[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H3864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              HELPING SENIORS WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois on his 
excellent advocacy to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is a 
perverse thing in the Tax Code that would have us tax marriage, and I 
am glad we are successfully removing that barrier from families so they 
can spend more of their disposable income on their children, rather 
than sending it here to Washington.
  I am quite perplexed with the statements made earlier by the 
gentleman from Ohio relative to Medicare and prescription drug 
coverage. Regrettably, rather than talking substance, they talk 
political attack.
  I come from Florida, the seventh largest senior population of all 435 
districts, my 16th Congressional District based in West Palm Beach, 
Florida.
  Seniors care about Social Security, seniors care about Medicare, and 
seniors do care about prescription drugs. But rather than having a fair 
and full debate on these very important programs, the minority of this 
House chooses instead to demagogue and demean, disparage and create 
basically smoke screens.
  Now, for 40 years they ran this place, and never once did they offer 
prescription drug coverage. In fact, their party was the one that 
actually put in a penalty to Social Security recipients by taxing their 
Social Security income. And yet they talk that they are ``senior-
friendly'' and here to do the ``people's work.''
  They raise issues like fundraising. The gentleman from Ohio suggested 
we did not deal with the very important bill because the Republicans 
were at a fundraiser. Well, let me underscore that our committee, the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
worked and labored mightily to produce a bill that will provide 
prescription drug coverage. No fundraiser interfered with our pursuit 
of this important dialogue on behalf of America's seniors.
  Now, I have to chuckle because the party that advocated campaign 
finance reform, the ones that made it the centerpiece of their campaign 
attacks, the ones that said it was the most important piece of 
legislation ever to be voted on in this House, were the first ones to 
advance arguments against the very law that they passed. They were the 
first ones to send lawyers down to the Federal Election Commission to 
try and find loopholes in campaign finance reform so that they could 
continue to raise their gross excess sums of money.
  Rather than point fingers and start having a dialogue on campaign 
finance reform, I would prefer we talk about the things that matter to 
seniors, and that is a bill that we have on this floor. Seniors in my 
district are not greedy. Seniors in my district realize for a plan to 
work it must function fairly and equitably. It must not tax the 
Medicare system beyond its capacity.
  In addition to Medicare prescription drugs, we still have to provide 
home health care, nursing home care and hospitalization. We also have 
to provide a myriad of other services under Medicare for our seniors, 
our most vulnerable.
  They talk as if it is a one-size-fits-all, pass prescription drugs 
and the world goes on and lives happily ever. Their plans costs $900 
billion over 10 years. In their own budget documents, they do not even 
have the money provided for this giveaway program that they suggest is 
important.
  Seniors need help with prescription drugs, and we are providing it. 
We are not trying to buy votes for the next election; we are trying to 
provide a plan that provides the poorest seniors, the sickest seniors, 
and helps every senior with their drug plan. The Committee on Ways and 
Means spent a lot of time and effort in providing this drug 
opportunity.
  I would suggest that if Members of the other side of the aisle really 
want to engage in concrete debate, rather than having objections and 
motions to rise and motions to table and motions to adjourn, we have 
gone through that charade on many important bills on this floor, they 
sit there and repeatedly stop the work process on this floor because 
their nose is out of joint about some little issue, and then they 
wonder why we do not have things on the floor to vote on. If they quit 
moving to rise, we may stay long enough to consider the very important 
debate.
  My grandmother came from Poland. She was a maid in a Travel Lodge 
Motel. She cleaned 28 rooms a day. She died at the age of 88 with 
$10,000 in the bank, her life savings. She desperately depended on 
Medicare, and she desperately depended on Social Security; and in her 
memory I am on this floor, as I am in committee, fighting to preserve 
those two fundamental programs, as well as adding a very important key 
piece to that puzzle, which is prescription drugs.
  It is shameful the way the other side of the aisle conducts the 
debate on this issue. Rather than talking intelligently to seniors and 
talking about relief for prescription drugs, they demagogue and scare 
seniors, scaring seniors. It would be a crime, if it was not so sad, 
that they sit there and tell seniors that somehow our party does not 
care about them. I can assure you we do, we care deeply.
  Republicans will deliver a plan that meets the test of time and meets 
the test of seniors.

                          ____________________