[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 4680, REPUBLICAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, later this week, the Republican leadership 
will bring to the floor a bill purporting to be a new prescription drug 
benefit for America's senior citizens. Yesterday, I gave a number of 
reasons why the Republican prescription drug bill is fatally flawed and 
issued a challenge to the Republican majority to allow the Democrats to 
put forth our own prescription drug plan. Today, I want to stress the 
hypocrisy of the Republicans' procedure for considering this important 
issue.
  Rather than allow an open and honest debate on how Congress would 
provide for a prescription drug benefit for America's senior citizens, 
the Republicans apparently will script a closed rule with limited 
debate predicated on an arbitrary budget resolution which they have 
shown a willingness time and again to violate when it suits their 
purposes. Unfortunately, both their flawed insurance subsidy plan and 
their desire to stifle debate in this the people's House on a question 
of vital importance to nearly 40 million American Medicare 
beneficiaries indicates once and for all that responding to the needs 
of America's senior citizens does not suit the political purposes of 
congressional Republicans.
  The Republicans' claim that no Medicare prescription drug benefit can 
exceed the cost of $40 billion over 5 years is false. As such, they 
have designed a flawed plan that fits neatly under this cap by delaying 
implementation and limiting catastrophic coverage only to those costs 
that exceed $6,000. Under their plan, if the government pays an insurer 
enough to create a plan where the premiums are not set too high by the 
insurer that someone can afford it, you still only get a benefit of 
about $1,000 less premiums and after that you are on your own until you 
reach $6,000. The Republicans know full well that a real, affordable, 
workable prescription drug plan will cost more but they are opposed to 
investing in this coverage for America's senior citizens.
  During the drafting of the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, the 
Republican majority found room for nearly $200 billion in tax cuts but 
said that if and when a Medicare prescription drug plan could be 
developed, it would be limited to $40 billion. There was no study, no 
scientific basis, no analysis that resulted in this figure. Rather it 
was a back-of-the-envelope calculation to make room for the huge tax 
cut they wanted to fund. Furthermore, during the markup, I offered an 
amendment to restore funding for teaching hospitals, academic medical 
centers and other Medicare in-patient costs. My amendment was rejected 
and I was told that by the Republican majority that any changes to the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 could be addressed out of that $40 billion 
set aside. I was also told that money could be used for Medicare 
reform. But of course that is the same money that was supposed to be 
set aside for prescription drug coverage.
  Now we hear that the Republican leadership has promised to push 
legislation later this year to make those exact same fixes but they 
have said they are already spending that on prescription drugs. So 
clearly the Republicans have no intention of abiding by the fiscal year 
2001 budget resolution as long as it does not serve their political 
purposes.
  This is not a new phenomenon. Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 
agriculture was to be funded at $11.3 billion in 1999 and $10.7 billion 
in 2000. But when it came time for Congress to live by these caps, the 
Republican majority, recognizing the harsh effects of these 
constraints, abandoned them. Agriculture was funded at $23 billion in 
1999 and $35 billion in 2000. The same is true when it came to 
highways. When Congress set caps in 1997 and then passed a highway 
construction bill, the Republicans busted the caps. So far they have 
funded transportation and highway construction far above what was set 
in 1997. It is true again for defense. In 1997, we set caps for defense 
spending going out 5 years and we have busted those caps every year.
  Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I do not dispute the need at times 
to adjust balanced budget caps when the need is justified. What I 
challenge is whether the Republican leadership is really sincere about 
helping America's senior citizens. They found a way to finesse budget 
limits for national defense, for highways and for our farmers. They are 
all worthy causes, but why will they not work around the budget 
resolution for America's senior citizens? Why will they not do this for 
the generation that fought ``The Great War'' and built the Nation? Why 
will they not do that for those we honored this past week who fought 
``The Forgotten War'' in Korea?
  If the Republicans were really sincere about helping our seniors, 
they would not hide behind artificial budgets and stifle debate. They 
would allow the Democrats who started this debate in the first place to 
bring up our bill which provides for meaningful, voluntary, universal 
prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Let us have the debate on 
what is best for America's senior citizens even if it means debating a 
real drug benefit versus large tax cuts. But, Mr. Speaker, let us have 
this debate.

                          ____________________