[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 27, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the Republican 
prescription drug bill. And not only the bill, but the process by which 
we considered it.
  Since being elected to Congress in 1998, not a day has gone by 
without my hearing from a senior who is struggling to pay for 
prescription drugs.
  I've told the story of the woman from Westminster, CO who has to 
visit the food bank once a week so that she can afford her prescription 
drugs.
  I've told the story of another woman who plays her own version of the 
lottery. She puts all of her bills in a fish bowl, draws one bill, and 
the one she draws is the one she puts off paying so that she can buy 
the drugs her doctor tells her she has to take.
  And I've told the story of Juanita Johns, a constituent who kept the 
thermostat in her home at 60 degrees so she could pay her drug bills. 
That is until she sold her house and moved in with her son in order to 
afford her medicines. Juanita is not with us anymore.
  Unfortunately, these women are not alone. Over one-third of Medicare 
beneficiaries have no drug coverage. Medicare does not cover outpatient 
prescription drug costs. Many seniors turn to supplemental plans for 
drug coverage, but these plans often are expensive and have high 
deductibles or low benefits.
  No senior should be faced with the choice of buying food, paying the 
electric bill or buying critical life saving medicines.
  We have an obligation to our Nation's seniors to provide them with 
the lifesaving treatments they need and deserve.
  Last month, we had the opportunity to do something about it. But the 
Republican leadership insisted on pushing through a proposal that 
subsidizes insurance companies and drug companies instead of helping 
seniors. Their bill does nothing to guarantee coverage for seniors. It 
has a gap in coverage that will leave Medicare beneficiaries 100% 
financially liable for thousands of dollars in drug costs, covers only 
6% of Medicare beneficiaries, and does nothing to lower the price of 
prescription drugs. Instead, their bill gives $310 billion to insurance 
companies to encourage them to offer stand-alone prescription drug 
plans, something that the insurance companies themselves say will not 
work.
  If this bill becomes law, and if past is prologue, we will have 
insurance companies knocking on our door in the not too distant future 
telling us that they don't have enough money to provide these plans, 
and that they need more. It's just like what is happening with 
Medicare+Choice. Several insurance companies promised seniors 
affordable health care, took their premiums and then dumped them a year 
later. And now many seniors are scrambling to find a new doctor.
  Now, I support the increase in payments for providers, which are 
included in the Republican bill. As a matter of fact, I am cosponsoring 
legislation to increase physician payments and to change the formula 
upon which those payments are based. I support increased payments to 
our Nation's hospitals, and I've joined with several of my colleagues 
asking the leadership of this body to address Medicare HMO payment 
issues. But in a cynical political move, the authors of this bill 
attached these provider payments to their prescription drug bill to 
force us to vote against them. So I am going on the record today to say 
that my vote against this bill should not be construed as a vote 
against provider payments.
  And my vote against this bill should not be construed as a vote 
against prescription drugs for seniors. I support the Democratic plan, 
which is a defined benefit under Medicare. It has a guaranteed premium, 
a guaranteed copayment, guaranteed coverage, and is available to all 
those seniors who need it. It doesn't have any gaps in coverage, and it 
has no gimmicks. That's what our seniors deserve.
  But the Republican leadership wouldn't even let us bring our bill to 
the floor for debate. They wouldn't even let us offer amendments to 
their bill. Why not? If it was so bad, they could have just voted it 
down. But they knew that our plan was better and if it were put up 
against the Republican plan, it would have prevailed. Instead, they 
took a ``my way or the highway'' approach.
  On the day of the vote, many members took to the floor of the House 
to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. ``. . . one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''
  Where is the indivisibility? Where is the liberty in this rule? Where 
is the justice in this rule? In this debate? In this bill? We should 
set a better example for other governments around the world. This is 
not the way democracy works.
  Mr. Speaker, the great civil rights worker Fannie Lou Hamer once 
said, ``I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' So am I, and so 
are the millions of seniors who can't afford the drugs their doctors 
tell them they have to take. The number of seniors in this Nation will 
double over the next twenty years, and at that time, their voices and 
actions will be stronger than the insurance companies and the drug 
manufacturers. I just hope we don't have to wait that long.
  I could not support the rule or the bill.