[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3318-S3320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           A GREAT INJUSTICE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I, too, commend those who were encouraging 
Condoleezza Rice to come before the 9/11 Commission publicly under oath 
to tell what she knows about the events leading up to 9/11 and those 
that followed. The fact she would argue it violated a precedent 
certainly didn't stand up once we looked at what happened in the past 
when we had others in her same position testifying before congressional 
committees.
  Now that she has made this decision, along with the White House, to 
testify, I think it is a positive and good thing. This bipartisan 
Commission can now ask the hard questions that need to be asked.
  I really come to the floor because, frankly, I think it is time for 
many of us who believe that a great injustice is being committed to 
speak out. The injustice I speak of is the reaction of this 
administration to the publication of the book ``Against All Enemies: 
Inside America's War on Terror'' by Richard Clarke.
  To my knowledge, I have never met Mr. Clark nor worked with him. I 
know nothing about him personally. But I do know for 30 years Richard 
Clarke has been trusted by Presidents, Republican and Democrats alike, 
with some of the most important responsibilities in America.
  If you read his book, and I have--at least the beginning of his 
book--you will find in the first chapter that Richard Clarke was the 
person America turned to on September 11 when we faced the greatest 
danger and chaos of modern time. He was the one at the controls in the 
White House, in the situation room, trying to bring some sense to the 
confusion that was hitting America. He was the one who was involved in 
working with the Secretary of Defense, the President, the Vice 
President, the Secretary of State, and all of the agencies of 
Government, to try to make sure America was safe at one of the most 
dangerous moments in our history. It is hard to believe this is the 
same man who has been so roundly discredited now by those in the White 
House. Those who trusted him on 9/11, who said to him, Use your 
judgment, your skill, and your experience to keep America safe at our 
most dangerous moment, are now saying, Richard Clarke cannot be trusted 
when he speaks out from the heart, from his conscience, about the 
failures of this administration to prepare for the war on terrorism and 
to wage that war since 9/11.

  Some of the statements that have been made on the floor of the 
Senate, particularly by the majority leader last week, I couldn't 
believe as I read the transcript today. I will quote from those 
statements. In the statement the majority leader said that he is:

       . . . equally troubled someone who would sell a book that 
     trades on their former service as a Government insider with 
     access to classified information, our Nation's most valuable 
     intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering 
     surrounding what this Nation endured on September 11, 2001.

  What is missing from this statement and other references by the 
majority leader is the fact that before Mr. Clarke published this book, 
it was submitted to the White House. They saw it in advance. If there 
were any suspicion of the leak of classified information by any agency, 
there was ample opportunity for them to weigh in before the publication 
of the book, and they did not do it. It is a false issue to raise 
today, that Richard Clarke has somehow violated this Nation's trust and 
disclosed classified information. That is not a fact that can be proven 
based on the fact that the White House itself had the ability to review 
that book in advance and determine whether anything crossed the line. 
To suggest Mr. Clarke is just doing this for the money is, frankly, to 
discredit him and to discredit a 30-year career in service to this 
country.
  If we look at what is happening to Richard Clarke by this attack 
machine out of the White House, we see it is nothing new. The same 
thing happened to Larry Lindsey, an economic adviser to the President 
who misspoke by saying the war in Iraq was going to cost far more than 
the Bush administration ever acknowledged. It turned out Larry Lindsey 
was right, but because he spoke the truth he is gone.
  General Shinseki, who misspoke in the eyes of the administration by 
telling us about the necessary commitment in American troops in a war 
in Iraq, was roundly criticized. He was the target of their attack.
  In addition, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward with his 
book, after serving in this administration, talking about some personal 
experiences he had with this administration and was immediately 
ridiculed by the people around the President.
  Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has served this country, who has 
contributed to both Democratic and Republican candidates, had the 
identity of his wife, who was working for the Central Intelligence 
Agency, disclosed by Robert Novak, columnist, on a tip from the White 
House in order to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson.
  In addition, Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health 
and

[[Page S3319]]

Human Services who had the nerve to step forward and say the 
President's prescription drug program was being sold on false premises 
and in fact it would cost far more than what the administration was 
prepared to acknowledge, when he started making that public, they came 
back at him and said he could lose his job if he spoke the truth.
  Then, of course, the Vice President. The Vice President, who wrote an 
energy bill--and submitted it to Congress--by meeting with special 
interest groups and basically kowtowing to their interests instead of 
the interests of America, when put on the spot and asked who were those 
special interest groups, refused to make that public.
  We see not only this effort to attack all critics and debase them and 
question their motives and their patriotism, but we also find ourselves 
in a position where this administration has thrown a shroud of secrecy 
over the most important issues that face their Government. Thank 
goodness a corner of that shroud has been lifted this morning. Looking 
under that shroud, we will find Condoleezza Rice coming before this 
bipartisan commission answering questions, as she should.
  What is at stake here is not the reputation of the White House or 
anyone in the White House. What is at stake here is the security and 
safety of the United States of America.
  Richard Clarke, whether you agree with him or not, stepped forward on 
a critical issue and was prepared to accept his responsibility for not 
doing as much as possible. But those who should be joining him in 
accepting responsibility have instead turned on him and attacked him 
personally. That is not new in Washington, but it has reached a new 
depth in this particular instance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I first want to thank my friend from Illinois for his usual 
eloquence, and our leader and others who have spoken about what has 
been happening under an administration that chooses to fight those who 
state their opinions, face the facts, and give us information rather 
than working with us to make sure we have the best information; working 
with us to make sure the decisions we make are the right ones.


                                MEDICARE

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak about Medicare today, 
and the fact that one of those who stood up and was prepared to give us 
information is the Medicare actuary Richard Foster.
  We now know he was told if he gave up information about the cost of 
the Medicare bill that passed last year before we voted on it, he would 
face being fired. We have heard this repeated over and over in 
different ways about people who had the courage to stand up and 
disagree--or in this case a career public servant who was trying to do 
his job.
  We find now on this Medicare bill that as we look more closely, over 
and over we are deeply disturbed by what has unfolded relating to the 
Medicare bill.
  As I indicated over and over on the floor before we passed the final 
version, this is clearly about what is in the interest of the 
pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry in this country--not 
in the best interests of seniors, not in the best interests of 
consumers or taxpayers. Piece by piece, we are seeing major flaws in 
this law; in fact, so much so that we are seeing comments from 
colleagues. Our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, has indicated 
now if it were to be done over he would in fact change his vote. I 
wonder how many others would be doing the same thing given what we have 
found.
  This law does nothing to lower prices for Medicare recipients and 
families, which should be one of the primary goals. That should have 
been at the top of the list for us to do. Despite the passage, in fact, 
of something that would lower prices--what we call the reimportation of 
prescription drugs or the ability to allow the local pharmacist, say, 
in Michigan or across the country to do business with pharmacists in 
other countries such as Canada to bring back prescription drugs at half 
the price; most of them are made in the United States, and American 
taxpayers helped subsidize the research to make them. But instead of 
allowing that to happen--to lower prices, in fact, up to 70 percent in 
some cases--we saw nothing in the final bill.
  The law prohibits the Medicare program from using its purchasing 
power to lower prices, which is stunning. What organization doesn't 
want to purchase in bulk in order to lower prices? Yet the Medicare 
legislation that passed specifically prohibits that from happening. 
There is only one group that benefits from that.
  The law, as we know, would also lead to about one in four retirees 
losing their private coverage, if they have retiree coverage, given the 
way it is designed. My latest concern relates to what is happening with 
the discount cards in the legislation.
  One thing we thought at least would be helpful--not as much as 
allowing us to bring back lower cost prescription drugs from Canada and 
from other countries, but something we had hoped would help a little 
bit--would be the discount card that was put in place which was 
supposed to provide from a 10 percent up to a 25-percent discount on 
prescription drugs.
  But just as Health and Human Services announced which companies would 
be providing the discount cards, we also learned the meager savings 
these cards might offer is being eaten up by the continued explosion in 
prescription price increases.

  As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the prescription drug 
provision for our seniors and the disabled increased nearly 3\1/2\ 
times faster than the overall inflation rate in 2002. Because there are 
no checks or controls or accountability on these prices, the discount 
cards are very vulnerable to gaming by the pharmaceutical industry.
  What do I mean by that? For example, the wholesale price for Lipitor 
or Zoloft went up 19 percent in the last 2 years. The pain reliever 
Celebrex went up 23 percent. Their producer has said these increases 
are among the most moderate pricing in the industry.
  We are seeing great increases so that any kind of a discount now will 
be based on an inflated price, not providing relief for seniors.
  I am very concerned. We are hearing from Families USA, which we know 
is a consumer health care advocacy group. They have now laid out four 
concerns they have which I will share regarding discount cards.
  Their first concern is they say neither the new law nor the 
legislation specifies the base price on which the discounts will apply. 
Gains in the base price are going up dramatically, and we are going to 
give a 10 or 15-percent discount, or even a 30-percent discount. But 
the price has gone up 40 percent. You are not getting much of a deal.
  Second, under the Discount Card Program, sponsors are required to 
pass on to cardholders only an undefined share of the rebates they get 
from drug manufacturers, and they can keep the remaining savings as 
profits. They are not required to pass on the entire amount of savings 
from the manufacturers to our seniors.
  I know our leader Senator Daschle has a bill that would correct that, 
of which I am cosponsor, and I hope very strongly we will be able to 
pass it.
  The regulations foster, in fact, also what is called bait-and-switch 
schemes so that people go into a particular card, and then things are 
switched. What is amazing is while the senior is locked into a specific 
card for 7 days, the size of a discount can change. Seniors are locked 
in but the provider is not.
  Finally, there is a $600 credit, which is positive for low-income 
seniors, that is applied to these cards. However, with the low-income 
asset tax and new, very cumbersome paperwork involved, we are not sure 
how many low-income seniors will actually receive the discount.
  We can do better than that. If we were simply to do what the House of 
Representatives did in a strong bipartisan vote a number of months ago, 
we would be able to immediately drop prices at least in half with 
reimportation.
  I urge my colleagues to get serious and pass that bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, have we used all of our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reserve that. But I note when we get to 
the bill

[[Page S3320]]

that a number of Members on this side indicate they would object to 
extending the vote past 12:45. Everyone should understand that. The 
managers of the bill--and I have spoken to our manager, Senator 
Baucus--understand that. If anyone tries to extend the time past 12:15, 
there will be an objection. We will vote at 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Is there any objection to 
reserving of the minority's time? Hearing none, the time is reserved.
  The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________