Press Stakeout Following Senate Policy Luncheons with: Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA); Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA); Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)......

HEADLINE: PRESS STAKEOUT FOLLOWING SENATE POLICY LUNCHEONS WITH: SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA); SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA); SENATOR JIM BUNNING (R-KY); AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST (R-TN)

BODY:
SEN. SANTORUM: Good afternoon, everybody. We had a good discussion in conference today, and we'll have one this afternoon, on the issue of Medicare prescription drugs and improving and strengthening the Medicare system. This is a time where the Republican Senate has come together in a bipartisan fashion and been able to build a consensus to move a bill out of the Finance Committee, under the great leadership of Chairman Grassley, the great leadership of our president, and giving seniors choices, as well as much needed prescription drug coverage.

So we are not only providing very, very important coverage for prescription drugs, but one of the most important things we're doing is we're going to be improving the Medicare system, providing choices for seniors to better suit their health care needs and the problems that they're confronting, to have a variety of different delivery systems to be able to address the different medical needs that seniors have. Every senior is different, and there should be different plans out there to meet their needs. And we have designed a plan that does that; we've designed a plan that we believe will create better quality health care, as well as more efficient expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to get that health care delivered to the seniors who most need it.

And we're starting here. It's going to be a two-week process, maybe less -- I hope less. And we're very, very confident that this is a bill that will pass here with well above the 50 votes needed and we'll get a bill into conference and get something done and delivered for the American people.

Later today, we'll be unveiling our "delivery room," which is the room down the hall, which will be the Republican Conference's room where we're going to do our radio actualities and we're going to do our Internet chats and our press conferences. And we call it the delivery room, obviously, because we want -- this is an opportunity for the Republicans, who promised that if you put us back in power here in the United States Senate, we would deliver for the American public; we'd deliver reductions in taxes, a budget; we'd deliver the appropriations mess -- we've cleaned that up; and now, delivering one of the most important things we said we do and that is a prescription drug benefit.

And again, I want to give great recognition to a leader in that effort, and that's the chairman of our Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley.

Chuck?

SEN. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. I think in this debate this week and next week, we surely want to emphasize what's unique about this legislation besides its bipartisanship, and that is that it's voluntary, it's universal and it's very comprehensive. It gives our seniors maximum opportunity to choose -- choose things that are available for them.

Besides the prescription drug part of it, though, I would like to emphasize today a great deal of emphasis upon preventive medicine and upon disease management, ways in which we can save a lot of Medicare dollars in the future as we provide a modern-day Medicare program that fits the needs of different people, but also garnered towards the practice of medicine in the 21st century, which is basically do what we can to keep people well, as opposed to spending a lot of money to make them well after they become sick. And the other is to make sure that once they're sick and other things are wrong with them, that we take maximum effort of crisis management, disease management to keep them out of the expensive environments of hospitals, et cetera. So, we have a very comprehensive program. But remember, it's one that's geared towards the practice of medicine in the 21st century, unlike the 1965 model: Medicare.

SEN. SANTORUM: Thanks, Chuck.

And now, I'd like to turn it over to Jim Bunning. Jim has been very, very active, particularly focused on making sure that we had very strong and comprehensive coverage for low-income people. He, like I do, has a lot of seniors who are low-income in his state. And he has been very focused on that subject.

Jim?

SEN. BUNNING: Thanks, Rick, very much.

I don't know if all of you realize how front-loaded this bill is for the poorest of the poor. I've got to use the numbers, because if I don't use the numbers I have written down, I won't get it right. But there are -- from the top down, there are approximately 40 million seniors that will be covered under a comprehensive bill that is within budget. You know, during the budget debate, we put $400 billion away for a 10-year period. Well, there are 40 million seniors that fall under this. There are 5.5 (million) to 6 million seniors that are dual-eligible seniors.

These are people that are covered presently under Medicaid. They're going to stay there.

Now we have a wrap-around program that will include some Medicare. But generally speaking, the senior in Medicaid is going to stay there. And what that senior is responsible for is $1 to $3 per prescription -- $1 or $3 -- the dual-eligibles. Those are people at 73 percent of poverty and below.

The next group of people that are a hundred percent of poverty -- and let me give you some numbers, though, so you understand the amount of money these people actually make. Sixty-six hundred and 45 dollars -- that's a single, a hundred percent of poverty, up to $12,120. That's the maximum for a couple. Those are what we call QMBs, or people who are at the 100 percent of poverty.

Now I want you to know that the new beneficiary for that level will only have 2.5 percent to cover in their prescription drugs, up to $4,500 worth of prescription drugs. There's a little doughnut in the middle, and then the catastrophic coverage comes in at $5,812. So there -- almost 75 percent of seniors never reach the $4,500 limits. It's marvelous if you look at the makeup of the people we're talking about.

The next group are people who are at 100 to 135 percent of the poverty level. Now those are people that have $8,900, a little more than that, as a single person, and 16,000 (dollars) as a married couple. Those are the outer limits. The beneficiary will have to pay 5 percent of their prescription drugs, and the doughnut is still the same, 4,500, where they fall out, and then the maximum comes back at 5,800. And then they are responsible for 2.5 percent of their prescription drugs over the catastrophic. So I want you to understand how low-income people are being handled.

The next category is above the 135 percent. It goes to 160. And the beneficiary will pay 10 percent there and on the outside of the catastrophic will again pay 10 percent.

Everyone else, all -- there are approximately 20 million seniors that fall in this and there are -- above the 160 percent of poverty will pay 50 percent of their coverage. And as they come out of the catastrophic, at $5,800, they will pay 10 percent. Now, that's how good this bill is for the neediest of our needy seniors.

I want you to understand how hard it was and how bipartisan it was. The bipartisanship was unbelievable in the committee, that we had only five "no" votes out of 21, two Republicans and three Democrats, and we felt very good when we got this bill to the floor.

And now we're going to try to improve it. And we probably will make some improvements. But, coming out of the committee, it is a very good bill to start with.

Thank you.

SEN. FRIST: I'll be very brief. Over the next week and a half now, a little over a week and a half, we have a lot to accomplish. And we will be providing solutions to challenges, to problems, to needs to wants, for and on behalf of America's seniors. Seniors want something very -- very simple, and that's health care security. When they're 65, 66, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 or 95 years of age, all they want is to have access to a type of care that looks at prevention, that looks at management of their disease, if they develop emphysema or heart disease, good management of that disease, and the security that if they need it, that they'll be able to get prescription drugs.

Prescription drugs today, unlike in 1965 -- or, I would argue, even in 1970 -- are an integral part, an integral part of health care delivery. And by being an integral part of health care delivery, that means of health care security. At the end of two weeks from today, the House of Representatives will have passed a bill which accomplishes that. The United States Senate, working in a bipartisan way, will pass a bill which will accomplish that. That's progress. That's steps forward.

And ultimately, we're going to reach that goal in very short order of meeting that challenge of providing a modern Medicare system, a modern Medicare program that maximizes choice for our seniors so that they will be able to get the type of coverage that best suits their individual needs and, at the same time, have reasonable access to prescription drugs.

Q Senator, Democrats are talking about creating a more generous benefit, and one way they do that with the $400 billion limit is to borrow a page out of your playbook, and that is to make the benefit temporary; to have this bill sunset after seven, or so, years. What do you say to that kind of approach? It allows you to do more with a $400 billion budget.

SEN. FRIST: Well, one of the important aspects of where we start is, number one, it's bipartisan from day one. And everybody -- all of my colleagues have heard me, over the last three months, say we're going to have a bipartisan bill.

The second, working with the White House, working with Democrats, and working with Republicans, there's been consensus, again, built upon a lot of work in the past; this is a $400 billion bill, and that's a lot of money. There will be pressures to push it up, but there is generally consensus, so I think we're going to be able to stick with the $400 billion.

As to different ways to configure that $400 billion, I think it's going to be hard to say, "Seniors" -- if this is what the Democrats really want to do, which it would be hard for me to believe -- and say, "Here is your health care security, but it's just for three years, and after three years, I'm going to take it away." I think that's risky, and I really don't think it's going to be successful.

Q Senator Frist, two questions. Senator Daschle wrote to President Bush today asking for a meeting with you and him about presumptive Supreme Court nominees. Do you think that meeting would be a good idea?

The second question would be, in the Senate Rules Committee, they had a hearing today about secret holds. And Senator Byrd said he wasn't in favor of a Senate rule change, however he said you and Senator Daschle could require senators to write both of you letters to -- and that would keep the holds from becoming secret. What do you think about that idea?

SEN. FRIST: First question, Supreme Court nominees. I've not seen the letter. I believe tomorrow morning is part of our regular bipartisan leadership meeting with the president of the United States, and I'm sure that issue will come up. Senator Daschle and I, as you know, meet with the president of the United States on a regular basis, with the leadership meeting, and in that it's a very straightforward opportunity to either suggest names or tell the president of the United States one on one, directly, particular names or what sort of candidate. So, I am sure the president would be happy to listen, to take those names, and will give it every consideration. I'm confident of that.

And I believe the meeting is tomorrow morning; it's every two weeks to three weeks. We'll have plenty of opportunities to do just that.

The second on the holds. You know, holds are not written in the Senate rules. And we are governed pretty much by Senate rules and by precedent. And I would agree with Senator Byrd that as we address holds, since it's not in the Senate rules; since in the past, letters have been written under -- to establish certain understandings, that that is a reasonable way to approach the issue. So, I'm not sure. I was not, unfortunately -- was not at the hearing today because of the Medicare, but would be interested into what both the hearing found and be -- if there is a real problem, would be happy to look at whatever solutions are put forward.

Q Senator, can you tell us where you are on the bipartisan -- (off mike) -- Committee to hold back the entities -- (off mike)?

SEN. FRIST: I've not taken a position on it.

Anybody want to comment?

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. FRIST: Just a little bit louder.

Q Do you have problems in your own conference on this Medicare bill? Is that why you're having this caucus meeting this afternoon?

SEN. FRIST: The issue as to whether I've got problems in my own caucus on Medicare -- (chuckling) -- uh -- do we have problems? -- it's interesting. This bill, being bipartisan and trying to establish a goal at the outset -- and that's not the way legislation is usually done around here. Basically, we've got a goal -- it's to strengthen and improve Medicare and to include prescription drugs. That's the goal. Let's all get together, both sides of the aisle, and decide how we can best achieve that.

Number one, people looked to pass bills -- the tripartisan bill, the old Frist-Breaux bill, the Ensign bill -- all of the bills that we put on the table, and that's really where we started. Then we said, number two, how can we update that and modernize all of those bills based on what we know today, because health care delivery is changing rapidly. Every six months, there -- it's almost revolutionary changes. Then third, we're going to stick with it being bipartisan. Why? Because a bill of this magnitude that is probably the single largest change to any entitlement program after the origin at one point in time, we've got to get it right. And to get it right, I think we need the very best of the Democrats and the very best of the Republicans to do it. Are we going to have 100 people voting for this bill? Absolutely not. I was very pleased with the Finance Committee the other night coming out with a -- 16 to five? --

SEN. : Yes.

SEN. FRIST: Sixteen to five, which was a bipartisan bill. We lost a few on either side. And I expect that's the way it will be throughout the floor real shortly.

SEN. SANTORUM: The reason we're having the conference is because a lot of our members are not on the Finance Committee and didn't know the details of the bill. We tried to give a walk-through from the standpoint of Senator Grassley, myself, Senator Kyl, Senator Frist, who are on the committee, but there was a level of detail that our members really wanted to delve into.

This is a very important piece of legislation that's going to have profound ramifications -- to seniors, but to taxpayers -- forever, as long as America is around. And you only write these kinds of things once, you very rarely get a chance to substantially change them, and I think our members really wanted to get into the details. So we're going to have a staff -- staff members of the Finance Committee, Tom Skelly (sp) from CMS and Doug Badger from the White House -- come down and go through all the details and be able to answer in detail what the problems -- some of the questions and problems that our members have.

Do our members have problems? Sure they do, and they'd like to see some things different. I'd like to see some things different. I think our leader would. The question is, what can we move forward here and pass as a responsible measure, and we're going to work on that.

(Q/SEN. ?): (Off mike.)

SEN. BUNNING: Yes, I sure do, because I'm a little more optimistic than the leader. I can afford to be. I think the bill, when we complete it on the floor, will gather between 70 and 80 bipartisan votes. That means that we'll lose some Republicans and we'll lose some Democrats. You don't get the Democrat leader in the Senate to vote for a bill out of committee and then say, when we get to the floor, we have to do X, Y and Z to get it passed. He's for the bill as it came out of the committee. You don't have the -- we have some people that would like to change some of the provisions. I know I would have liked to change some provisions. But I am absolutely confident that the Senate will pass this bill with a large majority, and I'm confident that the House will and that we'll get a conference report to the president by the end of July and he will be able to sign this historic Medicare change into law for our seniors who need it the most.

SEN. : Okay. Thank you all very much.