[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17341-17346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5122, G.V. ``SONNY'' MONTGOMERY 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5122), to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Edwards moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 5122 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 
     721 of the Senate amendment (relating to treatment of TRICARE 
     retail pharmacy network under Federal procurement of 
     pharmaceuticals).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill passed 
the House on May 11 and the Senate on June 22. It is deeply 
disappointing that during a time of war it has taken the House and 
Senate Republican leadership over 2\1/2\ months to appoint conferees to 
write the final defense bill, which includes programs vital to our

[[Page 17342]]

troops and to our Nation's defense. The fact that Speaker Hastert could 
take time to campaign in over 40 House districts during the August 
recess, but could not find time to appoint final defense conferees, 
represents the kind of misplaced priorities that have Americans 
demanding that Congress change its way of business. Our troops in 
Afghanistan and Iraq should not have had to wait 2\1/2\ months to see 
Congress moving ahead on a bill that is vital to them, their mission 
and their families.
  Now that conferees have finally been appointed, the House has a 
serious responsibility to support a bill that puts our troops and 
military retirees first. That is what this motion to instruct is all 
about.
  Specifically, this motion would instruct House conferees on the 
defense bill to accept Senate language that would reduce the cost of 
prescription drugs for military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans, 
by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. It would do so by saying 
that pharmaceutical manufacturers should give the same drug discount at 
retail pharmacies that is already being given to military retirees who 
buy their drugs via mail order.
  The Veterans Administration saves hundreds of millions of dollars 
every year by requiring drug manufacturers to offer veterans drug 
discounts, and applying the same commonsense principle to military 
retirees will result in huge savings. In fact, this motion, if 
accepted, would save taxpayers $251 million in fiscal year 2007 and 
help, even more importantly, up to 1.9 million military retirees by 
making it unnecessary to pass the unfair House provision, another 
provision, that would force a 100 percent increase in generic drug 
copays at local pharmacist for military retirees and a 77 percent 
increase in brand-name drug copays for military retirees.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this motion is good for 
American taxpayers and good for our military retirees, who are men and 
women who have served their Nation for 20 or 30 or more years in 
uniform.
  There is just one problem: the pharmaceutical manufacturers do not 
want military retirees on the TRICARE health plan to be able to buy 
discounted drugs at local pharmacies. Why? Because it would cut into 
their already rather substantial profits.
  The choice is clear. The motion is a choice between helping our 
military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans, or helping the 
pharmaceutical companies make even higher profits. I am confident that 
the vast majority of Americans would say that the pocketbooks of those 
who have served our Nation for decades in uniform should take priority 
over higher profits for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
  The real question is whether this House in voting on this motion will 
reflect the values of our constituents and our military retirees, or 
will we reflect the special interests of the pharmaceutical 
manufacturers and their lobbyists.
  The choice should be an easy one. But it appears that the House 
leadership didn't want this provision included in this motion to help 
our military retirees, and they did not support this language, which 
the Senate adopted and put in the House bill. That is why we are here 
today facing this motion. I salute the other body for having put the 
discounted drug price language in their defense bill, which passed the 
Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.
  I urge support, Mr. Speaker, for this motion. I hope we will receive 
bipartisan support. Going along with the pharmaceutical manufacturers 
should not trump saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, 
keeping drug costs affordable for our military retirees, up to 1.9 
million of them, and allowing our military retirees to have access to 
their local pharmacist.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a senior member of the House Armed 
Services Committee and a great supporter of our servicemen and -women 
and our veterans and military retirees.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: the Veterans 
Health Care Act of 1992 directs drug companies to grant discounts on 
all drugs that are supplied to the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Public Health Service, and the 
Coast Guard. These are significant discounts. On average they lower the 
cost to the government for pharmaceuticals provided to beneficiaries by 
30 to 40 percent. The Department of Defense is able to take advantage 
of these discounts in its mail order program and in dispensing drugs in 
its military treatment facilities, hospitals and clinics.
  But the pharmaceutical companies have been balking, refusing to grant 
these discounts to TRICARE beneficiaries. Those are the families of 
active duty members and families of reservists deployed. TRICARE 
beneficiaries, wanting to shop, understandably, with their local 
pharmacy, their local corner drugstore, they have not been able to 
obtain the advantages of these discounted drug prices.
  The Senate has recognized the problem here and has acted to resolve 
it by simply providing that in the future, after this bill becomes law, 
the discounted drug provision will apply not just to military treatment 
facilities, not just to the mail order program, but to TRICARE 
beneficiaries going to private drugstores. And it should. Can anybody 
tell me a reason it should not? Can anybody tell me a reason that 
TRICARE beneficiaries, our military members, shouldn't be able to shop, 
when necessary, at their local pharmacy?
  That is all we are doing here. The Senate approved this 92-0, and we 
are simply saying here, let us recede to the Senate provision, let us 
take a law adopted in 1992 and apply it to all aspects of military 
health care.
  This has a couple of collateral benefits in addition to saving money. 
One is that the House provision, which raises copays for drugs 
purchased otherwise at military facilities, will not be necessary 
because we will save enough money here to make it unnecessary. Another 
is that the Senate provision, harsh I think, which requires mandatory 
mail order as opposed to local pharmacies, that provision too can be 
dispensed with because we will save enough money to do so.
  This is a win-win-win proposition. There is no reason the House 
should not take up the logic and policy of the Senate bill and adopt 
this same provision. Every Member here should vote to instruct our 
conferees to recede to the Senate on this critical provision. It will 
save money and make life better for our TRICARE beneficiaries. There is 
no reason not to do it. There is every reason to do it. I urge its 
support.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the absence of speakers on the other side of 
the aisle is a reflection that there will be bipartisan support for 
this motion to instruct the House conferees on the defense bill. If so, 
then I think that is very good news for our military retirees.
  I certainly want to express my respect to my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Hefley, who is a great champion for our military, both those on 
active duty and our retirees.
  What is a little bit disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, is how we can have 
what at least at this moment might appear to be unanimous support for 
this provision to save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers 
and military retirees by reducing the cost of military retiree 
prescription drugs at pharmacies and have the Senate adopt this 
provision as well, and yet mysteriously it didn't show up in the markup 
in the House Armed Services Committee.
  I don't know what happened. I have heard some rumors suggesting that 
the House leadership opposed putting this provision, helping our 
military retirees and saving taxpayers money, into the bill. Perhaps 
someone could explain to the House and our colleagues and those 
listening, Mr. Speaker, why this provision wasn't put in the markup of 
the

[[Page 17343]]

bill in the first place. But I am not sure anybody has an explanation 
that could withstand the light of day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Boyd), a distinguished veteran himself.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas. I 
won't take 3 minutes. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that any time 
you have a provision, a legislative proposal that saves in performing 
our legislative duties and our executive duties, saves the taxpayers 
money and also enables us to better serve those that we are serving in 
our communities, that is a plus. That is a win-win, as some have said.
  That is exactly what this provision we are discussing that is in the 
Senate bill does. In this case, obviously, it will save Federal 
taxpayer money. And we all know the issues that exist today in our 
budgeting process. We have red ink throughout our future budgeting 
process as far as the eye can see. There is a structural deficit built 
into the budgeting process, which has been extended by this 
administration and this Congress.

                              {time}  1130

  So, in this case, we are helping those that are our military 
retirees, those who we have asked to put on the uniform and go into 
battle, and many of them come back wounded, injured, and then the 
taxpayer has responsibility for seeing that those folks are cared for 
the balance of their lives. This is not a new debate about military 
retirees and how we provide them medical services.
  So if we can do a better job of that back home, and the Senate has a 
better idea in this case, then we should go to it. I think that is what 
we are asking the folks to do. We are saving money, and we are 
providing a better service, better quality services to the folks that 
we have asked to wear the uniform.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing the motion to instruct.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in the gentleman from 
Texas' home State, when you have struck oil, stop drilling.
  And you have struck oil here, and we are not objecting. Trying to 
take care of our veterans in the best way we possibly can is not a 
Democrat or a Republican thing. It is not a partisan thing. It is a 
thing that I think both sides of the aisle feel very, very strongly 
about.
  With that, I don't think I have any further speakers. I reserve the 
balance of my time, unless you are ready to wind this up.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, Mr. Berry of 
Arkansas, whom I would like to recognize. I would like to say that Mr. 
Berry led the charge to send a letter to the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee urging the adoption of this 
language, and I salute him for his leadership on that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank 
him for his leadership in all matters pertaining to the military and 
certainly to our veterans in their care, and they are entitled to the 
best that this country has to offer. I appreciate him, and I also 
appreciate the gentleman from Colorado.
  He is absolutely right. This is not a partisan issue. We should do 
everything within our power to see that the taxpayers get a good deal, 
but we have an obligation to our veterans and our retired military that 
should not be usurped by anyone, any time, any place. They should get 
the best that we have.
  I am amazed that we have even got to deal with this on the House 
floor. This should have been taken care of a long time ago, and many of 
us felt like it was taken care of in the Veterans Health Care Act of 
1992.
  But the amazing thing to me is that we would even consider giving 
mail order, large corporation pharmacies a huge advantage over the 
local retail pharmacies, especially in rural America and in the 
neighborhoods. This is what is going to happen if we don't put this in 
this final defense authorization bill.
  Our veterans should be able to go to any local pharmacy that is the 
front line health care provider for every community. They should be 
able to go to those local pharmacies and take advantage of generally 
free services by well-trained and accomplished professionals that know 
them and know their health needs and know what medicine they are 
taking, and those retail establishments should be able to get their 
pharmaceuticals at the same price that DOD gets them and the same price 
that the mail order companies get them and be able to provide this 
service to our veterans.
  So I am delighted to hear the gentleman from Colorado say that they 
have no objections. I think that is a very wise thing.
  Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing 
good work, and let us move this forward, and let us see that our 
veterans get the care that they deserve, and our retired military and 
their families get the care that they deserve, and let us move on to 
the other problems that we can solve in this same way, working together 
for the common good.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from Colorado if 
he has any speakers on this?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I may have one speaker who has just arrived.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Since we have used more of our time, and since we 
may not have to use the entire time allotted, could I yield back, not 
my time, but to the gentleman from Colorado for the purposes of his 
speaker being recognized.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am just now reading this. Mr. Edwards, this 
is a very bad idea. If you support increasing the cost of medications 
to veterans, then support this motion to instruct.
  If you support increasing the cost to veterans to obtain access to 
their drugs, support this motion to instruct.
  Over the years, those of us have guarded, guarded the Federal Supply 
Schedule. Now, why did Congress pass the Federal Supply Schedule? 
Because we said, you know, we have said to veterans out there, whom are 
disabled, we recognize that they are a precious part of our society, so 
we create the Federal Supply Schedule, which is really the government 
mandating a particular price, and then we jealously guard that. We 
jealously guard that. Why? Because everybody wants to gain access to 
the FSS, the Federal Supply Schedule.
  I have to come to the floor, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, appalled, appalled. I am just dumbfounded that we are, what, 
going to vote on a motion to instruct that we should accept what the 
Senate does?
  It seems that some people in this body are possessed in their fight 
against drug companies. Oh, my gosh, these drug companies are trying to 
seek all kinds of profits. I like to beat up on drug companies, until 
you get sick yourself, and then you want to gain access to all these 
types of drugs whether it is for Medicare pricing or Medicaid pricing, 
DOD.
  I created the retail TRICARE pharmacy program. It took me 3 years to 
do that. If I ever intended for FSS pricing to be included, I would 
have included it in the bill. It is a retail program. As a matter of 
fact, I created the out-of-network retail pharmacy network to give 
these veterans a choice, the military retirees, so that they can gain 
access to some new blockbuster drug and pay a little bit more money for 
it.
  But, please, my colleagues, do not, just before an election, open up 
the Federal Supply Schedule. Do not do this. We do this to protect very 
important members of our society who have been injured, and the 
disabled.
  Now, what has been challenging to us is that Congress then, 
subsequent to having passed this, the Federal Supply Schedule, to gain 
access to lower cost medications for these disabled veterans, we opened 
up access to the VA. You have individuals who have gained greater 
access into the VA.
  That begins an erosion. I understand that. Now we say, oh, my gosh, 
if these veterans are gaining access to the Federal Supply Schedule, 
then what about

[[Page 17344]]

members to DOD. Oh, by the way, let's do it for Medicare and let's do 
it for Medicaid.
  As you increase the pool of people, you are increasing the price of 
the medications to the very same people that you originally sought to 
protect. This is one of those moments where you have to scratch your 
head and say, what are we doing?
  I make an appeal. I come to the floor and appeal to your good 
conscience and to your senses: Do not support this motion to instruct.
  Now, I warned the Department of Defense. I knew that if they didn't 
have authority to do what they wanted to do, they wanted to gain access 
to rebates, I understand what they sought to do. You see, I put it in 
the bill that asked them to go after best business practices.
  Well, the best business practices, they then interpret that is that 
they get the same types of rebates that they get in the private sector. 
So they created something called a warehousing, a virtual warehouse. 
They had to create the virtual warehouse because we in Congress gave 
them no authority, no authority to warehouse to gain access to the 
rebates under the Federal Supply Schedule. It just blows my mind.
  I warned DOD about this. I had my conversations with Dr. 
Winkenwerder. But, you know what, he felt like he was on solid ground. 
I believe he built a house of cards. It has all fallen around him. He 
bet on the budget. He is short. He turns to Congress. He asks all of 
you to try to help him out of the jam he has got himself in.
  I knew a lawsuit was coming. I knew that a lawsuit was going to come 
because the DOD was doing this without any express authority of 
Congress.
  So let me just include an appeal, once again, to the good senses of 
my colleagues: Do not extend FSS pricing to other departments or 
agencies of government. Protect the veterans; protect those who are 
disabled. I just appeal to you. Don't do this.
  Actually, Mr. Edwards, I would ask you to withdraw the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I have great respect for my colleague, the Chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. He and I have worked together for many years on 
veterans' programs. I have never questioned his motivations; I just 
question his judgment in this particular case.
  But he asked a fair question: What are we doing? Let me answer that 
question. What this motion to instruct would do is allow military 
retirees, up to 1.9 million of them, to get the same discounted drug 
prices at a retail pharmacist that the law already ensures they receive 
if they buy those drugs via mail order or if they go into a dispensary 
at a DOD hospital somewhere.
  What are we doing? We are saving, according to estimates, $251 
million this year for taxpayers, lowering the cost of prescription 
drugs for these vast numbers of military retirees.
  What are we doing? We are perhaps saving enough money so that the 
Defense conferees don't have to actually force a 100 percent increase 
in the copay for generic drugs to military retirees and a 77 percent 
increase in the copay for military retirees to buy name-brand drugs. 
That is what we are doing.
  What we are doing is taking a law that was passed in 1992 that the 
Veterans Administration in 2002 said provides the authority to provide 
this discount to retail pharmacies and just clarifying that law.
  Apparently, it wasn't the Department of Defense or Veterans' 
Administration that opposed the kind of language I am supporting; it 
was the drug companies who filed lawsuits in this matter, to prevent 
military retirees for getting cheaper prices. I don't find the 
pharmaceutical manufacturers filing lawsuits so that they could make 
less money.
  Mr. BUYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I would be happy to yield to you.
  Mr. BUYER. The rebates go to the government, they do not go to the 
military retiree. Therefore, the price is not affected by the military.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. That is 
why I say this $251 million in savings in fiscal year 2007, that is 
projected to be over $300 million in savings in fiscal year 2009, can 
be used by the House-Senate conferees to reduce the copay that was put 
in the House bill that some may have felt was necessary for financial 
reasons.
  But if we can find savings to the taxpayers in the Department of 
Defense, let's pass on those savings to our military retirees. I don't 
think Members of Congress are being asked during a time of war to pay 
100 percent more copay for our prescription drugs. I don't think 
military retirees ought to be asked to pay 100 percent increase in 
their copays.
  Mr. BUYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. BUYER. That is a valued argument from your position, given how 
you have drafted the motion to instruct. That is a valued argument.
  I would just ask of the gentleman that when we extend price controls 
to a greater population, as we contend, whether it is military retirees 
as you are talking about or whether we go to Medicaid or Medicare, what 
happens is we begin, at some point, we begin to dull our efforts on 
research and development and going after whatever the new blockbuster 
drug is that presses the bounds of science that our society gets to 
enjoy, improves the quality of our lives.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would say, at some point, if the drug 
companies are not making a reasonable profit, it could significantly 
impact the money they invest in research. But I don't think many in 
this country today would doubt that the drug companies are making very 
healthy profits. And I do salute them on the research that they put 
into coming up with new miracle drugs, but at the same time, I think it 
is a fact that they spend more on advertising on television on the 
drugs than they spend on research and development for their drugs.
  So out of the multibillion-dollar profits that all of our drug 
companies make on their drugs, I have a hard time thinking that 
allowing us to save $251 million this coming year on the cost of retail 
drugs for military retirees is going to put a significant crimp in the 
ability of drug companies to invest in future drugs.
  I agree with the gentleman, the drug companies ought to be able to 
make a reasonable profit. I think they are making a reasonable profit. 
Many Americans think that they are making more than a reasonable 
profit.
  I don't consider what the Senate adopted and what I am recommending 
and what I hope will pass on maybe not a unanimous basis but on a 
bipartisan basis today, I don't see this as price controls. I see this 
as the Federal Government having a right to make a contract with drug 
companies, just like the VA does that every day, as the gentleman 
knows. It says to the drug companies, if you want to sell us drugs at 
the Veterans' Administration, we would like to buy them, but we are 
going to require a 30 to 40 percent discount on those drugs.
  One might make the argument that doing that hurts the profits of the 
drug companies, and therefore, they cannot invest in new drugs. I don't 
think the present policy of the Veterans' Administration saving 
hundreds of millions of dollars by negotiating, not price controls, 
negotiating reasonably discounted prices for drugs when you are 
representing millions of consumers, in this case veterans, I don't 
think that has hurt the drug companies. In fact, it looks to me as if 
they welcome the opportunity to sell millions of dollars of drugs every 
year to the Veterans' Administration.
  I am saying, we should apply that principle not to some other 
unrelated agency but rather to the Department of Defense. It is the 
Veterans Secretary, the VA Secretary, that has said in the past, in his 
judgment, the 1992 law, in the VA's opinion, allowed discounted drugs 
at pharmacies, but it is

[[Page 17345]]

the pharmaceutical manufacturers who have filed the lawsuits to stop 
this from happening.
  I respect the gentleman greatly. I don't challenge, not for a second, 
his motivations. We ought to be concerned about the formulary prices 
staying low for veterans. I just don't see helping military retirees 
who have served our country for 20 to 30 years, some of them for more 
than 30 years, letting them go to local pharmacists and get a 
discounted drug price rather than paying full retail value is really 
going to hurt veterans.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. I follow the logic of your argument until you say it is 
going to help the military retirees because the military retirees don't 
get a specific benefit.
  I concur with you when you say, Steve, let DOD gain access to FSS 
pricing, let them get their rebates. I get DOD savings, and with those 
savings, I can buy equipment and other things. That's your argument.
  To say it is going to help the military retirees gain access through 
the formulary to lower drug prices is not true.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Let me address why I respectfully disagree with the 
gentleman and why I think it is true.
  I am the ranking member, as the gentleman knows, of the Military 
Quality of Life and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in 
the House. Because of the budget limitations and the cost of Department 
of Defense and TRICARE programs this year, the House passed a bill that 
cuts about $730 million out of the President's request for DOD and 
TRICARE health care programs. We have to make up that hole somehow. By 
saving $250 million this year through this motion, if the House and 
Senate conferees agree to it, we help plug a large part of that huge 
hole. If we don't plug that hole, we are going to have to cut health 
care services for military retirees and possibly, I hope we would not, 
but possibly even active duty service men and women.
  So this does help the military retirees. It helps us maintain the 
present level of health care services under TRICARE and gives them 
access to their local pharmacist, which many military retirees prefer. 
They trust their local pharmacist. They would prefer to go to that 
person and get advice and buy the discounted drugs under TRICARE.
  It helps us have a chance to get rid of the 100 percent increase in 
copays for military retirees. I think this motion, if adopted into the 
bill, would help military retirees very significantly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Buyer.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Edwards for yielding to me and 
having this conversation. This is important.
  Members are going to be walking in here, Mr. Edwards, and they are 
not going to know completely what happened with this debate. It would 
not be right for Members to walk in here and think I will vote for Mr. 
Edwards' motion to instruct because I will help a military retiree 
lower his drug cost when he goes to the retail pharmacy. That is just 
not true. So I want the offices that are listening to this debate to 
understand that.
  My greatest concern is opening up the Federal Supply Schedule. So I 
do not want to open up the Federal Supply Schedule to other departments 
or agencies of government, whether it is DOD, whether it is the 
Medicare or Medicaid program, and we can debate each of those. We might 
disagree on things. That is the only point I wanted to make.
  The plausible arguments in defense of your motion, I disagree with 
what you are trying to do here today, and I just wanted to make sure 
that I made that point.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just point out something here today. I think we have seen 
something we rarely see on this floor with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Buyer; 
we have seen an actual discussion of the issue where we actually debate 
the issue, and on both sides, you have intelligent comments being made 
rather than people getting up and reading a statement and talking past 
each other. I just want to commend both of these gentlemen for the 
quality of debate that we have just heard on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for the comment 
about the debate. I think these are the kinds of issues we ought to 
debate. I welcome this kind of debate and honest differences of 
opinion. That is part of my criticism of the congressional process 
these days. It seems like so many times decisions get made behind 
closed doors, and the public does not know how those decisions are 
made. I think this is a healthy debate.
  Despite my great respect for Mr. Buyer, I think this motion, if 
adopted into the final Defense bill for fiscal year 2007, would benefit 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of our military retirees by letting 
them have access to low-priced prescription drugs at their local 
pharmacy by perhaps allowing us not to follow through with what I think 
is an unfair proposal from the House to double, to increase by 100 
percent the copays that our military retirees pay for their drugs. We 
are not asking Members of Congress to double our copays for our 
prescription drugs this year during a time of war. I don't think we 
should ask our military retirees, many who have served 20 or 30 years 
in the military, to have an increase in copay for their drugs. We are 
not willing to ask ourselves to do that.
  I think this is a beneficial motion. I believe it will be accepted 
with, not unanimous support, but with bipartisan support.
  The only caution I want to urge, the good advice of my Texas 
colleague, mentioned by my friend from Colorado, when you have hit oil, 
you can stop drilling. I think the real test of whether we have hit oil 
or whether we have hit a dry hole is whether the language adopted 
already by the Senate, the language we will hopefully support on a 
bipartisan basis today on my motion, actually gets put in the final 
defense authorization bill.
  I would issue a warning that oftentimes we pass motions to instruct 
conferees on an overwhelming basis if not unanimous basis in this 
House, and somehow, behind closed doors, the interest of those we care 
about, in this case the interest of military retirees, seems to somehow 
not be considered as carefully as the interest of other special 
interests.
  I think this is a good motion. I know the pharmaceutical companies 
have filed lawsuits to stop the discount pricing of drugs at retail 
pharmacies. They have a right to do that. Congress has the right and 
the responsibility today to say that, in 1992, we made a decision 
saying that our retirees ought to have access to discounted drugs at 
pharmacists as well as via mail order.
  I urge bipartisan support of this motion to instruct. Unless the 
gentleman from Indiana wants to continue an honest debate, I would 
yield back.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to respond to Mr. Edwards' 
comments that he understands there is a lawsuit because the drug 
companies do not want to give discounts on their drugs to the retail 
pharmacies, paraphrasing what I believe you said. That is not what the 
lawsuit is. That is not what the lawsuit is about.
  What the lawsuit is about, as I understand this, is that DOD created 
a virtual depot, and they created this virtual depot or warehouse 
because they had no authority under the statutes to do this. They 
needed to create a warehouse so they could obtain access to rebates 
that are being done out in the private sector. So it was clever. It was 
smart and clever, but they had no authority to do this.
  I warned DOD, and I spoke to Dr. Winkenwerder. I said, please don't 
do this. If you do this, there are going to

[[Page 17346]]

be lawsuits because you have no authority to do this at all. He felt 
that he did. That is what the lawsuit is about.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Just to 
summarize, the Military Officers Association of America urges support 
for this change in the law. If the drug manufacturers would like to 
join with military retirees and the largest organization in America 
representing those retirees, I would welcome that support.
  I urge bipartisan support for this motion to instruct conferees on 
the Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to commend Mr. Buyer and Mr. Edwards on their sincere concern 
for the welfare of our veterans. They see things differently on this 
particular issue, but that doesn't take away from the concern that both 
have. They are good friends, and I know where their heart is on this, 
and it is in the right place.
  As I said earlier, we have had the kind of debate I wish we could 
have more often here in the House of Representatives.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support the Motion 
to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
  The motion to instruct offered by my colleague, Representative Chet 
Edwards, would instruct House conferees to insist on Senate-passed 
language regarding the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. That language 
would allow TRICARE beneficiaries to purchase prescriptions from their 
local pharmacies at the same cost as through mail-order services, 
ensuring that our veterans and military retirees are not forced to pay 
more merely to visit their neighborhood drug store.
  The Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 requires drug manufacturers to 
grant a Federal pricing discount on all drugs provided to the 
Department of Defense, Veterans' Administration, the Public Health 
Service and the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, not all drug manufacturers 
grant this discount on drugs provided to retail pharmacy stores, 
instead only applying the discount to mail-order prescriptions.
  It is understandable that the Department of Defense would want to 
contain growing prescription drug costs. However, forcing TRICARE 
beneficiaries to obtain prescriptions by mail-order is not the 
solution--rather, we need to clarify that drug manufacturers must 
provide Federal pricing for all medications dispensed through the 
TRICARE retail pharmacy network. Section 721 of the Senate version of 
the Defense Authorization bill would do just this.
  Representatives of the Department of Defense have acknowledged that 
Federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE 
retail pharmacy network would ``significantly'' contain growing 
prescription drug costs. It has been estimated that if the Senate 
provision is enacted, it could save taxpayers up to $251 million in 
fiscal year 2007, and more than $300 million annually by fiscal year 
2009, by requiring Federal pricing discounts to be applied to these 
TRICARE retail pharmacies.
  I have heard serious concerns expressed by veterans and military 
retirees in my district about this issue many times this summer. There 
are times when it is not possible to wait for a mail order to come 
before a person might need to begin taking their prescriptions. In 
those cases, for example, the men and women who have bravely served our 
country should not be punished for buying their prescriptions down the 
block. Our veterans, military retirees and their families deserve to 
have the option to use a pharmacy, and the services of a pharmacist, 
when they have questions regarding their prescriptions and their 
health. Passing this motion to instruct allows them that option.
  We must ensure that our veterans and military retirees receive the 
benefits they have so courageously earned, and this motion to instruct 
will help guarantee they are not penalized for doing so. I support this 
motion to instruct, and strongly urge my colleagues to do as well.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________