Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I have a question. The yielding back is time on this motion only?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, following the debate we have just been engaged in, let me say that I am very proud of this budget resolution because we are not only not raising taxes, but we are focused on lowering taxes, tax cuts for the middle class. That is what I am most proud of in this budget. Our budget is focused on middle- class families, what families need who are feeling the crunch at every turn right now in their lives. So we specifically focus on tax cuts for middle-class families. We also focus on what I want to talk about now as it relates to the motion to instruct; that is, an energy reserve fund that puts in place a set of policies and allows us to move forward to lower gas prices. I mean, ultimately, that is what it is about. Let's get off of foreign oil. Let's become energy independent. Let's focus on alternatives. We have a whole range of things we can and should do together, but the bottom line is what people are asking me about right now in Michigan is why in the world gas prices today are $3.15 per gallon on average. They ask it in the context of another very important question; that is, since this President, President Bush, has taken office, gas prices in my State have increased by $1.75 per gallon--$1.75 per gallon, an increase of 123 percent. This is according to the Federal Highway Administration. Right now in Michigan, families, businesses, farmers will spend $789 million more this month than they did in January of 2001. That is according to the Department of Energy motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditures. Now, what is happening, though? What is wrong with this picture? While I have been seeing my constituents, and I know the Chair shares this concern, that while we see these prices going up, what has happened on the other side with the oil companies? Well, last year, ExxonMobil had $39.5 billion in profits, the largest annual corporate profit in U.S. history, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history, while the people in my State--the farmer planting in the fields, the businesspeople who are doing their jobs, the families, the folks going back and forth to work, taking the kids to childcare, the students trying to go back and forth to school--saw their gas prices go up. In fact, they will go up higher right before Memorial Day. I will bet you they are going to go up higher in a beautiful State like Michigan, where we want everyone to come in and swim in our Great Lakes and boat and fish and enjoy what is beautiful about Michigan. When the tourism season comes--you can count it on your watch--gas prices are going to go up. We hear all about how there is competition when, in fact, we know there is not competition. When you are driving down the road, this gas station says one thing and the one on the other side says the same thing. Now, this has to stop. We are seeing, not only last year--I am speaking about ExxonMobil, but let me just say there are others. Chevron had an 18-percent increase in the first quarter this year--an 18-percent increase. But we are seeing with Exxon that they kicked off a 10-percent rise in profits, the best ever first quarter, ever, in net profit. To put it another way, with Exxon, their take-home pay equals $1,080 every time the second hand ticks on your clock--every second, $1,080--while the folks in Michigan today are paying $3.15. If you happen to be up north, it is $3.24. This is not right. I know you agree with this. This is not right. There are a number of things we need to do about it. In the short run, we need to make sure the Federal Trade Commission has the authority--and understands that we expect them to use it--to define price gouging. Now, in the Energy bill that passed in 2005, a requirement that I offered was put into the Energy bill that the FTC had to investigate price gouging. They came back and said they did not have the authority, we had not defined what it was. They made some general statements that really did not reflect what was going on. So now I am very pleased that Senator Cantwell from Washington State and others have introduced legislation that will clearly define what price gouging is, although I have to say, after years and years of witnessing it, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I think most people in Michigan, anyway, would call it a duck. So we find ourselves in a situation where the FTC says they do not have the authority or the definitions to use. So we want to give them that. We want to give them that in the short run to make sure they can address what is clearly an unfair situation. Families are seeing increases on all sides, not just gas prices; it is the cost of college; it is the costs that relate to health care in my State. In fact, I should just remind folks that when we hear about all of the rosy pictures in the last 6 years, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since this President has taken office--3 million. Those were good-paying jobs with health care and pensions, and those families now, those workers, are out working other kinds of jobs. Maybe it is two jobs now to try to make up that salary or maybe it is three jobs. They are paying more for health care, if they have it, and worrying about whether they will have their pension. So that is the backdrop to what I see now happening as it relates to gas prices. One more time, people see those prices going up as they are trying to get to work, as they are trying to take care of their families. This motion to instruct focuses on the fact that we have put aside a reserve fund that gives us the opportunity to address it throughout the budget. In addition to the fact that we have legislation to stop price gouging right away, and that is very important, I am very pleased our majority is focused on going after those who are price gouging and bringing down gas prices, but we also know we have to look more long term. There is some wonderful work being done in the Senate by our Energy Committee, Environment Committee, and Finance and Agriculture Committees as it relates to the farm bill and what can be done with alternative fuels, and so on. We are committed to that as well. The structure of this budget allows us to be able to do those things without procedural motions and hoops getting in the way to stop us from going forward. We all know we need to invest more in ethanol and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. We want to be able to say: Buy your fuel from Middle America, not the Middle East. That is what I am hoping. I know we are committed to doing that. We also know there is much we can do to together, and, in fact, there are many exiting things that are already happening. I am very proud of our American domestic auto companies that are moving very aggressively. In less than 5 years, we expect that our alternative-fuel vehicles will constitute more than 50 percent of the vehicles that are being produced. That is very positive. I commend them for that. GM has installed displacement-on-demand technology where the cylinders shut off when not needed, consuming less fuel. DaimlerChrysler has taken the lead on clean diesel and biodiesel. There is excellent work being done in Michigan. Next Energy and other critical research organizations are doing excellent work that would deliver 20 percent to 40 percent more fuel efficiency than conventional automobiles. The Ford Escape hybrid and the work that is being done through hybrids is very significant. Our plug-in hybrids, technology we see being worked on that relates to plug-in electric vehicles, and so on, that is so important. I am excited about the Volt by GM, which will be configured in a way that it will be able to run on electricity, gasoline, E85, or biodiesel. The work goes on on hydrogen and other kinds of things. But we know that in the end, in addition to focusing on these long- term strategies which are very significant, very important to the environment, to address climate change, to address energy independence, we have an issue right now we have to address; that is, the fact that we continue to see, quarter by quarter, record profits by the oil companies because of the lack of competition. We are seeing, quarter by quarter, increases that end up with those increases and profits, that do not cause them to lower prices for people. They are making more dollars. They do not lower the price. The price goes up as the profits go up. More and more of our families, our workers, our businesses are feeling squeezed on all sides. We have to make sure the FTC has the ability to call price gouging for what it is, that it is defined and they are given the authority to do something about it. The American people, unfortunately, are forced to be in a situation right now of choosing between stations and pumps where the prices look awfully much the same. We need to create more competition. We are going to do that in the long run. We are going to create competition in the short run. We need to start putting consumers first, our consumers first. That is what we do in this budget. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first thank our esteemed budget chairman for raising what is so important in the context of this debate. I thank him for raising the chart that actually shows the majority of Americans are not seeing their incomes go up. They are seeing them go down. As the chairman knows, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in the last few years under this administration--3 million good-paying jobs with health care and with pensions. The reality is that, in listening to the debate with my colleagues on the other side, I don't know what they are describing. They certainly are not describing what is happening to the majority of Americans. I did also want to thank the chairman for bringing up a building in the Cayman Islands he has shown us a number of times, a picture of a five-story building where there are over 12,000, I believe, different businesses that have filed that they are part of that building. In the Finance Committee, I used the chairman's chart and asked--I don't know if the chairman will remember this, but in the Finance Committee I actually asked the IRS and the Treasury if they had sent anybody down to look at that building. Has anybody walked through that building? We have seen our distinguished leader on Budget point out a specific address, a specific address where we know there are not 12,748 different companies in that building. Yet, Mr. Chairman, to your knowledge, has anybody taken any legal action on this even now? You have raised this time and again. This is the way we ought to be focusing on what happens on taxes. But the majority of people see their incomes going down, and what do we see? Ships, yachts where people can go offshore to live to avoid paying their taxes and avoid contributing to the war and the economy and schools and roads and everything that is important to us. Then you have a building. I don't know if the chairman would want to speak to this. Has there, to the Senator's knowledge, been any action taken on this building and what is happening with over 12,748 companies?

Ms. STABENOW. Well, I just want to thank the chairman again. I am very proud of this budget because it focuses on hard-working, middle- class families, people I represent in Michigan who will get the tax cuts in this budget. It addresses the kind of things we are talking about here. I am not interested in a tax policy that rewards this kind of tax evasion or folks moving offshore in their yacht to avoid being part of America and contributing to our way of life. I just want to thank the chairman.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct conferees to include section 307 of the Senate-passed budget resolution in the conference report.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, this provision will clear the way for the Senate to pass legislation that will ultimately lower gas prices. This is an issue right now of great concern, I know, to people throughout Michigan and throughout the country, as we see prices going up and up and up. This provision does that by putting into place a reserve fund that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy and expand production and use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. This is a very important part of the budget resolution, and I wish to commend the chairman for putting aside a reserve fund so we can create revenues to do a number of things that will create energy independence and that will create competition, frankly, for the oil companies in this country so we can lower gas prices. Today, in Michigan, the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.15, and it goes up as high as $3.24. I know it is going to go up and up. We are constantly hearing, of course, it is not arbitrary, that it is all based on competition. Yet I will bet you that right before Memorial Day, in Michigan--a great tourism State, and people want to have an opportunity to travel and see our Great Lakes--the prices are going to continue to go up even further. This summer, again because we are a great tourism State, prices are going to go up, and they will go down when it is not a peak season for driving. We all know that this is a serious issue, and, frankly, it affects every single family in their wallet or in their pocketbook. A couple years ago, I offered, successfully, a provision in the Energy bill that required the Federal Trade Commission to do a study, an investigation into whether there was price gouging. They came back basically and said there wasn't and that they didn't have the authority because we didn't define what price gouging was. I am pleased to say that as a result of our presiding officer and her legislation, we can address what is happening as it relates to the definition of price gouging, which anyone in Michigan can tell you what it is, and also to be able to give the authority to the FTC to do something about it. I see my colleague on the floor whom I basically jumped ahead of, so I think if he is ready, I will turn it over to him and will later proceed to talking about gas prices and how we are going to bring them down and how the budget resolution lends itself to that. I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modified version of amendment No. 1001 to the desk. We are adding Senator Kohl, Senator Hatch, and Senator Coburn as cosponsors of the amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. First, Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his incredible leadership and work on this very important legislation, and Senator Enzi, as well, for his leadership and work and partnership with Senator Kennedy on this legislation. I also thank Senator Dodd for his years of advocacy for children. I join with him in opposing the Allard amendment, and believe Senator Dodd has given us the first step as to where we need to go in terms of more medicines being available for children. I thank him for all of his leadership. Mr. President, I today am offering an amendment--a bipartisan amendment, with Senator Thune, as well as Senator Lott and Senator Brown; we also have Senator Kohl joining us--to close a loophole that the brandname pharmaceutical companies are using to prevent competition by delaying the entry of generic drugs. Our amendment is based on the citizen petition provision that is included in a bill Senator Lott and I introduced last session and again this session, but it has been greatly improved by contributions from Senator Brown. I particularly thank him for his hard work and contributions to this amendment. The citizen petition process is intended to allow citizens to raise legitimate issues regarding drug products, and it is very important we have that. However, the brandname pharmaceutical companies have increasingly used citizen petitions to delay access to safe, effective, and affordable generic drugs. Simply put, citizen petitions have become PhRMA petitions to block consumers from having access to affordable medicines, unfortunately. The cost to employers, consumers, health insurance plans, and Government health plans, as a result of delayed entry of generics, amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars--and in some cases billions of dollars. For that reason, our amendment has the support of a very broad range of consumer groups, business groups, labor, pharmacy, and other organizations, including the AARP, the chain drugstores, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, CalPERS, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Families USA, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the UAW, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market, which is a broad coalition of our employers and insurers across the country. What would our amendment do? Our amendment would, first, preserve the right to file citizen petitions and raise legitimate safety issues. This is very important. We do nothing to take away the citizen petition. It would reduce the filings, though, of frivolous citizen petitions, and it would stop frivolous petitions from delaying generic entry--and thus costing businesses, consumers, and taxpayers--by allowing needed competition to bring down prices in the pharmaceutical market. It would do so by, first, requiring the generic approval process to move forward while a petition is considered, unless the petition has raised legitimate public health concerns about the drug. Second, it would require that final action on a petition be taken within 6 months of the petition being received. Third, it would require petitions to be signed and include a verification that the petitioner has taken reasonable steps to ensure all relevant information is included in the petition and whether any payments have been made in exchange for filing the petition. This is very important. And, fourth, it would ensure transparency surrounding FDA's decisions on whether to delay generic drugs on the basis of a citizen petition. Our amendment improves upon the language in the Stabenow-Lott bill in that it sets timelines for FDA to evaluate petitions and absolutely ensures that if it is a legitimate public safety issue, then medicines will not be approved unless and until the safety issues are resolved. Why do we need this amendment? Any person or organization can file a citizen petition with the FDA raising concern. We certainly want people to be able to do that. However, the process right now is being used in ways that are unintended. The Medicare Modernization Act closed a lot of loopholes that the brandname companies were using to delay generics from going into the marketplace. So, unfortunately, they have looked to another tool. They are now using these frivolous citizen petitions. Between passage of the Medicare Modernization Act and April 30, 2006, brandname companies filed 45 citizen petitions requesting that the FDA delay approval of a competing generic drug. Of the 45 petitions, the FDA has ruled on 25 of them. Of the 25 petitions, 92 percent of them were denied. The brandname companies often file these petitions right on the eve of the generic drug being approved, making it very clear that delay is the goal. These are ``11th hour'' petitions, as they have been called, and 12 of those ``11th hour'' petitions--12 of them--were denied in whole and 1 in part by the FDA. What do the petitions ask for? Do they raise new and important issues? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Although the petitions are filed before or after a generic drug has received tentative approval from the FDA, they commonly simply request additional studies or additional data, based on mere speculation by the brand companies. The FDA typically will not approve a generic drug until all the underlying issues of a citizen petition have been addressed. As a result, although the FDA regulators provide that citizen petitions should be addressed within 6 months--and that is what our amendment says--the average review time is 10 months. And 10 months means lots of lost dollars. It leaves consumers paying more, businesses paying more, and insurers paying more. The fact is the vast majority of petitions filed by brand companies have nothing to do with science and everything to do with delaying generic drugs, stopping the competition. Consumers lose as a result of that. In December 2005, Merrill Lynch released a report analyzing brand company use of the FDA citizen petition processes. The analysis involved a review of citizen petitions filed by brand companies since 2001. They said there was a ``sharp uptick'' in the number of citizen petitions filed by brand companies in 2004 and 2005 and, In many instances, the filing of [these citizen petitions] by branded companies coincided with the expiration of a product's patent (or other marketing exclusivity) effectively delaying generic competition for months and sometimes years. Why is this important? Well, I want to give you a few examples. Flonase is a drug that is used to treat nasal symptoms and allergies. It is a very commonly used drug. In this case, the brand company filed multiple citizen petitions in an effort to delay the generic competition, a lower priced drug, from going on the market. All three citizen petitions were denied. According to the FDA: [The brand company] has not articulated sound public policy grounds for supporting a stay. In addition, [the brand name company] has not demonstrated that the delay resulting from the stay is not outweighed by public health and other public interests. In other words, no sound public policy, but, unfortunately, the delay took months to resolve. The following quote from Gary Buehler, Director of the Office of Generic Drugs at FDA, was reported in the New York Times on February 23, 2006: The agency was required to consider the petitions and to write responses. That took time and delayed the approval [process]. So what happened? Even though all of these petitions were denied by the FDA, it took so much time, and generic entry was delayed by 656 days, and the brand company was able to get $1.65 billion more in sales. We see with all of these drugs shown on this chart delays that have, in fact, allowed the brandname company to be able to continue sales. Unfortunately, these higher costs are paid by our seniors, consumers, and businesses that offer medication, as well as by insurers themselves. We have not only large delays, but even in the case of 5 days, $17 million more in sales. So there is great incentive to use delaying tactics in order to be able to continue this process. Mr. President, I see my time is up. Let me say this amendment was carefully constructed to allow citizen petitions to continue. The overwhelming evidence from the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Inspector General, as well as the FDA, and others--the overwhelming evidence is we are seeing this as a new loophole that is being used to delay effective competition and lower cost medicine from going into the marketplace. We can fix that and keep the citizen petition for legitimate issues. We certainly want that. We certainly are concerned about safety, as is the FDA. But it is time to close this loophole. I thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment and urge support for the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment we have put together, led by the Senator from North Dakota. I thank him for his passionate leadership and advocacy and the way he is able to speak in very commonsense terms about what this is all about. What we are talking about is common sense. We are talking about whether we have the most competition that will allow the best price for people related to their medicine. I also am looking around for Senator Brown, who is also here to speak. I thank him publicly for his help on another amendment that relates to competition and closing patent loopholes relating to generic drugs. I thank him again. Senator Brown has been a wonderful advocate on these issues. I find it so interesting whenever we hear that we cannot lower the price of prescription drugs without losing research. Let me comment on that first. Here is what is happening today as it relates to the development of new medicine. We all want that. We all want that, those of us who supported overwhelmingly, the 63 Members of the Senate who voted for stem cell research to provide new lifesaving research and tools for our researchers. We came together and said, yes, we want new lifesaving research. That is not what this debate is about. The debate is about whether there is going to be a closed market to folks who get to set the price without competition or whether there will be competition so people can afford to buy medicine. The reality is that our structure is such right now, as it relates to the way we bring drugs to market, that you start with basic research, of which last year $29 billion was paid for by the American taxpayer--$29 billion. Now, the industry then added another $39 billion, according to the PhARMA Web site. They are allowed to write off their research as a business expense, or take an additional amount--the R&D tax credit on top of that to write off their research. So the taxpayers are paying, it is fair to say, the majority of what it costs in basic research right now for new lifesaving medicine. Personally, I am willing to do that because I think it is incredibly important. It is in our public interest. Having all of us together as taxpayers invest in the National Institutes of Health and other lifesaving research makes sense to me. After we do that, we allow the companies to take that information and research and begin to develop medicine. That is fine, too. We then allow up to a 20-year patent, so that the company that does this development can recoup their costs without the same kind of competition from a generic company, another kind of company. So we give them a privileged status. We cover their costs, after we as taxpayers have helped them or may have fully funded the research done in the beginning. So we go through all this, and all that I ask on behalf of the people of Michigan and all I think we are asking for is, when they get done with the patent, people be able to afford to buy the medicine and that we have the kind of competition that allows that to happen. One piece is to make sure patents are not extended beyond 20 years unfairly by manipulation. I will have an amendment that deals with closing some loopholes. The other is to make sure we open our borders to allow our pharmacies, our hospitals, our medical schools, all those who are providing prescription drugs to consumers, to be able to purchase those and get the best price. In Michigan, it may be from Michigan or it may be from Ohio or Wisconsin, but it may be 5 minutes across the bridge in Canada. In fact, Mr. President, that is what we find 5 minutes across the bridge. I have had a lot of opportunities to put seniors on buses to go to a pharmacy in Canada to see the fact that you are looking at 30-, 40-, 50-percent cheaper prices. I think of my sister-in-law when I say this. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and thank God is doing well and has recovered. But when I look at the drug Tamoxifen that many breast cancer patients are required to take, or are asked to take, in Michigan, the last time I looked, it was about $360 a month for that medicine. Five minutes across the bridge, it is $60. That is a huge difference. That is a huge difference in somebody's ability to get the treatment they need for breast cancer. That can be replayed over and over again as it relates to medicine. Now, what is also interesting is that prescription drugs are being brought across the border every day legally by the companies themselves. Lipitor, which was developed in Michigan--and I am proud of that--is manufactured in Ireland. They bring it back. There is no argument about safety when they are bringing it back. We have, right now, around the world, from Slovakia to China to India, medications that are being brought into this country by the companies themselves, under safe conditions. Our legislation puts into place safety requirements that will allow the same thing to happen if it is a wholesaler, a pharmacy doing business with another pharmacy. There is no rocket science here. The very same safety provisions can be put into place. We also know that, in doing that, it is important to put that language directly into this bill. It is important. We have put in there a chain-of-custody requirement to ensure that drugs are handled not only by authorized persons but shipments must use anticounterfeiting technology to assure the products' integrity. We do a number of things that relate to registering with the FDA and agreeing to strict requirements to ensure safety. But those requirements are not all in the bill. Why is that? Because we know that in the past we have seen--we see again now--a second-degree amendment to say that citizens cannot get the best price, and pharmacies cannot do business with pharmacies across the border, unless the Secretary certifies safety. And we know that for whatever political reasons, that has not happened over the years. That is actually current law. To get beyond the politics of this, we have worked on a bipartisan basis, with wonderful bipartisan support, to actually put the safety provisions that are required into the bill so the certification by the Secretary is not necessary. We have had legislation passed by the Senate with wonderful bipartisan support in the last few years on related issues that involve reimportation. Last July, 68 Senators voted for an amendment to prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Protection from stopping individuals from importing FDA-approved drugs--individual reimportation. I thank Senator Vitter for his leadership. I have been pleased to work with him on this issue of individuals being able to import medicines for themselves. Senator Vitter and I also worked together to make sure trade agreements cannot be used as a backdoor way to stop reimportation of cheaper prescription drugs into this country. We are already on record as supporting this effort to lower prescription drug prices and create competition. It is my hope that, once again, in this bill we will reaffirm that we support the FDA creating safety regimens--we know they exist--to be able to bring medicine safely into the United States from other countries, and we will no longer allow a group--it is the only group I know that is able to stop trade at the border. Everyone talks about free and open trade, and yet in Michigan you can bring auto supplies back and forth every day, you can bring all kinds of agricultural products, you can bring anything back and forth across the border except medicine, except prescription drugs, unless you are a drug company. Drug companies can, but if you are somebody trying to make sure you get the lowest possible prices to consumers through a pharmacy, a hospital, medical school, or other businesses, you are not allowed to do it. It doesn't make any sense. I believe we need to take off this protectionism which has been in place for years which has put consumers and businesspeople, frankly, into a situation where they are paying higher prices for medicine than they should. This is not about research. I conclude by saying that according to SEC filings, 2\1/2\ times more is spent on marketing and advertising brand-name prescription drugs in the United States than is spent on research. This is not about research. We as taxpayers are leading the way on funding research, and we all support doing that. This is about competition versus protectionism and whether consumers will get the very best price for lifesaving medicine. I urge the adoption of our amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and call up amendment No. 1011 for the purposes of offering the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes S. 1082 this morning, it be for debate only until 12:30 p.m., with no amendments in order during that time, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership role Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander are playing on this critical bill, as well as Senator Domenici and others who have worked on putting together this legislation. It makes no sense to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program. In fact, the House is renaming it but extending the very same approach in terms of a partnership for the kind of research that takes place after basic research. I might say that 65 percent of the ATP awards have gone to small businesses, many of them small- and medium-sized manufacturers. The reality is that, yes, our large employers and small have joined together with universities, with the Federal Government, and with Federal labs to do partnerships where the Federal Government puts up half the money and they put up half the money to do the kinds of research to move the industry forward in order to be able to compete in a global economy. Frankly, this is one of the areas where we are woefully behind, I would suggest to my friend from Oklahoma. We are woefully behind. One example of this is in advanced battery technology. While we are developing the basic science in the United States, it is Japan and China and South Korea that are taking the next steps to make those batteries. A $50 million investment in Japan alone; a 5-year commitment from China of over $100 million; a 5-year commitment from South Korea of over $100 million. Yet in our budget in the United States we have $11 million to focus on what is one of the most critical parts of technology to move forward on alternative fuels and new breakthroughs. ATP is different. It is unique among Federal research programs. Most research is focused on advanced scientific knowledge, but there is a very long road from scientific discovery in a university lab to the commercialization of that product. This is in between that. You might call it a bridge project, or a bridge loan. This is that in-between period before industry feels confident enough to pick it up and move forward with it. The goal of ATP is to push basic research knowledge into the innovation pipeline. That is what it is all about. When we add more dollars to increase basic research, we have to make sure we are also not creating a bottleneck in that innovation pipeline. We have to be able to fund the next step in that partnership. I would suggest this has been a tremendous investment in terms of what has actually happened. The ATP programs have succeeded in a wide range of fields. There is no question, when you are doing this research it is basic research. By the way, we give the R&D tax credit to those same large companies my colleagues spoke about. We give it to large companies and small companies to do basic research--no different. This is the next step. We have seen wide-ranging successes. They have already delivered on cheaper, better bone marrow transplants, mammograms, cartilage repair. They are enabling companies to make biodegradable plastics from corn, improving manufacturing, and powering longer lasting lightweight fuel cells, all of which are critical for our future. The Advanced Technology Program has made investments in nanotechnology. They were making them long before anybody knew what nanotechnology was, along with investments in homeland security and bringing fuel cells and solar cells and microturbines to the marketplace. In 2003, the White House sponsored a fuel cell demonstration, and the President tested a long-life mobile phone. The phone the President tested was powered by advanced fuel cell technology. Without the advanced technology program, MTI microfuel cells would not have been developed. This breakthrough technology was developed to power the very phone the President was holding. It would not have happened without that joint partnership with ATP. There are certainly other companies where ATP projects have not been successful. That is the nature of high-risk, high-payoff research programs, and people around the world know that. Governments around the world know that. Right now, I should add, our companies are competing with governments around the world, governments that own companies, governments that are doing these kinds of research. Let's put the successes and failures in the overall context. A 2003 survey of over 350 companies indicates the actual economic value resulting from ATP joint ventures exceeded $7.5 billion. The ATP annual report showed the program has generated $17 billion in economic benefits from just 41 of the 736 completed projects. In conclusion, this is a program that works. We should not be cutting off this investment in innovation in America.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico, who is doing such a wonderful job on the legislation that is in front of us. I wish to compliment everyone who is involved with this legislation for working so hard, including Senator Alexander and Senator Bingaman. This is a wonderful bill. So we congratulate them for that. Iraq Supplemental I wish to speak this evening about the supplemental appropriations bill the Senate will vote on later this week. I also wish to rise with great concern and, frankly--I am not sure what the word is; ``disappointment'' is not strong enough for how I feel about what the Vice President has said today about our leader, our great leader in the Senate, who has spoken so passionately and cares so deeply about the troops who are serving us overseas, their families who are here at home, who wants to make sure the strategy is right for them. We all know--and our military experts have told us time and again-- that a military victory is not going to happen, that it has to be a political victory, a political strategy of the Iraqis stepping up and taking control and making the tough decisions they need to make to take control of their own security. We have heard that from many experts within the military and without. Yet today the Vice President was here, not far from this Chamber, unleashing his wrath, as only he seems to be able to, about our leader, calling him names and mischaracterizing his positions. That is extremely unfortunate because while the men and women are serving us right now in Iraq, over there doing their best to focus on the mission, they expect us to be at home focusing on the strategy, the resources, and the equipment they need. I had an opportunity to talk to a young man not long ago who had come home from Iraq. I asked him how he felt about the debate going on about the strategy, the debate we were having in the Senate and the House. He said, frankly, he would expect us to be doing that because that is our job. That is our job. They are doing their job. As my husband, who was in the Air Force and Air National Guard, reminds me continually, their job is to implement the mission. They are doing it. Our job is to get it right, to have the right strategy, and to back them up and give them the resources they need. The name calling coming from the Vice President is not going to get the job done. What is going to get the job done is our ability to work together and look at the facts, not some stubborn sense of unwillingness to change or to do more of the same which, unfortunately, is what is happening now with this surge. It is more of the same. Instead of doing that, we need to be joining together to say: Let's look at the reality of what is going on on the ground. More and more Americans and Iraqis are being killed every day. Let's look at the reality of what we need to do to be successful, to bring our troops home safely, to address the success we all would like to see happen in terms of a democracy that works, the Iraqi Government being able to step up and to govern their country, which is an incredibly difficult and complicated thing to do, obviously. I find it very disappointing. I work with our leader, as we all do every day. There is no one who has spent more time thinking and focusing and discussing and listening on these issues around the war than he has--no one who is more thoughtful or more caring, no one who is more concerned about our veterans coming home. We welcome, certainly, the Vice President coming and meeting with us and joining in the discussion. But I certainly hope we are not going to see more of what we saw today. It was an effort to attack a great leader and, essentially, instead of moving the ball forward, make it more difficult for us to do what we need to do to come together. On this particular bill, the supplemental appropriations bill, I certainly hope the President will sign this legislation, will reconsider the position that has been taken and sign this legislation. We are going to be sending a bill to the President that will fund the troops--in fact, it adds dollars to do that--as well as veterans, as well as addressing a number of other critical issues. The question before the President will be, Will he sign this bill? We are not trying to play games. We are sending him an emergency supplemental for the war and for other critical American needs--our communities, our families' needs, just as we do every year in an appropriations bill, in a supplemental. The question is whether the President will step up and do his duty and sign this bill so that those dollars can get to the troops. This legislation represents the best opportunity for us to change the course in Iraq as well as protect our troops and our veterans and to give them what they need now. Unfortunately, the President has put our troops in the middle of an endless Iraqi civil war. We know this to be true. People in my great State know this is true. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where our troops are in an endless civil war. The American people are paying a huge price for this war, most importantly, in lives, not only family members lost but people coming home with permanent disabilities, with head injuries, with mental health problems. There is a huge price being paid by Americans for what is occurring and has been occurring. We are also paying a huge price in dollars, $10 billion a month, and then we look at the fact that we could fund a program to cover every child with health care in America for $10 billion a year. We know while lives are the most important issue, resources for Americans to address our needs at home is also a critical issue. We also know we are paying a huge price as it relates to our own security interests. The majority of Americans, a bipartisan majority in Congress, military experts, and the Iraq Study Group believe this war cannot be won militarily and that the current path is not sustainable. The supplemental appropriations bill recognizes it is long past time to change course. The American people know that. That is really what last November was about. People want a change. They know this isn't working. It is not sustainable. They expect us to step up together and make that change. This bill fully funds our troops. We are passing a bill agreed to by the House and Senate that fully funds our troops and provides a plan to responsibly end the war and bring them home safely. I don't know what more we could ask of the proposal. We are providing the resources and also putting in place a responsible way to provide benchmarks and measurements and bring a responsible end to the war. Our bill holds the Iraqis accountable for securing their own Nation and forging political reconciliation. We know more of the same--more surges, more efforts that have been tried and tried time after time--is not working. I don't believe they can work. But what can work is holding the Iraqis accountable for securing their own nation and making the tough decisions that one has to make when they want to have a democracy. It is not easy. We know that. They are in a very difficult situation. But it is their country, and they need to step up and make those decisions and bring all parties together and find some way to live together. Our bill ensures our troops are combat ready before being deployed to Iraq. I can't imagine that there is one individual in the armed services or one mom or dad or brother or sister or son or daughter of a combat troop that would not want us, and doesn't expect us already, to be making sure that our troops are combat ready before being deployed. It provides them with all the resources needed on the battlefield and when they return. We are very committed and, in fact, I am very proud of the fact that in our budget resolution passed a few weeks ago, for the first time we meet the dollars needed for veterans health care and other critical veterans services identified by the veterans organizations themselves. For the first time ever, we put forth the dollars that are needed when our troops are coming home. A Presidential veto will deny our troops the resources and the strategy they need and send exactly the wrong message to the Iraqi political leaders. We hope the President will join us in giving our troops the resources and strategy they need and deserve. That is what this bill is about. After more than 4 years of a failed policy, it is time for this Nation to change course and Iraq to take responsibility for its own future. This is a good bill we will have before us. Overall, it provides more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserves for equipment desperately needed and $1.1 billion for military housing. It provides $3 billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs. Every day we pick up the paper and see where more lives have been lost, injuries have been sustained as a result of roadside bombs. It contains more than $5 billion to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service so that we don't ever have to have another Walter Reed incident. It has $6.9 billion for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well. We know when we are doing an emergency supplemental, just as in every other year when our colleagues were in the majority, as well as when we are in the majority, there are a number of emergency needs for the country. One thing in the supplemental has been funding the troops. We have added funding for our veterans and also understand there are some critical needs at home, critical needs that Americans have. Certainly, we all know the resources and the focus on those families who were hit by the hurricanes have been shamefully slow in going to that region to rebuild American communities, American homes, to support American families. Our bill does that. It provides emergency funding also for the Children's Health Insurance Program because we have a number of places in the country where the resources are running out, and we want to make sure children can continue to get health care. That is an emergency at home. Ask any family who is worried about whether their children are going to get sick tonight, say a little prayer: Please God, don't let the kids get sick because what are we going to do. Our bill addresses children's health care emergency funding. It also includes homeland security investments totaling $2.25 billion for port security and mass transit security, for explosives detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate. I am very proud of the fact that our new majority placed a priority on passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It was long overdue, but it was a priority for us in the first few weeks of our new majority, and we did it. Now we have the resources that go with that. It is not enough to pass the recommendations. We have to make sure the resources are there to keep us safe at home. So, yes, this is a supplemental bill to support our troops abroad, to support their efforts while they are in theater in combat, but we also know we have folks on the front lines at home, our police officers and firefighters and others, and security needs here. We address that. We also know there have been a group of folks waiting for way too long for some disaster assistance related to agriculture, including my home State of Michigan where apple and cherry growers have been waiting. In this legislation, $3.5 billion is provided to help relieve the enormous pressure on farmers and ranchers as a result of severe drought and agricultural disasters. Again, this is about helping people at home, putting Americans first when we know there is a disaster. Whether it is Hurricane Katrina or whether it is cherry growers in northern Michigan, our job is to also focus on our people here and their emergency needs. The conference agreement also includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, low-income home energy assistance, and pandemic flu preparations, which we should all be concerned about--again, critical needs for Americans, American families. Finally, there are other items in this bill that are good for workers and small business. The bill has an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, giving hard-working Americans a much deserved raise after 10 years--10 years. It provides almost $5 billion in tax cuts for small businesses as well. We know the majority of jobs come from small business. This supports their efforts as well. So I would say to President Bush: Sign this bill. Sign this bill. This is a bill which funds our troops, which keeps our commitments to our veterans, and which addresses other American priorities for our communities and our families. Mr. President, if you do, we will change course in Iraq, give our troops the equipment they need, the health care they deserve, and provide much needed investments here at home in America. President Bush, if you veto this bill, you are denying funds to the troops in the field and going against the wishes of the majority of the American people. It is time for the administration to stop saying no to troops and no to the American people. We need the President to say yes to working with us, to support our troops and what they need, which this legislation does, to support the American people, American families, and critical emergency needs here at home, and to put in place a strategy for success--a real strategy for success--by focusing on efforts that empower and send a message to the Iraqi Government to step up. While we are willing to support them, we will not continue to send our brave men and women into the middle of a civil war day after day after day and continually say it is OK, everything is going great. It is not going great. It is time for a new strategy. We have put forward a strategy in a very responsible way in this legislation, along with meeting our obligations and responsibilities to our troops, our veterans, their families, and to America as a whole. I hope when President Bush reads this bill--and I hope he will--I hope he will look at what is in here with an open mind, and agree with us that this is a bill which makes sense for America at home and abroad. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we have a very important vote we are going to take in a few minutes about whether we are going to be allowed to proceed--even to proceed--to a bill that would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services a very important tool to lower prices for prescription drugs. With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I hear very differently from seniors. First of all, they don't like, in Michigan, wading through 50, 60, 70 different insurance plans and all the paperwork to figure out what plan they are going to sign up for. They wanted us to go directly to Medicare which is, by the way, a Government-run program, one of the most successful in the U.S. Government. They wanted us to be able to set up prescription drug coverage through Medicare. That wasn't done. Instead, we have this privatized system that was geared to making sure the industry would have the maximum amount of profit. That has been the focus, unfortunately, of this legislation, which is why we would see, in the middle of a prescription drug bill for seniors, actual language that says: You cannot negotiate for lower prices. Now, we have an opportunity to change that, to take that language away. What are we hearing? Well, we are hearing all kinds of things, all kinds of things. On the one hand we hear: This will do nothing for seniors. It will not help seniors. It will not lower prices. On the other hand we hear: It is going to do all kinds of things that are very terrible for people. Well, it can't be both. What we have going on is an orchestrated effort by the industry to keep things the way they are. If we were able to get better prices for seniors, there would not be that big gap in coverage that I guess some folks think the seniors like. Seniors in Michigan do not like that. After they have paid some $2,100 in drug costs, going into a gap where the average price has actually gone up, they have no help. This is a very different world I am hearing from, the people in Michigan, rather than what we are hearing from the industry and from others who support this plan the way it is. We can do better than this Medicare prescription drug benefit. Today is the opportunity to decide whose side you are on, either on the side of the industry that is doing great under this bill, record profits, or you are going to be on the side of the seniors who are asking us to help them, whatever way we can, get the best deal for them by lowering their prices. I wish to go through a few of the myths and the scare tactics that have been out there, and there have been many, there is no question about it. First of all, we are hearing from the industry now in big ads--by the way, I should say, $135,000 an ad a day--by folks who say this bill would not do anything. It is the Washington Post and another Washington Post. We go on and we can see all of the papers that we read. We have seen these ads in the Congressional Daily--daily, millions and millions of dollars. I woke up this morning to an ad on television I have seen many times: The Medicare prescription drug benefit, yes, it is doing great for them. It is not doing great for our seniors. Here is one of the things they are saying: that 89 percent of the folks oppose negotiation, if it could limit access to new prescription drugs. What they are saying is, they are telling people they are going to limit access to new drugs, they are not going to be able to do research anymore. In fact, this bill would not limit access to prescription medication. I have to say, with all due respect, the industry spends about 2\1/2\ times more on advertising and marketing than they do on research. We have a long way to go. We could cut out a couple of ads. One ad for $135,000, if it was not done, I wonder how much medicine that would buy for people? This is not about doing away with research. We know that. CBO says that. We know that as a fact. This is not about taking away access to medicine for people. We are being told it will have an effect on other purchasers. The Congressional Budget Office, I asked them to put in writing, after our Finance hearing, whether this bill would do that. CBO anticipates that S. 3--the bill in front of us, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 as reported by the Finance Committee--would not have an effect on drug prices for other purchasers. Unfortunately, my good friends, the veterans for whom we work hard, whom we have raised health care dollars for, have been told something different. That is very unfortunate. It is not true. It is a scare tactic. This bill does not do that. CBO, in fact, has indicated it does not do that. We hear something else that I think is very important. We hear: Well, we should not compare this to the VA; the Veterans' Administration negotiates group prices for our veterans. In fact, the average difference in price is 58 percent. Now, some go up to as high as 1,000 percent, a 1,000-percent difference. On Zocor, there is a 1,000-percent difference. It seems to me there is a little room for us to negotiate for those on Medicare within that 1,000 percent. But we are told no. The problem is that the VA, first of all, gets lower prices because they do not offer as many drugs; you cannot go to the VA and get the drugs you need, which is also not true. From a presentation overview of the VA pharmacy benefit, in a presentation that was made, comparing apples to apples, now they have compared on the other side of this argument chemical compounds as opposed to actual drugs. But the fact is, under Medicare there are 4,300 different drugs available, 4,300. Under the VA, they dispense 4,700--not 4,300--4,778 specific drug products, specific drug products which represent the chemical compounds that have been used on the other side of the argument. In fact, in addition to that, if you go to the VA and if on the list, the approved list, there is not the medicine you need, you can ask for an exception to get the medicine you need. In addition to the 4,778 different medicines available from the VA, last year they dispensed prescriptions for an additional 1,416 different drugs so our seniors, our veterans were able to get what they needed from the VA. When we hear concerns about veterans health care, with all due respect--I hear a lot about driving too far to get tests, waiting too long to see a doctor--I do not hear about not being able to get medicine. The fact is, the VA dispenses more different prescriptions at a lower price than this privatized system, what I view as a dismantling of Medicare that has taken place through the prescription drug benefit that is before us. What we have is the ability today to take a vote on proceeding to a bill that 87 percent of the American public wants to see us pass. And this is the AARP. Now, I find it very interesting, on the one hand, we have got all the folks representing the industry doing well under this bill, putting in ads, doing surveys, talking to us through the television and the radio saying that seniors do not want to negotiate the best price because of all these scare tactics. But when the group who represents seniors, the AARP, speaks, they tell us 87 percent of voters want us to move ahead. This is a tool. This is giving the Secretary the ability to use that tool in a way that is responsible and will lower prices for our seniors. This is a motion to proceed. I hope we are not going to see what we have seen, unfortunately, too many times this year, as we have--in the new majority--worked hard to change the direction of this country. I hope we do not see our efforts stopped from even moving forward to debate this critical piece of legislation. Eighty seven percent of the American public has some common sense. They are saying: What are you doing? What are you doing that you would not give the Secretary the ability to negotiate the best price? I hope we will join together overwhelmingly and vote to give us the opportunity to consider this bill, to be able to move forward on a basic policy of common sense to help our seniors, people on Medicare, get the lowest possible price for their medicine.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia for his insight, as always, and wisdom on so many issues. He epitomizes what it means to be a Senator, and we are honored and appreciative of his leadership. Prescription Drugs Mr. President, I do want to speak today as it relates to prescription drugs and the very important vote we will be having tomorrow, but I also first want to speak to what is happening as it relates to Blacksburg, VA, and Virginia Tech University, just to indicate that we know there was a memorial service today; that all of us, even as we carry on the normal business of the Senate, are very mindful and aware of what has occurred in the massacre at Virginia Tech University. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who has been affected throughout the university, most particularly the families. Certainly, I think I can speak for the people of my great State of Michigan when I say that we are deeply, deeply sorrowful, and our prayers go out to each and every one of the people who have been affected. Mr. President, we have a very important vote tomorrow, which is whether to proceed to legislation that would begin the process of allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be able to negotiate the very best price for our seniors under Medicare. I want to take this opportunity to commend our majority leader for getting us to this point, Senator Reid, and the Finance Committee for getting us to this point, for bringing the issue of Medicare drug pricing to the Senate floor. I hope tomorrow we are going to see a strong bipartisan vote to proceed with the bill. Frankly, it is very unfortunate we are having to vote on whether to proceed to this bill, but since that vote is occurring, I hope we will have a resounding yes tomorrow for something that is so clear to the American people. The direction we will hopefully take tomorrow is the direction that the voters asked us to take. Their message last November was crystal clear: that they want to make sure we are making health care decisions in the best interests of people--the best interests of seniors, of children, of families--and not the special interests that make money off the system. Tomorrow is going to be a vote on that. Tomorrow will be the first step in the process. We are removing the provision that prohibits Medicare from using its negotiating clout. What we are going to be voting on tomorrow is whether we will proceed. And why are we doing that? Well, first of all, this Medicare bill that was put in place a few years ago actually prohibited the Secretary from negotiating to get the best price for seniors, amazingly. People to this day ask: How in the world did that happen? Well, it happened because, unfortunately, there were too many provisions in that bill that were put in on behalf of the special interests rather than our seniors. The step we take tomorrow is good for our seniors, it is good for families, and it is good for taxpayers. It is good for taxpayers to get the best deal so that our dollars can go as far as possible under Medicare. So tomorrow is an important day. I have been fighting for this provision ever since the Medicare prescription drug program was passed in late 2003. I wish I could have supported that bill. I did not, in part because of the prohibition that was put into place. That bill was written and designed with a huge gap in coverage--it has often been called the doughnut hole--that, frankly, wouldn't be there if we were able to get the very best pricing and stretch those Medicare dollars as far as they should go. In fact, I joined a group of Senators to introduce legislation on December 12, 2003, to repeal the prohibition on negotiation, which is what we are talking about now, because we knew then what we know today. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiates Medicare prescription drug prices, seniors will pay the lowest possible price. That should be what we are all focused on as it relates to Medicare prescription drugs. More than 3 years later, we are taking the first step toward getting this done. It is about time. I think that is what the American people are saying to us. The best way to get the lowest possible prices on prescription drugs is to use the negotiating clout of 43 million seniors and people with disability who are under Medicare. That negotiating clout needs to be used. We are considering this bill right now because the American people want it. According to a poll conducted by the AARP, 87 percent of all Americans said they want Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices--87 percent. That is a pretty big number. Eighty-seven percent of the seniors, according to AARP, when asked, have said: Yes, of course, we want the Federal Government to negotiate to get the very best price. Why do consumers want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices? Because they know what everybody knows: large purchasers are getting deep discounts for prescription drugs, and they want the same from Medicare. This bill does not do the same thing as the VA, but the VA is a good example of what can be done when there is negotiation, when the Federal Government brings its clout as it does for our veterans. It gives us some idea of the kinds of discounts that can be achieved. For example, we know that on average, the VA health system gets prescription drugs for approximately 58 percent less than their retail prices--58 percent--and on some medicines, it is up to a 1,000-percent difference. Now, I would say, if the VA can do this and get 58 percent, we can get a better deal if we negotiate, knowing again that this bill does not reflect what the VA does, but it gives you a sense of what can be done when we have that kind of clout. Let's be clear about what we are doing right now with this bill. We are opening the door to lower drug prices so Medicare beneficiaries can afford the medicines they need and we can save taxpayers money. We all know how many times we have heard the stories--I hear them all the time--of folks trying to juggle between keeping the lights on, buying food, and getting their medicine. Our top goal should be, as a Medicare Program, to make sure people can get the medicine they need at the very best price. This bill moves us in that direction. Let's be clear also about what we are not doing. This legislation does not create a national drug formulary, nor does it establish price controls. Seniors will have access to all of the drugs they do today, and possibly more. The prescription drug industry will continue to thrive, and R&D will not be affected. The change we will see is a change we have been asking for for the last 3 years, that seniors and families have been asking for for the last 3 years. It is also important to note because we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow, if Medicare is going to have the opportunity to negotiate or if the Secretary can negotiate at appropriate times for lower prices, we are going to see the prices of the VA go up. Well, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to submit to me in writing if that were, in fact, true under this bill. They, in fact, said: No, under this bill, that is not the case. We are not going to see veterans or any other group see their prescription drug prices go up under this legislation. So that is one good thing we need to make clear and debunk as we begin this debate. Now, what we do know is we have a very interesting thing going on. We have two kinds of debate going on right now in opposition from those who are major beneficiaries of the current system, the special interest groups that have the benefit right now of seeing huge profit increases as a result of this prescription drug bill. On the one hand, we are seeing ads that say: This legislation will do nothing. Do not pass it; it will not do anything. Then, on the other hand, the very same people are saying: But it will cause seniors to not be able to get the choice of medicines they want, it will cause veterans to see their medicine costs go up, it will cost R&D and we won't be able to do research and development into new prescription drugs anymore. I find it so interesting that the same people are arguing both sides: It will not do anything, and it will have all of these devastating effects. At the same time, we are seeing huge amounts of money, millions and millions of dollars--for months, I have seen ads on TV and radio, newspaper ads telling us these people do not want negotiation or that it will not do anything, all paid for by the same people who benefit by the current system. I might just say that just today, a full-page, single-color ad running in the Washington Post on page A5 today, costs about $135,000--this is today, this is yesterday. We have ad after ad after ad being run and paid for by people who tell us this bill will not do anything. It will not do anything, but yet they have spent millions of dollars on TV, millions of dollars on the radio, in ads we have seen, ads for our benefit, ads telling us people do not want negotiation. I might add that in this ad which is running right now, where they say people really do not want Medicare to negotiate, what they say in the fine print is that, in fact, 89 percent oppose Government negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription medicine--if it could limit access to new prescription medicine. This bill does not limit access to new prescription medicine--or old prescription medicine, for that matter. That is not what we are talking about. In fact, what I find interesting, and the subtle part of this is, if we negotiate for a better deal, they won't be able to do research anymore. We know that right now the drug industry spends 2\1/2\ times more on marketing and advertising than they do on research. I would suggest we can negotiate to get a little better price. And I wonder how much $135,000 would buy in medicine for somebody today instead of one ad? Let's cut down a little bit on the marketing and advertising, and we won't have to worry about whether Medicare can negotiate for the very best price. So I hope that tomorrow we are going to have a vote to proceed to this very important public policy issue, this very important bill. I hope we are going to, in fact, do what 87 percent of voters are saying they want us to do--negotiate the very best price for prescription drugs. I would ask my colleagues to vote to allow us to proceed to the bill. We can continue to work together on exactly what the language should look like, but the idea that you would stop it before we can even have the debate would be extremely disturbing. People in this country do not understand why it is that decisions are made too often for those who happen to have the lobbyists here or the ads on TV or in the newspaper and not enough for the folks who are working hard every day or are retired on a fixed income trying to make ends meet. Tomorrow is a chance for us to show that those folks are not making the decisions, that we are going to move forward on a bill which is positive for seniors, which is going to give us an opportunity to open the door to negotiating good prices and make a real difference for people, a real difference for people whom the system is supposed to help, the Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, for people on Medicare. They deserve the best price. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to vote to go to that debate and work together to get a bill that will do that. I hope we are going to vote to do that. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act, which will make needed improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to prevent our seniors from having to make the terrible choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets. I am pleased to have the support of my friend, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, who has been one of the Senate's strongest supporters of CSFP. Nationally, 32 States and the District of Columbia participate in CSFP, which works to improve the health of both women with children and seniors by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods. According to USDA, nearly half a million people each month participated in CSFP during fiscal year 2006, with the overwhelming majority being seniors. My State of Michigan has one of the largest and oldest CSFP network in the Nation. Last year, over 80,000 people in Michigan benefited from this important program. The bill I am introducing today will make the following important changes to CSFP. First, categorical eligibility is granted for seniors for 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. Second, this bill says that the same income standard that is currently used to determine eligibility for women, infants and children in 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 at just 130 percent. Under the current Federal poverty guidelines, a single senior cannot earn more than $13,273 per year to qualify. By raising the standard to 185 percent of poverty, the same senior can earn as much as $18,888 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. This bill has been endorsed by the National CSFP Association and America's Second Harvest. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of these support letters be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act, which will make needed improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to prevent our seniors from having to make the terrible choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets. I am pleased to have the support of my friend, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, who has been one of the Senate's strongest supporters of CSFP. Nationally, 32 States and the District of Columbia participate in CSFP, which works to improve the health of both women with children and seniors by supplementing their diets with nutritious USDA commodity foods. According to USDA, nearly half a million people each month participated in CSFP during fiscal year 2006, with the overwhelming majority being seniors. My State of Michigan has one of the largest and oldest CSFP network in the Nation. Last year, over 80,000 people in Michigan benefited from this important program. The bill I am introducing today will make the following important changes to CSFP. First, categorical eligibility is granted for seniors for 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. Second, this bill says that the same income standard that is currently used to determine eligibility for women, infants and children in 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 at just 130 percent. Under the current Federal poverty guidelines, a single senior cannot earn more than $13,273 per year to qualify. By raising the standard to 185 percent of poverty, the same senior can earn as much as $18,888 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. This bill has been endorsed by the National CSFP Association and America's Second Harvest. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of these support letters be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote yes on S. 5. This is a bill that will bring hope to millions of Americans and their families. This is the bill, this is the opportunity for us to move forward on critically needed research. By passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we can make a major step forward in scientific research and bring hope and help to millions of Americans fighting a debilitating disease every day. I think we all have members of our own families who can speak to those issues--Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, other kinds of diseases--where we know with a little bit of help and focus, both in terms of stem cell research but also in terms of funding research, we can see huge changes, huge opportunities for treatment and for possible cures. That is what this bill is all about. It is so important we move forward in a positive way and pass this bill as quickly as possible. It is very sad we have this issue up before us again. In the last Congress, we passed legislation by wide bipartisan margins to lift the President's restriction on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. By wide margins, the majority of Americans supported this legislation, and still support this legislation. Unfortunately, the President issued his first and, so far, only veto to strike down our legislation. So we are back here again. I see Mr. Harkin, a great Senator from Iowa, on the floor. I commend him for his leadership, and so many of my other colleagues. Earlier today, Senator Feinstein was on the floor, and I thank her, certainly, for her leadership, as well as Senator Kennedy. So many people have worked so hard in bringing us to this point. I thank our leader, our Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for making this a priority as an agenda item for us in the Senate. I know how deeply personal this issue is for many people. I respect that many of my colleagues have different views on stem cell research. I have also studied this issue very extensively. Over the past several years, I have met with people from all different faiths, all different backgrounds, from religious figures to medical researchers on the cutting edge of breakthrough technology. I have met with mothers who have to give multiple daily injections to their children to help them make it through the day. They argue that many diseases and chronic conditions--as I have mentioned before, diabetes, and also ALS, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, many types of cancers--will be treated or even possibly cured with stem cell research. Too many families are struggling to care for children with diabetes or watching elderly parents succumb to Alzheimer's disease, like my husband did, or like my grandmother, who died of Parkinson's disease. Too many Americans suffer from illnesses that make ordinary things such as daily household chores nearly impossible. As cochair of the Senate bipartisan Parkinson's Caucus, I receive letters and calls from people all across our great Nation on how important stem cell research is to them, how important this legislation, this opportunity at this time is to them and their families. I have met many Michigan families dealing with chronic health issues every single day. For example, a wonderful advocate and friend, Bob Kullgren, from Grand Rapids, shared with me his daughter Kate's story. When she was 12 years old, she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Her family took her for multiple visits to the hospital and injected her with insulin three to four times every single day. These routines only helped to manage Kate's disease, not cure it. As a teenager, Kate worked as a counselor at a camp for children with diabetes. She watched as some of her fellow counselors began experiencing the early stages of blindness caused by their juvenile diabetes. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must be to begin to go blind when you should be thinking about going to the prom or graduating from high school. None of us wants that for our children. Another bright young woman who has visited my office several times is Julielyn Gibbons. For over 12 years, Julielyn has lived with Crohn's disease. It is a disease that causes intense abdominal pain. For her, stem cell research offers the promise of not only curing this lifelong debilitating disease but also the hope of being able to live a normal life. She e-mailed me: I want to be able to bring children into the world knowing that they will never have to suffer as I have, and that possibility best exists through stem cell research. S. 5, a strong bipartisan bill, is an important and, in fact, a critical step forward toward giving Julielyn and Kate that hopeful future we all want for our children. S. 5 expands Federal financing of research on additional stem cell lines created from embryos freely donated from in vitro fertilization clinics under strict ethical guidelines. These embryos are frozen and will likely be destroyed. Think about that. These are frozen embryos that will likely be thrown in the garbage can. They are being thrown away. Which is better: To have the opportunity to use those cells, those precious cells to be able to create life, to create cures, or to see them thrown away? That is what is happening right now. This bill also would authorize the National Institutes of Health to look at other ways of creating new stem cell lines. This does not preclude other opportunities for research. In fact, this is a bill to make it clear we want to use every possibility to save life, to be able to cure diseases, and that we will continue to see that is done with the highest ethical standards, which is what is guaranteed under this legislation. The current administration's policy, frankly, is tying the hands of scientists and impeding their progress on treatments and cures for diseases that families every day are waiting for. Sean Morrison, the director for the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, told me the federally approved lines are of limited use because they are not genetically diverse enough to realize the full potential of this research--so many more are needed. In other words, we don't have enough right now. We can't do what needs to be done, what families are asking for across this country. While we look toward the future, we should remember those who have passed while we have had this debate as well. Every day the clock is ticking on somebody who is ill. Every day the clock is ticking on somebody with a fatal disease who could be helped in some way or cured if we were doing everything we could to provide the research and the cures and the treatments. What pains me the most is that some of the brave advocates I have had the privilege to meet during my congressional career are no longer here today. They are no longer here this week to see this vote. Hopefully we will not have many more people who will be seeing their lives deteriorate or lose their lives before we are able to actually begin to do what needs to be done with this research. It is for them and for all the families I have met that I will cast my vote this week, a vote for life, for hope, for a bright future. I know the cures won't come tomorrow, but they may never come if we do not act now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on S. 5, and I urge the President of the United States to do what is right, to do what the overwhelming majority of the American people are asking him to do and asking us to do, which is to say yes to lifesaving research, to say yes to that which will provide hope for a cure. I hope we will say yes in a very large margin to S. 5. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Michigan State University Spartans on winning the 2007 Men's National Collegiate Hockey Championship. On Saturday, April 7, 2007, the Michigan State University Men's Hockey Team won the 2007 Men's Hockey National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship by defeating Boston College by a score of 3 to 1. In a hard-fought game, and going into the final period with a one- goal deficit, the Spartans charged ahead to tie the game, and then triumphantly scored a game-winning goal with only 18.9 seconds remaining of play. This victory constituted MSU Hockey's third national championship, and the first since 1986. Each member of the MSU Hockey organization made essential contributions to the team's success. MSU Spartans' Head Coach Rick Comley has become only the third coach in college hockey history to win national titles at two institutions, and has earned over 700 career wins. A record crowd of over 19,000 people attended the Frozen Four Championship game in St. Louis, and the enthusiasm shown by the people of Michigan and the students of MSU demonstrate Michigan's strong support for the MSU Hockey organization. I know how important the families and friends of the team have been in providing unwavering support and always cheering on their Spartans. In the final weeks of the season, with an uncertain forecast of their playoff position, the Spartans rallied together with unrivaled team character and focus, and starting with the 1st round playoffs in Grand Rapids, MI, they went on undefeated to clinch the championship. Michigan State University has always stood as a center for excellence in both athletics and scholarship, especially with the guidance of University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and athletic director and renowned former MSU Hockey coach, Ron Mason. I am a proud MSU alumnus myself, and was beyond delighted to see this great team win the national championship. The MSU Spartans displayed unparalleled team camaraderie, and have shown their ability to unite both on and off the ice has led them to well-fought victories. The Spartan Hockey Team demonstrated superior strength, skill, perseverance and determination and has made Michigan State University and the entire State of Michigan proud. I congratulate the MSU Spartan Hockey Team on winning the 2007 NCAA Championship and recognize all the players, coaches, staff, fans, and others who were instrumental in this great achievement. Again, this is a wonderful day for Michigan State University. We are very proud of our hockey members and particularly proud of a member of my staff, Jeff Muich, whose brother Steve is a member of that team. So with pride we congratulate Michigan State University on this wonderful achievement.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of my longtime friend and staff member, Sue Glynn. After serving on my staff in the Michigan State Legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Sue has decided to join her husband, Dale, in a well-deserved retirement. Before joining my staff, Sue worked for the Michigan Democratic Party and other members of the Michigan State Legislature. I consider myself very fortunate that she chose to be a part of my staff and stay with me for over 20 years. She has worn many hats while working for me, including scheduler, regional manager and office manager. She has handled each one with professionalism and grace. Sue is well known for her incredible organizational skills, and I have relied on her in so many ways. She is leaving very big shoes to fill. Both Sue and her husband have dedicated themselves to public service--Sue in government and Dale with the public school system. As a couple and individually, they are well-respected community leaders. I know their commitment will continue into retirement. My staff and I will miss her presence in the office and her outstanding work ethic. She is a woman of strong values and integrity. She approaches her work in a serious manner but also is very fun- loving. I know that the many people in Michigan, whose lives she has touched through her work, will miss her as well. Upon leaving the Senate, Sue has many exciting plans and will probably be busier than she is now. She enjoys golfing, bowling, gardening, spending time with her daughter and son and their families, traveling and being with friends. Mr. President, I am sad because I am losing a trusted and valued member of my staff, but I am happy to see a dear friend move on to new life experiences after a long and distinguished career. She deserves the best of everything and I will always value our friendship in the years to come.