[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15153-15154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the third time in as many weeks, 
Senator Graham and some of his Democrat colleagues have announced a 
mostly partisan Medicare prescription drug plan.
  When it comes to prescription drug plans, it seems like Senator 
Graham and his friends have tried everything.
  They tried sunsets. They tried fixed copayments. They even tried 
limiting coverage for many brand name drugs seniors rely on. They tried 
spending $800 billion. They tried spending $600 billion. Each time they 
tried, they failed.
  Today, to the tune of $400 billion, they're trying something else 
entirely.
  Despite their earlier calls for a universal, comprehensive benefit, 
Senator Graham and his Democrat colleagues are trying to cut out the 
bulk of seniors altogether by covering only those with low incomes and 
extremely high drug costs.
  This proposal is the same as the first two from Senator Graham, 
except that it eliminates the prescription drug benefit for the 75 
percent of Medicare beneficiaries with average incomes who will have 
spending less than $4,000 in 2005.
  This means that the average senior, who will spend $3,059 on 
prescription drugs in 2005, according to CBO, gets nothing, no coverage 
at all.
  That's quite a coverage gap. Or, to use a phrase that's become 
commonplace around here, that's quite a ``donut.'' In fact, that lack 
of coverage--from $0 to $4,000 for most beneficiaries--is the biggest 
``donut'' of them all.
  I find this last fact especially ironic since it was these very same 
Democrats who last week said they wanted a comprehensive, universal 
prescription drug benefit in Medicare without any coverage gaps.
  Besides having the biggest gap of them all, today's plan from Senator

[[Page 15154]]

Graham will still cost the taxpayers more than $400 billion, even 
though it provides no basic coverage at all for the average senior.
  And the latest try from Senator Graham still requires the government 
to decide which medicines to make available to the few seniors who 
qualify for coverage.
  It is often said that the third try's a charm. I'm sorry to say that 
in this case, it isn't. It isn't even close.
  Now, you might wonder whether there is another alternative that can 
get affordable coverage to all seniors, regardless of income.
  I am happy to report that there is.
  For $30 billion less than the latest plan from Senator Graham, it is 
possible to have a far better drug benefit that helps all seniors based 
on the tripartisan approach.
  The tripartisan proposal costs only $370 billion, including 
improvements to Medicare besides a meaningful drug benefit.
  The tripartisan proposal lowers prices for all drug purchases due to 
negotiated discounts, and provides 50% coinsurance after a $250 
deductible, up to $3,450 in drug spending.
  It also provides catastrophic protection above $3,700 in spending--
better protection than in the more expensive Democrat plan before us 
today. All this is possible while spending billions less.
  The tripartisan proposal also strengthens and improves Medicare by 
adding a voluntary, enhanced fee-for-service option. The new option 
provides protection against serious illness costs--something missing 
from Medicare today.
  The new option also provides better protection against 
hospitalization costs and free preventive benefits. And seniors who 
want to keep the same basic Medicare they have today can do so if they 
wish. Everyone has access to affordable prescription drug coverage.
  The bottom line is, the tripartisan proposal, at an official cost of 
$370 billion, provides more generous prescription drug coverage for all 
seniors at a lower cost to taxpayers then the current Democrat plan, 
which leaves half of seniors with nothing at all at a cost of $400 
billion.
  I will close by saying again that none of these attempts would have 
been necessary, had the Finance Committee been given the right to work 
its bipartisan will on a prescription drug proposal of its own.
  If the committee process had been followed, we could have built 
bipartisan consensus and presented the Senate with a compromise 
proposal that could get 60 votes.
  Instead, Senator Graham, along with some of the Democrat caucus, has 
come to the floor time and time again this month with partisan 
proposals that get worse by the minute and that stand no chance of 
attracting bipartisan support.
  In that regard, today's proposal is not different from the others. 
It's another partisan poison pill.
  This pill, however, is more dangerous than those before it. It leaves 
most of our seniors out in the cold, does nothing to contain increasing 
drug costs, and carries an all too expensive pricetag. I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________