[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 142 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6007-S6008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Social Security Program
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was a time not that long ago when
families had a similar challenge across America: what to do with mom
and dad. At that time, there wasn't much to turn to. If you were
fortunate, your parents, during the course of their lifetime, saved up
enough money to take care of themselves.
But in my family and many others, it was common to have that spare
bedroom for grandma and grandpa because there was no place else to go.
It was part of American family life. It caused some hardship. The kids
had to double up in the bedrooms, and some of the activities in the
family were limited. But you did it because you loved them and they
needed help and they couldn't take care of themselves.
In 1939, that started to change. A President named Franklin Delano
Roosevelt thought, It is time for us to give some relief to these
families, to give dignity to seniors in their retirement years. And he
created a program called Social Security--now one of the most popular
programs in the United States.
You don't hear many candidates for President standing up and saying,
``I am going to cut Social Security benefits,'' do you? It is worshiped
and venerated and respected and followed by families across America.
But the critics in the creation of Social Security called it socialism.
Socialism: Too much government, leave us alone; let mom and dad live in
that spare bedroom; don't give them a separate savings account they can
accumulate during their lifetime. If they do it, fine. If they don't,
fine too. Socialism.
Fast forward to the 1960s. Now we have a new concern: How are we
going to pay for the healthcare of seniors now that they are living
longer because of Social Security? What are we going to do about it?
There was a concern in Washington that the cost of medical care--
surgeries and treatment--was just too expensive for the average person.
And so President Lyndon Baines Johnson created Medicare. Medicare was a
health insurance program for senior citizens across America.
When it started, it ushered in a dramatic change in healthcare in
America. The construction of hospitals started expanding their pace
across this country. Medicare made a big difference.
What did they say about it in criticizing it? Socialism: Too much
government trying to provide healthcare for senior citizens. Of course,
Medicaid came on its heels, as well, to take care of low-income
individuals facing the same challenge.
``Socialism''--we hear that time and again. This morning, the
Republican Senate leader criticized efforts to lower pharmacy drug
costs across America. He called it prescription drug socialism. Here we
go again. Any effort to help the average family who is trying to get by
and trying to make ends meet that involves the government is criticized
as socialism. The argument was made by the Republican leader that this
socialism, this lowering of prescription drug prices, is ultimately
going to stifle research and competition. He failed to mention one or
two things.
First, he failed to mention that virtually every single prescription
drug that is now making a difference across America started with
government research. The National Institutes of Health--the premier
medical research Agency in the world--did the basic research for
virtually every single one of these drugs. As much as I admire the
private sector--and I do--and as much as I wish the pharmaceutical
industry well, the fact is, if they are honest about it, they are
simply bargaining with the government that helped them get started to
find profitable products.
The second thing I want to note that the Republican leader did not
mention this morning is that, for decades now, we have allowed the
Veterans Health Administration to negotiate drug prices. In other
words, what we are now doing in Medicare, we have been doing for
veterans. Our theory was our veterans deserve the best, and we have got
to be able to afford it as a government, and they have to be able to
afford it as individuals. So we negotiated these drug prices. I didn't
hear any screaming and hollering about helping our veterans, because it
was the right thing to do.
Doing that for veterans is virtually the same thing that is happening
in other countries. Why are exactly the same drugs that are made in the
United States sold in Canada for a fraction of the cost? Because the
Canadian
[[Page S6008]]
Government negotiated--just like the Veterans Health Administration in
the United States--for reasonable prices for Canadian citizens. Now we
are doing the same thing. Finally, after decades of promise, it is
happening. This notion that the top 10 drugs under Medicare are now
going to be negotiated so that we can bring prices within reach of the
government and individuals is simply an extension of what we have been
doing at the VA for years. I have to tell you it makes a difference, a
serious difference.
Imagine that the Biden-Harris proposal not only allows for
negotiating prices down to a reasonable level for Medicare, but it also
says that you in Medicare are limited to a $2,000 annual expenditure
for prescription drugs. And $2,000 is a lot of money. Don't get me
wrong. For a lot of people, it is a hardship to come up with that kind
of money, but it is within the reach for most Americans to pay that
amount of money. We know that drugs, otherwise, are too darned
expensive for them.
Now, the critics of that, like the Senator from Kentucky, this
morning, call it socialism. I call it the American approach to helping
families--a realistic approach that says that pharmaceutical drugs
should be affordable. If I understood the position of the Kentucky
Senator this morning, he thinks it is a big mistake. I think it is a
breakthrough. Finally, we are going to reach the day when we can
negotiate prices for those not in Medicare who will be helped as well.
So I wanted to start my remarks with that.