Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I will yield.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rx Flexibilty for States Act along with Senators Durbin, Leahy, Jeffords, Boxer, Levin, Dorgan, Schumer and Johnson. This legislation would give States the flexibility to set up programs to pass along Medicaid rebates and discounts to their citizens who do not have prescription drug coverage and who are not currently eligible for Medicaid. One of the biggest challenges facing businesses, senior citizens, families and State governments is the rising cost of prescription drug prices. From 2000-2001, prescription drug prices rose 17 percent. This is causing health expenditures and health insurance premiums to go up rapidly. In an attempt to respond to these skyrocketing prices, 30 States have enacted laws providing some type of prescription drug coverage to those without insurance, according to the National Governors' Association, NGA. However, the drug makers' trade association, PhRMA, has mounted legal challenges against several States because it opposes State efforts to lower prescription drug prices and increase coverage for those without it. Specifically, they have filed lawsuits against Maine and Vermont because the drug lobby does not want to extend Medicaid rebates and discounts to non-Medicaid recipients. While Maine's two programs have been upheld in Court, Vermont's has not and both States are embroiled in lengthy appeals processes. These legal challenges are very costly and may have deterred other States from establishing similar demonstration projects. In the absence of a Federal Medicare prescription drug benefit and soaring price of prescription drugs, States should have the unfettered ability to pass on Medicaid rebate to their residents! We need this legislation now, because even if Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug program, it will be several years before it is fully phased in. The Rx Flexibility for States Act would seek to remove the legal hurdles that are preventing States from providing lower priced prescription drugs to all their citizens. Specifically, States would be able to extend Medicaid rebates and discounts for prescription drugs to non-Medicaid eligible persons. State governments are closer to the people and deserve the flexibility to set up their own programs to lower the costs of prescription drugs for their citizens. This bill will give them that flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rx Flexibilty for States Act along with Senators Durbin, Leahy, Jeffords, Boxer, Levin, Dorgan, Schumer and Johnson. This legislation would give States the flexibility to set up programs to pass along Medicaid rebates and discounts to their citizens who do not have prescription drug coverage and who are not currently eligible for Medicaid. One of the biggest challenges facing businesses, senior citizens, families and State governments is the rising cost of prescription drug prices. From 2000-2001, prescription drug prices rose 17 percent. This is causing health expenditures and health insurance premiums to go up rapidly. In an attempt to respond to these skyrocketing prices, 30 States have enacted laws providing some type of prescription drug coverage to those without insurance, according to the National Governors' Association, NGA. However, the drug makers' trade association, PhRMA, has mounted legal challenges against several States because it opposes State efforts to lower prescription drug prices and increase coverage for those without it. Specifically, they have filed lawsuits against Maine and Vermont because the drug lobby does not want to extend Medicaid rebates and discounts to non-Medicaid recipients. While Maine's two programs have been upheld in Court, Vermont's has not and both States are embroiled in lengthy appeals processes. These legal challenges are very costly and may have deterred other States from establishing similar demonstration projects. In the absence of a Federal Medicare prescription drug benefit and soaring price of prescription drugs, States should have the unfettered ability to pass on Medicaid rebate to their residents! We need this legislation now, because even if Congress passes a Medicare prescription drug program, it will be several years before it is fully phased in. The Rx Flexibility for States Act would seek to remove the legal hurdles that are preventing States from providing lower priced prescription drugs to all their citizens. Specifically, States would be able to extend Medicaid rebates and discounts for prescription drugs to non-Medicaid eligible persons. State governments are closer to the people and deserve the flexibility to set up their own programs to lower the costs of prescription drugs for their citizens. This bill will give them that flexibility. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak about one of the most important issues affecting our families, seniors, the business community, every part of our economy. That is the explosion in the cost of prescription drugs. Prices are skyrocketing, and too many of our seniors who use the majority of prescriptions--our seniors on average are using 18 different prescriptions in a year--find themselves in a situation that is absolutely untenable. We have heard these stories over and over again. On this side of the aisle, we have two ideas we are putting forward. First, we have to have an updated Medicare to cover prescription drugs. We have to do it in a way that is comprehensive and helps our seniors. I call upon my colleagues from the other side and in the House of Representatives to join us in real prescription drug coverage. Secondly, we know we have to lower the price. Prices need to go down for everyone. When I talk to our small business community, I talk to farmers in the State of Michigan, I talk to the big three automakers, wherever I am in Michigan talking about the cost of doing business, everyone wants to talk about health care. They understand that the explosion in their health care premium is because of the uncontrollable cost of prescription drugs. I have been putting forward, and have met with a number of my colleagues, four different ideas. I will speak specifically about a bill we are now introducing that we talked about yesterday with colleagues. There are four different ideas we have been promoting. If we did those things, prices would go down. Prices would go down immediately. Even as we know any kind of comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit will take time to phase in, there are things we can do now. The American people, who subsidize the research, who underwrite the cost for tax credits and deductions for the development of these drugs, deserve to see something happen now. First is to make sure the generic laws work. I commend my colleagues, Senators Schumer and McCain, for their continuing efforts. We have a bill that will close loopholes, that will stop the ability of the drug companies to be able to manipulate the law so that lower priced generics are precluded from the market. We know if that were to pass, we could see a tremendous drop in prices. We know if we opened the border to Canada so that we could in fact see not only individuals but businesses and hospitals and pharmacies developing business relationships across the border to bring back American-made, safe, FDA- approved drugs, we could drop prices almost in half. I find it ironic, as we are in the middle of a discussion on a trade bill, that the only things you cannot take back and forth across the border from the great State of Michigan into Canada are American-made prescription drugs. So we need to open the border. I welcome colleagues joining us to do that. We could drop prices tomorrow 40 to 50 percent if we did that. Thirdly, we know that since the FDA changed their rules on advertising, direct consumer advertising, starting back in the mid- 1990s, there has been an explosion of excessive advertising. While companies say they spend more on research than advertising, there is great evidence to the contrary. So we have introduced legislation to say simply that you can write off as much advertising and marketing expenses on your taxes, that taxpayers will subsidize advertising and marketing to the same level we subsidize research--the same level. If you want to do more advertising, do more research, because taxpayers want to see the research done. Then, finally, I joined with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Leahy, Levin, Boxer, Dorgan, and others to introduce legislation to give States the flexibility to set up programs to pass a law on Medicaid discounts to their citizens who don't have prescription drug coverage and are not eligible for Medicaid. There are 30 States that have enacted some kind of a law to help citizens with prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, we have seen the drugmakers trade association, PhRMA, mounting legal challenges to a number of States that have attempted to lower prices for their citizens. They have fought these efforts. I am specifically referring to lawsuits against Maine and Vermont because the drug lobby doesn't want them to extend the Medicaid discount--the price that is paid for Medicaid--to those who are not Medicaid recipients but need help, who don't have prescription drug coverage. So we have introduced the Rx Flexibility for States Act. We are calling it the Rx Flex Program. It will simply say that what is being done in States, what is innovative, in our attempts to reach out and use the purchasing power of the States under Medicaid to provide additional price reductions to those who don't have insurance, who are not on Medicaid--that those are legal. We have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of this great Capitol Building, talk about the States as being the place for flexibility, creativity, and new ideas. Well, this legislation says we are going to remove the legal hurdles that are preventing States from providing lower priced prescription drugs to all of their citizens. Right now, we have States that are spending millions of dollars fighting suits from the drug companies because the companies fight everything that is attempted that would lower prices for our citizens. This legislation specifically would indicate that those States that are using the clout of Medicaid purchasing power to expand to allow that same price to be given to those without prescription drug coverage, who are in need of prescription drug help in their States, would be able to do that. Right now, the lawsuits have been filed. We know that while Maine's program has been upheld in court, Vermont's program was not, and both States are embroiled in very lengthy appeals processes. I am very hopeful that as we are working to put together a very strong, effective Medicare prescription drug program, we can also pass this legislation to reinforce that States, on their own, can proceed to do what is necessary to make sure their citizens have access to lower priced prescription drugs and that we will pass those other measures we have been talking about that will allow us to lower prices, create more competition across the border, get a better balance between advertising and marketing expenses and research, and that we will be able to create a system where we in America not only create the best drugs, the new lifesaving medications, where we don't only subsidize and underwrite and fund the research through the National Institutes of Health, and other mechanisms, but our people can actually get those drugs. Right now, it is not a good deal when we are the ones who are creating, supporting, and subsidizing the creation of these medications. Seniors will sit down this morning, this noon, and tonight and decide: Do I eat, pay the electric bill, pay my rent, or can I get my medicine this week? We can do better. I am committed to doing better. Colleagues of mine are committed to doing better. We want a prescription drug benefit. We want to lower prices. There are ways to do it. We can do it now. I ask my colleagues to join with us in this effort. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as one of the Senators representing the steelworkers in the upper peninsula and throughout Michigan, I wish to indicate, contrary to my colleague who just spoke, that I can't think of a more appropriate place to talk about helping steel retirees who have lost their health insurance, those who have lost and will lose their jobs because of unfair competition, unfair steel dumping, unfair trade practices, than to debate it and attempt to fix it on a trade bill. I hope my colleagues will support standing up for our steel retirees on the trade bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise with great pride to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his passion, his compassion, and his advocacy for great Americans-- our great American steelworkers. He has been here over and over again fighting on behalf of the industry, fighting on behalf of workers, many of whom are in Michigan. I thank him for his leadership. I also thank Senator Wellstone from Minnesota for his ongoing leadership and advocacy for our steelworkers, as well as thanking Senator Mikulski from Maryland. This is a dynamic trio that I am very proud to join, and I very much appreciate the fact that they are coming back over and over and over again until we can get this done. I share my colleagues' view that we are coming with a critical yet modest proposal in terms of how we debate in the Senate, covering 125,000 retirees with health benefits at a cost of $179 million over 10 years, which certainly sounds like a lot of money, but in terms that we are debating, it is a very small amount to put aside for a group of people who have worked their whole lives to build America. I find it so amazing, as we debated other bills--and we have talked about our overreliance on energy and the need to do more domestic production--that we, at this time, would not be up in arms about the possibility, hopefully not probability, of losing an American steel industry. I cannot imagine, in this time that we are focused on national security and war on terrorism, that we would even, in any way, allow the possibility that we might lose our domestic steel industry. Yet that is what is happening in our country. We have only six iron ore mines in the country: four in Minnesota and two in Michigan. When they are closed, we will no longer have the ability to pull the raw materials out of the ground. The men and women in the upper peninsula of Michigan work very, very hard. They and their families have gone through layoffs. They have gone through mine closings. They are on the edge. This proposal is simply to say that for those who are already retired, who had health benefits, who were promised health benefits, whose companies closed--and we had over 33 of them closed since the year 2000--we would give them a 1-year reprieve, 1 year of health care benefits, to try to help in the transition. I very much appreciate the fact that the President has acknowledged the concerns about steel and taken some action. There are efforts right now to help the industry, to address the question of unfair dumping. This is a small bridge for 125,000 people who are retired from an industry that is critical. They built America. And I believe we owe them at least that. For those who are now working in the great State of Michigan, whether it is in the upper peninsula or whether it is in the lower peninsula of Michigan, down river or metro Detroit, we owe them, as well, to stop the dumping, the unfair competition, so that we can give them an opportunity to succeed and give our steel companies, which are making investments, are efficient, and doing everything they can to stay afloat, the opportunity to succeed because we, as a country, need them to succeed. The issue of steel in our country today is absolutely critical. While we are working to find ways to stop unfair trade practices and, hopefully, the mechanisms and remedies that have been put into place will have some kind of positive effect--we certainly hope so--while we are working for other ways to support the steelworkers and their families, to support the businesses, this is a small way to acknowledge the significance and the importance of the steel industry and the steelworkers in the United States and to say for those who are retirees, who assumed when they would retire that they would have their health care benefits and who have lost them because of unfair competition, because of dumping in our country from other countries, that we, in fact, will recognize them in this whole question of trade adjustment assistance. I am proud to stand with my colleagues. I ask that we come together in a bipartisan way. With a small amount of investment, we can make a major statement and help 125,000 great Americans. I hope we will do that. I urge strong support for the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a letter Senator Dayton and I are sending to the pharmaceutical companies of America--and invite colleagues to join with us in doing that-- expressing our concern about articles we read yesterday about a campaign that evidently is starting through an organization to spend money on advertising, promoting what is a woefully inadequate plan for seniors and families that appears to be proposed by our colleagues in the House of Representatives through the Republican side of the aisle that in fact would be available, would pay less than 20 percent of the cost for our seniors on Medicare for their prescription drugs, and would use reductions in hospital fees--another cut to hospitals--and certainly in Michigan, whether it is our rural hospitals or urban hospitals, we have seen enough cuts and closures of hospitals and facilities. We don't need any more cuts in our hospitals. But they are proposing to cut more reimbursements for hospitals and also to provide some kind of a per-visit fee for home health care. One of the things we heard was a $50 fee. We are getting this from the media, so it may not be the exact number. Regardless, the notion of adding some kind of a fee or copay for home health care and cutting hospitals further to pay for a woefully inadequate proposal that would pay for less than 20 percent of the costs that our seniors pay for their prescription drugs I find very disturbing. We are hearing that the drug companies now are contributing $3 million for an unrestricted education grant to a group that is very closely aligned with them to run ads promoting this particular plan. The plan is good for the drug companies. It is not good for American seniors. It is not good for American families. It is not good for American business that is paying the tab for health care premium costs, whether it is a big business or a small business. When we look at the $3 million they are willing to invest, again in advertising, promoting a plan that is good for them, bad for the American people, Senator Dayton and I are sending a letter that basically will indicate we are asking them, instead of using the $3 million they are giving to this group to run advertising, to use the $3 million for lower prices, lower prices for our seniors. Just to read a portion of this: . . . we were greatly disturbed to read in yesterday's New York Times that the pharmaceutical industry is funding a group called United Seniors Association that will run television ads supporting the House Republican prescription drug plan . . . we have learned that the House bill is totally inadequate. . . . The New York Times article states that drug companies will devote as much as $3 million for this media campaign. We respectfully urge you to redirect these funds and devote them to lowering the price of prescription drugs to all Americans, especially our nation's seniors. We think this would be a much better use of your profits. This is a letter going to each of the companies urging them, rather than continuing to advertise excessively, 2\1/2\ times more in advertising than research on their products and continuing to fund groups that put forward plans that don't make any sense other than for the companies themselves--rather than spending all the money to do that, I invite the companies that do good work--we are proud of what they do and the lifesaving medicines they create--once they are created, we are asking them to work with us to make sure they are affordable to every American, that they are affordable to our seniors and our families; that a small business in America doesn't have to drop insurance coverage for employees because of rising, spiraling-out-of- control prescription drug prices. This is another example of $3 million going to fund an effort to stop the right thing from being done in the United States--a woefully inadequate plan. Instead of making the plan better, instead of spending the money to help lower prices so that more seniors don't walk away from the pharmacy without being able to get that prescription after looking at the price--instead of doing that, they are spending another $3 million in advertising and promoting a plan that doesn't make sense for America. So I invite colleagues to join with Senator Mark Dayton and me today in sending this letter and asking the companies--thank them for their good work, but ask them to join with us in a meaningful proposal for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and also to take the dollars they are spending now to fight the efforts to lower prices, and just lower prices. They would get a lot further if they just put that money into lowering their prices so that it is more affordable for every American. I urge my colleagues and invite them to join with Senator Dayton and me to urge the companies to change their approach and work with us to lower prices for every American. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. He raises such an important point about prevention. That is why I know we care so much about the issue of prescription drugs. By making prescription drugs available on the front end, that is part of that prevention, along with comprehensive care, making sure that people are able to receive the medicine they need before they get deathly sick and need to go into a hospital or need an operation. My colleague raises such an important point, and it is one of the reasons we are working so hard to make Medicare available with prescription drugs and to also lower the prices for everyone. Part of that prevention is making sure that seniors have access to the medicine they need to prevent more serious injuries and illnesses from happening.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I want to speak to an issue that relates to health care. I am so honored to join with our colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle in the Democratic caucus, who continue to work very hard to bring a sense of urgency to the question of health care for our families, to health care insurance, and to affordability for our small businesses and family farmers and the larger business community. We know today that one of the major costs economically and from a business standpoint--and certainly for families, and particularly for our seniors--is the whole question of being able to provide health care and being able to afford health care for our families. We also know the major reason we are seeing health care costs rise relates to the uncontrollable increase in prescription drug coverage. Today, I once again come to the floor to speak about the need for real action now. I challenge and invite our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those in the other Chamber who have come forward with principles-- the Speaker of the House and those who will be speaking today about a plan--to join with us in something that is real and tangible. Words are not going to buy prescriptions for seniors. We know there are seniors watching right now who are deciding today whether to pay that utility bill or eat supper tonight or do they do those other things which they need to do in order to have the quality of life we want for our parents and grandparents and older Americans of this country--or do they put all of their money into paying for lifesaving medications? That is not a good choice. Shame on us for having a situation where seniors have to make that choice. Yet when we come to the floor, we talk about the need for a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. And when we talk about the need to lower prices for all of our families and lower prices for everyone so we have health care available for everyone in this country, we get more words than we get actions. I am deeply concerned today as we look at what has been proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the Congress, our Republican colleagues in the House have said that they wish to lower the cost of prescription drugs now. Yet at the same time we see old proposals to do minimal kinds of discounts through discount cards and so on--things that are already available which folks want to take political credit for, maybe change the name or maybe put it under Medicare. But it doesn't do anything to actually lower the prices and make prescription drugs more available. I am very concerned when we come forward with proposals that will, in fact, lower prices that we are not yet seeing the support. We want that support to be there to be able to use more generic drugs when they are available after the patent has run out--the same drug and the same formulation--and at a lower price. We want to have the ability to open our borders so we can get the best price of American-made drugs regardless of where they are sold around the world. In Michigan, simply crossing the bridge to Canada, which is a 5- minute drive, cuts the price in half on American-made drugs. It is not right. We think when we are talking about fair trade we should open the border to the one thing that we don't have fair and open trade on; that is, prescription drugs. We also know the fastest growing part of the cost of that prescription bottle is advertising costs, and that the top 11 Fortune 500 companies, last year, spent 2\1/2\ times more on advertising than research. I was pleased to join with my colleagues earlier this week in introducing legislation to simply say: If you are doing more advertising than research, taxpayers are not going to subsidize it. We will allow you to deduct the amount of advertising and marketing that you do up to the level that you spend in research. We want more research. We want more innovative drugs. We do not want more market research; we want more medical research. So we propose items to lower costs to help everyone, right now, to lower those prices. We also come forward saying it is time to update Medicare for today's health care system. When Medicare was set up in 1965, it covered the way health care was provided in 1965. If you went into the hospital, maybe you had a little penicillin, or maybe you had an operation in the hospital, and Medicare covered it. Medicare is a great American success story. But health care treatments have changed. I have a constituent who showed me a pill he takes once a month that has stopped him from having to have open-heart surgery. It is a great thing: One pill a month. The pill costs $400. I said: I want to take a close look at that pill. I hope it is gold plated. But the reality is, that pill stops expensive open-heart surgery and allows this person to be able to continue living and enjoying a wonderful quality of life with his wife and family. If he went in for that surgery, Medicare would cover it. They don't cover the pill. So that is what we are talking about. But we need this to be comprehensive. When our colleagues come forward, and their second principle is guaranteeing all senior citizens prescription drug coverage, we say: Yes, come join with us. Let's make it real. But, unfortunately, when we run the numbers on what is being talked about--and the bill has not been introduced yet, but we have all kinds of information about what appears to be coming. From what we know, let me share with you some of the numbers. If you are a senior or if you are disabled and you have a $300-a- month prescription drug bill, which is not uncommon, when you get all done with the copays and the premiums and the deductibles that they are talking about, you would end up, out of $3,600 worth of prescriptions, paying, out of pocket, $2,920. So less than 20 percent of your bill would be covered under Medicare. That is not what we are talking about. That is not comprehensive coverage under Medicare. That is really a hoax. That is a proposal being put forward to guarantee all seniors prescription drug coverage that is words, not actions. Again, words will not pay the bills. Words will not guarantee that seniors get one more prescription covered, that they will get that blood pressure medicine, that they will get that cholesterol medicine, or make sure they have that pill that stops them from having to have that open-heart surgery. So we come today to this Chamber to say: Yes, guarantee all seniors prescription drug coverage. But the proposal coming forward by the Speaker of the House, and those on the other side of this building, will not do it. Unfortunately, what is being talked about will add insult to injury because they are talking about paying for their less- than-20-percent coverage by another cut to hospitals. I know the Presiding Officer from New York shares the same concern I have because I know hospitals in New York have been cut, hospitals in Michigan have been cut. My colleague from Florida is in the Chamber. I know he has the same stories--and our leader from Nevada. We know that whether it is rural hospitals or urban hospitals or suburban hospitals, they have had enough cuts under Medicare. It is unbelievable we would be talking about another cut for hospitals while they are proposing this minimal prescription drug benefit. The other thing I find incredible is that they are talking about a copay of $50 for home health visits. We already have seen dramatic cuts. We have had over 2,500 home health agencies close across this country because of the excessive cuts in home health care payments since 1997. Many of us have been saying: Enough is enough. We cannot say that the home health help you need will cost more when we are trying to give a little bit of help with prescription drugs because it is the combination of home health care and prescription drugs that allows people to live at home when they have health care needs. It allows families to take care of mom or dad or grandpa or grandma, to make sure if someone is disabled and needs care at home, that they are not inappropriately placed into a nursing home or out-of- home care. The combination of home health care and affordable prescription medications will help our families care for their loved ones and help people to live in dignity at home. So I find it incredible that you would have, first of all, a minimal proposal on prescription drugs coming forward, and then it would be coupled with the fact they are talking about cutting hospitals and copays for home health care to pay for it. This is an amazing situation to me. We need to be strengthening Medicare, not undermining it. Many of the other parts of this proposal would turn Medicare over to private insurance companies. It would basically create a situation where the drug companies or insurance companies may believe they benefit but at the expense of our seniors. I am going to yield a moment to my colleague from Florida, who I know cares deeply about this subject. I thank him for coming to the floor today to join me, as we rise to say to our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives: Come join with us. Come join with us to make sure we can, in fact, put the words into action. Words are not enough. We need comprehensive Medicare prescription drug coverage. We need to lower prices now. I yield time to my colleague from Florida.

Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague be willing to yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I would like to thank the leader personally on behalf of hundreds of thousands of students and their families in Michigan for his leadership on this issue. And I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership. When I first heard about what the administration was proposing, I was astounded. I received calls from so many students and families in Michigan. We all know, as you indicated, that Pell grants are important, particularly to lower income students. But so many middle-income families rely on the loan program, and rely on the ability to receive the lowest possible interest rate in order to be able to send their children to college. I have to say, on a personal note, having had a son go through college and a daughter who is now in college, for myself with loans, I certainly appreciate what families feel. When we saw the proposal to increase, essentially, the interest rates, it was nothing more than a tax on the ability of young people to be able to go to college and pursue the American dream. And we all certainly have a stake in making sure we do that. So I thank the majority leader for his leadership. I know that the Senator from Massachusetts, as well, has been vigilant. It is good news that they have appeared to change their minds, but we certainly know that minds can be changed again. As we go through this process, I know we will all stand together to make sure that this is an area we do not touch. I cannot imagine something more important than making sure the young people, the adults, and families of this country have the opportunity to get the skills they need to be successful in our economy. I am proud to stand with the majority leader in support of this goal.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I commend my colleague from West Virginia for his diligence and compassionate concern for our steelworkers. Coming from Michigan, I share his deep disappointment and concern about the administration's position. I know the Senator from West Virginia has been in the Chamber over and over again speaking up for our steelworkers. I thank him on behalf of the steelworkers in Michigan--those in the Upper Peninsula, those downriver in communities near Detroit, and those who were laid off for several months over the Christmas holidays as a result of the mines having to shut down because of the unfair dumping from other countries. Our steelworkers and mills have been affected. I can't think of a more passionate advocate, and I am so proud to join with him in his continuing fight. I will be here with him in the Chamber as we do everything possible to make sure we remember the steelworkers, who have been the backbone of building this country, to make sure their health care costs are covered and they are recognized as we look at how we make trade fair in this country. I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. TAP is very important, especially in Michigan. In 2000, our apple growers in the southwest region of the state suffered from devastating fire blight that destroyed over 10,000 acres of apple orchards resulting in an estimated total loss of $98 million for apple growers in Michigan. Unfortunately, the funding for TAP expired the year before and none of these growers could apply for assistance. I thank the Senator for reauthorizing TAP in the farm bill. In the Senate version of the farm bill, the reauthorization for TAP included the following language regarding eligibility, ``(a) shall apply to tree losses that are incurred as a result of a natural disaster after January 1, 2000.''

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. I would like to discuss another critical program that we included in the farm bill for specialty crops--the Tree Assistance Program, TAP.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. I look forward to working with him to insure that the apple growers in my State who suffered such terrible losses in 2000 will receive help through the Tree Assistance Program. Section 10816

Ms. STABENOW. The farm bill before us has a $2 billion specialty crop program which provides a minimum of $200 million per year in USDA Section 32 purchases for nutrition programs. This new allocation of funds will provide much needed help for growers of fruits and vegetables. It has been a true privilege to work with the Senator to develop this new program.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin, and congratulate him for his leadership over the past year. The farm bill is a tremendous victory on so many fronts. I want to especially thank him for the landmark inclusion of specialty crops in this farm bill.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank, first, my wonderful friend and colleague and leader of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He is the person who has brought us to this point with a farm bill of which I believe we can all be very proud. I am so grateful to him that he has understood that we in Michigan have 100 different commodities; that 60 percent of what we grow, in fact, is fruits and vegetables, and for the first time specialty crops are recognized by the Congress in a farm bill. It would not have happened without the leadership of our Senator from Iowa who has led this committee so ably. Madam President, I could not disagree more with my friend from New Hampshire who spoke right before me. I believe this is a bill of which we should be very proud. It moves in the right direction. It helps our family farmers. It promotes conservation. It supports rural economic development. It is something that I believe is good for every family in the country. I want to start, though, by thanking all of the staff who have been involved in this effort. There have been hours and hours--hundreds of hours, weekend work--in which people have been working at a number of points in order to get us to this comprehensive farm bill. I thank all those on the Senate Agriculture Committee staff and Senator Harkin's staff, the majority leader's staff, and I also thank Kim Love from my staff who has worked so diligently fighting for the interests of Michigan family farmers and rural communities and all of those who benefit from a strong farm policy. So to each of them I say: Thank you. We do, in fact, have a farm bill that makes sense. I came into the house of Representatives in 1997 and watched and participated as a member of the Agriculture Committee in the ``fruits,'' you might say, of the previous farm bill, what was called Freedom to Farm, which, unfortunately, left us in a situation where every year that I have been a Member of Congress we have had to pass an emergency supplemental because the farm bill did not work. Every single year, we were back saying that our farmers were not going to be able to make it, that the policies that were put in place with the last farm bill just did not work. So we are now using a different approach, one that takes into consideration the economic challenges of our farmers and what is happening in the world around us, and new opportunities. I am extremely pleased that this final bill--thanks to the leadership of our chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee--includes, for the first time, a title on energy. We in Michigan welcome that. There is not only ethanol, which we have debated on this floor, and which I strongly support, but we have soybean lubricants and other opportunities where I believe Michigan farmers can take the lead in biomass fuels. It is a real opportunity for us in Michigan as well as around the country. This dovetails directly with our energy bill that was passed not long ago. Again, in Michigan, we have 100 different commodities. I am pleased with what we have been able to do with the dairy proposal and sugar, and with the basic commodities, when we look at what has happened in terms of support for all of the commodities. I specifically rise to speak for a moment about what is called specialty crops, our fruits and vegetable farmers. I am very pleased that a provision I offered in the committee has in fact become a part of this final product, for the first time, to allow a minimum of $200 million per year to be used to purchase surplus fruits and vegetables, not only to help our farmers in terms of their prices and to address surpluses but also to have the win-win of offering those fruits and vegetables for our School Lunch Program, for our senior feeding programs. This is a win-win situation. We should be very proud of the fact that through our nutritional programs we now are able to permanently put into place a way to help our farmers and at the same time make fresh fruits and vegetables available to our children and to those who are involved in our nutrition programs. There is another important provision. For those states with critical orchards--this is the capital for our cherry farmers, our apple growers, and so on--the Tree Assistance Program is reauthorized to provide reimbursement for trees such as apple trees destroyed by natural disaster. We have a really serious issue in Michigan with apple fire blight. Coupling that with the drought we experienced in the year 2000, we have had a devastation in many areas of our orchards. The Tree Assistance Program is very important and an area I fought very hard to include in the final bill. I am pleased it is there. One of the provisions that is not in the bill in its entirety and we will continue to work to address this year through an emergency supplemental is emergency assistance, on which the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, led the effort--to add $2.4 billion in emergency assistance. While we did not receive the agreement of the White House and our colleagues in the House of Representatives to include it in the conference committee, we were able to provide just under $100 million in market loss payments for apples. That is an important first step. But I can say, coming from Michigan, where in the year 2000 we had 82 out of 83 counties declared disaster areas as a result of drought, just making our farmers eligible for more loans is not the right approach. Our farmers have enough loans. What they need is some direct assistance during emergencies such as drought. I will continue to fight very hard to address that entire emergency assistance package. I am also pleased that we are seeing almost a doubling of funding for conservation and that the new provision I was pleased to cosponsor with our chairman, the Conservation Security Program, that provides payments for farmers for good environmental practices on working lands is included in the conservation title. Again, for the first time, specialty crops are included as a part of conservation payments. This is very important to Michigan and very important to our producers across the country. We have many rural communities, hundreds and hundreds of rural communities in Michigan. From the upper peninsula all the way down along our coast and central Michigan, we have small communities that have benefited and will benefit from the strengthened rural development title in terms of infrastructure, water and sewer projects for which they will be able to receive support, broadband, and other kinds of infrastructure needs of our rural communities. I am very pleased the farm bill includes a strong rural development title as well. For our cooperative extension employees, we are pleased to be able to address an issue of long-term care insurance that came to us from Michigan State University. I appreciate the fact that this is in the bill. A couple of other areas of note: We have placed in the bill a nutrition pilot program that will allow five States to focus on good nutrition practices and encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables. This is another important way we can not only promote healthy eating, healthy living, but also be able to promote the nutritional value of our fruits and vegetables. I was pleased that the pilot program was included in the final bill as well. Of course, coming from the Great Lakes State of Michigan, I fought very hard for the Great Lakes Soil Erosion Program to be authorized. I am pleased it is authorized at $5 million a year. While this program has received funding in the past, it has never been authorized as an ongoing program. Through a combination of local and Federal funds, this program has been successful in keeping sedimentation out of the Great Lakes and educating the agricultural community about erosion and water quality. I am very pleased that finally, for the first time, we have this program authorized officially as a part of the farm bill. We know there is a good safety net: Higher loan rates, countercyclical payments, updated yields, continued direct annual payments, as well as conservation payments that come together in a way to support American agriculture, to support our family farmers. I am very pleased to support strongly this final conference committee. Let me, in closing, quote from our fruit and vegetable producers of the country who have put out a statement which I believe should in part be in the Record. It says: We applaud the Congress and its Members who led the fight to develop some of the most progressive and positive agricultural policy initiatives that have been developed through a farm bill process to address the unique needs of the fruit and vegetable producers in the United States. From the standpoint of our fruit and vegetable producers, this is a historic bill. From the standpoint of all of our families in the country, this is farm policy that makes sense for all of us. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I commend our chairman from Iowa for his vision and leadership. I yield back.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Advertising and Increased Research Act, the FAIR Act. The FAIR Act is designed to lower prescription drug prices by limiting taxpayer subsidies to pharmaceutical companies for advertising to those for research and development. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Miller, Durbin, Carnahan, and Wellstone. American taxpayers contribute about $16 billion a year to drug research through the National Institutes of Health. But what do they get for their investment? They get the highest drug prices in the world. At the same time, drug companies spend nearly $16 billion a year on advertising, marketing and promotion of prescription drugs. What does this mean for Americans? It means life-saving drugs become unaffordable. And unaffordable means unavailable or it means making cruel choices. For seniors it can mean choosing between food and medicine. We need to do something to address excessive advertising that leads to higher and higher prescription drug prices. The FAIR Act will help do so. Simply, it will limit pharmaceutical companies' deduction of annual expenditures for advertising, promoting or marketing--in any medium--of any Food and Drug Administration approved prescription drug to the amount of research and development expenditures in any taxable year. For example, if a company spends $110 million on advertising, promoting or marketing FDA approved prescription drugs and but spends only $100 million on research and development in one year, the company would not be able to deduct $10 million of advertising expenses in that year. Any savings resulting from this legislation will be credited to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is necessary because recent evidence shows that advertising, marketing and promotion of prescription drugs is out of control. According to an analysis of company earnings reports, the top 11 pharmaceutical spend 30 percent of their revenues on advertising, marketing, promotion, and administration and only 12 percent on research and development. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have dramatically increased their direct-to-consumer advertising by 300 percent from 1996 to 2000. Direct to consumer advertising includes all of those television, radio and print ads you see and hear daily. I would like to provide one example of excessive advertising to demonstrate the need of this legislation. In the year 2000, Merck spent $160 million advertising Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. This is more than PepsiCo spent on promoting Pepsi--$125 million--and more than Anheuser-Busch allocated to get the American people to buy Budweiser-- $136 million. This bill does not prevent the pharmaceutical companies from advertising as much as they want. Under our Constitution, they are free to do so. All we are seeking to do is limit how much the taxpayers should subsidize this advertising. We think the logical limit should be the amount that companies spend on research in a given year. While there is much compelling evidence that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising, marketing, and promotion than research and development, the trade association representing these businesses, PhRMA, claims that they spend more on research than on advertising. If this is true, then the pharmaceutical lobbyists should support this measure because it will not affect them and would only set a reasonable parameter for advertising in the future. We have to do something about spiraling prescription drug prices. This bill is a step in that direction. It will seek to stop taxpayer subsidies for excessive advertising and lower the price we pay for prescription drugs at our local pharmacy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Advertising and Increased Research Act, the FAIR Act. The FAIR Act is designed to lower prescription drug prices by limiting taxpayer subsidies to pharmaceutical companies for advertising to those for research and development. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Miller, Durbin, Carnahan, and Wellstone. American taxpayers contribute about $16 billion a year to drug research through the National Institutes of Health. But what do they get for their investment? They get the highest drug prices in the world. At the same time, drug companies spend nearly $16 billion a year on advertising, marketing and promotion of prescription drugs. What does this mean for Americans? It means life-saving drugs become unaffordable. And unaffordable means unavailable or it means making cruel choices. For seniors it can mean choosing between food and medicine. We need to do something to address excessive advertising that leads to higher and higher prescription drug prices. The FAIR Act will help do so. Simply, it will limit pharmaceutical companies' deduction of annual expenditures for advertising, promoting or marketing--in any medium--of any Food and Drug Administration approved prescription drug to the amount of research and development expenditures in any taxable year. For example, if a company spends $110 million on advertising, promoting or marketing FDA approved prescription drugs and but spends only $100 million on research and development in one year, the company would not be able to deduct $10 million of advertising expenses in that year. Any savings resulting from this legislation will be credited to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is necessary because recent evidence shows that advertising, marketing and promotion of prescription drugs is out of control. According to an analysis of company earnings reports, the top 11 pharmaceutical spend 30 percent of their revenues on advertising, marketing, promotion, and administration and only 12 percent on research and development. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have dramatically increased their direct-to-consumer advertising by 300 percent from 1996 to 2000. Direct to consumer advertising includes all of those television, radio and print ads you see and hear daily. I would like to provide one example of excessive advertising to demonstrate the need of this legislation. In the year 2000, Merck spent $160 million advertising Vioxx, a drug to treat arthritis. This is more than PepsiCo spent on promoting Pepsi--$125 million--and more than Anheuser-Busch allocated to get the American people to buy Budweiser-- $136 million. This bill does not prevent the pharmaceutical companies from advertising as much as they want. Under our Constitution, they are free to do so. All we are seeking to do is limit how much the taxpayers should subsidize this advertising. We think the logical limit should be the amount that companies spend on research in a given year. While there is much compelling evidence that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising, marketing, and promotion than research and development, the trade association representing these businesses, PhRMA, claims that they spend more on research than on advertising. If this is true, then the pharmaceutical lobbyists should support this measure because it will not affect them and would only set a reasonable parameter for advertising in the future. We have to do something about spiraling prescription drug prices. This bill is a step in that direction. It will seek to stop taxpayer subsidies for excessive advertising and lower the price we pay for prescription drugs at our local pharmacy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his continued advocacy on behalf of all of the issues that directly affect our families every day. Speaking first to the issue of education as the mother of a 26-year-old who has completed college--I feel as if I own a part of one of the buildings at that great university, the University of Michigan--and my daughter who is now in college, I completely understand and share the deep concerns Senator Kennedy has about the proposals that will essentially put another $10,000 of tax on middle- and low-income families over the course of taking out student loans to put their children through college. It seems to me, as we are talking about the national interest, the importance of national security, that a critical piece is an educated workforce and an educated citizenry. I cannot imagine who was thinking up this proposal at the White House, but I hope they understand we are going to stand together to stop any effort that will add costs to families who are working to put their children through college.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak specifically to another proposal on principles that was released yesterday in the House of Representatives. We have been urging now, since I came to the Senate over a year ago, and certainly before that time, that our colleagues from the other side of the aisle join with us to act to get action in two areas related to critical health care and prescription drugs: One, a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. Modernize Medicare, update it. Everyone knows that it was written in 1965 and covers the way health care was provided in 1965. It needs to be updated to cover prescription drugs, the primary way that we provide health care today. Second, we know there are important actions we can take right now to lower the cost of prescription drugs for every family, not only for our seniors who use the majority of prescriptions--on average 18 different prescriptions a year--but also for those families who have a disabled child or another family member who is ill. We need to lower the costs now. We need to lower them for small businesses. We need to lower them for larger businesses. Our farmers are struggling with higher costs. We can do that. Certainly we appreciate that our colleagues have come together with fanfare to talk about four principles: One is lowering the cost of prescription drugs now. I suggest that putting those words on paper does not lower the cost of one pill. It does not make one more prescription available to our seniors. I welcome the words, but our seniors and our families have had enough words. They are interested in action. We have to be working in a bipartisan way. We come as Democrats to say: Work with us; let's get beyond the words, beyond the principles and get something done. We are interested in lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and we have numerous proposals. I will speak to those for a moment before speaking about Medicare prescription drug coverage. We know, for instance, if we allow the normal course of patents to run out and for the process to work where lower cost generic drugs can be used, we can dramatically cut costs immediately. We have colleagues--Senator Schumer and Senator McCain--who are putting forward an important bill to close loopholes that the drug companies have used to block generic drugs from going on the market and to block the lowering of the cost of drugs. We can pass that bill right now and drop the cost. We can open our borders to Canada. Senator Dorgan, of North Dakota, has introduced a bill; he is in the Chamber, and I am sure he will speak to that shortly. I am pleased to join him. This is an effort in which I have been involved since being in the U.S. House of Representatives. I have taken two bus trips to Canada with our seniors to demonstrate that by working through the Canadian Medical Society we can lower the cost of prescription drugs. It is astounding. These are American-made drugs. I am proud they are made in America. I am proud we have invested in the research and technology-- taxpayers, private companies, biotech companies, biomedical companies, drug companies. But when all is said and done, if no one can afford to get the medicine, what have we done? We now find ourselves in a situation where we subsidize and pay for the research from which the world benefits; yet our borders are closed and our own people cannot go across the border to get the same drug at half the price.