[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2250-E2251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1, MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND 
                       MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GENE GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 5, 2003

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to instruct made by my good friend and Energy and Commerce 
Committee colleague, Congresswoman Capps, which would instruct 
conferees to drop privatization provisions and direct the savings to 
make sure physicians are paid adequately.
  One of the most controversial provisions being debated in the 
Medicare prescription drug conference is one that would require 
Medicare to open to competition from the private sector in 2010. This 
provision builds on previous proposals to incorporate private plans 
into the Medicare program, such as the Medicare + Choice plan that was 
created in 1997.
  Now they always say that those who do not learn from their mistakes 
are bound to repeat them. Unfortunately, if conferees move forward on 
this path, they will most certainly repeat the mistakes of the past.

[[Page E2251]]

  First, let us not forget that the Medicare program was first created 
because the private industry couldn't provide meaningful affordable 
health insurance to our Nation's seniors. Even more recent attempts to 
use private plans have failed. Between 1999 and 2003, 2,400,000 
beneficiaries lost Medicare+Choice coverage, as health plans scaled 
back or ended their participation in the program.
  For seniors who rely on continuity of coverage, changing plans and 
doctors every year is really not an option. And in many areas of the 
country, especially the more rural areas, HMOs have been pulling out 
and many seniors do not have an HMO option. And claims that this will 
really save any money are deceptive at best. According to CBO, this 
whole program is expected to save at best $1,600,000,000 over the next 
10 years--less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of Medicare 
spending over that period.
  It does not add one year to the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. 
So why this grant experiment? What's to gain by moving Medicare from 
the traditional government run program that has worked so well for the 
better part of the past four decades?
  I would say nothing. There is nothing to gain by this provision. But 
there is plenty to lose. For the seniors who rely on this program to 
get the health care services they need, they could lose everything. 
Economic security, quality of life, their health, and even their lives. 
All of this for an ideological effort to dismantle the program by the 
very opponents who for years have want the program to ``wither on the 
vine.''
  This is unacceptable Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to reject 
privatization efforts, support the Capps Motion to Instruct, and stand 
up for our Nation's seniors.

                          ____________________