Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I will be honored to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. I add also, one of my deep concerns is that in order to pay for this, they are talking about Medicare ``reforms.'' Unfortunately, the reforms we are hearing about are proposals such as adding the cost of home health care, requiring a copay for home health care. Our seniors who are now struggling to live at home, families who are struggling to make sure someone can live in dignity in their home as long as possible, have home health care. Part of that is their prescription drugs, and to pay less than 20 percent of the cost of prescription drugs, one of the things they are talking about is a copay for home health care. So they will be adding other costs to this process as well. I suggest: Beware of what is coming. It is very clear when the only people who are advocating for the proposal put forward by the House Republicans are the drug companies, that should tell us something. When they have fought every proposal for comprehensive prescription drug coverage, every proposal to lower the cost of prescription drugs, whether it is expanding generic drugs, opening the borders, lowering advertising costs--every single effort to get some control and accountability in this system so that our seniors can afford prescription drugs they have opposed.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. As the Senator from Massachusetts has indicated, the Medicare proposal that we believe is coming--again, we only have principles. We do not have the specifics. We are piecing together from news stories and other sources what it appears to be. In fact, going beyond what the Senator from Massachusetts has said, not only are we talking about the premium, the deductible, the copays--and there are two different levels of copays--but nothing is covered once you reach $2,000 until you have spent $5,000. So there is a huge gap in the middle. If we take the example of a senior who is spending $300 a month on prescription drugs--and that is not unusual. It might be a breast cancer patient who is purchasing tamoxifen, which in Michigan is $136 a month. If you add to that blood pressure medication or cholesterol medication or another drug, the amount could easily come to $300 a month. If you add that up and look at all that it appears from that proposal, Mr. President, of the $3,600 a year that one would be paying out of pocket, one would still spend $2,914. If someone is paying $300 a month now in prescription drug costs, less than 20 percent of that would be covered under the Republican proposal.

Ms. STABENOW. I absolutely agree. With all due respect to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the math does not add up. It is time to get beyond principles and rhetoric and say to those watching this morning sitting at their kitchen table, seniors who are sitting down right now deciding, Do I eat today or take my medicine, that we are going to step up to the plate, do what is right, and do what is long overdue. I see my colleague from North Dakota. I would very much like to yield to him. He has been such a leader on this issue. We share, as border States, the frustration of citizens from our States who can easily go on a short trip across the border and pay lower prices for American- made drugs. The Senator has been a real leader in this effort.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I just wanted, as we conclude this time, to thank my colleagues for their continued leadership and to, once again, call upon our colleagues across the building, in the other Chamber, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and his colleagues, to go beyond the principles that were put out yesterday and join with us in the concrete proposals that we have. We have the ability to act now. We could do it this month if they are willing to join with us. We ask them to get beyond the words and let's get together and let's do the right thing.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator from New York yield?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to respond to a proposal of principles that has been released this morning by our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives. First of all, I commend them for speaking out in support of prescription drugs and lowering the costs. But I come today, along with other colleagues, to ask them to join with us in doing more than just offering principles, but, as my colleague who is now presiding has indicated, show me the money--show me the resources. Unfortunately, for a senior who got up this morning and had to decide whether or not to eat or take their medicine, a set of principles will not purchase those prescription drugs. What they need is action. They need action now from us. We have the ability, the capacity to do that. The first principle that has been put forward by the Speaker of the House is to lower the cost of prescription drugs now. I could not agree more. We have put forward a set of proposals to do exactly that, to increase the ability to use generic drugs, to open our borders with Canada so that our American consumers can purchase American-made drugs sold in Canada for half the price. So that our business community, our hospitals can have free and open trade with Canada to bring back drugs at half the price and sell them to our consumers. We can do that right now. It does not cost anything. Just take down the wall at the Canadian border. We also know that we need to encourage the drug companies to put as much emphasis on research as they do on advertising. Right now, they are allowed to write off advertising costs deduct them. Taxpayers subsidize that. We know they are deducting twice as much on advertising as they do on research, and we know if we simply said, you can deduct as much on advertising as you do on research, we would save money, and we could put that money into Medicare for a prescription drug benefit. We also know that the State of Maine has taken leadership in bulk purchasing, so that, on behalf of their consumers and their pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors, they are going to begin the process of purchasing in bulk to get a group discount. It is common sense to get a group discount. We believe we ought to make that same approach available to all of our States that choose to do that. Right now, that is being challenged in court by the pharmaceutical drug companies. So we welcome--I welcome--the House joining with us. We have legislation to lower the cost now. The second principle is to guarantee all seniors prescription drug coverage. Certainly, our caucus--and a majority in this Senate--has been fighting very hard for this. We, again, are ready to do that right now. But it has to be real. One of my concerns is that our seniors have been hearing, for a long time, about updating Medicare and that we are going to provide Medicare coverage. We all know it has to be done. In 1965, when Medicare was developed, it covered the way health care was provided at the time: You went into the hospital, you might have penicillin, you had procedures in the hospital. At that time, Medicare covered the way health care was provided. Health care coverage has changed. Treatment has changed. We now rely to a great extent on medications. We are proud that those are developed in our country and that we have these new opportunities for treatment. I am proud, as an American, to be able to have that. But we also know it does not work if those who use the most prescriptions, the older Americans, do not have prescription drug coverage under Medicare. So there is no question that we are ready to do that in the Budget Committee. I am very proud to have been part of the Budget Committee putting forward a resolution this year that would place a substantial amount-- $500 billion--into Medicare and prescription drug coverage that we would put aside, as a country, to begin to address in a very substantive way what our seniors have to deal with every single day when they are struggling to pay for their prescription drug coverage. My concern is that when you add up--and we have had a chance to look at an initial review of some of the principles from a wire story this morning that spells out the premiums, the copays, and the deductibles, and all of that--when you add it all up, unfortunately, what our Republican colleagues in the House are talking about just isn't good enough. It just simply is not good enough. There are not enough resources. In fact, in looking in my State at an average senior who might be spending $300, as an example, per month on prescription drugs. For instance, a breast cancer survivor who is spending $136 a month on tamoxifen, and possibly needing cholesterol medication or blood pressure medication, or some other combination. With all those, a $300-a-month bill is not unheard of. Many of our seniors pay that. But if you add up what we are finding--and if this is not accurate, we welcome hearing the specifics--it appears from the paper they are suggesting something in the range of a $37-a-month premium, with a $250 deductible, that 80 percent up to $1,000 would be paid, and that 50 percent up to $2,000 would be paid. But for anyone who is spending between $2,000 and $5,000 a year--and that is many of our older Americans, or a family with a disabled child, or someone else with a health problem--there would be no assistance whatsoever. When we add that all up, for someone who might be spending $300 a month for prescription drugs, it ends up being less than 20 percent of their bill being covered under what is being talked about by our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives. It would end up, for $3,600 a year, that senior being out of pocket about $2,795, leaving them to get $805 in support through Medicare. That is just not enough. That is not enough. That is not what our seniors expect. That is not what people have talked about. That is not what was talked about in the Presidential campaigns. That is not what we know we need to do on behalf of our seniors. Less than 20 percent of the bill is just not good enough. It also appears that this is something that would be turned over to private insurance companies, which I understand actually are very reluctant right now to do this. We are hearing from them that the private insurance companies would administer the plans, even though they are saying they are very reluctant. We have had a similar experience with Medicare+Choice where HMOs and insurance companies have left the plan. We know about the problems there. Why in the world would we want to make the same mistakes with the prescription drug benefit? So I see something being proposed that is inadequate--woefully inadequate--being administered by those who say they do not want to administer the program. We have experience that tells us it is not the best way to proceed. We also know that under private plans the premiums could vary and, for the first time in the history of Medicare, we could have inconsistent premiums from region to region. So there are a lot of concerns with the proposals we have seen from the other side of the Capitol, from our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the House of Representatives. My biggest concern is that while we continue to see people talk about principles--principles that talk about lowering prescription drug costs and talk about Medicare coverage--those principles alone will not buy one pill for a senior in Michigan. It will not buy one month's prescription for a family with a disabled child. It will not help one small business lower their cost and their health care premiums so they can make sure they cover their employees. We need action now. We need the same sense of urgency in this Senate and in the House of Representatives that every family in America feels on this issue. We need the same sense of urgency that every senior citizen in this country feels when they walk into that pharmacy and today pay the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs. Shame on us for not acting. Principles are fine, but they are not enough. I know that the people I represent in Michigan are way beyond principles. They know what the principles are. They want to know when we are going to act on them, when we are going to cut the costs and provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. They want to know when we are going to stop talking and start doing. So I call upon my colleagues to take those principles and put them into legislation immediately. Let's make sure that it will work, that it covers more than 20 percent of costs under Medicare, and to join with us in a focused effort to lower the costs of prescription drugs for all of our citizens. I thank the chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I commend the Senator for his efforts regarding generic drugs. There is no question that this is the heart of the matter. I know he has held hearings. He has a bill that is moving forward. I commend him for going right to the heart of the issue. Hopefully, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber will be willing to embrace what is a very tangible way to cut the cost, which he has been working on, holding hearings on, and moving forward on. I commend him on this issue to all those listening. The leadership of the Senator from New York has been absolutely superb on this.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I indicate to our leader from Nevada that he is certainly welcome to take whatever time is necessary to talk about this very important issue and to set the record straight. I very much appreciate the Senator being able to do that in such articulate terms so that it is very clear that we, in fact, are moving ahead in a way that, frankly, has been unheard of when we have had a President of one party and the Senate majority of another party in terms of confirming judges. So I certainly associate myself with the Senator's comments and very much appreciate his advocacy. Prescription Drugs Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about an issue that is incredibly important. It is probably one of the most important challenges facing our families today; and that is the question of the cost of prescription drugs. I cannot think of a more important issue facing older Americans, who, on average, use 18 different medications in a year, or a more important issue facing families, who, for example, may have a disabled child, or a more important issue for anyone who is struggling and does not have coverage under their insurance policy for prescription drugs. We know that right now, even as we are at the dinner hour on a Tuesday evening, there are seniors who are sitting down at their kitchen table and deciding: Do I eat supper or do I take my medicine? We are the greatest country in the world. I say shame on us for our inability to address this issue and to have a Medicare prescription drug plan that lowers the costs for everyone. This is an issue that now touches every part of our economy. Today, I met with the leadership of Michigan Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Yesterday, I met with people who are involved with hospitals and home health care agencies and nursing homes. I meet with small business owners who cannot afford to keep their insurance for their employees because the costs are going up 30 percent, 40 percent a year, and the majority of that is the uncontrolled costs of prescription drugs. I meet with the big three automakers, and I hear the same thing. These costs are out of control. There is no accountability, and it affects every part of our economy and the lives of too many Americans. So I rise this evening to ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and to ask the President of the United States, to join with us in a serious effort--not words, not efforts that look as if they do something on paper but do not really solve the problem--but to join with us in a serious effort to provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare that is long overdue, and to join with us in a number of issues and a number of strategies to lower the costs of prescription drugs for every American. I find it extremely frustrating, when we know that American taxpayers underwrite much of the research--certainly the initial basic research through the National Institutes of Health for new prescription drugs, new technologies, new cures--and I certainly support that. I support the fact that we allow research tax credits and deductions. And taxpayers subsidize those efforts as well. It is important for us. But I am very frustrated that after we have patents that are given for 15 years, 20 years, to companies to recoup their costs, when they do not have to have competition, we create a way for them to come up with these new, wonderful drugs that are lifesaving, and yet, at the end of the line, Americans pay more than anyone in the world--and that is not an exaggeration--for those drugs. If someone is uninsured, Heaven help them--which the majority of seniors are in this country-- because when they walk into the pharmacy, they are paying the highest prescription drug price of anyone in the world. Tomorrow, we are going to start Older Americans Month. And I say again, shame on us for not addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner. I ask my colleagues to join with us in a number of efforts. One, we want to make sure that generic drugs are more available and that we close loopholes that are now used by the companies to change patents or do other things that stop generics from coming on the market even though it is the same--a very comparable drug--at a dramatically reduced price. We certainly have legislation right now in the Senate which Senator Schumer and Senator McCain have put forward that needs to be addressed. We also need to do something about the explosion of advertising. Since the FDA changed the rules a number of years ago on direct consumer advertising, I daresay you can't turn on your television set in any 5-minute increment and not see at least one advertisement for a prescription drug. They are nice ads. Many of them are very pretty. But we pay a heavy price for that advertising. We also pay a heavy price for the promotions that are going on in the doctors' offices and all of the effort that goes into this question of advertising rather than putting the money into research for more lifesaving drugs. We want to address that in the Senate, and we ask our colleagues to join with us to stop this spiraling situation where right now there is twice as much being spent on advertising in this country, advertising and promotion of prescription drugs, than on research to create new lifesaving drugs. We intend to put forward proposals to do that in the next week. I specifically wish to talk for a moment about S. 2244, an effort my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and many of us have joined in to provide another way of creating cost savings; that is, to open the border to Canada. I find it ironic that at the time we are creating open trade, fast track, a trade bill on the floor of the Senate, we have in place walls at the border of Canada. And coming from Michigan, where it is 5 minutes across the bridge, 5 minutes across the tunnel, this is a very real wall where we are told, based on legislation passed back in the 1980s, that even though you can get your medications made in America, FDA approved, safe drugs, my citizens in Michigan or those from Florida or anyone cannot go 5 minutes across that Ambassador Bridge or that tunnel and lower their cost because of a law that was put in place to protect our companies from competition. We believe, those of us who have put forward S. 2244, that the wall needs to come down. If we are going to talk about open trade, we should not close trade. We should not be allowing lack of competition on prescription drugs. If we did that, we could see amazing changes immediately. It would not cost money other than probably a small amount as it relates to the FDA. We are not talking about any large sum of money to be able to open the borders and immediately we could lower costs 40 percent, 50 percent or more. I took two different bus trips to Canada to demonstrate, as other colleagues have, the cost differences, working with the Canadian Medical Society, going through a Canadian physician and a Canadian pharmacy to demonstrate the differences in the prices for prescription drugs. I wanted to share with you some of those differences. Zocor is a drug for high cholesterol. In Michigan, it is $109 a month for the prescription; it is $46.17 in Canada--$109 versus $46. Even more dramatic is Tamoxifen. We had women on our bus trip with breast cancer. In Michigan, they are paying $136.50 a month for Tamoxifen. In Canada, they purchased it for $15.92--$136 versus $15. There is something seriously wrong when our citizens are having to pay such a large amount of money when compared to other countries, particularly our Canadian neighbor to the north, and at the same time they are having to juggle all of the other expenses in their life, and many people are not being able to purchase Tamoxifen or Zocor or Prilosec, all of the other drugs where there is such a disparity. I invite colleagues tonight to join with us in supporting S. 2244, to become cosponsors, to join with us in an effort to say that we are going to open the borders; we are going to create competition; and we are going to make sure Americans who underwrite so much of the cost of the new medications being developed every day have the opportunity to get the very best price. We need to do that. It is long overdue. From my perspective, there is no excuse at this time not to proceed to support this effort to open the border, to create new opportunities for generic drugs, to make sure we are addressing the high cost of advertising and to put some sense around that, and promoting research rather than more advertising. These are all items that need to happen, and they need to happen now. My biggest concern is that we don't have the same sense of urgency in the Congress that I hear from my own family, from neighbors and constituents I represent in Michigan. This is not a theoretical debate. This is real. This is about whether or not people will be able to live longer because they can benefit from the medications being developed with the help of taxpayers or whether they are going to struggle every day to decide whether to eat, to pay the utility bill, or to get their medicines they so desperately need. We can do better. Our older citizens, our families, our children, our businesses wanting to cover their employees for health care costs deserve better. We have an opportunity to do that in the Senate and to say to everyone: We have really done something that will make a difference in the lives of the people we represent. I suggest the time is now. I yield the floor. (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to honor National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, April 21 through April 27, 2002. I want to commend the thousands of families each year whose selfless generosity helps save the lives of others. Since January, 115 people in my State of Michigan have received organ or tissue transplants. Unfortunately, in that same time, 40 people in Michigan have died waiting for needed organs. Each day in America, about 63 people receive an organ transplant, but 16 die waiting. Over 79,000 Americans are on waiting lists for organs and tissues. For many of them, this issue is about their very survival. Right now, we have almost everything we need to save these lives. We have skilled doctors and medical professionals and we have hospitals with transplant facilities. All we need now are people who are willing to share the gift of life with others. I would like to share the story of Maria Compagner, a 5-year-old girl who lives in Holland, MI. When Maria was 2 months old, she was diagnosed with hepatic hemangioendotheliomas on her liver, which caused her liver to grow at such a rapid pace that it pushed her other vital organs out of place. She was hospitalized, received chemotherapy and Alpha Inferon treatment, followed by steroid treatments. The treatments permanently damaged Maria's thyroid gland and inhibited growth hormone production. She will have to take synthetic hormones for the rest of her life. Maria suffered from congestive heart failure, severe respiratory distress which led to many intubations, a pulmonary hemorrhage in her lung, several serious infections, hypothyroid condition, a collapsed lung, pneumonia, chronic emesis, aspiration, and severe reflux, all before her first birthday. Just before her first birthday, Maria finally received a precious gift of life, a new liver. She spent the next year in and out of the hospital. After a little catching up, Maria is a happy and well- adjusted 5-year-old. But she's not out of the woods yet. In November 2000, doctors discovered that Maria's portal vein and inferior vena cava are blocked and her hepatic artery is narrowed. She is now waiting for a second liver transplant to correct those problems. This week, I urge all Americans to consider becoming an organ donor. I urge them to think about filling out a donor card. And most importantly, I urge them to talk to their families about their decision. When you become an organ donor, you guarantee that you will live on not just in the memories of your loved ones. You will live on in the heart and soul of the fellow human beings you save, and in the heart and soul of every loved one that person gets to touch.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the Carper- Specter amendment. I join with my colleagues in opposition. I note this issue is of great importance to my colleague from Delaware. We have had a lot of conversations about the best approach to increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. While I appreciate his effort and the amendment he is bringing forward, I believe the Carper-Specter approach has the same major flaws as the Kerry-Hollings amendment and sets, in fact, an arbitrary CAFE number. It just does it in a different way. It is not called CAFE, but it has the same effect. The Carper-Specter amendment sets, in fact, an arbitrary number which is exactly what we were debating before. We wanted a process; we wanted NHTSA to have the opportunity to have a number of months to take into consideration all of the factors and not set an arbitrary number. Our opponents, the makers of the amendment, say this is, in fact, not a CAFE number and that the amendment creates a modest and measurable objective for reducing vehicle gasoline consumption. Unfortunately, it is a mandate. It is a fuel economy mandate in the form of millions of barrels saved that is no less arbitrary than the Kerry-Hollings provision that was replaced in this bill. Currently, the only regulatory authority that is available to the Department of Transportation to pursue such regulations through passenger and light truck fleets is the CAFE program. No matter what we call it, it is still CAFE. In essence, the amendment would impose this arbitrary oil reduction number as an additional requirement to the Department of Transportation as it sets the CAFE levels, thereby undermining and distorting the rulemaking considerations and the process that we put together through the Levin-Bond proposal. I am particularly concerned because now that we have essentially eliminated pickup trucks from the equation, it puts even more pressure on the other light trucks and SUVs that are made in the United States, which involve the employment of literally hundreds of thousands of American workers. So it is even more distorted, given the amendment that passed in the prior discussion. Unfortunately, this amendment undermines the Levin-Bond proposal, and I urge us to maintain our position of supporting the process set up in the Levin-Bond amendment, which passed by such a wide margin, because this sets up a positive, new set of rules and guidance from Congress and requires us to address CAFE's impact on a wide variety of issues in order to increase our fuel efficiency standards. We have to look at safety, jobs, the environment, which is very important to all of us--particularly those of us in Michigan. It makes sure we don't have a discriminatory impact on the U.S. automakers--I know that is of concern to all of us--so that we set the standard given all of these criteria. By requiring an overriding oil reduction number, the amendment sets a hard target, on top of the other considerations, that the rulemaking would otherwise try to balance. So I believe this amendment puts the cart before the horse. We have an excellent approach in front of us--I believe the best approach. We are not arguing that we should continue the freeze on CAFE. In fact, we are saying let's put in process the way to get to the new technologies. We have a combination of market incentives and investments in new technologies and tax incentives. We have in place the package of incentives, a requirement by NHTSA of deadlines in terms of numbered months and the criteria to look at. We direct them in a very specific way. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and leave in place our commitment to the process for raising fuel efficiency standards that have already been established in this bill through the Levin-Bond amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to proudly support the Cantwell amendment which I am very pleased to be cosponsoring. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for all of his leadership, overall, on this important energy package. He has had a thankless job. There has been a tremendous amount of work. While I respectfully disagree with his position on this amendment, I commend him for his incredible leadership in this effort. I am very pleased to support this amendment which would add important and much-needed consumer protection to the Senate energy bill. The Senate energy bill repeals most of what is called PUHCA. Many people are not aware of what that is and how important it is in terms of protecting consumer prices as it relates to electricity. It is the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This would repeal it without putting in place any protections to ensure that consumers are in fact protected. Now, in light of what happened with Enron, what happened on the west coast with the electricity crisis, we need to be strengthening consumer protections, not weakening them. Last spring, when the Senate Banking Committee took up PUHCA repeal, I in fact was the only member of the committee who voted against that because I believed we should not be doing that independently of a larger focus to guarantee that if the bill were repealed--the statute--we in fact would keep the consumer protections in the act which are so critical. So I voted against that bill. I believe we should be including this in the context of a broad bill, such as the Senate energy plan, that would include consumer and competitive protections. I believe this amendment puts into place those important consumer protections and competition protections. This amendment would ensure that utility company mergers ``advance the public interest'' in order to be approved by FERC. That is a very important principle. FERC would assess the impact on the public interest by examining such criteria as the merger's effects on competition, economic efficiency, and regulatory oversight. We need to ensure that utility mergers promote, and not undermine, competition. That is what this amendment would do. This amendment would also establish clear rules and enforcement procedures to prevent a repeat of soaring electricity rates in deregulated markets that are not really competitive. This amendment would also protect consumers from unjustified rate hikes and help ensure fair and competitive markets. The amendment also would provide more transparency in the utility market to protect consumers from situations like Enron. The amendment would require public disclosure of financial transactions between holding companies, utilities, and their affiliates, as well as FERC preapproval of transactions that are not publicly disclosed. This has been a real issue for small businesses in Michigan. The amendment would protect consumers from the costs and risks of utility diversification and prevent utilities from unfairly subsidizing their affiliates that compete with small businesses, with independent businesses--those that sell the furnaces, air-conditioners, and so on. This has been an important issue in Michigan where many of my small businesses have been concerned about competing against utility companies that are able to have their prices subsidized. Finally, the amendment would give State and Federal regulators enhanced access to books and records. If we are going to move to a truly competitive utility market, we need to reshape FERC's role in the market. We need to increase the market transparency and make certain that consumer protections are maintained. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe it is absolutely necessary as we move into this deregulated marketplace to make sure there really is competition to lower prices, there is accountability, transparency, and in fact in the end all of our consumers, the citizens of the country, are protected. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my colleagues today about an incredibly important issue, and that is the question of the rising costs of health care, particularly as it relates to the cost of prescription drugs. I think the headline in this week's Washington Post column by David Broder said it all: Our health care system is in a ``death cycle.'' The greatest country in the world, the most extensive health care system in the world, most sophisticated system, and we have a respected columnist saying it is in a death cycle. I suggest one of the major reasons for this is the uncontrollable cost of prescription drugs in this country. There is something wrong when we are involved as taxpayers, as Americans, in funding research for prescription drugs--which I support--providing tax credits for research and development for the companies to be able to do incredibly important, lifesaving research. Yet we in the United States of America pay the highest prices of anyone in the world. That is not an exaggeration--higher than anyone in the world. If you are uninsured--and particularly for our seniors who may use 18 different medications in a year; that is the average--if you are uninsured, if you are someone walking in and paying retail, you pay the most of anyone anywhere in the United States and the world. This is extremely troubling. We are not talking about buying something that is optional; we are talking about lifesaving medications. Whether I am talking to my hospital administrators or the Big Three auto companies or small businesses or senior citizens or a family with a disabled child or anyone who is involved in purchasing prescription drugs, I hear the same thing over and over: We have a system that is broken. It is broken. We have to fix it. I am here today asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in that sense of urgency about fixing this problem. Whenever we talk about costs, we hear from the companies that in order to lower costs we will lose valuable research. None of us wants to lose research. We support that. We support funding research. We will do that again this year. But the facts do not show us that we have to suffer and lose research in order to lower costs. We know that among the largest companies, on average, they spend twice as much on advertising and promotion as they do on research. We also know in an average year there will be about 88,000 people working to promote and to advertise prescription drugs and on average 48,000 people involved in research. There are 88,000 people involved in promoting and advertising, 48,000 involved in research. I think every American knows, just by turning on the television set, that we have seen an explosion in advertising. Unfortunately, what has happened is we have seen that explosion in advertising causing an explosion in our costs of 18 percent to 20 percent a year. Something is wrong when there are almost twice as many people involved in promoting a drug and advertising a drug as there are people researching new medications. There is also something wrong when we can go across the bridge or through the tunnel to Canada--Mr. President, that is 5 minutes in Michigan. We can go across the bridge and we can cut our costs in half for American-made, FDA-approved medications. I have twice taken a group of seniors across the border, going through the Canadian medical society, and then going into the Canadian pharmacies. We have seen dramatic results. I will just share a couple. In Michigan, Zocor, a drug to reduce cholesterol, costs $109.73 for 50 5-milligram tablets. In Canada, the exact same prescription costs $46.17--$109.73 and $46.17. Since we as taxpayers in the United States have helped to subsidize the research--which I support doing--I also want to see us get a price break for the tax dollars that are helping to do this. I also know that tamoxifen, a breast-cancer-treating drug, is available for about $136 in Michigan. When we went to Canada, with breast cancer patients, they got it for $15. There is something wrong with the laws that say our people cannot freely go back and forth--our hospitals, our businesses--and get those lower costs. There is something wrong with a system where small businesses are seeing 25, 30, 35 percent or more increases in their health care premiums. I have had small business people come to me saying they will have to drop their insurance because they cannot afford the premium increases. The majority of that is the cost of prescription drugs. We have a lot of work to do. There is something wrong in a country as blessed and as wealthy as the United States when there are seniors who got up this morning, sat at the kitchen table, and said: Do I eat today or do I take my medicine? Do I pay the electric bill or do I take my medicine? We can do better than that. We have an obligation to do better than that. I believe one piece of that is Medicare coverage and updating our Medicare system to cover prescription drugs. But I believe it is also much more than that. I believe it is making generics available once the patent has run its course and finding ways to make sure those laws are enforced and not undermined. It is making sure that research is done, and we reward and help fund that, and invest in that more than we are investing in advertising. It is making sure our business community can afford premiums, that we have competition across the border, making sure we are able to provide prescriptions at the lowest possible cost while still allowing important research to happen and our pharmaceutical industry to thrive. I believe we can do all of that if we have a focus on the right values and priorities when it comes to this debate. I simply say it is now time for a sense of urgency. If a child in our family is sick or if we have a parent who needs lifesaving medication and can't afford it, if we have someone in our family who needs an operation, we feel a sense of urgency. We feel a sense of urgency if someone needs nursing home care or if someone needs some other kind of health care. We need that same kind of sense of urgency when it comes to public policy on health care. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in the coming weeks to lower the fastest growing part of that health care dollar; that is, the cost of prescription drugs and lifesaving medication. We can do better than we are doing for our seniors and our families. We can do better than we are doing for the business community. We can do better than we are doing for everybody in our country if we are willing to get to work. I hope we are going to do that. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to oppose the proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side, who I know feel strongly, I feel strongly as well and have been involved with this issue since my time in the House of Representatives, where I consistently cosponsored legislation that would not allow drilling to occur. It is important that we continue to stress the fact that drilling in ANWR will not create energy independence and that we are talking about, even if we started drilling tomorrow, the first barrel of crude oil would not make it to the market for at least 10 years. So it would not affect our current energy needs. There is a real question in all of the debate going on about the concerns that are immediately in front of us. This is not the answer to that. We are talking about whether or not, on the one hand, we risk the environmentally sensitive Coastal Plain for the equivalent of just 6 months' worth of usage or consumer usage in the United States. And this is not something that will be available for use for 10 years. It doesn't make sense to me. I think that in this energy bill, when we are trying to look to the future, we ought not to be going to the past in terms of trying to drill our way to energy security and independence. According to the EIA, an independent analytical agency within the Department of Energy, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is projected to reduce the amount of foreign oil consumption by the United States in 2020 from 62 percent to 60 percent--a whopping 2-percent difference by 2020. This certainly is not going to address our energy needs. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not really make a dent in the question of the overdependence on foreign oil. Even John Brown, the CEO of BP Amoco, admitted in an interview on ``60 Minutes'' back in February that it was ``simply not possible for the U.S. to drill its way to energy independence.'' That is why we have a proposal in front of us that is comprehensive. I would like to, once again, commend the sponsor and the leader on this issue, Senator Bingaman, for not only his leadership in coming forward with a broad plan that moves us to the future, but also his patience during this process, as we have moved through all of the amendments and the different comments in which each of us have been involved. When we look at the tradeoff, I simply don't believe it is worth it. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will lead, potentially, to environmental damage. The proponents of drilling claim that the modern techniques are clean and would cause no environmental damage. First, drilling accidents do happen. Over the past several years, across the Nation, there have been accidents due to poor maintenance, equipment failure, human error, even sabotage. Certainly, in this time of concern about terrorism, we need to be concerned about that as well. In these accidents, crude oil was dumped into our rivers, our lakes, our streams, and wetlands, and often dangerous hydrogen sulfide gas was released into the air as well. This doesn't seem to be a good tradeoff for the equivalent of 6 months' worth of oil that we cannot actually begin to use for 10 years. We can create more jobs and help our U.S. steel industry and help our economy and make other kinds of positive benefits without drilling in the Arctic Refuge. There are more than 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas immediately available in the existing oilfields on the Alaskan North Slope. Currently, natural gas is produced with this oil but is reinjected, as we all know, back into the ground because there is no pipeline to bring it to the lower 48 States. Constructing the Alaskan natural gas pipeline will create more than 400,000 new jobs and provide a real opportunity to the U.S. steel industry, which, I might add, is incredibly important in my State of Michigan, where we are concerned about an integrated steel industry from the iron ore mines in the upper peninsula of Michigan to our steel mills. This pipeline would require up to 3,500 miles of pipe and 5 million tons of steel. The Alaska natural gas pipeline also would provide natural gas to American consumers for at least 30 years and would be a stabilizing force on natural gas prices. We can do that. We agree on that. We can move in this direction. It creates jobs. It adds to the availability of energy sources and does not risk one of the most important, pristine, environmentally sensitive areas in our country. There are other, better supply options available to us. Currently, as we all know, in the Gulf of Mexico, it is a source of 25 percent of the crude oil produced in the United States, 29 percent of the natural gas, and there are 32 million acres in the western and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico under lease but not developed. Why are we not talking about those areas? In addition, the oil industry is extremely optimistic about the prospects of finding additional oil reserves in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska where we are already drilling. In fact, the three largest oil discoveries in the last 10 years were made in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. So we have options. I am always perplexed in this debate to hear why this is the focal point of the administration's energy plan, this one piece of land, when we do have other options, and we have other options for creating jobs as well. We also know that conservation and investment in new technologies are the real solutions. Given relatively small amounts of oil available in the Arctic Refuge, it does not make sense to endanger this 1.5-million- acre Coastal Plain that is the biological heart of this pristine national treasure. An energy policy such as the Senate energy bill that encourages conservation and investments in new technologies can help us come closer to achieving independence within 10 years. I am very proud of what is happening in Michigan as it relates to alternative fuels, agriculture, and also what we are doing in terms of technologies that are important for our future. The bottom line is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most pristine places in the United States. This tradeoff is not worth it. We can meet our energy needs in other ways that look to the future. We can create important jobs for our people in other ways with the natural gas pipeline. We have other opportunities to drill that do not involve risking this important part of our heritage. Our ability to pass this area on to our children and to protect it is very important. When we look at all of the various wildlife species, all of the animals and birds that are involved in this area of land and the habitat involved, I cannot imagine that we, in fact, will be serious about risking this fragile and irreplaceable national treasure. I hope my colleagues will join with us in protecting this area for the future of our children and our grandchildren, and that we will move forward in the other parts of this energy bill and the other opportunities we have to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and create the economic and energy security that we all would like. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act that will help prevent our seniors from having to make the choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets. That, is the most horrible of choices. The problem, is this: The average senior citizen pays over $1,000 per year on prescription drugs. Many of these seniors, the majority of whom are widows, depend entirely on Social Security for their income and cannot afford to buy their prescription drugs without cutting back on their food. At the same time, many food banks and other nutrition programs are reporting an increase in participation by seniors. These same food banks also say they are frustrated that many seniors they would like to help are not eligible because under the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, important nutrition program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, seniors are not able to deduct the cost of their medications when seeking eligibility for food assistance. While clearly in need of help, and clearly deserving of help, these seniors have to be turned away. Michigan has the greatest number of CSFP participants in the country, last year over 80,000 people benefited from this important program in my State and 66,123 were seniors. I have a letter from the Director of the largest program in our State asking for help. I would like to insert his letter for the record because he raises some very important points. Most importantly, he points out that if something is not done to fix this program, many seniors will be turned away. These are seniors just barely getting along, who rely on the modest food package provided by the CSFP. The Senior Nutrition Act helps resolve this problem and helps the neediest seniors by amending the eligibility criteria for nutrition assistance provided through the CSFP. Most importantly, the bill acknowledges the extraordinarily high out-of-pocket medical expenses that senior citizens have and helps these seniors by making many of them eligible for the food available through the CSFP. The Senior Nutrition Act means the fewer seniors will be forced to make the tough choice between medication or food. Nationally, 28 States and the District of Columbia participate in the CSFP, which works to improve the health of both women with children and seniors by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods. An average of more than 388,000 people each month participated in the CSFP during fiscal year 2000. Of those, 293,000 were elderly and that number is on the rise. This program is important for anyone who cares about making sure seniors have enough to eat. The bill I am introducing today, the Senior Nutrition Act, makes the following important changes: one: In those areas where CSFP operates, categorical eligibility is granted for seniors for the CSFP if the individual participates or is eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program. No further verification of income would be necessary in such cases. The Food Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction, which seniors may use to account for their high prescription drug costs. Two: This bill says that the same income standard that is currently used to determine eligibility for women, infants and children in the CSFP, 185 percent of the Poverty Income Guidelines, would be applied to seniors as well. The current income eligibility standard for seniors has been capped by regulation at just 130 percent. Under the current standards a single senior must earn no more than $11,518 per year to qualify. By raising the standard to 185 percent of poverty, the same senior can earn as much as $16,391 to qualify for food. This will make a major difference in the lives of so many seniors who are struggling with the high cost of prescription drugs. Finally, this bill establishes an authorization for the CSFP that will double the current appropriation levels to $200 million over five years to accommodate any expansion that may occur in the program due to the changes in eligibility standards. This bill has been endorsed by the National CSFP Association. I would like to submit a copy of their letter for the Record. The golden years should be bright and active years for our seniors. They should not be lived in a grey dusk of indifference as we sit by and watch them make literal life and death decisions between food and medicine. I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and Domenici. Together, I know we can make a difference for seniors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and that the letters from Mr. Frank Kubik and Ms. Barb Packett be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act that will help prevent our seniors from having to make the choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets. That, is the most horrible of choices. The problem, is this: The average senior citizen pays over $1,000 per year on prescription drugs. Many of these seniors, the majority of whom are widows, depend entirely on Social Security for their income and cannot afford to buy their prescription drugs without cutting back on their food. At the same time, many food banks and other nutrition programs are reporting an increase in participation by seniors. These same food banks also say they are frustrated that many seniors they would like to help are not eligible because under the United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, important nutrition program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, seniors are not able to deduct the cost of their medications when seeking eligibility for food assistance. While clearly in need of help, and clearly deserving of help, these seniors have to be turned away. Michigan has the greatest number of CSFP participants in the country, last year over 80,000 people benefited from this important program in my State and 66,123 were seniors. I have a letter from the Director of the largest program in our State asking for help. I would like to insert his letter for the record because he raises some very important points. Most importantly, he points out that if something is not done to fix this program, many seniors will be turned away. These are seniors just barely getting along, who rely on the modest food package provided by the CSFP. The Senior Nutrition Act helps resolve this problem and helps the neediest seniors by amending the eligibility criteria for nutrition assistance provided through the CSFP. Most importantly, the bill acknowledges the extraordinarily high out-of-pocket medical expenses that senior citizens have and helps these seniors by making many of them eligible for the food available through the CSFP. The Senior Nutrition Act means the fewer seniors will be forced to make the tough choice between medication or food. Nationally, 28 States and the District of Columbia participate in the CSFP, which works to improve the health of both women with children and seniors by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods. An average of more than 388,000 people each month participated in the CSFP during fiscal year 2000. Of those, 293,000 were elderly and that number is on the rise. This program is important for anyone who cares about making sure seniors have enough to eat. The bill I am introducing today, the Senior Nutrition Act, makes the following important changes: one: In those areas where CSFP operates, categorical eligibility is granted for seniors for the CSFP if the individual participates or is eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program. No further verification of income would be necessary in such cases. The Food Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction, which seniors may use to account for their high prescription drug costs. Two: This bill says that the same income standard that is currently used to determine eligibility for women, infants and children in the CSFP, 185 percent of the Poverty Income Guidelines, would be applied to seniors as well. The current income eligibility standard for seniors has been capped by regulation at just 130 percent. Under the current standards a single senior must earn no more than $11,518 per year to qualify. By raising the standard to 185 percent of poverty, the same senior can earn as much as $16,391 to qualify for food. This will make a major difference in the lives of so many seniors who are struggling with the high cost of prescription drugs. Finally, this bill establishes an authorization for the CSFP that will double the current appropriation levels to $200 million over five years to accommodate any expansion that may occur in the program due to the changes in eligibility standards. This bill has been endorsed by the National CSFP Association. I would like to submit a copy of their letter for the Record. The golden years should be bright and active years for our seniors. They should not be lived in a grey dusk of indifference as we sit by and watch them make literal life and death decisions between food and medicine. I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this bill, Senators Levin and Domenici. Together, I know we can make a difference for seniors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and that the letters from Mr. Frank Kubik and Ms. Barb Packett be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend from New Mexico.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I echo the statements of the senior Senator from Michigan, and thank the Chairman for his work on developing a strong renewable portfolio standard. My question is whether renewable power could be measured by plant generating capacity or throughout to the customer.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend the residents of the State of Michigan who participated in the recently concluded 2002 Winter Olympics. ``Swifter! Higher! Stronger!'' That's the Olympic motto. I am proud to say that at least 13 athletes who call or have called Michigan their home followed that motto and competed with the world's best in this year's Winter Olympics. Among them was Naomi Lang, the first Native American to compete in the history of the Winter Olympics and who placed 11th in ice dancing. Athletes included members of the men's Silver Medal hockey team: Chris Chelios, of Detroit; Mike Modano, of Livonia; Brian Rafalski, of Dearborn, Brian Rolston, of Flint; Doug Weight, of Warren, and Mike York, of Waterford. Other athletes from Michigan were: Women's hockey team Silver Medalists Shelley Looney, of Brownstown Township and Angela Ruggiero, of Harper's Woods; Mark Grimmette, of Muskegon, and Chris Thorpe, of Marquette, who won the Silver and Bronze medals respectively in the men's luge doubles; Jean Racine, of Waterford, who placed 5th in the women's bobsled, and Todd Eldredge, of Lake Angelus, who placed sixth in men's singles figure skating. I am so proud of all of them! Besides these wonderful athletes, I am pleased to say that another 15 Olympic competitors and one coach came from the U.S. Olympic Education Center based at Northern Michigan University in Marquette. These athletes didn't just do Michigan proud, or the Nation proud; they made the whole world of amateur athletics proud. They, and all the great athletes who participated, gave us a chance to share together in another motto of the Winter Olympics, ``Celebrating Humanity.'' It was impossible to watch these games without marveling at all the hard work and dedication these young people brought to the games. So, again, let me congratulate the athletes from Michigan as well as the athletes from across our Nation and around the world who gave us a chance to watch the best compete against each other and together celebrate the spirit of humanity, the spirit of the Olympics.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is not about the Ford Escape. We are pleased the auto industry is moving forward. The CAFE number does not reflect the fuel economy improvements of one particular vehicle. It is a fleet average. GM has from 2000 to 2001 improved fuel efficiency for eight different vehicles, and their CAFE number did not change. It is a system that does not work. It is crazy. It is discriminatory against the American auto industry. I encourage a vote for this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague from Michigan. Mr. President, it is important to emphasize today that this debate is not about whether or not we will increase vehicle fuel efficiency. We are not arguing for a freeze on CAFE standards. What we are saying is that we need to do this in the best way possible. This needs to be something where we win environmentally and we win in terms of the economy and jobs. That is what this substitute does. It is comprehensive. It moves vehicle fuel efficiency forward. It creates the market incentives and the support to make sure we have what is necessary in terms of infrastructure for these new vehicles. It moves us in the right direction. I simply urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to support increased vehicle fuel efficiency, and a vibrant, economically healthy U.S. auto industry. We do both through this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. CAFE relates to fleet-wide averages. If we take out pickup trucks, we put more pressure on fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and minivans. I hope we will instead use the last amendment as the way that we will approach vehicle fuel efficiency and that we will not pit our farmers against our soccer moms.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to strongly support the Levin-Bond-Stabenow-Mikulski amendment. First, I thank my colleague from Michigan for all his leadership and hard work on this proposal which I believe strikes a balance to be able to bring together the common goals of increasing fuel efficiency and also making sure we are protecting jobs and supporting the growth in the American economy. I support and thank my friend from Missouri for his hard work and leadership on this issue as well. I begin by saying that this debate is not about whether or not we should increase vehicle fuel efficiency. I agree with Senator Kerry about the importance of creating more fuel efficient cars and SUVs, not only because it would decrease our oil consumption and our dependence on foreign oil, but because of the important benefits it has our environment. What this debate is really about is what is the best way to increase fuel efficiency without having negatively affected U.S. manufacturers and American jobs. Before I discuss the Kerry-McCain CAFE proposal, I address the myth that the Big Three's vehicles are not as fuel efficient as their foreign competitors. When CAFE was first enacted as a part of the 1975 Energy and Policy Conservation Act over 25 years ago, the Big Three were criticized for lagging behind their foreign competitors by making bigger, less fuel efficient cars. A lot has changed since the CAFE system was first implemented and this is not your mother's Big Three. When you compare foreign and American vehicles that are in the same weight and class, the American vehicles are as fuel efficient, and often more fuel efficient than their foreign counterparts. For example, the Toyota Camry, one of the most popular cars in Toyota's fleet, is less fuel efficient than all of its Big Three competitor passenger cars we compare. Both the Ford Taurus and the DaimlerChrysler Concord have a city/highway fuel economy of 23 miles per gallon, which is 1 mile per gallon more fuel efficient than the Toyota Camry. The GM Impala has a city/highway fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon--it is 2 miles per gallon more fuel efficient then the Toyota Camry. This is true across the Big Three's fleets--pound for pound, as my colleague from Michigan likes to say, American cars are as fuel efficient as their foreign competitors. This is true even for the biggest, heaviest American SUV. This chart shows the fuel economy of the largest SUV models, all of which have larger, more powerful engines. All of the Big Three SUVs have better fuel economy than the Toyota Land Cruiser Wagon. The DaimlerChrysler Durango, Ford Expedition, and GM K1500 Suburban have a city/highway fuel economy of 15 miles per gallon, which is 1 mile per gallon more fuel efficient than the Toyota Land Cruiser Wagon. The question becomes, with all of these more fuel efficient vehicles in their fleets, why does the Big Three have a lower CAFE number than its foreign competitors? It is because the CAFE system does not reflect the real fuel economy of the cars and trucks in an automaker's fleet; instead it really reflects what vehicles consumer purchase. The CAFE number does not reflect the fuel economy improvements of each vehicle; instead CAFE represents the averaged fuel economy of an automaker's entire fleet which depends on how many of each model consumers actually buy. Therefore, an automaker can increase the fuel efficiency of all of their vehicles but still have a declining CAFE average depending on what models sell the most. For example, over the past 3 years GM has introduced new truck and SUV models that are more fuel efficient than the models they replaced. They are introducing more fuel-efficient trucks and SUV models than the models they replaced. But GM's light truck CAFE number has either remained flat or actually gone down. This is the bizarre situation that Senator Levin talked about. That doesn't make any sense. But in 2000, GM introduced reengineered full- size SUVs--the Chevrolet Tahoe and the GMC Yukon--which have an increased fuel economy of 4 percent over the models they replaced. The more fuel efficient 2000 models sold were 190,000 more than the previous models, but the GM's light truck CAFE number actually decreased because of increased sales of these more fuel-efficient SUVs. That doesn't make any sense. That is why we are objecting to the current process for CAFE. Let me talk about another chart. In model year 2000, GM's combined car and truck CAFE average was 24.2 miles per gallon. For model year 2001, GM made fuel economy improvements to eight different vehicles in their fleet --the Ventura, the Park Avenue, the Bonneville, the Impala, the Grand Prix, the DeVille, and the Aurora. For all of these models, the fuel efficiency numbers went up. Some of the vehicles had a 17-percent, 19-percent, or 6-percent improvement in fuel economy over the models of the previous years. But do you know what GM's combined car and truck CAFE average was for model year 2001? It was 24.2, the same as model year 2000. GM improved the fuel economy of eight vehicles, and their CAFE numbers stayed the same. How does a system that does not reflect actual improvements in vehicle fuel economy and penalizes automakers for doing the right thing make any sense? The proposal of Senator Kerry and others builds upon this flawed system and further compounds the anticompetitive and discriminatory impact on our Big Three automakers. Currently, the Big Three automakers make a higher proportion of trucks than cars. Because of their product mix, this CAFE proposal creates impossible fuel economy targets for U.S. automakers without really affecting the foreign competitors, which is a major concern for me. DaimlerChrysler, for example, has a fleet mix of approximately 65 percent light trucks and 35 percent passenger cars. Assuming we close the so-called SUV loophole and DaimlerChrysler's light truck fleet achieved 28 miles per gallon, its passenger car fleet would have to average over 76 miles per gallon to achieve the 36-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average. That is the problem with CAFE. However, Honda, which has a fleet mix of approximately 20 percent light trucks and 80 percent passenger cars, would only have to achieve a passenger car fleet average of 38 miles per gallon to achieve that same 36-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average. There is something wrong with this picture. Furthermore, this CAFE proposal will not guarantee a more fuel-efficient SUV. But it will guarantee that the SUV will be made by Honda or Toyoto instead of an American-made auto company. I can tell you as someone coming from the great State of Michigan that this is not something the people of my great State want to see happen, nor should we want it to happen nationally. The impact is serious for us in terms of jobs and the economy. Foreign manufacturers already control a large share of U.S. car sales. Trucks and SUVs are the last domestic stronghold, but the same shift to foreign manufacturers is already evident in the truck market. This CAFE proposal places an anticompetitive cap on how many trucks and SUV's the Big Three can produce, but leaves their foreign competitors unencumbered to expand into the truck and SUV market. Competitors with fewer sales in the truck and SUV market would be able to increase their sales in this area resulting in a transfer of market share, without a net gain in fuel economy. For example, Toyota can produce up to 250,000 more Tundras today, without increasing any vehicle fuel efficiency and without going below the currently mandated CAFE requirements. Imagine how many more Tundras Toyota could build under this CAFE proposal while our American automakers are restrained from competing in that important market. These foreign competitors also have more CAFE credits built up from previous model years due to their mainly smaller vehicle mix. By applying these credits to future model years, foreign automakers would be able to further fill the demand for larger vehicles that would be left unmet by the restraints placed on our American automakers. For example, at the end of model year 2001, Toyota has about $140 million in CAFE credits. This would allow Toyota to produce up to 1.1 million Tundras at current CAFE standards before exhausting its built-up credits. The Kerry-McCain proposal also does not address the pick-up truck problem in any meaningful way. The Kerry-McCain proposal would exempt heavy duty pick-up trucks weighing between 8,500-10,000 pounds, but that is just a restatement of current law because trucks in this weight range are already exempted from CAFE. This proposal fails to address the concerns of farmers, ranchers and other pick-up truck consumers, since the overwhelming majority of pick-up trucks would fall below this 8500 pound limit. I want to stress that I am not advocating that we protect the Big Three from market competition. I am not supporting a freeze on CAFE standards because I do not believe the Big Three should avoid producing more fuel efficient cars and SUVs. We are not arguing about a freeze. We are talking about a better way to do this that moves us forward and that gets us to where we all want to go in a way that does not penalize the domestic automakers and cost jobs. But like a CAFE freeze, this proposal also protects a group from real market competition and thwarts increases in fuel efficiency; however, the group that this proposal protects is not the Big Three, but their foreign competitors like Honda and Toyota. It is also important to remember that the 36-miles-per-gallon number in this CAFE proposal is not anywhere in the National Academy of Science's report. Even under the optimistic scenarios in the NAS report, which assume that consumers are willing to recover the higher costs of the technology over a 14-year period instead of a 3-year period and assume ``average'' technology costs, only subcompact passenger cars are projected to reach the 36 mpg within the 10-15 year timeframe. Under these optimistic 14-year payback and ``average'' costs projections, the highest level for any light truck, which is for small SUVs--is only 32.6 miles per gallon. This CAFE proposal sets a number that according to the experts at NAS, only a smallest passenger car could meet! This proposal legislates a market advantage for foreign automakers, while in essence forcing a production cap on our American automakers' most popular vehicles. The EV-I--an electric car--was produced not 10 minutes from my house in Lansing, MI. That plant was closed because they weren't getting enough volume in production. People weren't buying it. We need to find ways to make that more attractive, which is what our proposal does by helping with infrastructure, bringing the price down, and creating more volume. Our American automakers will be forced, unfortunately, under the underlying proposal, to respond in a number of undesirable ways to meet this unrealistic overall CAFE number, all of which make them less competitive in the car and light truck market. First, they will be forced to cut vehicles from their fleets or place a production cap on certain cars, which will result in more layoffs and plant closures, I fear. For example, if GM addresses the fairly immediate 3-mile-per-gallon increase in the light truck standard by simply eliminating its least fuel-efficient products, seven plants in five States employing 38,000 auto workers and 154,000 auto and supplier jobs would be at risk. And GM's sales volume in the light truck market would be reduced by over 1 million vehicles. Our U.S. automakers also could be forced to strip their vehicles of features consumers want, such as engine size and power to meet this high CAFE number, giving foreign automakers that will not have to eliminate these features a huge competitive advantage. Lastly, they could reduce the weight of cars, which will compromise vehicle safety, as has been talked about before, since producing smaller, lightweight vehicles that can perform using low-power, fuel- efficient engines is the most affordable way for automakers to meet the CAFE standards. None of these options are good for our American automakers or for our consumers. Placing U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage by penalizing their most popular vehicles will lead to more layoffs and a weaker U.S. auto industry. And we certainly do not need this at this time or any time. It is apparent to all of us debating this issue that the auto industry is not at its economic strongest right now. Practically every week one of our U.S. automakers announces another round of layoffs. Over the past year, our big three automakers--GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler--have announced almost 70,000 layoffs and job cuts and 11 plant closures. That is 70,000 in 1 year. Our domestic automakers have already been severely weakened by the current recession. I fear that the underlying proposal to raise CAFE standards will only exacerbate this problem by placing uncompetitive restrictions on our U.S. automakers without effectively increasing vehicle fuel economy. In Michigan, over 1 million people are either directly or indirectly employed by our domestic auto industry. While the economic impact is particularly devastating in Michigan, this is not just a Michigan issue. The auto industry is the largest industry in the United States and creates over 6.6 million jobs directly or indirectly. Our amendment--the Levin-Bond-Stabenow-Mikulski amendment--increases vehicle fuel efficiency without placing anticompetitive restrictions on our U.S. automakers. This amendment helps decrease our fuel consumption and dependence on foreign oil in the short term by increasing CAFE for light trucks and cars. But, most importantly, the amendment looks to the future, which is something we all want to do, and provides the market incentives and investments in developing technologies such as hybrids, fuel cells, and clean diesel vehicles that will really revolutionize the American automobile industry. The amendment directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to complete a rulemaking to increase fuel efficiency for light trucks within the next 15 months and for passenger cars within the next 24 months, but it also requires NHTSA to consider the flaws that we have been talking about today in the current CAFE system as they do this rulemaking. NHTSA would examine important issues that have been talked about, such as adverse competitive impacts of CAFE on our U.S. automakers, impacts on U.S. employment, technology costs, and necessary lead time, the effects of vehicle safety, and the effects on the environment before setting a CAFE number, not after. The CAFE proposal in the energy bill puts the cart before the horse, I fear, and sets a 36-mile-per-gallon number before having NHTSA have the opportunity to examine all of these factors. We need to let the experts at NHTSA do their job. NHTSA is properly equipped to address the fundamental changes that have occurred within the industry over the last several years, and to evaluate our current economic situation, technology, and capabilities regarding a higher CAFE standard. In the past, Congress has enacted a CAFE freeze preventing NHTSA from moving forward with issuing new CAFE regulations. Now that the freeze has expired, we should not interfere with NHTSA's ability to do its job effectively. Congress also needs to help automakers move in the right direction instead of pulling them in the wrong direction. Foreign and domestic automakers have already invested millions of dollars in developing cleaner, better technologies. These investments are starting to pay off for the American consumer. For example, DaimlerChrysler will be producing a hybrid electric Dodge Durango SUV starting in 2003, which will have 20 percent better fuel economy than the conventional Durango, without compromising safety or comfort. A hybrid electric version of the DaimlerChrysler Dodge Ram pickup truck also will go into production in 2004. Ford is currently developing a hybrid Ford Escape SUV which will be capable of being driven more than 500 miles on a single tank of gas. In addition to these great technological developments, automakers have been working on fuel cell vehicles which could revolutionize the automobile sector within the next 15 years. The CAFE proposal in the energy bill will force automakers to divert funding and research away from these important technological advances and make meeting these incremental CAFE increases a funding and research priority. That is a major concern of mine. They are moving in the right direction. The underlying Kerry proposal would force them to change direction to meet some shorter term goals. This CAFE proposal also locks the automakers into a rigid fuel efficiency plan for the next 10 years, setting back the progress they are making putting these important technologies into place. Instead of placing restrictions on what our automakers produce, we should be looking for ways to help them introduce these better, cleaner technologies. The Levin-Bond amendment includes these incentives, such as Federal fleet purchase and alternative fuels requirements and a real Federal investment in hybrid, clean diesel, and fuel cell research and development-- all the things we know have to happen. The amendment requires that 10 percent of the light-duty trucks in Federal fleets be hybrid vehicles by 2007, and requires the Federal Government to use alternative fuels in all of their dual-fueled vehicles. The amendment also increases funding for the Freedom Car Initiative for fuel cell vehicles by 40 percent. Finally, the Levin-Bond alternative includes important consumer tax credits for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles, which will be offered in a separate amendment. These tax incentives will help create and build market demand for the most efficient hybrid, electric, and fuel cell vehicles, instead of locking automakers into costly incremental CAFE increases. I urge my colleagues today to vote for the Levin-Bond amendment and support increased fuel efficiency and a vibrant, economically healthy U.S. auto industry. I yield the floor.