THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Is a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program important ? It is quite clear that if we were creating the Medicare program today, we would provide coverage for prescription drugs through Medicare . Senior citizens make up twelve percent of our population, but they consume one-third of all the prescription drugs used in this country. They reach a period in their life where they need to maintain their health, and miracle drugs that did not exist 30 years ago now exist to extend their lives. In the 20th century, we increased the life expectancy in America
[Page: S7518] GPO's PDF
It is not unusual for a senior citizen to be taking two, four, five, and in some cases, ten or twelve different prescription drugs to deal with their health challenges. Those prescription drugs are enormously costly. The price is increasing every year. Last year, spending on prescription drugs in America increased 16 percent in 1 year. The year before the increase was about the same. Many senior citizens just can't afford these expenses.
I have held hearings through the Democratic Policy Committee in five or six States on this subject. I have had senior citizen after senior citizen tell me that, when going shopping, they first must go to the pharmacy in the back of the grocery store to purchase their prescription drugs. Only after they have bought their medications do they know how much money they have left to purchase food. It is a common story all across the country. So should we add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program ? Of course, we should. Will we? We won't do it unless we get some cooperation from a majority party that believes this is not a priority for the country.
We believe it is. We have a plan that will provide a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries in a way that is cost-effective, in a way that will tend to push down the prices of prescription drugs and provide an opportunity for coverage for senior citizens who elect to have this benefit . That ought to be part of the agenda in this Congress, but we can't get it done.
Or what about school modernization? This country has had such a wonderful 20th century, especially the last half of the century following the Second World War. Those who fought for America's freedom in World War II came back to this country, and began careers, got married, had children. They built schools all over America 50 years ago. Many of those schools are now in disrepair. These schools need renovation or replacement.
Not only are many of these schools desperately in need of modernization and renovation, but there is also a need to reduce class sizes from 28 or more, in some classes, down to 18 kids or fewer.
We know the quality of education is better when there are smaller class sizes. We know it is better for kids' education when they are going through the door of a modern schoolroom that all of us can be proud of. As I have said many times--and if it is tiresome to people, it doesn't matter to me--it is hard to go to the Cannon Ball Elementary School in North Dakota and have a third grader such as Rosie Two Bears say: Mr. Senator, will you build us a new school? That school has 150 students, one water fountain, and two bathrooms. Some of the classrooms have to be evacuated periodically because of raw sewage seeping up through the floors. Part of the building is 90 years old and has largely been condemned.
Are we proud of sending that young girl through that classroom door? I don't think so. We can do better. Perhaps that is more important than providing relief from the estate tax burden of somebody who dies with $1 billion. Instead of being able to leave only $600 million to their heirs, they get to leave all of the $1 billion because the majority party says that is their priority. Their priority is to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent of the American income earners that are more than the tax cuts we are going to give to all of the bottom 80 percent. That is their priority. My point is that we ought to be focusing on other priorities.
So this morning when we had people shuffle over to the floor of the Senate and talk about what a wonderful job this Congress has done and how we are stalled now because the Democrats somehow don't want to do anything, I just had to come over here and correct the record. One of the things hanging up work today is that there are people who have been nominated as Federal judges whose nominations have been before the Senate for 3 years without having been brought to the floor for a vote. We would like that to happen. That is considered unreasonable.
I say to those who think this Congress has a wonderful record that this is a Congress of underachievers. We have a little time left. We have this week and September and the first week of October. This is what we have to do. We have a Patients' Bill of Rights that we ought to pass. We have gun safety legislation that we ought to pass. We ought to close the gun show loophole. We ought to pass an increase in the minimum wage. The fact is, those working at the bottom rung of the economic ladder in this country have lost ground. Everybody here is so worried about providing tax breaks to the top income earners. What about providing some help to those at the bottom of the economic scale? These people get up and get dressed and have breakfast in the morning and go out and work hard, and they are trying to raise a family on a minimum wage that has not kept pace with inflation. We ought to do something about that.
We ought to provide a Medicare drug benefit . We can do that to address the needs of our senior citizens who are now struggling with health problems and just to make ends meet, only to discover that, in their twilight years, the medicines they need to make life better are financially out of reach for them.
Last week, we passed a piece of legislation that says maybe we ought to be able to access the more reasonable prescription drug prices on exactly the same prescription drugs that exist in Canada and elsewhere. The same companies produce the same pill, put it in the same bottle, and they sell it for a third of the price up in Winnipeg, Canada, or, for that matter, in virtually any other country in which they sell these drugs.
Last week, I suggested that I would like to see just one Senator stand up--in fact, I renew the challenge to anybody who wants to come to the floor--on the floor of the Senate and say that it is fair for American consumers to pay significantly more for the same exact drug than consumers in other countries. I will give any Senator who wants to do this the pill bottles; I held up
several last week. The bottle of the prescription drug sold in the U.S. costs $3.82 a pill and the same drug in the same bottle, made by the same company, in the same manufacturing plant, sold in Canada costs only $1.82 a pill. The U.S. consumer pays $3.82 and the Canadian consumer pays $1.82. I want to see a Senator, just one Senator, stand up and hold these bottles and say, yes, this is fair to my constituents and, yes, this price inequity is something we ought to support. Of course, no one will because nobody believes that is fair. That is another issue that we have to address. We were able to get some legislation through the Senate and, of course, the pharmaceutical industry has indicated that it fully intends to kill that in conference. We will see.
So there is a lot left for this Senate to do. We have, at the end of this week, a break for the two national conventions, and then in September and October we will see the end of the 106th Congress. All legislation introduced between January of last year and now will eventually die, unless it is passed by this Congress, and we will have to start over again next year. So the questions of whether this is an effective Congress and whether this Congress creates a record any of us can be proud of are going to be answered in the next few months. Are we able to address the issues that the American people care about? Will the majority party stop obstructing on these issues? Will they decide a Patients' Bill of Rights should be passed by Congress? If so, let's do it soon. Will we be able to address the issue of reasonable gun safety measures, increasing the minimum wage, adding a drug benefit for Medicare , and school modernization? Those and other issues, it seems to me, are central to an agenda that will strengthen and improve this country. We will see in the coming days exactly what the 106th Congress decides it wants to leave as its legacy.
One of the great things about this democracy of ours is that the majority rules. That is certainly true in the Senate. They control the schedule. That is why we are now in morning business in the afternoon. Only in the Senate can you be in morning business in the afternoon, I guess. But we are not debating an appropriations bill, and we should be. There aren't enough people wanting to bring judges to the floor for confirmation and so on.
[Page: S7519] GPO's PDF
The point is this: The majority party has a choice to decide which of these issues and how many of them they want this Congress to adopt. I hope it will decide very soon that it chooses to join us and say these are the issues that matter to the American people, and these are the issues the 106th Congress shall embrace in the final weeks of this Congress.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents