My good friend from New York was on the floor and was talking about the relative significance of the inheritance tax and how it wasn't really all that meaningful. I am sure the occupant of the chair would agree because he was one of the rare Democrats who stood up and said we should repeal that unfair tax on money that has already been spent. Also, with the farm crisis we have had out West in my State, I have yet to find one person out there who wasn't more concerned about losing his farm because of the very unfair death tax than even the farm bill. But that is not what we are here to talk about.

I think something the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, said has to be repeated over and over; that is, this Hagel-Ensign bill is a lot less expensive and does a better job, but there is one major reason. We have a saying out in Oklahoma that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' That is exactly what the situation is.

Now, we have had two programs that have been rejected today. The first would not do for seniors what it said it would do,and it would have cost a lot more than we can afford, and it would not have included a lot of the drugs the seniors need. That program, as well as costing too much and not covering enough medications, would sunset in 2010. That means in 2010, people who have been relying on the Medicare prescription drug benefit would have had their coverage taken away. We know better than that.

I remember one of the best speeches that should be required reading for all young people, called ``A Rendezvous With Destiny,'' by Ronald Reagan. He said:

The closest thing to immortality on the face of this earth is a Government benefit or program once started.

We all know that is the way it would work out and we would end up with some very large, spiraling cost program that we could not get rid of. It is not responsible, reasonable, and it is not the best we can do for seniors. I am glad it did not pass.

Then we were given a chance to consider a second option, the tripartisan plan. I thought it was too expensive, but I supported it. It is very much like what the House passed. It is something we can go to conference on and have something effective come out of it. Once a person's drug costs reach a higher fixed limit, the Government would have paid 90 percent of the additional cost. Many colleagues supported it, as I did; but it was defeated.

Now we have a chance to give seniors a real prescription drug benefit. This legislation is a responsible, long-term, comprehensive plan which truly takes into account the needs and the situation of individual seniors. Several fellow cosponsors have already spoken to the specifics of the plan, such as low premiums, low overall costs on catastrophic coverage. I will tell you what it means to the people who sent us here.

Senator Gramm talked about some individuals without identifying them. I will identify the people. The Hendersons are from Okmulgee County, a short distance from where I live in Oklahoma. I told them I was going to use their case. They wrote me to tell me about their struggle with prescription drugs. They had a unique problem--one was a heart problem and one was a cancer problem. The Hendersons have a yearly household income of $24,000 and they spend $9,000 of that on prescription drugs in a single year. The Hendersons' income falls between the 200 percent and 400 percent above the national poverty level. That national poverty level for couples is $11,940 a year. Under our bill, an out-of-pocket limit on the cost of prescription drugs for people with a similar income to the Hendersons is set at $3,500. If they were between 100 and 200 percent of poverty, that would come down to $1,500. But in the case of the Hendersons, they would have to pay that maximum, and then a copay of 10 percent of the cost of these drugs. Calculate that out. While the remaining cost of the Hendersons' drugs is $5,500, their copays would be no more than $550, and under this bill the Hendersons would pay a total of $4,050 a year for prescription drugs, when they are now paying $9,000 a year. This bill cuts their drug costs by more than half.

The Hendersons, under the Democrat plan, would have faced uncertainty on three fronts: First of all, uncertainty about which drugs were covered, since only two drugs in each therapeutic class would be covered; secondly, uncertainty about how much the prescriptions would cost since the $10, $40, and $60 copayments in the plan were virtually done away with through amendments; and, three, uncertainty about how long their benefits would last even if it didn't sunset. They would not know this. Uncertainty is there.

I believe the Hagel plan is real assistance, and I strongly support it. I believe this is the alternative that is left and the most responsible one.