Max Baucus: “my good friend from Iowa, my chairman, is attempting, in a good-faith way, to figure out how we are going to get a…”

“my good friend from Iowa, my chairman, is attempting, in a good-faith way, to figure out how we are going to get a greater prescription drug benefit to our seniors. It is clear our seniors need it. The only question that is facing this body is simple: which of the two alternatives, the one offered by the chairman or the one offered by myself, is more likely to get them the benefit? The circumstance is a bit awkward, a bit difficult. My chairman and myself are offering competing amendments. In a real sense, they are very similar. It is about the same thing. We are both trying to get a prescription drug benefit, and in each case the amount is roughly the same, $300 billion. The amendment of the Senator says up to $300 billion over 10 years. The amendment I am offering says we will add $158 billion to the current $153 billion. That comes out to $311 billion. So we are both talking about $300 billion total in prescription drug benefits for the next 10 years for our senior citizens who, essentially, are currently not covered. The question really is, Why are we here? We are both talking about $300 billion. What is the big deal? Why don't we just agree and get on with the other amendments? The point is there is an honest, good-faith difference of opinion as to which of the two is more likely to provide the actual prescription drug benefits.”