[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 17215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2003

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed that the Rules 
Committee did not make in order an opportunity for an alternative 
proposal from my colleagues Ellen Tauscher and Cal Dooley, in the form 
of H.R. 1568. Looking carefully at the arguments from both sides of the 
aisle on the proposals before us today, I am inclined to think that 
they are both right. There are egregious problems in the proposal by 
the Republicans. It is going to have serious dislocative effects; it 
doesn't adequately meet the needs of low-income people; it could 
actually deteriorate prescription drug coverage for others; and, it 
extends services to many who do not need it.
  The Democratic alternative is well-intentioned and more generous, but 
there are questions about whether this will be affordable over time. We 
may be biting off more than we can sustain as Medicare goes into a time 
of severe strain with regard to cost and the capacity to meet the needs 
of an exploding retirement population.
  I continue to be troubled that low income senior citizens without 
drug coverage pay the highest prices in the world for their medicines. 
This is intolerable. There is real potential to harness the vast 
purchasing power of the United States to negotiate better prices, the 
same way private employers, local governments and hospitals do. The 
power of the free market and negotiation should not be denied to the 
sector that would benefit from it the most. There is no reason that the 
nation's Medicare recipients should pay a higher price for the same 
drugs that recipients who are part of our veterans program receive. We 
can craft a program that is not unduly coercive, and does not lead to a 
disruption of the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry needs to 
be more accommodating of this approach, or I feel that they will 
inevitably end up with far more draconian solutions. They cannot 
continue to mine gold from low income senior citizens.
  The alternative that I would rather have had on the floor today would 
expend the same amount of money that we have determined is affordable, 
and target it to low-income seniors without coverage, and people with 
extraordinarily high prescription drug needs. That is where we should 
target our Medicare resources. It would permit us to keep promises made 
to help remedy this serious situation. It does not over commit, and 
leaves the way open for subsequent Medicare reform. It would appear 
that if either of the other two bills were adopted, it would make long 
term reform more difficult and would pose significant budget pressures 
at a time when our fiscal policies are in disarray.
  I truly think this is one of those times when less actually is more, 
and being careful will pay long-term dividends. I am voting 
accordingly, against the two alternatives, and hope that Congress will 
reach the point where we can have a more targeted, sustainable, and 
effective approach that can provide a foundation for future reform.

                          ____________________