[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13069-13071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG LEGISLATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard my name being used a lot in 
this Chamber this afternoon, and I plan to make a comprehensive 
statement tomorrow that outlines my views on the Hatch-Waxman 
amendments contained in S. 812.
  I might mention, I am very concerned about those amendments. I 
believe that the original Schumer-McCain bill was a bill that did not 
improve the Hatch-Waxman Act which was enacted in 1984. Of course, over 
the course of the last 18 years, it has been recognized as a very 
highly respected consumer protection law.
  The reason is because that law has saved consumers between $8 billion 
and $10 billion every year since 1984--over the last 18 years. The 
reason it has saved them so much money is that it is a delicately 
balanced bill between the pioneer companies, that is, the large 
pharmaceutical companies, and the generic drug industry.
  When we passed Hatch-Waxman, the generic industry had about 15 
percent of the total drug business in this country. Today it has close 
to 50 percent. That is because of that delicate balance achieved 
through the Hatch-Waxman law. And I see that this underlying bill may 
very well disturb that delicate balance and disrupt a law that has 
worked well for consumers for many years.
  I want to make sure that the bill approved by the Senate is a good 
bill, if, in the end if we are going to be amending the Hatch-Waxman 
Act. I put a lot of effort into that bill before it was passed in 1984.
  It is an important law. It is a law that has really helped America. I 
have to say, if we disrupt that balance and we all of the sudden take 
away the incentives to put that $30 billion a year into research and 
development costs to develop these lifesaving drugs, we will not have 
the drugs to put into generic form later. And, we could lose these 
businesses--they could all go offshore if we do not handle this exactly 
right.
  So what has been in some measure demagogued today on the floor--if we 
do not watch that, we will wind up making questionable changes to a law 
that now saves the lives of millions of Americans and does so at 
affordable costs.
  I will spend some time on that tomorrow because I think it needs a 
comprehensive discussion. I will say this: The underlying bill, what 
used to be Schumer-McCain to Kennedy-Edwards, has moved to a degree in 
the right direction but certainly not nearly enough. Frankly, I would 
like to make sure that the law bill that I put so much blood, sweat, 
and tears into over the years leading up to 1984 when it was passed, 
will not be disrupted because of politics on this floor, especially 
since that bill has worked so well for the American people.
  My purpose this afternoon, however, is to discuss the Medicare 
prescription drug issue which we will be debating in the very near 
future. I have been working with four of my Senate colleagues--Senators 
Grassley, Jeffords, Breaux, and Snowe--for the

[[Page 13070]]

last year on a Medicare reform and prescription drug bill. It is called 
the Tripartisan bill because it has Republicans, Democrats, and the 
sole Independent in the Senate.
  This legislation, the 21st Century Medicare Act, better known as the 
Senate Tripartisan Medicare prescription drug proposal, was introduced 
yesterday after months and months of hard work. This bill was 
introduced because the five of us crossed party lines and worked 
together. It was introduced because all five of us want a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit to be signed into law this year. We are tired 
of waiting for legislation that we could have passed 2\1/2\, 3 years 
ago, but every time it is brought up, politics is played with this 
legislation rather than doing what is right for our senior citizens and 
others in dire need of this legislation.
  Medicare beneficiaries deserve nothing less than to get it done this 
year, but others in this body, in my opinion, feel differently.
  Here we are on the verge of considering Medicare prescription drug 
legislation on the Senate floor without the Finance Committee ever 
being even a small part of it. Now I heard comments made that the 
Finance Committee has gone back and forth with this for years. That is 
not true. This is the first time we have really had a chance of passing 
a bill through the Senate that I think could very easily be accepted by 
the House, or in a conference certainly basically accepted by the House 
and the Senate.
  The Finance Committee members, under the leadership of Chairman Max 
Baucus, have been meeting for weeks to try and draft a consensus 
Medicare prescription drug bill. But due to artificial deadlines 
imposed upon us by the powers that be, we are not going to be given an 
opportunity to even consider a Medicare prescription drug bill in the 
Finance Committee itself before the full Senate considers the Medicare 
drug legislation.
  Why even have a Finance Committee--which everybody would acknowledge 
is one of the great committees in the United States Congress-- when 
bills that are under its jurisdiction are brought up on the floor 
without even a hearing or a markup?
  There were no delays. We could have had this markup and we could have 
passed this bill out today. We could have done it last week if we had 
had a markup. Sadly, politics is dictating policy, and I find that 
completely unacceptable, especially when it involves an issue as 
important as Medicare prescription drug coverage.
  By putting politics before policy, we are not doing what is in the 
best interest of our senior citizens and our citizens as a whole.
  I have also heard comments today that this is being filibustered. 
Nobody wants to filibuster this bill. That is always an old wives' tale 
that comes up when you do not have good arguments on your side.
  I would like to take this opportunity, though, to talk about the 
tripartisan bill. When drafting this legislation, we tried to reach out 
to everyone who has a stake in this issue. It has required many hours 
of meetings, meetings among ourselves, with our staffs, CBO, CMS, 
seniors groups, insurance providers, PBM representatives, technical 
experts, and other interested parties. Let me assure you this has been 
a unified effort, one which has required some give and some take from 
all of us.
  I truly believe this tripartisan bill is, in fact, the only bill 
capable of passing not only the Senate but the Congress in 2002.
  We have worked with CBO constantly in order to come up with an 
affordable solution, and CBO has told us that our bill will cost $370 
billion over 10 years. As far as I know, the Daschle-Graham-Miller bill 
does not have a CBO score, but I expect it to be extremely expensive. 
As a matter of fact, the Daschle-Graham-Miller bill, as I know it 
today, would be well over $800 billion over 10 years, and it has a 
sunset provision. So this isn't even a permanent benefit. I know my 
seniors in Utah will be surprised to hear that we're even considering 
such a bill.
  In addition, there are no sunsets within our bill. Our Tripartisan 
bill is a permanent solution, not a temporary one, and CBO informs us 
that once our bill is implemented fully, 99 percent of all seniors will 
have drug coverage, which is truly remarkable.
  So, the question is, how does a temporary solution truly help seniors 
in the long run? I do not think it does. Our Tripartisan bill provides 
all Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drug coverage 
because we let innovation and competition determine the prices, not of 
Government bureaucrats. That is how we keep prices for drugs 
competitive.
  I do not think it is a good idea to let the Government set the price, 
which is what will happen if the Daschle-Graham bill becomes law, and I 
do not think it has a chance of becoming law. I do not think it will 
get the necessary votes to become law. But our bill could, with honest 
decent work by all of us.
  We also provide additional subsidies to low-income seniors so that 
they, too, can afford to pay for their drugs. I find it absolutely 
appalling that there are people in our country who have to choose 
between buying food and buying prescription drugs. The Tripartisan 
group's goal is to put an end to that and provide additional help to 
those seniors who really need it.
  In fact, all seniors need it. For example, the 10 million 
beneficiaries with incomes below 135 percent of poverty will have 80 to 
95 percent of the prescription drug costs covered by this plan, with 
absolutely no monthly premium. These seniors are exempt from the 
deductible and will pay well under $5 for their brand name 
prescriptions and their generic prescriptions. Enrollees at this income 
level who reach the catastrophic coverage limit will have full 
protection against all drug costs, with no coinsurance.
  We also take care of the 11.7 million lower income beneficiaries with 
incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level. Enrollees between 135 
percent and 150 percent of the Federal poverty level will also receive 
a more generous Federal subsidy that on average lowers their monthly 
premiums to anywhere between 0 and $24 a month on a sliding scale. It 
also more than halves the cost of their annual drug bills.
  All other enrollees will have access to discounted prescriptions 
after reaching the $3,450 benefit limit and a critically important 
$3,700 catastrophic benefit, which protects seniors from high, out-of-
pocket drug costs. This is hardly a doughnut hole. My friend and 
colleague Senator Snowe refers to it as more of a bagel hole.
  It is also important to note that 80 percent of Medicare 
beneficiaries will never experience a gap in coverage. As far as drug 
coverage is concerned, we let Medicare beneficiaries choose from at 
least two drug plans, allowing them to select a plan that suits their 
individual needs. Seniors are in charge, not the Federal Government.
  The Daschle-Graham bill, on the other hand, has a one-size-fits-all 
drug plan that is offered to Medicare beneficiaries. That is the type 
of solution that will lead us down a dangerous path, and before you 
know it the Federal Government, not the private marketplace, will be 
setting drug prices. We need to avoid that scenario at all costs.
  Finally, our plan gives seniors a choice of Medicare coverage. 
Seniors may remain in traditional Medicare or they may opt for the new, 
enhanced Medicare fee-for-service program which is designed to look 
more like private health insurance and less like a program that is 
stuck in the mid-1960s.
  We all believe that Medicare needs to be improved. Medicare has 
hardly changed since it was first created in 1965 and Medicare needs to 
become a 21st century program. So our bill provides seniors with a 
choice in Medicare coverage. Beneficiaries may stay in traditional 
Medicare or they may opt for the new, enhanced fee-for-service Medicare 
plan.
  I want to emphasize that we do not force seniors to enter into the 
new, enhanced fee-for-service plan. We just offer it to beneficiaries 
as an option. If Medicare beneficiaries want to stay in traditional 
Medicare, that is fine. Our bill allows them to do so. If they decide 
they do not like the new enhanced

[[Page 13071]]

Medicare plan, they can switch back to traditional Medicare. We need to 
give seniors choices concerning their health care coverage. They need 
to be able to keep the Medicare benefits seniors have today, but 
seniors must also be given improved health care choices.
  I emphasize, once again, that CBO tells us that should our bill 
become law, 99 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries will have drug 
coverage. That would be tremendous for this country. We ought to do it 
this year. We should not be playing politics with it. We should not be 
setting up the Senate so this bill fails, so one side or the other can 
claim the other side refused to pass a bill this year.
  I believe providing Medicare beneficiaries with their choice of 
coverage is key, and the Tripartisan group worked together for months 
to ensure that seniors get quality drug coverage for an affordable 
price.
  I will conclude by saying we must make 2002 the year that Medicare is 
brought into the 21st century. This is the year that Medicare reform 
and prescription drug legislation should be passed by the Congress and 
signed into law. Our bill does more than just provide drug coverage. It 
includes Medicare reforms. It provides assistance to Medicare Choice.
  We can start this process by allowing the Senate Finance Committee to 
do its job and consider Medicare prescription drug legislation before 
it is debated on the Senate floor. Bypassing the Senate Finance 
Committee and going directly to the Senate floor sends a message to the 
American people that we are more interested in playing political games 
than letting the legislative process work.
  We need to have a markup in the Senate Finance Committee as soon as 
possible. We have Medicare bills to consider, both the Graham-Miller 
bill and the Tripartisan bill. We should have our Senate floor debate 
after the Finance Committee has approved legislation. It should not be 
the other way around. I believe Senators Graham and Miller are very 
sincere, fine people. They are good Senators. They believe in what they 
are doing. But if they do, we ought to have it come up in committee and 
vote. We are willing to have the Tripartisan bill voted upon. We have 
at least 12 votes out of 21 on the committee. That is probably the 
reason why the majority leader is determined not to bring up these 
matters in the Finance Committee.
  I am hopeful we will be able to work this out and provide affordable 
prescription drug coverage for seniors through legislation considered 
by the Senate Finance Committee. This is a top priority of mine and 
many of my colleagues in the Senate. We have been hearing from seniors 
for years about their need for Medicare prescription drug benefits. Why 
are we playing political games with such an important issue?
  I encourage my colleagues to work with us, to work with the 
Tripartisan group and others. I believe there is a majority, a 
significant majority, if we were allowed to do what is right, who would 
vote for the Tripartisan bill so seniors would finally get what they 
truly deserve, prescription drug coverage for the Medicare Program and 
bring Medicare into the 21st century once and for all.
  Medicare beneficiaries deserve that opportunity. We owe it to them. 
This bill would allow that to happen.
  I have been told this debate will take 2 weeks. I don't know why it 
has to take 2 weeks. We have three, four, or five different plans. We 
can vote on them. I personally hope we can vote on them. I believe if 
we are allowed to vote on them and people will get rid of the political 
aspects, we will pass a bill that will work this year for the benefit 
of seniors in the years to come. The Tripartisan bill does not have a 
sunset. The Tripartisan bill would continue on forever as far as we are 
concerned, to the benefit of all seniors in this country. I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________