Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the final minute on our side. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that while the bill we passed, passed by only one vote, without the nine brave Democratic votes who came with us 2 weeks ago to vote for a Medicare prescription drug reform bill to the Senate, that bill would not have passed. I want to thank those nine brave Democrats for standing tall against a lot of pressure to do the right thing. Secondly, I want to point out that the Democratic vision that is literally represented by this motion to instruct was defeated when the substitute was offered on the House floor by 175 for to 255 votes against. It was soundly defeated. This vision of a government does it all. The government provides the benefit; and no one else, no competition, no reform was defeated. Third, I want to point out that these are not my numbers. These are the actuaries who work for Medicare; the Medicare actuaries tell us by the year 2016 Medicare starts paying out more money than it is taking in. And the actual date on which insolvency occurs is 2026. That is what we are up against. Defeat this motion to instruct. It is an old vision that was defeated on the House floor. Support us going into conference with our new vision, which is a Medicare guaranteed benefit, fee-for-service for seniors whether they stay in Medicare or choose one of these new options. You defeat the new options, and you defeat those vital reforms as we go in to conference. Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 531) to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the Democrats did offer a substitute plan in our committee which was defeated, and I think it is pretty close to the substitute plan we will see later tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), opened this debate tonight in presenting H.R. 1 to the floor, he acknowledged the extraordinary cooperation and the spirit by which our two committees, the venerable Committee on Ways and Means and the venerable Committee on Energy and Commerce, of the House have worked together on this bill again this Congress, with the kind of harmony and dedication to accomplishing a good purpose for this country that is seldom seen between committees that often fight and juggle for jurisdiction. I want to commend him for that statement and acknowledge my personal gratitude for him and the entire membership of the Committee on Ways and Means and their great staff for the spirit in which they worked with the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accomplish this historic moment for our country. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) of the Committee on Ways and Means for the extraordinary work she has personally given to this effort and the way in which she has worked with members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, so many long hours, to accomplish this bill. It is important also that I highlight, while not acknowledging all the staff who contributed so many hours, the head of our health care staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Pat Morrisey, who has done Herculean work once again on behalf of this effort. And I want to acknowledge and thank, again, Mr. Ed Grossman, who is a legend in the Legislative Counsel's office, in terms of his contribution to this entire body and the work we do in preparing legislation for the floor. When we began this effort 2\1/2\ years ago to create once again an opportunity for this House to pass a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and, at the same time, to modernize a system that is in deep trouble, we announced that the entire effort in health care would be dedicated to a theme of patients first; the idea that everything we did should be designed to make sure that patients in America continue to have the best health care delivery system in our country and, importantly in this area, that seniors get something they desperately need; and that is that every senior get access to prescription drug coverage and that the Medicare system itself, which has long been absent of that important product in the arsenal of products that keep our seniors healthy and long living in our country, that prescription drugs be added to this system, this important new element of health care in our country that has long been missing from the program. At the same time, we recognize that the worst thing that can happen to any citizen is to be forced to go to a single store, whether it is a government-run store or a private-run store. We know when there is only one store in town, generally you get bad products and bad services and often bad attitudes. No matter what store it is, no matter who runs it, when more than one store is available, when we have choice, whether it is choice between a government store or a privately-run store, all of a sudden prices become better, products become better, attitudes become better, and service becomes better. We know that Medicare is described by so many members of the Committee on Ways and Means as being in deep trouble. We know it is on a path toward insolvency. And Medicare, a system by which so many citizens have depended on for years for their health care, is absent this vital asset of prescription drug coverage. So we began our efforts to make sure we could add that coverage to the bill. We have been doing this over several Congresses now, and every year we battle over what is the right number to fund this program and how best to fund it. I want to point out that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for including this year $400 billion for us to fund this effort. In last year's budget, we dealt with considerably less. In fact, in the Democratic budget that was prepared for the year 2002, our friends on the other side allocated only $330 billion to their effort to fund prescription drugs. This year, our Committee on the Budget provided us with $70 billion more than even the Democrats did when they prepared their budget for the year 2002. And I want to thank the Committee on the Budget and Chairman Nussle for that great effort. With that amount of money available, we have been able to construct this year, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and his team have so adequately described, a much better bill, a bill richer in benefits, more secure in the texture of its structure, to make sure that seniors would, in fact, have more choices. Those like my mother, who want to stay in Medicare, cannot only stay in Medicare but enjoy a prescription drug benefit now; and those who might enter their senior years knowing about choice, liking choice, preferring choice, having the availability of different plans offered in the private sector that they could choose their prescription drug benefit from. That is the kind of world we hope to create when we pass this bill tonight, a bill that historically modernizes the Medicare system and, at the same time, brings some more stores to town and makes sure that every store, the government store and the private stores, all have the products that seniors need so desperately, and that is prescription drugs. In this bill this year, we do a number of other things. We address the concerns of many of our health care providers in terms of their lack of proper reimbursement from the government, and we add reimbursements to hospitals and physicians and caregivers across America. We have an excellent, and I thank the Committee on Ways and Means again for their work on this, we have an excellent rural package that will provide $27.2 billion of assistance to rural health care givers and hospitals to beef up care in America where care is desperately short and, unfortunately, hospitals are closing and doctors are leaving their practices. Indeed, because this bill adds to the mix of choices that seniors will have in the future, there are predictions from CBO that Medicare will get back on its feet, will not necessarily have to go insolvent. It will have a chance to be one of the options that seniors wish to choose for a long time in the future. These benefits are going to benefit all Americans. I know there is some talk about how the plan has coverage and then there is a donut hole and there is coverage again for catastrophic coverage. The discounts provided to seniors in this bill will be available at all stages of prescription drug coverage, at all stages of prescription drug use and purchase throughout the bill. Seniors will see lower drug expenses in this bill. CBO estimates, in many cases, by as much as 50 to 70 percent. All seniors will benefit. And for the seniors who live below 135 percent of poverty, and there are thousands and millions of those seniors living across America, this bill provides a 100 percent subsidy, 100 percent coverage for the drugs they are going to need under this prescription drug plan. And that is a pretty good effort and that is a pretty good reform of our system. Indeed, we are also going to do some interesting things. We are concerned about the high prices of drugs. And like the Senate, we include reforms in the Hatch-Waxman laws that will speed the approval of generic drugs into the marketplace. And we reformed that awful, that awful wholesale price system that the government currently uses with phony wholesale prices that force seniors to pay 20 percent of phony prices whenever they suffer cancer and have to endure cancer therapies and urinary tract therapies and respiratory therapies. In short, we are going to lower the cost of drugs to America across the board, and we are going to increase the availability of drug coverage for every senior in this country and build new options for seniors to choose from. That is a pretty good package. I want to again congratulate all who worked on it and all in the two committees who contributed so much to it. In the House Committee on Energy and Commerce we had 65 amendments, I think 29 recorded votes, over 22\1/2\ hours of debate again this year. Are we ready for this vote tonight? You bet we are. Are seniors ready for the debate to end? You bet they are. Are seniors ready for us to really do it this year? You know it. Are seniors ready for this House, the Senate, and the President to come together and actually sign a law that gives them these benefits, instead of constantly just debating the issue? You know that is true. This is a historic moment, and this is our time to get it done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the Mediscam bill that the gentleman just described is patterned after H.R. 1495, authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) just a few sessions ago in the 106th Congress. It provided a $220 deductible, 20 percent cost share up to $1,700, a doughnut hole with a $3,000 catastrophic coverage, and no defined premiums. Does that sound familiar? The bill we wrote today is patterned after a bill written by my friends on the other side of the aisle back then, and they complain today that it is Mediscam. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to take 15 seconds, if I may, to point out that the bill before us does now contain the drug reimportation provisions similar to the Senate provisions and adds language directing the FDA to conduct rulemaking to make sure that there is safe packaging, to make sure when we do get drugs under any such program, that they are safe and effective. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our grand inquisitor. (Mr. GREENWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to ask a question. If this plan funded at $400 billion is prescription drugs on the cheap, what do you call the $330 billion that was allotted by the Democratic budget for the year 2002? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), one of our newer members on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard from the doctor of showmanship, we are going to hear from a real OB-GYN doctor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely true is that 529,000 citizens of Ohio are given free coverage under this bill because they live under 135 percent of poverty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), a Democrat and my dear friend. (Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want to point out our bill provides 430 million new dollars to oncologists in America, twice that provided to any other specialist for nonpractice expenses, twice as much as any other specialist. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when we test the arguments made on the floor of the House on a major piece of legislation such as this, it is important to test the credibility of those arguments. The best way to test that credibility is to first of all tell Members a fairy tale. Once upon a time Bill Clinton proposed Medicare prescription drug coverage for America. Once upon a time my Democratic friends, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and many others introduced a bill, H.R. 1495. Once upon a time Democrats recommended a bill with a $200 deductible, 80 percent cost sharing by the government up to $1,700 of drug expenses, a doughnut hole, and then $3,000 out-of-pocket catastrophic coverage with no defined premium. And guess what, once upon a time their bill provided that the benefits would be provided through a PBM. Members might ask how would the PBM be selected: By competitive bidding. Members might further ask how would the contracts be awarded under this privatization of Medicare, and the answer in a fairy tale world would be shared risk capitation of performance. But the truth is this is not a fairy tale. It happens to be the truth. That was the Democratic proposal on Medicare prescription drugs, but tonight Democrats have come to the floor one after the other and criticized this plan because it contained many of those same features. Different, however, in some respects because this plan provides better coverage for seniors on the bottom. In fact, while some of my friends came to the floor and called this a sad day and said how sorry they were for the citizens of California, this bill we proposed would put 1.4 million California senior citizens in plans that would cost them no premiums, no deductibles, free entry for drugs in California for 1.4 million senior citizens, half a million in Indiana, half a million in Ohio, half a million in Pennsylvania, almost a million in Texas, and so on and so forth, free drug coverage under this plan, and yet the fantasy plan offered by the Clinton administration just a few years ago containing many of the same elements is somehow forgotten. It is somehow put away in a closet. It is somehow not to be remembered, and this plan is to be attacked. When we test credibility of arguments on the floor of the House, test them against the reality of the plan offered by the Democrats and the reality of the plan offered today. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the courtesies and the respect and the statesmanship he has always shown me in debates in committee and on the floor of House. The gentleman is a dear friend. I wish I could say that about all Members all the time. But let me say something, I am offended that anyone would come to this floor and accuse anyone in this House of wanting to get old people. Do Members think for a second they love their moms and dads any more than we love ours? I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), do you really believe that? God bless them. That is the sort of unstatesmanship that should never enter the halls of this House. There is nobody in this House that loves their mother more than I love my mother. I challenge Members on that. She is a three-time cancer survivor, she is 84 years old, and she won first place at the Senior Olympics this year in shotput, and if you give her trouble, I will sic her on you. There are Members who have come to the floor and said seniors cannot understand choice. Let me tell Members something, I grew up in a poverty family. My mom and dad never earned above poverty. They made hard choices all their life for us. They sent three out of their four children to college. They fed and clothed us and gave us a great education and a chance for me to come to Congress. I love that woman and I loved my dad as long as I had him. How dare anyone suggest otherwise. We love our parents and grandparents the same. We differ on how to structure this program today. Apparently we did not a few years ago, but we do now. That is a legitimate debate and that is worthy of this House, but to suggest that any of us care less about old people, to suggest that any of us love those citizens who gave so much and made those hard choices for us any less than we do is a shame. My parents made hard choices. My mother knows how to make hard choices. If we give her choices, she will make the right ones, just like she did all her life. I trust her and I trust seniors in America. We are going to give them drug coverage in Medicare and we are going to give them other choices, too, if they want to make those choices. And if Members do not want to help us do it today, I suggest in a month from now when the conference committee report is back after a compromise with the Senate, you might want to join us then.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 531, the bill just passed.