Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. It is a very friendly question.

Mr. NICKLES. Do I have the commitment of my colleague to oppose an extension of this next year?

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time remains on both sides on this issue?

Mr. NICKLES. Does that include 46 minutes prior to the lunch break? Is it 23 minutes a side?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will be brief and yield myself 5 minutes. Madam President, I hope this week the Senate will be able to pass a positive prescription drug proposal. It may be mission impossible. I wish that was not the case. If we would have done it the ordinary way, the regular way, the way we have handled almost all Medicare bills in the last 20-some years, every single one except for one, it would have gone through the Finance Committee and been reported out with bipartisan support. Frankly, that bill would have been the basis, the foundation for reporting a bill that would eventually become law. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to do that in this case. This particular bill happens to be probably the most important and the most expensive expansion in Medicare history, more expensive than any other changes and amendments we have made to Medicare since its creation in 1965. Yet we haven't had a hearing in committee on this proposal or the other proposals. We haven't had a markup. We had some bipartisan meetings, but we didn't have a chance to have a bipartisan markup. Maybe it is because it was likely that the product to be reported wouldn't have been what the majority leader wanted. It would have been a majority of the members of the Finance Committee. I am very troubled by what we see in the Senate time and time again. If we have a committee that may not report something that the majority leader wants, we don't let the committee work. That happened earlier this year when we had a very extensive, expensive energy bill. Twenty- one members of the Energy Committee didn't get to offer an amendment. Now we have 19 members of the Finance Committee who have not reviewed this product or didn't have a markup on this product. We are going to be voting at 2:45 on a bill that was introduced by Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle and others. It is 107 pages. The committee has not reviewed this. We didn't have a hearing on it. I guess we now have somewhat of a scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, and they say it is $594 billion over the next 10 years. We find out it doesn't go 10 years. This is a benefit that is started but stopped. It doesn't start until the year 2005, but it stops in the year 2010. So we are going to pay part of your prescription drugs, but we are going to stop after a few years. I find that to be very hypothetical at best. In fact, it wouldn't happen. Once you start an entitlement program, you never stop it, especially one that would be as popular as this. But what are we starting? Some of us were estimating that the Democrat proposal, as originally outlined--I say ``the Democrat proposal''; Senator Graham and some Democrats are supporting other proposals, but the Graham-Kennedy-Daschle proposal was going to be a lot more expensive than $600 billion. Keep in mind the budget we passed with bipartisan support last year called for $300 billion. Keep in mind the President requested $190 billion. Yet now we find one at 600. I thought it would be more expensive. The reason why it is not is because they decided to ration prescription drugs. If our colleagues would look on page 62, it says: The eligible entity [health plan] shall . . . include . . . at least 1 but no more than 2 brand name covered outpatient drugs from each therapeutic class as a preferred brand name drug in the formulary. In other words, you can come up with one, maybe two drugs in each therapeutic class. For arthritis there must be a dozen drugs. For blood pressure there must be at least eight or nine or ten brand name drugs. Only one or two are going to get payment. The rest of it, you are on your own. If you are not the Government-chosen drug, I am sorry patients, you don't get any help from the Federal Government. You don't get any help from this new drug benefit. You are out of luck. You are on your own. The beneficiary is responsible for the negotiated price of the nonformulary drug: In the case of a covered outpatient drug that is dispensed to an eligible beneficiary, that is not included in the formulary established by the eligible entity for the plan, the beneficiary shall be responsible for the negotiated price for the drug. In other words, beneficiary, you pay 100 percent. You choose or take the Government-selected drug, which would be a very small percent. Maybe that would cover about 10 percent of eligible drugs in the entire population. If you don't get that drug, you are out of luck. You are responsible for 100 percent. I could go on and on. We are limited on time. I have several speakers on our side who wish to address this. This is one of many serious mistakes that are in this bill. It is one of the mistakes we made by following the process of not marking it up in committee. I am sure if it had been discussed in the Finance Committee, we would have modified it. Unfortunately, we didn't have that chance. If I thought this were going to pass, we would be talking about it a lot more because it has several fatal flaws that would be very injurious to America's health. It would mean rationing of prescription drugs; certainly something that we don't want to do. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Graham-Daschle-Kennedy amendment at 2:45. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to be associated with my friend and colleague from Arizona and thank him for his tenacity in raising this issue. The Senate is being very irresponsible in not passing the Andean Trade Preference Act. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I will be happy to join him in making that unanimous consent request and ask that our colleagues join us in helping these four allies. I appreciate our friend from Arizona bringing the matter to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I believe under the unanimous consent request, we had Senator Gregg managing the time. Senator Grassley will manage the remainder of the time.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I was wondering why you were guessing what I might have done in 1965.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further----

Mr. NICKLES. I would appreciate it, if my colleague is questioning my motives----

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, people are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The tripartisan bill--and I will let Senator Grassley and Senator Breaux and others defend it--says for people with incomes less than 150 percent of poverty, the Federal Government, or this new plan, will pick up 95 percent of the drug--95 percent. Under the Democrat proposal, if you do not have the Government-chosen plan or prescription drug, you get zero. Zero. Not 9 percent, not 50 percent. The chart the Senator from Iowa has is incorrect. Under the basic plan, if you have an income above 150 percent of poverty--in other words, above $20,000 for a couple--the Federal Government picks up half the prescription drug cost up to $3,450--half, 50 percent--and you choose your drug, not the Government choosing the drug. There is a big basic difference in this plan. You get to choose the drugs, not the Federal Government.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Is it correct there would be a budget point of order that would lie against both the Graham and Grassley amendments?

Mr. NICKLES. Let me ask another question. Is it not correct that your bill will increase the cost of drugs going into the Medicaid system?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.