Mr. Chairman, we have been debating for years how to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. This is a splendid opportunity to help seniors live longer, healthier lives by making the prescription drugs they need more affordable.

I am committed to providing seniors and those with disabilities with a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I hope this conference will meet that goal.

I voted against the House bill because, in my view, it does not provide a meaningful drug benefit under Medicare. The bill instead provides cover for a broader agenda. It not only privatizes a watered-down drug benefit, it privatizes the entire Medicare program in seven years. I did not vote for the House bill because the purpose of the bill is to end Medicare as we know it, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys Medicare. If this is the bill that the House plans to demand in conference then I would suggest that nothing will happen.

While the Senate bill has deficiencies, it does not include this risky privatization provision, so there is hope that we can resolve our differences. Supporters of this provision should realize there is no serious bipartisan support for something like this. More importantly, seniors don’t want it. Seniors won’t react well when told they will be forced to pay more to see their family doctor, or accept whatever doctors and benefits a private plan chooses to give them. Seniors won’t like it when given a voucher and told to fend for themselves in the insurance marketplace – the same marketplace that failed them before Medicare. They should, and will, be outraged. This provision will cause more harm than help and should be dropped.

As I have said, my mission has always been to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Unfortunately, somewhere during this debate someone else decided it was also important to help the insurance companies. The House drug plan helps insurance companies more than it helps seniors and that is wrong. Making payments to insurers for uncertain benefits with uncertain premiums is questionable at best. The only thing that is certain in the bill is the huge coverage gap, when seniors will continue to pay premiums after substantial out-of-pocket expenses, yet receive no benefit. Drug costs will continue to rise, because the bill prevents bargaining by Medicare to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The Senate bipartisan bill at least has a federal "fallback" provision that guarantees Medicare will be there even if the insurance companies are not. The provision needs to be improved, but it is indeed a move in the right direction.

A real Medicare drug benefit would offer dependable and affordable coverage for all beneficiaries. That coverage would be comprehensive and include the drugs that seniors and the disabled need. As I’ve heard many times, seniors deserve a benefit that is as generous as what Members of Congress get under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, but neither bill does that. But legislation passed last week (H.R. 2651) protects retired members of Congress from being forced into a less generous drug plan like the one they have proposed for Medicare beneficiaries.

I am pleased that today’s conference is public, but I hope that it is more than a photo op. If we are to be successful in this conference, we will need serious discussions among all conferees that allow the public to know what is at stake.

We must keep the promise of Medicare and ensure that seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to affordable prescription drugs. My colleagues on the Medicare conference committee can, and must prevent dangerous changes to a tried and true program that millions of Americans depend on.