[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4513-S4514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES

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

[[Page S4514]]

prescription drug benefit. We want to lower prices. There are ways to 
do it. We can do it now. I ask my colleagues to join with us in this 
effort.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________