THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S6816]  GPO's PDF
---

   Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I first commend my friend from Illinois for his advocacy on this critical issue. He has been here time and again with amendments to do what needs to be done. I thank him for his advocacy and concern, deep concern, about this issue.

   In a related issue--relating to health care--this morning I am in the Chamber with my colleague from Florida to urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in proceeding to the critical debate on the issue of prescription drugs . I cannot think of a more important issue facing our country than making sure that lifesaving medicines are available to our seniors, to our families, to anyone who needs them, and that we are lowering prices so that our small businesses can see their health care premiums go down to a reasonable level.

   Large manufacturers, such as the big three automakers, that are in Michigan, and others all across the country who are seeing explosions in their health care costs need to know there is some relief in sight, there is a way to get this into a manageable situation. We have plans to address that, to provide Medicare coverage for our seniors--it is long overdue for prescription drugs --and to lower prices to everybody through increased competition and making sure our laws work and the opportunities for competition exist.

   I was concerned to come to the floor last evening and find that a simple motion to proceed to debate the bill was objected to by our friend from New Hampshire and by others on the other side of the aisle--just to proceed to the debate.

   The leader told us we will have a full 2 weeks in a very crowded schedule to focus on this issue because it is so incredibly important. There is nothing more important to the quality of life of our citizens, to the cost to the economy, and there is nothing more important right now than addressing this issue of lowering prices and the issue of corporate responsibility, quite frankly, with the drug companies and how we make sure that lifesaving medicine is available to all of our citizens at an affordable price and that our seniors have a real promise of Medicare caps, because without covering outpatient prescriptions , we are no longer keeping the promise of Medicare .

   So I come to the floor today to urge our colleagues to take away their objection and allow us to proceed to the debate. We have 2 weeks to work out the specifics, to work together on the right kind of plan. But we need to get to that debate.

   The Governors of the country are meeting right now, and in fact the Governor from Michigan leads that organization. The Governors' conference, according to the paper, focuses on health costs. This morning, I tuned in to C-SPAN to listen to some of the discussion they were having on prescription drug prices and the costs to our Governors. It says in the paper:

   Despite signs of a gradual national recovery, the State's woes are expected to persist well into the current fiscal cycle. Their biggest problems are the ballooning costs of prescription drugs and Medicare .

   We in the Senate have an opportunity to do something about that right now. The Governors are asking us to do that. Businesses are asking us, as are families, seniors, and workers. Every worker who has had to have their salary capped or frozen so that the employer can afford the rising cost of their health care plans has asked us to do something about this.

   I want to take just a moment to bring forward the urgency of this issue by sharing some stories that have come into my Web site. I have set up something called a prescription drug people's lobby, asking people in Michigan to share their stories and join with us. We know the reason this is being held up, unfortunately, in the Senate is that there are far more drug company lobbyists than there are people's voices talking about what is affecting them and their families. There are six lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. So we have a responsibility to speak for them and make sure their stories are told.

   I start with Melissa Askin from Romulus, MI, who was the first person to sign up for our Michigan prescription drug people's lobby on May 22. I thank Melissa for that. She wrote in her story:

   I guess my story is no different from the many Americans, when it comes to deciding if I can afford food to live or medications. It boils down to a choice these days: what can I afford to keep myself alive once I pay my bills.

   I am 68 years old, my husband is deceased, and I have no family. I have had a heart bypass, both carotid arteries in my neck cleaned out, and now in April I was operated on for cancer, not to mention several other surgeries. I am supposed to be on nine medications, however, at the price of these meds, I can only afford three.

   I don't know what will happen with me by not being able to be on the meds I can't afford, but it makes me wonder what I'm living for. I feel like nobody cares.

   Melissa needs to know that we care, we in the Senate care--not

   by our

[Page: S6817]  GPO's PDF

   Let me share a story from a young woman, Shawn Somerville, from Ypsilanti, MI, who e-mailed me:

   Just this last Christmas, my grandmother was hospitalized because she stopped taking her prescription so that she could afford presents for all of us grandkids. She later died from an undiagnosed ulcer. It was very sad to me that these drugs are so expensive. Do they need to be?

   Well, Shawn, no, they don't need to be. We as American taxpayers underwrite the cost of research and invest in and support the companies and provide patents so they can recover costs, and work with them in one of the most subsidized industries certainly in the country and in the world, because we want to make sure your grandmother has access to her medicine. We want to make sure the grandmothers and grandfathers of this country don't have to stop taking their medicine in order to have Christmas with their grandkids.

   Unfortunately, today this system is just plain out of control. When we see prices rising three times the rate of inflation in the most profitable industry in the world and we see people who cannot afford their medicines, I argue that this is a debate about corporate responsibility.

   We just finished an important debate last night in a unanimous vote to improve the oversight of publicly held corporations in this country so that in fact we can guarantee corporate responsibility, information for investors so that people's pensions will be protected. It was an important, bipartisan effort that ended up in a good result for the American people.

   This is also about corporate responsibility. That is what this is about. I believe it is about corporate responsibility and ethics and, in fact, even morality. We can do better in the greatest country in the world than we are doing now as it relates to the affordability of lifesaving prescription drugs and the spiraling, out-of-control costs of our health care system as a result.

   I urge people to get involved with us today. If someone is listening to what we are debating now on the Senate floor, I urge you to get involved right now. We need you to call your Senator. We need all of us to be engaged in this battle, and we welcome you to come to a Web site that has been set up--fairdrugprices.org.

   We are asking people to share their stories. We are asking people to sign an online petition drive sending a message to the House, the Senate, and the President to act now. We do not need one more Christmas to go by with grandmas and grandpas trying to decide whether or not they can buy Christmas presents for their grandchildren or take their medicine.

   Fairdrugprices.org is about getting involved and together getting our voices heard, and then through my colleagues and me, we will bring those stories that are shared through this Web site to the Chamber of the Senate and continue to make the case that this is real, it is about real people. We are not making this up. This is one of the most critical, if not the most critical, issues we will debate this year in terms of touching people's lives. The bill we just finished on corporate responsibility certainly is right up there with it, making sure we have confidence in the markets and people's pensions are protected, but if they have to take every single dime of that pension to pay for prescription drugs , they will still have a very difficult time in their retirement.

   It is my pleasure right now to yield to my colleague from Florida who has been an outspoken advocate. I know he has been working with people as well and sharing stories and hearing from his constituents about this issue.

   I simply say, as I yield to my colleague, that we are out of time. Now is the time to act. Now is the time for us to at least get started on the debate. We have the next 2 weeks to work together to figure out the specifics and bring it to a close.

   I yield to my colleague and good friend from Florida.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

   Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I am delighted to join my colleague from Michigan, who has given such tremendous leadership on this issue. It is very important that in the next couple of weeks, before we break for the August recess--and my colleague from Michigan will certainly agree with this--that we in the Senate pass a prescription drug benefit.

   The problem is, under Senate rules, we do not have the opportunity to pass something unless we get 60 votes. It is not the typical majority plus one, otherwise 51 votes, but under the rules of the Senate, we have to get an extraordinary majority of 60 votes to prevent a filibuster in a parliamentary procedure that is known as a cloture motion, to cut off debate. That takes 60 votes.

   Therefore, on one particular plan that is proposed for a prescription drug benefit, it makes it extra difficult for us to get those extra votes because out of every plan, there is going to be something in the plan with which somebody disagrees.

   I wish to talk about one of those plans and talk about the reason why it is so important for us to modernize Medicare .

   If we were designing a health insurance system for senior citizens today, would we design it to include prescription drugs ? The obvious answer to that question is yes, because every day lives are benefited by virtue of an increased quality of life, an enhanced quality of life, enhanced health with the miracles of modern medicine that we know as prescription drugs . But Medicare , the health insurance system for senior citizens, was not designed today. It was designed 37 years ago.

   In 1965, when state-of-the-art health care was centered around the hospital and acute care, the health care system, supported by the Federal Government, for senior citizens did not include prescription drugs unless they were attendant to the care of someone who was in the hospital. Thirty-seven years later, we must update that health insurance system for senior citizens. I want to give an example.

   There is a lady in my constituency in Parrish, FL. Obviously, her name shall remain confidential, but for these purposes, I will refer to her as Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith is 69 years old and she suffers from a variety of medical conditions, including a painful muscle disorder. Because the cost of her prescription drugs is not covered by Medicare , on a monthly basis, her out-of-pocket expenditures are over $300 just for prescription drugs .

   Let's look at her financial condition. She lives alone. She has no family members to help her. Sons and daughters often help their moms and dads, but Mrs. Smith does not have immediate family members to help her with her daily cost of living, including those costs of over $300 a month for prescription drugs .

   What does she receive from Social Security? This is the only income she has--a $1,030 per month benefit from Social Security.

   Of that $300 that she has to take out of that $1,000 Social Security payment, she has some big expenses. She has a drug called Neurontin. It is at a cost of 125 bucks a month. She has a drug called Ultram. It is at a cost of 150 bucks a month. She cannot afford, out of her Social Security benefits, to take the daily dosage of those drugs that her doctor has prescribed for her painful muscle disorder. What does it come down to? It comes down to groceries or prescriptions .

   Can you imagine that in America in the year 2002 we have senior citizens all across this land who are having to make a choice between whether they are going to eat or whether they are going to get their medicine, as in the case of Mrs. Smith in Parrish, FL? I cannot imagine it, but it is happening, and that is what brings us to the Senate Chamber now as we take up this prescription drug bill.

   Mrs. Smith is obviously frustrated that in her golden years she has enormous anxiety because of the high cost of the prescriptions . Under one version of the prescription drug bill, the version that I am a cosponsor of with my colleague from Florida, BOB GRAHAM, Mrs. Smith would only have to pay $25 a month premium for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. If she chose to have a brand name prescription , she would pay a copay of $40, but if she wanted a generic prescription , Ultram--that drug that I mentioned she takes at 150 bucks a month--it does have a generic alternative so she would only have to pay $10 for the prescription for the generic. That coverage for Mrs. Smith would begin upon enrollment, and Mrs. Smith would not be subject to any initial deductible, as is the case in the legislation that passed in the House.

   It is another personal example, a real-life example, of why we ought to have a prescription drug benefit enacted to modernize Medicare .

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   The Senator from Minnesota.

   Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the minority leader for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the minority leader.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, is the Senator going to be debating the drug issue?

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display