[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4916-H4920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2230
              THE PROBLEM OF HIGH PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Toomey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is 
recognized for half the remaining time until midnight, approximately 45 
minutes, as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we come to the floor to talk about 
an issue that many of my Democratic colleagues have been talking about 
for over 2 years, the problem of high prices of prescription drugs for 
our senior citizens. We are here on the floor tonight at a very 
critical time, because at this very moment, in this late hour, the 
Committee on Ways and Means is meeting and debating the issue of 
legislation to provide prescription drug coverage for our senior 
citizens. Tonight I want to spend a little time talking about that 
debate and the forces that are at work that will determine what kind of 
prescription drug coverage and what kind of plan this Congress will 
endorse.
  We are here tonight on behalf of our senior citizens, and over the 
last 2 years I have visited and heard from many of them. I remember 
very distinctly when we first introduced the Prescription Drug Fairness 
Act, almost 2 years ago, and I traveled around my district talking 
about the issue with senior citizens at our local pharmacies, and I met 
a lady who ended up as a surprise at one of my meetings in Orange, 
Texas, a lady who was 84 years old and blind, who said she just had 
heard I was coming to town to talk about my efforts to try to fight the 
high prices of prescription drugs, and she wanted to come down and 
thank me.
  She was a lovely lady. She spent over half of her $700 Social 
Security check on her 14 prescription medicines that she had to take 
every day. She said this, and it is recorded in an article in the 
Houston Chronicle, November 22, 1998. She said, ``By the time I get 
through paying for my medicines, I have very little to live off of.''
  This lady should not have to face a choice of paying for prescription 
medications or buying food. She says, ``As long as I get my utilities 
and bills paid, I do the best I can. What is left, I try to spend on 
food.''
  Well, Ms. Daley, we have been fighting for almost 2 years now to try 
to help you pay for your prescription drugs, and we are going to find 
out in just a few hours what the Committee on Ways and Means does to 
help you. I am hopeful that the outcome will be good, but, based on 
what I will share with you tonight, I have serious doubts as to whether 
we can report to Ms. Daley that we have a good bill and a good plan.
  One letter I got some months ago was from some constituents of mine 
by the name of Joe and Billie O'Leary. They live down in Silsbee, 
Texas. I know Joe. I have talked to him several times at town meetings. 
His wife Billie wrote me a letter. Joe and Billie spend more than $400 
a month for their prescription medications. They wrote me a 3 page 
letter, and I want to share with you a little bit of what Ms. O'Leary 
said. It speaks, I think, volumes about the problems that our seniors 
face.
  She wrote, ``Most of the elderly have several ailments that require 
several prescriptions per month. The best and the latest treatments for 
some ailments and diseases are priced out of range for many on 
Medicare. Some treatments are available only for those who can afford 
it. I have found,'' she says, ``the problem is not that older people 
want free medicine. They want medicine that is reasonably priced so 
they can afford to buy it. What good,'' Ms. O'Leary says, ``what good 
is research and finding cures for diseases if a larger part of our 
population cannot afford the medicine for the cure?"
  She goes on to write, ``The people who are having to pay the high 
costs are the ones least able to pay. Let's be fair to all,'' she says. 
``Please try to cap the price the pharmaceutical companies are allowed 
to charge. Then we all can afford to pay for our own medicine.''
  This is the part that was most moving to me. Ms. O'Leary writes, 
``Our generation worked hard. We, through our taxes and efforts, helped 
to pay for schools, public buildings, highways, bridges, and helped 
pave the way for those now young. In the prime of our lives we fought 
in the wars for this country to keep our country free. We believe our 
country is big enough with our resources to provide reasonable health 
care and affordable medicine for all.''
  Ms. O'Leary, I agree, and I hope that the majority of this Congress 
will also agree.
  The big drug companies have been engaged in a campaign to try to 
defeat our efforts to lower the price of prescription drugs and to 
provide some affordable prescription drug coverage. No one can dispute 
the fact that drugs are too expensive, and I think many of our senior 
citizens are asking the question, why are prescription drugs so high, 
and why does the price continue to go up?
  One-third of all of our seniors on Medicare cannot afford any 
prescription drug coverage at all, and another one third has only 
unreliable, incomplete or very costly coverage. That means there are 15 
million of our mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbors and friends 
who must go without the prescription drugs they so desperately need, 
and the costs are continuing to rise.
  In 1998 the prices of the 50 most popular prescription drugs among 
seniors rose by more than four times the rate of inflation. Every time 
I return to my district in Texas, I hear from seniors who must make the 
choice that Ms. Daley was talking about, the choice between food and 
filling their prescriptions. We all hear the stories from seniors who 
only take half of their daily dosage or seniors who take only every 
other dose in a sad attempt to try to manage those skyrocketing costs. 
The problem is particularly bad for seniors who live in rural areas. 
Rural seniors are 60 percent less likely to get the drugs they need, 
and, when they do, the drugs are 25 percent more expensive.
  Study after study shows that seniors are paying too much for their 
drugs. In my district and in the district of those who are gathered 
here tonight to talk about this issue, seniors are paying 80 percent 
higher than their counterparts in Canada and about 80 percent higher 
than their counterparts in Mexico pay for the very same prescription 
medicines.
  That means for some commonly used drugs, our senior citizens in our 
great country are paying as much as $1,000 a more year than their 
counterparts in Canada and Mexico. And you do not have to go across the 
border to find lower prices. The big drug companies cut a special deal 
for the big HMOs and the big hospital chains. In fact, those big HMOs, 
they are paying about half what our seniors have to pay when they walk 
in to their local pharmacies.
  We did a study in the Committee on government reform that verified 
these numbers, and we also found out, to our dismay, that even cats and 
dogs get drugs cheaper than our senior citizens. The same drugs that 
both humans and animals take cost 150 percent more for humans. That is 
outrageous.
  So why is this? Why are these drug prices out of control? Well, for 
one thing, the companies that manufacture these prescription 
medications are making exorbitant profits. The drug industry sets at 
the top of every single profit category in Fortune Magazine's list of 
industries for the year. As the chart shows, they earned over $26.2 
billion in profits in the year 1998. Prescription drugs are the fastest 
growing component of our health care costs, and the CEOs of those big 
drug companies measure their annual salaries in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars, and their stock options they measure in the 
billions.
  The 12 biggest drug makers paid their top executives over $545 
million in 1998, and $2.1 billion in stock options. The drug companies 
pull in tens of billions

[[Page H4917]]

of dollars in profit, and they pay their CEOs hundreds of millions of 
dollars, and now they are complaining to this Congress that if we lower 
drug prices, it will cut into research and development.
  It is a lie. It is simple greed. The big drug makers are not about to 
let these profits slip away, and that is why they are spending billions 
of dollars on marketing and lobbying in this Congress. In fact, nine 
out of the ten top drug makers spend more money on marketing than they 
do on research and development, and four of the top five have a 
marketing budget over twice as big as their research and development 
budget.
  In 1998, the drug companies spent $1.3 billion in tax deductible 
product marketing to consumers. That is $1.3 billion in marketing, 
advertisement, to entice consumers to buy those prescription drugs at 
those high prices. They spent $7 billion more advertising directly to 
the health care professionals.
  In 1999, the trade association for the drug manufacturers, called 
PHrMA, increased its marketing budget 54 percent higher than the 
previous year. But despite the soaring profits of the drug makers, 
their research and development increased by less than half of that.
  Another very, very important issue for all of our seniors to 
understand when they ask the question why are drug prices so high is to 
understand that the drug manufacturers are spending just over $2 
million a year lobbying this Congress. They spent $2 million in direct 
political contributions and almost $150 million in lobbying 
expenditures in the 105th Congress. That is a lot of money. They are 
one of the biggest spenders of any industry group on lobbying and in 
political contributions.
  Should we ask why is it difficult for this Congress to deal with this 
issue in the best interests of our senior citizens? It is not hard to 
answer the question, when we see the amount of millions that the drug 
manufacturers are spending, trying to preserve their preferred position 
with regard to pricing.
  Now, the drug companies we know in recent months have gone even 
further than the expenditures that we see here. They are using lies, 
deceptions and secret organizations to attack any plan that would dare 
to suggest we should lower drug prices. Just yesterday, a nonprofit 
group called Public Citizen released a new report that revealed a 
secret $65 million ad campaign funded by the drug makers under the 
deceptive name of Citizens for Better Medicare. I want to show you some 
of their materials.
  This group, Citizens for Better Medicare, is really a secret interest 
group that uses tax loopholes to cover up the sources of their funding 
and their real purpose. They clearly want to keep drug prices high. 
They want to pass legislation in this Congress that will let them share 
the millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars with the insurance 
companies and the greedy HMOs, rather than giving the money back to our 
seniors in the form of lower drug prices.
  Here is what the report revealed about the so-called Citizens for 
Better Medicare. Its director, it was revealed, a fellow named Tim 
Ryan, is the former marketing director for PHrMA, the industry trade 
group for the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The report also revealed 
that the Members of this Citizens for Better Medicare include other 
interest groups that have been denounced by Republicans and Democrats 
alike for their scare tactics to try to persuade seniors to oppose the 
efforts that are being made in this Congress to lower prescription drug 
prices.
  It is their goal to avoid any kind of Medicare drug coverage that has 
the effect of reining in the skyrocketing drug costs. This campaign has 
targeted many Members of Congress, particularly those on the Democratic 
side of the aisle.

                              {time}  2245

  In fact, this interest group has sent telegrams into my own district 
and called on my constituents with information that is clearly 
deceptive and urged them to call me to tell me to oppose the very 
legislation that would genuinely help lower prescription drug costs.
  My colleagues can see here on the chart one of the telegrams that my 
constituents handed me when I was at Wal-Mart just a couple of weekends 
ago. He came up to me quite disturbed and he says, I want to give you 
this. They have written me this, sent me this telegram and they have 
urged me to call you, but now that I have seen you here at Wal-Mart, I 
will just give you the telegram. This telegram, and I quote from it, 
says, ``Government bureaucrats under the democratic plan could control 
which medicines you receive instead of you and your doctor.''
  Clearly, an absolute lie. The plan that we propose is completely 
voluntary. Government bureaucrats would not control the prices, and 
specifically under our plan, it promises that any drug a doctor 
determined to be medically necessary will be covered under our plan.
  The telegram attempts to confuse seniors by referring to the 
Gephardt-Daschle bill and urges seniors to call our offices and tell us 
to be against that bill. Well, interestingly, there is no such bill. 
There is no Gephardt-Daschle bill. Another effort simply to deceive and 
confuse our senior citizens.
  Frankly, the truth is that the Republican leadership in this Congress 
is cooperating with this group, Citizens for Better Medicare. As we can 
see, this group has not only sent out telegrams, but they have run 
full-page ads in the major newspapers around the country suggesting 
that the way to lower prescription drug prices is to turn this effort 
over to private insurance companies because, as the ad depicts, they 
say, those who are enrolled in private insurance get lower prices. 
Well, why should not everybody get lower prices whether they have 
insurance or not? So Citizens for Better Medicare, a front group for 
the drug manufacturers, is willing to pay $65,000 for one ad in the 
Washington Post just to try to persuade this Congress to be against 
plans that would genuinely bring prices down for our senior citizens.
  So what can we do? First of all, we have to have our senior citizens 
clearly understand who is on their side. We have to have them 
understand that these letters, these television ads that have been 
running for months in many districts that try to suggest that they 
should call their Congressman and tell them to be against some plan is, 
most likely, paid for by the pharmaceutical industry that is trying to 
preserve their ability to charge the outrageous prices that our seniors 
are currently paying.
  Our democratic plan has been clear. It is part of Medicare, a plan 
that our seniors trust. It is a plan that is universal, completely 
voluntary, and most importantly, it is affordable.
  Our democratic plan would be available to every senior, and every 
senior today has a problem when they get sick paying these high prices. 
One does not have to just be at the poverty level to have a problem 
with the price of prescription drugs. My aunt came to see me the other 
day, she is not at the poverty level, but she had been put on a new 
medication and she said it was going to cost her $400, and she was 
outraged.
  All seniors want help with the price of prescription drugs. Our plan 
would do that. It does not give the money to private insurance 
companies as the Republican plan would, and it is very interesting, 
because the private insurance companies and the very hearings that are 
going on tonight have testified, some of their representatives, that 
the insurance companies really do not think they can offer this plan, 
because they cannot figure out how to make any money off of it. Even if 
we pour this money into them, they say, well, we would probably not be 
able to do it for the seniors.
  What we need is a Medicare benefit for all of our seniors that is 
affordable, that is voluntary, so if our seniors say, well, I already 
have some other insurance coverage and I like it, then they do not have 
to pay the premium that is offered under the Medicare plan. But all of 
our seniors need this relief.
  I am glad to have tonight with me 3 other Members of Congress who 
have fought very hard on the issue that I am talking about. One of them 
whom I want to recognize first is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry). The gentleman cochairs the Prescription Drug Task Force with 
me, along with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). The gentleman has 
fought long and hard on this issue for our seniors

[[Page H4918]]

and it is a pleasure to recognize him to speak on this issue.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. The 
gentleman has provided outstanding leadership on this matter and I 
think he has done one of the finest jobs of explaining this entire 
issue that I have ever heard, and I want to thank the gentleman for 
that. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for 
his leadership and all of the other members of the Prescription Drug 
Task Force for the effort that they have put into this.
  As the gentleman has said, Americans pay outrageously high prices for 
prescription drugs. Over and over and over we hear it from our 
constituents. They must make the choice between food and medicine. 
There is no way that the greatest Nation in the history of the world 
should allow something like this to go on. It just simply is not fair 
that our senior citizens and all Americans pay more than any other 
country for medicine; they pay more than the big HMOs and the big 
hospitals pay for medicine, and even though it sounds ridiculous, they 
pay more than animals have to pay for medicine. Is it not a sad thing 
that we have allowed this to go on this long, only in the name of 
preserving the profits of the prescription drug manufacturers of this 
country. That is the only reason, is just for money, just for profits.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for an optional, meaningful and defined 
Medicare prescription drug benefit that is available to all seniors if 
they want it is absolutely without question.
  Under the Republican plan, Medicare would not provide a single dollar 
of premium assistance for middle class Medicare beneficiaries. Instead 
of offering the defined benefit under Medicare, Republicans want to 
force our seniors to have to go into HMOs, into private plans that make 
profits by restricting access to their prescription medicines. The 
unworkable Republican scheme would give money directly to participating 
HMOs and insurance companies for part of the cost of the most expensive 
enrollees, hoping that this will result in lower premiums. The plain 
and simple difference is that the Republicans want to take our tax 
dollars and give that money to the insurance companies and hope that 
something good is going to happen when, in fact, the insurance 
companies say they do not want it. They do not want any part of it. 
This is only a shameful attempt to trick our senior citizens and, once 
again, protect the outrageous profits of the prescription drug 
manufacturers of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very unlikely that private insurers will even 
offer these plans that the Republicans are talking about. Jim Cohn of 
the Health Insurance Association of America testified before the 
Committee on Ways and Means last week that it would be virtually 
impossible for insurers to offer coverage to seniors at an affordable 
premium.
  We are going to find out in just a few weeks that we are in better 
shape than we ever imagined only a few years ago with our budget in 
this country. We are going to have a little money to do something with. 
Along with many of the other blue dogs, I have supported the idea of 
taking care of Medicare and Social Security first, paying down our 
debt, investing in education and infrastructure, and also doing some 
priority things that we need to do, and I think prescription drugs 
comes at the top of that list. It is time that we did something for our 
senior citizens that is meaningful, that gives them the ability to buy 
their medicine at a reasonable price and protects them from the 
economic disaster that the high cost of prescription medication brings 
on many of our seniors every day in this country. It is a terrible 
thing to see this happen, and it is unbelievable that the United States 
Congress has not done something about it.
  Once again, I want to congratulate and thank my distinguished 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership on this matter and 
applaud his effort and the efforts of the Democrats to continue to 
bring this issue forward and to end up before we adjourn this year with 
a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens in this 
country and, hopefully, another benefit will be a reasonable price for 
medicine for all Americans.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the 
gentleman for his leadership. Many of us may not recognize that the 
gentleman from Arkansas has a background and training as a pharmacist, 
and he understands full well the issue that we are discussing tonight, 
and his leadership has been invaluable in helping us try to address 
this issue.
  I now want to yield to another Member of this Congress who has worked 
tirelessly in her efforts to try to address the problems of senior 
citizens and paying for prescription drugs, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). I am pleased to have her here tonight, and I 
thank the gentlewoman for the leadership she has provided for all of us 
on this issue.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, so 
much, for allowing me to participate tonight in this incredible 
discussion about a problem that faces the gentleman in his district. 
There is no doubt, I am sure, to any of the seniors in the gentleman's 
district that he is definitely on their side and fighting every day for 
them.
  I am also happy to be here with my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry). We come from very different kinds of districts, but there is 
one important thing that we have in common, and that is that our senior 
citizens are struggling just the same every single day to try and pay 
for their prescription drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, the next time anybody goes to the pharmacy to pick up a 
prescription, I would suggest that they look at the people who are 
waiting there to get their prescription and try and pick out the person 
who is paying the absolute top dollar for their prescription. One might 
think, well, it could be that well-dressed business executive who is 
going to be paying the most, or that kind of upscale-looking young 
working woman who is going to be paying the most. But the truth of the 
matter is, one has to pick out the oldest, the frailest, the poorest 
looking person in that line, probably a woman, and that is the person 
that is going to be paying the most for prescription drugs, and that is 
simply not fair. That is based on a very conscious decision by the 
wealthiest industry in the world, the pharmaceutical companies. To 
figure out how to boost their profits, they are going to go after the 
people who need those drugs the most, those medicines the most, and who 
are going to do everything they can to try and pay for them, those are 
the people they are going to try and squeeze out the most money from.
  Seniors make up about 12 percent of the population, but they use 
about a third of the prescription medication, so it is, of course, a 
logical target group, the most logical prey for the pharmaceutical 
industry. Most of them have little or no insurance, or their insurance 
is inadequate. So that means they do not have anybody on their side to 
bargain for them for lower prices.
  The gentleman referred to a study that was done under the auspices of 
the Committee on Government Reform on which I sit, and I did that study 
in my district.

                              {time}  2300

  I found that uninsured, uninsured for prescription drugs, uninsured 
senior citizens were paying, on average, 116 percent more than the most 
favored customers of the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, the 
Veterans Administration. Those were paying 116 percent less than our 
senior citizens were.
  Then we did another study. We looked at what about if they went to 
Canada or to Mexico, and just as the gentleman said earlier, in my 
district, just like in the gentleman's district or in Arkansas or in 
any district around the country, it was about 80 percent less for those 
same drugs that they need to save their lives, to enhance their lives, 
to extend their lives. If they went there they would pay 80 percent 
less.
  Then my dog Bo and I did a press conference together. Bo sat down 
next to me. He is a good old dog. I said that a drug, one of the drugs 
actually that I take, Vasotec, for high blood pressure, that same drug 
for Bo, and it is a drug that is used on animals, would be about 58 
percent less. If I could send Bo to the drugstore to get the drugs, I 
would be better off, too.
  That is not right. I did the press conference at a senior citizen 
center, and

[[Page H4919]]

they were offended by that, and they should be offended by that. This 
is not because there is less research done on the drug for Bo, this is 
not because it is a different drug that is cheaper, it is because they 
charge what the market will bear, and they know that the seniors are 
going to have to pay more for those drugs if they do not want to have a 
stroke.
  Mr. Speaker, the drug companies say to us, look, if we are not 
allowed to charge these prices, then we are just not going to be able 
to do the research and development and you are simply not going to have 
the drugs.
  Again, as the gentleman pointed out, if that money is so scarce for 
research and development, then tell me why we can hardly turn on the TV 
anymore without seeing, one after another, an ad by the drug companies 
for a drug. They are spending far more on their advertising budget than 
they are on their research and development budget.
  Let me just end with this. One of the ads that they have, they used 
to have, I do not know if she is on TV anymore, I have not seen her 
lately, is this nice-looking elderly woman called Flo. She looks very 
fit. Flo goes bowling. She ends up her ads, ``We want to keep 
government out of our medicine cabinet,'' is what Flo says. No, no 
government program to lower prices.
  I would like to just tell the gentleman that I have worked with 
seniors for years and years. I was executive director of the State 
Council of Senior Citizens in my State before I ran for public office. 
I have been talking to senior groups ever since I have been a public 
official. I have never once heard a senior citizen tell me, keep 
government out of my medicine cabinet.
  It is the opposite. They are saying, please, Representative, help me. 
Do something. Government has to be part of the solution here. I love my 
Medicare, but it is not helping me when it comes to prescription drugs. 
I need you now.
  They need us now. We have to come up with an answer. The answer is 
having a prescription drug benefit under Medicare giving affordable, 
accessible prescription drugs for our senior citizens. I appreciate the 
gentleman's leadership in getting us there.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois. I 
appreciate the leadership the gentlewoman has given to this issue. She 
is a most effective spokesperson on behalf of senior citizens. I am 
sure that seniors in the gentlewoman's district fully recognize the 
battle that the gentlewoman is waging on their behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from San 
Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), who has been a warrior fighting on 
behalf of seniors on this issue.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I think 
the gentleman has done a tremendous presentation with the data that the 
gentleman has before him.
  There is no doubt, as I was listening to the gentlewoman talking 
about Flo, the woman out there advertising on behalf of the 
pharmaceutical companies, when she talks about keeping government out, 
she is talking because she is an individual apparently not on Medicare 
but on a private HMO, and receiving that 39 or 40 percent cut that is 
displayed, that the gentleman has that very vividly shows the disparity 
that we are talking about.
  That particular advertisement says that if someone is in a HMO, or 
private, that the pharmaceutical companies will give a 40 percent 
credit on prescriptions, but if someone is on Medicare, tough luck. 
They are going to pay not only the 40, but also the profits that we 
have to make that they did not make on those other individuals. That is 
what is wrong. As the gentleman has indicated so clearly, why should 
not everybody get that opportunity to get that 40 percent cut?
  When we did those studies, and I did them in my district, also, in my 
district, it showed that our senior citizens, and I went across with 
all my pharmacists and they reported to us. The pharmacies that are out 
there recognize the disparity. They have to charge 122 percent for my 
senior citizens on Medicare for the same prescriptions.
  What we are talking about is if someone is on Medicare, they have to 
pay in my district 122 percent to 150 percent more for the same 
prescription than someone who is on an HMO. The only reason is that the 
pharmaceutical companies have chosen not to provide that.
  Now they expended that money and are using people like Flo and 
talking about keeping government out, because, after all, they are 
making huge profits on our senior citizens. That should be a crime, to 
be going after those individuals who need the medication the most in 
our country, the individuals that are out there in need, and those are 
the ones who are having to pay more. It does not make any sense, I say 
to the gentleman.
  I know he understands this fully, that in 1965 when we started 
Medicare, at that time we might not have needed prescriptions. But now 
if someone is under Medicaid for the indigent, they get prescription 
coverage. But if someone is on Medicare, our senior citizens, they do 
not get it.

  That does not make any sense whatsoever. I think that it is time that 
we move forward and provide that access to our senior citizens so that 
they will be able to get access to that quality care that is needed.
  When the gentleman provided that example out there, that hits us 
right in the forehead. My constituents are also getting those letters. 
I would ask them to look real carefully, because what we are really 
fighting for here is to make sure that our senior citizens get access 
to quality care. That includes prescription coverage and getting the 
appropriate cost in those areas, instead of having to pay not only what 
the others are paying, but they are actually paying a lot more for that 
same prescription, because the pharmaceutical companies are making the 
profit on them at the expense of our senior citizens. That is 
unfortunate.
  So when the gentleman watches that advertisement, make sure he 
watches real closely in the bottom of that, to show who is paying for 
that advertisement. It is unfortunate that those pharmaceutical 
companies continue to provide huge amounts of money to the Congressmen 
in their lobbying efforts, in the campaigns of a lot of individuals 
that are running out here.
  We need to make the changes that are needed in this country. One of 
those changes is to make sure that we provide the prescription coverage 
for our senior citizens. That is one thing that we need to do, an 
obligation that we have, because a lot of these senior citizens go 
without eating.
  I have heard testimony after testimony where one of the spouses 
decides not to buy her prescriptions because she is getting it for her 
husband. That is unfortunate. Or they decide to buy one prescription, 
not the second or third one, because they do not have sufficient money. 
That is unfortunate. That should not be happening.
  It is time that we can do that now. We have the resources to do that 
now. We have the surplus. If not now, when? I say that again: If not 
now, when? We cannot afford for us to continue to go on in this way.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his efforts 
and for continuing this fight. We are not going to let up. We are going 
to continue this effort. If it does not happen this session, we are 
going to be back the next session.
  I know the gentleman has been at it for the last two sessions, and we 
have been trying to make some things happen. Eventually we are going to 
do it, because it is the right thing to do, to make sure that, if 
nothing else, that people pay the right prices and are not gouged the 
way they are being gouged now at the expense of other senior citizens, 
and now using those senior citizens that have the private insurance 
against the senior citizens that are on plain Medicare. That is 
unfortunate that that is happening.
  I appreciate the gentleman allowing me the time to be here.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for joining in this effort 
tonight to talk about the problems of high prices of prescription drugs 
for our seniors.
  I hope the effort this evening has shed some light on why prices of 
prescription medicines are so very high for our seniors. After all, 
when the big drug manufacturers can afford to spend

[[Page H4920]]

hundreds of millions of dollars in ad campaigns to try to preserve the 
status quo, which has resulted in our senior citizens, our most 
vulnerable portion of our population, paying the highest prices of 
anyone in our society and anyone in the world for prescription 
medications, I think and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) thinks that we need to talk about it on the floor of this 
House.
  This ad campaign must be exposed, the hundreds of millions of dollars 
that the big drug companies are spending to try to be sure that they 
defeat our efforts to pass meaningful prescription drug coverage for 
our seniors as a part of the Medicare program. That effort that they 
are making is wrong, and I hope that our seniors will see through it 
when they get these telegrams, when they see these newspaper ads, when 
they watch the television screens with characters like Flo that the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) mentioned, they will 
understand that they are seeing an ad that is designed to perpetuate a 
system that makes senior citizens of this country pay the highest 
prices in the world for prescription drugs that they need.
  I thank all of my colleagues for joining with us tonight and being a 
part of this effort to talk about this important issue. I am looking 
forward to hearing from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), our next 
speaker in the last portion of our Special Orders, who has been 
outspoken on this issue and has a unique insight as a medical doctor 
into the problem of prescription drugs for seniors.

                          ____________________