[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6816-S6818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

  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]]

words, because people have heard enough words, but by our actions. That 
is what this is about right now. Are we going to proceed to this 
debate? Are people going to use procedural motions to stop us from even 
getting to the debate, or are we going to move forward together, find 
ways and common ground in a bipartisan way to do what needs to be done? 
Will we do that so that Melissa Askin, 68 years old, of Romulus, MI, 
knows that someone cares? When she needs nine medications in order to 
live and have quality of life, she should be able to get all nine 
medications and not have to settle for three. That is what this is 
about.

  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.

[[Page S6818]]

  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?

                          ____________________