[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 85 (Monday, June 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H3828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New 
Jersey that the Republican plan is based upon what I have as a Member 
of Congress and what he has and also what the Senators have and what 
the President has, which is based upon free enterprise. It is a private 
sector prescription drug program. The program we as Republicans are 
providing has the same prototype. I think the contrast he makes is 
valid, only in that he wants the government to run this program and we 
want the private sector to run the prescription drug program. We do not 
want mandates. We do not want price controls. We want just basically 
the free enterprise to work.
  The committee he and I serve on, Energy and Commerce, marked up a 
bill last week and also the Committee on Ways and Means marked up a 
bill. Both of these bills have been marked up by the Republican 
majority. There is much in these bills to applaud. We have addressed 
shortfalls in payments to hospitals and incorrect formulas in 
reimbursing physicians. However, most significantly, the bill out of 
the Commerce Committee contains the long overdue addition of a 
prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Medicare was designed before 
innovative and lifesaving medications played such a prominent role in 
health care. Our seniors and disabled beneficiaries have waited for 
many years to get this final plan that we are working on and hopefully 
will vote on this week.
  One point I would like to raise is that while expansion of health 
care coverage, including a prescription drug benefit, is a goal for all 
of us here in the House, opinions obviously differ between myself and 
the gentleman from New Jersey on how to achieve it. Simply expanding 
and automatically funding government programs is not necessarily the 
most desirable route to take. I see in the CQ Daily Monitor today that 
one of our Democrat colleagues reasons that an $800 billion plan 
delivered by the government would be ``what seniors are used to, are 
entitled to, what is fair.'' It is three times the program the 
Republicans have proposed.
  I disagree and I dare say the seniors for whom he claims to be 
speaking may want a fresh approach, rather than another stale, rigid 
government program in delivering their prescription drug benefit as 
well. Choice and individual decision-making are hallmarks of America, 
and free market approaches best lead to economy, quality and freedom 
for all. Over my years as a Member of Congress, I have consistently 
worked for consumer choice in health care, and I believe we should 
approach this piece of legislation from exactly this point of view. Let 
us try to harness the free market forces that empower all of us to make 
our own decisions about health care instead of having the Federal 
Government do it for us.
  This bill would deliver a responsible, affordable, flexible 
prescription drug benefit to our seniors and disabled. The bill works 
via many favorable market-based elements. It arranges for competitive 
bidding among health care plans. It does not oppose innovation-stifling 
price caps. We have crafted a benefit plan to be financed and 
administered by a new Medicare benefits administration but to be 
delivered by the private sector. Seniors can shop around for a benefit 
that works best for them, just like myself and other Members of 
Congress can do.
  American insurance companies offer a myriad of choices in health 
plans, from health maintenance, HMOs, to fee-for-service, drug-benefit-
only or point-of-service plans, with the most lenient alternatives for 
the beneficiaries. We Members of Congress have a variety of options at 
our disposal, from basic to gold-plated, based upon how much we want to 
pay. We can select what works for our family situation, our health 
needs and, of course, our budget. Our seniors deserve no less.
  The substitute approach the minority favors would first cost a 
grossly irresponsible amount of money. It would bankrupt Medicare, but 
also limit drug and doctor choices for seniors, force them to navigate 
a bloated bureaucracy and lead to price controls. From the Soviet Union 
to the backlogged lines for health care treatment experienced in 
Canada, our neighbor, history and economics have reliably borne out 
that price controls do not work for patients and they will dampen 
incentives for our pharmaceutical industry to continue producing new 
and innovative drugs that cure, relieve and enhance our quality of 
life.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I add that it is not only fiscally dangerous to 
rely on the Federal Government for all the answers, but a government 
one-size-fits-all approach is both philosophically arrogant and 
paternalistic. It deprives Medicare beneficiaries of the option to 
exercise the same choices that you and I do. Finally, while this bill 
is largely about benefits for today's Medicare beneficiaries, the cost 
impact of this legislation on today's taxpayers, the young people today 
who will be tomorrow's beneficiaries, should be noted. The Republican 
bill contains the most realistic, liberating approach of a prescription 
drug benefit for seniors today while keeping the Medicare program 
healthy for tomorrow's beneficiaries like my children.
  Having said that, I look forward to what will surely be a lively 
debate. Let us do what is best for today's Medicare beneficiaries, but 
at the same time keep an eye on the future of the Medicare program.

                          ____________________