Max Baucus: “I listened closely to my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, and his basic arguments against the pending amendment.…”

“I listened closely to my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, and his basic arguments against the pending amendment. As I heard him, he had a basic argument that the pending amendment would not provide benefits fast enough. I take it that he would rather follow the provisions contained in the budget resolution, which he believes will get benefits to seniors more quickly. I do not know if my good friend knows, whenever we have tried that in the past--that is, block grant programs like CHIP--it takes States a couple of years at least to implement the program. It is never something that comes up and is implemented right away. Second, a lot of States do not want the provision that is contemplated in the budget resolution. Why don't they want it? Because they cannot afford it. They do not have the matching funds. Furthermore, some State legislatures like Montana's meet every other year. Consequently, it would take a couple of years for those States to enact the measure that is contemplated by the ideas of the Senator from Oklahoma. I might also add, for those States that already do have a plan in place, they will just use the Federal money to substitute for the State money. It is a zero sum game. We are not adding anything. The evidence and testimony before our committee are clearly along those lines. I might also say that if the majority is thinking of getting a prescription drug benefit out of the contingency fund we hear so much about, they should just work out the numbers.”