Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003 - Continued

PRESCRIPTION DRUG AND MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003—CONTINUED

    Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, because of urgent business back in my State of Oklahoma, I will be unable to be in attendance to vote on S. 1. It makes no difference, however, because I would have voted against it.

    Last week, I addressed this Chamber regarding S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act. At that time, I said I could not support the legislation in its current form and expressed my hope that it could be improved on the floor. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. I am restating my opposition to this legislation.

    This is simply another Federal entitlement program designed to balloon past expected costs of $400 billion. For example, in the past, Medicare expenses have soared nearly five times the projected costs. I remember that well because I remember in 1965 when it was passed. This trend will only escalate if we continue to add unfunded obligations without ensuring the long-term solvency of the entire program.

    We must examine the necessity of such obligations prior to placing the burden on the backs of the future taxpayers. And is a full prescription drug benefit necessary? Currently, 76 percent of seniors already have some form of prescription drug coverage. A recent Zogby poll found that three-fourths of seniors thought the coverage offered under this plan would be no better than what they currently have. In fact, less than one-half would even purchase the option if given the choice. However, with the passage of S. 1, those individuals may not be given that choice. CBO estimates that one-third of Medicare beneficiaries with employer-sponsored coverage will lose those benefits once the bill takes effect. Seniors who currently have private coverage that they like will be forced to buy the Government-sponsored benefit simply because it is the only thing that will be available.

    There is something wrong with that picture. The Government should not be replacing coverage that already exists. However, this legislation opens the door for continued Government intervention. With the inclusion of the fallback provision, this benefit has the potential to become fully federalized if private plans do not surface. Once again, we are placing more and more expense at the door of the taxpayers, our children, and our grandchildren.

    I am concerned about the effect this bill could have on the future of the entire Medicare Program. I have worked with my colleagues to support improvements to this legislation. I and many of my colleagues have signed letters to both Senator Frist and President Bush outlining the principles that need to be included in the final version of this bill. I also cosponsored an amendment with Senators Ensign, Hagel, and Lott to provide a more reasonable prescription drug benefit that does not create a massive entitlement program. I believe the House of Representatives is on the right track with this issue.

    I am hopeful that with the passage of S. 1, the conferees will work to see that the final legislation adheres to the principles stated in the letters to President Bush and Senator Frist and the proposal supported by the House. At that time, I will look forward to supporting this legislation.