our job. Washington, the President, the Congress have nothing to do with that. So when he talks about job training, I am like, well, what are you training for? You do not give us any details on how somebody is going to be trained to go work for a job that is available. It is very disconcerting.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, like many of my Democratic colleagues this afternoon, would like to respond, if you will, to the President's State of the Union address, which, of course, he gave to the Nation last night from the House podium just right behind me here. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, thanks to what I consider extremist policies of President Bush and the Republican leadership here in Congress, the priorities of the American people, priorities of good jobs, better access to healthcare and the best education for our children, are not being addressed, either at the White House or here by the House Republican majority, and certainly the President's speech last night did nothing to convince me that any of these priorities will be addressed in the forthcoming year. The problem, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, is that President Bush and Congressional Republicans continue to cater to America's elite, to the wealthy. There is no doubt our Nation's millionaires have fared well over the past 3 years under President Bush and the elite have seen their taxes dramatically cut. But the hard- pressed middle-class face a weak job market that, thanks to President Bush's economic priorities, show no signs of improving in the immediate future. So even though the President talks about economic recovery, it may be economic recovery when you look at the stock market quotations, but it is not when you look at jobs and the possibility for real job creation that would actually help the average American. The President's efforts to provide billions of dollars in tax breaks to our Nation's millionaires will saddle our children and my children with massive deficits. So not only is his policy not creating jobs, but his policy is creating more and more debt. President Bush and the Congressional Republicans have squandered historic budget surpluses. When President Bush took office, we had a surplus for the first time under President Clinton. But because of the collapse of fiscal discipline, now we are faced with a $5 trillion national debt over the next decade, which has been brought about, in my opinion, by President Bush and the Republican policies here in the Congress. One only has to revisit the President's last two State of the Union addresses to realize how out of touch the President is with what policies will really jump-start our Nation's economy. I would like to spend a little time this afternoon trying to compare some of the statements that President Bush made in the last couple of State of the Unions before last night to try to point out how really out of touch he is, and how what he mentioned last night is not going to get us to where he says we are going to go. Two years ago, President Bush touted his second round of tax cuts by declaring in his State of the Union address, ``My economic security plan can be summed up with one word: Jobs.'' Instead of creating jobs, on President Bush's watch, our Nation has witnessed the greatest job loss in a recovery since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A few months of modest job creation that we have had over the past few months cannot hide the abysmal performance of the labor market over the past 3 years. According to a State of the Union report from the Center for American Progress, long-term unemployment is close to a 20-year high because the labor market is so weak. The labor force participation rate in December 2003, just this past December, was at its lowest level since December 1991, a dozen years ago. At every turn, the President has passed up opportunities to pass what I call high-bang-for-the-buck stimulus to jump-start job creation, and instead favors inefficient, ineffective, long-term tax cuts for the most well-off. If you really want to create jobs, then you use the Federal budget and the power of the Federal Government to stimulate and jump-start jobs, job creation. Instead, we have this inefficient, long-term tax cut proposal which, as you heard last night, the President wants to continue, and, according to the Center for American Progress again, the report, in 2002, with our economy in desperate need of a jump-start, the administration pushed to retroactively eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax, a provision which would have provided a $254 million tax break to Enron. But what did it do for job creation here in the U.S. for the average guy? Nothing. Let us consider the words that President Bush spoke last year during his 2003 State of the Union address. Again, we are going to go back one year. He said, ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.'' That is what he said a year prior to last night. But, despite this promise, President Bush's policies over the last 3 years led our Nation to a record $450 billion deficit. This deficit is a major problem in terms of job growth, job creation, and even the long-term stability of the economy. Everyone recognizes that the President and the Republicans pushed up the debt to unheard of heights. Again, I want to put this deficit problem in perspective, to go back to this report from the Center for American Progress. It found in the report that 5 years from now the average family's share of the national debt will be more than $84,000, compared to a projected $500 per family when Bush took office. So when the President took office, the national debt, if you look at it per capita, was very low. We were actually in a surplus. We just had a national debt that had been inherited from before, but we were actually in a surplus. Now that national debt has grown to more than $84,000 for the average family's share. It is an incredible figure when you think about it, and it makes it really impossible for us to talk about the Federal Government playing any kind of role to create jobs or to improve the economy when we have such a huge deficit. Our Nation's fiscal situation is so dire that the International Monetary Fund issued an unusually strong and stark warning about the threat that rising fiscal and trade deficits in the U.S. pose to the financial stability of the world economy. This was just a couple weeks ago when the International Monetary Fund issued this warning. In a departure from what he previously had said, the President last night, if you took notice, actually did say that the deficit was a problem. I think he finally came around to the point where he cannot just ignore it, because if you think about it, prior to last night he was saying, ``Oh, it doesn't matter. We can continue to have larger deficits, growing deficits. It doesn't make any difference.'' But last night he finally acknowledged the fact that the deficit was a problem, and he did express concern over the size of the deficit and he basically reasserted his commitment to cut the deficit in half in the next 5 years. But that is, again, his rhetoric. He is saying that, he is acknowledging for the first time in the last 3 years that the deficit is a problem, and he is saying he wants to cut it in half over the next 5 years, but if you look at the policies that President Bush put forward last night, the reality is they are only going to increase the deficit. They are not going to cut the deficit, they are going to increase the deficit. Again if you go back to this report from the Center for American Progress, the President proposed at least $3 trillion in new tax cuts last night and spending over the next few months. So between the tax cuts that he talked about last night and the new spending he talked about last night, we are talking about a huge increase in the deficit, not a decrease. I can say that, and I would like to detail a little more this afternoon why I say that what he is proposing last night in terms of tax cuts and new spending is going to increase the deficit rather than cut it in half over the next 5 years. First let us talk about the $1 trillion proposal to privatize Social Security which the President mentioned. I have to tell you that I do not like the idea of privatizing Social Security in any way. I do not think the whole idea of privatizing Social Security is a good thing, but the President mentioned it, and I want to give you the fiscal consequences. Partial Social Security privatization under the President's proposal last night would, all by itself, require at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the next decade. That is from the New York Times yesterday, January 20. What about the new tax cuts? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of President Bush's proposals last night to make his tax cuts permanent at roughly $1 trillion. That is from the Washington Times, September of this year. What about the mission to Mars? He did not mention in his speech last night the mission to Mars, but he has, over the last week, talked about how he wants to propose this mission to Mars. While the White House has tried to fudge the total cost of the Mars proposal, a similar proposal was floated way back in 1989, over 20 years ago, and at that time the cost was projected at $400 billion to $500 billion. With inflation, that is about $600 to $700 billion today. Again, where is that money going to come from, without us going further and further into debt? He also proposed a missile defense system. Despite a GAO report advising against moving forward with an untested missile defense system, the Bush administration is moving forward and they talk about a missile defense system that would cost as much as $273 billion. That is from a GAO report of June earlier this year, the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. Also the war. Again, the President made his presentation about the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism and linked it to it. But on top of the $166 billion already spent on the war in Iraq, the President is expected to propose a $50 billion supplemental bill to pay for Iraqi war costs. The bill probably will not come up maybe until after the November election, but that is another $50 billion for the war in Iraq, which, again, is costing us a tremendous amount of money and driving us further into debt. Lastly, and I know in the scheme of things you might say this does not add up to much, it is only $1.5 billion, but the President's proposal to promote marriage, Bush administration officials have been working with various conservative groups on this proposal, and it would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain healthy marriages. That is from The New York Times last week. Well, again, maybe $1.5 billion does not sound like much in the scheme of things, but $1.5 billion to promote marriage? Promotion of marriage is certainly a good thing, but do we have to spend $1.5 billion and go further into deficit to promote marriage? I do not think so. I do not think that is a good expenditure of Federal funds. So my point is, the President addressed the issue of the deficit last night. He said he is going to cut it in half over the next 5 years, but everything he proposed last night, tax cuts, spend in various areas, all adds up to a significant increase in the deficit. So the rhetoric does not go along with the reality. How can the President say he plans to cut the deficit in half at the same time he proposes $3 trillion in new tax cuts and spending? I think he has got to level with the American people. The only way he can really address the skyrocketing deficit is to roll back the components of his tax cuts that, again, as I said earlier, in my opinion, disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. The President's suggestion that his tax cuts have been only a minor factor in the fiscal deterioration, actually he said the opposite, that the tax cuts have been a factor in turning the economy around, I would say they have been actually a major factor in our fiscal deterioration and certainly in the deficit creation. They are the largest single contributor to the deterioration of our budget outlook. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the President's speech, keep these statements in mind about what he said in the past in his State of the Union versus what he is saying now, and I think he has a long way to go to prove to the American people that his economic proposals will not only benefit the wealthy, but also middle-class Americans. I wanted to spend a little time, I know some of my colleagues earlier this afternoon talked about the ill-fated Republican Medicare prescription drug bill, and, again, the President touted that last night and said how great a thing that was. I have to be honest and say that I think it was pretty obvious if you looked around the room last night, around the House Chambers, that his Medicare prescription drug bill fell on deaf ears. Obviously since it was passed back in November and the President took it to the people, and our colleagues on both the Republican and Democratic side went home, they found, to no surprise of mine or most of the Democrats, that this was not a proposal that people felt was accomplishing anything, and, in fact, might actually hurt Medicare because of the effort to privatize. So when the President talked about his prescription drug proposal last night, I noticed there was very few applause, even from the Republican side of the aisle; and I do not think anybody stood up. I think it is testimony of the fact that both sides of the aisle think it is not a good proposal and that the public does not like it. Now, what is the reason? If we think about it, what they did was to suggest they were somehow giving people a prescription drug benefit when in reality what they were really doing was changing the Medicare program for the worse. If we look at the actual coverage for prescription drugs for seniors under that bill that was signed into law a month or so ago, it provides woefully inadequate prescription drug coverage. There is a giant gap in coverage in which seniors receive no assistance with costs between $2,200 and $5,100 annually. About half of all seniors will not have any drug coverage for part of the year. It does nothing, the Republican Medicare bill does nothing to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. The bill prohibits Medicare from using the bargaining power of 40 million seniors to negotiate lower drug prices, which we are going to see as the drug companies continuing to reach huge profits, and yet seniors will continue to get the major price increases which at times have amounted to 18 percent annually on the drugs that they need just to remain healthy. In addition, the Medicare bill forces seniors into private plans through either HMOs or PPOs. The other day the President announced he was going to give the HMOs and these private health plans a huge influx of money to try to entice them back into the Medicare program. But I have to tell my colleagues that in my own State of New Jersey, we have had 200,000 seniors in New Jersey that were dropped by HMOs pursuant to Medicare in the time since the HMOs were allowed to participate in the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I think the bottom line is that we lost a tremendous opportunity last year to pass a prescription drug bill that would actually be meaningful for seniors. We as Democrats simply proposed expanding Medicare to include prescription drugs. One would stay in their traditional Medicare, one did not have to join an HMO, and we would expand Medicare in the same way that we provide coverage now under part B for doctor bills. One would simply pay $25 a month. One would have a $100 deductible. Twenty percent of the cost of drugs there would be a copay, and the other 80 percent would be paid for by the government. And the Democratic proposal would have specifically mandated that the administrator of the Medicare program bargain to reduce costs for prescription drugs to the average senior. But we tried that. The Republicans rejected it. We are now faced with this essentially worthless Medicare bill that does not really do anything to help seniors with their drug bills. The last thing I wanted to do today, and I see one of my colleagues is here and I would like to have him join me, but the last thing I wanted to say is in the time when we were back in our districts in December over the Christmas holiday and New Year's, the one issue that continued to rise to be brought to my attention, to be raised by my constituents was the increased cost of health insurance. We know that more and more Americans do not have health insurance; but even for those who do have coverage, because they get it on the job or if they have to buy it on their own, are very concerned about the rising costs and the fact that they may not be able to afford health insurance or their employer might not provide it in the future. So that is why the President last night mentioned the crisis and said that there was a problem out there, but what he failed to mention is that the situation has gotten worse. There are about 4 million Americans that have lost their insurance coverage in the last 3 years since President Bush has been in office. If we think of what he proposed last night, a $1,000 tax credit is really going to be meaningless for most of those who do not have insurance now. We know that if you do not have health insurance and you want to try to go out and buy it on the private market, a $1,000 tax credit is not going to be any significant help to you. So the President's proposals last night, whether they were the affiliated health plans or the tax credit, is basically the same old proposals that he has been shuffling around for the last 3 years or so; and they are not going to do the job of providing Americans with health coverage, neither those who do not have health insurance or those who are afraid of losing it. Again, I worry, because I see the President talking about the problems that are out there, suggesting that somehow he is going to do something about it; but when we look at the specifics about what he is going to do or what he is proposing, it does not add up to any meaningful effort to provide health insurance, to increase the number of jobs, to reduce the deficit, all the things that are so much of a priority right now. Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, is here; and I would like to yield to him.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan not only because of what he said today, but also because of all the work he does, particularly on the committee that we are both on, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. But I was listening to what he said. He was talking about mostly in the context of his State, Michigan. But everything that he said applies to my State as well, and probably to the rest of the country. One of the things he mentioned that I wanted to comment on was this whole effort to exclude the Democrats. He mentioned that, for example, with the Medicare prescription drug bill we were not invited to the conference to discuss the bill. Even the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the senior Member of the House, the ranking member on our committee, was excluded. And when I talk to my constituents, and obviously my colleagues have the same reaction, they are shocked to find out that they elect somebody to come down here and just because they are of a particular party, that is, in the majority, that they have so little say. And we witnessed it earlier. At the end of the day, when we have the little colloquy between the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and usually it is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on our side about the schedule, today a couple of our Democratic colleagues brought up the fact that the Republicans have refused to even consider a debate on the issue of extending unemployment compensation. And the Republican Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) made it quite clear that he was opposed to extending unemployment compensation. But it was not enough that he said that he was opposed to it, he had to go further and say that he was not going to allow a debate on it. And the reason he said, sort of in a sarcastic way, he said something about the fact, ``Well, I think the Democrats said we have 208 members on a discharge petition to bring this bill up.'' And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``Well, last I heard, 218 is the majority.'' So what he essentially was saying well there may be 208 Democrats out there that are signed on and want to debate this issue, but since they are in the minority, even only by 10 votes, we are not debating it. That is the kind of thing we get. I do not want to disparage him, but this is what we get all the time. The Democrats are not in the majority so there will be no debate. The Democrats are not in the majority so they will not be a party to the conference. The Democrats are not in the majority, so we are not really interested in their point of view. Particularly last night, listening to the President's State of the Union Address, I noticed that many of the commentators said it was a very divisive speech, that there was no effort to reach out and say maybe we do not agree on this issue whether it is health care or job creation or whatever, but even though we do not agree, let us get together and try to work it out in a unified way. Never was that suggested. It was almost as if this was my way or the highway. It is a very bad development in the way that we operate around here, and I think it is important that the gentleman mention it. I appreciate that the gentleman mentioned it. The other thing I wanted to say just in terms of comparing what the gentleman said about Michigan versus New Jersey, so many soft things you mentioned are true for my State as well. I thought it was very glaring that there was absolutely no mention in the President's speech about any environmental concerns, as if the environment did not even exist as an issue. In the past he has always tried to touch upon it a little. Even though he has a terrible record, in my opinion, and has been cutting back on environmental regulation and enforcement, he would at least mention it. It was not even mentioned. As the gentleman said, my State of New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any other State, and my congressional district has the most Superfund sites in the State of New Jersey. And it is very upsetting to my municipalities because many of these Superfund sites that are terribly toxic, we have one in Edison, New Jersey, that was the site where they produced agent orange, the herbicide, during the Vietnam War. It is in the stage now where they are gradually cleaning it up. But because they are told there is no money left in the Superfund, that may have to stop, actually has stopped on occasion, and then started up again when the money was available. That is what we are facing, the crisis with the hazardous waste clean-ups because there is no money left from the Superfund because the President did not want to renew the tax on the oil and chemical industry that would pay for the clean-up. The gentleman talked about the ports. Obviously, one way that is very effective in terms of creating jobs is to spend money on infrastructure, on homeland security. New Jersey, like Michigan, is a State that has a lot of port activity. Most of the cargo that comes into the port of New York actually comes into New Jersey, the majority of it. I have heard from so many of the inspectors about how so little of the cargo is inspected. We had a situation in December while we were not here in Congress where our governor had to announce that he could not, there was a proposal because of the bad state of the roads in New Jersey to increase the gasoline tax, and he decided not to do it because he knew that a tax increase would probably not pass and there would be a lot of political opposition to it, so he decided not to increase the gas tax. But we face a crisis in our transportation infrastructure. If we can get an infusion of funds from the Federal Government to help with our bridges and our highways, not only would we be able to fix them up and make transportation easier; but it would create a lot of jobs, and we do not get this. All we get is more tax cuts and there is no way that, either in the short or the long run, that that is going to be job creation. The thing that really surprised me, and I do not know where the gentleman stands on this issue, last night the only thing that I thought the President mentioned about job creation was the need for more free-trade agreements. He signed all these free-trade agreements over the last couple of years, and that is a major reason why so many of the jobs have gone south, not only to Mexico but to China and other countries. Here he is again saying, okay, we need more of these free-trade agreements. Free trade is all right, but we have got to have some kind of a program to enhance our manufacturing base before we just sign all these agreements and let everybody take away all our manufacturing jobs. It is just amazing to me. We could keep going on, and I do not want to necessarily keep repeating what the gentleman said, but I just want to say that so many of the things that the gentleman mentioned have direct application to my State, and all we keep getting is more tax cuts for the wealthy, more debt. And somehow the suggestion on the part of the President is that that is helping with the economy, when I think it is doing the opposite. I do not know if the gentleman wanted to add anything else.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exemplary individual, Gloria Nilson whose professional accomplishments are equally matched by her generous and selfless contributions to the community in the areas of education, the arts and culture. Just this past year, on December 6, 2003, the Monmouth University Library Association honored Ms. Nilson, awarding her with their 2003 Community and Humanities Award. It is clear to me that Ms. Nilson is truly deserving of this award because of her dedication and diligence with every project that she has taken on. Being regarded as a pioneer in a field where few women were even licensed to sell real estate, Ms. Nilson is widely recognized in the state of New Jersey, and nationally as one of the state's top- ranking Realtors. Remarkably, Ms. Nilson began her career carrying a typewriter in the trunk of her car to draw up contracts and close sales for clients. After being ranked Number 1 in the state of New Jersey for residential real estate volume by the New Jersey Real Estate Board for four consecutive years, she started Gloria Nilson Realtors in 1977. As Executive Vice President, Director of Luxury Homes for Gloria Nilson Realtors/GMAC Real Estate, she is the exclusive affiliate for Sotheby's International Realty for the Greater Monmouth County area, and in 2000, placed third in the country for GMAC. Notable among her numerous affiliations and philanthropic activities; Ms. Nilson is the founding board member of the Women's Council for the Cancer Center at Monmouth Medical Center, she is also the first woman to be named chairperson of the Business Council at Monmouth University's School of Business. Widely recognized for her outstanding contributions both professionally and personally, her awards include the Monmouth Girl Scouts Council 2001 Women of Distinction Award, the Monmouth Ocean Development Council's 1996 Silver Gull Award for Business Achievement, and the 2000 Community Service Award for GMAC Real Estate, which is now given annually in the name of Gloria Nilson. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Ms. Gloria Nilson on her Community and Humanities Award and offer her the highest praise for her professional achievements, as well as her civic contributions.