[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11156-11157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased to see that 
the Republican leadership may bring a prescription drug bill to the 
floor this week before the July 4 recess, but I am very disappointed 
with the legislation that they have brought forward; and I can only 
hope that when they bring the bill to the floor, they will allow a 
Democratic substitute, Medicare prescription drug bill, which is far 
superior and will be the only legislation I think that would accomplish 
the goal of making sure and guaranteeing all seniors have a decent 
prescription drug benefit. I would ask that the Republican leadership 
make sure that we be allowed as Democrats to bring up our substitute 
when this matter goes before the Committee on Rules this week.
  I want to talk about two areas that I think are important with regard 
to this prescription drug initiative. First of all, the Democrats 
insist that a prescription drug benefit be under Medicare. Medicare has 
been a very successful program that has worked in terms of providing 
hospital care and physician care over the last 30 or 40 years, and the 
only way that we are going to have an effective prescription drug plan 
is if we use the Medicare model and if we make sure that the 
prescription drug benefit is guaranteed under Medicare. That assures 
that every senior has a guaranteed prescription drug benefit, that it 
is a benefit where they know what the premium is, they know what the 
deductible is and what the Federal Government is going to provide.
  What the Republicans have done in their bill is to ignore Medicare, 
and they have basically decided to throw some money to private 
insurance companies in the hope that they will offer a prescription 
drug plan for seniors, and it will not work. The bottom line is if this 
bill were to become law, very few, if any, seniors would be able to 
actually find a private insurance company that would provide them with 
a prescription drug plan. So it is a hoax. It is not a real 
prescription drug benefit that is going to be meaningful.
  In case anyone questions my motives in saying that, I will simply 
read from the editorial that was in this Saturday's New York Times. It 
is a section that says ``House Republicans who regard traditional 
Medicare as antiquated would provide money to private insurance 
companies, a big source of GOP campaign donations, to offer 
prescription drug policies. The idea of relying on private companies 
seems more ideological than practical. The pool of elderly Americans 
who will want the insurance is likely to consist of those who have the 
most need for expensive medicine. Even with Federal subsidies, it is 
unclear that enough insurance companies would be willing to participate 
and provide the economies that come from competition.''
  The bottom line is under the Republican plan there will not be any 
insurance policies and there will be nothing for seniors to have and 
there will not be a prescription drug benefit.
  The other major problem with the Republican proposal contrasting with 
the Democratic proposal is the Republican proposal does not deal with 
price. The biggest problem facing seniors now is that the cost of 
prescription drugs are too high, and the Republicans go out of their 
way in their proposal to make sure that the price issue is not dealt 
with at all.
  Today, Families USA, which is a great organization that has been 
dealing with this prescription drug issue, put out a report called 
``Bitter Pill, The Rising Prices of Prescription Drugs for Older 
Americans,'' and the report released today by Families USA basically 
says that the problem is that prescription drugs cost too much. Thirty-
six out of 50 of the drugs most used by seniors rose three or more 
times the rate of inflation last year. That is simply unacceptable and 
cannot be justified, in my opinion, by the pharmaceutical companies.
  But what does the Republican bill do about price? Absolutely nothing. 
It actually has a clause in the bill that was put in, I understand, 
from the Conservative Action Team, Republican, the CATs, that actually 
says that the administrator of the program cannot interfere in any way 
in any negotiations to deal with price. It absolutely forbids any kind 
of pricing structure, absolutely forbids that the administrator of the 
prescription drug program get involved in any kind of negotiations that 
would reduce price. That is an outrage. That is because the Republicans 
are very much in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, and they do 
not want the issue of prices and price reductions effectively dealt 
with as part of this legislation. That will also doom the Republican 
legislation.
  The Democrats by contrast, because their program is under Medicare, 
the Democrats mandate the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
negotiate to reduce prices for now 30 or 40 million seniors that are 
part of the Medicare program and will now have a prescription drug 
benefit. What we are

[[Page 11157]]

saying is if we put this program under Medicare, then we are 
guaranteeing that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a pool 
of 30 to 40 million seniors that he can negotiate for; and we mandate 
that he negotiate to reduce price, and he will have the ability to do 
so. So a hallmark of the Democratic proposal is not only that it is 
under Medicare and there is a guaranteed benefit wherever one is in the 
country but also that there is a guarantee that the program will try to 
reduce cost, reduce price, which is so crucial if the program is going 
to be successful.
  I challenge the Republicans to heed what the Democrats are saying and 
address the issue of price and put their program under Medicare, which 
they have refused to do so far.

                          ____________________