[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18198-18199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   BUSH HITS GORE ON DRUGS AND TAXES

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to close with a comment about an 
article that appeared in today's Washington Post under the headline, 
``Bush Hits Gore on Drugs and Taxes.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record 
immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, according to this article, there is a new 
30-second ad being run that is entitled

[[Page 18199]]

``Drugs and Taxes.'' According to the Washington Post article, the 
audio of this tape begins as follows:

       Al Gore's prescription plan forces seniors into a 
     government-run HMO. Governor Bush gives seniors a choice.

  The Post, in its analysis of this statement, makes the following 
comment:

       In a classic contrast ad furthering the theme that Gore is 
     untrustworthy, Bush misrepresents the vice president's drug 
     plan. First, it isn't mandatory; seniors can opt for drug 
     coverage or not. Second, Medicare recipients could remain in 
     traditional choose-your-own-doctor plans. Drug payments would 
     be administered through private cost-control groups--such as 
     those now employed by the insurance industry--that are not 
     ``government-run'' or health maintenance organizations. In 
     fact, many analysts say Bush's plan, while providing choices, 
     would encourage more seniors to join cost-conscious HMOs.

  I only add to that analysis of this ad that it is interesting to me 
that the word ``HMO'' is inserted in the ad of Governor Bush as a 
pejorative. This Senate has been trying for the better part of the last 
2 years to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights in order to lay out some 
basic standards of protection as they relate to the beneficiaries of 
HMOs, the citizens who look to the HMO to finance their health care, 
the providers--doctors and hospitals--who are the source of that health 
care, and the HMO which has received the premium dollars from the 
patients and is now called upon to pay the providers for the cost of 
services delivered to the beneficiaries.
  It has been my position--and I believe today a majority of the 
Senate's, as well as a very strong majority in the House of 
Representatives--that it is a Federal responsibility to establish some 
basic standards of that relationship so that there will be a comfort 
level that people know what will be expected. They will know how they 
would be treated, whether it is in the emergency room, whether it is in 
access to a specialist physician, whether it is a woman's right to use 
her gynecologist as her primary care physician; all of those very 
intimate issues will have a known, federally established standard.
  Yet in spite of that majority support in both Houses of the Congress, 
we have gone month after month after month unable to even have the 
conference committee report out a bill that we can debate and decide 
whether it meets the appropriate standards of providing those standards 
of treatment for patients, providers, and the HMO itself.
  It is surprising to me, therefore, in that context that now Governor 
Bush apparently has concluded that the HMOs are sufficient pejorative 
that he can use them as the target of his attack of what we don't want 
in our health care system. I hope this ad might serve the probably 
unintended purpose of galvanizing an even broader coalition within the 
Congress behind the necessity for HMO reform and for the establishment 
of a basic set of patients' rights.
  If Presidential candidate Governor Bush has seen the HMO as such a 
pejorative figure that he is now attacking it in his ads, that might 
send a signal as to what the American people want us to do in terms of 
beginning to rectify that negative image by providing some effective 
nationwide standards of Patients' Bill of Rights for HMOs.
  So I will conclude with that side comment. I do hope that on this 
important issue of the provision of prescription drug benefits, we will 
deescalate the misrepresentation of both parties' plans. I happen to 
have my own strong preference as to which plan I think will best serve 
the needs of the American people, and particularly our 39 million 
Medicare beneficiaries, but I think we ought to treat both plans with 
the respect they deserve, have a full and serious debate on those 
plans, use the election of November 7 as a national referendum as to 
how we wish to proceed, and then if, unfortunately, we have failed to 
act on prescription drugs during the remaining weeks of this session, 
we would reconvene in January of 2001 with a President who has a 
mandate from the people for a clear direction, and we will respond to 
that mandate by effective action.
  If we achieve that goal, then to the extent of this very critical 
issue, the democratic process is alive, healthy, and performing one of 
its fundamental functions of converting public aspirations into policy 
that will benefit their lives.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Bush Hits Gore on Drugs, Taxes

                           (By Howard Kurtz)

       Candidate: George W. Bush.
       Markets: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and 14 other 
     states.
       Producer: Maverick Media.
       Time: 30 seconds.
       Audio: ``Al Gore's prescription plan forces seniors into a 
     government-run HMO. Governor Bush gives seniors a choice. 
     Gore says he's for school accountability, but requires no 
     real testing. Governor Bush requires tests and holds schools 
     accountable for results. Gore's targeted tax cuts leave out 
     50 million people--half of all taxpayers. Under Bush, every 
     taxpayer gets a tax cut and no family pays more than a third 
     of their income to Washington. Governor Bush has real plans 
     that work for real people.''
       Analysis: In a classic contrast ad furthering his theme 
     that Gore is untrustworthy, Bush misrepresents the vice 
     president's drug plan. First, it isn't mandatory; seniors can 
     opt for drug coverage or not. Second, Medicare recipients 
     could remain in traditional choose-your-own doctor plans. 
     Drug payments would be administered through private cost-
     control groups--such as those now employed by the insurance 
     industry--that are not ``government-run'' or health 
     maintenance organizations. In fact, many analysts say Bush's 
     plan, while providing choices, would encourage more seniors 
     to join cost-conscious HMOs. Bush's education plan does place 
     more emphasis than Gore's on holding schools accountable, 
     though the Texas governor would spend less. Bush's $1.6 
     trillion tax cut would reach far more Americans than Gore's 
     $500 billion cut, which would be tied to specific behavior, 
     and the Gore camp essentially concedes the point by saying 
     that 40 million taxpayers, not 50 million, would get no 
     benefit.

                          ____________________