SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, which promises to be very interesting. Today, we will have the opportunity to learn about the latest technological advances - some of which have the potential to save lives. From the new drugs offering rheumatoid arthritis sufferers independence from pain to the promising stem cell research seeking cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, and Multiple Sclerosis, biotechnology is offering us a brave new medical world. 

Certain biotech innovations are allowing us to determine which genes lead to breast cancer, downs syndrome, and other diseases. We are now looking at ways to use fetal tissue to reverse terrible debilitating diseases. Most importantly, we need to figure out how everyone can fairly share in the benefits of these positive new discoveries. 

However, other biotech advances -- with regard to genetically altered agriculture -- are of an Orwellian nature. Genetic engineering is leading to areas of overproduction in agriculture, and hastening the destruction of the family farm in favor of giant agribusiness. A most disturbing effect of genetic engineering is that consumers are unaware of the extent to which their food has been genetically altered. Much of the soy and corn grown in the 
United States is genetically engineered. Unbeknownst to most Americans, ingesting food made from genetically altered crops is virtually inevitable. 

For this reason, genetic engineering is negatively affecting United States trade relations with the European Union. Unlike the United States, EU regulations require labeling of genetically modified food and food products. EU consumer groups firmly believe that consumers have a right to know how their food is produced and they question the long-term safety of consuming genetically engineered foods. There is simply no reason the United States should take on the potential environmental or health risks now that could be associated with these genetically altered foods. This area needs much further research. 

Mr. Chairman, in your good judgment, you have decided to call today's hearing, "Putting a Human Face on Biotechnology." In addition to helping improve understanding about the biotech industry, I hope that we will take the opportunity today to discuss what impact these technological developments have on society and the economy, and most importantly, on individual Americans. 

One point I'd like to highlight today is that the biotech industry - in contrast to the pharmaceutical industry -- supports a Medicare prescription drug benefit providing catastrophic, "stop loss" coverage. This is a meaningful first step in the drive to enact universal prescription drug coverage for our nation's seniors. Medicare currently lacks a basic, outpatient prescription drug benefit. Those seniors without drug coverage cannot afford the drugs they need -- especially when they are sickest and need them the most. 

Our nation's seniors need, and use, prescription drugs more than any other age cohort. Between one-half and one-third of Medicare beneficiaries lack prescription drug coverage. Ironically, they currently pay up to twice as much as those who have prescription drug insurance. Among major industrialized nations, the United States is the only country without government-sponsored prescription drug coverage for the elderly. 

That is why my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and I joined with other Members of Congress to introduce H.R. 1495 and S. 841 the "Access to Prescription Medications in Medicare Act of 1999." Our legislation proposes to provide seniors and the disabled with the coverage they need when they need it most. The bill provides up to $1,700 of annual coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries (after a $200 "drug" deductible and with a maximum 20 percent co-pay) and then covers 100 percent of costs above $3,000 in annual out-of-pocket prescription drug expenditures. We look forward to working with the Administration in order to include this provision in the President's Medicare proposal. 

Today we're going to hear from Ms. Joan London who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. Under the guise of "Citizens for Better Medicare," the pharmaceutical industry association (PhRMA) is spending around $30 million dollars on ads in an attempt to kill the President's Medicare drug plan. PhRMA's radio and tv commercials have brought you a fictitious "Flo" - the senior citizen who adamantly states that she doesn't want "big government in her medicine cabinet." Flo may not want big government in her medicine 
cabinet, but it sure is obvious that PhRMA "wants big government" around when it comes to national funding for medical research and protecting the patents for drugs so that they can keep overcharging uninsured seniors. 

Ms. London is a "real Flo." Like the actress in the commercials, Ms. Joan London, suffers from arthritis. But unlike the commercial, Ms. London is probably not as worried about the government being in her medicine cabinet, because her cabinet is bare. Ms. London cannot afford the new medications which could halt the development of her crippling disease and bring her some relief from the pain she has experienced over the last 30 years. Flo is fictitious, but there are millions of Joan Londons around the country. I thank Ms. London for taking the time and effort to join us this morning and sharing her very real story with us. 

Advances made by the biotech industry may help people live longer lives. But long lives do not necessarily mean healthier lives if people cannot afford the medications that treat the illnesses that afflict them. What is the point of spending billions of dollars researching miracle drugs if we are not willing to provide a means for people to purchase them. 

If we fail to add a comprehensive, universal drug benefit to Medicare, millions of middle-class seniors of the 21st century will effectively find themselves denied lifesaving pharmaceutical treatments. The innovations brought to us by R&D are only worthwhile if they are accessible. 

I have stated repeatedly in the past that one of the most important problems facing this country is the growing income gap between the rich and the rest of our citizens. We are now beginning to experience a "health gap." This time the difference between the "haves" and "have-nots" is a matter of life and death. We should all be working to find ways to bring the country together, and not let new innovations divide us. 

With a growing elderly population, there's no question we need to allocate more funds to cover rising health care costs. We must find a way to help pay for the miracle drugs biotechnology is producing. Tax cuts are not the answer. The National Academy of Social Insurance recently highlighted the need for more revenues to be added to Medicare. Those revenues must go toward stabilizing a Medicare program that includes prescription 
drug coverage. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hopefully finding some bridges where we can work together to provide older Americans with access to these life-saving advancements.