Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3754-H3760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE PROBLEM SENIOR CITIZENS FACE AFFORDING PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, during this special order hour, the Members
of the Democratic side of the aisle are going to talk about an issue
that we feel very strongly about, and that is the problem that senior
citizens are having today affording their prescription medicines.
We just heard a few remarks a moment ago from the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) talking about this problem, and yet the real
heart of the problem lies in the fact that this Congress, and
particularly those on the Republican side of the aisle, have refused to
really deal with this problem of providing adequate prescription drugs
for our seniors.
In fact, next week we are going to have a Republican plan presented
on the floor of this House. Now, we do not know yet, since we are the
party in the minority, whether the Republican majority will allow us to
present our alternative plan or not. It may be very difficult for them
to allow us to do so, because our plan is so attractive to America's
seniors.
But we are here this afternoon because we believe it is important for
the American people and our senior citizens to understand the
differences in what the two parties are proposing to do to help our
seniors afford their prescription medications.
Ever since I have been in Congress, I have received hundreds of
letters from

[[Page H3755]]

our seniors complaining about the high cost of prescription drugs. I
have had numerous town meetings to talk about the subject, and it
brings tears to one's eyes to listen to some of the situations that
many of our seniors are finding themselves in today.
In many cases, they are going to their local pharmacies with their
prescriptions that their doctors have just given them, and in many
cases they are unable to purchase the medicine that the prescription
prescribes because they just cannot afford the bill. Prescription drugs
have gone up in this country in price faster than any other item that
we commonly purchase.
Members heard a discussion just a moment ago about the importance of
allowing prescription drugs to be imported from other countries so that
we can get the same low prices that people do in Mexico and Canada and
every other place in the world. What was missing from that discussion
is an explanation as to why that problem exists.
The answer is very simple: The American people today are paying over
twice the price for prescription medications as any other people in any
other part of the world, including Mexico and Canada, because the drug
manufacturers charge the highest prices to our local pharmacies, which
we ultimately end up paying. We think that is wrong.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, we have had legislation that we
have filed for many years now to try to require the drug manufacturers
to fairly price their products to the American people. After all, it is
our government that gives those drug manufacturers the right to
exclusively market those prescription drugs because we, through our
government, give those manufacturers what we call a patent, which is a
guaranteed protection that says for 17 years they can market their
products, their medicine, to us without competition.
As we all know, in a capitalistic society, we believe in competition.
That is what holds down prices. But for prescription drugs, there is no
competition. Now, in every other country in the world, the governments
there have some mechanism to control costs. In the United States, we do
not. That is why we find the pharmaceutical industry to be one of the
largest contributors to political campaigns of any special interest in
this Nation.
In fact, our Republican friends last night had a big fundraiser, and
if Members read the Washington Post yesterday, they saw how many of the
large pharmaceutical manufacturers contributed $100,000 and $250,000
apiece to go to that event. If we go to a Democratic fundraiser, we are
not going to find the same thing, because long ago the Democrats in
this Congress said that it is wrong for the pharmaceutical
manufacturers to be able to charge people in this country over twice
what they do people in other nations for the same prescription medicine
in the same bottle made by the same manufacturer.
We are going to have that debate on the floor of this House next
week, because our Republican friends are proposing their solution for
the problem of prescription drug costs for our seniors. I must tell the
Members that it is a plan that is wholeheartedly supported by the
pharmaceutical industry because it fails to deal with the fundamental
problem that exists not only for seniors, but for every one of us who
has to buy prescription medicines; that is, the pharmaceutical
manufacturers are engaged in price discrimination because they charge
on average over twice for their products to the American people that
they charge to people in any other country of the world.
Our plan would change that. The Democratic plan says that we will
allow the buying power of the Federal Government to be exercised by the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to purchase in
bulk prescription drugs for our seniors so that they can get fairness
in pricing.
Now, Members can imagine how upsetting that is to the pharmaceutical
industry, because they know if the government gets into the business of
helping our seniors get their prescription drugs and uses the bulk
buying power of the government, those pharmaceutical companies are not
going to be able to charge the same high prices that they are charging
to us and our seniors today.

{time} 1600

So the Democrats have a plan that gets pricing under control.
Our Republican friends say, oh, we do not want to meddle with the
pharmaceutical industry, but we will provide a benefit to our seniors;
but they do not want to do it through the Medicare program as we have
known it for so many years. Medicare, in my judgment, is one of the
best programs that the Congress of the United States ever enacted; and
if my colleagues talk to seniors today, they are confident in the
Medicare program. They know what it means, they know what their
benefits are; and the beautiful thing about it, because we all pay the
Medicare tax for that plan, we all get the benefit when we reach 65. No
matter what our income is, we all get the benefit because we have all
paid in. It is why Medicare enjoys such widespread support among the
American people.
Our Republican friends say they do not want to add a prescription
drug benefit to regular Medicare. What they are proposing is that we
have a separate program that, in fact, would be a private insurance
plan. In essence, they are going to come to the floor of this House
next week and say we are going to require the private insurance
industry to offer a prescription drug plan for all our seniors.
We have been down that road before over a year ago in this House, and
we had hearings, and the insurance industry came in and testified under
oath that they will not offer such private insurance plans because they
know the only people that are going to buy them are the people that
need prescription drugs, and it is hard to offer an affordable plan if
the only people that are signing up for insurance are people that need
prescription drugs. It is kind of like the people who buy fire
insurance. If the only people that bought fire insurance for their
homes were people whose houses were going to burn down, it would be
pretty expensive insurance. So we spread the risk around.
The Democrats believe we ought to have a prescription drug benefit as
a part of Medicare, not a private insurance plan, where the seniors
will not know what the premiums are going to be, they will not know
what the coverage is going to be. They are simply told the private
insurance companies of this country have got to offer some kind of
plan, and it is up to Mr. and Ms. Senior to figure out which one they
can afford because we are just going to pay a $35-a-month premium for
them, and they can figure out if they can afford a more expensive plan
and add some money to it to afford a real good prescription drug plan.
That is not what Medicare has meant to seniors in this country.
Medicare has given them the security that they know that if they pay a
small premium for their doctor care and no premium for their hospital
care they are going to have a defined set of benefits under Medicare;
and this Republican plan that is coming to the floor next week is not
going to provide them that kind of assurance.
There is another very interesting portion to the Republican plan, and
that is, it has in it what we call a donut hole. That sounds sort of
unusual, but let me explain it.
What the Republican plan says is they will have these private
insurance companies that these seniors will have to sign up with, they
will have them pay 80 percent of the first $1,000 of the prescription
drug costs a year, and they will require these insurance companies to
cover 50 percent of the second $1,000 of the prescription drug costs a
year; but when they get over $2,000 in prescription drug costs, all the
way up to about $5,000, there is no coverage under the Republican plan.
It creates a very interesting situation because we all know that, on
average, seniors in this country today are paying around $300, little
less than $300 a month for their prescription drugs. In fact, it is not
uncommon to find seniors are paying $400 and $500 a month for
prescription drugs.
I ran into a gentleman in my district a few months back. He said
between him and his wife they pay $1,400 a month in prescription drug
costs. I do not know how he did it. I do know the gentleman, and I know
he is on the bank board and he may be a man of some wealth, but can my
colleagues imagine, for average seniors, if they find themselves
burdened with $1,400 of prescription drug costs a month? It can

[[Page H3756]]

happen. It can happen to my colleagues; it could happen to me.
If we look at this chart, how much would the average senior save in
prescription drug costs under the Republican plan versus the Democratic
plan? Under the Republican plan, people will save 22 percent of their
current prescription drug costs. Under the Democratic plan, they will
save 68 percent. Obviously, a more generous benefit under the
Democratic plan.
In fact, if someone has under the Republican plan $400 a month in
prescription drug costs, that is, $4,800 a year, under their plan, they
would pay $3,920, and the plan would pay them only $1,300. How many
seniors do my colleagues think are going to sign up for a plan with a
benefit that is that meager? I do not think many, and I think when our
seniors find out that here we are on election eve and our Republican
friends have run out on to the floor of this House and passed a sham
prescription drug plan that really does not mean anything to them, I
think they are going to hold them accountable when the election comes
in November.

We all know that our seniors are well and past time for relief on
their prescription drug cost. If medicine had been such a significant
part of our health care costs when Medicare was first enacted into law
in the 1960s, we would already have a prescription drug element in
Medicare; but back in those days, we did not have all of these miracle
drugs, and prescription drugs were a very small portion of total health
care costs.
So when the Congress and President Johnson proposed Medicare for our
seniors, nobody thought about putting a prescription drug coverage in
it; but times have changed, and if my colleagues and I get sick, one of
the biggest parts of our health care expenses will be prescription
drugs, and I think we are thankful for all those prescription drugs
because they are providing us cures to many very serious illnesses.
What good is the cure if we cannot afford the pill? That is the
situation facing our seniors today. So we are here this afternoon,
members of the Democratic Caucus in this House, to talk about the plan
that we think is right for America's seniors and to point out the
deficiencies in the sham plan that is coming to this floor next week
and with perhaps the denial of our side to even offer what we think is
a much better plan.
So we believe it is important for us to spend some time talking about
it. I am joined today on the floor by several of my colleagues, Members
of this Congress, who have fought hard for many years for prescription
drug coverage for seniors.
The first one I want to recognize is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry), a pharmacist by training, a man who understands better than
most of us the problem of the high cost of prescription medicine; and I
am proud to yield to him and to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for
his steadfast leadership on this most critical issue.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank
him for his leadership and the great work that he has done on this
issue throughout the years and also his friendship and willingness to
cooperate not only with me but with many others in the Democratic
Caucus to try to solve this problem for our senior citizens and for all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we come to this floor once again,
and we have done this over and over. I came in with the gentleman from
Texas in 1997. Ever since then, we have been coming to this floor,
coming to the well of the House, repeatedly asking the United States
Congress and the House of Representatives to pass a prescription drug
plan for our seniors.
The reason I say it is a sad day, we know how to do this. We know how
to pay for it. We know that we can do it. Just last weekend, I was back
home in Arkansas, ran into a dear, dear friend, has breast cancer, has
to take expensive medicine. Her medicine in Arkansas costs $775 a
month, just for one particular item. She can buy that medicine in
Canada for $70, same medicine, made in the same place, does the same
thing for a person, made by the same company; but it costs 10 times as
much. That is not right. It is not fair. It is unbelievable that the
United States Congress has allowed that to go on and on and on.
We tried to do something about that. In December of 2000 as an
amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill, we made it possible
for the Food and Drug Administration to put a stop to that very
practice, to make it so that Americans could buy their medicine at the
same low price as every other country in the world. We passed it,
Senate passed it, President Clinton signed it into law; but today, it
has never been implemented because the instructions were given to the
Food and Drug Administration, do not implement this law, do not let
this happen.

The same folks that made that decision attended that multi-million
dollar dinner last night at the convention center right here in
Washington, D.C., that was paid for in large part by enormous, hundreds
of thousands of dollars in contributions from the manufacturers of
prescription medicine. I wonder why they did that? That is
unbelievable. That is so inhumane that we cannot imagine that we would
allow this to happen.
I never go home and spend time with my constituents that I am not
reminded, prescription medicine is absolutely throwing our senior
citizens community into abject poverty, over and over again; and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle have this same experience. It is
not unique to the First Congressional District of Arkansas. It is not
unique to east Texas. It is not unique to Connecticut. Every one of us
sees this every time we go home.
Our seniors have a Social Security check that will not even pay their
drug bill; but if they lived in Canada, if they lived in Mexico, if
they lived in Great Britain, if they lived in Panama, if they lived in
Argentina, or Russia, they would have enough money because they would
not be getting robbed, and yet we allow this to go on and on.
I represent a rural district, grew up in a rural community, place
that is very special to me. We did not have a lot, but we did not know
it. We had a lot of very wise people in that community that I grew up
around. They had a lot of sayings. Sometimes they made sense and
sometimes they did not. One that I particularly remember that this
particular situation brings to mind, they used to say, Don't worry
about the mule going blind, just load the wagon.
I can tell my colleagues for a fact that the American people and
certainly the senior citizens in this country have had their wagon
loaded. They cannot pull any more. They cannot bear any more burden as
far as the cost of their prescription medicine and the way the
prescription manufacturers in this country continue to rob the American
people. This is something we should not allow to continue.
Just yesterday I believe the Committee on Ways and Means marked up a
new prescription drug bill. Talk about loading the wagon. My colleague
from Texas has already described the bill. It takes Medicare funds that
are collected, supposed to be used to pay for health benefits for our
senior citizens, and it does not buy one single pill. It does not buy
any medicine. They take that money with that bill, and they give it to
the insurance companies; and they say now we want the insurance
companies to provide a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.

{time} 1615

We are going to give you billions of dollars, and we know, since you
gave us millions of dollars in the last election, that you are going to
write a good prescription drug benefit for our seniors. But we are
going to let you charge whatever you want to for it. We hope you do not
charge any more than $35, but if you charge more, that is your
decision.
Now, we have actually tried this in a few places. In some of the
places they have tried it, what they thought was going to cost $35
ended up costing $85. If we add up the Republican plan that came out of
Ways and Means yesterday, after a senior citizen would spend $3,170 out
of their own pocket, if they were real lucky, had a real good insurance
plan, and an insurance company that really wanted to do the right
thing, they would receive a benefit of $1,100. Now, who wants a deal
like that?
None of this is guaranteed in this bill. There is not a defined
premium. We do not know how much it will be. In the Democratic plan it
is $25. We put it

[[Page H3757]]

in the bill. There is not a defined benefit. We do not know what drugs
they would pay for, whether they would have to be in the formulary, not
in the formulary. We do not know what it would be. If I ever saw a pig
in a poke, this is it.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield
on that.
Mr. BERRY. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I especially want to comment on the
remarks of the gentleman from Texas earlier with respect to insuring
this initiative. I hail from the great city of East Hartford, in
Hartford, home of the insurance industry, and I am very proud of that.
But as the gentleman from Texas indicated earlier, under oath, people
in the insurance industry understand that this is a sham; that this is
something which simply cannot be underwritten; that actuarially it is
impossible to ensure this kind of risk. And they do so candidly.
In talking to one CEO, he said this would be like trying to
underwrite getting a haircut. So to perpetrate this kind of a sham and
a myth on the elderly is outrageous. And the only thing more outrageous
is the high prices that they are paying. And the only thing more
outrageous than that would be if we do not have an opportunity to
present a Democratic alternative here on the floor.
I commend the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Texas
for their long-standing work and efforts in this specific area. But
even the insurance industry CEOs understand this is a sham; that it
cannot work; that it cannot possibly be priced where anyone who need
this benefit could afford to purchase the insurance that would cover
it.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. And,
as I said when I began, it is sad that we are back on this floor once
again to have to talk about this issue when we have senior citizens and
other Americans all over this country today that are being put at a
tremendous disadvantage just because we have continued to allow the
prescription drug manufacturers in this country to rob them.
In Washington, D.C., we have a multitude of strategists, consultants,
and people that read polls to figure out a strategy to win politically.
What the strategists have told our colleagues across the aisle is it
does not matter whether they pass anything or not, it does not matter
whether they help the people that are getting robbed, it does not
matter whether they provide a serious prescription drug benefit for
senior citizens or not. The only thing that matters is to vote for
something; make them think we are going to do something.
That is just simply not the right thing to do. There are many Members
in this House on both sides of the aisle, and we just had a couple of
Republicans earlier this afternoon talk about how unfair it is that
Americans pay more than anyone else for their medicine. They have the
right idea about prescription medicine for America. What we would like
to do is, for once, in the 107th Congress, let us all come together to
solve a real problem and to do away with a serious injustice to the
American people and to our senior citizens.

Like I said a while ago, we can do this. We know how to do it. This
is not rocket science. The interesting thing is that there are many
financial analysts that have looked at this and said if we do the right
thing, make this medicine affordable, the drug companies will still
make more money because they are going to sell a lot more product.
Right now, we have got senior citizens and other Americans that just
simply do not take their medicine because they cannot afford it.
Imagine a horror movie where there is a terrible, unscrupulous, evil
person that owns and has in their possession the medicine to save
someone's life, and they sit across the table from that person and hold
it just out of their reach, and laugh and ridicule them and make fun of
them because they cannot afford it. They would have control. That is a
scene that none of us would appreciate nor would want to be a part of.
But effectively that is what we do in this country when we allow the
drug companies to overprice their product and overcharge the American
people.
All we are asking for is a free market situation. Take away the
monopoly. Let the market do its work. I am confident that if we do
that, we will solve an enormous problem. We will do a lot of people a
lot of good, and the drug companies will make just as much, if not
more, money than they are making right now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and
again applaud both he and the gentleman from Texas for their continued
efforts on this floor, along with our distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has also been outspoken with
respect to this important issue.
The gentleman from Texas, I think, outlined very succinctly the issue
we face here. So many seniors have waited in anticipation, after
hearing every Presidential candidate, both throughout the primary
season and then into the election of 2000, talk about how this was the
most important issue facing not only seniors, but Americans in general,
and to have virtually almost every Member of Congress and members of
State legislative bodies as well come forward and say this is the most
important issue to seniors. And so while we have universal agreement
that this is the most important issue confronting our senior
population, to date we have not seen anything come to the floor.
What an outrage. What a shame. A great Republican President once
said, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but the
American public will not be fooled by sleight of hand, will not be
fooled by sham proposals. They want a straightforward, direct answer.
We should have open debate on this floor about an issue that everyone
universally agrees with should be debated. It is our sincere hope that
we have a bipartisan resolution. I heard the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Gutknecht) on the floor earlier pleading about the cost of price
and the gentleman from Georgia talking about the cost of price and the
need for us to get this under control. So, therefore, we ought to have
an open debate on this issue, but the American public should be tuned
in and understand and be able to see proposals side by each and make up
their minds on who is putting forward a proposal that best suits their
needs.

This generation that has been heralded by Tom Brokaw and others as
the greatest generation ever, this generation that has been heralded in
the movies, in books, on the radio, what do they say? They say the time
for lip service is over, the time for platitudes is through; provide us
with a prescription drug policy that works, that is universal. As the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) pointed out, that should have been
included under the Medicare provision in 1965 so that seniors
everywhere would have the opportunity to get prescription drugs at a
price they can afford.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) articulated it very well
earlier. What we have done is we have turned our senior population into
refugees from their own health care system, refugees that have to leave
their own country and travel to Canada to afford the prescription drugs
that they need to sustain their lives.
Is that how we treat the greatest generation ever? Is that how we
award our veterans for their valiant service, that when they need their
Nation most in the twilight of their years, when they want to live out
their final days in dignity, we are arguing over the cost of a plan?
Then if there is a difference between the plans, and the difference is
the cost, let the parties be known by what they stand for and whom they
are willing to stand up for, and if it is a matter of cost, then the
cost has already been paid, and it has been paid for dearly by the
sacrifice of generation after generation of Americans, especially those
who came back and rebuilt this Nation, who provided their children with
the best education ever, that saw this great country rise to the
preeminent military, economic, social leader in the world, and for
their thanks they are deserving of living out their final days in
dignity.
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), I applaud the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), but I recognize deeply as well
that

[[Page H3758]]

there is an outrage that is being perpetrated. Americans everywhere
should be phoning in and calling and making sure. Perhaps maybe some
would agree and argue and say, you know what, we think perhaps their
approach is better. Then fine. This is America. This is a democracy.
Let us lay that proposal out as we are told we are going to see next
week, but allow the Democratic proposal. I can't believe I am saying
this in this Chamber. Allow the Democratic proposal. Of course the
Democratic proposal should be presented side by each, and it should be
fully debated. That is what Americans expect. That is the premise on
which this Nation was founded. Let it take place. Let it unfold as it
well should next week when we have an opportunity to see both plans
side by each.
The only thing more outrageous than the price that everyone agrees
on, whether they be from Minnesota or Georgia or Texas, Connecticut or
Arkansas, is that these prices are way too high, and the people who are
paying the price are our senior citizens, those all too often who least
can afford to do it. So, therefore, the only thing that would be more
outrageous than the prices that they are already paying would be for us
in this body not to have an open and fair debate where every Member
gets to come down and speak their mind under an open rule on this, what
everyone agrees universally is the most important issue that faces our
senior citizens, those in the twilight of their lives who deserve to
live out those final days in dignity.

{time} 1630

I thank the gentlemen from Texas and Arkansas for their support and
continue to laud their efforts.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson), and I appreciate the passion with which he speaks on this
issue, which I think is the most important issue that we face. It
clearly is an issue that has defined more clearly than any other the
difference in viewpoint between the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party in this House of Representatives. I am amazed as I try to deal
with this issue and talk to my seniors when they struggle to know why
can the two parties not sit down and figure this out for seniors. They
thought it was going to be done after the last Presidential election.
It breaks my heart to have to explain to them the difficulty that we
are having getting this done in Washington, and the reasons that we are
having trouble are totally inexcusable. It is not just a matter of the
fact that our plan provides a more generous benefit for seniors. In
fact, I believe that our plan is the only plan that seniors would want
to sign up for because our plan and the Republican plan are both
voluntary. If seniors do not want it, they do not sign up and pay the
premium. I do not think that they will sign up for an insurance plan
that only offers 22 percent of the savings and the Democratic plan
offers over twice as much.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, they could not afford to sign
up. It is impossible to underwrite that actuarially. Every insurance
man and CEO will say that. They have sworn under oath that is the case.
The gentleman is right about this being a defining moment, not only for
the respective parties, but for America and for this Chamber. Between
this body and the other body, there are 535 Members. There are over 600
pharmaceutical lobbyists currently working the Hill. It is time to
decide who is going to have their say in the well of this House and on
this floor, whether it is going to be the money changers or whether it
is going to be the men and women of this Chamber who are going to be
allowed to vote up or down, to have a say on the proposal that they are
putting forth, the Democratic proposal the gentleman has espoused this
evening.
Mr. TURNER. When the gentleman says that, it makes me realize how
difficult it is to break through when the Republican friends are so
beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for their campaign
contributions. It is definitely a factor that weighs heavily in this
debate because we cannot get control over prescription drug costs
unless we are willing to step forward and tell the pharmaceutical
manufacturers they have to offer the American people the same prices
they offer people anywhere else in the world.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely
right. This is tantamount to the same vote we had on campaign finance
reform. This is truly a profile-in-courage vote. And the vote here is
merely just to allow two programs to appear side by each, the best
effort of one party, the best effort of another party, and then to vote
that issue up or down. We are told that perhaps even votes to recommit
will not be allowed.
A vote to recommit in my mind is inane anywhere, and it is an
abrogation of our responsibility and duty, especially since every
single Member has campaigned on this issue in their district. It is a
shame that Members who are not chairs of committees and who do not
normally get a chance to speak unless they come after business is done
will not have an opportunity to speak on this issue. Every voice in
this Chamber should be heard on this specific issue.
This is the issue, after all, as the gentleman points out, that
everyone campaigned on. There can be no more hiding. There can be no
more putting this off. Seniors cannot wait. Each day that we delay is
another evening that a couple spends, or a single person spends at
night trying to decide how they can afford what they have to pay for
the cost of their prescription drugs or what they have to pay to heat
and/or cool their home or the very food that they need to place on
their table to sustain them.
We are a better Nation than that. We are a better Chamber than that.
On both sides of the aisle I believe both parties want to see a vote on
this issue. Let us make sure that we get a chance in an open rule to
have an opportunity to vote our conscience, our hearts, and vote with
the senior citizens of this great Nation of ours.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have the
opportunity to choose between these two competing plans, and they will
not have the opportunity to choose between the two plans if the
Republican leadership denies the Democratic caucus an opportunity to
offer our alternative plan. It is amazing as we stand here this
afternoon on the floor of the House of Representatives, with thousands
of seniors listening to this discussion, at this very moment
the pharmaceutical industry is running television ads trying to promote
this Republican plan in almost every State in this Nation.

In fact, I watched one of the ads this weekend when I was in my
district. The ad said it was paid for by United Seniors Association,
and has a senior citizen actor talking about the benefits of the
Republican plan. Not many people know that the United Seniors
Association is a front group for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, well
reported, well known in the major newspapers; but many seniors will
never notice, and they will think that ad is talking about something
that is good for them. But the only folks that Republican plan is good
for is the pharmaceutical industry which backs it 100 percent.
I think it is important for us to be honest with the American people
about this debate. It is not only a debate of the power of the
pharmaceutical industry versus the rest of the people in this country
and our seniors, it is a battle that involves the issue of what do we
really think about Medicare. The Democrats in this House believe
Medicare has been a successful program for our seniors. One of the
reasons, in addition to the opposition to the pharmaceutical industry,
one other reason that our Republican friends will not support the plan
we propose is because we add the prescription drug benefit as a part of
the regular Medicare program. One of the agendas in the Republican
prescription drug plan is to move this country away from regular
Medicare into what we commonly call Medicare+Choice plans that are run
and offered by the insurance industry.
Now, I come from a rural area, and there were a few Medicare+Choice
plans offered a couple of years ago, and some of my seniors signed up
for them because the health insurance companies said they would give
them a little prescription drug benefit. Those private plans have sent
out notice to seniors their plan is cancelled, and they are back on
regular Medicare wondering how they are going to get any help with
their prescription drugs.
Some people act like the private insurance industry is ready to offer

[[Page H3759]]

plans. The truth is we would never have had Medicare in 1965 if the
private insurance industry would have been able to take care of the
problem of providing health care for seniors.
But our Republican friends say we cannot put a prescription drug
benefit as a part of regular Medicare because they know that if they
do, everybody is not only going to be happy with regular Medicare, they
are really going to be happy with Medicare if we can get the
prescription drug problem solved; and they will not have the
opportunity to push this country toward private health insurance for
all Medicare recipients. That is the heart of the issue that we are
debating here today.
I am pleased that I have got another Member of the Democratic caucus
here who has worked hard trying to help us provide coverage for our
senior citizens, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), a tough
fighter for his constituents, who believes in the Medicare problem and
believes in a real prescription drug benefit, and I am proud to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). The challenges are before us, and I
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for bringing us here to
talk about this issue, which I think could possibly be the most
important domestic concern outside of homeland security and what we are
trying to do against the terrorists than any other issue.
First, I will go into a more formal statement, and then I will talk
in more informal terms.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to implement a real prescription drug
plan for seniors. John and Ann Craig are residents in Muddy, Illinois,
a rural setting in southern Illinois not far from my hometown of
Eldorado. It is a small community, coal mining, farming community. The
Craigs suffer from a combination of diseases, including diabetes, heart
disease and high blood pressure. His medication runs around $450 a
month while her medication runs around $850 a month. They pay a total
of $1,300 a month for prescription drugs and receive a mere $700 in
Social Security. The Craigs own a small farm where they have worked
hard most of their lives. However, their overwhelming pharmacy bills
have effectively ruined any chance of worry-free retirement because
their savings have been used on medications.
This is just one example of the many that we can give of the
unnecessary hardships our citizens are facing due to over-priced
prescription drugs. We use names and faces many times to make this
debate and these issues come alive, to be real, because we deal with so
many facts and figures and statistics, that it can have a tendency to
be artificial, and that is why with these people's permission, their
examples.
It is time to stop the delays and pass meaningful Medicare reform
that will help our seniors and not confuse them. We need a prescription
drug plan that will help each and every senior in need. The Republican
plan, the plan of the other side of the aisle, contains a huge gap that
will leave out a number of seniors. This plan will not provide any
coverage for drug costs between $2,000 and $3,800. The inadequate
average coverage is sure to leave many of our seniors out in the cold.
Their plan also contains many other provisions that need to be
changed. There is no defined benefit, no guaranteed premium; and
geographic inequalities exist. This issue is way too important to
millions of Americans to not have a definite fair plan that will
benefit each and every senior citizen who cannot afford to pay for
their monthly medication.

{time} 1645

The Democratic plan, our plan, gives seniors what they are looking
for. There are no gaps in coverage. There is a guaranteed premium and a
defined benefit. Our plan will help seniors obtain prescription drugs
with ease and not confusion. That is an important item. We know with
insurance plans and all these other medical dictates, there is much
confusion, directions, all kinds of small print, footnotes that they
overlook many times. We want something simple, to be understandable and
affordable. Our citizens are depending on us to work together to come
up with a simple plan that will bring them prescription drugs at a
price they can afford, a price that does not take a large chunk out of
their monthly budget that would normally be spent on food and other
necessities. We have a moral and ethical responsibility to look out for
our seniors. We must implement a plan that will benefit each and every
senior that is paying ridiculous prices for their necessary
medications.
I wanted to come to this sacred institution to have a fair,
courteous, yet professional exchange. We call it debate. This is what
we will engage in in our campaigns from now to the election in the
fall. We will go back to our districts and we will try to come before
our constituents, the citizens of our district and our State, and try
to compare and contrast where we stand on issues as opposed to our
opponents. That is the campaign. But while we are here, after we went
through our campaigns and made promises, each and every one of us, that
we would address this issue, not this session, but even the session
before, people are wondering and are asking questions: You stood before
us on camera, you stood before us in debate in person in our town hall
meetings, in our assemblies and our auditoriums, and you made promises,
and there was rhetoric that was going out. We wonder now why there is
not action to follow.
That is why I stand here today. That is why I wanted to be elected to
be the Representative of the 19th District in Illinois, downstate in
southernmost Illinois, where health care and the problems are unique, a
very highly medically underserved, manpower shortage area. Where I
chaired the health care committee in the Illinois House in my 14 years
of service there, I chaired both the education and the health care
committees, I know the uniqueness of rural health care and the
challenges there. The senior citizens are great numbers in the rural
areas, because they make up the generations of our small family farmers
and our small businesses and our unique craft shops that now are not as
numerous as they once were. But they have roots there, and they want to
stay where their loyalties are and their children have been raised.
This is why this is a great challenge to us to address this now. This
is the greatest deliberative body in the world, in a free society where
we can come together, hopefully after being elected equally, not one
higher than the other, we are here on an equal basis. We vote for our
leaders to be placed in leadership to go to meetings, a strategic task
force that we all cannot congregate in because time will not allow. We
elevate those because the people we represent put us in place to put
others in place. That is what leadership is all about. Our leadership
is representing us, after we have asked them to, to make sure that this
issue is way out front without further delays, affordable, clear and
simple, and that it has the kind of quality that we promised them
during our rhetoric during our campaigns.
Students often ask me when I visit the classroom, and as a former
teacher I do that quite often. I stay in touch with the young people.
If you want to know what is going on in the household, talk to the
students and the children. I visit them. Their number one question is,
can you tell me, even though they have studied, I am sure, history, and
by training I am a history and geography, social studies teacher, they
say, what are the differences between the Democrat and the Republican
Parties? They hear the spin on the radio and TV shows and the
propaganda that are slanted one side or the other, by both parties, by
the way, that we engage in, but I try to tell them to watch this
prescription drug issue come alive.
By the way, the only reason it is coming alive is that the Democrats
had to force it, just as we did the patients' bill of rights debate,
because there was no such debate. There was a plan not to be one,
because that would expose the sleight of hand of those in the majority
that cater to the big interests that dominate those issues of health
care, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. That is
the biggest influx of support and dollars that the Republican Party
enjoys, as just even last night we saw.
This is why we are here, to clarify and to ask, come forth with your
plan, make it clear to us, and we will debate it here before the
American people.

[[Page H3760]]

The biggest difference between the plans are, first and foremost, we
want to manage it through Medicare, not let the HMOs, as they have done
through the other insurance plans. We do not want to put, as the HMOs
have, profits ahead of people. We want to put people ahead of profits.
We want to keep the costs down, contain the costs. We want to make it
optional for you to participate, and affordable is the reason why you
will choose through our plan to participate. And, finally, to protect
the most vulnerable in our society, the most frail elderly of our
society who built this country, who endured the Depression, came
through the wars, the world wars, the most burdensome world wars that
took its toll on their lives. Many of them are disabled, handicapped
because of those wars, and the most prosperous, richest, wealthiest
country on Earth cannot afford to help the most vulnerable of our
society? I am here asking why not?

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity. I appreciate the
leadership of the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue and
for his leadership. I know we all feel strongly about this. I cannot
help but think of the constituents that you mentioned and the
constituents that I visit with all the time who are struggling to pay
their prescription drug costs. I just ran into one just the other day,
it was at the Quik Lube in Lufkin, angry that the Congress had not
acted to pass a meaningful drug plan. I have seen those seniors board
those buses in Houston to travel to Mexico and come back and say they
have saved $10,000 by making the trip together.
I know the next gentleman who will speak understands that problem,
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a fighter for seniors on the
prescription drug issue who has also seen in his State those seniors
board those buses and go to Canada and save thousands of dollars.
It is a pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the
gentleman from Illinois, who has been such a terrific fighter for this
issue since he came to the Congress.
I will be very brief. I just wanted to say, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps) was saying, he was trying to explain to people
back home what the difference is between the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party on this issue. I would add, in addition to what he
said, that we Democrats do not believe we can fool all the people all
of the time. For the second election cycle in a row, the Republican
Party has put up a plan which is an illusion, will not provide
prescription drug coverage to seniors because the private insurance
market will not provide what they say it will provide. This plan will
not become law. If it becomes law, it will not provide help to seniors
because it relies on the private insurance market. There is no
guaranteed benefit, no guaranteed copay. It is whatever the insurance
companies want to charge.
The fundamental problem is that the people who will sign up for the
plan are those who have very high prescription drug bills. The
insurance industry will not be able to make money, and so they will
stop providing the coverage. We have already been through this with
managed care under Medicare. This kind of approach does not work.
Everyone else in this country who is employed and has prescription
drug coverage gets their prescription drug coverage through their
health care plan. For seniors, it is Medicare. All we are saying as
Democrats is let us have a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Let us
not try year after year, election after election, to cloud this issue,
pretend we have a plan as the Republicans do and not do anything.
The aversion to strengthening Medicare from our friends on the other
side of the aisle is so strong that they will never do it. They will
never do it. Only a Medicare benefit, only strengthening Medicare, will
provide the solution. That is what the Democratic plan is. That is what
the Republican plan is not. That is why we need to pass the Democratic
plan.
Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman again for his strong leadership. We
both came to Congress together. We have both been fighting for this
ever since we arrived here. On behalf of all of our constituents who
continue to tell us they need help with the high cost of prescription
drugs, they need a meaningful, a real prescription drug plan that is a
part of Medicare, that they can afford, we will continue to fight.

____________________