[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.
____________________