Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule because H.R. 1 offers the wrong vision for Medicare. H.R. 1 asks every Member a fundamental question, what do you want Medicare to be? If you want Medicare coverage that is guaranteed, dependable, universal and fair, you will vote against H.R. 1. If you want Medicare to cover every senior everywhere, you will vote against H.R. 1. If you want Medicare to offer the same coverage to seniors on Park Avenue as seniors in Appalachian, Ohio, you will vote against H.R. 1.

But Mr. Speaker, if you want Medicare to offer unreliable, selective, discriminatory coverage, you will support H.R. 1. If you want Medicare to offer seniors in Appalachian, Ohio, less coverage than seniors on Park Avenue or no coverage at all, you will vote for H.R. 1. If you want Medicare to offer

rural seniors coverage, but at three or four times the price, then you will vote for H.R. 1. If you want a plan written by the drug companies and by the insurance companies because of their huge contributions to the Republican Party, if you want that, then you will vote for H.R. 1; and if you want a bill that will force people who now have prescription drug coverage, a bill that will force seniors who now have prescription drug coverage to drop that coverage, then you will vote for H.R. 1.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will offer a substitute amendment with a different version of Medicare. The Rangel-Dingell substitute strengthens Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit, no unaffordable cost sharing, no gaps in coverage. The Rangel-Dingell substitute would maintain Medicare's guaranteed coverage, remaining faithful to the trust Medicare has earned from America's seniors.

The Rangel-Dingell substitute harnesses seniors' purchasing power to demand better prices from the drug industry. My friend from Kentucky had it all wrong when he said the Republican plan does that. The Republican plan, because it was written by the drug companies, does nothing to bring prices down.

Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1. Vote ``yes'' on the Rangel-Dingell substitute.

Mr. Speaker, for years Republicans have tried to frighten seniors by telling them that Medicare was going broke. The media in this country scolded the Republicans for their Mediscare tactics. Well tonight, Republicans have graduated from using Mediscare tactics to a new level, and that is scam.

Mediscam number one: my Republican colleagues tout H.R. 1 as the largest expansion of Medicare since the program's inception calling their plan generous. But under H.R. 1, seniors will be required to pay $4,000 out of pocket to receive $5,000 in benefits. That is not generous; that is not even insurance.

Mediscam number two: my Republican colleagues say we should pass H.R. 1 because seniors deserve better coverage options like those available to Members of Congress, yet this bill's drug coverage is less generous than the least generous coverage available to Members of Congress. That is not treating seniors like Members of Congress; that is treating seniors for suckers.

Mediscam number three: my Republican colleagues say H.R. 1 gives seniors coverage they can trust. It is an expansion of the old, failed Medicare+Choice program which has dropped coverage for 2 million seniors outright. H.R. 1 is not coverage you can trust; H.R. 1 is coverage that cashes the check, then leaves seniors hanging.

Mediscam number four: my Republican colleagues say H.R. 1 will enhance the security of America's retirees, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says about one-third of employers will drop their retiree benefits if H.R. 1 becomes law. In other words, H.R. 1 will force seniors out of the drug coverage they now have. It will force seniors out of the drug coverage they now have.

Mediscam number five: my Republican colleagues say H.R. 1 will bring prices down through the magic of competition. How could that be? The drug industry wrote this legislation; the insurance industry wrote this legislation. They do not want lower prices, they want higher prices, and that is why my Republican colleagues took out any ability for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to lower drug prices. In fact, the drug companies gave $85 million to my Republican friends for their reelection in 2002 and tens of millions of dollars to President Bush.

Mediscam number six: my Republican colleagues say forcing seniors into private health insurance will reduce health care costs because private plans are more efficient. My Republican friends know that private insurance plans actually operate less efficiently than Medicare with administrative costs five times higher than Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to spend tax dollars bribing HMOs. It is irresponsible to provoke employers into dropping retiree health coverage. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I worked on the markup of the prescription drug bill, the Republican Medicare privatization bill, the other day; and I really could not figure out why Republicans were in every case doing the bidding of the drug companies and in every case doing the bidding of the insurance companies.

I asked the chairman if it could be perhaps that because the drug companies contributed about $80 million to campaigns last year, about 85 percent of that to Republicans, and the chairman said that could not be it. I asked if because our committee markup on two different occasions was delayed, stopped until the next day, stopped early because President Bush was headlining a major Republican event honoring the CEO of Glaxo Wellcome, one of the largest drug companies in the world, in this case a British drug company. He said that had nothing to do with it. I asked if it could be perhaps because President Bush was in the midst of raising millions of dollars this year from the drug companies and the insurance companies, if that is why the Republican drug bill was written by the drug industry and the insurance industry, and he said no to that.

Now, I will take the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce at his word, that Republicans were not at the beck and call of the drug and insurance industry because the drug and insurance industry so richly funds the Republican Party. I will take them at their word.

But I finally figured out the reason that Republicans always do the bidding of the drug and insurance companies and why the Republicans want to privatize Medicare is because they just do not much like Medicare. And while that may sound strange to some Members of this House or anyone else that might be watching, I think we need to look at the history of Medicare.

In 1965, there were only 11 Republican Members of Congress out of 150 or 160 or so, only 11 Members of Congress on that side of the aisle that actually supported the creation of Medicare. Gerald Ford, later to become President, opposed it. Bob Dole, later to be a Senator and then a presidential nominee. Opposed the creation of Medicare. Strom Thurmond, a longtime, longest-serving Senator in U.S. history, opposed the creation of Medicare. Donald Rumsfeld, now the Secretary of Defense, was a Member of the House in those days and he opposed the creation of Medicare. Basically, almost every single Republican opposed the creation of Medicare. They made all kinds of comments about big government and socialized medicine, all of those kinds of things they said because they just did not want a government health care program like Medicare.

Then, during the Reagan administration, Republicans tried several attempts to privatize Medicare. They cut reimbursement for hospitals, they cut reimbursement for doctors, they tried to scale back the Medicare benefit for seniors, but they really could not get much through a Democratic Congress. But then, the day came in 1995 when Newt Gingrich came on the scene as the new Speaker and Newt Gingrich literally waited fewer than 100 days, literally fewer than 100 days until he tried the beginning of the dismantling of Medicare.

What Speaker Gingrich did was he tried to cut Medicare $270 million and

then to turn around and give a major tax cut, taking the money from Medicare, and giving a major tax cut to the wealthiest people in sight. Does that sound familiar? That is what they are basically doing today, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. In this case, the tax cut for millionaires is $90,000.

Speaker Gingrich also made a statement. He said, ``We can't get rid of Medicare''; this was back in 1995. He said, ``We can't get rid of Medicare in round one because we don't think that is politically smart, but we believe it is going to wither on the vine.''

Bob Dole that same year bragged to a conservative group, a group of conservative politicians who do not like Medicare; sort of the Republican line. He said, Bob Dole said, I was there 30 years ago fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, trying to stop it from ever being created.

So it is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be just the fact that Republicans raise a ton of money from the drug companies and a ton of money from the insurance companies, and that is why they are for Medicare privatization and that is why they want to turn Medicare over to the drug and insurance industries. It may not be that; it may be that they have an honest, philosophical difference with us and with 90 percent of the American public. They just do not like Medicare. They voted against creating it. They bragged about voting against creating it. Speaker Gingrich voted to cut it on several occasions.

And now in 2003, with a Republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican House, this is their golden opportunity to privatize Medicare. That is what this vote is all about this week. The Republicans, at the behest of the insurance companies and the drug companies, want to privatize the health care system that has worked for America's seniors.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the new Republican star in their efforts to privatize Medicare, in their efforts to dismantle Medicare, has said, and I will end with this, Mr. Speaker, he said, to those who would say the bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is, from the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we certainly hope so. Old fashioned Medicare is not very good. We want to end it.

Mr. Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' on the Republican plan, vote ``yes'' on the Democratic plan that will preserve Medicare and provide a solid prescription drug benefit for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my friend, and the fabulous work he has done and the courage he has shown in standing up to very powerful interest groups in this country in supporting and fighting for a drug benefit.

I noticed something that the gentleman just said as I was sitting here watching this evening, that this bill does nothing to hurt the drug industry or the insurance industry. In fact, this bill, by and large, was written by the drug and insurance industries.

Let us talk for a moment about price. When any of us, Republicans or Democrats, people on that side of the room and people on this side of the room, go to a town meeting or go to a senior center or walk down the street or walk downtown or walk through a shopping mall and talk to people of all ages, especially seniors, but people of all ages about the whole issue of prescription drugs, the first thing they say is, why are our drug prices higher than the drug prices anywhere else in the world? And these are prescription drugs generally made in the United States, developed in the United States, manufactured in the United States. And, in fact, these drugs often, much of the research and development for these drugs was done in America and funded by U.S. taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health.

So we have the most profitable industry in America, 20 years running, whether it is return on investment, return on sales, return on equity, the drug industry, we have an industry that enjoys the lowest tax rate in America, in large part because of what this Congress and this President have done in giving them tax advantages. And, on top of that, we have an industry where much of the research, almost half of the research and development which leads to this industry's profits, to the drugs this industry manufactures, almost half of the research and development has been done by taxpayers, a full half has been done by taxpayers and by foundations. We put

all of that together, and then we say, why is it fair that this industry charges American consumers more than consumers in any other country in the world?

I have sponsored a dozen or so bus trips to Canada for seniors in my district and people who are not seniors, on some occasions. It is about a 2\1/2\ hour ride from Lorain in my district. We have taken trips from Medina and we will take them from Akron. It is about a 2, 2\1/2\, 2\3/ 4\ hour drive to Canada. They buy their prescriptions, they have saved literally hundreds of dollars per person, sometimes even more than that.

But why should drugs made in the United States and, in many cases, underwritten by taxpayer research, why should those drugs cost two and three times more here than they do in Canada? The reason is, frankly, because of the drug industry's influence on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The reason is President Bush's close alliances with the drug companies and the fact that the drug industry funds large parts of his campaign.

The gentleman from New Jersey may remember a couple of years ago, last year when we considered this drug bill about this time of year, we were in the middle of our committee work and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) recessed the committee for the day at about 5 or 6 o'clock because all of the Republican Members had to go off to a fundraiser headlined by President Bush, sponsored by the CEO of Glaxo Wellcome, a British drug company who makes millions of dollars a year, sponsored by them and headlined by President Bush. President Bush personally thanked the CEO of Glaxo Wellcome for all of the work they did in raising literally millions of dollars. Then, it is no surprise that come election time, the drug industry put in literally $80 million, hard money, soft money, independent expenditures, all the way, directly or indirectly, they put money into campaigns, they put that kind of money into these political campaigns. We can see the chart, if the gentleman from New Jersey would point out the chart next to him and in front of me, about drug company contributions, and if the gentleman would explain that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the issue is partly campaign money, but the real issue is the fact that Republicans and President Bush have invited the drug companies into their offices, into the Oval Office to meet with the President's people, into the Lincoln bedroom, if you will, in terms of putting big amounts of money into the White House, big amounts of money into President Bush's campaign and getting out pieces of legislation that benefit them.

In this country we continue to pay two and three and four times what the Canadians pay, the French pay, the Germans pay, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Finns, the Brits, all of the wealthy countries in the world, we pay two and three and four times what they do. And this drug bill, written by the drug companies and introduced by the Republicans, there is nothing in this bill, nothing in this bill to get prices under control. And that is what is outrageous, when the drug industry continues to fleece the American public. And it does not just hurt every senior who reaches into his pocket to pay the high cost of drugs, it is also what it does to American business, what it does to GM, or what it does to GoJo Industries in Akron or what it does to Inyacare in Elyria.

On the one hand, taxpayers are paying for all of this research and, on the other hand, Medicaid and other tax-supported institutions in this country are paying high prices for prescription drugs. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, Congress continues, as they have done with Medicare HMOs, as President Bush has pushed for, and as the Republicans in their drug plan, cowritten by the drug and insurance industries suggest and propose, we have continued to ``subsidize'' is one word, ``pay off'' is another one; we continue to dump more and more millions and tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, ultimately billions of dollars we dump into these insurance companies, and what are we getting?

There was a study put out literally today by a group called Families USA, a group that represents seniors and especially families around the country, a large organization.

They did a study of the average salary of CEOs for big insurance companies, the big HMOs that will benefit from this Medicare privatization plan. So understand, President Bush wants seniors out of traditional Medicare, put them in these private insurance HMOs. Now the average pay for the CEOs of these largest insurance companies, HMOs that will be handling Medicare if the Republicans get their way, is more than $15 million.

Now, contrast the $15 million salary, plus I am not even counting stock options and all that, but just their base salary, contrast $15 million the CEO of the insurance companies make with the $130,000, which is what the CEO, if you will, Tom Scully of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services makes, the agency that runs Medicare for our government.

So you have got $15 million on the average for the CEO of the insurance companies which will run Medicare if the Republicans get their way, versus $130,000 running Medicare the way it is done now, traditional Medicare.

You make one other comparison. You have the insurance companies are spending three and four times on administrative expenses more than Medicare spends. Medicare's administrative expenses are between 1 and 2 percent. Insurance company Medicare expenses are between three and four times that amount. And then the last comparison if you are in traditional Medicare, you stay in Medicare. They do not cut you

out. They do not throw you off. They do not decide to abandon you. They do not take your plan out of the county. If you are in a private Medicare HMO, even with these big salaries they are paying the executives, maybe because of that, they pull out of a county. They drop tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of seniors out of their plan.

One CEO in particular, United Health Care, a big insurance company HMO, paid Norm Payson, last year he was paid $76 million. And that $76 million could cover about 30,000 seniors for prescription drugs. So look at what you have got. You have got big salaries, high administrative expenses, and organizations that will dump seniors out, that is, unreliable care; or you have lower salaries, smaller bureaucracy, a government program which will never ever dump seniors, which will provide reliable care, which will always be there for those seniors.

It is a pretty easy choice. You have the Republican plan, the privatized plan; or you have the Democratic plan, traditional Medicare, which seniors in this country have used and plans that have obviously served seniors well for 38 years.

It can be so simple. In Canada, what the Canadian people do, what the Canadian Government does is they have created a small office with a board called the Pricing Board and the Pricing Board negotiates on behalf of 29 million Canadians with individual drug companies, German companies, French companies, American companies, Canadian companies. They negotiate price and then the drug is sold, for every drug manufactured, then the drugs are sold to retailers, sold wholesale into Canada at those much, much lower prices because they have negotiated them on behalf of 29 million Canadians. Then the drug stores negotiate, and they end up with much lower prices.

So it would not be difficult for this Congress to figure out a way, there are a dozen ways, the Canadian way is a very simple and effective way obviously because you can tell from the prices there, but it is not difficult to come up with a way to bring prices down.

The reason that the Republicans have not chosen any of those methods is anybody's guess; but it is hard to believe that they are doing it for any other reason than their political closeness, if you will, political allegiances to the big drug manufacturers.

I know it offended our chairman in the markup and it offends some Republicans, including the President, to suggest that their behavior on this bill is connected to their drug company contributions. But when you saw the drug companies spend 80 or $90 million last year, 85 percent of it going to Republicans, when they spend that kind of money, it is hard to believe that the Republicans would do anything without the drug companies' approval.

I would argue the Republicans have not just not done anything without drug company approval. I suggest they have turned over the writing of the legislation to the drug companies. They could not have done a less effective job. They could not have done a worse job of controlling prices, of ratcheting drug prices down than this bill does.

As the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) pointed out, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) pointed out earlier this evening, this bill not only does not do anything to try to restrain prices, to ratchet prices down; it expressly prohibits the government from doing anything to get the price down. It is so logical to say to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, all you have to do is negotiate on behalf of U.S. consumers, Medicare beneficiaries or the entire consuming public of all ages. You simply need to negotiate price.

Another way we could do it is say that Medicare should pay no more than the Canadian price or the average price of the G-7 nations, the largest economies in the world, whatever price they are paying. There is a lot of ways to do it; but the way not to do it is the Republican way of doing nothing and actually prohibiting the government from doing anything from getting prices down. The higher prices are hurting seniors individually, hurting American business, and American competitiveness in this economy that continues to drift, continues to stagnate; and it obviously is hurting U.S. taxpayers because we are paying too much for drugs.

I yield back because I think the gentleman wants to share with other Members of the House the language that is actually in the Republican drug bill.

That is exactly my argument. Under the Republican plan, you just simply do the math, and we know that seniors around the country will do the math. I hope they do the math before tomorrow when we vote on this bill because once they have, they will see they are not getting very much in this benefit. For a senior in the United States under the Republican plan who has $5,000 in drug costs, the government will only pick up $1,000. Four thousand of that will come from out-of- pocket costs. So $5,000 drug costs, saving only 20 percent of that. The government will only pay 20 percent. The senior will pay $4,000 out-of- pocket costs. What is so disingenuous about the Republican plan is that it is hard to figure out because they charge a premium. They say it might be $35, but the only time it has ever been tried it was $85 a month. Then there is a $250 deductible. Then they pay 20 percent of the first $2,000, but after $2,000 they pay zero percent. The government does of the next $2,100. It is very complicated.

That is what you are talking about. The Democratic plan operates the same way traditional Medicare does. It is a simple $35 premium, $250 deductible, 20 percent co-pay, and then 100 percent coverage by the government of catastrophic coverage if you have huge drug bills.

It is very simple by the way the Democrats do it because it operates the same way that traditional Medicare does. Seniors know how Medicare operates. The Republican plan is so confusing, so Rube Goldberg-like, so complex, so difficult to understand, I challenge my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle to try to explain it. I do not think anybody can explain it very well. But they will have to explain it when seniors see, if this bill passes, seniors see how difficult it is to understand that.

The point the gentleman made too is that not only is the Democratic plan simple and the Republican plan a Rube Goldberg, complex, almost unfathomable kind of plan, but the Republican plan does nothing to keep prices down. And the Democratic plan gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the right to negotiate and bring prices down the way the Canadians do and to reimport drugs, to bring drugs in from Canada if they are not cheap enough in the United States.

And that simply makes all the difference in the world; that our plan is simple, and our plan will bring drug prices down, and our plan is a generous, adequate benefit for America's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the President has been bringing Members to the White House today and lobbying them, and I also know the President this week has raised a lot of drug company money and insurance company money. The President is using the power of the Presidency trying to get people to pass this. And from the reports coming out of the meetings from Members whom I have talked to, in both parties, the President is not talking about the details of the bill. He is just saying you have to do this for me. We need a prescription drug benefit. Seniors deserve it. But he is not doing the math for them.

If every Member of Congress tonight, tomorrow morning, before we vote on this tomorrow during the day would sit down and calculate, listen to the discussions like this and calculate individual numbers about what seniors are going to get, and then would look at what drug prices are, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) pointed out, what drug prices are in Canada, France, and Germany, what they are in the United States, and how this bill does nothing about that, and then look at how this bill privatizes Medicare in 2010, I think Members, particularly if they began to listen to what people at home are saying, would have a very different take on this bill, no matter what the President said, no matter how many campaign contributors that Republican leadership and the President of the United States want to honor by passing this legislation.

If the gentleman will yield for just a moment, and I know the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is here, but the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just talked about privatization, as we have. We know that idealogically, in addition to the drug company and the insurance industry contributions to the Republicans and how that seems to affect their thinking, we also know that some Republicans just do not like Medicare. There is a history of it.

Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, and Bob Dole voted against it when it was created 38 years ago. Newt Gingrich tried to cut it so he would have money for his tax cuts. Same old story. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who is the number one point man in this entire Congress to privatize Medicare, he said this morning, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, he said, ``To those who say that the bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is, we certainly hope so. Old-fashioned Medicare isn't very good.''

That is like Newt Gingrich saying Medicare would wither on the vine and Bob Dole, just a few years ago, before he ran for President, saying I fought the fight to try to stop Medicare from being created. These guys do not like Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I would add it is pretty clear there are two things going on. One is the huge contributions from drug and insurance interests and connections between that and the Republican plan, essentially since it is pretty clear those interest groups wrote the plan.

Second, they just do not like Medicare. There is clear evidence of a 38-year history of that. But the proof is in the pudding. One, it is what the legislation looks like. The second way the proof is in the pudding is that this debate is held in the middle of the night. The Committee on Rules will meet later this evening. It is already 5 after 11 in Washington. The Committee on Rules will meet behind closed doors with no C-SPAN and no reporters basically there to make these decisions.

And while the Senate is debating their plan, which is moving toward some bipartisanship, for several days, we will have a debate tomorrow of only a few hours. That will be the end of it. The Republicans do not want the public to learn about this. That is why it

is so important that our colleagues speak out and make sure that people understand the difference between the simple Democratic plan that adequately covers seniors and ratchets down the price of prescription drugs, and the Republican confusing plan which gives very little benefit, is written by the drug companies, pushes seniors out of traditional Medicare into private plans, and does nothing about getting prices down.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Does a motion to adjourn not take precedence over any other motion?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minutes of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, 2003 promises to be the third straight year of double-digit premium increases in health insurance. Guess what else is increasing at double-digit rates? Drug industry profits. In 2001 while the rest of the Nation was reeling from a plummeting economy, the drug industry boosted their profits by 33 percent. In 2002, profits registered by the 10 drug companies on the Fortune 500 list were equal to more than half the $70 billion in profits netted by the entire roster of Fortune 500 companies. The top 10 drug companies raked in profits 5\1/2\ times greater than the median for all industries. Over the last 20 years, the drug industry has been the most profitable industry in America.

Return on investment, return on sales, return on equity, any way you measure it for the last 20 years, the drug industry has been the most profitable industry in America. And the drug industry has paid lower tax rates than any other industry in America. While the drug industry tells lawmakers that any limits on their profits will crimp innovation, they rarely acknowledge they spend more money on marketing their drugs than they do in research and development. They seldom mention, as I said, they pay the lowest tax rates of any industry in America; and

they seldom mention that the government and foundations do literally half of all their research and development that leads to new drugs. Families USA found that in 2001 the nine drug companies selling the most drugs to American seniors spent more money, in fact spent more than twice as much money on marketing and on administration than they did on research and development.

The Republican majority would like us to accept a Medicare drug plan that is administered by profit-driven insurance companies, profit- driven HMOs who will negotiate with profit-driven drug companies on behalf of our most vulnerable populations. It is not hard to see who is going to lose out in those negotiations, Mr. Speaker.

This Republican plan will not guarantee seniors access to fair-priced drugs, it will not guarantee seniors access to health care, but you can bet the Republican plan will guarantee sustained double-digit profit margins for the Nation's drug companies. Responding to the public outrage at astronomical drug prices, the brand-name drug industry says not to worry, prescription drugs actually save money by reducing health care costs. That is true if prescription drugs were more reasonably priced, but under the Republican bill they will not be. There is no doubt prescription medicines reduce disability and can prevent illnesses which helps alleviate the need for other health care services. Unfortunately, though, Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs are priced so outrageously high that the costs associated with their increased use far outstrips any offsetting savings that might accrue. They are so high priced that millions of seniors and other Americans simply cannot afford them. The choice too often is between heat and their prescription drugs in winter. The choice too often is between food and prescription drugs. Even a miracle cure is worthless if people who need it cannot afford it.

Skyrocketing drug costs are jeopardizing employer-sponsored health insurance, undercutting the financial security of seniors and absorbing an enormous and increasing share of limited Federal and State tax revenues devoted to health care. Something has to give.

The reason the drug industry has spent millions of dollars lobbying for the Republican Medicare bill is because the industry knows that scattering seniors into multiple private plans undercuts the purchasing power that Medicare would provide. They know that squashing efforts to consolidate the purchasing power put 40 million seniors into one purchasing pool to save money. They know that mixing them up into smaller numbers in a multitude of plans enables the drug companies to sustain outrageous drug prices. That is why the drug companies lobbied so hard for the Republican prescription drug plan.

The government negotiates price on everything else. When the Architect of the Capitol bought the carpet for this room, he did not take the manufacturer's word that a fair price would impair his fiber research. When the National Park Service buys park rangers' uniforms, he does not take the first bid that comes in.

But not with prescription drugs. On prescription drugs, Republicans insist that the government take whatever price the drugmakers want to charge. If you want to talk about an incentive, that is an incentive. It is an incentive to turn the screws on American businesses who cannot afford the price of prescription drugs in their health plans, to turn the screws on American families and seniors who cannot afford the price of prescription drugs, and to turn the screws on government because taxpayers cannot afford the outrageous cost of these prescription drugs.

I do not lose sleep, Mr. Speaker, over sustaining double-digit profit margins for the drug industry. I am concerned, however, at the millions of Americans who are shouldering the burden for these double-digit profit margins at the expense of their health. The average Medicare beneficiary earns $14,000 a year. Many of the prescription drugs seniors use cost about $100 per prescription per month. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan written by the drug companies does not make sense for American seniors. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Dingell- Rangel substitute which will provide drug coverage and will ratchet down prices so Americans no longer pay higher prices than any other country in the world for prescription drugs that are manufactured right here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have just never really liked Medicare. Medicare was enacted in 1965, despite the overwhelming opposition of Republicans in Congress. Only 13, fewer than 10 percent, only 13 of the 140 Republicans in the House in those days backed Medicare. Bob Dole voted ``no.'' Gerald Ford voted ``no.'' The soon-to-be minority leader, John Rhodes, voted ``no''; Strom Thurmond voted ``no,'' Donald Rumsfeld, a Member of Congress then, all leaders in their party, in the Republican Party, voted against the creation of Medicare. They were unapologetic at the time. Most of them are unapologetic about their opposition and their willingness to undercut Medicare today.

Senator Bob Dole, 20 years later as a candidate for President representing the Republican Party, told a conservative group called the American Conservative Union, he said, ``I was there, fighting the fight, one of only 12 voting against Medicare.'' Actually, I do not know where he came up with 12, there were many more than that, but one of a few, he said, voting against Medicare. The Reagan administration some years later led the first substantive swings at Medicare. With the help of congressional allies, he succeeded in cutting Medicare payments to doctors and raising seniors' Medicare out-of-pocket expenses. But it was not until Republicans took over the House in 1994 the Republican leadership had a realistic chance at obtaining their long-held goal of killing Medicare. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, almost immediately after being sworn in in January, led a failed bid to cut Medicare by $270 billion to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country. Sound familiar? Cut Medicare, free up the dollars, so you can give a tax cut to the richest 5 percent, richest 6 percent of people in this country.

Among the Gingrich Medicare plans, a key supporter was then Governor of

Texas, George W. Bush. That same year, Gingrich offered a candid overview of the Republicans' Medicare strategy and said this: ``Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we just don't think that is politically smart. We don't think that is the right way to go through a transition. But because of what we are doing,'' he said, ``we believe it is going to wither on the vine.''

The privatization extremists' next gambit was launched toward the end of the Gingrich era, hidden within the innocent-sounding Medicare+Choice program. The Mediscare privatizers told us that HMOs were so efficient compared to government-run Medicare they could provide both basic and enhanced benefits like prescription drugs for less than traditional Medicare spent on basic benefits alone. HMOs initially received a windfall on the taxpayers' dime, because they only wanted to insure the healthiest people, that did not cost much; and that is how they selectively enrolled those healthiest seniors. When that windfall was erased by providing the cost of extra benefits, HMOs came back to Congress asking for more money and abandoned their original efficiency rhetoric and brazenly charged that Medicare had ``shortchanged'' them.

Did we cut our losses? Did Congress cut our losses and end the Medicare+Choice program? No. For the Medicare privatization crowd in Congress, a private failure was still better than a public success, so Congress again diverted scarce taxpayer dollars from the traditional Medicare program, taking money from the 85 percent of the people who are in traditional fee-for-service, old-time, regular, it-works Medicare and shored up the failed insurance scheme HMO+Choice system.

Now, with the same George W. Bush in the White House who championed the Gingrich Medicare cuts in the mid-1990s to pay for tax cuts for the rich when he was Governor, the time is right, President Bush seems to think, for Republicans to now launch a full-scale attack to privatize Medicare. The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means are considering radical bills this week, voucher bills, Medicare privatization bills that will end Medicare as we know it, end the Medicare that has been with us for almost 40 years, almost 4 decades, and will end it by the year 2010.

The fact of the matter is the Republican bill will replace Medicare's dependable, affordable and universal coverage with a voucher program. Millions of seniors, already burned by Medicare+Choice abandonments, so many seniors have seen their Medicare HMOs go out of business, leave the State, leave the counties as they have in Lorain and Summit and Medina counties in my district, those same seniors are going to be asked to one more time put their faith in Medicare+Choice, in Medicare HMOs. Benefits and premiums would vary from county to county, ending the equity embodied by Medicare for a generation, and the Republican bill would cover only a small fraction of the Medicare costs.

The only question is whether the majority of Americans who recognize a success when they see one will let Republicans get away with putting the final stake in Medicare's heart.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, my House Republican friends have managed to come up with a prescription drug bill that is even less generous and even more destructive to Medicare than last year's exercise. Under this year's bill, Medicare as we know it ends in 7 years. In 7 years, Medicare would be replaced by a voucher to cover part of the premium for health insurance. Let me repeat that. Under the Republican plan, Medicare would no longer provide guaranteed benefits in spite of their talk about more choice. It would instead give seniors a defined contribution voucher. So much for the Medicare entitlement. So much for guaranteed benefits for America's elderly. So much for the choices that matter. Choice of hospital, we have that today. Choice of physician, we have that today. Under the Republican plan, their voucher scheme would give seniors the choice, the choice, to enroll in whatever HMO happens to set up shop temporarily in their neighborhood. That is not the kind of choice seniors, who now can choose their doctor, who now can choose their hospital, it is not one-size-fits-all, it is seniors have full choice, it is not the kind of choice that seniors have today.

The Republican bill is a privatization bill. It is not a drug bill. It is an affront to seniors who depend on Medicare and to taxpayers whose money will be wasted paying off private insurance health plans, paying off HMOs in order to get them to participate in this Republican big insurance company, big drug company program.

Medicare vouchers are not a fiscally responsible alternative to Medicare. In fact, they will increase overall costs. The Republican plan reduces government spending by increasing out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Private premiums in this country are rising at about 15 percent compared to Medicare's about 4.1 percent increases. Administrative expenses for private insurance historically are 2\1/2\ times the administrative expenses of Medicare and Medicaid. So much for the argument that privatization is more efficient. Private insurance spending per enrollee has grown faster than Medicare in the last 30 years. If private drug plans can get better prices for drugs than Medicare, why is the drug industry lobbying for private plans? The only way privatizing Medicare can cut costs is by shifting those costs from the Federal Government onto the backs of seniors and their families.

Here are a couple of other hidden provisions in the House Republican drug bill. My colleagues increase Medicare costs for all seniors, not just those who enroll in drug coverage, by racheting up the Medicare part B premium. Seniors will continue to pay more and more and more under the Republican privatization give-it-to-the-insurance-companies health plan. They double-tax higher income seniors by income-relating Medicare coverage. They have dropped an even bigger doughnut hole in their coverage, cutting off benefits to seniors with higher drug costs. In other words, as their costs go up, the government no longer covers them. They cut reimbursement to hospitals which are already on shaky financial ground. I met with hospital administrators in Akron today and with physicians. They will tell you how it is going to be harder and harder for them to take care of their business providing the kind of health care to their patients at that hospital in Akron and other hospitals all over northeastern Ohio and all over this country.

The Republican plan leaves 40 percent of low-income seniors out of the bill's low-income assistance program. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Republican prescription drug bill, the Republican plan is good for the drug companies. The Republican plan is good for the insurance companies; but the Republican plan is bad for seniors, it is bad for disabled Americans, it is bad for their families, it is bad for hospitals and other providers, and it is bad for the Nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 252. This bill is not about solving world hunger and it is not about promoting agriculture. What this bill is about is promoting bad policy. This bill goes to the fundamental issues of sovereignty and shifting power from democratically determined public health laws and rules to corporate interests. Ultimately this and chapter 11, the investor state provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement, in the Singapore and Chilean agreements, probably every other agreement that the Zoellick Trade Representative's office will negotiate, will be used to override all kinds of public health and worker safety laws.

Understand what this is. What we are doing is we are telling the Europeans that they cannot enforce their own food safety laws. The European Union has passed legislation specifically determining what kind of food products, what kinds of food safety laws that they wanted. This resolution is telling them that we have the right in the United States to override what the European Union democratically elected Parliament and democratically determined rules and regulations want to do.

Imagine if the French, the French of all people, or the Germans, came to us and came to the World Trade Organization and said we do not like an environmental law, we do not like a safe drinking water law, a food safety law, that the United States Congress has passed and we want to override it. How dare the French or Germans try to override our public health laws and compromise our sovereignty.

How dare the United States tell the Germans and French and the Poles, new members of the EU and our allies in the war in Iraq, or anybody else in Europe, how dare we try to override their public health and their public safety laws? Imagine if they did that to us. We have no business saying we know best. We are going to tell you in France, you in Germany, you in Poland, you in England, we are going to tell you what your public safety laws are going to say, what your public health laws are going to say.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to vote no on H. Res. 252.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his good work and bipartisanship and thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for authoring H. Con. Res. 110.

I rise in support of this resolution and recognize its two major advancements in public health: The 50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and the completion recently of the Human Genome Project.

Fifty years ago, Dr. James Watson and Dr. Francis Crick published a structure of DNA. It is likely that neither of these scientists fully understood the enormous impact that their discovery would have on our Nation's public health, from historic advances to disease diagnosis to life-saving medicine to reform of our everyday vocabulary. Their scientific discovery laid the groundwork for another milestone of the evolution of science; that is, the completion of the Human Genome Project ahead of schedule and under budget.

While the investment in this project was modest in some ways by U.S. standards, the return promises to be extraordinary. Doctors will have tools to assess diseases in terms of their causes, not just their symptoms. An entire genome of an organism can be known in a matter of weeks or months, not years or decades. Scientists will begin to know why some people and not others get sick from certain infections or environmental exposures.

We can only begin to imagine what this means for health care delivery. Clearly, being asked by your family doctor about your family history will take on a whole new meaning. The Human Genome Project will strengthen the roots of innovation, foster tomorrow's breakthrough discoveries: discoveries like that of Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick which offer every person the opportunity of a longer, healthier life.

With genetics and the burgeoning fields of genomics, we have truly moved into a new era. Already friends and loved ones benefit from what we have learned about genetic links to diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, breast and ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington's disease and others. We should not overlook the impact this investment has on the public health infrastructure as whole. When we invest in research, we are also investing in education.

The NIH reports that Ph.D. faculty at U.S. med schools has increased by double digits as a result of the Federal investment in research. These discoveries raise important policy issues, to be sure, like the importance of strong genetic nondiscrimination policies.

My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the sponsor of this resolution, has introduced legislation to address the potential abuse of genetic information by insurers and by employers. That is a real issue. That is one we absolutely in this body have a duty to address.

Genomics offers exciting opportunities to strengthen our public health system and can take us into a new era of health and health care. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Slaughter resolution and I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding the legion of talented scientists who significantly contributed to these achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), sponsor of this resolution who has showed particular interest in the issue of nondiscrimination of genetics.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his good work on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's table for immediate consideration.

On May 22, this House passed a bill that gives a tax break of $93,500 to the average millionaire in our country. As Republicans rushed towards the Memorial Day recess, Vice President Cheney cut a deal that left working, tax paying families out of the child tax credit expansion. That is right, $93,500 for millionaires, not one cent to working lower-income families.

As the tax bill advanced in the House, I joined my colleagues and sent out three Dear Colleagues alerting Members of all parties to the fact that it left low-income, working, tax-paying families out in the cold by denying them marriage penalty relief under the earned income tax credit.

Republicans knew they were making low-income Americans wait years for the same benefit that they would offer more affluent families right now. Republicans of the House knew that their leadership and knew that the Bush White House had stuck it to low-income families again by denying them relief under the child tax credit, $93,500 to millionaires and not one cent to lower-income working families. Republicans knew that the bill they supported offered that $93,000 to millionaires and was a slap in the face to millions of tax-paying, working American families.

Democrats believe simple fairness demands that we act immediately to remedy the injustice; but the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), says we will not do it, not while he is the Republican leader. He says there are a lot of other things that are more important than that. The majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), says we do not need to rush through this. Remember, $93,500 for millionaires, not a cent for lower-income working families.

We had to rush to give millionaires this $90,000 tax break; but when it comes to tax breaks for working tax-paying families, Republicans need time to think it over. While Republicans have left working families out in the cold by refusing to advance tax fairness legislation, they have moved on other bills.

For example, since that May 22 date, since Republicans were rushing out of town for the Memorial Day recess, Congress has renamed Federal buildings and post offices, congratulated baseball star Sammy Sosa, commemorated the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week, and made it easier to clear bank checks. There is nothing wrong for any of those bills. I voted for all of them. But was any of them more important than helping 12 million children who were intentionally left behind by the Bush-Cheney-DeLay-GOP tax bill? Was any one of them more important, any of those pieces of legislation more important than helping 3.7 million working, low-income, tax-paying families whose marriages this House said were not worth as much as the marriage of their bosses? Not by a long shot, not in the wake of a tax bill that gives $93,000 to millionaires, not one cent to tax-paying working families.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's table.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Oregon's time.