[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 145 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8062-H8063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 REPUBLICANS HAVE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the election is over and we know the 
results: The Republicans retained the majority in the House of 
Representatives and actually will now have the majority in the Senate; 
in fact, will control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress for 
quite a while.
  I want to congratulate the Republican Party and the President, but I 
want to also point out that now that they are in charge of everything 
in Washington, they have a heavy responsibility, and one of the 
responsibilities they have is on an issue I talked about a great deal 
here on the floor of the House of Representatives and that is on health 
care reform.
  There is absolutely no question that during the course of the 
campaign, and well before that, that I heard from my constituents about 
the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, about the fact that 
so many who now have health care insurance are losing their insurance 
and are afraid even if they have a job about whether or not that health 
insurance will continue to be affordable. And I also heard from a 
number of my constituents, and I know my colleagues did as well, about 
the need for HMO reform and a Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I must say it disturbed me that during the course of the campaign 
that the Republicans, in talking about some of these issues, I think 
have done a spin on the issues in a fashion that was not completely 
honest about what their agenda was on some of these very important 
issues, particularly the need to provide a prescription drug benefit 
and the need to make sure that the costs of prescription drugs would 
not continue to climb.
  I want to point out in particular the effort on the part of the drug 
manufacturers, the prescription drug manufacturers, to influence the 
election, to spend a tremendous amount of money trying to convince the 
electorate that Republicans were really going to effectively address 
the issue of affordable prescription drugs. I think that much of it was 
advertising, trying to convince the public that the Republican plan was 
a good one when in fact it was not.
  I have a clip that was in my local newspaper by the Associated Press 
on Saturday, November 9, and it says, ``Drugmakers Glad for GOP Wins.''
  ``Experts say the pharmaceutical industry's heavy spending in the 
election paid off in a Republican Congress that will certainly be more 
sympathetic to its views.''
  There is a quote that says, `` `The pharmaceutical companies spent a 
lot of money and they are going to be looking for a payback,' said 
Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the Pharmaceutical Research in 
Management Economics, or PRIME.''
  The article continues, ``Investors are also optimistic. 
Pharmaceutical stocks rose an average of 2.25 percent in the 2 days 
following the election compared with a 1.12 percent increase in the 
overall market, according to Morningstar.com.''
  The problem is that the Republicans were also funneling money into 
so-called senior groups that were nothing more than a front for the 
pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry was the ninth 
largest political contributor during the 2002 election; 73 percent of 
the $18.1 million it doled out went to Republican candidates, according 
to the Center for Responsible Politics. It also reportedly funneled $16 
million to two senior citizen groups that ran ads supporting Republican 
candidates.
  There is another article in the New York Times from Sunday, October 
20, that talks about United Seniors Association, a conservative group, 
that acknowledges it receives financing from the drug industry's major 
trade group, and they ran ads in various districts, mostly saying 
Republicans had the right answers to the prescription drug problem 
facing seniors.
  Now I say that the Republican answer to prescription drugs is 
basically to privatize Medicare. They wanted to give some money to 
seniors on the theory that they would take that money and go out and 
buy drug insurance in the private market.
  The Democrats talked during the campaign, and continue to talk, about 
the need to just expand the existing Medicare program to provide a 
prescription drug benefit the same way we

[[Page H8063]]

do with doctors' bills: Pay $25 a month, get 80 percent of the costs of 
prescription drugs covered by the Federal Government through Medicare. 
There is a $100 deductible and a 20 percent copayment.
  I would hate to see the Republicans take the election results as a 
mandate to say they should not have a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit and instead should move towards a private scheme. Frankly, I do 
not think that is what the average senior wants. I do not think that is 
what the average senior thinks that the Republican Party stands for.
  The problem is that the Republican Party, through the pharmaceutical 
industry, spent so much money convincing the electorate that this is 
the way to go, I do not think that the public really understands what 
the Republican proposal for prescription drug benefit is all about.
  The same is true with regard to the need for health insurance and 
also with HMOs, and we will get into that another time. But I am simply 
saying to my colleagues on the Republican side, if they want to see 
progress on health care reform, sit down with the Democrats and work 
with us because this is something that must be addressed on a 
bipartisan basis in the next Congress.

                          ____________________