[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6311-H6316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5122, G.V. ``SONNY'' MONTGOMERY
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5122), to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Edwards
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Edwards moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 5122 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section
721 of the Senate amendment (relating to treatment of TRICARE
retail pharmacy network under Federal procurement of
pharmaceuticals).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill passed
the House on May 11 and the Senate on
[[Page H6312]]
June 22. It is deeply disappointing that during a time of war it has
taken the House and Senate Republican leadership over 2\1/2\ months to
appoint conferees to write the final defense bill, which includes
programs vital to our troops and to our Nation's defense. The fact that
Speaker Hastert could take time to campaign in over 40 House districts
during the August recess, but could not find time to appoint final
defense conferees, represents the kind of misplaced priorities that
have Americans demanding that Congress change its way of business. Our
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq should not have had to wait 2\1/2\
months to see Congress moving ahead on a bill that is vital to them,
their mission and their families.
Now that conferees have finally been appointed, the House has a
serious responsibility to support a bill that puts our troops and
military retirees first. That is what this motion to instruct is all
about.
Specifically, this motion would instruct House conferees on the
defense bill to accept Senate language that would reduce the cost of
prescription drugs for military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans,
by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. It would do so by saying
that pharmaceutical manufacturers should give the same drug discount at
retail pharmacies that is already being given to military retirees who
buy their drugs via mail order.
The Veterans Administration saves hundreds of millions of dollars
every year by requiring drug manufacturers to offer veterans drug
discounts, and applying the same commonsense principle to military
retirees will result in huge savings. In fact, this motion, if
accepted, would save taxpayers $251 million in fiscal year 2007 and
help, even more importantly, up to 1.9 million military retirees by
making it unnecessary to pass the unfair House provision, another
provision, that would force a 100 percent increase in generic drug
copays at local pharmacist for military retirees and a 77 percent
increase in brand-name drug copays for military retirees.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this motion is good for
American taxpayers and good for our military retirees, who are men and
women who have served their Nation for 20 or 30 or more years in
uniform.
There is just one problem: the pharmaceutical manufacturers do not
want military retirees on the TRICARE health plan to be able to buy
discounted drugs at local pharmacies. Why? Because it would cut into
their already rather substantial profits.
The choice is clear. The motion is a choice between helping our
military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans, or helping the
pharmaceutical companies make even higher profits. I am confident that
the vast majority of Americans would say that the pocketbooks of those
who have served our Nation for decades in uniform should take priority
over higher profits for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The real question is whether this House in voting on this motion will
reflect the values of our constituents and our military retirees, or
will we reflect the special interests of the pharmaceutical
manufacturers and their lobbyists.
The choice should be an easy one. But it appears that the House
leadership didn't want this provision included in this motion to help
our military retirees, and they did not support this language, which
the Senate adopted and put in the House bill. That is why we are here
today facing this motion. I salute the other body for having put the
discounted drug price language in their defense bill, which passed the
Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.
I urge support, Mr. Speaker, for this motion. I hope we will receive
bipartisan support. Going along with the pharmaceutical manufacturers
should not trump saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,
keeping drug costs affordable for our military retirees, up to 1.9
million of them, and allowing our military retirees to have access to
their local pharmacist.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee and a great supporter of our servicemen and -women
and our veterans and military retirees.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: the Veterans
Health Care Act of 1992 directs drug companies to grant discounts on
all drugs that are supplied to the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Public Health Service, and the
Coast Guard. These are significant discounts. On average they lower the
cost to the government for pharmaceuticals provided to beneficiaries by
30 to 40 percent. The Department of Defense is able to take advantage
of these discounts in its mail order program and in dispensing drugs in
its military treatment facilities, hospitals and clinics.
But the pharmaceutical companies have been balking, refusing to grant
these discounts to TRICARE beneficiaries. Those are the families of
active duty members and families of reservists deployed. TRICARE
beneficiaries, wanting to shop, understandably, with their local
pharmacy, their local corner drugstore, they have not been able to
obtain the advantages of these discounted drug prices.
The Senate has recognized the problem here and has acted to resolve
it by simply providing that in the future, after this bill becomes law,
the discounted drug provision will apply not just to military treatment
facilities, not just to the mail order program, but to TRICARE
beneficiaries going to private drugstores. And it should. Can anybody
tell me a reason it should not? Can anybody tell me a reason that
TRICARE beneficiaries, our military members, shouldn't be able to shop,
when necessary, at their local pharmacy?
That is all we are doing here. The Senate approved this 92-0, and we
are simply saying here, let us recede to the Senate provision, let us
take a law adopted in 1992 and apply it to all aspects of military
health care.
This has a couple of collateral benefits in addition to saving money.
One is that the House provision, which raises copays for drugs
purchased otherwise at military facilities, will not be necessary
because we will save enough money here to make it unnecessary. Another
is that the Senate provision, harsh I think, which requires mandatory
mail order as opposed to local pharmacies, that provision too can be
dispensed with because we will save enough money to do so.
This is a win-win-win proposition. There is no reason the House
should not take up the logic and policy of the Senate bill and adopt
this same provision. Every Member here should vote to instruct our
conferees to recede to the Senate on this critical provision. It will
save money and make life better for our TRICARE beneficiaries. There is
no reason not to do it. There is every reason to do it. I urge its
support.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the absence of speakers on the other side of
the aisle is a reflection that there will be bipartisan support for
this motion to instruct the House conferees on the defense bill. If so,
then I think that is very good news for our military retirees.
I certainly want to express my respect to my friend and colleague,
Mr. Hefley, who is a great champion for our military, both those on
active duty and our retirees.
What is a little bit disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, is how we can have
what at least at this moment might appear to be unanimous support for
this provision to save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers
and military retirees by reducing the cost of military retiree
prescription drugs at pharmacies and have the Senate adopt this
provision as well, and yet mysteriously it didn't show up in the markup
in the House Armed Services Committee.
I don't know what happened. I have heard some rumors suggesting that
the House leadership opposed putting this provision, helping our
military retirees and saving taxpayers money, into the bill. Perhaps
someone could explain to the House and our colleagues and those
listening, Mr. Speaker, why this provision wasn't put in the markup of
the bill in the first place. But I am not sure anybody has an
explanation that could withstand the light of day.
[[Page H6313]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Boyd), a distinguished veteran himself.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas. I
won't take 3 minutes. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that any time
you have a provision, a legislative proposal that saves in performing
our legislative duties and our executive duties, saves the taxpayers
money and also enables us to better serve those that we are serving in
our communities, that is a plus. That is a win-win, as some have said.
That is exactly what this provision we are discussing that is in the
Senate bill does. In this case, obviously, it will save Federal
taxpayer money. And we all know the issues that exist today in our
budgeting process. We have red ink throughout our future budgeting
process as far as the eye can see. There is a structural deficit built
into the budgeting process, which has been extended by this
administration and this Congress.
{time} 1130
So, in this case, we are helping those that are our military
retirees, those who we have asked to put on the uniform and go into
battle, and many of them come back wounded, injured, and then the
taxpayer has responsibility for seeing that those folks are cared for
the balance of their lives. This is not a new debate about military
retirees and how we provide them medical services.
So if we can do a better job of that back home, and the Senate has a
better idea in this case, then we should go to it. I think that is what
we are asking the folks to do. We are saving money, and we are
providing a better service, better quality services to the folks that
we have asked to wear the uniform.
I thank the gentleman for bringing the motion to instruct.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in the gentleman from
Texas' home State, when you have struck oil, stop drilling.
And you have struck oil here, and we are not objecting. Trying to
take care of our veterans in the best way we possibly can is not a
Democrat or a Republican thing. It is not a partisan thing. It is a
thing that I think both sides of the aisle feel very, very strongly
about.
With that, I don't think I have any further speakers. I reserve the
balance of my time, unless you are ready to wind this up.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, Mr. Berry of
Arkansas, whom I would like to recognize. I would like to say that Mr.
Berry led the charge to send a letter to the chairman and the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee urging the adoption of this
language, and I salute him for his leadership on that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank
him for his leadership in all matters pertaining to the military and
certainly to our veterans in their care, and they are entitled to the
best that this country has to offer. I appreciate him, and I also
appreciate the gentleman from Colorado.
He is absolutely right. This is not a partisan issue. We should do
everything within our power to see that the taxpayers get a good deal,
but we have an obligation to our veterans and our retired military that
should not be usurped by anyone, any time, any place. They should get
the best that we have.
I am amazed that we have even got to deal with this on the House
floor. This should have been taken care of a long time ago, and many of
us felt like it was taken care of in the Veterans Health Care Act of
1992.
But the amazing thing to me is that we would even consider giving
mail order, large corporation pharmacies a huge advantage over the
local retail pharmacies, especially in rural America and in the
neighborhoods. This is what is going to happen if we don't put this in
this final defense authorization bill.
Our veterans should be able to go to any local pharmacy that is the
front line health care provider for every community. They should be
able to go to those local pharmacies and take advantage of generally
free services by well-trained and accomplished professionals that know
them and know their health needs and know what medicine they are
taking, and those retail establishments should be able to get their
pharmaceuticals at the same price that DOD gets them and the same price
that the mail order companies get them and be able to provide this
service to our veterans.
So I am delighted to hear the gentleman from Colorado say that they
have no objections. I think that is a very wise thing.
Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing
good work, and let us move this forward, and let us see that our
veterans get the care that they deserve, and our retired military and
their families get the care that they deserve, and let us move on to
the other problems that we can solve in this same way, working together
for the common good.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from Colorado if
he has any speakers on this?
Mr. HEFLEY. I may have one speaker who has just arrived.
Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Since we have used more of our time, and since we
may not have to use the entire time allotted, could I yield back, not
my time, but to the gentleman from Colorado for the purposes of his
speaker being recognized.
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am just now reading this. Mr. Edwards, this
is a very bad idea. If you support increasing the cost of medications
to veterans, then support this motion to instruct.
If you support increasing the cost to veterans to obtain access to
their drugs, support this motion to instruct.
Over the years, those of us have guarded, guarded the Federal Supply
Schedule. Now, why did Congress pass the Federal Supply Schedule?
Because we said, you know, we have said to veterans out there, whom are
disabled, we recognize that they are a precious part of our society, so
we create the Federal Supply Schedule, which is really the government
mandating a particular price, and then we jealously guard that. We
jealously guard that. Why? Because everybody wants to gain access to
the FSS, the Federal Supply Schedule.
I have to come to the floor, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, appalled, appalled. I am just dumbfounded that we are, what,
going to vote on a motion to instruct that we should accept what the
Senate does?
It seems that some people in this body are possessed in their fight
against drug companies. Oh, my gosh, these drug companies are trying to
seek all kinds of profits. I like to beat up on drug companies, until
you get sick yourself, and then you want to gain access to all these
types of drugs whether it is for Medicare pricing or Medicaid pricing,
DOD.
I created the retail TRICARE pharmacy program. It took me 3 years to
do that. If I ever intended for FSS pricing to be included, I would
have included it in the bill. It is a retail program. As a matter of
fact, I created the out-of-network retail pharmacy network to give
these veterans a choice, the military retirees, so that they can gain
access to some new blockbuster drug and pay a little bit more money for
it.
But, please, my colleagues, do not, just before an election, open up
the Federal Supply Schedule. Do not do this. We do this to protect very
important members of our society who have been injured, and the
disabled.
Now, what has been challenging to us is that Congress then,
subsequent to having passed this, the Federal Supply Schedule, to gain
access to lower cost medications for these disabled veterans, we opened
up access to the VA. You have individuals who have gained greater
access into the VA.
That begins an erosion. I understand that. Now we say, oh, my gosh,
if these veterans are gaining access to the Federal Supply Schedule,
then what about members to DOD. Oh, by the way, let's do it for
Medicare and let's do it for Medicaid.
As you increase the pool of people, you are increasing the price of
the medications to the very same people that you originally sought to
protect. This is one of those moments where you have to scratch your
head and say, what are we doing?
I make an appeal. I come to the floor and appeal to your good
conscience and
[[Page H6314]]
to your senses: Do not support this motion to instruct.
Now, I warned the Department of Defense. I knew that if they didn't
have authority to do what they wanted to do, they wanted to gain access
to rebates, I understand what they sought to do. You see, I put it in
the bill that asked them to go after best business practices.
Well, the best business practices, they then interpret that is that
they get the same types of rebates that they get in the private sector.
So they created something called a warehousing, a virtual warehouse.
They had to create the virtual warehouse because we in Congress gave
them no authority, no authority to warehouse to gain access to the
rebates under the Federal Supply Schedule. It just blows my mind.
I warned DOD about this. I had my conversations with Dr.
Winkenwerder. But, you know what, he felt like he was on solid ground.
I believe he built a house of cards. It has all fallen around him. He
bet on the budget. He is short. He turns to Congress. He asks all of
you to try to help him out of the jam he has got himself in.
I knew a lawsuit was coming. I knew that a lawsuit was going to come
because the DOD was doing this without any express authority of
Congress.
So let me just include an appeal, once again, to the good senses of
my colleagues: Do not extend FSS pricing to other departments or
agencies of government. Protect the veterans; protect those who are
disabled. I just appeal to you. Don't do this.
Actually, Mr. Edwards, I would ask you to withdraw the motion to
instruct.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I have great respect for my colleague, the Chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. He and I have worked together for many years on
veterans' programs. I have never questioned his motivations; I just
question his judgment in this particular case.
But he asked a fair question: What are we doing? Let me answer that
question. What this motion to instruct would do is allow military
retirees, up to 1.9 million of them, to get the same discounted drug
prices at a retail pharmacist that the law already ensures they receive
if they buy those drugs via mail order or if they go into a dispensary
at a DOD hospital somewhere.
What are we doing? We are saving, according to estimates, $251
million this year for taxpayers, lowering the cost of prescription
drugs for these vast numbers of military retirees.
What are we doing? We are perhaps saving enough money so that the
Defense conferees don't have to actually force a 100 percent increase
in the copay for generic drugs to military retirees and a 77 percent
increase in the copay for military retirees to buy name-brand drugs.
That is what we are doing.
What we are doing is taking a law that was passed in 1992 that the
Veterans Administration in 2002 said provides the authority to provide
this discount to retail pharmacies and just clarifying that law.
Apparently, it wasn't the Department of Defense or Veterans'
Administration that opposed the kind of language I am supporting; it
was the drug companies who filed lawsuits in this matter, to prevent
military retirees for getting cheaper prices. I don't find the
pharmaceutical manufacturers filing lawsuits so that they could make
less money.
Mr. BUYER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would be happy to yield to you.
Mr. BUYER. The rebates go to the government, they do not go to the
military retiree. Therefore, the price is not affected by the military.
Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. That is
why I say this $251 million in savings in fiscal year 2007, that is
projected to be over $300 million in savings in fiscal year 2009, can
be used by the House-Senate conferees to reduce the copay that was put
in the House bill that some may have felt was necessary for financial
reasons.
But if we can find savings to the taxpayers in the Department of
Defense, let's pass on those savings to our military retirees. I don't
think Members of Congress are being asked during a time of war to pay
100 percent more copay for our prescription drugs. I don't think
military retirees ought to be asked to pay 100 percent increase in
their copays.
Mr. BUYER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. BUYER. That is a valued argument from your position, given how
you have drafted the motion to instruct. That is a valued argument.
I would just ask of the gentleman that when we extend price controls
to a greater population, as we contend, whether it is military retirees
as you are talking about or whether we go to Medicaid or Medicare, what
happens is we begin, at some point, we begin to dull our efforts on
research and development and going after whatever the new blockbuster
drug is that presses the bounds of science that our society gets to
enjoy, improves the quality of our lives.
{time} 1145
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would say, at some point, if the drug
companies are not making a reasonable profit, it could significantly
impact the money they invest in research. But I don't think many in
this country today would doubt that the drug companies are making very
healthy profits. And I do salute them on the research that they put
into coming up with new miracle drugs, but at the same time, I think it
is a fact that they spend more on advertising on television on the
drugs than they spend on research and development for their drugs.
So out of the multibillion-dollar profits that all of our drug
companies make on their drugs, I have a hard time thinking that
allowing us to save $251 million this coming year on the cost of retail
drugs for military retirees is going to put a significant crimp in the
ability of drug companies to invest in future drugs.
I agree with the gentleman, the drug companies ought to be able to
make a reasonable profit. I think they are making a reasonable profit.
Many Americans think that they are making more than a reasonable
profit.
I don't consider what the Senate adopted and what I am recommending
and what I hope will pass on maybe not a unanimous basis but on a
bipartisan basis today, I don't see this as price controls. I see this
as the Federal Government having a right to make a contract with drug
companies, just like the VA does that every day, as the gentleman
knows. It says to the drug companies, if you want to sell us drugs at
the Veterans' Administration, we would like to buy them, but we are
going to require a 30 to 40 percent discount on those drugs.
One might make the argument that doing that hurts the profits of the
drug companies, and therefore, they cannot invest in new drugs. I don't
think the present policy of the Veterans' Administration saving
hundreds of millions of dollars by negotiating, not price controls,
negotiating reasonably discounted prices for drugs when you are
representing millions of consumers, in this case veterans, I don't
think that has hurt the drug companies. In fact, it looks to me as if
they welcome the opportunity to sell millions of dollars of drugs every
year to the Veterans' Administration.
I am saying, we should apply that principle not to some other
unrelated agency but rather to the Department of Defense. It is the
Veterans Secretary, the VA Secretary, that has said in the past, in his
judgment, the 1992 law, in the VA's opinion, allowed discounted drugs
at pharmacies, but it is the pharmaceutical manufacturers who have
filed the lawsuits to stop this from happening.
I respect the gentleman greatly. I don't challenge, not for a second,
his motivations. We ought to be concerned about the formulary prices
staying low for veterans. I just don't see helping military retirees
who have served our country for 20 to 30 years, some of them for more
than 30 years, letting them go to local pharmacists and get a
discounted drug price rather than paying full retail value is really
going to hurt veterans.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. I follow the logic of your argument until you say it is
going to help the military retirees because
[[Page H6315]]
the military retirees don't get a specific benefit.
I concur with you when you say, Steve, let DOD gain access to FSS
pricing, let them get their rebates. I get DOD savings, and with those
savings, I can buy equipment and other things. That's your argument.
To say it is going to help the military retirees gain access through
the formulary to lower drug prices is not true.
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me address why I respectfully disagree with the
gentleman and why I think it is true.
I am the ranking member, as the gentleman knows, of the Military
Quality of Life and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in
the House. Because of the budget limitations and the cost of Department
of Defense and TRICARE programs this year, the House passed a bill that
cuts about $730 million out of the President's request for DOD and
TRICARE health care programs. We have to make up that hole somehow. By
saving $250 million this year through this motion, if the House and
Senate conferees agree to it, we help plug a large part of that huge
hole. If we don't plug that hole, we are going to have to cut health
care services for military retirees and possibly, I hope we would not,
but possibly even active duty service men and women.
So this does help the military retirees. It helps us maintain the
present level of health care services under TRICARE and gives them
access to their local pharmacist, which many military retirees prefer.
They trust their local pharmacist. They would prefer to go to that
person and get advice and buy the discounted drugs under TRICARE.
It helps us have a chance to get rid of the 100 percent increase in
copays for military retirees. I think this motion, if adopted into the
bill, would help military retirees very significantly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Buyer.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Edwards for yielding to me and
having this conversation. This is important.
Members are going to be walking in here, Mr. Edwards, and they are
not going to know completely what happened with this debate. It would
not be right for Members to walk in here and think I will vote for Mr.
Edwards' motion to instruct because I will help a military retiree
lower his drug cost when he goes to the retail pharmacy. That is just
not true. So I want the offices that are listening to this debate to
understand that.
My greatest concern is opening up the Federal Supply Schedule. So I
do not want to open up the Federal Supply Schedule to other departments
or agencies of government, whether it is DOD, whether it is the
Medicare or Medicaid program, and we can debate each of those. We might
disagree on things. That is the only point I wanted to make.
The plausible arguments in defense of your motion, I disagree with
what you are trying to do here today, and I just wanted to make sure
that I made that point.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just point out something here today. I think we have seen
something we rarely see on this floor with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Buyer;
we have seen an actual discussion of the issue where we actually debate
the issue, and on both sides, you have intelligent comments being made
rather than people getting up and reading a statement and talking past
each other. I just want to commend both of these gentlemen for the
quality of debate that we have just heard on the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for the comment
about the debate. I think these are the kinds of issues we ought to
debate. I welcome this kind of debate and honest differences of
opinion. That is part of my criticism of the congressional process
these days. It seems like so many times decisions get made behind
closed doors, and the public does not know how those decisions are
made. I think this is a healthy debate.
Despite my great respect for Mr. Buyer, I think this motion, if
adopted into the final Defense bill for fiscal year 2007, would benefit
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of our military retirees by letting
them have access to low-priced prescription drugs at their local
pharmacy by perhaps allowing us not to follow through with what I think
is an unfair proposal from the House to double, to increase by 100
percent the copays that our military retirees pay for their drugs. We
are not asking Members of Congress to double our copays for our
prescription drugs this year during a time of war. I don't think we
should ask our military retirees, many who have served 20 or 30 years
in the military, to have an increase in copay for their drugs. We are
not willing to ask ourselves to do that.
I think this is a beneficial motion. I believe it will be accepted
with, not unanimous support, but with bipartisan support.
The only caution I want to urge, the good advice of my Texas
colleague, mentioned by my friend from Colorado, when you have hit oil,
you can stop drilling. I think the real test of whether we have hit oil
or whether we have hit a dry hole is whether the language adopted
already by the Senate, the language we will hopefully support on a
bipartisan basis today on my motion, actually gets put in the final
defense authorization bill.
I would issue a warning that oftentimes we pass motions to instruct
conferees on an overwhelming basis if not unanimous basis in this
House, and somehow, behind closed doors, the interest of those we care
about, in this case the interest of military retirees, seems to somehow
not be considered as carefully as the interest of other special
interests.
I think this is a good motion. I know the pharmaceutical companies
have filed lawsuits to stop the discount pricing of drugs at retail
pharmacies. They have a right to do that. Congress has the right and
the responsibility today to say that, in 1992, we made a decision
saying that our retirees ought to have access to discounted drugs at
pharmacists as well as via mail order.
I urge bipartisan support of this motion to instruct. Unless the
gentleman from Indiana wants to continue an honest debate, I would
yield back.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to respond to Mr. Edwards'
comments that he understands there is a lawsuit because the drug
companies do not want to give discounts on their drugs to the retail
pharmacies, paraphrasing what I believe you said. That is not what the
lawsuit is. That is not what the lawsuit is about.
What the lawsuit is about, as I understand this, is that DOD created
a virtual depot, and they created this virtual depot or warehouse
because they had no authority under the statutes to do this. They
needed to create a warehouse so they could obtain access to rebates
that are being done out in the private sector. So it was clever. It was
smart and clever, but they had no authority to do this.
I warned DOD, and I spoke to Dr. Winkenwerder. I said, please don't
do this. If you do this, there are going to be lawsuits because you
have no authority to do this at all. He felt that he did. That is what
the lawsuit is about.
Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Just to
summarize, the Military Officers Association of America urges support
for this change in the law. If the drug manufacturers would like to
join with military retirees and the largest organization in America
representing those retirees, I would welcome that support.
I urge bipartisan support for this motion to instruct conferees on
the Defense authorization bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to commend Mr. Buyer and Mr. Edwards on their sincere concern
for the welfare of our veterans. They see things differently on this
particular issue, but that doesn't take away from the concern that both
have. They are good friends, and I know where their heart is on this,
and it is in the right place.
As I said earlier, we have had the kind of debate I wish we could
have
[[Page H6316]]
more often here in the House of Representatives.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support the Motion
to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
The motion to instruct offered by my colleague, Representative Chet
Edwards, would instruct House conferees to insist on Senate-passed
language regarding the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. That language
would allow TRICARE beneficiaries to purchase prescriptions from their
local pharmacies at the same cost as through mail-order services,
ensuring that our veterans and military retirees are not forced to pay
more merely to visit their neighborhood drug store.
The Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 requires drug manufacturers to
grant a Federal pricing discount on all drugs provided to the
Department of Defense, Veterans' Administration, the Public Health
Service and the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, not all drug manufacturers
grant this discount on drugs provided to retail pharmacy stores,
instead only applying the discount to mail-order prescriptions.
It is understandable that the Department of Defense would want to
contain growing prescription drug costs. However, forcing TRICARE
beneficiaries to obtain prescriptions by mail-order is not the
solution--rather, we need to clarify that drug manufacturers must
provide Federal pricing for all medications dispensed through the
TRICARE retail pharmacy network. Section 721 of the Senate version of
the Defense Authorization bill would do just this.
Representatives of the Department of Defense have acknowledged that
Federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE
retail pharmacy network would ``significantly'' contain growing
prescription drug costs. It has been estimated that if the Senate
provision is enacted, it could save taxpayers up to $251 million in
fiscal year 2007, and more than $300 million annually by fiscal year
2009, by requiring Federal pricing discounts to be applied to these
TRICARE retail pharmacies.
I have heard serious concerns expressed by veterans and military
retirees in my district about this issue many times this summer. There
are times when it is not possible to wait for a mail order to come
before a person might need to begin taking their prescriptions. In
those cases, for example, the men and women who have bravely served our
country should not be punished for buying their prescriptions down the
block. Our veterans, military retirees and their families deserve to
have the option to use a pharmacy, and the services of a pharmacist,
when they have questions regarding their prescriptions and their
health. Passing this motion to instruct allows them that option.
We must ensure that our veterans and military retirees receive the
benefits they have so courageously earned, and this motion to instruct
will help guarantee they are not penalized for doing so. I support this
motion to instruct, and strongly urge my colleagues to do as well.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________