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
The bill is an attempt to address obscenely high drug prices. But it is far too limited in its approach, because it assumes that wholesalers reimporting prescription dr ugs will do so at prices that are affordable for the 15 million seniors and disabled Americans who do not have any form of insurance to cover the cost of their medications.
[Page: H9707] GPO's PDF
This is a flawed assumption. There is no guarantee that the ``middlemen'' in this bill will actually pass along substantial drug discounts to consumers who need them. And the bill's loopholes will allow pharmaceutical companies to keep drug prices inflated through restrictive contracts and control of FDA-required labels.
What seniors clearly need above all else is a Medicare drug benefit. Democrats support legislation, H.R. 4770, to guarantee comprehensive drug coverage to any senior who wants to sign up. It guarantees that all prescriptions written by any qualified physician can be filled at any pharmacy of the beneficiary's choice at a price that is affordable. We can pass such a bill this year. It is a travesty that the Republican leadership refuses to do so.
In fact, Republicans have gone to enormous lengths to block efforts to enact a Medicare drug benefit. Instead, they push a temporary state program that would help only the poorest, and private ``drug-only'' plans that insurers say they will never sell to seniors.
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry and its phony front groups are spending millions to try to ensure that no legislation providing affordable prescription dr ugs to seniors is seriously considered. Regrettably, these efforts have served to seriously weaken the reimportation provisions in H.R. 4461 that we are voting on today.
If all we're going to accomplish is a relaxation of reimportation restrictions, there is still a better solution than the one before us today. I introduced last month, the Medicare Prescription Dr ug Internet Ac cess Act of 2000 (H.R. 5142). It would allow beneficiaries to purchase safe, FDA-approved medications from U.S. and international suppliers at the lowest possible prices through an Internet si te administered by Medicare. This means that Medicare beneficiaries would have guaranteed access to lower drug prices from a safe, certified-reliable source.
Here's how it works: All a beneficiary, doctor, or a pharmacy serving a beneficiary would need to do is click on Medicare's home page and type in a prescription. T he result would be a display of the five lowest prices for the medicine in question and its availability from domestic and international suppliers. Beneficiaries would choose one and submit their prescription to the Internet ph armacy, receiving their medicine at the price selected through the mail, by express delivery, or at their local retail pharmacy.
The only medicine that Internet ph armacies contracting with Medicare would be able to sell is FDA-approved medicine manufactured in FDA-approved facilities. Internet ph armacies, under this bill, would only be able to import prescription me dicine from approved companies that have been inspected by the FDA.
As an added precaution, Internet ph armacies would be required to display a Medicare Seal of Approval, which serves to authenticate the website. The seal would directly link to a secure webpage operated by the Medicare contractor to verify the Internet ph armacy's legitimacy.
These precautions would address problems that exist today with phony websites pawning counterfeit medicine to unsuspecting people. This bill addresses the issue of so-called ``rogue'' websites. It establishes a uniform set of criteria to which contracting Internet ph armacies must adhere or face criminal and financial consequences. Among other criteria, Internet ph armacies would have to be licensed in all 50 states as a pharmacy, fully comply with State and Federal laws, and only dispense medicine with a valid prescription th rough a licensed practitioner.
The bill I have just described will not be enacted this year. Nor is it a full-blown solution for the problems created by eroding insurance coverage for prescription dr ugs and accelerating drug price increases. Again, revising reimportation rules is one way to make prescription dr ugs more widely available at affordable prices. But today's bill falls far short of what is necessary to attain that goal. And, it ignores the real need of America's seniors--a Medicare drug benefit that is available and affordable for all.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, but want to specifically address the provisions regarding reimportation of prescription dr ugs, section 745 and 746. As a Member of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, I am glad two provisions were included to ensure the safety of consumers, and that savings are passed along to customers.
First, we must be sure that nothing in these provisions compromises the health or safety or the American public in any way. Section 745 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to demonstrate in a written report to Congress that implementation of the amendment will pose no risk to the public, before the legislation can become effective. This demonstration requirement is no paper tiger. We expect the Secretary to make detailed factual findings and to submit a report supporting the demonstration, if indeed the Secretary can make it at all. The demonstration must be based on a detailed explanation that the Food and Drug Administration has the resources to enforce all of the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against each and every one of these drug products as they arrive at our borders. If FDA cannot do this, the demonstration cannot be made, and these provisions cannot be implemented.
Through the hard work of the House Commerce Committee in previous Congresses, we have established a precedent for ensuring that Americans have access to safe and effective prescription dr ugs. Any attempt to under-mine this system by lowering these standards is not acceptable.
Second, this legislation sets a condition that before it is implemented, the Secretary must demonstrate that it will result in a cost reduction to American consumers. If the result of reimportation profits only middlemen, and not individual consumers, we will have done little to extend affordable prescriptions to our constituents.
In my view, these two determinations are bare minimum essentials that must be in place before this legislation is implemented. We must be vigilant in ensuring that American consumers are not threatened or put at risk in any way by the prescription dr ugs that come into this country under these provisions.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. I would like to commend the conferees and all the appropriators for their hard work on this bill, and to thank them for funding several important projects in my district.
This legislation recognizes the threat bovine tuberculosis poses to Michigan and provides funds to begin eradicating the disease in Michigan and throughout the country. Bovine tuberculosis is wreaking havoc on dairy and beef cattle in my state. Already, 10 Michigan herds have tested positive for the disease as have several deer and other animals. To complicate matters, USDA responded by downgrading Michigan's bovine TB status. Because of this downgrade, Michigan's economy is expected to lose $156 million during the next ten years.
While much work remains to be done, I am encouraged by the funding provided in this legislation to combat bovine TB in Michigan. It is my hope that this effort will begin the process of restoring Michigan to bovine TB-free status. I am committed to helping the farmers of my district and I hope that this research and reimbursement funding will bring them much-needed relief.
Secondly, I support this legislation because it provides funding for the Forestry Incentives Program. While this earmark is small, equaling the spending for Fiscal Year 2000, the Administration had not requested funds in its Fiscal Year 2001 budget nor had the House appropriated funds in its Agriculture spending bill. The Forestry Incentives Program provides cost-share funds to private landowners for tree planting and timber stand improvement. Through these efforts, we are able to keep our forests healthy and sustainable.
Finally, I am pleased that the conferees retained a portion of the important increase in funding to the USDA senior meal reimbursements that had been added by the Stupak-Boehlert amendment to the House Agriculture appropriations bill. Our amendment provided $160 million for USDA's Nutrition Program for the Elderly, a $20 million increase over the amount provided in the bill. Senior meal providers and the countless seniors that depend on senior meals will be greatly benefitted by the $10 million increase that the conferees retained. This increase will halt the steady decline of the USDA meal reimbursements that have gone down to their current rate of $.54 per meal for fiscal year 2000, a drop of eight cents since 1993.
The increase in USDA reimbursements is essential, and will benefit every senior meal provider in every town, city and state in the form of more money for each meal provided. I urge the House to continue in the future the effort to increase this crucial aid to senior meal providers. I am also submitting for the record letters in support of the increase in funding from the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs, the Meals on Wheels Association of America, and the Senior Citizens League. These organizations were invaluable in moving this issue forward. I would also like to thank National Council of Senior Citizens and the National Association of State Units on Aging for their work on promoting our amendment.
I submit the following letters into the RECORD.
MEALS ON WHEELS
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Alexandria, VA, October 11, 2000.
Hon. BART
STUPAK,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE STUPAK: On behalf of the Meals On Wheels Association of America's (MOWAA) nearly 900 member programs
[Page: H9708] GPO's PDF
As you are aware, Congress appropriated $150 million for the program in fiscal year 1996, but the appropriation was reduced by $10 million to $140 million in FY 1997, and it has remained at that level for several fiscal years. The Conferees' actions, when approved by both chambers, will bring funding for the program back to the FY 1996 level.
Few programs can boast the importance to the elderly, as well as the overwhelming success, that the Elderly Nutrition Program can. Senior nutrition programs have become the lifeline for millions of older Americans. There are few communities within the country where a senior nutrition program does not exist. These meal programs are as diverse as the communities in which they are located and the individuals they serve. At the same time, they share a common commitment to serving the nutritional needs of a growing number of older Americans. They also share a common problem--extremely limited resources. The funds and commodities furnished through the Department of Agriculture's NPE are vital to these programs. The $10 million increase over current levels is critically important in enabling these programs to continue serving the needs of our frailest and neediest citizens.
As you are aware, USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly funds are provided to meal programs according to a per meal reimbursement rate. The rate has dropped over the past years from $.6206 in FY 1993 to $.5404 in the current fiscal year. Without a substantial increase in the appropriation level, the rate can be expected to continue to drop.
To put the issue in perspective, let me furnish an example from one rural meal program. A rural program that served 225,000 meals annually, and which received 20 percent of its budget from USDA funds, lost funding for 2,000 meals as a result of the per meal reimbursement reduction of a mere $.0007 in one fiscal year (from $.5864 in FY 1996 to $.5857 in FY 1997). Those 2,000 meals, of course, represent critical and life-sustaining nutrition for at-risk seniors. And the experience of that one meal program was multiplied thousands of times over across the nation. You can imagine the impact that the $.0802 reduction from FY 1993 to FY 2000 has had on meal programs--and needy, hungry seniors--throughout the country.
Because America's elderly population continues to be fastest growing segment of the population, demands on nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing. The most comprehensive national study to be conducted in recent years found that 41 percent of home-delivered meal programs had waiting lists. The relatively small investment of an additional $10 million that your amendment made possible will pay substantial dividends in helping target malnutrition and isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional and health status and enabling many seniors to stay in their homes.
The Meals On Wheels Association of America urges the full House to approve conference bill, which will increase funding for the USDA Nutrition Program for the Elderly by $10 million over the FY 2000 level. We thank you again on behalf of all our member programs and the many needy seniors for whom this increase will mean a hot, nutritious meal, perhaps the only food of the day.
Sincerely,
Margot L. Clark,
President.
--
SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE,
Alexandria, VA, October 11, 2000.
Hon. BART
STUPAK,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE STUPAK: On behalf of the 1.5 million members and supporters of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), many whom are dependent on various senior meal programs for their livelihood, are grateful to you and Rep. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT for your efforts to increase the per-meal reimbursement rate. This action was absolutely necessary to insure the continued availability of nutritional and health programs for older Americans who desperately need them for survival.
Your actions have sent a strong message to America's elderly that Congress recognizes and reacts to their needs. TSCL doubts that without your persistence on the topic, the situation being faced by senior meal providers would have been recognized, much less acted upon. Many thanks from TSCL and, in particular, the 4,690 TSCL members who reside in Michigan's 1st Congressional District, for your personal efforts and the contributions of your outstanding staff.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Ouellette,
Director of Legislative
Affairs.
--
National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services programs,
Washington, DC, October 11, 2000.
Hon. BART
STUPAK,
House of Representatives, RHOB, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN STUPAK: The National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP), representing the interests of congregate and home delivered meal programs for the elderly in your state and across the nation, supports the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4461.
We wish, in particular, to commend the Conference Committee for maintaining the provision to increase funding for the USDA's Elderly Feeding Program (NPE) by $10 million. By increasing the funding for the program, you prevent disruption to meal programs that prove so vital to seniors and provide a little stability on the local level, which is important to the meal providers.
NANASP also commends you, Congressman Stupak, for taking leadership on this issue. We would have preferred the $20 million increase offered by your amendment and hope we can work with you next year to revisit this matter. We know that you recognize this as a strong investment in maintaining the good health of this nation's seniors. Nutrition is a preventive service that keeps seniors in their homes and communities rather than facing more costly institutionalization.
We thank you and Conference Committee for recognizing the value and effectiveness of this program and hope it will be provided this modest increase for FY 2001.
Sincerely,
Jan Bonine,
President.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement and its Continued Dumping Offset provision. The language in the amendment is the same as that in H.R. 842, a bill introduced by my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. REGULA, and to which I and 63 other members of the House are currently cosponsors.
The rationale behind the amendment is simple: Where internationally recognized unfair trade practices cause harm to our producers and workers, effective relief is promised. The amendment included in the conference package would reduce the adverse effect of continued dumping or subsidization by distributing the monies finally assessed to the injured industry. It is hoped that the knowledge that continued unfair trade practices will result in monies going to the injured and encourage those engaging in the continued unfair trade practices to trade fairly.
In my district and my state, I have witnessed first-hand what can happen to companies and jobs when unfair trade practices distort the market conditions. In one important industry, bearings, continued dumping has gone on uninterrupted for more than a decade. Companies who operate under constant conditions of depressed prices are not able to maintain investments, employment levels or compensation levels even if they are highly competitive at the beginning of the process. Similar experiences exist for many other industries where continued dumping or subsidization has gone on.
I urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to support this conference agreement and the Continued Dumping Offset provision.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. NUSSLE). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
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