[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 166 (Monday, November 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11192-H11193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MEDICARE LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Neugebauer). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this summer AARP devised a litmus 
test for Medicare legislation. Specifically, AARP said Congress must be 
careful not to pass any legislation that jeopardizes employer-sponsored 
retiree benefits, or that leaves such large gaps in the drug coverage 
that seniors still will not be able to afford needed medicines, or that 
includes a premium support privatization provision which will 
invariably give HMOs control over Medicare, or undercuts popular 
support for the Medicare program by requiring higher-income 
beneficiaries to pay more for the same coverage. In other words, we 
should not pass any legislation that introduces means testing into 
Medicare.
  The Medicare conference committee agreement that was outlined this 
weekend still jeopardizes employer-sponsored retiree coverage for 12 
million seniors. In other words, as many as a third of the seniors who 
now have prescription drug coverage will lose it under this bill 
because employers will say why should we do it, we will put you in that 
government program.
  It still leaves such huge gaps in coverage the average senior will 
run out of drug benefits by August each year. Understand that the 
average senior will run out of drug benefits two-thirds of the way 
through the year, but, get this, will still be required to pay the 
premiums through December. That is a great deal.
  It still includes a premium support provision that stacks the deck so 
resolutely against Medicare fee-for-service, the Medicare that seniors 
in this country respect and love and have benefited so greatly from. It 
stacks the deck so resolutely against the Medicare fee-for-service 
program that seniors will have no choice but to join a private 
insurance HMO. And it still means tests seniors.
  What else does this bill do? It creates a $12 billion slush fund for 
HMOs to induce them to provide coverage. If anyone still believes 
privatizing Medicare will reduce health care costs, this $12 billion 
bribe going to the insurance industry from U.S. taxpayers, this $12 
billion bribe should cure them of that misperception.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise here. After all, the insurance 
industry gives tens of billions of dollars to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to 
Republican legislative leadership. This bill also increases drug 
profits by nearly 40 percent, an estimated $139 billion over 8 years. 
Again, no surprise there, Mr. Speaker. The drug industry gives actually 
tens and tens of billions of dollars to President Bush. The word on the 
street in Washington is they may give $100 million to President Bush's 
reelection. So, of course, they are going to look out for the drug 
industry.
  Coincidentally, this bill specifically prohibits the Federal 
Government from negotiating lower prices on behalf of seniors and 
taxpayers to secure lower drug prices. It abandons the one strategy 
that would deliver meaningful drug savings to seniors, businesses, and 
all prescription drug purchasers. It abandons legislation that my 
friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is in this 
Chamber, worked on; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone); the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Ross); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green); the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a lot of us on both sides of the aisle worked 
on. It abandons legislation to allow importation of prescription drugs, 
safe, affordable prescription drugs from Canada and other countries 
that charge one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth as much as they do in the 
United States.
  Other countries negotiate for lower drug prices, but the U.S. is a 
passive drug taker. As a result, U.S. consumers get robbed; the drug 
industry gets rich. This bill ignores public support for prescription 
drug reimportation from other countries for lower price, the same drug 
but for lower price, ignores the consequences for consumers, for 
employers, and for the Federal Treasury if we fail to bring drug prices 
down.
  Seniors cannot afford the high cost, employers cannot afford the high 
cost, taxpayers cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs 
anymore in this country.
  If anyone still believes the drug industry and the insurance industry 
are not the ghost writers of this bill and are not its principal 
beneficiaries, perhaps the $12 billion HMO slush fund, the $139 billion 
in additional drug industry profits, the prohibition on negotiated drug 
prices, and the stifling of prescription drug importation just might 
convince you.
  One more thing. While the drug and insurance industries fair 
extremely well under this legislation, the bill's

[[Page H11193]]

authors decided to cut corners by barring 3.9 million seniors living at 
or near poverty from receiving low-income prescription drug assistance.
  Under the deal described this weekend, a senior earning $8,000 a year 
may still be required to pay as much as $2,500 to $3,500 for coverage. 
That is not protection, Mr. Speaker. It is a cruel joke.

                          ____________________