Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman would yield, I just found the reference. It was the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) who spoke earlier on the floor tonight. He was the one quoted in this article in Commerce Daily. It says, ``The most problematic revolt is coming from a group of Republicans who want the bill to address price issues rather than coverage.'' It has a quote by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). ``The central issue is affordability. As we move down the path towards passage of a drug benefit, that issue has been given short shrift.'' He wants to include in the bill an amendment he has pushed through the House before. It would make it easier for Americans to reimport U.S. made drugs from other countries at controlled prices. He said, ``I am tired of subsidizing the starving Swiss.'' He was actually on the floor tonight talking about the reimportation issue, which is one way to bring down price. If we allow drugs to come from Canada or other countries and create competition that way, prices would come down considerably. But this was an amendment just like his that I offered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that the Republicans voted against because they did not want to see any reimportation because it would address the issue of price.

Mr. PALLONE. The second thing is what the Republicans have done with these tax cuts, of course, is to drive us back into debt where we are now using the Medicare and Social Security trust funds to pay for daily operating expenses of the Federal Government. I would much rather see the Medicare trust fund used for a Medicare benefit, like prescription drugs, rather than to run the country, because that is not what it is for. It is supposedly for the Medicare program. The last thing, and in many ways the most important, is the fact that we provide a generous benefit under Medicare, and we are not proposing anything that is out of line. We are just modeling it after part B. Part A of Medicare pays for the hospital bills, and part B pays for the doctor bills. And right now if an individual wants their doctor bills paid for, they pay a premium, I think it is like $45 a month, with a $100 a year deductible, and 80 percent of the cost of the doctor bills are paid for by the Federal Government. Well, we are doing the same thing with our bill. Our bill says we will create a new part D, where an individual pays only $25 per month for their premium, they have a $100 deductible, and 80 percent of the cost of their drug bills, up to $2,000, is paid for by the Federal Government. After that, it is 100 percent. This is not rocket science here. This is just the same old, same old Medicare, but now using the same principle used for paying doctors we are now using to pay for prescription drugs. The problem is, as the gentleman said, and I will go to the second point the gentleman made that I wanted to mention, is that we came up with a simple proposal under Medicare, and Medicare has worked for 35 years; and yet the Republicans say we cannot do that. They do not want to continue and extend Medicare; they want to give money to the private insurance companies in the hopes that somehow they will provide a benefit. But they do not define what that benefit is; they do not say how much is to be paid for the benefit. We do not even know if they will offer the benefit. And as the gentleman says, most of the insurance companies and the trade associations are saying they do not want to provide it. No one can go out and buy a drug-only policy now, so why should they provide it overnight because the Federal Government gives them a little money? It is not going to happen. So the biggest concern we have as Democrats, and the main reason we think the Republican bill is a sham, is because these policies are not going to be sold. And if they were to be sold, we calculate that the benefit to the average senior is about 20 percent of the cost of their drug bill. So who would even pay $35, $45, $50, whatever the premium is per month, to get only 20 percent of their drug bill paid for? So the whole thing really is just a sham. It really is. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Speaker, because he raises so many really good issues, and I just want to key in on a couple of them, if I could. The gentleman mentioned the Hartford paper talking about the cost of the plans. I have said it so many times, and the gentleman basically touched upon it as well tonight, that it is not only that seniors deserve a prescription drug benefit, but it also makes sense from a financial point of view. Think about the fact, as the gentleman said, that, first of all, it could easily be paid for by simply postponing some of these tax cuts that primarily went for the wealthy and for corporate interests. We are not even talking about now. We are talking about in the outyears, 10 or 12 years from now.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey as it celebrates its 90th Anniversary Year as the region's premier provider of community health services, serving more than 100,000 clients each year. The organization that is now VNA of Central Jersey began with a meeting of volunteers on June 24, 1912 at Brookdale Farm, Geraldine Thompson's estate in Lincroft, NJ. First known as the Monmouth County Branch of the State Charities Aid and Prison Reform Association, the young organization set out to improve prison conditions and achieve a more humane approach to public assistance. It successfully campaigned for a tuberculosis hospital (Allenwood Sanitarium), and was appointed agent for the NJ Tuberculosis League. From the beginning, the health care needs of women and children were a paramount concern. In its first decade, the agency completed a study of mentally handicapped children in the public schools; it launched child welfare programs and established mobile dental clinics and mobile mental hygiene clinics. Public health nurses were added to the social work staff, and the agency established a county district health office. The name was changed to the Monmouth County Organization for Social Service in 1918. However, the agency has always been a voluntary, nonprofit organization and is not a branch of county government. Accomplishments of the second decade included the addition of three satellite health centers and a continuing focus on services for children: well-child conferences, nutrition and parenting programs, and establishment of a children's shelter. The 1930s brought a training program for student nurses, nursery and play schools at the Hartshorne Health Center in Belford to assist working mothers, and an expansion of services for handicapped children. The agency also assisted Fitkin Hospital (now Jersey Shore Medical Center) in establishing a social service department. During the war years, MCOSS spearheaded a medical-dental plan for veterans. In the late 1940s the agency participated in organizing the Cancer Society, Heart Association and Cerebral Palsy Treatment Center in the county. The agency's program to provide health care for migrant workers received national recognition. In the following decade, the agency participated in the Salk vaccine testing program and gave field training to graduate nursing students from Rutgers University and Columbia. The Thrift Shop opened its doors in Manasquan in 1960. Also in the 1960s, the agency and the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders worked out a plan for countywide bedside nursing care. The high quality of nursing, the aging of the population, the growing costs of hospital care and advances in home care technology led to explosive growth in home care services in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1979, the agency formally changed its name to MCOSS Nursing Services. In 1988, service was expanded to Middlesex County through acquisition of the Visiting Nurse Association in Middlesex. In an effort to make the organization's identity clear in both Middlesex County and Monmouth County, the agency's trustees voted in December 1993 to adopt the name Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey. (A visiting nurse association is a freestanding, community-based, nonprofit organization governed by a volunteer board of trustees, providing intermittent care in the home and helping to support itself through fund-raising.). Significant developments of the 1980s and 1990s included creation of VNACJ Community Services, the administrative umbrella for grant-funded services and fund-raising programs; the foundation of the hospice program; growth of the rehabilitative services department; and establishment of primary care centers staffed by nurse practitioners. In 1988, the hospice program was certified by Medicare, and now serves more than 700 terminally III patients and their families annually. From mobile health clinics in the 1920s, services to migrants in the 1940s, hospice care in the 1980s, primary care in the 1990s, expansion of school-based clinics in 2000 to the introduction of advanced home care technology in 2001, the venturesome spirit of that early group of volunteers continues to infuse an organization which has consistently been in the vanguard of community health in this nation. As VNA of Central Jersey celebrates its 90th year, it also pays tribute to Judith Stanley Coleman on her 25th anniversary as Chairman. First as trustee and then as the agency's sixth chairman, Mrs. Coleman has been an outstanding leader, advocate and supporter of the organization. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that the voluntary nonprofit agency continue to honor its commitment to provide care to all in need, regardless of their ability to pay.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this morning once again, as I have so many times, I take to the floor to talk about the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and I was hoping this week that I would be able to thank my Republican colleagues for finally bringing up some legislation that would at least make an attempt to address the prescription drug issue. I read, though, today in both Congress Daily as well as in The New York Times that there is a real possibility that there may be a delay in the House drug bill action until July. Well, let me say once again, Mr. Speaker, how extremely disappointed I am to see that the Republicans, the Republican leadership in the House, continue to fiddle with this very important issue. They promised that they were going to bring up a prescription drug bill before the Memorial Day recess, then they promised they were going to bring up a prescription drug bill before the July 4th recess. Now it seems there is a real possibility they are not going to bring it up. I hope they do, even though I think they have a terrible bill that will not accomplish anything for the American people or for America's seniors. At least if we have the opportunity to have a debate on the floor, it allows us as Democrats to bring up our substitute bill, which is a real Medicare prescription drug benefit that would lower prices for seniors. Now, it is interesting to see why the Republicans may be having trouble bringing up their bill. I have said over and over again that the problem with the Republican proposal is it is not Medicare, it does not guarantee any benefits. What it does is throw money to private insurance companies in the hope that they will provide some sort of benefit for seniors that, unfortunately, does not have any guarantee about the scope of coverage or what the premium would be or whether there would be any benefit at all, because we know the private insurance companies say they probably will not offer this coverage. The other problem that the Republicans have is that they do not address the issue of price at all. They have language in their bill that says that the administrator of the program cannot interfere with price in any way. Well, that seems to be the problem. That is why they are having trouble bringing up their bill. If you look in Congress Daily today, it mentions the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who says that he wants to push for inclusion of language allowing fewer restrictions on bringing FDA-approved drugs back into the country, known as reimportation. Well, Democrats have been saying for a long time that we should allow reimportation of drugs, because that is the way of bringing costs down. But the Republicans do not want to do that. When I tried to offer an amendment that would accomplish that in the Committee on Energy and Commerce the other night, they voted against it. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) goes on to say, or his spokesman I should say, ``If we do not address the cost comparison, it is like building a house without a solid foundation,'' the spokeswoman said for Mr. Gutknecht. So that means they are concerned about costs. Once again, some of the Republicans seem to be unwilling to vote for this Republican bill because it does not have any cost containment. It does not control price the way the Democratic bill, in fact, would. In fact, further on in Congress Daily it says, ``Representative Jack Kingston and Jo Ann Emerson plan to discuss the issue of cost at a press conference today and announce a new congressional caucus to deal with drug costs.'' Once again, the problem the Republicans have, no Medicare benefit, no real benefit at all, and no effort to address the issue of cost. That is why they are running into problems. Today's New York Times is about the Family USA study announced yesterday that talks about how the costs of prescription drugs are going up way out of proportion to the cost of inflation. It says in the article that one conservative Republican, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), has indicated that he will vote against the Republican bill; and it goes on to say that one of the Republicans, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), has expressed concern about the effects on pharmacies, because, as we know, the chain drugstores and retail pharmacies oppose the Republican bill, and the reason they do so is because they do not think it is going to provide any benefit and will make it harder for them to operate and provide pharmacy benefits. So let me say I understand full well why the Republicans are having a problem bringing up their bill, because it does not deal with price, it does not address the issue of price, it is forbidden to deal with the issue of price. That is why they have the noninterference language. It does not provide a benefit. But they should still bring it up and allow the opportunity for us to debate the bill and bring up our Democratic substitute, which is a good bill and could be considered and passed here and go over to the Senate and become law. So the fact they are having problems with their legislation does not mean that they should postpone another week or two or three or a month or who knows how long between now and November before the end of this session, because we need to address this issue. And if there are faults in their legislation, bring it to the floor and we will expose those faults and come up with a better bill, rather than just saying we are going to delay and not have an opportunity to address this issue, which is what the Republican leadership has done so far.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4858, a bill to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas. In many rural areas of the country, we are experiencing an enormous shortage of qualified doctors. For this reason, the J-1 visa waiver program was established on the State and Federal level. This program allowed foreign medical graduates to come to the United States on a J-1 visa for up to 3 years to train in accredited residency programs in rural, underserved parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, the impetus behind accepting physicians from other countries and training them in American residency positions is to attract physicians to provide care to the medically underserved who live in rural areas where doctors trained in the United States do not want to practice. The law states that once the residency program is complete, the doctors are required to return to their country of origin for two years. However, the Federal government and states have the authority to waive the requirements if it is in the United States' interest to keep the physician here. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Branch was thrilled by the waiver because it provided the opportunity to retain medical trainees who would continue to serve in typically medically underserved communities in rural America. In addition, individual state agencies could act as an Interested Government Agency (IGA) and under the Conrad 20 program, could process up to 20 J-1 doctors on their own. Unfortunately, the USDA has indicated an intention to stop granting permission under the J-1 visa waiver program. National security concerns have taken hold and new, extensive background checks have put the USDA in the position of not being able to afford to continue this program to keep foreign medical graduates. At the same time, the Conrad 20 program which allowed states to process J-1 visa waivers expired on May 31, 2002. I support passage of H.R. 4858, because this legislation would reauthorize the Conrad 20 program for 2 years and expand the number of J-1 visa waivers to 30 per state in order to make up for increasing demands brought on by the termination of the Federal government program under the USDA. I will work to see that this bill is taken up by the other body and signed into law by the President to ensure that medical care is available throughout all rural, underserved communities in the United States.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentlewoman. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas. We already mentioned your name tonight in the context of prevention, the person at the pharmacy that does not get the prescription drug and ends up being hospitalized.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman not only for what you said tonight but for being here so many nights as we try to literally pressure the Republicans to bring up a prescription drug plan and have it debated on the floor. You expressed with me how disappointed we are if this actually does happen this week and they bring up a proposal, that the proposal is such a sham that will not actually do anything to help senior citizens. I wanted to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, but I just wanted to say one point about what the gentlewoman from Texas said about the drug research and the increased utilization, because that was so important. We hear the pharmaceuticals saying, well, we need money for research, and you cannot reduce our profit. But I had said before, it is incredible to hear them say that because the Federal Government is so much involved in rewarding them and making sure that they have enough profit. First of all, we provide a lot of money for basic research to the drug companies through NIH and other Federal programs. Then you talked about generics. It is true, of course, that there are many drugs for which there is no generic alternative because of the patent exclusivity. In other words, if you develop a new drug and you can get it patented and we give you an exclusive right to sell that over a period of time before a generic can come to market, that is a huge amount of money that the Federal Government through its patent policy is giving to the drug companies. You cannot have a generic under those circumstances. Then you think about the fact, and a previous speaker talked about, because he is from Massachusetts, the buses going to Canada. We also say you cannot import foreign drugs, so we are again through Federal policy giving them another windfall because you do not have the option of competition with the drugs that would come from Canada or overseas in lower prices. Then we give them huge tax breaks for their advertising. For them to complain about how they need money for research is absurd. I totally agree with you as well. I have never understood why they do not see bringing in all these seniors, now millions of new people in to be able to purchase prescription drugs, would simply increase their profits even more because now a lot more people would be buying the drugs. Their arguments are specious and make no sense. I just do not understand where they are coming from.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman. I appreciate his remarks. I yield to my colleague from Texas who has been here so many times in the evening, oftentimes late at night, to make the point about how important it is that we have a prescription drug benefit that actually means something for senior citizens.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Washington who has been out front on this issue for so long as well. But I just wanted to comment, I was so glad the gentleman brought up the statement, or the quotes, if you will, from The Washington Post about this big dinner that the Republicans had the night of the prescription drug markup in the Committee on Commerce. We actually had to break at 5 o'clock so that they could go to the dinner. I have people come up to me and say, Congressman, no one thinks that anybody who is elected to this House has evil intentions. I mean, whether they be Republican or Democrat, they are not elected here, and they do not come here because they want to be evil. I really believe that strongly. I am sure all of my colleagues believe that. So my constituents will say, well, why is it that the Republicans do not want to put the prescription drug benefit under Medicare if Medicare is such a good program, and why is it that they do not want to reduce prices, because that will save the Federal Government money? The answer is the special interest prescription drug industry. That is where we have the Republican aid very much saying that. They do not want this to be a Medicare benefit. They want to give it to private insurance companies, because the drug companies are afraid that if it is a Medicare benefit and guaranteed to anyone that somehow they are going to lose money or not make as much profit. And they do not want to reduce costs for the same reason. So what is happening is that the Federal Government cannot save money and the seniors cannot save money because the drug companies have to make a bigger profit. I do not even believe it is true, because I think that if we have this program of Medicare and if we have 30 or 40 million seniors getting it, that the drug companies will make even more money. So I do not even buy that. But they are convinced that they are going to make less money, so they put pressure on the Republicans to say, do not put this under Medicare, do not reduce prices, do not have any pricing mechanism in it. There is no other explanation for it because it does not make sense. People are not doing things because they want to be bad and hurt people; they are just doing it because they are getting the money from the special interests.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we know when Medicare began under President Johnson it was because the private sector was not able to provide health insurance that was affordable for most American seniors. That is why the program was set up, not because we wanted a government program or we thought a government program was superior, but because the private sector was not providing any kind of affordable health insurance that most seniors could buy. I want to develop a little bit what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said on the pricing issue. The incredible thing about the prescription drug industry is that they get so much money and help from the Federal Government right now, and I have a lot of the pharmaceutical companies headquartered in my district, and New Jersey as a whole, so I am not saying that they should not be able to make a profit, but think about the fact that this is an industry that get a tremendous amount of money from the Federal Government through the National Institutes of Health to do the research on prescription drugs. Then they have a patent program where they get exclusivity for new drugs that are developed for a long period of time and subsidize their patents through the exclusivity program, and then they get a break on the advertising through the Tax Code, and finally they have a situation where they closed the border for importation of prescription drugs from other countries because they know if that were to happen and we were able to import prescription drugs from Canada or Europe, we would have a situation that would bring the cost down. So everything is being done by the Federal Government to make sure that they get a nice profit, whether it is money for research, whether it is preventing importation of foreign drugs, whether it is the patent exclusivity that they get, or the advertising break that they get through the Internal Revenue Code, and there are probably many other things that I could mention as well. On top of that in terms of tax breaks and money and exclusivity of patents, even with all that help, they still want the American people, they want to charge the American people the highest drug costs in the entire world. That is not fair. That is why the Democrats are saying an important part of this prescription drug plan that we should pass here has to address the price issue. Otherwise, prescription drugs will be unaffordable and the Federal Government will not be able to afford a prescription drug plan that will actually help senior citizens. I want to reiterate how important the price issue is. The Democrats in our bill, because we have our prescription drug program under Medicare, language that mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the 30 or 40 million seniors that are now part of the Medicare program and negotiate lower prices for them. He has the power with all these seniors to do the type of negotiation that would reduce prices because he can bargain. The Republicans not only have nothing like that in their bill, they have a clause, and I want to mention it briefly, in their bill called noninterference. It specifically says that the person who administers the prescription drug program under their legislation cannot in any way require or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered outpatient drugs or to interfere in any way with negotiations between these private insurers and the drug manufacturers or wholesalers or other suppliers of covered outpatient drugs. So the Republicans, contrary to the Democrats, are so concerned that under whatever program they have that somehow prices would be reduced, that they actually put in language to say it is not possible for the administrator of their prescription drug program to do anything to bring costs down. It is unbelievable how much they are willing to do the bidding of the drug industry because of the amount of money that they get from the drug industry. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for what he said. He brought up many important points, but there are two I want to develop a little more because I think the gentleman stated something so important. One, the gentleman is a member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs; and how it works with the VA, the administrator, because he has all of these veterans, he is authorized by Congress to negotiate prescription drug prices for the VA. I guess it is pursuant to the Federal Supply Schedule, and he is able to get huge discounts. I understand they are 30, 40 percent, sometimes more. We actually had an amendment, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) had an amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that was totally tied to the Federal Supply Schedule and that used the VA as his example. In other words, he wanted to put language in his amendment in the bill that would have said that the Secretary had to use the Federal Supply Schedule and do the same thing that the VA administrator did for all senior citizens. Not only was that voted down strictly on partisan lines with all of the Republicans voting against it, but they actually articulated that they did not want that type of negotiating power for senior citizens. I do not have the faintest idea why. There was some suggestion it was okay to do it for the VA because they fought for the country, but seniors should not be treated the same way. I wanted to point out that a lot of those seniors were also veterans, so that made no sense. Just to show how far they were willing to go to say they did not want any kind of pricing mechanism in this bill, they actually rejected an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that would have modeled itself on the VA, the way the gentleman described it. The other thing that the gentleman said that was so important is the whole idea of prevention. In other words, the gentleman pointed out when Medicare started out in the mid 1960s, the reason it was set up was because most senior citizens had no health care. They could not buy health insurance. At that time, we primarily were providing through Medicare for hospitalization; and then later we expanded it to under Part B to cover doctor bills. But the reason we need this prescription drug benefit is because things have changed so much over the last 30 years. Now the prescription drug benefit is just as important as Part A for hospitalization and Part B for doctors' bills. I would venture, and you pointed out, and I know that the gentlewoman from Texas has said this before and the gentleman from Ohio has said this before, that if you actually provide a generous prescription drug plan under Medicare, where 80 percent of the costs are paid for by the Federal Government, which is what the Democrats do, because it is preventative, you will prevent the hospitalization, the nursing home care, the having to go to the doctors. We had a couple of our colleagues, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) who owns a pharmacy company and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who is a pharmacist, two guys from Arkansas, they pointed out that someone will come into their pharmacy like on a Monday or a Tuesday morning and ask for a certain drug that has been prescribed by their doctor and be told, Okay. Well, that is $350. The person says, I can't afford it, walks out of the pharmacy; and because the town is so small where they are in Arkansas, they actually see that person in the hospital at the end of the week running up a bill for Medicare that is 10, $20,000. It makes no sense. We need to basically reform Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit, not put it outside Medicare, because we will save money if we do it. It is such a simple thing to explain to our Republican colleagues; and they just reject it because they do not like Medicare, and they certainly do not want any impact on pricing.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be joined this evening by some of my Democratic colleagues as we discuss the need for a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. I have been on the floor many times in the evening during Special Orders criticizing the Republican leadership in the House because of their failure to address the issue of prescription drugs and even bring a bill to the floor. So I want to start out by saying I hoped since they have promised that they are going to bring up a prescription drug bill to the floor of the House before the July 4 recess, which would be by this Thursday or Friday, I am hopeful since they made that commitment to do so that we will see some bill come to the floor, and there will be a debate on the prescription drug issue by end of the week. I am still somewhat skeptical that we are going to see that from the Republican leadership because initially they said this was going to happen Wednesday, and now we hear Thursday and now we hear maybe even Friday. So certainly if they do not bring up the bill at all, they should be seriously chastised for doing that since they promised it for 2 months. But even if they do bring it up, my great disappointment and that of my Democratic colleagues is that it is a sham proposal. It is not a bill that will provide any benefit or certainly any meaningful benefit to any senior citizen. And let me just explain why and very briefly raise two, I think, very major points. One is that the Republican bill is not a Medicare proposal. We all know that for many years since the mid-60's when Medicare was first signed into law that Medicare has been a government program that has provided senior citizens, every senior, with a guaranteed benefit for their hospital care and a guaranteed benefit for their physician's care. The bottom line is it works. It is a government program that works. Well, the Democrats have been saying, if we have a program that works like Medicare, then just expand it to include prescription drugs. And our proposal is very much like part B right now that pays for the doctor bills. There is a defined guaranteed benefit under Medicare. Everyone gets it. There is a very small premium, $25 a month, a low deductible of $100 a year, and 80 percent of the cost of the prescription drugs are paid up to $2,000 out-of-pocket, in which case 100 percent of the prescription drug bills are paid. We have a very effective cost-control pricing mechanism that says that since there is now 30 to 40 million seniors under Medicare, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a mandate to negotiate lower prices on behalf of this large pool of senior citizens to bring prices down. The Republicans have gone just the opposite. Rather than provide a Medicare benefit, rather than continuing and expanding the Medicare program to include prescription drugs, all they are proposing, if it even comes to the floor this week, is to throw some money to private insurance companies hoping that these insurance companies will offer some kind of drug policy to senior citizens. And we know that the insurance companies are saying they are not going to provide these kinds of drug policies because they have never existed before. And even if they do, there is no guarantee seniors will be able to buy one, what the premium is going to be, whether they will get certain prescription drugs, nothing, and no mechanism in the Republican bill to deal with the issue of price and trying to reduce costs. In fact, there is actually language in the Republican bill that says that the administrator of the program cannot interfere in any way and try to reduce costs or reduce prices. So we have here a sham proposal on the part of the Republicans. I hope they bring it up. I hope we have a debate by the end of the week on the prescription drug issue, because we have not had it for almost 2 years as this Congress draws to a close. But when they bring it up, we are going to have to show there really is no benefit at all and no proposal at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Ohio, the ranking member on the commerce Subcommittee on Health, who has been an outstanding spokesman on this issue and who has really fought very hard to make sure that we get a real Medicare prescription drug proposal.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He articulates so well the price issue. I have to say during that Committee on Energy and Commerce markup, there were two things that we realized over and over again. One is the Republicans were never going to put this program under Medicare because they are ideologically opposed to Medicare because they see it as a government thing, and they were not going to do anything to effect price reductions.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Washington is here, and I apologize. I think there is about 7 minutes left, and I know that is not a lot of time, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased to see that the Republican leadership may bring a prescription drug bill to the floor this week before the July 4 recess, but I am very disappointed with the legislation that they have brought forward; and I can only hope that when they bring the bill to the floor, they will allow a Democratic substitute, Medicare prescription drug bill, which is far superior and will be the only legislation I think that would accomplish the goal of making sure and guaranteeing all seniors have a decent prescription drug benefit. I would ask that the Republican leadership make sure that we be allowed as Democrats to bring up our substitute when this matter goes before the Committee on Rules this week. I want to talk about two areas that I think are important with regard to this prescription drug initiative. First of all, the Democrats insist that a prescription drug benefit be under Medicare. Medicare has been a very successful program that has worked in terms of providing hospital care and physician care over the last 30 or 40 years, and the only way that we are going to have an effective prescription drug plan is if we use the Medicare model and if we make sure that the prescription drug benefit is guaranteed under Medicare. That assures that every senior has a guaranteed prescription drug benefit, that it is a benefit where they know what the premium is, they know what the deductible is and what the Federal Government is going to provide. What the Republicans have done in their bill is to ignore Medicare, and they have basically decided to throw some money to private insurance companies in the hope that they will offer a prescription drug plan for seniors, and it will not work. The bottom line is if this bill were to become law, very few, if any, seniors would be able to actually find a private insurance company that would provide them with a prescription drug plan. So it is a hoax. It is not a real prescription drug benefit that is going to be meaningful. In case anyone questions my motives in saying that, I will simply read from the editorial that was in this Saturday's New York Times. It is a section that says ``House Republicans who regard traditional Medicare as antiquated would provide money to private insurance companies, a big source of GOP campaign donations, to offer prescription drug policies. The idea of relying on private companies seems more ideological than practical. The pool of elderly Americans who will want the insurance is likely to consist of those who have the most need for expensive medicine. Even with Federal subsidies, it is unclear that enough insurance companies would be willing to participate and provide the economies that come from competition.'' The bottom line is under the Republican plan there will not be any insurance policies and there will be nothing for seniors to have and there will not be a prescription drug benefit. The other major problem with the Republican proposal contrasting with the Democratic proposal is the Republican proposal does not deal with price. The biggest problem facing seniors now is that the cost of prescription drugs are too high, and the Republicans go out of their way in their proposal to make sure that the price issue is not dealt with at all. Today, Families USA, which is a great organization that has been dealing with this prescription drug issue, put out a report called ``Bitter Pill, The Rising Prices of Prescription Drugs for Older Americans,'' and the report released today by Families USA basically says that the problem is that prescription drugs cost too much. Thirty- six out of 50 of the drugs most used by seniors rose three or more times the rate of inflation last year. That is simply unacceptable and cannot be justified, in my opinion, by the pharmaceutical companies. But what does the Republican bill do about price? Absolutely nothing. It actually has a clause in the bill that was put in, I understand, from the Conservative Action Team, Republican, the CATs, that actually says that the administrator of the program cannot interfere in any way in any negotiations to deal with price. It absolutely forbids any kind of pricing structure, absolutely forbids that the administrator of the prescription drug program get involved in any kind of negotiations that would reduce price. That is an outrage. That is because the Republicans are very much in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, and they do not want the issue of prices and price reductions effectively dealt with as part of this legislation. That will also doom the Republican legislation. The Democrats by contrast, because their program is under Medicare, the Democrats mandate the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate to reduce prices for now 30 or 40 million seniors that are part of the Medicare program and will now have a prescription drug benefit. What we are saying is if we put this program under Medicare, then we are guaranteeing that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a pool of 30 to 40 million seniors that he can negotiate for; and we mandate that he negotiate to reduce price, and he will have the ability to do so. So a hallmark of the Democratic proposal is not only that it is under Medicare and there is a guaranteed benefit wherever one is in the country but also that there is a guarantee that the program will try to reduce cost, reduce price, which is so crucial if the program is going to be successful. I challenge the Republicans to heed what the Democrats are saying and address the issue of price and put their program under Medicare, which they have refused to do so far.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw attention to a troubling development in the democratic reform effort in Cuba. Last week Fidel Castro staged mass demonstrations throughout Cuba in a sign of so-called ``support'' for a proposed amendment to the Cuban Constitution declaring his failed Soviet-style economic system to be ``untouchable.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no question as to what has left Castro feeling threatened to the point that he feels the need to reaffirm his dictatorial control of Cuba and that is Project Varela. On Friday, May 10, over 11,000 citizens of Cuba took a courageous stand and petitioned the Cuban National Assembly to hold a nationwide referendum vote on guarantees of human rights and civil liberties. Named for the 19th century priest and Cuban independence hero, Padre Felix Varela, the Varela Project received no funding or support from foreign organizations or foreign governments. Project Varela is a grassroots effort by the Cuban people to call on their government to provide them with internationally accepted standards of human and civil rights, including freedom of speech, the right to own a business, electoral reform and amnesty for political prisoners. Beyond the obvious threat that a grassroots political effort poses, Project Varela represents an even greater challenge to Castro's control of the island. With its 11,000 plus signatures, the project qualifies under article 88 of the Cuban Constitution, which states that if the Cuban National Assembly receives the verified signatures of 10,000 legal voters, a referendum on the issue should be scheduled. However, Mr. Speaker, instead of allowing his Parliament to consider Project Varela, today Castro introduced his own referendum that would stop future consideration of Project Varela and any other democratic reform efforts. My question to Castro is that if he is so sure that he has the support of the Cuban people, why will he not schedule a referendum? If Castro is unfazed by the Varela Project, then why propose reforms to the Cuban Constitution 1 month to the day that the petition was delivered? Mr. Speaker, the ultimate goal of U.S. policy towards Cuba has always been to promote the island's peaceful transition to democracy. Many of my colleagues have varying views on the best approach to achieve a democracy. However, we can all agree on the importance of a grassroots democratic effort like Project Varela. That is why today I have introduced a resolution commending the citizens of Cuba for actively exercising their constitutional rights and taking a stand for the rights of all Cubans. The resolution praises Oswaldo Paya and the other organizers of Project Varela for their courage and bravery, for their willingness to stand up to a dictator. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and cosponsor this important resolution. It is time Castro realized that his orchestrated demonstrations and forced petitions are fooling no one.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding further, and again, his comments are so appropriate. Process-wise, let me tell the gentleman, we got the Republican bill 24 hours ago. We have never had a hearing on the Republican bill. We went straight to markup. The first thing they started to do was to amend their own bill. Before we even had an opportunity to digest the initial bill, they were making amends to the bill. So the process that the Republicans are using on this is just outrageous because nobody knows what is going on. We literally have to read the bill and amendments as we are sitting there in the committee. But the gentleman talked about a possible compromise or a consensus, a bipartisan effort. I have no doubt that that could be done, but the will is not there on the Republican side. I have been critical of the Republican proposal because it is not a very generous proposal. In other words, even if everything they speculate was true and they were going to have a $35-a-month premium and they were going to have a $250 deductible, at least it would be something if it was under Medicare and it was guaranteed. I would suggest if the Republican leadership wanted to say, okay, we will put in a bill that has these benefits, and that has these premiums and these deductibles but it is part of the Medicare program and it is guaranteed to everyone around the country, then I think we could sit down, and we could compromise because the Democrats have a much more generous plan, and the Republican plan is pretty meager, but we could figure out the differences between the two and maybe strike a consensus or strike a compromise. What I have been saying and I have said all along and continue to say that the problem with the Republican proposal is that it is not real. It is not a Medicare proposal. It is not providing a Medicare benefit. There is no guarantee anyone is ever going to get the benefit, not to mention the fact that it does nothing to lower prices. So the problem here is the Republicans are not being real. They are not giving us a Medicare proposal. They are not giving us something that we can say, okay, let us see where we are going to go and we will compromise and we will come up with the amount of the benefit and what it is going to mean. No, no, no. What we are doing here is just the same old thing we saw 2 years ago with the Republican leadership. Throw some money to private insurance companies, and I really think that what they are up to is that they really do not want any bill to pass. In other words, the pharmaceuticals, the statement that was made there about a Republican drug plan that suits drug companies, essentially the pharmaceuticals do not want any benefit because they like the status quo. They like the fact that they continue to raise prices, that they continue to make big profits, that they continue to get tax breaks. I do not think that they and the Republican leadership really want to come up with a bill that would pass here, pass in the other body and be signed by the President, because it would be very easy. Like the gentleman said, he had cooperation with the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). It would be very easy to put something down on paper that we could all agree on, but the leadership on the other side does not want to do that. I am convinced from what I saw today they just do not want to do it. They do not want any bill to pass ultimately and go to the President.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to tell the gentleman what a great job he has been doing on this Special Order in pointing out what the Republican leadership is up to. Mr. Speaker, I just want to back up what the gentleman is saying. I see he has that quote from the Washington Post: ``A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday the Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.'' I just came from the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I can assure the gentleman the quote he had up there is absolutely true. We just broke at exactly 10 minutes to 5 because the Republican leadership on the committee admitted that they were going to that fundraiser tonight. The chairman actually held up the ticket for the fundraiser, and said, maybe you guys want to join us at the fundraiser tonight. So there is absolutely no question that the reason that we could not even finish the bill today was because they had to run, the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, had to run to this fundraiser tonight. I do not know if the gentleman went through it, and some of these companies are even in my district, but I just have to give the gentleman a little information on that same Washington Post article. It says: ``Drug companies, in particular, have made a rich investment in tonight's event. Robert Ingram, GlaxoSmithKlein PLC's chief operating officer, is the chief corporate fundraiser for the gala; his company gave at least $250,000. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, that is PhRMma itself, the trade group funded by drug companies, kicked in $250,000, too. PhRMa, as it is best known inside the Beltway, is also helping to underwrite a television ad campaign. . . . '' Basically, just what they did, just in terms of the Committee on Commerce today, they spent the last month, PhRMa and the other brand name drugs, financing this $4 million to $5 million TV ad campaign telling everybody how the Republican prescription drug proposal, when it came forward, would be the best thing we have ever seen since apple pie, okay? Then they bring the bill up this week, we had it in committee today, and they have the fundraiser tonight, and they have to break the committee to go to the fundraiser. Then they are going to take that money from the fundraiser tonight, which is mostly soft money, as the gentleman knows, and they are going to use it putting on ads telling them how great the Republican members are because they voted for the Republican plan, and how bad the Democrats are because they did not vote for it. That is what this is all about. Today when the Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce were trying to make amendments, we were told the amendments were not germane. The reason was very simple. First of all, they did not want us to have a long debate, because they had to get to the fundraiser. Secondly, since they have already decided what the bill is going to have, because it is essentially written by the pharmaceuticals, they do not want to change the bill. They already have the TV ads running saying how great the bill is. They cannot change it, because if they do, it will not be what they are saying they are going to do. There was absolutely no way for the Democrats or anyone who had any questions about this Republican legislation to have any significant input today. I am sure tomorrow is going to be the same. I just want to go through a little more here. I am going to turn to page A 5 in this same article that the gentleman has been talking about, just to give a little more idea, because I do not want to just mention three or four drug companies. There are quite a few. It goes on here to say that ``Pfizer, Inc., contributed at least $100,000 to the event, enough to earn the company the status of a vice- chairman for the dinner. Ely Lily and company, Beyer, and Merck and Company each paid up to $50,000 to sponsor a table. Republican officials said other drug companies donated money as part of the fundraiser extravaganza.'' I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, we are referencing Republican sources here. These are not Democrats saying this; these are Republicans. As I said, they do not have any shame, any shame whatsoever about saying that this whole effort on the Republican side is totally bankrolled by the drug companies. To give another idea, we had a discussion at the very end of the day, before they broke at 5 for their fundraiser, where we pointed out that all the things that they are saying about the Republican bill, like the Republicans that were here last night during a Special Order, and the gentleman may have seen them, they were saying that the bill is a Medicare benefit. The only way it is a Medicare benefit is because the seniors over 65 are the ones that theoretically are targeted. It is not actually a benefit under Medicare. It is not a government program. It is a program that gives money to private insurance companies, hoping that they will provide some meager benefit. Then we had questions in the Committee on Energy and Commerce today that said, well, the Republicans suggest that this program has a $45 premium, that it has a $250 deductible, that it is going to pay a certain amount of money for the drug benefit; but then when asked, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking Democrat, he said, show us in the Republican bill, because we finally do have the bill now, where it says that the premium is only $35, where it says that the deductible is only $250, where it says that the Federal Government is going to pay for a certain amount of the drug benefit. There is nothing in the bill. The counsel for the committee admitted that was all speculation based on CBO estimates. In other words, they tell the CBO that they are going to throw a certain amount of money to the private insurance companies, and what do they think is likely to happen if they do that? Then they come back and say, well, maybe the premium would be about $35 a month, or that the deductible would be $250. But there is no guarantee that the deductible in New Jersey is $250 or that the premium in Arkansas is $35. It could be $85 in Arkansas. It could be $150 in Nevada. There is absolutely nothing in the bill, in the Republican bill, that guarantees any kind of benefit, because it is all up to what the private insurance companies want to do. Then I asked, well, they keep talking about how they are going to have lower prices. Last night on the floor, the Republicans who did the Special Order said they are going to lower prices for drugs. I said, where is that in the bill? The Republican bill, the language says that the private insurers can negotiate lower prices, that they can provide discounts, but they may, they may negotiate, they may provide discounts, or they may pass on those discounts to seniors, but there is nothing that requires them to do so. Why in the world would we believe that they would? I have no reason to believe that they would. This is the most or the biggest scam that I have ever seen. I do not understand how our colleagues can even suggest that they are providing any kind of benefit at all. I do not want to keep going. I will yield back to the gentleman, but I assure the gentleman that what he has been saying, because I have been listening to some of it with one ear, is absolutely coming to fruition, particularly that quote about making sure that the Republicans' prescription drug plan suits drug companies.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College Program Act. I am pleased that we are acting expeditiously to reauthorize this important program in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration so that Sea Grant programs can continue their work encouraging sustainable development of coastal and Great Lakes resources through education, research and outreach. I believe that we need to strengthen our understanding of the coastal and marine environment given the ever-increasing pressures that threaten to harm these sensitive areas. In order for policy makers and managers to best understand how to direct the use and conservation of aquatic ecosystems and their resources, it is imperative that we have a strong scientific understanding as well as the support of local communities. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of environmental issues, partnerships with Sea Grant have proven to be highly successful in tackling problems that face our nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. As a Sea Grant extension agent myself, I had the opportunity to see first hand how successful this program can be. Another reason that I support this bill is due to my concerns over the Administration's proposed transfer of the Sea Grant program from NOAA to the National Science Foundation. I am concerned that the applied science, management, as well as the education and outreach components of Sea Grant will be sacrificed in such a transfer. Sea Grant plays an important role in NOAA's ability to fulfill goals like building sustainable fisheries, protecting coastal and marine resources and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. This bill calls for the reauthorization of Sea Grant within the Department where it belongs, NOAA. In my home state of New Jersey, the benefits of the Sea Grant Program are innumerable. New Jersey Sea Grant facilitates technology transfer of research through constituent driven programs of instruction, publications and workshops that are all focused on outcome-based objectives. As a result, thousands of residents have been positively impacted. For example, New Jersey Sea Grant has been able to promote pollution prevention technologies and strategies that protect coastal resources from point sources and non-point sources of contamination. Sea Grant is a unique program that has been successful over the past 30 years and should continue to grow. H.R. 3389 not only supports, but also strengthens the National Sea Grant College Program. I will vote today in favor of this bill and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida would like to ask unanimous consent to do a 1-minute.

Mr. PALLONE. Can she not take 5 minutes ahead of me?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). I met the chief on one occasion when I went down there with the gentlewoman's husband, and he is really an outstanding individual. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the reason that I am in the well this morning is because of my concern about the Republican leadership effort to bring up their prescription drug bill today in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and in the Committee on Ways and Means. I have said many times that I am glad that the Republican leadership is finally willing to bring up a bill; however, it is quite clear that their legislation does nothing more than throw some money to private insurance companies in the hope that they will provide some sort of prescription drug benefit. And I am very concerned that, unlike the Democratic proposal which provides for a guaranteed Medicare benefit, 80 percent of which is being paid for by the Federal Government, and which brings down costs by giving the power to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to have 30 or 40 million seniors who can now negotiate lower drug prices, this is what we need. Democrats are proposing a Medicare benefit, a guaranteed benefit, 80 percent paid for by the Federal Government, just like what we have now for part B of Medicare that covers your doctor bills. What the Republicans are proposing and bringing up in committee today and tomorrow is a sham. It is nothing more than an effort to try to convince the American people that somehow they are going to provide a benefit that will not exist. It is illusory because it is nothing more than giving money to private insurance companies without any guaranteed benefit, without any Medicare benefit, and without any cost control. But I have said over and over again that Members do not have to take my word for it. In the last few weeks, commentators in the New York Times and various media around the country have pointed out rather dramatically that the Republican proposal will not work, that it is designed for failure, and if I could just use a couple of quotes to point that out, in Sunday's New York Times there was an article by Robert Pear, and it says, and I want to quote a few sections, under the Republican proposal, ``Medicare would pay subsidies to private entities to offer insurance covering the costs of prescription drugs. Such `drug only' insurance does not exist and many private insurers doubt whether they could offer it at an affordable price.'' A quote: ``I am very skeptical that `drug only' private plans would develop,'' said Bill Gradison, a former Congressman who was president of the Health Insurance Association of America from 1993 to 1998. The insurance companies themselves are telling the Republican leadership that these drug-only policies will not work. They will not be offered. It is a hoax on the American people and on our seniors to suggest that somehow this Republican bill is going to provide a benefit. It will not provide a benefit. Nobody is even going to offer the benefit. Today in the New York Times, an opinion piece by Paul Krugman, who is a regular contributor to the New York Times, says essentially the same thing. I just want to quote a couple of sections. He says, ``The theory of the Republican bill is that competition among private insurance providers would somehow lead to lower costs. In fact, the almost certain result would be an embarrassing fiasco because the subsidy would have few, if any, takers. The trouble with drug insurance from a private insurer's point of view is that some people have much higher drug expenses than the average, while others have expenses that are much lower, and both sets of people know who they are. This means that any company that tries to offer drug insurance will find that it tries to offer a plan whose premiums reflect average drug costs. The only takers will be those who have above-average drug costs.'' What Krugman is saying here and what others are saying is that no insurance company is going to provide this insurance, because the only person that would take it would be someone who has extremely high drug costs, and they cannot operate an insurance system that way. I do not want to get into all the details, but the bottom line is that we are getting this uniform chorus around the country telling us that the Republican proposal to simply provide money to private insurers will not work. What are the Republicans going to do? They know this is not going to work. They are going to try to shove it down the throats of the Congress in committee tomorrow or the next day, and bring it to the floor next week. They know it will not work, so what they are doing is use the pharmaceutical drug companies to spend millions of dollars on advertising to say it is a good proposal, and it is not.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Recognition of Anthony Zecca