[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17158-17164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




REGARDING THE ACTUARIAL VALUE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS OFFERED TO 
 MEDICARE ELIGIBLE ENROLLEES BY A PLAN UNDER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH 
                            BENEFITS PROGRAM

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 2631) to provide that the actuarial value of 
the prescription drug benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees 
by a plan under the Federal employees health benefits program shall be 
at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits 
offered by such plan to its enrollees generally.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2631

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NEGOTIATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 8902 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1) A contract may not be made or a plan approved 
     which does not offer to Medicare eligible enrollees 
     prescription drug benefits the actuarial value of which is at 
     least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug 
     benefits which are offered to enrollees under the plan 
     generally.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall establish processes and 
     methods for determining the actuarial value of prescription 
     drug benefits.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to contract years beginning after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.

[[Page 17159]]

  Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed H.R. 1, the Medicare 
Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. Part of this bill recognizes 
and seeks to address one of the core concerns regarding adding a 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare; that is, with the implementation 
of such a benefit, lead employers who currently offer prescription drug 
coverage to their employees to stop doing so. Obviously, we do not want 
to put a government entitlement plan into operation and drive the 
private plans out of existence, or the costs over the long term to the 
taxpayers will go off the charts.
  The bill addressed these concerns by providing subsidies to private 
employers and unions to encourage them to maintain prescription drug 
benefits for their retirees. With the help of the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Thomas), we were able to clarify that the Office 
of Personnel Management would also be eligible for these subsidies, 
something that I believe will lead to lower FEHBP premiums for all 
enrollees. However, I think it is necessary for us to go one step 
further.
  Coming from northern Virginia, I represent over 50,000 Federal 
employees and retirees. As chairman of the House Committee on 
Government Reform, I am responsible for issues pertaining to Federal 
workers and retirees, along with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo 
Ann Davis), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. Thus, 
not only am I acutely aware of the challenges the Federal Government 
faces as an employer to recruit and retain quality employees, I am also 
very aware that Federal retirees are sometimes treated differently than 
current employees in ways that are not always equitable.
  For example, current Federal employees are allowed to deduct their 
health insurance premiums from pretax dollars, but Federal retirees are 
not. I look at this issue from an employer's perspective. Remember: In 
addition to the large number of retirees already in FEHBP, 50 percent 
of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement in the next several 
years. With H.R. 2631, we are telling the people that we are going to 
live up to our end of the bargain. We are saying that with regard to 
prescription drug benefits, Federal retirees will continue to be placed 
on par with current employees, that OPM will not reduce their benefits 
as opposed to the benefit offered to current employees.
  In crafting H.R. 2631, I thought it was important to continue to 
allow OPM as much flexibility as possible in negotiating future 
prescription drug benefits. And for the record, Senator Akaka, my 
colleague in the other body, has offered similar legislation on the 
other side of the Capitol. Thus, H.R. 2631 does not require OPM to 
offer a specific dollar amount of coverage that has to be maintained; 
they can raise or they can lower benefits as they see fit through 
negotiations with individual plans, but they have to do it for all 
FEHBP enrollees to treat them the same, regardless of their age. In 
essence, we are simply telling OPM to continue to do what they have 
always done.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe H.R. 2631 sends an important 
message to both Federal retirees and current Federal employees. It will 
be a helpful tool in our efforts to build and retain an effective 
Federal workforce and give these employees a career path and retirement 
they can depend on. Therefore, I urge all Members to support the 
passage of H.R. 2631.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2631, was crafted to 
ensure that legislation expanding Medicare will not reduce prescription 
drug benefits for Federal retirees enrolled in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program. While I support this legislation because it 
shields Federal employees from the illusive drug benefit in the 
Medicare proposal, the reality is it leaves millions of others 
unprotected.
  Federal annuitants are worried, and they should be. They are worried 
because they see something in the government's subsidized Medicare 
prescription drug benefit that they do not like, and with good reason. 
This past Sunday The Washington Post reported that despite the Bush 
administration's proclamations, and I am quoting, ``The reality is that 
the two Medicare drug bills passed by the House and the other body do 
not come close to providing the level of coverage given to the 8.5 
million Federal workers, including lawmakers, White House staff, and 
the President. Both measures would require senior citizens to buy an 
auxiliary prescription plan, whereas all 188 plans offered to Federal 
employees include drug coverage, and at far more generous reimbursement 
rates.''
  To remedy this, H.R. 2631 would maintain prescription drug parity 
between Medicare-eligible retirees enrolled in the FEHB program, and 
active duty Federal employees and retirees. It provides that the 
prescription drug benefit offered to Medicare-eligible enrollees by a 
plan under the FEHB program be at least equal to the prescription drug 
benefits offered by such a plan to its enrollees generally.
  This is obviously a good bill for Federal employees, but it also 
sheds light on what a bad bill the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
is for the rest of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this legislation and similar 
legislation for the rest of America's seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2631, a bill that has a simple, yet powerful, purpose: 
to protect the health benefits of our valued Federal retirees. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, along with my 
distinguished colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  One of the hallmarks of Federal service has been the government's 
commitment to providing health care for its retired employees, those 
public servants who dedicated their professional careers to protecting 
our shores, fighting disease, keeping our air and water clean, and 
upholding the laws of the land. We not only owe them our thanks, we owe 
it to them to keep our commitments.
  As the chairwoman of the House Committee on Government Reform 
Subcommittee on Civil Service, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for sponsoring this legislation and thank 
the leadership for allowing us to bring this important bill to the 
floor so quickly.
  H.R. 2631 guarantees that Federal retirees will have a prescription 
drug benefit that is equal in value to the one provided to active 
Federal employees. This legislation fulfills the promise of the Federal 
Government not to eliminate prescription drug coverage to its retirees 
once a prescription drug benefit is also available through Medicare, 
which the U.S. House of Representatives has wisely decided to add.
  This bill also ensures that there is no difference between the total 
amount of coverage offered to active employees and the coverage 
available to retirees. This is an important equity, one that we want to 
maintain.
  I want to emphasize that this legislation does not diminish the 
Office of Personnel Management's authority to negotiate health care 
benefits for Federal employees, but assures that drug benefits will 
still be available for retirees.
  Finally, this is a case of the Federal Government leading by example. 
If the U.S. Government were to cut benefits for its retirees, why would 
we expect the private sector to act any differently?
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) for bringing 
this legislation to the floor, and I urge passage of H.R. 2631.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page 17160]]

  Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation that is before us today for 
one simple reason: Federal retirees deserve an adequate prescription 
drug benefit just like all America's seniors do. Without the 
protections of the bill before us, they face the possibility of losing 
what they have got.
  But let us be clear: This legislation is necessary because the 
prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries that was forced 
through the House by the Republican majority is inadequate and 
unresponsive to the needs of America's seniors and disabled persons. 
The President and House Republicans like to defend that bill by saying 
America's seniors deserve the same coverage that Members of Congress 
and the Federal workforce get, but nothing could make it clearer that 
their Medicare bill fails miserably to meet that test. The drug benefit 
our Republican colleagues are willing to give Medicare beneficiaries is 
filled with features that will be laughed out of the room if they were 
suggested for Federal employees.
  The Medicare bill contains large gaps in coverage, like the so-called 
donut hole, where beneficiaries have no coverage for their drug 
expenses. Once they have $2,000 in drug costs, coverage stops. 
Beneficiaries are stuck with the next $2,900 in costs, and maybe more. 
Oh, they get to pay premiums for coverage during that time. They just 
pay for nothing, because the program gives them no help, and whether 
coverage ever starts up again is uncertain. It will be a catastrophic 
situation for many of our seniors.
  The hypocrisy of claiming that Medicare beneficiaries deserve what 
the Federal employees health program has, and then give a prescription 
drug benefit that the Republicans pushed through which is so inferior, 
it is breathtaking. And, to add insult to injury, the Medicare benefit 
is designed so that any help from an employer reduces Medicare 
coverage. That leads to the likelihood that employers will drop drug 
coverage for their retirees and make people worse off.

                              {time}  1315

  That is a very real possibility that makes the bill that is before us 
right now necessary. But what about those retirees in the same 
situation that this bill does not help? Federal retirees deserve to 
have adequate prescription drug coverage. They deserve to keep the 
benefits they have, but so do the rest of America's seniors and 
disabled people. We should live up to the rhetoric and make the 
Medicare benefit a good one: simple, comprehensive, certain, and 
affordable. It should truly be as good as what Federal employees have 
and Members of Congress have. The drug benefit in the Republican 
Medicare bill fails that test. That is the tragedy that that bill that 
is now before us highlights today.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a co-sponsor of this 
legislation and a leader in the fight for Federal employees' rights.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 
2631 and am pleased to be an original co-sponsor. Before I make my 
comments, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis) for his efforts.
  Those who followed this debate know, through the colloquy that took 
place on the floor last week, the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Tom 
Davis) efforts with regard to this; and I think every Federal retiree 
and Federal employee will be very very grateful for that. So I want the 
gentleman from Virginia to know that I appreciate it, as they will 
also.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary to clarify the intent of H.R. 1, 
the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the House passed on June 27. 
H.R. 2631 would ensure prescription drug parity between retirees 
enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP, who 
are eligible for Medicare, and other Federal employees in the FEHBP. It 
is vital to pass this legislation to make sure that the bill now moving 
through Congress to extend Medicare will not reduce prescription drug 
benefits for Federal retirees enrolled in FEHBP. Federal employees in 
their retirement must be assured that the commitment will be kept that 
their drug benefit will remain unchanged and they will not be forced to 
pay additional costs for prescription drugs. They deserve that 
commitment from Congress.
  I urge all Members to vote for this bipartisan legislation to protect 
retired and active duty Federal employees.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2631, but I am just puzzled by 
this. I guess I must be missing something. This bill concerns the 
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers President Bush, 
Vice President Cheney, and Members of Congress and others. Right now 
the plans offer drug coverage for retired Members of Congress and other 
Federal employees equal to the drug coverage these plans offer current 
employees. This bill puts this policy in law, requiring drug coverage 
for Federal employees must be equal to coverage for current employees.
  This bill was introduced the day the House passed the Republican 
Medicare prescription drug bill. It is clear that this bill is meant to 
ensure that Members of Congress, this is where I am puzzled, Members of 
Congress do not have to live under the Republican Medicare 
privatization plan. That is why I am puzzled. If it is good enough for 
Congress, it is good enough for seniors of this Nation. That is what 
President Bush said in Michigan in January about H.R. 1, his Medicare 
prescription drug plan.
  In his statement of administrative policy on H.R. 1, the White House 
praised the Republican drug plan saying it was just like the coverage 
that Members of Congress get. That is where I am getting stuck, trying 
to figure out why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has 
brought this bill to the floor. If the Republican Medicare bill offers 
drug coverage just like Members of Congress have and as President Bush 
says, then why do we have to protect Members of Congress and Federal 
employees from being forced into the Republican privatized Medicare 
plan? I just do not get it.
  The majority leader of the other body who runs that place and the 
leader on this side, both said the Medicare Republican bills would 
accomplish the goal of giving health care security to seniors. But if 
the Republican drug plan provides real health care security, H.R. 1, 
why do we have to exempt Members of Congress and other Federal 
employees from the bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) and other Republicans rammed through this Congress recently?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, said the Republican drug plan uses private 
plans to compete to provide beneficiaries better care at lower costs. 
It is confusing. Why do we need this plan when Congress is exempting 
itself from what Congress did only 2 weeks ago? I hope that my friends 
on the other side would explain that.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to help the gentleman solve the puzzle. The 
fact of the matter is there are 1.25 million Medicare-eligible Federal 
employees and annuitants. Only 388 retired Members of Congress are in 
FEHBP. The majority of retired Members of Congress do not even take 
FEHBP. They are in other plans or have opted out of this.
  The fact is they are eligible for that by virtue of their service 
here. This legislation was not crafted by Members looking after 
themselves. It was crafted with the help of the National Association of 
Retired Federal Employees. It was difficult to write out the 388 
retired Members who happen to use this, which is a minority of the 
retired Members. Most Members do not use FEHBP. I want to clarify for 
the gentleman that in no way, shape or form was this for Members. In 
fact, this was

[[Page 17161]]

called to our attention by the National Association of Retired Federal 
Employees. I do not know any other way to get at the problem.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, my friend sits on the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce where this bill was heard. I just heard over and 
over people saying that we wanted to give, under the Republican drug 
plan that passed 2 weeks ago by one vote, that we wanted to give the 
same coverage to seniors as FEHBPs. Are you saying then that the 
coverage for Federal retirees is significantly better than the coverage 
that you are providing or that this House provided under H.R. 1, the 
Republican Medicare prescription drug plan?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all it does is ensures that 
Federal retirees will be treated the same as current Federal employees 
in regard to the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. Currently, they 
are not in some areas. The feeling is that with this other plan, that 
retirees could have a different benefit program and that creates some 
difficulty. So we are trying to even this up and give that assurance.
  Most Members of Congress do not opt for FEHBP. That is what the 
record shows after this is done. So that is kind of a misnomer. It is a 
small percentage that ends up in FEHBP when they retire. A few do, I 
grant to the gentleman; but that is not the purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2631. Today, about 
76 percent of seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage; and 
less than 2 weeks ago the House passed historical legislation, H.R. 1, 
to create a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, when we passed H.R. 1, we did not intend to create a new 
Federal benefit that would replace the prescription drug benefits that 
many of our seniors today already enjoy. H.R. 1 does contain a number 
of incentives to employers to maintain their existing level of health 
care coverage to their senior retirees. But I personally heard from 
several constituents of mine, retired Federal workers, who are 
concerned that the Federal Government in an attempt to save money will 
reduce or eliminate their prescription drug coverage once a benefit is 
available through Medicare. In passing H.R. 1, we called upon employers 
to maintain that coverage it offers to retirees, and the Federal 
Government has an obligation to lead by example and ensure that Federal 
retirees continue to receive the same prescription drug benefit as 
current employees. So H.R. 2631 does just that.
  It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said he was puzzled 
by this bill, but I am not so puzzled. It seems to me quite clear that 
the one thing that our Federal retirees were right to be concerned once 
the Republican prescription drug bill had passed this House, they were 
right to be concerned that they might some day have to live under those 
prescription drug benefits which do not even come close to the benefits 
that they have today.
  So it does make sense that as soon as the Republican prescription 
drug bill was passed that Federal retirees would get worried and 
Members would come down here and say, boy, one thing we sure do not 
want to have is to have our Federal retirees forced to participate in 
the Republican prescription drug bill that we just passed.
  Now, one of the reasons that this is happening so fast, and it is 
happening fast, the Republican bill passed by one vote here in the 
House. A bill has passed in the other body, but we do not even have a 
conference. We do not know what the final product will be like. But we 
know this: it will not be good for America's seniors. It will not be 
good for those Medicare beneficiaries who are counting on getting some 
relief from the high cost of prescription drugs.
  The Republican bills are a disaster, a looming disaster for our 
Medicare beneficiaries; but they also fall far short of what Federal 
retirees are likely to expect. Because under the FEHBP program we have 
today, there are no additional premiums for drug benefits. There is no 
deductible. There is a small co-payment. There is no gap in coverage, 
and that is different from the Republican bills passed here in the 
House. This bill may make some sense for Federal retirees; but the 
question remains, if it is good enough for Members of Congress and 
Federal employees, it ought to be good enough for Medicare 
beneficiaries. That is what the President said, but the Republican bill 
does not keep that promise.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill. And I am sure it 
will pass with near-unanimous support, because under this bill no plan 
on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan could be approved that has 
a prescription drug benefit for retirees that is lesser in actuarial 
value than the existing prescription drug benefit.
  This legislation represents the commitment of the Federal Government 
not to reduce dues or eliminate prescription drug coverage to its 
retirees once prescription drug coverage is also available through 
Medicare. One of the core concerns with the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit has always been that, in the attempt to provide for those 
without coverage, we would take from those with coverage. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one-third of retired 
employees with employer-sponsored drug coverage could lose it as a 
result of the Medicare prescription drug bill that passed 2 weeks ago. 
Currently, there is no different prescription drug benefit for retirees 
than is available for current employees. Our bill simply seeks to 
maintain that dynamic.
  We do not want the total amount of coverage offered to Federal 
retirees reduced for the reason that they could simply opt for the 
Medicare plan alone. This is an issue with the Federal Government 
leading by example. If the Federal Government cuts its benefits for its 
retirees, how can we expect private employers to do anything but follow 
our lead? H.R. 2631 does not tie OPM's hands in the negotiating process 
by requiring that they provide a plan of a certain dollar value. OPM 
can still negotiate higher or lower levels of benefits, but they simply 
cannot target retirees alone for reduced benefits.
  The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has always led the way in 
setting the example for employer-sponsored health care. It should have 
been the standard for the Medicare prescription drug plan, but Federal 
retirees should not lose benefits because it was not. That is the point 
that many people have been making. But they should certainly not vote 
against this bill as a result. There is nothing wrong with this bill. 
This bill clarifies what the policy is and should be, and for that 
reason we should all vote for this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I kept hearing my Republican colleagues 
talk about parity for Federal employees; and I support this bill as 
well, because I do believe that Federal retirees should have good 
prescription drug benefits. But it is not an issue of parity. It is an 
issue of hypocrisy, hypocrisy because the Republicans say that

[[Page 17162]]

they want to preserve a generous prescription drug benefit for Federal 
retirees, but at the same time they were not willing to provide it for 
the other seniors around the country.
  The bottom line is that the Medicare prescription drug benefit that 
the Republicans have proposed both in this House and the other House is 
no real benefit. It is a meaningless benefit. It is not generous enough 
that anybody would even sign up for it.

                              {time}  1330

  And they wanted to make sure that the Federal retirees do not get 
stuck being forced into that Medicare system that they have proposed, 
which essentially gives an almost worthless prescription drug benefit 
to most seniors. Well, there is a lot of hypocrisy saying you want to 
preserve it for the Members of Congress, for the President, and for 
Federal retirees, but not give it to seniors in general.
  There was an article in today's New York Times that had a little 
grid, and it talked about how Federal retirees' drug benefits stacked 
up with those under the Medicare prescription drug plan the Republicans 
have proposed for the rest of the seniors. And guess what? Average 
premium for Federal employees, nothing. No additional premium for drug 
benefits. But in the Senate bill, $35 a month, or $420 a year; in the 
House, $35 a month. What about the deductible? For Federal retirees, no 
deductible. But in the Senate bill, for the rest of the seniors, $275; 
in the House bill, $250. What about gap in coverage? For Federal 
retirees, no gap in coverage, but then there are major gaps in the 
Senate bill, $4,500 to $5,800 a year; in the House bill, $2,000 to 
$4,900 a year.
  In fact, there is a statement that for the most popular plan among 
Federal workers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Congressional Research 
Service estimates that drug benefits under the plan are worth 50 
percent more than the proposed Republican bill.
  Hypocrisy, not parity. Give the same benefits to the rest of the 
seniors. That is the fair thing to do.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to respond that The New York Times chart is absolutely 
wrong when it says Federal employees have no deductible for their 
prescription drug coverage. What they get is, they get a set amount of 
dollars, and it is a cafeteria style. They can spend it on prescription 
drugs, preventive care, HMOs or whatever. So there is certainly a cost 
to that. But the way the system is set up, it is a total health care 
program.
  So when the gentleman gets up and quotes this New York Times article, 
it is entirely misleading. Of course there is a cost to Federal 
employees opting for that over something else.
  The other underlying part of the bill that this body passed 2 weeks 
ago is the fact that we did not want to drive private programs out of 
existence. Should we drive the 60 percent of seniors that are currently 
satisfied with their prescription drug program out of existence, then 
the Federal Government ends up picking up the total tab, and the cost 
rises significantly.
  We are setting an example with this legislation that we are, in fact, 
making sure that the FEHBP program is not driven out of existence; that 
we maintain the parity it has always had with existing Federal 
employees. And this program ought not be diminished. It is the same 
thing that we have incentivized in the program passed 2 weeks ago by 
the subsidies that are in that program as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe this bill is here, and I want to make 
clear that while I certainly do not object to the effort to insulate 
Federal employees from negative retirement actions, if there is a 
rollcall on this bill, I would vote ``no.'' And the reason is because I 
think this bill demonstrates a rampant double standard.
  As I understand it, last week in the prescription drug bill debate 
that we had on this floor, the majority party in essence told seniors, 
``Have we got a deal for you. We are going to set it up so that you are 
going to be able to get the same benefits as your Member of Congress.'' 
And now what are you saying this week? You are bringing a bill up that 
says to your future retiring Member of Congress, ``Have we got a deal 
for you. It is going to be a special deal. You are going to be able to 
make sure that when you retire, you will have better prescription drug 
benefits than that poor sucker on Medicare.''
  That is what you are telling people, and I do not happen to think 
that is a very straightforward way to deal with our constituents.
  I understand what the committee wants to do to protect Federal 
employees. I would be very happy to vote for this bill once the 
majority party brings back to this floor a decent deal on prescription 
drugs for every other American, but not under these circumstances, not 
under these circumstances.
  Right now, if you are a Federal employee, if you are a Member of 
Congress, if you belong to the Blue Cross plan, you get 80 percent of 
your cost paid for for prescription drugs basically. But what do you 
say to seniors under that turkey of a prescription drug bill you passed 
last week? What you say is, oh, we will help you pay up to $2,000, but, 
boy, if you get stuck with drug costs that are somewhere between $2,000 
and $5,000, for that $3,000 hit on your wallet, sorry, you are not 
going to get any help from Uncle Sam.
  And my colleagues think that is a square deal? I mean, with all due 
respect to the effort behind this bill, it does not meet the laugh 
test, as far as I am concerned. If the majority party in this House 
wants to be considered a serious legislative force on this issue, they 
will pull this bill from the floor and bring it back when they can also 
bring back to the floor a bill with a decent, sustainable, consistent, 
reliable, affordable benefit under Medicare for all seniors for 
prescription drug costs. Until that happens, do not ask me to vote for 
a special insider deal for Members of Congress. That is what this bill 
does.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and let me just say in all candor that we have 1.25 
million FEHBP employees covered by this, with 388 former Members of 
Congress. The vast majority of former Members do not even sign up for 
FEHBP, those who would be eligible for the plan passed by this body 2 
weeks ago, and do not even use FEHBP, which is a more comprehensive 
option for retired Federal employees, including Members of Congress. So 
this really has nothing to do with Members of Congress.
  The other question I pose is, why, when my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle controlled this body for 40 years, did they not bring 
up any prescription drug benefit plan before this body for a vote? We 
have passed plans now the last 3 years, only this time has the Senate 
passed a plan as well, and we are giving meaningful relief to seniors 
who want it. It is a voluntary plan. It is not a perfect plan by any 
means, but it is within the budget limitations passed by this Congress. 
Their plan was outside the budget limitations.
  I think we have to get real. I think we have a good deal for 
Americans in the plan that we passed 2 weeks ago. As we work with the 
Senate, we will try to refine it and make it better. I think this 
legislation today makes it better as well, recognizing that as we look 
at our Federal workforce, trying to make sure we have the right 
incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest to fight 
for homeland security, to fight the battles for this country, to 
develop cures for cancer, that we are treating our employees well.
  So I am very proud to support this legislation. I think it enhances 
and goes with the underlying theme of the legislation passed 2 weeks 
ago, and that is we do not want to drive current prescription drug 
benefit plans out of existence, which, if we do not pass this, we will 
be setting a terrible example here at the Federal level.

[[Page 17163]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am here to expose the hypocrisy of my 
Republican colleagues. The previous speaker just said that this bill 
has nothing to do with current Members of Congress. Well, we will just 
wait and see.
  Over on the Senate side, Senator Dayton successfully offered an 
amendment to the Medicare prescription bill to ensure that no Member of 
Congress would receive a better prescription drug benefit than that 
which is included in the Medicare bill. And guess what? It passed, 93 
to 3. And Roll Call reported the following hypocrisy. According to Roll 
Call, indeed, many Republicans, 50 of whom helped add the Dayton 
provision to the Senate version of the Medicare bill this week, 
acknowledged that they were told by their leaders to vote for the 
Dayton amendment with the understanding that it would not show up in 
the final version of the legislation.
  That is hypocrisy. What is good enough for America's senior citizens 
is good enough for those of us who serve in this Chamber. I am 
circulating a letter to the Speaker, and I am asking all Members of 
this House to sign this letter in support of the Dayton amendment. If 
this House, if this Congress does not support the Dayton amendment, we 
are little more than hypocrites. If this language is stripped from the 
conference report, it can only mean that Members of Congress believe 
that they deserve better health coverage than the seniors they 
represent.
  America's seniors are watching us, and I hope my Republican 
colleagues will sign my letter to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), and I hope all of my Democratic colleagues will sign my 
letter in support of the Dayton amendment. We ought not to do for 
ourselves what we are unwilling to do for America's senior citizens. It 
is as simple as that. And to do less is to be hypocritical.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I think the points that have been made by some of my Democratic 
colleagues about the impact of the bill passed when we were last in 
session to cover prescription drugs for seniors is a point well taken. 
That bill is inadequate, and the reason we are passing this legislation 
is that we want to protect retired Federal employees.
  Well, we do want to protect them, but we have to protect them because 
we passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that will give incentives 
for employers, public and private, to drop insurance coverage for their 
retirees for prescription drugs. What in effect we are saying is we do 
not want Federal retirees to face the plight that other seniors are 
going to face when they are retired and their employers decide to let 
them go get their Medicare prescription drug benefit under the 
Republican-passed bill. It will be a lot less expensive, but it will be 
much less a benefit, in fact, a very inadequate benefit, for those 
retirees.
  That leads me, however, to say that we should oppose the bill that 
the Republicans passed for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and 
make sure that we pass a really decent prescription drug benefit for 
all Medicare beneficiaries. That is not to say that we ought to leave 
our Federal retired employees without the protections that we promised 
them, which is that they would have the health care plans that they 
paid into during their working years available to them as retirees.
  So I commend my Democratic colleagues for their pointing out the 
hypocrisy, and I support what they have to say, but urge, however, that 
we adopt this bill because we do not want to be against Federal 
retirees. But in doing that, we certainly need to acknowledge that the 
reason we are passing this legislation is because the prescription drug 
bill for Medicare that was passed by the House is so filled with holes 
and so inadequate.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to say two things. This vaunted Senate bill that passed a 
couple of weeks ago, Senator Akaka has also offered legislation in the 
Senate for their legislation as well. I think whatever happens under 
whoever's bill that passes, we want to ensure that we do not get that 
separation between the retired Federal employees and current employees 
in their health benefit premiums, and that is what this bill is about.
  We had a spirited debate 2 weeks ago on a health benefit plan, and I 
do not think we need to continue to air this today. But I think this is 
good legislation, it is good protection for our retired Federal 
employees, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 
thank them for the bipartisan support this bill is getting today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I think we have heard a great deal of debate, and we 
understand the merits of this legislation. It is unfortunate we did not 
have a bill last week that would have covered all of the seniors 
looking for relief under Medicare.
  I certainly agree that we do not want Federal retirees to be at risk 
for giving up what they have already got, and so I would agree with my 
colleagues that we should support this legislation to make sure that 
our Federal retirees maintain the benefits they have already received.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we've heard the President, Republican Members 
of Congress, Administration officials, and Republican Senators claim 
time and time again that their Medicare prescription drug plan will 
provide seniors with the same choices as Members of Congress get. 
They've said that if FEHBP is good enough for Federal employees and 
Members of Congress alike, it should be good enough for seniors.
  That's a great message and I'm sure it sells well with seniors. 
Unfortunately, their rhetoric fails to match the reality. The drug 
benefit they are willing to provide to Medicare beneficiaries is far 
less than the drug benefit provided to Federal employees.
  We've been trying to expose this hypocrisy for months. Today, the 
Republicans point out the truth themselves.
  This bill, authored by Representative Tom Davis, requires that each 
health plan in FEHBP agree to provide the same drug benefits to Federal 
retirees as they do to active employees.
  In other words, it protects Federal employees from ever having their 
retiree drug benefits reduced to the level that the bill's author just 
supported for the rest of our nation's retirees!
  Representative Davis represents an awful lot of Federal employees and 
he knows that the Medicare drug benefit is inadequate. Therefore, he's 
here today--the very first legislative day we are back in session after 
having passed the Republican Medicare drug bill--to get a fix for his 
constituents and himself.
  If the Republican drug bill was as good a benefit as Federal 
employees and Members of Congress receive, Representative Tom Davis and 
others would not be here today ensuring that Federal employees are 
never forced to give up their FEHBP coverage and find themselves with 
only the Medicare drug benefit his party has legislated.
  But, the Medicare drug benefit isn't as good. That's why they're 
here.
  Unfortunately, they are ignoring the problems that will be faced by 
the millions of seniors and people with disabilities who are not 
Federal employees or Members of Congress.
  The Congressional Budget Office has told us that if the Republican 
Drug Bill becomes law, one-third of employers will drop their retiree 
drug coverage. That will cause millions of Americans to lose the 
coverage they have today only to be replaced with the inadequate 
benefit put forth by the Republicans. Yet, nothing in this bill will 
help them.
  Put frankly, we can't buy a health plan in FEHBP with as poor drug 
coverage as is included in the Republican Medicare prescription drug 
bill that was passed last week.
  Rather than protect us from having to suffer with inadequate coverage 
with the rest of America's seniors, we should be considering a bill 
that guarantees all America's seniors and people with disabilities with 
a drug benefit as good as Members of Congress get.

[[Page 17164]]

  Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to go along with that.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2631.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________