[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5823-S5824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there was an interesting piece in the 
Washington Post this morning, a senior aide to Republicans on the House 
side saying we want to--something to the effect of--write a 
prescription drug plan that basically is what the pharmaceutical 
industry wants.
  I look at the House bill, and I report to the Senate that is exactly 
what we have: A bill that is made for the industry. The White House has 
no plan. They are talking about a discount comparable to going to the 
movie and you get a dollar or two off the ticket, but it has nothing to 
do with whether or not we will have prescription drugs that will be 
affordable.
  The House Republicans have said low-income people earning roughly 
under $11,000 are not going to have to pay anything. But when you look 
at the fine print, that's not true. If you have burial expenses worth 
$1,500 or more, if you have a car that is worth more than $4,500, then 
all of a sudden you might not be eligible for the protections for the 
low-income. That is stingy.
  Then the thing that people are worried about is the catastrophic 
expenses. We must have a prescription drug plan that really responds to 
what we are hearing from all of our constituents: ``Senator you must 
keep the premiums low; you have to keep the deductibles and the copays 
affordable; and you have to cover catastrophic expenses''--that is what 
people are terrified of, big expenses they can't afford.
  What this Republican plan says is: We will provide a little coverage, 
up to $2,000. But between $2,000 and $3,800 we won't cover anything.
  That is nonsensical. It certainly is not a step forward for 
Minnesotans; it is a huge leap backwards.
  I also want to mention to colleagues that the Republicans basically 
don't want to have a plan built into Medicare.
  Now, I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from South Dakota, 
you can appreciate this with a smile. The Republicans don't want to 
have anything built into Medicare because they are scared that it might 
put restrictions on drug companies' price gouging. That is what 
Republicans are scared of. As a result, they say: We are going to farm 
it out to Medicare HMOs and to private insurance plans. But the private 
insurance plans are saying: We are not going to do this because the 
only people who will buy the prescription drug only plans are the ones 
who need it, and we need some people in the plan who don't need it; 
otherwise, we cannot make any money on it; it won't work.
  Then they say the monthly premiums will be $35 and the deductibles 
will be $250. It turns out that this is not the case. Those numbers are 
merely suggestions. It could be that the deductible in one part of my 
state is $250, and $500 in another part of Minnesota, and $750 in some 
other state.
  I want to say on the floor of the Senate that you have these 
pharmaceutical companies pouring in all this money at the $30 million 
fundraising extravaganza last night--$250,000 a crack, or whatever, 
that I am reading about. Then you have some of the people saying we are 
going to basically write something that suits their interest. This is 
what we are dealing with.
  I will keep pushing hard. I know you have to get 60 votes, and I know 
some people are going to be reluctant about this because we are going 
to have to take on the prerogatives of drug companies. But I think we 
ought to do the following: First of all, for low-income people, we 
ought to say, you are not going to pay anything, because they cannot 
afford it. Then we should set a 20 percent beneficiary copay. I would 
rather see us do that. Then we should set a catastrophic cap at $2,000 
a year; after that, you don't have to pay anymore of the cost of your 
prescription drugs. That is good catastrophic coverage. That makes 
sense.
  How is it affordable? In two ways. First: Prescription drug 
reimportation from Canada, with strict FDA safety guidelines. There is 
no reason that Minnesotans, and people all over the United States, 
should not be able to reimport prescription drugs that were made in the 
U.S. back to the U.S. Pharmacists could do it, and families could too 
and get a 30-, 40-, 50-percent discount. There is no reason to vote 
no--except the pharmaceutical companies don't want it.

[[Page S5824]]

  Second: and the Chair is interested in this as well--there is no 
reason the Federal Government's Department of Health and Human Services 
cannot represent senior citizens to become a bargaining agent and say: 
We represent 40 million Americans, and we want the best buy. We want a 
commitment from the industry to reduce the prices. Give us the best 
buy. Charge us what you charge other countries, charge us what you 
charge veterans, charge us what you charge Medicaid. We can get huge 
reductions in costs and huge savings.
  Mr. President, I have been talking about a book and Tom Wicker wrote 
it--it's fictional, but based on the life of Senator Estes Kefauver and 
the way the pharmaceutical industry did him in. The companies have 
become too greedy, arrogant, and people in this country have had it, 
and it is time for us to make it crystal clear that this Capitol and 
this political process belong to the people of South Dakota and 
Minnesota, not these pharmaceutical companies.
  The House plan is not a great step forward. It is a great leap 
backward. We are going to have a big debate on the floor in July. I 
cannot wait for it. I think a lot of these positions we take are going 
to be real clear in terms of whom exactly do we represent, the 
pharmaceutical industry or the people in our States.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________