Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, who has worked so hard on this legislation and has done such a wonderful job of crafting what is a very reasonable and modest approach. I did want to respond to comments that had been made a little while ago to emphasize again that this is a different proposal than was brought before the Congress before it was passed. It is limited to Canada where we know there is a very similar safety regulatory structure. We are trading back and forth. Our manufacturers of prescription drugs go back and forth across the border all the time. The only difference is they control the prices, as opposed to giving consumers the ability to have lower prices. So this is a different system. This is a system that sets up a number of protections, in fact more protections than we have in current law. So this is actually strengthening, and given the current times that we are in, that makes sense. It makes sense to limit this to Canada as a way to begin this process and see how it works, and it makes sense to add all the safety provisions that are put in. It also makes sense to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have the power to immediately stop reimportation if, in fact, there is a problem. If there is a safety problem, if there is a health problem, if there is a concern at all about counterfeit drugs, then the Secretary has the ability, based on the evidence, to be able to stop this process. So I believe we have built in a number of provisions that are very important, that are very responsible, and I believe this plan should go forward. My colleague from Tennessee also said that there is no evidence we will see prices lowered or that we will see the lower prices passed on. First, I would absolutely say what we do know. There is great evidence that in fact our seniors--in fact everyone--are going to be paying higher prescription drug prices every year. We do know that. We do know in the last year, the brand name companies raised the prices over three times the rate of inflation. We do know that. We do know there is an explosion in advertising, two and a half times more in advertising, than research. We know there is in fact an explosion in prices going on in this country. We do know that our families are desperate, that our seniors are desperate, and many have drug bills that are higher than their incomes; families struggling to help mom and dad, grandma and grandpa. We do know our small businesses are struggling to provide health care for themselves and their employees. We do know too many workers find themselves in a situation where their employer says: We have to have a pay freeze in order to be able to afford your health care benefits. We know that is predominately because of the rising prices of prescription drugs. So even if one thinks this is not the best proposal in the world, it is better than what is occurring today for American consumers, for American families, American seniors. I am very confident, in talking to pharmacists, community pharmacists, those who are on the front lines around this country, that they would welcome the ability to have a lower cost product brought into their pharmacies so they can offer it to American citizens. They are on the front lines. They see the senior that walks up, gives the prescription for a 30-day supply of a drug, and then looks at the bill and comes back and says: Can I get one week's supply or I cannot get this at all. Or they take it home and they cut the pills in half. I have known couples who both needed the same heart medicine. They buy one and share it. We all know the stories. I know that pharmacists in our neighborhood pharmacies are very much in support of efforts to bring in lower priced prescription drugs. One way to do that is by opening the border to Canada. So I would simply rise to, again, voice strong support and my pleasure at being a cosponsor of this amendment, having worked on this issue for a number of years. I urge my colleagues to get beyond the scare tactics and to support us in this reasonable, moderate effort to add competition and lower prices for our citizens. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might share this for the Record for my colleagues and ask my friend from North Dakota to respond, I did want to put into the Record, as we were talking about advertising versus research and so on, that, in fact, today two and a half times more is spent on advertising and marketing of a product than is spent on research and development. What is more startling is the fact that according to a report released today by Family USA, we have companies that are having two or three times more in profits than they spend on research and development. This is no longer a research and development driven industry--which it needs to be. It has become much more about sales, marketing, and ``me too'' drugs rather than new breakthrough drugs. Today, Family USA showed us in a report that, for instance, America, last year--in 2001--had a profit, a net income, that was three times more than what they spent on R&D. Pfizerpen's was one and a half times more. Bristol-Myers was two times more in profit. What is also disturbing is that, while I appreciate the sympathies for the drug companies, it is really quite shocking when we look at where the money goes as opposed to R&D. This chart shows the five highest-paid drug company executives. I won't say them by name, but the CEO of Bristol-Myers gets $74 million, not counting unexercised stock options. Wyeth's gets $40 million, not counting stock options. If you include the stock options, you are looking at another $93 million for one company, $76 million for another, $60 million, and so on. So I appreciate the concern about the drug companies and the different system in Canada. But if our concern is about research and development--which we should be concerned about because not enough is being done now--we have a lot of money going in a lot of other places that I think would be of concern to the average senior who is trying to figure out tonight at supper time whether they eat or get their medication. I appreciate the time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I was here at 10 o'clock this morning asking that, and I think it would have been very appropriate if you had been here at 10 o'clock this morning. We would have welcomed that. We have all day been asking that. Now we are at a point where I think the concerns of my friend----

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate very much having the opportunity as well to raise the issue. I appreciate now our friend wants to move ahead with this issue. But we certainly want to make sure we have a vote so that we know that in fact we can proceed. I ask of our leader, the Senator from Massachusetts: In order for us to guarantee that we can proceed and that this will not happen again in the future, is it his assumption that it is best for us then to move ahead to a vote so we may guarantee in fact, as my friend from New York said, that we don't have this happening again and not just a series of filibusters in order to stop us from moving ahead on this important issue?

Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again on this very important topic of lower prices of prescription drugs and providing real Medicare prescription drug benefit. I join my colleague in speaking to the fact that we need to pass the bill that came out of the committee to close generic loopholes and stop the drug companies from gaming the system. I think everyone should be commended for bringing this to the floor. I appreciate the fact that they have done that. The frustrating thing at this point is, despite the fact that there was an overwhelming bipartisan vote to bring this legislation to the floor so we could begin to add to it--add medicare prescription drug coverage, add other ways to increase competition and lower prices--we come this week with great anticipation of this debate to work together and work out all the details after a vote of 16 people saying yes in committee to only 5 saying no, a bipartisan vote--we come to the floor last night, and a colleague on the other side of the aisle objects to us proceeding even to the bill. Colleagues come and talk about concerns about working out details, which we want to do, we know we have to do, and we will do. But we are being stopped. In fact, the clock has been ticking since last night and we are not even able to bring this issue before the Senate. It is amazing to me that, with the importance of this issue and all the words that have been spoken on this floor and the House, during Presidential campaigns and all the campaigns that we have been involved with--we come to the moment of truth of being able to bring this to the floor for debate and, instead, we are seeing an attempt to stall. We are seeing an attempt to hold us up from proceeding. That is of great concern. I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, but I disagree with this approach, and I urge him to reconsider and give us the opportunity to bring this to the full Senate.

Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague from New Hampshire yield?

Ms. STABENOW. I ask why you were not with us this morning. We have been asking all day.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I first commend my friend from Illinois for his advocacy on this critical issue. He has been here time and again with amendments to do what needs to be done. I thank him for his advocacy and concern, deep concern, about this issue. In a related issue--relating to health care--this morning I am in the Chamber with my colleague from Florida to urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in proceeding to the critical debate on the issue of prescription drugs. I cannot think of a more important issue facing our country than making sure that lifesaving medicines are available to our seniors, to our families, to anyone who needs them, and that we are lowering prices so that our small businesses can see their health care premiums go down to a reasonable level. Large manufacturers, such as the big three automakers, that are in Michigan, and others all across the country who are seeing explosions in their health care costs need to know there is some relief in sight, there is a way to get this into a manageable situation. We have plans to address that, to provide Medicare coverage for our seniors--it is long overdue for prescription drugs--and to lower prices to everybody through increased competition and making sure our laws work and the opportunities for competition exist. I was concerned to come to the floor last evening and find that a simple motion to proceed to debate the bill was objected to by our friend from New Hampshire and by others on the other side of the aisle--just to proceed to the debate. The leader told us we will have a full 2 weeks in a very crowded schedule to focus on this issue because it is so incredibly important. There is nothing more important to the quality of life of our citizens, to the cost to the economy, and there is nothing more important right now than addressing this issue of lowering prices and the issue of corporate responsibility, quite frankly, with the drug companies and how we make sure that lifesaving medicine is available to all of our citizens at an affordable price and that our seniors have a real promise of Medicare caps, because without covering outpatient prescriptions, we are no longer keeping the promise of Medicare. So I come to the floor today to urge our colleagues to take away their objection and allow us to proceed to the debate. We have 2 weeks to work out the specifics, to work together on the right kind of plan. But we need to get to that debate. The Governors of the country are meeting right now, and in fact the Governor from Michigan leads that organization. The Governors' conference, according to the paper, focuses on health costs. This morning, I tuned in to C-SPAN to listen to some of the discussion they were having on prescription drug prices and the costs to our Governors. It says in the paper: Despite signs of a gradual national recovery, the State's woes are expected to persist well into the current fiscal cycle. Their biggest problems are the ballooning costs of prescription drugs and Medicare. We in the Senate have an opportunity to do something about that right now. The Governors are asking us to do that. Businesses are asking us, as are families, seniors, and workers. Every worker who has had to have their salary capped or frozen so that the employer can afford the rising cost of their health care plans has asked us to do something about this. I want to take just a moment to bring forward the urgency of this issue by sharing some stories that have come into my Web site. I have set up something called a prescription drug people's lobby, asking people in Michigan to share their stories and join with us. We know the reason this is being held up, unfortunately, in the Senate is that there are far more drug company lobbyists than there are people's voices talking about what is affecting them and their families. There are six lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. So we have a responsibility to speak for them and make sure their stories are told. I start with Melissa Askin from Romulus, MI, who was the first person to sign up for our Michigan prescription drug people's lobby on May 22. I thank Melissa for that. She wrote in her story: I guess my story is no different from the many Americans, when it comes to deciding if I can afford food to live or medications. It boils down to a choice these days: what can I afford to keep myself alive once I pay my bills. I am 68 years old, my husband is deceased, and I have no family. I have had a heart bypass, both carotid arteries in my neck cleaned out, and now in April I was operated on for cancer, not to mention several other surgeries. I am supposed to be on nine medications, however, at the price of these meds, I can only afford three. I don't know what will happen with me by not being able to be on the meds I can't afford, but it makes me wonder what I'm living for. I feel like nobody cares. Melissa needs to know that we care, we in the Senate care--not by our words, because people have heard enough words, but by our actions. That is what this is about right now. Are we going to proceed to this debate? Are people going to use procedural motions to stop us from even getting to the debate, or are we going to move forward together, find ways and common ground in a bipartisan way to do what needs to be done? Will we do that so that Melissa Askin, 68 years old, of Romulus, MI, knows that someone cares? When she needs nine medications in order to live and have quality of life, she should be able to get all nine medications and not have to settle for three. That is what this is about. Let me share a story from a young woman, Shawn Somerville, from Ypsilanti, MI, who e-mailed me: Just this last Christmas, my grandmother was hospitalized because she stopped taking her prescription so that she could afford presents for all of us grandkids. She later died from an undiagnosed ulcer. It was very sad to me that these drugs are so expensive. Do they need to be? Well, Shawn, no, they don't need to be. We as American taxpayers underwrite the cost of research and invest in and support the companies and provide patents so they can recover costs, and work with them in one of the most subsidized industries certainly in the country and in the world, because we want to make sure your grandmother has access to her medicine. We want to make sure the grandmothers and grandfathers of this country don't have to stop taking their medicine in order to have Christmas with their grandkids. Unfortunately, today this system is just plain out of control. When we see prices rising three times the rate of inflation in the most profitable industry in the world and we see people who cannot afford their medicines, I argue that this is a debate about corporate responsibility. We just finished an important debate last night in a unanimous vote to improve the oversight of publicly held corporations in this country so that in fact we can guarantee corporate responsibility, information for investors so that people's pensions will be protected. It was an important, bipartisan effort that ended up in a good result for the American people. This is also about corporate responsibility. That is what this is about. I believe it is about corporate responsibility and ethics and, in fact, even morality. We can do better in the greatest country in the world than we are doing now as it relates to the affordability of lifesaving prescription drugs and the spiraling, out-of-control costs of our health care system as a result. I urge people to get involved with us today. If someone is listening to what we are debating now on the Senate floor, I urge you to get involved right now. We need you to call your Senator. We need all of us to be engaged in this battle, and we welcome you to come to a Web site that has been set up--fairdrugprices.org. We are asking people to share their stories. We are asking people to sign an online petition drive sending a message to the House, the Senate, and the President to act now. We do not need one more Christmas to go by with grandmas and grandpas trying to decide whether or not they can buy Christmas presents for their grandchildren or take their medicine. Fairdrugprices.org is about getting involved and together getting our voices heard, and then through my colleagues and me, we will bring those stories that are shared through this Web site to the Chamber of the Senate and continue to make the case that this is real, it is about real people. We are not making this up. This is one of the most critical, if not the most critical, issues we will debate this year in terms of touching people's lives. The bill we just finished on corporate responsibility certainly is right up there with it, making sure we have confidence in the markets and people's pensions are protected, but if they have to take every single dime of that pension to pay for prescription drugs, they will still have a very difficult time in their retirement. It is my pleasure right now to yield to my colleague from Florida who has been an outspoken advocate. I know he has been working with people as well and sharing stories and hearing from his constituents about this issue. I simply say, as I yield to my colleague, that we are out of time. Now is the time to act. Now is the time for us to at least get started on the debate. We have the next 2 weeks to work together to figure out the specifics and bring it to a close. I yield to my colleague and good friend from Florida.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, it is difficult to know where to begin at this point. I feel compelled to respond to my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania, who has spoken at some length. As I listened to him on a variety of subjects, I have changed what I was going to say a number of times. Let me just start by addressing the last issue he raised about knowing the whole story because I believe it is incredibly important. We have been trying, now, since Friday--or certainly we have been trying since yesterday--to move to this legislation which is so critical to lower prices of prescription drugs for everyone and also provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is beneficial. As we finally move to the bill, it is important that we understand the whole story of how the industry operates today and our role as taxpayers. I think we need to understand that we start with basic research. This year, we as taxpayers are spending $23.5 billion that we give to the National Institutes of Health for basic research. I support that. I would support doing more. I think it is critical. But we do that, and companies take the information and then move it to the next level after we have subsidized or paid for the research. They move to the next level and do research and development themselves, which is also very important. We subsidize that as well through tax writeoffs on research and development as well as advertising and business costs and so on. So we participate through tax deductions and credits. We then allow companies that bring a product to market to have up to a 20-year patent. That patent, then, allows them to have exclusive rights, without competition, so they can recover their costs, their research costs. It does cost a tremendous amount of money to bring new drugs to the market. We know that. We as Americans have built in a system to make sure that that innovation is recognized. We allow companies to recoup their costs, and they are then able to bring these lifesaving drugs to market. We then get to the end of that process, and then something else is supposed to happen. The formula is supposed to be available for generic companies to be able to, in turn, manufacture the drugs and reduce the prices. What happens today? Unfortunately, this industry, that has been supported and subsidized and is making 18-percent to 20-percent profit a year, fights every possible venue for competition. They fight everything. They fight generics going on the market. Sometimes they buy up the companies. Sometimes they just sue them to keep them off the market. They fight opening the borders to Canada which would create more competition. They fight real Medicare prescription drug coverage that would allow 40 million seniors and those with disabilities to be under one insurance plan and be able to have the clout to get a group discount. They fight everything. That is the real story: Why we are here, seeing delay after delay after delay, because we see the lobbyists in that industry looking for every opportunity to stop us from going forward. My colleague also said we should have brought this up in the Finance Committee. One of the things I learned is that if you are wrong on substance, you bring up process arguments. So we had a lot of process arguments. Unfortunately, not one of those process arguments would buy one prescription for one senior. We have heard arguments about the Finance Committee. I ask my colleagues: It is my understanding there has been a bill in the Finance Committee for 5 years. How long is long enough? How long is long enough? How long do seniors in the country have to wait for Medicare coverage? How long is long enough? We debate on the floor skipping the Finance Committee. How about the senior who is skipping supper right now? Frankly, I am more concerned about that person right now. How long do people have to wait? How many Presidential debates and campaigns? How many congressional campaigns? How long? Now is the time to stop talking about process and start talking about real Medicare coverage and lowering prices for everyone, so the next group of employees do not have to be told their pay is frozen so the employer can pay the health care benefit; so the next round of small businesses do not see their premiums jump 30 percent, 40 percent, and they have to consider dropping insurance coverage for their employees-- predominantly because of the driving costs of prescription drugs; so the manufacturers in my State do not have to struggle with this issue. How long? I would suggest too long. And now is the time to do it. Now is the time to act. If we are operating as people of good will, we can work out the process, we can work out the details. There are philosophical differences--no question--about how to proceed. But if people of good will want to make something happen, I believe we can and we will. I will have a lot more to say about the differences in the Medicare plans and other differences tomorrow, as we move through this debate. But this evening I would like to remind Senators, again, what we are supposed to be focusing on. I hope, anyway, with all due respect to colleagues, that we pay attention to what is really at stake. I have set up a prescription drugs people's lobby through my Web site and asked people to share with me their stories. I close with two descriptions of real-life situations that are happening right now. One is from Rochelle Dodgson of Oak Park, MI. I want to thank her very much. I have shared this before, but I want to bring us back to what this is about. She writes: My mother is currently insured under COBRA after losing her job in August of 2001. While she has her basic Medicare coverage, she will lose her supplemental medical coverage in January 2003. She has recently been diagnosed with multiple myeloma and will require treatment for this blood disorder the rest of her life. The medication she was taking before this new illness costs over $500 retail on a monthly basis. I have not checked the prices of the `chemo' she takes monthly nor the cost of the Procrit she takes weekly. I expect her monthly out of pocket expenses to be around $700 a month. Her Social Security is just over $800 a month. Her monthly out of pocket expenses are $700; her Social Security is around $800. I can't imagine having to budget food and housing expenses along with medication on that kind of income. My husband and I will try to find a way to budget some of her medical costs into our own expenses. . . . Many families are doing this across America. . . . but we also care for my husband's mother. My mother is still a viable part of society. She doesn't deserve to struggle just because she has chronic illness. That is what this is about. It is not about procedures, and 60 votes versus 51 votes, and all of the other processes, objecting to proceeding with bills. This is what this is about. Let me just share one other story. This is actually from Austin, TX. Jackie Smith wrote through my e-mail. I am sure she shared it with other colleagues as well. I appreciate it. She says: My prescriptions will cost $3,850 a month beginning August 15 [of this year]. Madam President, $3,850 a month for prescriptions. That is when my COBRA benefits--which allowed me to continue my health care coverage through my employer--will run out. I will then qualify for Medicare with no prescription drug coverage. Between my disability policy benefits and Social Security disability my fixed income is $2,000 a month. I have no idea where to turn for help. Madam President, $2,000 a month in income, $3,850 a month in prescription drug costs. She describes her situation and ends by saying: Thank you so much for working for a meaningful drug benefit. That is what this is about. If we want to fix it, we will. We don't need another campaign issue. This is about getting it done. We can do that if we want to do that. We are here thanks to the leadership of our majority leader who understands that it needs to be done and allocated 2 weeks in a schedule with a lot that needs to happen. Because of the importance of this issue, he said we will take 2 full weeks on this and work through it. Instead of doing it on Monday or on Tuesday, it will be tomorrow--Wednesday--before we start. OK. But let us get started. Let us get it done. If we want to do it--we have bright people on both sides of the aisle--we can do it. If we want to just argue process, we can argue process. But this is a bill which for 5 years has been under consideration by the Finance Committee. If it is not possible to get a meaningful, real Medicare benefit, and we instead do it on the floor--I have only been here for 1\1/2\ years; I have seen an awful lot of bills not go through committee and go directly to the floor, an awful lot of them on both sides of the aisle with both leaders of different parties. The reality is that when you are not able to do what you believe needs to happen it frequently goes to the floor. The issue is how we are going to get it done. Are we going to do what is long, long overdue? I believe the American people are getting tired of hearing us talk. They want us to get it done. I hope we will. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank you the Senator. First, I commend our chairman, Senator Kennedy, for his work in bringing this important bill to the floor. I also commend Senator Schumer for his leadership. I say to my friend from Massachusetts, it is my understanding the leader, because of the importance of the issue of not only lowering drug prices for everyone but providing Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, has actually allocated up to 2 weeks on this subject. I would assume we would have ample opportunity to work out any issues and problems that colleagues would have on the other side of the aisle. But the clock is ticking on the 2 weeks. The sooner we can get to the bill, the sooner we can begin to move through a number of different amendments to be able to get this bill in good shape, to be able to deal with a number of issues, such as those that deal with increasing competition and providing Medicare coverage, and so on. This is so critical that our leader has, in fact, allocated 2 weeks. So I am very surprised that our colleague from New Hampshire would stop even the beginning of the debate when he knows that it is not a 1-day debate. We are talking about having 2 weeks and as many hours as it takes in that time to be able to work out all of the kinks and to be able to get it right. I know, coming from Michigan today, working and being in Battle Creek at a senior center and in Kalamazoo at a senior center, that they are watching us very closely. We have had a lot of talk, and if talk bought medicine, people would have a lot of medicine. It is time to act. I commend the chairman of the committee for acting. I am looking forward to working with him.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, next week we begin one of the most important debates that we will have, I believe, as a Senate, throughout this session and possibly for years to come. That is a debate about whether or not we are going to meet two goals that the American people have been asking us to address. The first is a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, for those who have disabilities--a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. Second, we want to lower prices--lower prices for everyone. We know in fact not only do seniors, who use the majority of prescriptions, have high prices, but everyone who has prescription drugs does. If you are paying through insurance, you are paying higher insurance rates. If you are a businessperson, you are seeing your health care premiums rising. Small businesses--many in Michigan come to me and talk about 30-percent, 35-percent, 40-percent increases. The big three automakers are juggling between being able to afford new materials for their automobiles and research and all the other costs that they have, versus health care, most of which is prescription drug increases. So everyone is paying. We have two goals. We as Democrats are working very hard, and we invite our colleague to join with us, to provide real coverage for prescription drugs and lower prices for everyone. It is incredibly important that we do that. I am concerned, as we move into this debate, given what was done in the House of Representatives and the efforts now on the airwaves by the organization funded by the pharmaceutical companies that are talking about how what was passed in the House was good enough, I am concerned that we really do what is necessary and not just what is in the interests of the drug companies. The drug companies are here in force every single day. We know next week and the week after, as long as we debate issues of lower prices and real Medicare coverage, they will be here fighting everything-- unfortunately. They do wonderful work in research and development. I am so pleased that we have so many that are out there doing good work. But we see, as an industry now, their efforts to fight everything. We are talking about corporate responsibility this week on the floor of the Senate, the need for corporate accountability. We need corporate accountability and ethics in the drug industry as well. I am deeply concerned that we do not see efforts to work with us for something that provides reasonable profit. We want them to succeed, but we do not want to continue to see exorbitant price increases and profits on the backs of our seniors, those with disabilities, our families, our small businesses. I am deeply concerned about what we were reading in the paper during the House debate. Our Republican colleagues, in fact a senior House GOP leadership aid said yesterday: Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA [which is the drug industry lobby] to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. This was in the Washington Post, June 19 of this year. They are: . . . working hard behind the scenes to make sure that their . . . plan . . . suits the drug companies. I hope next week we will work just as hard in this body for a prescription drug plan that suits the American people. I am so pleased to see my distinguished colleagues from Georgia here, one in the chair and the junior Senator who came into the Senate with me, who is one of the lead sponsors of the bill that we have in front of us along with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. We have a plan. We have a plan that works, that pays the majority of the bills, that does the job, that brings together the collective buying power of 39 million seniors, and which will require that prices be lowered. We have the plan. Our plan is not the plan of the drug companies. It is not the plan which drug companies are advertising about--the pretty ads from Seniors United that are on the air from the drug company, the front senior group that thanks the Republican colleagues in the House for voting for their plan, the plan that supports the drug companies. We have a plan for the American people. I would like to share for a moment two stories from the Web site which I set up. I set up the Prescription Drug People's Lobby. There are six drug company lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. I invited the people of Michigan to join with me to be part of our people's lobby to make sure the real story gets heard. I would like to share a story from Rochelle Dodgson of Oak Park, MI. I thank her for being a part of our Prescription Drug People's Lobby. She writes: My mother is currently insured under COBRA after losing her job in August 2001. While she has her basic Medicare coverage, she will lose her supplemental medical coverage in January 2003. She has recently been diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma and will require treatment for this blood disorder the rest of her life. The medications she was taking before this new illness cost over $500 retail monthly. I have not checked the prices of the `chemo' she takes monthly nor the cost of the Procrit she takes weekly. I expect her monthly out-of-pocket expenses to be around $700 a month. Her social security is just over $800 monthly. I can't imagine having to budget food and housing expenses along with medication on that kind of income. My husband and I will try to find a way to budget some of her medical costs into our own expenses but we also care for my husband's mother. My mother is still a viable part of society. She doesn't deserve to be struggling just because she has chronic illness. Rochelle, thank you for your story. Your mother does not deserve to struggle with $700 medical bills with a $700-a-month income. I shared that one story today from Michigan. For those who want to get involved, please go to my Senate Web site around the country at Fairdrugprices.org. You can be involved and make your voice heard, and the right thing will happen here in the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes this morning to speak, and then I ask that the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, be yielded 6 minutes; additionally, the senior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be yielded 6 minutes; and 6 minutes also to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham; and an additional 6 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Nevada for their leadership on this very important issue for all of us. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in saying there is not a more revered Member of this body than our senior Senator from Nevada. I thank him for his leadership, his intelligence, his compassion, and his advocacy on this particular issue as well as many others. When I was in the Michigan Senate, I helped to lead an effort to stop putting casks along Lake Michigan and our nuclear facilities because of my concern about the waste being along Lake Michigan. I certainly still have that concern. We lost that, and the waste is there. On first blush, when I was in the House of Representatives, I thought supporting a permanent nuclear storage site at Yucca Mountain was a good idea. I want the waste out of Michigan. There is no question about it. My preference, if we could say, ``Beam me up, Scottie,'' would be to move the waste out of Michigan. Unfortunately, by very close examination of the facts and information from the Department of Energy, their current documents, I have come to the conclusion that this proposal not only will maintain existing threats to the Great Lakes but will create new ones, new security risks, new environmental threats for the Great Lakes and for Michigan families. I am deeply concerned about that and frustrated because fundamentally I want the waste out of Michigan. But I do not want to create more threats in the process. It goes without saying that the world has changed since September 11. We know that. We hear that all the time from our President. We say that on the floor of the Senate practically every day. The world has changed since September 11. Since the tragedies in New York and Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, we have administration officials who daily tell us that we are going to see further attacks. On May 19 of this year, the Vice President stated on ``Meet the Press'' that the prospects of a future terrorist attack against the United States are almost certain and not a matter of if but when. That should be a concern--and I know it is--for all of us. It should in some way be a shadow over every decision we make today in this body for our families, for the families we represent. On June 10, as we all know--just a month ago--the American people became aware of a plot to potentially detonate a so-called ``dirty'' bomb which could kill thousands of people and send poisonous nuclear matter throughout the air, exposing hundreds of thousands more people to nuclear radiation. This causes me to pause and look at what we are doing in a new light. September 11 and the ongoing war against terrorism has, in fact, put this in a new light for me. I have examined how the nuclear waste from Michigan's storage sites would be transported across Michigan to Yucca Mountain and, unfortunately, I am very concerned there is not a plan by the Department of Energy to protect those shipments from terrorist attack. I have asked the questions of our State government, I have asked the questions of our Department of Energy, and I am told, as we have heard over and over again, that the Department is only beginning to look at developing a transportation plan and designating transportation routes. Yet we are asked to decide today on this project without that information. I am also very concerned the Department has not implemented any additional security requirements for transporting nuclear waste since 9-11 to ensure safety and protect the shipments from terrorist attack. In addition, I am very deeply concerned to find that there is no Government agency that has conducted full-scale physical tests of the casks that would be used to transport high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain; nor have these test requirements been reviewed or strengthened to take into account how the casks would perform under a potential terrorist attack. This is a new day. There are new questions and new tests that need to take place in light of our current reality as Americans. I am very concerned today, when I pick up the Washington Post and find that they further reveal that the EPA has been keeping under wraps a February 2002 report that concludes that they are not fully prepared to handle a large-scale nuclear, biological, or chemical attack. The EPA is the primary agency for providing support to State and local governments in response to a discharge of nuclear or hazardous materials, and they are not fully prepared to deal with current security threats. How well prepared will they be once thousands of nuclear shipments begin to travel by our schools, our hospitals, through our communities, our residential neighborhoods, en route to Yucca Mountain. I also discovered, Mr. President, in my examination of the Department of Energy's own documents, that most of the waste stored in Michigan will never make it to Yucca Mountain. That is a pretty big discovery for me. Most of the waste in Michigan will never make it to Yucca Mountain. As long as nuclear powerplants operate in Michigan, new nuclear waste will have to be stored in cooling pools, as indicated by my colleagues, on the shores of the Great Lakes for 5 years at a time so they can be cooled before they are transported anywhere. Much of the nuclear waste in Michigan will not be moved to Yucca Mountain because Yucca Mountain will reach its full capacity within the first 25 years of operation. While I want the waste out of Michigan, away from its shores, We have a worst case scenario for the people of Michigan. The nuclear waste will continue to sit on the shores of the Great Lakes and also be traveling on our roads and railways--and, Heaven forbid, even barges on the Great Lakes--past our communities, neighborhoods and schools. Let me speak to that new threat that, unfortunately, is in the environmental impact statement the Department released just a few months ago, which raised a tremendous red flag for me. The Department of Energy's final environmental impact statement describes barging nuclear waste on the Great Lakes as a transportation option. Now, in fairness, they indicate that while there could be as many as 431 barge shipments of nuclear waste on Lake Michigan, that is not their preferred option. I am glad that is not their preferred option, but, unfortunately, when writing the Secretary, he would not take it off the table as an option. In fact, he indicated that the Department of Energy ``has made no decision on the matter.'' I cannot imagine putting high-level nuclear waste on barges and sending it across Lake Michigan. There is not a plan in the world that I would support to do that. The answer of the Department on this issue is simply not good enough. I cannot support any plan that includes a transportation option that endangers one-fifth of the world's freshwater supply and the source of drinking water for the entire Great Lakes region. Mr. President, today's vote, unfortunately, will be the last time Congress will have a real voice on this issue. We certainly can express ourselves as it moves through the regulatory process, but this is the time for us to say, yes, we know enough to move forward or, no, we do not. If we say no, we can ask that more information be given to us, that more tests be done, and that we receive assurances, such as I need, to know that there will not be, under any circumstances, barging on the Great Lakes. We can get that information and then we can proceed again. This is not the end. We can proceed further--those of us who want more information, more assurances, and want to know that our communities will be safe and the environment will be safe. There is no reason we cannot work on getting those assurances and the plans in place first. Based on my examination of the Department of Energy's own documents, as well as further information, I do not believe this administration has a safety plan for transporting waste to Yucca Mountain that protects my citizens, Michigan families, or the Great Lakes. Therefore, I cannot support the Yucca Mountain resolution.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about important legislation that we will be considering as soon as we return from the Fourth of July recess. In February of this year, the banking committee, of which the Chair is a member--and I appreciate the opportunity to serve with him--began a series of 10 hearings touching at ways to strengthen our accounting system, protect investors, and make needed reforms at the SEC. We all understand every day the growing need to be able to do that. Our hearings didn't necessarily make the headlines with subpoenas sent to Ken Lay of Enron or Andrew Fastow, but the work that we did I believe was incredibly important, very thorough and very thoughtful. Chairman Sarbanes, our chairman of the committee, is to be commended for his impressive leadership and thoughtfulness and hard work on this subject. At the end of the day, it is due to his commitment to doing this carefully and due to the commitment of my colleagues on the committee who followed panel after panel of witnesses closely--from former SEC Chairs, to Paul Volcker, to consumer groups, to well- respected academics--that we now have before us a bill that will ultimately make the biggest difference for investors and for the markets. We critically need this. In March, in the midst of our marathon of hearings, I was very pleased to join with Senator Dodd and Senator Corzine in the introduction of the Investor Confidence in Public Accountability Act of 2002. Our bill was, I believe, a good beginning, an excellent way to begin to tackle the problems about which we were learning. It was measured. It was strong. I thank Chairman Sarbanes for including many of the provisions of our bill in the ultimate bill that has been reported to the floor of the Senate. This is an excellent bill. We need only to look at the vote in the committee. It passed 17 to 4. It has strong bipartisan support. I hope that support will continue on the floor of the Senate as we take up this legislation in the coming weeks. But it also has its detractors. There are some, of course, who do not like the legislation. They make outlandish comments about Government takeovers of the accounting industry. But that is not the bill for which I voted. It is not the bill for which Chairman Sarbanes voted. That is not the bill for which Senator Enzi, the Senate's very own accountant, voted. I would like to explain briefly some of the key components of this bill and why they make sense. In this legislation, we create a strong new regulatory public oversight board to establish and enforce accounting standards, quality control, and ethics standards for public companies. The evidence indicates it is no longer enough for the industry to police itself. Few people would contest that now. That actually has been in debate over the last several years--two different philosophies, one coming in with a new administration in the House of Representatives back in the mid-1990s. I remember debating this with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and efforts to deregulate our industries and our oversight, with the idea there would be self- regulation and oversight. We know now that there needs to be public accountability, transparency, openness. But there needs to be public accountability if there is going do be integrity in these systems and if people are going to be willing to invest. The oversight board we have placed in this legislation would be independently funded by fees on public companies, therefore providing us insulation from the politics of the time. It would conduct regular inspections of accounting firms. The five-member board would have two people with accounting backgrounds and a balanced approach to the board. We also establish new restrictions on the mixing of consulting services and auditing services, which are very important. We have seen, unfortunately, specific examples of where the mixing of these two services has created devastating results for people. There has long been a concern that auditors may be tempted to overlook some questionable accounting practices in order not to lose lucrative consulting contracts from the companies they audit. This bill seeks to address that problem without simply banning all consulting services. I think it is an important and reasonable and balanced approach. Some services would be banned--bookkeeping, financial systems design, investment advice, human resources consulting--while others would have to be approved by the company's audit committee, such as tax services. Of course, auditing companies would be able to offer any consulting services to a company they were not presently auditing. We also ensure auditor independence, which is so critical. Another concern raised in our 10 hearings was that sometimes, over time, auditors develop too cozy a relationship with the companies they audit. They become less critical and more accommodating. We addressed this in the bill we reported from committee. The bill before us simply says that accounting firms would be required to rotate the leading auditor and review partners of an audit after 5 consecutive years of auditing a public company. It does not force companies to find a new auditor, it just simply requires a rotation of the auditor. Some have feared that this would be too extreme, and the bill is sensitive to those concerns. But we believe it is important that we ensure auditor independence. Our bill also sets up an internal corporate whistleblower mechanism. This is one particular component of the bill about which I am especially pleased. The bill includes an amendment I offered regarding establishing corporate whistleblower mechanisms. I want to ensure that the audit committees of public companies establish a way for confidential, anonymous submissions of statements by employees regarding questionable accounting procedures. With Enron and other scandals, people in the company knew there were problems but had nowhere to turn. They were trapped in a corporate culture which squashed dissent. My amendment guarantees that there will be a designated way to report problems to people who are in a position to do something about it, and it seeks to protect those employees who are simply acting in the best interests of their companies and their companies' investors. I am glad to say that not only do I have the support of such people as my chairman but others, such as the Financial Services Roundtable, have weighed in to support this very important amendment. Guarantees of new levels of corporate responsibility are also an important part of this legislation. A key component of the bill I am pleased to support is the new level of corporate responsibility required under this bill. Under the bill that will be before us, audit committees must now be completely independent of management and will be responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the auditors. The bill also ensures that during a blackout period, when companies are prohibited from selling stock, corporate leaders will also be barred from trading the stock. Perhaps most significantly of all, this Congress has an opportunity to tell CEOs and CFOs that they must certify the accuracy of financial reports and will have to forfeit bonuses up to 12 months after an earnings misstatement which was brought about by material noncompliance with securities laws. This is essential. We have had too many corporate leaders walk away from companies they have destroyed, with tens--and sometimes hundreds-- of millions of dollars in their pocket while their employees find their pensions drained, their jobs gone, and their dreams destroyed. This is a strong, comprehensive bill. It does not include every reform that we need, but I would like to take a moment to highlight another piece of legislation that I hope we will incorporate into the bill in its final passage. That is Senator Leahy's Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act. I am proud, also, to be a cosponsor of this important legislation because I think it is a very sound bill and gets to some of the serious reforms that corporate America needs to face. Among other things, it makes it a crime to destroy or conceal records with the intent to obstruct or influence a Federal investigation, such as an SEC examination into accounting malfeasance. It also amends our Federal bankruptcy law to make penalties relating to the violation of certain Federal and State securities laws nondischargeable. I am very happy to say the bill provides legal protections again for corporate whistleblowers, employees who report to regulators or Congress or their supervisors. I believe all of these provisions are important and will improve accountability for our country. Prior to the committee vote on this bill, there was an emerging theme in the media that momentum was fading for strong reform. Powerful special interests, a few congressional opponents of reform were winning, it seemed. But all of that has changed. Unfortunately, the scandals we have seen emerging have reminded us once again of the importance to act. We have seen the stunning revelation regarding WorldCom and the billions of dollars of earnings misrepresented, the 17,000 jobs that will be lost; 17,000 people who did nothing wrong-- they got up every day, they went to work, they did their jobs, they worked hard--now are suffering the consequences of a few people at the top who thought it better to cook the books than to represent their employees and their investors. All of this, of course, came on the heels of Enron and Global Crossing and Tyco and Adelphia and Xerox. We need now only to look to the ongoing weaknesses in our capital markets to see why the 17-to-4 vote in our committee should not have been so surprising. Investors are concerned. They are angry, and rightfully so. They wonder, can I trust the information companies are giving to me? How do we know if our stocks are valued appropriately? Which company is next? What we are doing in the Senate is nothing less than trying to ensure the long-term viability of our capitalist system. We have a system that is the strongest and the best in the world, but something is broken. We need to act. A corporate culture of earnings mismanagement and gamesmanship, unfortunately, has prevailed in some quarters. It is casting a pall over too many other publicly traded companies. That is not right, and it has to stop. We know the majority of companies have integrity. They are doing the right thing. They are providing accurate information. Our corporate leaders who are acting responsibly are the most concerned about what is happening. Too many honest, hard-working people at good, solid companies are indirectly suffering due to the malfeasance of a few greedy people. As we move ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and with our Presiding Officer, to make sure what we did in committee can be done on the floor, and as quickly as possible. Republicans such as the Senator from Wyoming, Mike Enzi, have shown true leadership in joining with the chairman and 15 others on the committee. This is the first step. We need a strong, good debate on this bill and an overwhelming vote to send a message to investors, to pension holders, to hard-working employees and companies everywhere, to those corporate executives who are working hard and doing the right thing, that we are united and that we are serious about making sure their interests are protected. We will still have to reconcile this with a much, unfortunately, more modest version passed in the House, and we will have to send it to the President. I hope the President will join us in the strongest possible bill. It is incredibly important that we help bring back the integrity and confidence so important in our markets. We are the greatest country in the world. We have had the greatest capitalist system, but there are serious problems today and serious questions. We have the responsibility to act in a way that will stabilize the economy, give investors confidence, let employees know that their pensions will be protected and their hard work will be recognized for the future, and that we will do the kinds of things that will allow us to continue the strongest economy in the world. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about an incredibly important subject that affects every senior, every family, every worker, every business owner in our country. This is something we have been talking about for a long time but we are now poised to act. I want to commend our Senate majority leader, Senator Daschle, for understanding the critical nature of prescription drug prices for our seniors, for our families, for our businesses in the country, and for scheduling this debate in July, an important time in the midst of so many issues that we know are pressing. He understands--and I appreciate that our leadership understands--the critical nature of our seniors having to struggle to get their prescription drugs every day and the gigantic rising costs for our business community. The fact is that workers have to negotiate pay freezes in order to have the health care they need. This is an issue that affects everybody. We have the opportunity to act in the Senate. There are those who will be acting in the House of Representatives on a plan that, with all due respect, I believe and many colleague believe, just isn't good enough. We have the opportunity to do the right thing to make a real difference to provide for a Medicare prescription drug plan that will pay for the majority of the bill for the average senior, and also lower prices for everyone. I want to share with colleagues today results from a study that was done by Families U.S.A. and released on Monday that tracks the rising prices of prescription drugs. It continues to be astounding. They have indicated that over the 5-year period--from January 1997 to January of this year--the prices of the prescription drugs most frequently used by older Americans rose, on average, 27.6 percent--way above the rate of inflation. No wonder our seniors are having to choose between food and paying the electric bill and getting their medicine. No wonder our small business community is seeing premiums rise by 30 or 40 percent. The Big Three automakers in my State are struggling with the huge price increases for health insurance. We are seeing an explosion of prices for prescription drugs which is absolutely not sustainable, and it is absolutely not justified. Let me read from two of the many examples that were given by Families U.S.A. Premarin, an estrogen replacement drug, rose 17.5 percent-- nearly seven times the rate of inflation. Lipitor, which we hear so much about, a cholesterol-lowering drug, rose 13.5 percent--more than five times the rate of inflation. That is astounding when we look at the fact that the taxpayers of America underwrite basic research; we provide tax incentives, tax credits, and tax deductions so the drug companies can write off the cost of research. We give them patents so they do not have competition for up to 20 years in order to recover their costs. Then we see the highest prices in the world being paid by our seniors--being paid by everyone in the United States. This explosion in prices makes no sense. I am so pleased, as we come to this debate in the Senate, that out of the debate we will include not only a Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is authored by the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Kennedy, and many of us who join together to provide real coverage and real help for seniors, but we also intend to tackle the pricing issue. One of the things I found astounding in this study is the fact that up to 10 top generic drugs--in other words, unadvertised brands that are equivalent to the advertised brands, but they just don't cost as much--of the 10 generic drugs, 9 did not increase in price at all last year. Nine out of ten of the generic drugs looked at did not increase at all. On the other hand, by contrast, only 3 of the 40 brand-named drugs did not increase last year. I have talked about the fact that in our plan we provide incentives and encourage the use of unadvertised brands. We will be offering important amendments to close loopholes which allow brand-name companies to stop the generic companies from going on the market to compete with lower prices. These are very important issues. We have two goals in the Senate: To provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit, and at the same time to lower prices for everyone. We want to open the border to Canada so we can get prescription drugs at lower prices. We want to provide other opportunities, such as tackling exorbitant costs of advertising that cause these prescription drugs to rise so quickly. What does this mean for real people? We know there is a real difference between the House and the Senate. The House plan will cover about 15 to 20 percent of the average bill for an average senior. We are looking at covering 70 to 80 percent--a huge difference. What does that mean to the average senior? I have set up a Prescription Drug People's Lobby in Michigan where we ask people to come to my Web site. They can log onto my Web site by logging onto Senator Debbie Stabenow, and they can find out what we are doing to lower prices and to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage. I have asked people to share their stories and their struggles. I want to share two of those today. Shawn Somerville from Ypsilanti, MI, is a granddaughter who is expressing great concern for her grandmother. She said: Just this last Christmas, my grandmother was hospitalized because she stopped taking her prescription so she could afford Christmas presents for all of us grandkids. She later died from an undiagnosed ulcer. It was very sad to me that these drugs are so expensive. Do they need to be? Do they need to be? No, Shawn. They do not need to be. We don't need another grandma choosing not taking her medicine this Christmas so she can buy Christmas presents for her grandchildren. This is the United States of America. We can do better. It is shameful that we have not done better. We intend in the Senate to come forward with a plan that will do better. I have been getting e-mail from the Prescription Drug People's Lobby from around the country. I will share one more before turning to my colleague from Minnesota, who has been such a leader on this issue. This is from Lydell Howard from Inglewood, CA. She wrote: My grandfather, Esco Howard, a 75-year-old retired LTV Steel worker recently experienced what we thought to be impossible. He and his spouse in March 2002 were sent a letter to advise them that they would no longer be covered by a medical plan as provided by LTV Steel, as of March 31, 2002. This was due to the financial constraints of the company. This is happening all across our country. We (the family and grandparents included) were devastated. What would they do? How could they then survive? What would they do? Since March 31, my grandparents have been faced with exorbitant medical prescription costs. Their finances absorbed by the cost of medical and prescription costs, now average nearly $900 per month for prescription costs alone, with an income of about $1,300 per month. Nine hundred dollars a month. That is hard to fathom--somebody retired coming up with $900 a month. This way of living is terrorizing seniors, disabled persons, and their families. This movement to expand Medicare to include a description plan is the answer. But it also must be affordable to all people of concern. Lydell Howard, I couldn't agree more. That is what this is all about--providing real medical help, and real Medicare help for prescriptions for your grandparents, and making sure prescriptions are affordable to everyone. I will say, as I have said so many times before, that we know this is an uphill battle. There are six drug company lobbyists for every Member of the Senate. People have to be involved and have their voices heard in order for us to be successful. I will conclude by once again encouraging people to join us by going to fairdrugprices.org, and sign a petition calling on Congress to act-- get involved and share your stories with us. I now yield to my colleague from Minnesota, who has been such a champion and a voice for people on this issue and so many others. I know he is standing up every day on behalf of our seniors and our families to lower prescription drug prices.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. In conclusion, we know the lobbyists' voices are heard on this issue, the drug companies' voices are heard in a multitude of ways. Now is the time for the people's voice to be heard on this subject, and I urge those who are watching today to get involved through fairdrugprices.org, by showing support for a bill that will be brought up in July and will be voted on in this Senate to provide real help for seniors and those with disabilities in our country. We will bring forward other legislation to lower prices for everyone, for the small businessowner, the manufacturer in Michigan, the farmer, those who are paying high prices through their insurance premium or at the pharmaceutical counter. The time has come to act. We know what to do. Now it is time to do it.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill of which I am very pleased to be a cosponsor, which will provide a voluntary comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is long overdue. I also rise today to express great concern about what is being done in the House of Representatives. We know that in the end we need to come together with a bipartisan bill. We welcome that and want to work with our colleagues, but it has to be something real, it has to be something that provides more than 20 percent of the cost of prescription drugs--only 20 percent help--leaving our seniors to pay 80 percent and, in some cases more, for their prescriptions. It is just not good enough. I wish to share some portions of a letter I received yesterday from the Kroger Company of Michigan that was written to me concerning the legislation that is being drafted and passed by our Republican colleagues in the House. It says: Dear Senator Stabenow: As president of the Michigan Kroger stores, I am writing to advise you that our stores oppose the Thomas-Tauzin medicare bill. The Republican bill in the House. Passage of this bill will hurt Michigan senior citizens by confining their freedom in choosing generic over brand name medications and restricting their pharmacy choices. Furthermore, the viability of community pharmacies is of significant concern, especially in rural areas where inadequate reimbursement rates could force many community pharmacies out of business, further restricting seniors' choices. There is great concern not only from the senior groups, those that represent consumers in our country. I appreciate the president of Kroger expressing great concern about this as well. We can do better. The question is, To whom are we going to listen? I am asking, as are my colleagues, that we listen to not only seniors but businessowners and others who are experiencing an explosion in the prices of prescription drugs, and that we act and do so now. It is long overdue. A few weeks ago, I invited people to come to my Web site. We have set up the prescription drug people's lobby in Michigan. We are tying it to a Web site that has been set up nationally, fairdrugprices.org, and I have been asking people to share their concerns, their experiences with the high prescription drug prices we are seeing across the country. Once again, I wish to share a story from one of those citizens in Michigan who has signed up to be a part of our prescription drug people's lobby. This is from Molly A. Moons, who is 44 years old in Pontiac, MI. She says: Senior citizens are not the only people suffering from the high cost of prescription drugs. I am the sole employee of a small business and not eligible for any health care plans that cover the cost of prescription drugs. I have four prescriptions that need filling each month, and the cost is in excess of $300 a month--a real financial burden. At the invitation of some senior citizen friends, I was invited to take a ``drug run'' to Canada. Mr. President, a number of us have done this to demonstrate the differences in prices. These ladies were all widows/retirees on fixed incomes that were having trouble paying for their medications, so I joined them to buy our prescriptions in Canada. . . . I am able to get a 3-month supply of medication for what it costs me for a 1-month supply in the United States. A 3-month supply in Canada for a 1-month supply in the United States. I find that shameful. While I believe that everyone has a right to make a profitable living, the gouging of the pharmaceutical companies is sickening. Additionally, the loopholes that these companies use to keep drugs from generic manufacturers are also criminal. Please help make this stop. I thank Molly Moons for sharing her story as a small businessowner and sharing her concern about the senior citizens who were on that bus going to Canada. Shame on us. She is right, ``I find it shameful,'' and it is shameful. We are saying we can do something about it. We can do something about it by passing the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill that will provide a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, and we can further do it by passing other legislation to lower prices through expanded use of generics, opening the border to Canada and other policies that will lower prices. We can do that, and we need to do that. Why has this not been done? Why has this not happened? We have been talking about it. I talked about it as a Member of the House of Representatives. We tried to pass something then. Colleagues of mine have talked about it. Presidential candidates have talked about it. As the Senator from Georgia said earlier, it is time to stop talking about it and get something done. Why has that not happened? Unfortunately, we have seen too much influence and too many voices trying to stop this, and not enough of the people's voice in this process, which is what we are trying to do right now. We have a Web site that I have invited people to go to that is called fairdrugprices.org. We are inviting people to sign a petition to urge Congress to act right now, to urge Congress to pass a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, and to pass other efforts to lower prices. We urge people to go to this Web site and share their story. We will share those stories on the floor of the Senate. Why is that important? It is important because, according to our numbers, there are about six drug company lobbyists for every Member of the Senate. Their voice is being heard. This is about making the people's voice heard through their Representatives and their Senators. Unfortunately, there are other ways in which voices are heard. I found it unfortunate that yesterday, while in the midst of debating a Medicare bill, which has been viewed by colleagues and quoted in the paper from House Republican staff as being a bill they are very concerned about having reflect the needs of the drug companies, but at the same time we do not have the concerns of our seniors and our families being voiced as a part of that process, that last evening there was a major fundraiser. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the House of Representatives had a major Republican fundraiser and we saw a number of pharmaceutical companies playing a major role. We saw Glaxo Smith Klein, according to the newspaper, contributing about $250,000 to that fundraising effort; PHRMA, which is the trade organization for the companies, contributing about $250,000 to that fundraiser; Pfizer, about $100,000, and other companies as well. So there are those that are not only here as lobbyists but contributing dollars to fundraisers, certainly wanting to make their voice heard.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut speaking about the bill that is before us, and I certainly share his beliefs about the need for terrorism insurance and hope we will be passing this bill shortly. I found, though, that as I was listening to him today, I was thinking about another kind of terror, and insurance we need to be providing, and that is the terror that too many of our citizens, particularly our seniors, experience when they find themselves in a situation with an illness and they cannot afford the medications they need to be well. I think of the terror a breast cancer patient feels when she is told she needs tamoxifen and cannot afford the $136 a month, which it is in Michigan, to purchase that tamoxifen. I think of the terror a family with a disabled child feels when they cannot get the medicine they need, or the terror of a small business man or woman when they see their health care premiums rise 30 to 40 percent this year. They know the majority of that is because of the explosion in the costs of prescription drugs. So there are a number of ways in which we need to be addressing terror and fear in our country. I rise today to urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, to come together and support a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, to support the bill that my colleagues, Senator Graham and Senator Miller, have introduced--I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that bill--as a comprehensive response to the terror our seniors are experiencing when they are not able to get the desperately needed medications they need to remain in their home, to remain healthy, to be able to continue to live their lives. I was very concerned to see over the weekend and to read today about the actions the House Republicans are taking at this very moment. I was hoping, when we pointed out the inadequacies in the bills they have been talking about, they would make corrections so that we could move together on a comprehensive bill that is effective for our seniors and actually helps them. I am very concerned, when I see the numbers, about what is happening. The bills that are being put forward by the Republicans appear to have very little positive effect and in some cases could even be argued to hurt the situation. Families USA has come up with an analysis, and I will quote from their analysis, about the percentage of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors would have at various levels of their drug costs under the House Republican plan. For a senior who needed to spend $1,000 a year, they would find they would still pay 81 percent of that $1,000 under the House plan. If they had a $2,000 bill per year, they would still pay about 65 percent. If they had a $3,000 bill per year, they would pay about 77 percent out of their pocket. If they had a $4,000 bill per year, they would be paying 83 percent of it. I cannot believe all of the effort by our colleagues in the House that is going into passing this kind of prescription drug legislation for our seniors. That is not good enough. We can do better. I am so pleased our leader has made a personal commitment to make sure we bring this bill up in July and we vote on this bill for Medicare prescription drug coverage. I am very pleased our bill would in fact provide real coverage of 60 percent, 70 percent, of the bill. We would cover the majority of the prescription drug bill for our seniors. So I am urging once again that our citizens across the country get engaged in this debate to make sure that what happens in the Congress is the right action. There are a number of consumer groups and senior groups that have come together across the country to form a Web site, fairdrugprices.org. I urge people to go to this Web site, log on, and sign the petition that they have set up calling on all of us to create a meaningful prescription drug benefit and lower prices for everyone: For the senior, for the farmer, the small business, the large business, anyone who is paying the high prices of prescription drugs. If you go to fairdrugprices.org, you can get involved, sign a petition, communicate with us about what needs to be done. I urge everyone who is listening today to do that. I am very concerned that as we are debating the priorities of the country--and last week we were debating whether or not to extend a tax cut that we know goes overwhelmingly to those at the very top in terms of the estate tax and the extension of the tax cut that was put into place for 10 years. It bothers me when I see that in the year 2012, when this would be extended, the tax cut would cost $229 billion, which is three times more than they want to dedicate in the House for prescription drug help, three times more than what they are willing to provide for our seniors and people who are disabled or families who have disabled children, three times more for a tax cut to the very wealthiest Americans who, it is my guess, are not worried about whether or not they can buy their medicine. They are not having to struggle and go into the pharmacy, look at the bill after they give their prescription, and walk away with the pills still sitting on the counter because they were not able to afford to pay for them. My guess is that the folks who are being proposed for another tax cut are not deciding whether they are going to cut their pills in half or take them every other day or not at all. I support efforts on tax relief, and I support our family-owned businesses and farmers not having to pay the estate tax, but I also know there is a way to set priorities that will make sure we are keeping the promise of Medicare that was set up in 1965. In 1965, one of the great American success stories was passed by this Congress, and that was the promise of health care coverage for our seniors and the disabled. But because we have changed the way we provide health care today, people are not going into the hospital, probably not going in for an operation; instead, they have the ability--all of us do, and a blessed opportunity--to remain at home, to receive prescriptions rather than having an operation. But Medicare does not cover those outpatient prescriptions. So the great American success story that was passed in 1965 is no longer providing the promise of health care. We are committed to making sure that we modernize Medicare, that we update it to cover the prescription drugs. I worry, as I see all of the effort going on in the other side of the building by our Republican colleagues, all of the effort of not only one committee but two committees, and two bills, and then we look at what they are providing, and we see that on average they are providing 20 percent of the costs of prescription drugs. That means 80 percent is being paid for out of the pockets of our seniors. I suggest that is not the best priority for our country. I am very concerned that this is a complicated system they are setting up. There are gaps between $2,000 of out-of-pocket expenses a year and $4,500 or $5,000--we are not sure which number they will end up with--but that gap leaves no help for a senior with a bill from $2,500 to $5,000. That gap between $2,000 and $5,000 is a gap leaving seniors to pay the premium while receiving no assistance. There are serious problems. I am told half of Medicare beneficiaries will receive no drug coverage for at least part of the year. Half of the Medicare beneficiaries will receive no help for at least part of the year under the proposal now being considered in the House of Representatives. I am also concerned that rather than relying on the Part B premium as we have provided health care to this point to a private sector/private sector-public sector working together on Medicare, they are discussing having private insurance companies create prescription drug-only policies and relying on private insurance companies to provide this coverage. We hear the insurance companies do not want to write those policies. If those were profitable policies, they would already be writing the policies. It is not profitable to write prescription-only policies for people who need prescriptions. The idea is to spread the risk between those who are healthy and those who need care. Those who are likely to want an insurance policy for prescription drugs probably are using prescription drugs. Insurance industry folks say they are not interested. What do our Republican colleagues do? They give dollars to the insurance companies to provide this coverage rather than providing it under Medicare. The Republican bill allows Medicare to pay insurance companies more in order to write these policies rather than just using the Medicare process that has worked so well. There are a lot of flaws. They are using a structure that does not work with private insurance companies rather than having the clout of 40 million seniors under Medicare, enabling a lowering of the prices, using a system that is tried and true; they want to bring in a new system. The reality is there is no interest in the private sector to provide this type of insurance. We see on the other side of the aisle, and the other side of the building, two committees working on legislation that, in fact, will do little to help our seniors, those with disabilities who need help with prescription drugs. We can do better. We have the opportunity to do better. I share from this morning's New York Times a portion of a column by Paul Krugman, outlining what is happening. I encourage Members to read this. He says: . . . the Senate Democrats have a plan that can be criticized but is definitely workable. The House Republicans, by contrast, have a plan that would quickly turn into a fiasco--but not, of course, until after the next election. He then goes on to say: . . . Senate Democrats have a plan that is sensible and workable, but House Republicans surely won't agree to anything resembling that plan. Senate Democrats might be bullied into something resembling the House Republican plan, but since that plan is completely unworkable, that's the same as getting no drug plan at all--which, I suspect, is what the Republican leaders really want in any case. We are not going to be bullied into a plan that does not do the job. There is no doubt in my mind. We have a commitment. Our seniors have heard for too long, too many election cycles, that Medicare will cover prescription drugs. I know a lot of seniors are saying nothing will ever change. Yet the prices keep going up, the need for care keeps going up, and the choices the seniors have to make keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. We can do better than that. We in the Senate are committed to doing better than that. I urge everyone listening today to engage in this fight with us. There are six drug company lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. We need the people's voice. We are willing and able and determined to bring a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug bill to the floor of the Senate in July. We urge everyone to get involved in this debate. There are substantive differences in plans and how they will affect seniors and families. We need to get through the smoke and mirrors and down to the facts, look at comparisons, have honest critiques, and pass a bill that works and makes sense. It is time to completely fulfill the promise of 1965 with the passage of Medicare, and 2002 is a great time to do it. It is long overdue. I invite people to engage in this debate and make sure the best proposal passes and passes quickly. I suggest reviewing www.fairdrugprices.org and get involved. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, it was with great joy and excitement yesterday that I joined with Senator Levin as we celebrated the Stanley Cup win by the Detroit Red Wings. It was a beautiful sunshiny day in Detroit, and over a million people came out to join with all of us in thanking Scotty Bowman and thanking the entire team for their wonderful win again this year. We are so proud, as Senator Levin said, of what they do, not only on the ice but off the ice. So it is with great pleasure that I join with Senator Levin today in coauthoring this resolution of tribute to the Detroit Red Wings. As has been said, this is the third time in 6 years the Detroit Red Wings have won the Stanley Cup. It is the 10th Stanley Cup in total that the Detroit Red Wings have won. We are pleased we are only behind the Montreal Canadiens, that have won it 23 times, and the Toronto Maple Leaves, that have won it 13 times. They are the only two teams that have won more Stanley Cups than our own Detroit Red Wings, of which we are so proud. We also, yesterday, saw a wonderful tribute to the head coach and the entire coaching staff, but particularly Scotty Bowman, who has his ninth Stanley Cup win in his 30 years, and 9 years with Detroit. This is the most for any coach in the NHL. Sports Illustrated has called him the best coach in any sport. That is high praise. Yesterday, the fans, of whom we have many--in fact, we in Detroit and in Michigan believe we have the best fans in the country, and indeed in the world, in Hockeytown everyone joined in rousing support and thanks to Scotty Bowman for all he has done to bring this team to another victory and also for leading a group of men who are role models both in their sport on the ice as well as in their own communities and personal lives. We are sorry to see Scotty leave, but we are so grateful that he has spent this time in Detroit and that he has given his all to help our team achieve the very highest honors possible. Interestingly, we know the Stanley Cup was named after Lord Stanley of Preston, the Governor General of Canada. In 1893, he started this award by purchasing a small, gold-plated, silver bowl from a London silversmith for $50. The bowl was awarded to the best hockey team in Canada. The original cup is actually in a museum. It was a great honor, yesterday, for me to see our Stanley Cup, to see the names that are engraved there, to know that Detroit has such a high place of honor, and that the Detroit Red Wings have once again brought the cup home to Detroit. So congratulations to the Red Wings. We are so proud of you. It is my great pleasure to stand with Senator Levin in salute to our Detroit Red Wings today.