[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[House]
[Page H1762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               THE BUDGET AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, being a member of the Committee on the 
Budget, I have to say that the budget that we passed in the House I do 
not believe is a fraud at all. It does two things that are very 
important. One, it restrains spending, which we need to do in order to 
get the deficit under control; and it also helps the economy to keep 
the government's spending down. For the first time really since 1995, 
when Republicans took control of the House, we are actually going to be 
freezing spending in many accounts. In fact, other than the security 
accounts and domestic discretionary spending, we will be getting 
spending under control and restraining spending, which I think is 
exactly what we should be doing. Second is that it puts in place 
measures to ensure that the economic growth that has begun continues. 
The gentleman may not have seen that in his district in Washington 
State, but we have certainly seen it around the country.
  In fact, during the last 6 months, our economy grew faster than it 
has grown in the last 20 years, and jobs are coming back. Every month, 
over the last 6 months, we have seen job increases. Not as much as we 
would like to see, and all of us would like to see more, but the way to 
do that, obviously, is not to raise taxes on the American people, 
particularly some of those people the gentleman talked about, who he 
described as the wealthy. These are people who are businesses. Because 
a lot of small businesses in this country, in fact most small 
businesses are not incorporated, they are subchapter S, or 
partnerships, or sole proprietors; and they pay taxes at the individual 
level. Those are the people who are creating most of the jobs, our 
small businesses; and so we do not want to tax them at this point just 
as the economy is getting back on its feet.
  So I think it is a good budget. I wish we could reduce the deficit 
even more, but it reduces the deficit in half by 4 years; the Senate 
version reduces it in half by 3 years.
  Madam Speaker, I am actually here tonight to talk about another part 
of the budget, and that is the part that leaves room to provide for a 
new benefit under the Medicare program for prescription drug coverage.
  After years and years of talking about this in this House, over in 
the other House, around the country, politicians have had a good time 
telling seniors we are going to give you prescription drug coverage, it 
is going to be great; but we have not delivered. Finally, late last 
year, this House voted on a bipartisan basis to provide prescription 
drug coverage, and I am very proud of that.
  Is it perfect? No, it is not what anybody would think would be the 
perfect bill based on their situation. Is it a good benefit? 
Absolutely, yes. And it is a substantial commitment by this Congress to 
be sure we modernize Medicare. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) said earlier, we need to modernize the program. She 
talked about in addition to prescription drug coverage all the 
wonderful new preventive benefits, all the new help for people with 
chronic disease.
  It was time to take a 1960s program and be sure it added this 
important element of prescription drug coverage, which was not a big 
part of anybody's care back in the 1960s. Now it is a huge part of 
seniors' care. And seniors back home in Ohio, where I am from, are 
delighted they are going to get some help with their prescription drug 
coverage, because they rely more and more on prescription drugs, and 
people rely on prescription drugs to stay out of hospitals and not to 
have to have procedures. Instead of having a very expensive heart 
operation, now you can take Lipitor and keep your cholesterol down, and 
that should be covered by Medicare. And it will be now.
  The Medicare bill does involve some trade-offs. We had limited 
resources. We spent $400 billion over a 10-year period, which is a lot 
of money, given the deficit that we have. But we thought it was so 
important to do it. But it does not provide 100 percent coverage. What 
it does provide is a real benefit, though; and let me talk about what 
it does and does not do.
  A lot of what I have seen in the national media and what opponents of 
the law have said just is not accurate. Some have said that seniors 
will be forced into this new prescription drug plan and forced to pay 
premiums they may not want to pay. That is not true. It is entirely 
voluntary. If seniors do not want to sign up for it, they do not have 
to.
  It will be roughly $35 a month for most Americans. But for about 35 
percent of Americans, those who are under 150 percent or 135 percent of 
poverty, there will be no premium at all. But for those Americans who 
will pay a premium, it is about $35 a month.
  The Department of Health and Human Services, the nonpartisan experts 
there, the Congressional Budget Office, again nonpartisan group, think 
the vast majority of Americans will sign up. But they do not have to. 
It is a voluntary program.
  Opponents are also saying that this new voluntary benefit will cause 
employers to drop retiree coverage for those fortunate enough to have 
it. Well, there are seniors, maybe a third of seniors, who have 
coverage from their spouse or from themselves working for an employer. 
We want to be sure those people continue to get coverage, and this 
legislation absolute has just the opposite effect. It will not drive 
people away from it. In fact, it will give people the ability to keep 
that coverage because it provides an incentive for employers to keep 
people covered. We have never done that before, including the other 
Medicare bills that just about everybody in this Chamber has voted for 
in one way or another.
  That is extremely important, because we want to encourage people to 
continue to have coverage. Over 20 percent of the cost of the bill, $85 
billion, is set aside just for that purpose. AARP supports this bill. 
And one reason they support it is this provision was important to them, 
and it is in the bill.
  Some opponents are also saying that the legislation would have been 
less costly if it had focused on those who really need it. That is 
exactly what it does. Most of the benefit goes to low-income seniors 
and those who have high drug costs. As I said earlier, those who are 
low-income seniors, under 135 percent of poverty, do not pay a premium, 
do not pay any copays, and are able to get prescription drugs with only 
$1 or $5 at the prescription drug counter.
  This is a good bill focusing on those who need the coverage the most.

                          ____________________