I have stepped across the aisle and voted with my Republican Members probably as many times as any Democrat in this Chamber. So I think I can say with some credibility and with some respect that when it comes to the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, in my opinion the Republicans are dead wrong on this issue. This is coming from a conservative Democrat from south Arkansas, one who has crossed over that aisle and voted with the Republican Party numerous times over the past 17 months. The reason I know that their prescription drug plan is bad is because, you see, I understand this issue. I own a small-town family pharmacy. My wife is a pharmacist. I understand this issue. And I understand what our seniors need. They need an affordable, a voluntary, a guaranteed prescription drug benefit for all seniors. 

I am going to spend the next hour talking about the differences in the Republican plan and the Democrat plan, and I am proud to be one of four lead sponsors on the Democratic plan, one that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. But before I get into that, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). 

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing her thoughts with us on the prescription drug issue and for all that she does. 

Mr. Speaker, let me just visit for a moment about my experiences, not as a Member of the United States Congress, but as someone who is married to a pharmacist, who owns a small-town family pharmacy in our hometown of Prescott, Arkansas, a town of 3,400 people. Let me talk to you for a moment as a family pharmacy owner, someone who has experienced all of the trials and tribulations that our seniors go through day in and day out. 

I actively managed that business before coming to the United States Congress; and I can tell you, I can put faces and names with patients, but patient confidentiality, thank goodness, prevents that. But I can put faces to these stories in my own mind as I relay them today of seniors who would come into the pharmacy, who were literally forced to choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their rent, paying their light bill. 

We are talking about the Greatest Generation. We are talking about seniors who have given so much to this country, who supposedly live in the most industrialized society in the world, and yet we live in a society where they cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. 

Living in a small town, I would see seniors leave without their medicine; and living in a small town I would learn a week, 10 days later, where they are in the hospital in Hope, Arkansas, some 16 miles away from my hometown of Prescott, running up a $10,000 or $20,000 Medicare bill, or a diabetic who has to have a leg amputated, or a diabetic who has to have kidney dialysis, all things that Medicare pays for, and all things that could have been avoided; but they were not, because Medicare does not include medicine and our seniors simply could not afford the $40 or $50 prescription that could have saved the Medicare trust fund $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, as much as $250,000 for some kidney dialysis patients. 

Again, today's Medicare is designed for yesterday's medical care. And it is time we did right; it is time we did right, by our seniors. 

Some people say, well, the government cannot afford it. I say the government cannot afford not to, and here is what I mean by that. Health insurance companies are in the business to do what? Health insurance companies are in the business to make a profit. And then they cover the cost of medicine. Why? Because they know it helps hold down the cost of needless doctor visits, it helps to hold down the cost of needless hospital stays, it helps to hold down the cost of needless surgeries. 

It is time we truly modernized Medicare by creating a voluntary, but a guaranteed, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. What I mean by that is this. Part A covers going to the hospital. Part B covers going to the doctor, medical equipment and so forth and so on. The part D that we are proposing would be voluntary, meaning if you are one of the few seniors in America who are fortunate to have medicine coverage from a previous employer, and, by the way, there are very few that fit that category in my congressional district, but if you are one of the few that have prescription drug coverage through a previous employer, one, you ought to count yourself lucky and fortunate, because very few seniors have any coverage at all. But if you fall in that category and like what you have, you ought to be able to keep it. That is why our plan is voluntary. But it is a guaranteed part of Medicare, just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. 

Now, the drug manufacturers do not like my plan. 

They do not want to be held accountable. I have got bottles of pills, medicine, tablets, capsules on the shelves of my small pharmacy back 
home in Prescott, Arkansas, that cost $3,000, that are being sold in Canada and Mexico for $300 or $400. 

I say this: if the governments in those small countries, Canada and Mexico, can stand up to the big drug manufacturers, why can we not do the same thing in the United States of America? 

We may have found the answer. The Washington Post, June 19, 2002: ``A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA, that is the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America, to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.'' 

I do not know about you, but I am appalled by that. This is the United States House of Representatives. We do not write legislation based on what is going to allow our party to raise money. At least I hope we do not. It is time we stood up to the big drug manufacturers and said enough is enough. 

It is reported that in the year 2000, $360 million was spent by the drug manufacturers on lobbying, advertising and political donations; and I say that is wrong. Do you ever see those ads on TV where they are trying to tell you which drug you need to tell your doctor you need? Have you ever thought about that? Slick TV ads put on the air by the drug manufacturers trying to tell you which drug you need to tell your doctor you need. 

Many drug manufacturers spent more money in the year 2000, the numbers are not out yet, but I am quite sure and confident it is the same for 2001. Many drug manufacturers spent more money marketing their products with these slick TV ads than they spent on research and development of drugs that can save lives and help all of us to live longer and healthier lifestyles. 

This 1-hour on prescription drugs for our seniors was supposed to occur tonight. Why is it occurring now? Because the leadership of this body chose to stop voting early today so they could make it to a fundraiser tonight that is being hosted by the big drug manufacturers at a time when these prescription drug bills that our seniors need and are counting on are being marked up, are being debated in the Committee on Ways and Means and in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Again, I am a conservative Democrat. I have crossed over that aisle and voted with the Republicans numerous times, as many as any Member of the United States Congress; but I can tell you when it comes to this issue, they are wrong. It is time for them to make a decision. Are they going to side, continue to side, with the big drug manufacturers, or are they going to join me in endorsing my bill that will truly modernize Medicare and include medicine for our seniors and start siding with our seniors, for our seniors? 

It is time that this Congress united in a bipartisan manner on the need to truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. 

Again, a senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that ``Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.'' 

This ought to be about suiting our seniors. It ought to be about giving our seniors a prescription drug benefit that means something. This debate should not in any form or fashion be about catering to the drug manufacturers. 

Let me talk to you about the differences between the Republican proposal for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and my proposal, the Democratic proposal, for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. 

A lot of people say, well, what about the guaranteed minimum benefit? The Republican proposal, beneficiaries, seniors, must obtain coverage through private insurers who may not participate, are not required to participate, and can offer vastly different benefits and premiums. In other words, the first step at trying to privatize Medicare. 

What does my proposal do, the Democratic proposal? Medicare covers prescription drugs like other Medicare benefits, with guaranteed benefits, premiums and cost-sharing for all beneficiaries. Not a complicated formula. We do not try to privatize Medicare. We simply say that going to the pharmacy and getting your medicine ought to be treated just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. It should be covered by Medicare. 

Some people say, what about guaranteed fair drug prices? Under the Republican plan for a prescription drug benefit, private insurers, again, privatizing Medicare, negotiate separately on behalf of sub-sets of the Medicare population, diminishing the program's group negotiating power. 

Believe me, there is nothing the drug manufacturers want more than to whittle this thing down into small groups. If we come at them with the entire Medicare population, they know we are going to demand the same kind of rebates that they provide the big HMOs and have for years. They know we are going to demand the same kind of rebates that State Medicaid programs, and, yes our Veterans Administration, gets. And why should we not? I am sick and tired of seeing our seniors in America subsidize the cost of health care in Canada and Mexico, and that is what we are doing. 

What does the Democrat proposal do? It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the collective bargaining clout of all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair drug prices. These reduced prices will be passed on to beneficiaries. And, yes, it is time we demanded the same kind of rebates from the big drug manufacturers that the State Medicaid programs and big HMOs have been getting for years. Those rebates should go directly to the Medicare trust fund to help fund this Medicare part D prescription drug benefit. 

What about premiums? In the Republican plan, they will not put it on paper, but it is estimated to be $35 a month. In the Democratic plan, it is in writing. It is $25 a month. That is the premium that a senior would pay for this voluntary, but guaranteed, Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, should they choose to decide to sign up for it. 

The deductible. The Republican proposal is $250 a year; the Democratic proposal, $100 a year. Again, just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital. 

Coinsurance. Get ready for this. The Republican proposal makes filling a tax return out look simple. It will be very difficult for most seniors without hiring a CPA to figure out exactly what it is they qualify for and when they qualify for it. 

The Republican plan calls for coinsurance of 20 percent for the first $1,000; 50 percent for the next $1,000; and 100 percent for all remaining spending up to $4,500 a year. And then something, we are not sure what, but something will kick in again. 

Now, think about that a minute. The first $1,000, you are going to pay 20 percent out of pocket. Once you hit that $1,000, it is going to 50 percent out of pocket. Once you have hit that second $1,000, they are going to make you pay 100 percent on all remaining spending until you hit $4,500 a year. 

I can tell you seniors who live in my district trying to get by from Social Security check to Social Security check that averages less than $600 a month with a $400-a-month drug bill, they will not ever get to the $4,500 because they simply cannot afford to pay for their medicine; and as a result, they are going without their medicine or they are not taking it properly. 

I recently had a senior tell me she did not know what she would do without her son, who is in his 50s. She said he had a good job. He had a job where he had health insurance. It just so happened that he took the same medicine that she did. It was about 3 bucks a pill, and there was no way she could afford it. So he would get the medicine filled and give it to her. He was going without his medicine so his mom could have her medicine. 

I can tell my colleagues story after story. I have driven 83,000 miles in the last 17 months in those 29 counties in South Arkansas and every day I am out there I hear numerous stories just like that about seniors who cannot afford their medicine or cannot afford to take it properly. 

So what does the Republican plan do? It says you are going to pay 20 percent on the first $1,000, and then for some reason, you are supposed to have more 
money as a senior on a fixed income so you should be able to afford to pay 50 percent on the next $1,000, and after that, you are on your own when you hit $4,500 and then we will be back and we will kick in some more. 

Folks, it is time we brought common sense to the United States Congress. This is not common sense. 

What does the Democratic proposal do? It is just like going to the doctor or going to the hospital: Twenty percent copayment, period. That is it. 

Out-of-pocket maximum. I mentioned the Republican out-of-pocket maximum is $4,500 a year. Again, most seniors in my district can never get to the first $4,500 because they cannot afford $4,500 in out-of-pocket before some kind of so-called Medicare prescription drug benefit kicks in. The out-of-pocket maximum on the Democratic plan is $2,000. And what that means is, every time you go to the pharmacy, well, first you are going to pay a $100 annual deductible. After you have met that, you are going to pay 20 percent of the cost of medicine; Medicare will pay 80 percent of the cost of medicine. If you have a $100 prescription, you are going to pay $20, instead of $100 like you are paying today. And once you have spent out of pocket $2,000, then Medicare kicks in and pays the full price. That is significant. And that will help our seniors who need help the most. 

Some people say, what about coverage gaps? The Republican proposal says this: Beneficiaries who need more than $2,000 worth of drugs must pay 100 percent out of pocket, but keep paying the premiums until they reach the $4,500 out-of-pocket cap. Again, our seniors cannot afford this. They will continue to do like many of them are doing today, and that is to go without their medicine, or not take it properly. 

What about coverage gaps in the Democratic plan, my plan? Beneficiaries always have coverage. There are no gaps. It is not more complicated to figure out than an IRS tax form. It is plain and simple, $25 a month annual premium, $100 annual deductible. After that, every time you go to the pharmacy, you pay 20 percent, Medicare pays 80 percent. And after you have been out $2,000 a year total, Medicare kicks in at 100 percent. Nothing complicated. You will not have to hire a CPA to figure it out. You will not wonder from month to month what you do and do not qualify for and what your copay will and will not be. It will always be the same. Again, it is structured just like going to the doctor and going to the hospital is under Medicare. 

Some ask about access to local pharmacies. I have to tell my colleagues, the Republican plan allows these private plans to limit which pharmacies participate in their network. There may be a senior that has used the same pharmacy for 60 years and, all of a sudden, under the Republican plan, you are going to be told that you have to use mail order, or that you have to use a  pharmacy in another town or on the other end of town. 

Under my plan, the Democratic plan believes in providing you with the freedom to choose any pharmacy willing to play by the Medicare rules and accept the rate of reimbursement that is established, not by that pharmacy, but by Medicare, can participate, just like Medicare is with going to the doctor and going to the hospital. If those providers or doctors and hospitals agree to participate under the rules and regulations and fees set forth by Medicare, then you have the freedom to choose. The same thing here with the Democratic plan. Our plan does not tell you which pharmacy you must use. We let the senior decide. 

Some people say, what about access to prescribed medicines? Well, the Republican proposal says that private insurers can establish strict formularies and deny any coverage for all formulary drugs. Now, what does that mean? Well, I can tell my colleagues what it means. I have allergies and I have to take a nasal spray and my doctor wrote it for one brand. I got to the pharmacy to get it filled and they wanted to charge me a higher copay or deductible, copayment. They wanted to charge me a higher copayment if I stuck with the brand that I wanted, but if I would go to the preferred brand, my copayment would almost be cut in half, meaning my out-of-pocket would be cut almost in half. Well, I got to looking and, guess what? They wanted to switch me to a drug that as a pharmacy owner, it costs me $10 more. 

Now, why in the world would a health insurance company in the business of making a profit want to punish me for going with the cheaper drug and reward me for going with the higher priced drug? The answer, unfortunately, is quite simple. Because the rebates on the more expensive drug that that health insurance company is receiving from the drug manufacturer are so huge. We are going to continue to see that game played under the Republican proposal because, again, it creates formularies and if there is not a kickback being afforded on a drug to these private insurers, again, privatizing Medicare, then under their proposal, the drug your doctor wants you to have will not be covered. 

I am sick and tired of seeing health insurance companies, prescription benefit managers, accountants, bean counters, trying to play doctor. If the doctor says you need a particular drug, I think that is the drug you ought to get, and under the Democratic proposal, that is what happens. Beneficiaries have coverage for any drug their doctor prescribes, period. Under the Democratic proposal, whatever your doctor says you need is what you are going to get, not some complicated formulary based on who is kicking back to who how much, as the Republican proposal provides. 

Low-income protections. Under the Republican proposal, low-income beneficiaries may have to pay $2 or $5 as a copayment and 100 percent of costs in the coverage gap. Drugs may be denied if the beneficiary cannot afford this cost-sharing. 

Under my plan, the Democratic plan, here is what we say about low-income seniors. There is no cost-sharing or premiums. When I talked about paying a 20 percent copayment, when I talked about paying the premium of $25 a month, we waived that if you live up to 150 percent of poverty, and then there is a sliding scale for premiums phased in between 150 and 175 percent of poverty. So if you live in poverty, under the Democratic plan, you get your medicine, no 20 percent copay, no premium. Under the Republican plan, they are still going to require you to pay $2 or $5. Again, it is a complicated formula on what you have to do under one set of rules. 

These are huge differences, I say to my colleagues, between these two proposals. The Republican plan again caters to the big drug manufacturers. 

The Washington Post, June 19, 2002. A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. 

Again, as a conservative Democrat, I have crossed that aisle and I have voted with the Republican Members of this body as much as any Member of this Congress has done. When they are right, I will stand with them. As a small town family pharmacy owner, as someone who served on the State Senate public health committee for 8 years back home in Arkansas, as someone who has a 90-year-old grandmother back home who lives from Social Security check to Social Security check, I can tell my colleagues that when it comes to the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, they are dead wrong. You cannot side with the big drug manufacturers and still come down on the side of seniors. You have to choose. 

Now, the Republican national leadership decided we were going home early today so they could go get all dressed up for their big fund-raiser tonight that is being sponsored by these drug manufacturers while at the same time we are sitting here in the United States Congress simply asking for a hearing on our bill, a bill that I helped write, that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. And they are out wining and dining with the big drug manufacturers at a fund-raiser to benefit the Republican Party on the night following one of the most comprehensive hearings and markups to ever occur as it relates to the need to modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors. 

Mr. Speaker, these bills are being debated and written as we speak in the House Committee on Ways and Means and in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I have to tell my colleagues, I am very disappointed to see this article today and to see what is going on in this Congress. 

This should not be about the drug manufacturers. It should be about standing up to the big drug manufacturers and standing with our seniors. It is not that complicated, and the Republican plan tries to complicate it. It is more complicated than filling out a tax return. Our seniors do not need any more complications in their lives. They do not need politics in their lives. They simply need a Medicare prescription drug benefit that allows them to get their medicine just like Medicare allows them to go to the doctor and to go to the hospital. 

I am very concerned about how this proposal by the Republicans privatizes Medicare. The Republican bill forces seniors to obtain coverage through private drug-only insurance plans or HMOs. It is not a true Medicare benefit like parts A or B where all seniors are guaranteed a defined set of benefits at a uniform price. 

Under their bill, there will be no universal Medicare-sponsored prescription drug plan. The Republican bill moves Medicare towards a defined contribution program with the ultimate goal of turning Medicare over to the private insurance market. I, for one, think that would be a huge mistake, and so do so many other senior organizations that have endorsed my bill that takes on the big drug manufacturers, that holds the big drug manufacturers accountable, and provides our seniors with a meaningful Medicare part D voluntary, but guaranteed, prescription drug benefit. 

 However, do not just take my word for it. Listen to what others are saying.   ``I'm very skeptical that `drug only' private plans would develop.''   That comes from Bill Gradison, former Republican Congressman and former president of the Health Insurance Association of America. 

States have tried to get the private insurers into the business of providing seniors with a prescription drug coverage. Who is going to buy the plans? Those who have the high drug bills. If one does not need drugs and is on a fixed income, one is not going to buy the plan. That is why the plan will not work. The premiums will exceed, if not cost as much as, the cost for the medicine. 

With regard to the proposal to rely on private drug entities for drug benefits, ``There is a risk of repeating the HMO experience.'' We all know the HMO experience did not work. They tried that. We have been there; we have done that. They are all getting out of the drug business, and they are all getting out of the Medicare business. That quote comes from John C. Rother, policy director of AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. 

With regard to whether private insurance plans would participate in the Republican Medicare drug plan: ``I don't think it's impossible, but the odds are against it.'' That is Richard A. Barasch, chairman of Universal American Financial Corporation of Rye Brook, New York, which sells MediGap coverage to 400,000 people. 

When asked if they favor being placed at financial risk, as the Republican plan requires, ``We are not enthusiastic about that approach,'' says Thomas M. Boudreau, senior vice president and general counsel of Express Scripts. 

With regard to their experience with accepting financial risk for providing drug benefits: ``We are typically paid a fee, generally less than $1, for each claim. But we do not bear financial risk.'' That is Blair Jackson, spokesman for AdvancePCS, one of the outfits that the Republican plan calls to help run this attempt at privatizing Medicare. 

I hope each and every Member of the United States Congress will put politics aside, read the Republican plan on modernizing Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, read my bill, the Democratic bill that will truly modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, and compare them. 

If they do that, I think they will agree with me that it is time for us to put politics aside. It is time for the Republicans to stop siding with the big drug manufacturers. Let us hope tonight's fundraiser that is hosted by the big drug manufacturers, that they do not belly up to the trough with the big drug manufacturers, trying to raise money in the middle of a debate on something so lifesaving and so important for our seniors. 

It is time for this Congress to unite behind the need to provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit, just as we have united on this war against terrorism. So I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: read my plan and read the Democratic plan. Read their plan. Then do what is right, not by the big drug manufacturers, but by our seniors. 

Again, from The Washington Post, look it up, June 19, 2002: ``A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. These same drug manufacturers are hosting a multi-million dollar fundraiser this very night for the Republican Party.'' That is from The Washington Post. 

I am appalled by that. It is time for the Republicans to make a choice. Are they going to continue to side with the big drug manufacturers, or are they going to side with our seniors? I encourage them to stretch across this aisle and endorse my bill, the Democratic bill, that gives the help to our seniors, America's Greatest Generation, that they so desperately need. 

Mr. Speaker, maybe we can visit a little bit about this, because it is so important. I want to make sure we use every second of every minute that is afforded to us to visit here in the United States House of Representatives about an issue that literally, for many seniors, is life or death. 

It is just unfortunate to me that we have two proposals, one that sides with the big drug manufacturers, that being the Republican proposal, and one that sides with our seniors, that being the Democratic proposal. 

Why can this Congress not unite on the need to modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, just as we have united on the war against terrorism? I have tried to do that. It is H.R. 3626. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a Republican, and I wrote a bill; and yet the Republican national leadership, they are in the majority, they decide what bills get a hearing, what bills get a vote in committee and on the floor. For months I have begged, I have pleaded for our bill, a bipartisan bill, to get a hearing and to get a vote. 

If the majority party, those who call the shots, decide what gets voted on and when, what gets heard in committee and when, if they really care about this issue, really care about helping our seniors, and if what their rhetoric is is more than just election-year politics, and it is really wanting to do the right thing and modernize Medicare to include medicine for our seniors, why did they not let the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I get a hearing on that bill? 

Much of that bill is now incorporated into the Democratic proposal. I am a Democrat and my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, is a Democrat. But do not take our word for it. I challenge anyone to go to their hometown and visit their hometown pharmacist. Ask their pharmacist which proposal is best for America, which proposal is best for our seniors. Every single time they will tell us that the Democrats are right on this issue. They may tell us that the Democrats are not always right on every issue; but they will tell Members, according to the Gallop poll, the most trusted profession in America, pharmacist, and again, I am not one, my wife is, but they will tell us that on this issue the Democrats are right and the Republicans and the big drug manufacturers are dead wrong. 

Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague for the last 17 months that I have had the privilege to serve and be a voice for the people of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I have begged, I have pleaded, I have scratched, I have crawled to try and get a hearing on my first bill, H.R. 3626. I could not get a hearing on that. Now I am pleased to be one of four of the original lead sponsors on this new plan which incorporates much of what was in my earlier bill. 

It is like all we get from the other side of the aisle is a lot of games. We get a lot of games on the need to truly modernize Medicare, to include medicine for our seniors, and that is so unfortunate. 

First out of the chute was this idea that what our seniors needed was a discount prescription drug card, a discount card, like it was some new novel concept. My dad got one in the mail for free 6 months ago. A person can watch any cable TV program late at night and for $7.95 a month they can get one. 

Why do they want to push a discount card? Because any savings which averages 50 cents to $3 came at the expense of a hometown family pharmacy and did not cost the big drug manufacturers a dime. 

A senior that has $400 a month in drug costs and takes five prescriptions a month, even if they save $3 per prescription, which is the best some do with these so-called discount prescription drug cards, $3 a month savings, five prescriptions, that means on a $400 drug bill they would save $15 a month. That does not help a senior choose between buying their medicine, buying their groceries, paying their light bill and paying their rent. 

Thank God when we created Medicare we did not say here is a discount card, go cut a deal at the local doctor or go cut a deal for whatever surgery someone needed. We provided them a meaningful health care benefit, and it is time we did the same when it comes to their medicine. 

I am pleased to be joined by another one of my colleagues here this evening, and at this time I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), my friend and colleague, and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for coming over and spending the last hour with me as we talk about the differences, and that is what makes our democracy so great, that we are able to sit here in a democracy, stand here in a democracy in our Nation's capital and talk about the differences in the Democratic and Republican plan to offer a prescription drug benefit for seniors. 

I would just close by simply encouraging my colleagues to go back home to their districts this weekend, stop by as many local pharmacies as my colleagues want to, chain pharmacies, any kind of pharmacy they want to go to, does not matter if it is home-owned or if it is a chain, stop and talk to a pharmacist. I do not know if they are a Democrat or a Republican, show them what is included in the Republican plan, show them what is included in the Democratic plan, and every single time I can assure my colleagues they are going to tell them that the Republican plan must have been written by the big drug manufacturers and that the Democratic plan must have been written by our seniors. 

Do not take our word for it. Regardless of my colleagues' party affiliation, go talk to the hometown family pharmacist. Talk to the pharmacist. Ask them who is right on this issue.