[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4587-S4588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Americans as much as any people on Earth 
have a sense of fair play. That is why I believe 3 or 4 years ago, when 
the Medicare law was passed literally in the middle of the night in the 
House of Representatives, where the Presiding Officer and I served at 
that time, by one vote--the rollcall vote was kept open for 3 hours, 
arms were twisted, calls from the President and pleas and all kinds of 
begging on the House floor, and who knows what else--that is why people 
were angry with the way the Medicare law passed. They were also angry 
especially because of the sense of betrayal they felt with the Medicare 
law that clearly was written by the drug companies and for the drug 
companies and by the insurance companies and for the insurance 
companies.
  In fact, that Medicare law meant as much as $200 billion in extra 
profits for the drug industry and meant as much as $70 or $80 billion 
in directed subsidies for insurance companies to entice--the word our 
friends used--entice those insurance companies to write standalone 
Medicare prescription drug coverage.
  Americans know the score. Americans understand much about this whole 
Medicare law. We all understand the major employee groups typically in 
our system negotiate bulk discounts on prescription drugs. Americans 
also understand that the VA negotiates bulk discounts on prescription 
drugs. The VA, which ensures millions of our Nation's veterans, will go 
to the drug industry, company by company, and negotiate on a drug 
formulary, negotiate a price that gives the Government paying for these 
prescription drugs for our Nation's veterans a discount of about 50 
percent on average, the same kind of thing that large insurance 
companies will do. But under this Medicare law--again, written by the 
drug companies, written by the insurance companies, pushed through 
because of the lobbying force and the advertisements and all that the 
drug industry did and the insurance industry did--Medicare is 
prohibited under law from negotiating bulk discounts on prescription 
drugs. That is a prohibition only the drug industry and their friends 
in Congress--and they number many--could love.
  When Medicare has to pay higher prices for medicines, dollars are 
taken from taxpayers' pockets and placed directly into the pockets of 
the multinational drug industry. For many years, I have taken bus trips 
with senior citizens to Canada, when I was in the House of 
Representatives, from my northern Ohio congressional district. We drove 
up through Detroit to Windsor to allow senior citizens to buy 
prescription drugs at a discount of 50, 60, 70 percent because the 
Canadians have a system where they negotiate drug prices directly with 
the manufacturer. It is the same drugs, the same manufacturer, the same 
packaging. The only difference between the medicine sold here and the 
medicine sold in Canada is the price.
  That is the same in country after country after country. We pay two 
and three and four times more for prescription drugs than people in any 
other country given the same drug, the same dosage, the same 
manufacturer. It is a great deal for the drug industry and a bum deal 
for consumers, especially for senior citizens and for taxpayers in our 
country.
  Medicare is the single largest prescription drug consumer in the 
country, and jacked-up prices jeopardize Medicare's future.
  The legislation we will consider tomorrow ends the prohibition on 
price negotiations. It takes the handcuffs off Medicare and enables 
Medicare to negotiate price discounts--the kind of discounts Medicare 
should receive, given the huge volume of medicines it purchases.
  Medicare is a system with more than 40 million Americans in that 
system. That kind of bulk discount buying will save billions--tens of 
billions--of dollars for American taxpayers and for senior citizens.
  The drug industry, however, has taken to the airwaves, as it always 
does, and gone to Nation's newspapers to fight this legislation. In the 
Washington Post today is an example of an outrageous kind of ad the 
drug industry has written: ``89% of Voters Oppose Government 
Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.'' That is what it says: ``89 
percent of Voters Oppose Government Negotiation of Medicare Drug 
Prices.'' That does not even pass the straight-face test. I hardly know 
anyone in Ohio--a Democrat, a Republican, an independent--I hardly know 
anyone who does not think the Government should use the bulk discount 
process of negotiating directly with the drug industry on behalf of 40 
million Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, they claim, in bold print, in a 
full-page ad that costs tens of thousands of dollars--not much for the 
drug industry, to be sure--that ``89% of Voters Oppose Government 
Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.''
  If you read the small print, it says:

       Majorities of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters 
     do not want the government negotiating prescription drug 
     prices under Medicare. In fact, 89 percent oppose government 
     negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription 
     medications.

  Well, no kidding, if it limits access, then they say they do not like 
it. But, of course, they do not. And, of course, because of high drug 
company prices, we are seeing limited access to prescription drugs.
  How many times, I say to the Presiding Officer, in New Jersey or in 
Ohio or in Nevada or in Iowa do we hear stories from our constituents 
who have decided, because they cannot quite afford the drugs, they are 
going to cut a pill in half so their prescription will last twice as 
long, or they are only going to take a tablet every other day, even 
though they are prescribed to take it every day, so their prescription 
lasts longer? How often do we have to hear that?
  That is the issue of access, that too many seniors, too many middle-
class Americans, too many low-income Americans simply cannot afford to 
pay for their prescription drugs because the price is so high because 
of the drug companies, with their billions of dollars in advertising, 
with their hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on 600 lobbyists 
in this institution. There are, at last count, over 600 people paid by 
the drug industry to lobby this Congress. There are only 535 of us here 
in Congress; 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. They have more than 
600 lobbyists to talk to us. These most recent ads are particularly 
offensive.
  Allowing Medicare to negotiate lower priced medicines will not reduce 
access to medicines, it will increase access. If we get lower priced 
drugs, more people who have these prescriptions will be able to fully 
fill their prescriptions so, in fact, they will get access to drugs. 
That is why lower prices for Medicare mean lower copayments for 
seniors, and that means increased access to medicines.
  That is why AARP supports allowing price negotiations. That is why 
the Alliance for Retired Americans supports allowing price 
negotiations. That is why the Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare supports allowing price negotiations.
  The drug industry, again, stooped pretty low with this misleading 
poll, and then with this very expensive--tens of thousands of dollars 
for this one ad in one newspaper in the country. I wonder if there is 
any line the drug industry would not cross when it comes

[[Page S4588]]

to preserving the sweetheart deal they have in this country, where they 
have far too many politicians in the Senate and in the House, far too 
many of our colleagues, who simply, again, over and over and over, do 
the drug companies' bidding.
  Every other developed country in the world, as I said earlier, gets 
better priced prescription drugs than we do. Every other developed 
country in the world gets better prices than we do. That is because 
these countries do not put up with the grossly inflated drug prices our 
Nation does. It is because their drug company lobbyists or their drug 
company media campaigns simply may not be as effective in France and 
Canada and Germany and Israel and Japan and Mexico, and all over the 
world, where drug prices are a half or a third or a fourth of what they 
are here.
  We will put up with most anything, it seems, if an industry has deep 
enough pockets and an army of lobbyists. Prohibiting the Government 
from negotiating volume discounts on prescription drugs simply makes no 
sense. The Government negotiates the price of everything else it buys.
  When the Architect of the Capitol buys carpeting for the Senate 
floor--as we look around at this very nice blue carpet here--they do 
not take the manufacturer's word that a fair price would impair fiber 
research. We do not say whatever the carpet makers want, we will pay 
because it costs a lot to do this research to make these rugs beautiful 
and make this carpet last, when so many feet walk over it.
  When the Park Service buys ranger uniforms, it does not take the 
first bid that comes in. It gets good quality at the lowest price 
possible.
  But with drugs, the President and his allies here in Congress--and we 
know how much money the drug industry gave to President Bush; and we 
know the kinds of effective lobbying the drug industry employs in the 
Senate--the President and his allies here in Congress say the 
Government must pay any price the drug industry wants to charge.
  That policy is more than a mistake; it is a joke on the American 
people. It is a betrayal of our constituents. The drug companies are 
laughing all the way to the bank.
  We need to pass this legislation tomorrow and let Medicare bargain 
for the prices that Medicare beneficiaries deserve.

                          ____________________