[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 106 (Tuesday, July 30, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7515-S7516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE TRIPARTISAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the issue of 
prescription drugs and how we intend to proceed on the Senate floor. I 
concur with my colleague from Louisiana, with whom I have had the 
privilege to work in crafting a tripartisan plan for more than a year, 
in hopes of avoiding a political showdown and confrontation on this 
most significant issue facing seniors in this country.
  I, too, agree with my colleague from Louisiana, in the hope that we 
can avoid having another vote on two competing plans that will not get 
the necessary 60 votes to proceed. I hope we can avoid a collision at 
the crossroads on this most significant domestic issue facing our 
Nation's seniors.
  We have been negotiating all weekend to try to work out an agreement. 
Senator Grassley is here in the Chamber, the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee. He has been working consistently and diligently to 
try to negotiate an agreement. Now we are faced with a political 
showdown; we are faced with a decision to either vote for the lowest 
common denominator or for no prescription drug coverage at all.
  I do not believe in letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, 
but we certainly should not countenance the political becoming the 
enemy of the practical, the attainable, and the doable. We should not 
find ourselves in this situation today because we have been working for 
more than a year and a half in developing a plan to avoid having 
politics undermine that process.
  That is why we reached across the political aisle, Republicans to 
Democrats and Independents, and vice versa, so that we can begin to 
sort out our ideas. That is not to say we had all the right ideas, but 
we did it to begin that process that should have begun in the Finance 
Committee--to debate, to amend, to work through competing ideas in 
order to achieve a consensus that would give impetus to the passage of 
this legislation. We should have had that markup. We have been saying 
that for weeks. In fact, we anticipated we would have a markup on that 
critical legislation. But we were denied that opportunity for unknown 
reasons. So now we are hearing we are going to have a vote regardless--
the all-or-nothing proposition that seems to overtake and mire the 
political process to the point that it really jams the monkey wrenches 
into this institution.

  I hope we will avoid having another vote for the sake of having a 
vote, drawing lines in the sand so people's positions become more 
intractable. I hope we can avoid that kind of situation and 
confrontation. We have been spending more than a week and a half on 
legislation that is very important to America. Using generics would 
save the American Government $8 billion. It would also save our 
Nation's consumers more than $60 billion over 10 years. We have been 
spending more than 2 weeks on that proposition in the Senate. It has 
had consideration in the committee of jurisdiction for several days as 
well.
  Compare that to our initiative on prescription drug coverage--no 
consideration in the Senate Finance Committee, up-or-down votes on the 
floor of the Senate on a $400 billion program--$400 billion. That is 
more than the annual spending of the Defense Department. It is more 
than the newly organized Department of Homeland Security that we will 
be considering as well.
  So now we are being asked to have one vote, as we did last week, on 
each competing plan on prescription drug coverage--it will presumably 
cost $400 billion over the next 10 years--with no committee 
consideration, no up-or-down votes on the Senate floor, no ability to 
amend--$400 billion. When was the last time we created a domestic 
program that cost $400 billion, with no consideration in the committee 
and hardly any consideration on the floor of the Senate? When?
  We have spent weeks and weeks in the committees considering the 
homeland security legislation. We have spent 2 weeks on the floor of 
the Senate on a bill that will save the Nation's consumers $60 billion 
over 10 years. And we have heard announced consideration for a domestic 
program that will cost our Government more than $400 billion. It is 
really hard to understand why we are in the circumstances that we are 
in today. That is why I ask that we put off any polarizing votes, so 
that we can further work to achieve a consensus on the broader plan.
  There were criticisms against the tripartisan plan--that it created a 
donut, it created a gap in coverage between $3,450 and $3,700 under 
catastrophic.
  The legislation being put forward by the Senator from Florida will 
only provide coverage to seniors at extremely high costs and low 
incomes, or very low income coverage. More than half of our Nation's 
seniors will have no coverage at all. Above 200 percent, there will be 
a cliff because an individual earning $17,721 will get zero coverage 
until they spend $3,300. A couple with an income of $23,880 will get 
zero coverage. So until they spend $3,300 in prescription drug coverage 
costs, they have no coverage whatsoever. Well, I would say that is an 
enormous gap in coverage.
  Our plan is to the contrary. It minimizes that gap in coverage. It is 
\50/50\ coverage above 150 percent, to $3,450; 80 percent will not even 
reach that benefit limit, and we provide a catastrophic coverage 
beginning at $3,700. Ninety-nine percent of all seniors will 
participate in our program, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. But under the legislation proposed by the Senator from Florida, 
more than half of our Medicare beneficiaries will have no coverage at 
all. They will have no coverage at all. That is creating a huge gap in 
coverage. It is a huge gap, and I think we can do better.
  We have worked with the Senator from Massachusetts on concerns about 
the delivery mechanism in our legislation. So we have agreed to modify 
that to provide an absolute, ironclad agreement that there will be a 
fallback mechanism in the event the insurance risk delivery system 
fails. So there will be a guarantee, regardless of where you live in 
America, that you will have a benefit of the standard program that we 
offer in our legislation.
  But we even went further and agreed to increase our program from $370 
billion to $400 billion. So we have been flexible. We are willing to 
work across

[[Page S7516]]

party lines to avoid the political showdown by having this up-or-down 
vote at all costs, not trying to search for a common ground, not having 
an adequate, thorough debate in the committee and on the floor, and a 
$400 billion program.
  I would like to know, when is the last time the Senate has created a 
$400 billion social program that has had no consideration in the Senate 
Finance Committee, or any committee of the Senate, and has had 
virtually no consideration on the floor, no amendments, just an up-our-
down vote? If you do not get your 60, tough luck: Is that what the 
Senate is all about, Madam President? Is that what it is all about? It 
is winning at all costs?

  Who is going to pay for those costs? Our Nation's seniors. Our 
Nation's seniors are going to pay the cost--that is what this is all 
about--and they are going to pay a high cost because so many will 
either have minimal coverage or no coverage at all. This is how many 
people, when one looks at this chart, will be omitted from coverage in 
the plan offered by the Senator from Florida: 26 million Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I know we can do better. We worked for more than a year to create a 
plan that included Democrats, included our Independent, Senator 
Jeffords from Vermont, so that we could avoid this kind of impasse.
  I would hope that we would avoid this unnecessary political showdown 
today or tomorrow. I hope we can put aside our differences and forge 
solutions to the problems that our Nation's seniors face when it comes 
to catastrophic costs for our Nation's seniors who have a chronic 
illness.
  In fact, there was an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday 
which indicated that most people face costs of $1,200 to $1,500. They 
are the chronically ill. Guess what. Under the plan offered by the 
Senator from Florida, many of those individuals will not get any 
coverage until they spend $3,300. They will get no coverage whatsoever.
  Won't they be surprised when we pass a so-called prescription drug 
benefit coverage that says the Nation's seniors are now covered and 
when they find out, no, not exactly. You will pay an annual fee of $25 
and then discover you do not have any coverage because, if you earn 
$17,721 as an individual, you get zero coverage until you spend $3,300. 
If you are a couple and earn $23,881 in income, then you have to spend 
$3,300 in prescription drugs before you get any coverage. That is a 
huge gap in coverage.
  Last week, in the two votes we did have on the two competing plans, 
there was a common thread. That common thread was continuing to embrace 
universal coverage in the Medicare Program, which is a principle that 
most of us--97 percent, 97 votes--supported continuing in the Medicare 
Program. If we take the approach of low income and catastrophic 
coverage solely as the kind of benefit we decide to enact in the 
Senate, we are abandoning the principle of universal coverage in the 
Medicare Program.
  I hope we do not plan to move in that direction. That clearly will be 
the wrong approach. It will be the wrong approach for Medicare and 
certainly will be the wrong approach for our Nation's seniors. We can 
do better, and I hope we will do better. We have the ability to do 
better.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider and I urge the leadership to avoid 
any votes so we can continue to work on this issue, if it takes August 
and come back in September, if we cannot do it this week. But let's 
avoid the kind of confrontation that will manifest itself in the vote 
that is recommended on the one plan alone.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________