[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10627-10629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           FAIRDRUGPRICES.ORG

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from 
Connecticut speaking about the bill that is before us, and I certainly 
share his beliefs about the need for terrorism insurance and hope we 
will be passing this bill shortly. I found, though, that as I was 
listening to him today, I was thinking about another kind of terror, 
and insurance we need to be providing, and that is the terror that too 
many of our citizens, particularly our seniors, experience when they 
find themselves in a situation with an illness and they cannot afford 
the medications they need to be well.
  I think of the terror a breast cancer patient feels when she is told 
she needs tamoxifen and cannot afford the $136 a month, which it is in 
Michigan, to purchase that tamoxifen. I think of the terror a family 
with a disabled child feels when they cannot get the medicine they 
need, or the terror of a small business man or woman when they see 
their health care premiums rise 30 to 40 percent this year. They know 
the majority of that is because of the explosion in the costs of 
prescription drugs. So there are a number of ways in which we need to 
be addressing terror and fear in our country.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle in the 
Senate, to come together and support a comprehensive Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, to support the bill that my colleagues, 
Senator Graham and Senator Miller, have introduced--I am pleased to be 
a cosponsor of that bill--as a comprehensive response to the terror our 
seniors are experiencing when they are not able to get the desperately 
needed medications they need to remain in their home, to remain 
healthy, to be able to continue to live their lives.
  I was very concerned to see over the weekend and to read today about 
the

[[Page 10628]]

actions the House Republicans are taking at this very moment. I was 
hoping, when we pointed out the inadequacies in the bills they have 
been talking about, they would make corrections so that we could move 
together on a comprehensive bill that is effective for our seniors and 
actually helps them.
  I am very concerned, when I see the numbers, about what is happening. 
The bills that are being put forward by the Republicans appear to have 
very little positive effect and in some cases could even be argued to 
hurt the situation. Families USA has come up with an analysis, and I 
will quote from their analysis, about the percentage of out-of-pocket 
expenditures that seniors would have at various levels of their drug 
costs under the House Republican plan. For a senior who needed to spend 
$1,000 a year, they would find they would still pay 81 percent of that 
$1,000 under the House plan. If they had a $2,000 bill per year, they 
would still pay about 65 percent. If they had a $3,000 bill per year, 
they would pay about 77 percent out of their pocket. If they had a 
$4,000 bill per year, they would be paying 83 percent of it. I cannot 
believe all of the effort by our colleagues in the House that is going 
into passing this kind of prescription drug legislation for our 
seniors. That is not good enough. We can do better.
  I am so pleased our leader has made a personal commitment to make 
sure we bring this bill up in July and we vote on this bill for 
Medicare prescription drug coverage. I am very pleased our bill would 
in fact provide real coverage of 60 percent, 70 percent, of the bill. 
We would cover the majority of the prescription drug bill for our 
seniors.
  So I am urging once again that our citizens across the country get 
engaged in this debate to make sure that what happens in the Congress 
is the right action. There are a number of consumer groups and senior 
groups that have come together across the country to form a Web site, 
fairdrugprices.org. I urge people to go to this Web site, log on, and 
sign the petition that they have set up calling on all of us to create 
a meaningful prescription drug benefit and lower prices for everyone: 
For the senior, for the farmer, the small business, the large business, 
anyone who is paying the high prices of prescription drugs. If you go 
to fairdrugprices.org, you can get involved, sign a petition, 
communicate with us about what needs to be done. I urge everyone who is 
listening today to do that.
  I am very concerned that as we are debating the priorities of the 
country--and last week we were debating whether or not to extend a tax 
cut that we know goes overwhelmingly to those at the very top in terms 
of the estate tax and the extension of the tax cut that was put into 
place for 10 years.
  It bothers me when I see that in the year 2012, when this would be 
extended, the tax cut would cost $229 billion, which is three times 
more than they want to dedicate in the House for prescription drug 
help, three times more than what they are willing to provide for our 
seniors and people who are disabled or families who have disabled 
children, three times more for a tax cut to the very wealthiest 
Americans who, it is my guess, are not worried about whether or not 
they can buy their medicine. They are not having to struggle and go 
into the pharmacy, look at the bill after they give their prescription, 
and walk away with the pills still sitting on the counter because they 
were not able to afford to pay for them.
  My guess is that the folks who are being proposed for another tax cut 
are not deciding whether they are going to cut their pills in half or 
take them every other day or not at all.
  I support efforts on tax relief, and I support our family-owned 
businesses and farmers not having to pay the estate tax, but I also 
know there is a way to set priorities that will make sure we are 
keeping the promise of Medicare that was set up in 1965.
  In 1965, one of the great American success stories was passed by this 
Congress, and that was the promise of health care coverage for our 
seniors and the disabled. But because we have changed the way we 
provide health care today, people are not going into the hospital, 
probably not going in for an operation; instead, they have the 
ability--all of us do, and a blessed opportunity--to remain at home, to 
receive prescriptions rather than having an operation. But Medicare 
does not cover those outpatient prescriptions.
  So the great American success story that was passed in 1965 is no 
longer providing the promise of health care. We are committed to making 
sure that we modernize Medicare, that we update it to cover the 
prescription drugs. I worry, as I see all of the effort going on in the 
other side of the building by our Republican colleagues, all of the 
effort of not only one committee but two committees, and two bills, and 
then we look at what they are providing, and we see that on average 
they are providing 20 percent of the costs of prescription drugs. That 
means 80 percent is being paid for out of the pockets of our seniors. I 
suggest that is not the best priority for our country.
  I am very concerned that this is a complicated system they are 
setting up. There are gaps between $2,000 of out-of-pocket expenses a 
year and $4,500 or $5,000--we are not sure which number they will end 
up with--but that gap leaves no help for a senior with a bill from 
$2,500 to $5,000. That gap between $2,000 and $5,000 is a gap leaving 
seniors to pay the premium while receiving no assistance.
  There are serious problems. I am told half of Medicare beneficiaries 
will receive no drug coverage for at least part of the year. Half of 
the Medicare beneficiaries will receive no help for at least part of 
the year under the proposal now being considered in the House of 
Representatives.
  I am also concerned that rather than relying on the Part B premium as 
we have provided health care to this point to a private sector/private 
sector-public sector working together on Medicare, they are discussing 
having private insurance companies create prescription drug-only 
policies and relying on private insurance companies to provide this 
coverage.
  We hear the insurance companies do not want to write those policies. 
If those were profitable policies, they would already be writing the 
policies. It is not profitable to write prescription-only policies for 
people who need prescriptions. The idea is to spread the risk between 
those who are healthy and those who need care. Those who are likely to 
want an insurance policy for prescription drugs probably are using 
prescription drugs. Insurance industry folks say they are not 
interested.
  What do our Republican colleagues do? They give dollars to the 
insurance companies to provide this coverage rather than providing it 
under Medicare. The Republican bill allows Medicare to pay insurance 
companies more in order to write these policies rather than just using 
the Medicare process that has worked so well.
  There are a lot of flaws. They are using a structure that does not 
work with private insurance companies rather than having the clout of 
40 million seniors under Medicare, enabling a lowering of the prices, 
using a system that is tried and true; they want to bring in a new 
system. The reality is there is no interest in the private sector to 
provide this type of insurance.
  We see on the other side of the aisle, and the other side of the 
building, two committees working on legislation that, in fact, will do 
little to help our seniors, those with disabilities who need help with 
prescription drugs. We can do better. We have the opportunity to do 
better.
  I share from this morning's New York Times a portion of a column by 
Paul Krugman, outlining what is happening. I encourage Members to read 
this. He says:

       . . . the Senate Democrats have a plan that can be 
     criticized but is definitely workable. The House Republicans, 
     by contrast, have a plan that would quickly turn into a 
     fiasco--but not, of course, until after the next election.

  He then goes on to say:

       . . . Senate Democrats have a plan that is sensible and 
     workable, but House Republicans surely won't agree to 
     anything resembling that plan. Senate Democrats might be 
     bullied into something resembling the House

[[Page 10629]]

     Republican plan, but since that plan is completely 
     unworkable, that's the same as getting no drug plan at all--
     which, I suspect, is what the Republican leaders really want 
     in any case.

  We are not going to be bullied into a plan that does not do the job. 
There is no doubt in my mind. We have a commitment. Our seniors have 
heard for too long, too many election cycles, that Medicare will cover 
prescription drugs. I know a lot of seniors are saying nothing will 
ever change. Yet the prices keep going up, the need for care keeps 
going up, and the choices the seniors have to make keep getting bigger 
and bigger and bigger.
  We can do better than that. We in the Senate are committed to doing 
better than that. I urge everyone listening today to engage in this 
fight with us. There are six drug company lobbyists for every one 
Member of the Senate. We need the people's voice. We are willing and 
able and determined to bring a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug 
bill to the floor of the Senate in July. We urge everyone to get 
involved in this debate.
  There are substantive differences in plans and how they will affect 
seniors and families. We need to get through the smoke and mirrors and 
down to the facts, look at comparisons, have honest critiques, and pass 
a bill that works and makes sense. It is time to completely fulfill the 
promise of 1965 with the passage of Medicare, and 2002 is a great time 
to do it. It is long overdue.
  I invite people to engage in this debate and make sure the best 
proposal passes and passes quickly. I suggest reviewing 
www.fairdrugprices.org and get involved.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________