Floor Statements

Mr. President, I first thank my colleague and friend from Minnesota for his eloquent remarks today. I certainly agree with the sentiments he has expressed. I personally thank him for his personal commitment and willingness to help fund ways for people in Minnesota to be able to lower their prescription drug prices. I think that speaks to his personal dedication and willingness to do whatever he can to help.

Ronald Reagan asked the question back in 1980, ``Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?'' When it comes to the issue of prescription drugs and the cost of medicine today, certainly the answer to that is no.

I rise today to discuss the new Medicare Drug Card Program, as my colleague and friend from Minnesota has done. Yesterday, Tuesday, was the first day these cards could be used. But by any measure, this attempt to lower drug prices has been a complete failure. We can do much better. We can give our seniors real savings if we make the commitment to do that. Simply put, when it comes to Medicare, we need to do it again and we need to get it right.

From the beginning, the drug card was designed for the pharmaceutical companies and not for our seniors. That is one of the reasons why there is an estimate that the drug companies will receive over 8 years $139 billion in new profits because of the new Medicare law.

That doesn't add up if the purpose is to lower prices for our seniors. Obviously, $139 billion in new profits demonstrates this is not about lowering prices. First, because the law provided no guarantee and no guaranteed savings for seniors, drug companies were free to inflate their prices before the discount cards were issued. Therefore, companies were free to raise their prices in the last year or two in excess of any possible discount seniors might receive from these drug cards. In fact, the prices of 14 of the top 30 brand-name drugs rose more than 5 times faster than the rate of inflation from 2003 to this year, virtually wiping out any discount a senior might receive from one of these Medicare cards. That is like a department store taking up its prices 50 percent and then putting a sign out front that says 25 percent off. If you think about it, you are not going to save any money; you are actually paying more.

Second, the new law gives the companies that distribute the Medicare cards complete flexibility to change their prices every 7 days but forces seniors to lock into one card for an entire year. That means you might pick a particular card because it offers you a lower price on medications that you take, and then in 7 days, maybe even before you use the card, the price of that drug has gone up or two or three of the drugs you are taking have gone up. That might make the card absolutely useless, even though seniors may have to pay up to $30 to sign up for the card.

Also, we know that every 7 days the discounted drugs can be changed. So you wade through all of these cards, over 70 cards, to figure out the one that covers the most medicines you use and provides you some kind of help with lower prices. You purchase that card. You spend $30. You purchase a card, you lock yourself in for a year, and then you find out 7 days later the drugs you use are no longer on the list. Who does that benefit? Who is better off under this Medicare bill? Certainly not our seniors. We can do much better. We need to do it again and do it right. This new Medicare bill needs a complete overhaul.

There are two ways we can lower prescription drug prices for seniors and all Americans if we do this right. We have two ways right now we can fix this situation. First, we simply need to pass bipartisan reimportation legislation supported by people on both sides of the aisle in both the House and the Senate. We have a very strong bipartisan coalition to allow Americans to buy American-made FDA- approved drugs from other countries such as Canada. All of us could then save much more on prescription drugs than the small savings from the Medicare drug cards.

Second, we can and should allow Medicare to negotiate directly with the

drug companies on behalf of our seniors and the disabled to get the lowest possible price.

Why on Earth wouldn't that be the first thing we would do? Right now States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their large bargaining clout to obtain low drug prices. Common sense says Medicare should be doing it.

Regrettably, the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower group prices is Medicare. Why? Who benefits from that? Who benefits from locking in up to 40 million people forced to pay the highest prices? Certainly not our seniors and the disabled.

Because the supporters of the drug industry in Congress at the eleventh hour inserted into the final Medicare bill a special interest provision that strictly prohibits Medicare from getting group discounts, our seniors are paying top dollar.

We know the drug companies are powerful. We know they have over six lobbyists for every one Member in the Senate. We can do better, and people expect us to do better than this new law and these cards.

If we want, we can provide real savings for Americans. I wish to point to charts to demonstrate with a couple of medications what the differences are.

Right now for Lipitor, which lowers cholesterol, if we were to do a group discount, such as the Veterans' Administration does, our seniors would pay $40.55 for a month's supply. If we were to open the border to Canada and allow trade, as we do for everything else, back and forth between Canada and the United States, we would be able to get that price down to $35, from $40.55 to $35.04. However, if we continue with this current Medicare card, the low end is $64.67 up to $74.77. This makes no sense.

Right now people are being told to go out and sign up for a Medicare prescription drug card that will require them to pay more than we could get for them if we simply negotiated group prices or open the border to Canada.

Another demonstration: Norvasc, which controls high blood pressure. Again, with the VA, for a little over $25, you can get a month's supply; Canada, $28. But under the so-called discount card, it is anywhere from $41 to $49. These numbers just do not add up, and the seniors of this country, as well as all Americans who would benefit by opening the border and allowing us to do business across the border, are saying to us: Do it again, and do it right.

One more example: Protonix, which treats ulcers and other stomach conditions. If we were to negotiate a group price, as does the VA, the individual out of pocket would pay $26.83, and through Canada, $41.60. Under these new cards, they would pay from $86 to $108. It just does not add up. These numbers do not add up for our seniors or for anyone who is struggling to purchase medicine or to keep up with the incredibly high and rising prices of their health insurance because we know this is a major driver.

In conclusion, are you better off than you were 4 years ago under this Medicare law? We need to change it, and we need to get it right.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as we are wrapping up the session this week, I think it is very important to note what we all read in the Washington Post today. Something very serious was clearly spelled out. That is that the General Accounting Office has concluded the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services illegally spent Federal money on what amounted to covert propaganda, by producing videos about the Medicare changes that were made to look like news reports. Portions of the videos which had been aired by 40 television stations around the country do not make it clear that the announcers were paid by Health and Human Services, or paid by taxpayers, and that they were not real reporters.

In fact, the administration has violated two Federal laws. This comes from the nonpartisan arm, the Congressional Investigative Services, the General Accounting Office.

They indicated two different laws that the administration broke in these ads on Medicare.

No. 1, the Omnibus appropriations bill of 2003: The prohibition on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes.

No. 2, the Anti-Deficiency Act: Incurred obligations in excess of appropriations available for that purpose.

This is just one more example of the ongoing saga in what happened in relationship to the passage of the new Medicare law and all of the irregularities--the pronouncement that, in fact, the law was violated and the other ethics investigations going on.

Let me go through some of what else is happening. It is stunning, actually, when you look at the full picture. I would argue that this is absolutely in the wrong direction and against the interests of those who count on Medicare--our seniors and disabled, and the American taxpayers who have been funding what the GAO says are illegal ads.

In addition to that, 2 weeks ago, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the administration potentially violated the law in a related matter in which the Medicare Program's chief actuary has said he was threatened with firing a year ago if he shared with Congress cost estimates that the Medicare legislation would be one-third more expensive than what we were told--one-third more expensive than the $400 billion the President said it would cost.

Also, the House ethics panel meanwhile is investigating whether Republican leaders attempted to bribe or coerce a Republican House Member--in fact, someone in my own State--to vote for the bill before it passed by a few votes just before dawn after the longest record rollcall in the history of the House.

We have numerous other challenges and questions. It is important to note for the record that the latest investigation by the GAO was not prompted by our side of the aisle, nor requested. It was something they looked into on their own separate from other concerns which have been raised. We have raised issues that relate to the advertising we have seen on television.

Concerning materials, the GAO indicated that, while they were not specifically in violation, the HHS materials have notable omissions and other weaknesses. They say it is a question of prudence and appropriateness for HHS's decision to communicate by placing advertising in Roll Call, which we all know is something that we read and certainly our constituents and the seniors and the disabled of the country do not read.

This goes on and on, questions of violating the law and questions of an ethics violation.

Now we see, in fact, that the administration specifically has broken two different laws. One of the questions is, What do we do about that? I think the public deserves the answer to that. What is it that we do when the administration violates the law as it relates to spending public dollars and advertising as it relates to this Medicare bill?

A colleague of mine is suggesting--since we know it is a campaign year and we know this is put forward certainly to put the best light on this for the administration--the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, has suggested that the President repay the funds from his Presidential campaign.

Given what we know is happening this year and the fact that certainly the administration wants to have the best face put on this Medicare package and certainly has everything to gain from using public dollars to advertise that, I think it would be appropriate to ask the President to repay that from his campaign funds. In fact, they are in violation of the law.

We have seen questionable action after questionable action. The head of the center of Medicare and Medicaid, after writing this bill and working closely with the industry that benefits from it--the pharmaceutical industry--leaves to take a job with folks involved in the industry that will make money off of this new law.

We have seen other individuals leaving and going into lucrative positions where they will themselves be making money off of this new law.

We know it has been analyzed and that the pharmaceutical industry will be making, during the next 8 years, about $139 billion in new profits. That is tough to do if you are lowering prices and tough to do if you are providing a real Medicare benefit to seniors which they can afford.

The reality is that is not what this bill does. This bill doesn't allow Medicare to be able to negotiate group discounts as we do through the VA.

It creates a situation where up to 40 million seniors and disabled are locked into the highest possible prices--not only in our country but in the world. We have a bill that locks in high prices.

The industry is making billions of dollars from it. People from the administration are going to work for the industry or related businesses that will be making money off of this process.

We now see a situation where, again, the taxpayer money that was put aside

to be able to explain the Medicare bill has actually been used in a way that is in violation of the law.

I say again that the GAO concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services illegally spent Federal money--taxpayers' money--on what amounted to covert propaganda by producing videos about the Medicare changes that were made.

Another piece of that which is extremely disconcerting to me is we now have discount cards for seniors for those who qualify for Medicare--depending on where you live--and there could be 60 or 70 different cards that you now can attempt to wade through to try to find a discount card that will help you when you really are struggling to pay for your medicine.

We are now finding since passing the Medicare bill that many of the name brand companies have dramatically increased the prices of their products in anticipation of the discount card. The base is higher. That is like the storeowner who marked up the product 25 percent and then put a sign out that says: ``15 percent sale.'' That is what is happening to many of our seniors.

To add insult to injury, those who purchase cards--most of them are purchased for about $30--lock themselves into one card for a year after wading through all of the different cards. They pick the one that covers the medicines they use. They purchase the card and they are locked into it for a year, but the business, the industry can change every 7 days the list of what is covered. Today, four medicines are not covered; next week maybe two aren't covered; and next week maybe none of them are covered.

Why would this be set up like this? It is confusing. They are not real discounts. The discounts are changed. It is certainly not set up for the people who depend on Medicare every day.

Once again, the implementation of the bill that passed is being done in a way that helps the industry that already makes billions and billions of dollars in producing the products, but it is not helping our seniors. We want industry to be successful.

Taxpayers help subsidize the billions of dollars of research given free to the industry. We provide tax credits, tax deductions, writeoffs and patents. All we ask at the end of the day is that people can afford their medicine, that people can afford oftentimes the lifesaving medicine they need for their cancer, diabetes, or other chronic disease.

This is serious. We debated and had a lot of hoopla about a new law in Medicare. We have seen nothing but broken promises, broken laws, broken ethics rules since the adoption of the law. I suggest it is time to start over. We can do better. It is time to scrap this benefit, start over, get it right, follow the law, follow the ethics rules, negotiate group prices, get a real benefit, bring prices down. That is what our seniors expected the first time. It is time we make a commitment to get it right.

I am very hopeful between now and the end of the session in the fall that we are going to turn around and get this right. Scrap the old bill and pass a new one that focuses on helping our seniors and bringing down prescription drug prices for everyone. And by the way, it is time to follow the law in the process.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life of a very dear friend who passed away on March 24 of this year. Millie Jeffrey is an icon in the State of Michigan and in our country for civil rights, women's rights, and worker's rights. Her life has epitomized the principles by which we all strive to live our lives--justice, equality, and compassion.

Although small in stature, Millie has been a giant among all of us who have known her. Words cannot express the depth of affection and respect in which Millie is held, nor can words quantify the lives that she has touched.

Mildred McWilliams Jeffrey, social justice activist, retired UAW Director of the Consumer Affairs Department and a Governor Emerita of Wayne State University, died peacefully surrounded by her family early this morning in the Metro Detroit area. She was 93. In 2000, President William Clinton awarded here the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the United States government.

In seeking world peace by ensuring equality for all, Millie spent a lifetime working on labor, civil rights, education, health care, youth employment, and recreation issues. She brought inspiration and humor to the many people she touched--and did so with optimism and undaunted spirit.

Millie's list of accomplishments and awards is long but what she is most remembered for is her zest for organizing. She mentored legions of women and men in the labor, civil rights, women's rights, and peace movements. As President Clinton noted: ``Her impact will be felt for generations, and her example never forgotten.''

Born in Alton, IA, on December 29, 1910, Millie was the oldest of seven children. She graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1932 with a bachelor's degree in psychology and received a master's degree in social economy and social research in 1934 from Bryn Mawr College. In graduate school, she realized that to improve the lives of working women and men she would have to change the system. In the 1930s, that meant joining the labor movement.

Millie became an organizer for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in Philadelphia and then Educational Director of the Pennsylvania Joint Board of Shirt Workers. In 1936, she married fellow Amalgamated organizer Homer Newman Jeffrey, and they traveled throughout the South and East organizing textile workers. During World War II, the Jeffreys worked in Washington, DC, as consultants to the War Labor Board, where they became close friends with Walter, Victor, and Roy Reuther.

Mildred and Newman Jeffrey moved to Detroit in 1944 when victor Reuther offered Millie a job as director of the newly formed UAW Women's Bureau. Millie's commitment to equal rights fueled here career at the UAW. She organized the first UAW women's conference in response to the massive postwar layoffs of women production workers replaced by returning veterans. From 1949 until 1954, Millie ran the union's radio station. She moved on to direct the Community Relations Departments. She was director of the Consumer Affairs Department from 1968 until her retirement in 1976.

Millie joined the NAACP in the 1940s and marched in the South with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s. Former executive secretary of the Detroit Branch of the NAACP, Arthur Johnson, said that ``in the civil rights movement, she knew how to fight without being disagreeable.''

Mildred Jeffrey also was very active in the Democratic Party, preferring to work behind the scenes organizing, canvassing, consulting, and fundraising. She was the consummate strategist. Millie provided savvy advice to Democratic officeholders and presidents from JFK to Bill Clinton. Senator Edward Kennedy observed, ``whether it was a worker in a plant, or whether it was a Congressman or Senator or President, Millie inspired people.''

As a founding member and chair of the National Women's Political Caucus, Millie supported female candidates for public office. Twenty years ago she led the effort to nominate Geraldine Ferraro as Walter Mondale's running mate. Most recently, Millie delighted in being represented by Michigan women she supported, Governor Jennifer Granholm, and myself. Millie is the ``political godmother'' for many of us, and we are extremely grateful for her love and support. Millie was one of the most important mentors in my life and I will always be very, very grateful to her.

Millie ran for public office in 1974 and was elected by the people of the State of Michigan to the Wayne State University Board of Governors, an office she held for 16 years--1974-1990. She was so proud of her role in supporting this wonderful university. She served three terms as board chair. Millie loved Wayne State University and was a long-time resident on campus. She never tired of showing visitors around her ``neighborhood''--the Adamany Undergraduate Library, the Hilberry Theatre, and the Walter P. Reuther Library. Millie thrived in the academic environment enriched by Wayne State University students.

Her friendships extended worldwide across all ages and nationalities. Whether discussing math with teenagers in Wayne State's Math Corps, or strategizing at the UN Conference on Women about the plight of sweatshop workers, Millie's capacity for connecting with people was unmatched.

Millie's capacity for connecting with people was unmatched. As one who traveled with her to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, it was amazing to see people from all over the world, hearing we were from Michigan, asking if we knew Millie Jeffrey and if we could tell them where she was; or that their grandmother, their aunt, suggested they meet Millie Jeffrey.

I often said the way to world peace was to let Millie loose; sooner or later, we would all know Millie Jeffrey and come to understand each other.

Millie was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame and was an original board member of the Michigan Women's Foundation. She served in various leadership roles in a wide variety of national and State organizations such as the Michigan Women's Political Caucus, the Coalition for Labor Union Women, Americans for Democratic Action, National Abortion Rights Action League, Voters for Choice, EMILY's List, and the American Civil Liberties Union. She served on the peer review board of Blue Cross and was an active member of the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Detroit.

She was also an adoring mother of a son and a daughter and adoring grandmother who developed and nourished creativity and curiosity in her two grandchildren who she loved dearly, Erica Jeffrey and Thomas Jeffrey. She encouraged Erica's love of ballet. She urged Thomas to travel to learn about the world and was so proud of his AmeriCorps Service.

All of these lists of awards, duties, responsibilities, and committees do not say what Millie is all about: Millie Jeffrey was a one-of-a-kind woman of great passion, of great commitment, of great interest in knowing about each one of us and what we were doing and what we cared and how she could help.

Yesterday, 250 people came to Washington, DC, from all over the country to remember Millie and to share how Millie had touched their lives. Millie's life was celebrated and honored by her family and friends through photos, speech and song. Many of her friends gave heartwarming accounts on how she helped them as well as our country. As the memorial service concluded, one thing became very clear. Millie is no longer with us, but she will be with us forever because her spirit will continue in all of us.

I thank my colleagues for the support of this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Today, Mr. President, I join Senator Stabenow in introducing a resolution to celebrate and to honor the life of an extraordinary American woman, Mildred Jeffrey. Millie Jeffrey was a shining star in the firmament of our State and Nation. Her legendary courage and her incredible tenacity were an inspiration to all who came within her orbit.

Throughout her life, Millie fought tenaciously to advance civil rights and break down the racial barriers that divide us. She fought for workers' rights, making sure that the people who make up the backbone of our business and industry are given a voice and afforded fair treatment. She was a pioneer for women's rights, opening doors and providing opportunities for women that were merely a dream for women before her. We can all say that our world is more just and more humane because of Millie.

We couldn't begin to count all of the people she assisted, all of the careers she helped launch, and all of the walls she broke down. She was a major force in the election of Michigan's first female Senator and first female governor; how wonderful it is that she lived to see both Senator Debbie Stabenow and Governor Jennifer Granholm take office.

It is a mystery how her larger-than-life passion, energy, enthusiasm, and kindness fit into such a tiny frame. Every person who ever met with her or talked with her or felt her spirit was left with a deep sense of awe and respect for her extraordinarily good nature and her commitment to good deeds. It is a badge of honor to be able to say ``I knew Millie Jeffrey.''

Millie famously said that she would retire only when she died, and she certainly lived up to that promise, working and fighting until the very end. We all wish her retirement could have been later, but her legacy and her inspiration will be a major presence in Michigan and the Nation forever.

I know all of my colleagues will join me in celebrating her life and honoring her memory.

Mr. President, I first wish to commend our leader, Senator Daschle, for his wonderful words regarding the need for mental health parity, and also join with both leaders in remembering Senator Paul Wellstone and his advocacy.

Nothing would be more fitting than to pass this long overdue legislation and dedicate it in his name.

Mr. President, 24 years ago, Ronald Reagan was running for President and he asked each of us as Americans a question: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

It was the right question then, and it is the right question now. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? This is a very important question. Unfortunately, for most middle-income Americans in 2004, the answer is clearly no.

What has happened in the last 4 years while wages have been flat, gas prices, college tuition, health care costs have skyrocketed, millions of jobs have been lost, poverty is on the rise, the budget surplus has been squandered, the Social Security trust fund has been raided, State taxes have risen, household debt has gone way up, consumer confidence has dropped, and the stock market has gone down.

We can look at a few of these areas with average weekly earnings flat at slightly over 1 percent; gas prices certainly in Michigan and around the country skyrocketing, going up and up; college tuition; family health care premiums--these are just three measures of what is happening to our families and what is commonly called the middle-class squeeze where families are not seeing their incomes go up, and yet all of the costs of providing opportunity for their children, of being able to meet the daily costs of living are going up and up.

Today I want to talk specifically about just one of those, and that is the family health care premiums. Since President Bush took office, family health care premiums have risen more than $2,700. The average cost of a family plan is now above $9,000. Workers have to pay about $2,400 of that premium out of their own pockets, in addition to paying deductibles and copays.

That is a tremendous amount of money for most families, especially at a time when they are facing higher costs in so many other areas. Much of this increase has to do with the soaring cost of prescription drugs, which I have come to the Senate floor to speak about on many occasions. The cost of prescription drugs--and this is brand-name drugs--is rising at about three and a half times the rate of inflation. In fact, we know that for some of the top name- brand drugs we see advertised on television every day, they are actually rising anywhere from 8 to 10 to 12 percent faster than the rate of inflation, which is extraordinary.

The health care system and the business community paying the costs of health care premiums cannot continue to absorb that, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit does next to nothing to rein in escalating costs. In fact, researchers have suggested that the new Medicare law will actually result in new profits for the drug companies of $139 billion over the next 8 years.

So here we are supposedly passing a bill to help seniors that one would hope would lower prices, but instead, because it does not allow Medicare to negotiate group discounts, it locks in up to 40 million people forced to pay the highest possible prices in the country,

resulting in $139 billion in new profits over the next 8 years for the pharmaceutical industries and continual struggles for our seniors who literally are choosing between food and medicine.

When President Bush took office, the number of uninsured Americans had actually decreased for 2 straight years. The number of uninsured Americans had actually gone down for 2 straight years. But the dramatic increase in premiums during the Bush administration, combined with the loss of so many jobs, has left 3.8 million more Americans without health insurance. There are now nearly 44 million uninsured Americans, and the consequences are dire for these families and, I would argue, for communities and for businesses as well that end up seeing their health care premium dollars go up every time someone walks into the emergency room sicker than they should be, receiving inappropriate care and having the community hospital have to absorb and transfer that to the folks with insurance.

People without health insurance do not receive the care they need, as I indicated, to prevent or detect or treat serious medical problems. As a result, they are forced to live their lives in poorer health and die younger. Approximately 18,000 people die prematurely each year because they do not have health insurance.

We are the greatest country in the world. Shame on us if we cannot fix this. And we can fix it. It is just a matter of will. It is a matter of values and priorities. We need to turn things around and get this right.

So we come back again to President Reagan's famous question: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? What has happened in the last 4 years? Again, wages have been flat, if not going down. In my State many folks are losing their jobs, and wages that are being replaced are actually lower. Gas prices are skyrocketing out of sight. College tuition, access to college and the American dream that we all want for our children, has gone up tremendously. Health care costs have skyrocketed, as I mentioned. As a result, our middle-income families are feeling squeezed more and more every day, and Americans are not better off. But we can be better off. We are the United States of America. We are the can-do country, and I know we can get back on track. With a few changes, with the right priorities, with the right values, we can turn this around. We have done it before and we can do it again.

With strong leadership and a real commitment to confronting the problems that families face, we can do better. We can provide our schools and teachers with the support they deserve. We can ensure that every qualified student has the opportunity to attend college. We can build a stronger America so every worker has access to health care and our seniors and the disabled truly have access to their prescription drugs that they need at the lowest possible prices. We can restore the confidence of Americans that our better days are still ahead.

We have much to do. All of these facts, all of these issues, relate to choices, the choices we make as we govern about who we want to make sure is doing better in this country. We can choose between focusing on those things that help Americans, help the public to do better, or the special interests of this country. We need to turn it around so we are putting people first and we are addressing those things that allow each of us to have the opportunity for the great American dream. We are all about working hard, playing by the rules, and being able to go as far as one can possibly go in this great country if they are willing to do the work.

Too many folks are working hard and finding themselves more and more with costs and burdens that are stopping them from being able to fully obtain the American dream for themselves and their families. We are not better off right now, but we can be, and I am hopeful with the right kind of changes that we will be.

Mr. President, 50 years ago, a third grade girl named Linda walked a full mile each way to school, crossing through a dangerous railroad switchyard to do it. Only five blocks from her home was a very nice local school, but when her father petitioned for her admission, he was denied.

Why?

Because she was not white.

Fortunately, her father would not give up, and because of his tenacity, 50 years later, we can celebrate the landmark decision of Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education.

Since Thurgood Marshall argued his most important case involving over 200 plaintiffs in front of the same bench that he would later sit on, we have made great strides.

We have done away with the ridiculous idea that separate could ever be equal. We have legalized desegregation. Colleges and universities are becoming increasingly more diverse as parents who did not attend college are now able to send their children to institutions of higher education.

But there is so much more still to do. Until children of all backgrounds receive the same quality of teaching, have access to the same quality of

learning resources, and graduate from high school and secondary education at the same rate, our work is not finished.

Despite the Supreme Court's declaration in that landmark decision that education ``is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms,'' our country still remains far from providing an equal education to all.

Fortunately, I know we have the ability to change this and to ensure all children a first-rate education. We are the greatest and richest country in the world. We have the ability to make sure that our elementary and secondary schools are the best in the world.

We also need to make sure the doors to higher education remain open for all. We have the best universities and colleges in the world, and students from all over the globe dream about attending college in the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to lament the fact that we have made no progress in reducing the uninsured since 2001. This is an issue we all need to be working together on because it affects everyone we represent, every family, every business. In fact, nearly 4 million more people are uninsured today than the day this administration took office.

We need to light a fire. We need to have a sense of urgency about getting this done for people. We can do much better than we are doing. We live in the United States of America. We are the greatest, the richest country on the face of the Earth. When we have the will, we can make great things happen. That is what we need to do here.

We enacted Social Security in 1935. This program now serves as our universal retirement, life insurance, and disability insurance system for millions of people. A generation later we passed Medicare, our Nation's universal health plan for seniors and the disabled. Even though I am very concerned about the recent law that we passed and whether it is a step backward--and I believe it is--the fact is, we put in place in 1965 a policy based on a set of values that said, if you are 65 or older, if you are disabled, you are going to receive health care.

Interestingly, at that time, if we go back and read the record, this was viewed as a compromise, a first step. Originally in 1960, what was being debated was health care for everyone. Then when there was not the support to pass that, the compromise was to start with older Americans and with the disabled, to provide health care first to them and then to open it up to all of our citizens. Yet today we are not seeing that happening. It is now time to go the last mile. We need to make sure all Americans have the same access to health insurance that we do in the Senate.

As most colleagues know, approximately 80 percent of the people who don't have health insurance are working--one job, two jobs, three jobs, working very hard to care for their families. They have jobs. They go to work. They play by the rules. Unfortunately, health insurance is so expensive, they can't afford it or the business they work for can't afford it. We need to value the hard work these people are doing. We need to recognize and ensure that if they work for a living, they have the health insurance they need for themselves and their families.

Regrettably, this administration has been basically silent on the uninsured. When members of the administration do speak, they are negative and pessimistic about providing access to affordable health care for all Americans. For example, in January of this year, the National Academy of Sciences said that the President and Congress should work to achieve health insurance coverage for all Americans by 2010. That is a worthy goal, although I would argue too far into the future.

What was the response? The administration's top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said universal health coverage is ``not realistic . . . I don't think, administratively or legislatively, it's feasible.''

Then 2 months later Secretary Thompson went on to minimize the Nation's uninsured problem by saying:

Even if you don't have health insurance in America, you get

taken care of. That could be defined as universal health

care.

In other words, just go to the emergency room to get your health care coverage.

In fact, too many people are doing that now. Sometimes you can just get taken care of, but by the time an uninsured patient reaches the emergency room, it is often too late to provide lifesaving health care. Many of the uninsured forgo less costly preventative care and early treatments, getting sicker as what money they have goes for the rent, the car, the kids, and food.

Hospitals in Michigan indicate they have provided over $1 billion in health care for the uninsured, uncompensated care this last year. Think what we could do if we could capture that $1 billion and put it into a system that worked on the front end, that kept people healthy, that provided preventive care, that made sure they could see the doctor in his office or her office rather than having to wait for the emergency room.

We can do better than this in the greatest country in the world. I do not think we should throw in the towel. We should not say we can't do it, it is not feasible. It is time to create the will. The fact is, we can do it, if we pick the right priorities. We can do the same thing we did when we passed Social Security and Medicare--two great American success stories that have provided economic security for people as they grow older and retire and health care for older Americans and the disabled. In my book, that was all about values, about what is important. This certainly is equally important. We should be optimistic. We should join all other modern countries and make sure all Americans have access to affordable health insurance.

One of the reasons more and more families can't get health care is because the costs are spiraling out of control. In fact, from 2000 to 2003, the average annual cost of premiums doubled, making health insurance out of reach for more and more middle-income families and small businesses. In 3 years, the costs have doubled. Medical problems, in fact, were a factor in nearly half of all nonbusiness bankruptcy filings. Overall, health care costs have gone up nearly 14 percent last year. Meanwhile, workers' earnings increased by only 3 percent. You can see the hole people find themselves in.

This is the fifth year in a row premiums outpaced earnings. We all know that one of the reasons health care costs have escalated so fast is the spiraling price of prescription drugs. I

have talked frequently about this. I speak about it and focus on it because it is such a driver for the costs of health care and health insurance.

What has Congress done to fix this problem? Unfortunately, absolutely nothing. In fact, the new Medicare law failed to do anything to lower prescription drug prices. At the same time approximately 3 million retirees will actually lose their prescription drug coverage under this new law. This bill actually takes us backward instead of forward.

The only major health care coverage initiative this administration has proposed is actually for the Iraqi people. Our country has made a commitment to moving forward with universal health coverage for all Iraqi citizens. We have provided $950 million to build hospitals and clinics in Iraq.

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I certainly want to be supportive of efforts to provide health care in Iraq.

What about us? What about Americans? I also want to help American families who are working hard every day, playing by the rules in this great country, and struggling to pay their bills and care for their families. I think we can help both the people of Iraq and Americans at the same time. It is our moral obligation, I believe, to make sure we are helping American families as well as others.

Mr. President, working families deserve access to affordable care for themselves and for their families. It is going to take leadership to accomplish this. The administration has had almost 4 years to take action, and it has not.

I believe it is time for bold change. I believe that when we are looking at the price of prescription drugs, we need to take out that provision in the new Medicare law that says Medicare cannot negotiate for group discounts. That is pretty basic. We know that one of the main ways you are able to lower prescription drug prices, or the price of any product, is to be able to get a group discount. Everybody knows that. Yet, in this new Medicare law, Medicare is specifically prohibited from doing that. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the taxpayers, certainly not American seniors or the disabled, and American families certainly don't benefit from that. The prescription drug industry benefits from that. What we have seen under the new Medicare law, rather than providing lower prices for people, we have 40 million seniors who are being locked into paying top dollar, and that makes absolutely no sense.

We can do something about that. We can make changes in the Medicare law so it works for people. We can also lower prices immediately by simply allowing the local pharmacists at the local drugstores in America to be able to do business with pharmacists in Canada or other countries, where they can provide FDA-approved drugs and processes and bring the prescription drugs--actually made in America--back to America so we can get the same deal everybody else gets around the world.

We have a wonderful, bipartisan bill that has been put together. I am hopeful that we will bring it to the Senate floor as soon as possible and that we are able to pass what is called reimportation of prescription drugs and lower prices. I am very hopeful and I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Daschle's effort and vision to say that, by 2006, we are going to make a commitment that every American has access at least to the same level of health care that we receive. This is one of the few instances where employees--elected officials--have better health care and benefits than the employers. It is time to turn that around. It is time to make a commitment.

Medicare, after it was passed, was put together in 1 year. We have great American ingenuity. If we are bold and have a vision and have a right priority, we can make sure that a year from now we are talking about the implementation of health insurance for everyone that is affordable and available to every single American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also rise to oppose this amendment. I first wish to thank those involved in the underlying bill and the tax bill for focusing on major provisions for manufacturing. I thank both the Senator from Iowa, the chairman, and the Senator from Montana, for their leadership on this bill.

These tax credits in this bill relate directly to support for manufacturing. It is very important that the energy tax credits for consumers that are in this bill be passed so that we can lower purchase prices for vehicles and energy-efficient appliances and be able to help build market demand for more efficient, environmentally beneficial cars, appliances, and other products.

Many of these credits are for consumers to help lower the prices because we know until there is a large demand and large production, the prices initially will be high. That is the reason for the hybrid vehicle tax credit for consumers, alternative fuel vehicle credits for consumers, and fuel cell credits.

The Federal Government must partner with American businesses and consumers to encourage the development, purchase, and use of energy- efficient technologies, and that is what is done through these energy tax credits.

All of us want our automobiles to be more fuel efficient--and certainly, as we look at the skyrocketing gas prices, this has never been more clear--so we can be less reliant on foreign sources of energy as well, but we need to be doing those things that will encourage the production of alternative fuel vehicles to move us away from that dependency on foreign sources of energy.

U.S. automakers have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing better, cleaner technologies. For example, a hybrid version of the Ford Escape SUV, which has a fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon, will be available to consumers the end of this summer. It is very important that we put this in place as part of supporting that new effort. A hybrid electric version of the GM Sierra full-size pickup truck will also be available to consumers this year. And DaimlerChrysler will be producing a hybrid version of the Dodge Ram pickup truck starting this year as well.

These moves into alternative fuel vehicles are part of the way we move away from foreign oil dependence. We need to partner to help create that market and help give consumers the ability to purchase these vehicles in order to make them available. Developing fuel cells and other more fuel-efficient technologies really does require a partnership with the Federal Government and with industry. In order to achieve maximum fuel efficiency, the Federal Government must take the role as partner, along with our companies, engineers, and workers, to make this happen. That is what the energy tax credits for fuel- efficient vehicles in this bill do.

I should also indicate that it is necessary to invest in infrastructure, such

as hydrogen refueling stations, to support the development of fuel cell technology. Again, there are tax credits in this bill that allow that to happen.

There are other important provisions, of course, for ethanol, of which I am very supportive, as well as the efforts to address energy- efficient appliances. Again, we have consumer tax credits in this bill to help encourage the purchase and the development of energy-efficient appliances as well as items related to the home.

Mr. President, I will strongly oppose this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join in a bipartisan way to defeat it.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize a remarkable man and his organization--Mr. Tony Filippis, Sr. and the Athletes with Disabilities Hall of Fame.

Winston Churchill once remarked, ``We shall draw from the heart of suffering itself the means of inspiration and survival.''

And that is exactly what Mr. Filippis did.

When tragedy struck in 1929, Mr. Filippis found inspiration not only for

himself, but also for the 1.7 million disabled persons living in my home State of Michigan. Seventy-five years ago, almost to the day, Mr. Filippis's legs were mangled in a train accident, forcing amputation.

Frustrated by the discrimination plaguing him in the years that followed, he sought change. And change he found.

Mr. Filippis accepted a position as the apprentice of Carl Wright, who worked for a company that made his prosthetic legs; 10 years later they founded their own company, Wright & Filippis.

Since its founding, Wright & Filippis has grown into one of the only companies in the United States that offers complete equipment services for the disabled, from state-of-the-art prosthetic limbs to public education about rehabilitation.

More remarkably, however, is what Mr. Filippis has done for the spirit of the disabled community in Michigan. In June 1999, he founded the Athletes with Disabilities Hall of Fame.

Annually, the Hall of Fame recognizes the top Male and Female Athletes of the Year, as well as identifying a Lifetime Achievement Award winner and other Hall of Fame inductees.

The Hall of Fame, however, does more than recognize the immense athletic achievement of Michiganians with disabilities. It also tells their stories so that other people with disabilities can draw strength and inspiration from them.

It tells stories of people like Cheryl Angelelli who, despite being confined to a wheelchair due to spinal cord damage, has proven herself a formidable opponent in a swimming pool.

Among other achievements, she claimed a national title with one gold and four silver medals at the 1999 U.S. National Disability Championships. Ranking 10th in the world and second in the U.S. in the 100-meter breast stroke and the 200-meter individual medley, she earned a spot on the paralympic swimming team for the 2000 Games in Sydney, Australia.

It tells stories of people who also give back to their community. Ms. Angelelli is a member of several advisory councils for people with disabilities and her expertise is sought by the management of concert halls and stadiums on how to make their venues more accessible to their disabled patrons.

In the manner that Churchill called for, Mr. Filippis took his painful experience of discrimination and used it as fuel to try to prevent those with disabilities today from feeling the same sense of alienation he had. Through his organization, others with disabilities can be honored for their achievement and be a source of motivation to others.

We appreciate his hard work and thank him.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Medicare law that we passed and the newly announced Medicare discount card.

I, first, raise deep concerns about a recent report that has come forward from the Congressional Research Service which was made public yesterday. I read from an AP story and report made public on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that efforts to keep Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, from giving lawmakers his projections of the Medicare bill's costs--$100 billion more than the President and other officials were acknowledging--probably violated Federal law.

It goes on to say:

Foster testified in March that he was prevented by then

Medicare administrator, Thomas Scully, from turning over

information to lawmakers. Scully, in a letter to the House

Ways and Means Committee, said he told Foster ``I, as his

supervisor, would decide when he would communicate with

Congress.''

Congressional researchers chided the move. Such gag orders have been expressly prohibited by Federal law since 1912, Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney, wrote in the report.

I hope we are going to pursue this. We have a specific report indicating the administration may have violated a law that has been in place since 1912 that relates to information not given to us about the Medicare bill and about an employee, a Medicare actuary, who was told he could not share information, even though that was his job, even though he was asked to do so, another very troubling part of the whole Medicare saga as we look at this legislation.

Sadly, our seniors now must endure another major disappointment as they cope with the implementation of last year's flawed Medicare bill. Since the final agreement was hashed out in the middle of the night last year, seniors across this country have heard more and more frustrating news about the new Medicare law. The latest is the new Medicare discount card or, as some would say, nondiscount card.

Prior to the launch of the prescription drug card Web site last week, seniors discovered one outrage after another. First, they found out this bill had an undesirable benefit. For example, if you have $5,100 in prescription drug costs in a year, you still have to pay 80 percent of that--over $4,000. That is not the kind of benefit people in Michigan desire. When the benefit is explained to them in public forums where I have been participating, people are very upset. This is not the kind of benefit they have been asking for.

Second, they began to understand this legislation will undermine private health insurance and almost 3 million retirees will lose their private prescription drug coverage. About 183,000 people in Michigan, as a result of this bill, are predicted to lose the private coverage they worked for their whole lives and count on now in retirement.

Third, they realize approximately 6 million low-income seniors will have to pay more under this new plan than they did under their existing Medicaid coverage or their coverage will be more restrictive. Think of that for a minute. For the folks who are lowest income seniors, whom we all speak about having to choose between food and medicine, under this new law they will have to pay more--maybe only a little bit more, but every dollar counts when you are choosing between food, medicine, paying the electric bill, or cutting pills in half or taking them every other day. It is astounding the bill that was passed actually increased the costs for our poorest seniors.

Fourth, our seniors discovered there were no provisions to actually lower the prices of prescription drugs. That is amazing. Despite the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passing a bipartisan prescription drug reimportation bill to open the borders and bring back lower priced prescription drugs--

in most cases, American-made or American-subsidized drugs--instead of that, which would lower the costs of some drugs up to 70 percent, it was summarily dropped in conference committee under pressure from the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby.

Fifth, at the last minute, the pharmaceutical companies pressured their allies in Congress to put in a provision that actually prohibits Medicare from negotiating bulk prices. Amazing. We are not even using the full leverage of Medicare to negotiate group prices. As a result, the Medicare Program cannot use its market power to get lower prices for prescription drugs, unlike the VA. We all know the Veterans' Administration negotiates deep discounts on behalf of our veterans. We actually have a situation now in the case of a husband and wife who are retired. The husband is a veteran and he is getting a major discount, possibly up to 40-percent discount in his prescription drug prices, and his wife, who is on Medicare, has to pay higher rates. That is not fair and it is not right. It needs to be fixed.

Sixth, a month after the bill was signed, all Americans discovered the administration deliberately hid certain cost estimates from Congress and the American people. These figures contain what some thought all along, that this bill would cost more than the $400 billion projected. Perhaps the lack of any provisions to help lower prices led to its higher cost. And now we hear from the Congressional Research Service that, in fact, the administration has likely broken the law in keeping that information from us.

Finally, to add insult to injury, our seniors are now seeing political television commercials promoting the new Medicare Program, paid for by American taxpayers, during the middle of an election campaign, and the ads are not accurate. The ads are not accurate and complete and they leave out some of the biggest problems with our new private card.

Let me speak now specifically to the card. First of all, this chart is not meant to be a joke. This demonstrates 50 different steps in the process of getting a Medicare prescription drug card. You do not necessarily have to take all 50 steps, but it is a very confusing process to wade through over 30 different cards to determine whether one of them is best for you. Your region may have access to other regions and may be able to apply for very complicated low-income assistance. I should say the low-income assistance is the one positive in this card. If you do manage to move through the complexity and a senior or a disabled person does qualify, it does provide $600 to help them pay for medication. This is very positive.

The Families USA study looked at this and indicated the application process for low-income drug subsidies is unusually cumbersome and is built on an untried application infrastructure. As a result, they estimate of the 7.2 million low-income seniors who would actually be eligible for the extra help--and we want each and every one of them to receive it--only 4.7 million will actually receive it because of this complexity.

The latest development is misleading. These so-called discount cards may actually mean higher prices also for seniors than they would otherwise get now without any new Medicare Program.

For example, seniors can get lower prices for prescription drugs by simply getting their prescriptions filled through a number of sources they have right now. There are a number of very good county programs in Michigan that I encourage seniors and families to take a look at that cost less than the Medicare discount card and actually provide more benefit.

We also found by a study just completed in the House of Representatives that purchasing through the Internet can be a less costly way to receive discounts. Let me give an example. Go to a Web site for the top 10 most used drugs by our seniors, for example, at drugstore.com. The yearly cost is $959. There is no annual fee. The total cost would be $959. Two other Web sites, the same thing: $990 and $993. If you go to one of two of the over 30 different private Medicare discount cards, one is called RXSavings, to get the same 10 drugs, supposedly at a discount, would cost more--$1,046, and you have to pay an annual fee of $29.95 in order to have the privilege to pay more. The end result would be $1,075.95. The same is true with Pharmacy Care Alliance. It costs you more than what is out there right now as discount cards, but you have to pay $19 to get the card, and in the end you are paying more. This is not a good deal for our seniors.

Let me give another example and actually suggest what we ought to be doing. I should mention that the average discount card is $30 for a senior. You have to have it for a year, and even though you cannot change your card for a year, the company giving you the card can change the list of the drugs that are discounted every 7 days. So you look at all the complexity, through all the cards, you pick the card that covers the drugs you use because you need that discounted amount, you pay your $30, and then 7 days later the drugs you need are not on that card anymore. This is not a good deal for our seniors.

What is a good deal for our seniors is legislation we have in front of us right now to allow us to open the border to safe FDA-approved prescription drugs coming back to our local pharmacy from Canada or other countries with similar safety precautions where we can literally drop prices in half. That is a good deal.

We have a bipartisan bill in front of us. A very large coalition of Senators has been working together. It is time to bring that bill forward to the Senate floor and to pass it.

Now, why is that better? Well, as an example, under one of the private cards, after you purchase your private card, Lipitor is listing at $71.19. It costs you $74.72 to get it under another card. But if we simply passed that bill, it would allow us to bring back those lower prices from Canada to the local pharmacy. You could pay $49.85. That is true over and over.

The real way to lower prices is to allow us to get the lowest price, whether it is in Canada or the U.S. or other countries where we can make sure that the safety is there, and bring back the prescription drugs to our local pharmacy. The other way is to give Medicare the clout to truly negotiate, as the VA does, to be able to lower prices for our seniors.

This law has so many flaws. I believe we ought to go back to the drawing board. We need to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit. We can do so before the law takes effect in 2006. We can do better. I encourage our seniors to think very carefully and cautiously before proceeding with one of these private discount cards.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Great Lakes Community Restoration Act.

Before I discuss the bill, I want to say that it is extremely fitting that we are discussing the restoration of the Great Lakes, because today is Earth

Day. Earth Day is a time to reflect on the environmental gains we have made, and to challenge ourselves with a new environmental commitment for the future. Our environmental and natural resources are not merely important, they are vital to our future health and survival. The Great Lakes are one of our Nation's most precious and vital natural resources. I believe it is extremely important that we have a strong Federal, State and local commitment to protect them.

The Great Lakes contain one-fifth of the world's fresh water, and supply safe drinking water to thirty-three million people, including 10 million people who rely on Lake Michigan alone. The Great Lakes' coastlines are home to wetlands, dunes, and endangered plants and species. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year for recreation, enjoying beaches, good fishing and boating. The latest estimate shows that recreational fishing totals a $1.5 billion boost to Michigan's tourist economy alone.

However, it takes a real Federal, State, and local partnership to maintain this critical natural resource. Unfortunately, there are several environmental threats to the Great Lakes that we need to address. These include cleaning up contaminated sediments and pollutants that are affecting the Great Lakes ecosystem. During last year's electricity blackout, 650 pounds of vinyl chloride were dumped into the St. Clair River. This past February, another serious chemical spill occurred, dumping approximately 42,000 gallons of methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone into the river, and forcing the shutdown of 10 drinking water plants. Last summer alone, 81 beaches in Michigan were closed due to elevated E coli levels. This contamination affects our water supply, our recreation and tourism, and Michigan's overall economy.

The Great Lakes have also been inundated with invasive species. Over the past century, more than 87 non-indigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes. They have damaged the lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water. For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago has fed-on and greatly contributed to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes. Today, lake trout must be stocked because it cannot naturally reproduce in the lakes. These invasive species also cause damage to our community water and sewer systems.

Michigan also is home to over 120 lighthouses, more than any other State in the Nation. The oldest Michigan lighthouses date back to the 1820s. These lighthouses are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and cultural history. Unfortunately, many of our lighthouses are poorly maintained and in grave need of repair. In order to preserve our history and heritage of the Great Lakes, it is imperative that we maintain our lighthouses.

As I mentioned before, protecting the Great Lakes requires a coordinated effort at all levels of government. However, our local communities are the ones who are immediately affected by these problems, both environmentally and economically.

That is why I have introduced the Great Lakes Community Restoration Act. The Act will provide $400 million directly to local communities to help protect and restore the Great Lakes coastal region. NOAA will award the grant for local projects, such as repair of sewer systems damaged by invasive species, lighthouse restoration, and the local cleanup of water pollution and sediments.

Protecting the Great Lakes requires a Federal, State and local partnership, and this Act will provide local communities with the resources they need to continue their vital stewardship of the Great Lakes.

No.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important topic this evening. But I first want to commend and concur with the Senator from North Carolina in terms of our support for our troops. I think this is such a critical time. It is such a challenging, dangerous time for our men and women who are serving us now, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us, 100 percent of this body, and I know the House, as well as the administration, join together in saluting, commending, and sending our prayers to them every single day.

I also wish to give my respect and honor and support to all of our men and women who are serving us.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a subject that I have certainly spoken about before on the Senate floor. This is an issue of great concern, an issue that is

near and dear to my heart, and that is the question of Medicare. Right now, though, too many people are calling the new Medicare law that we passed ``Medigate'' because of all of the issues that have come forward, both in implementing the new law and in issues that relate to what we knew, what was withheld from us, all of the information and inaccuracies in fact that have come forward since passing this legislation.

I am very concerned, as I have indicated on many occasions, that the new law includes provisions that would undermine Medicare as we know it; that many beneficiaries would be worse off, either losing their coverage or paying more under the new Medicare law. To add insult to injury, this new law does nothing to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Every day, as we look more closely at what some are calling Medigate, over and over again we find there are new concerns about the Medicare bill. Senator Bob Graham spoke earlier, and I commend him as a champion of protecting Medicare. Throughout his tenure in the Senate, he has been a thoughtful and passionate champion on this issue.

He spoke about Richard Foster, who was threatened that if he told us the real numbers on what it would cost, he would be fired. Now we see charges and countercharges, questions being raised about what is happening.

Sadly, we have heard this same story repeated over and over again in different ways about people who had the courage to stand up and disagree with the current administration, or, in this case, a career public servant who was just trying to do his job and give us the information to which we had the right and, in fact, needed to know before we passed this Medicare bill.

As I have indicated in expressing my concerns, we started out with a bill that would provide a real, comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, a bill that would lower prices for everyone, and we ended up with neither of those things. Instead, we ended up with a bill that is focused on helping the pharmaceutical industry increase their profits and on helping the insurance industry.

This bill is a bad bill for Americans. It is a bad law for American seniors, the disabled, and for our families. So I have chosen to put together what I call the ABCs on Medicare in terms of what has happened and what the concerns are in the areas that we need to work together to change before this takes effect in 2006. I call it the ABCs of the new Medicare plan.

First, A is for the attacks on Medicare through privatization in this bill. Secondly, it is a bad benefit. It is not a good benefit for seniors. There is a large gap in coverage. There are high out-of-pocket costs. There are uncertain premiums. We know the premiums will be going up.

Coverage loss is another issue. We know that 2.7 million retirees will lose prescription drug coverage in private plans. These are people who had plans; they worked hard all their lives; they retired; they may have given up a pay raise in order to make sure they had retiree health care coverage. We know that 2.7 million of them or 1 out of 4 people with private retirement plans right now will lose them. They will be dropped from coverage because of the way this benefit is designed.

We also know the discount cards are of little help. I will speak more on that in a moment, but one piece that I thought was going to actually help people was a discount card, a discount of anywhere between 10 percent and 25 percent. Now there are serious questions being raised about whether there will be any real discount for people in the end.

Finally, this law eliminates provisions to lower prices.

When we look at this privatization of Medicare with bad benefits-- some people lose their coverage, the discount cards are not what were advertised, and the fact that we see no provisions to lower prices--I suggest we ought to start over and make sure we get it right. We have time to do that.

The attacks on Medicare through privatization--what does that mean? We know a couple of things. We know what will happen in 6 short years. Mr. President, 2010 sounds like a long time away. It is 6 years from now. In 2010, for people in 10 different demonstration areas--we don't know where they will be, but in 10 areas around the country--if folks want to stay in traditional Medicare they are going to end up paying more. In fact, in those areas, we find that CBO says it could cost up to 25 percent more to stay in traditional Medicare. Others will be forced into private HMOs.

How is this going to work? In 2010, for people who are in this demonstration area, Medicare will change from a defined benefit to a defined contribution. What does that mean? It means instead of having the same Medicare wherever you go--which, by the way, is what the ad says, ``same Medicare, more benefits''--it will not be true for people in these areas. The Secretary of Health and Human Services indicated he did not know if the ad would be true: Same Medicare, more benefits.

In fact, it is not true for people in these areas around the country because what will happen is instead of having your same Medicare with the same premium and copay anywhere you live anywhere within Michigan, whether it is Upper Peninsula, Grand Rapids, Detroit, or Lansing, or Mississippi, Texas, or Minnesota, instead of knowing what you have and being able to pick your own doctor, for folks in these demonstration areas this will become a defined contribution.

Essentially, they will be given the equivalent of a voucher for a certain amount of money; then Medicare beneficiaries can decide whether they want to go to an HMO, whether they want to go to a private insurance company, or whether they want to stay in traditional Medicare. If the costs go up of going into a private plan, the individual would have to pay the difference. If the person stays in traditional Medicare, again it is anticipated that the costs will go up by 25 percent.

Why is that? If you are healthy, you are younger, wealthier, so you don't mind taking a risk that your costs are going to go up. You probably can get a deal in a private plan, particularly if you are healthier and younger, so you will get a better rate.

Folks who are older, more disabled, sicker won't be able to get a very good rate from private insurance companies. Instead they will stay in traditional Medicare. Fewer people in traditional Medicare, the cost is not spread as far, the risk pool is not as big--therefore, costs go up.

What we see is an effort, in just 6 short years, to demonstrate in 10 areas around the country a different kind of system that puts the risk and the possibility of increased costs on the senior citizen, on the disabled. It begins to unravel Medicare as we know it.

I believe that is by design. I believe when Newt Gingrich said we can't directly eliminate Medicare but we are going to let it ``wither on the vine,'' when he made those comments a number of years ago, I think that is exactly the kind of thing he was talking about in these demonstration projects. As I have indicated, we know the costs of Medicare will go up by about 25 percent as a result of this.

Why would we want to do this? The reality is Medicare costs less to administer in terms of health services than private plans. We know that. The Congressional Budget Office says it costs 13.2 percent more money to go through an HMO right now, or private plan, than it does to stay in traditional Medicare. We also know Medicare is more cost efficient. Only 2 percent of Medicare expenditures are used for administrative costs. The private sector spends about 15-percent administrative costs.

We have a system that works; it is efficient; it doesn't cost much to administer; and everybody gets covered. This is a great thing. Medicare is a great American success story. If you are 65 or older or you are disabled in this country, we have set as a priority, as an American value, that we want to make sure our people have health care in this country. We want to make sure we don't forget our seniors, forget those who are disabled. A system was put together that worked.

Instead of celebrating that system, there is an effort now to dismantle it, unravel it, and to help do that in this bill. This bill would overpay private plans by $46 billion so they can compete more easily. Right now, most people aren't picking private HMOs through Medicare+Choice. To make them more attractive, $46 billion that could be spent to lower prescription

drug prices is being given to private companies and HMOs so they can more effectively compete with Medicare.

There is also a slush fund of $12 billion for private companies in this bill. It doesn't go to paying for prescription drugs; it goes to subsidize the insurance industry so they can compete more effectively, even though right now we know we would save money if we put a prescription drug benefit through Medicare as we know it and beefed up a system that is already working.

Second, this is a bad benefit. In fact, I wish this was a good benefit. We all want to have the very best benefit possible for our seniors. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where, first of all, those with a very low income, who are under Medicaid right now and will be moved over to Medicare, may actually find themselves paying more because the copays are higher. Think about that. Folks who are choosing between food and medicine, the folks we have all talked about when we went home under this bill, actually may pay more than staying with the current system we have right now.

There are some folks who will receive some assistance, but first they will need to pay $35 a month in premiums, in fees. In order to be exempt from that, that person will have to qualify as low income and have less than $6,000 in assets. Think about that. That is not that much money. Someone would have to have less than $6,000 in assets to be able to qualify for the low-income benefit and not have to pay the premiums or the copays.

But assuming someone is having to pay, assuming $35 a month, a $250 deductible, then after someone has paid $250 they would have a 25- percent copay on any prescription drugs they purchased up until a total of $2,250.

But after you have spent $2,250 in prescription drug costs out of your pocket, you have to continue to pay the premium but get no help paying for your medicine until you reach $5,100 in drug spending. That is a huge gap. Some call it a donut hole. It is a huge gap. You have to continue to pay. You don't get any help.

What does that mean in the end? It means in the end you are paying $4,050 out of pocket when you have a prescription drug bill totaling $5,100. So your drug bills are $5,100 and of that you are paying $4,050. You are still paying 80 percent. We can do better than that. That is a bad benefit for our seniors.

Let me also speak about the loss of coverage. We have 2.7 million retirees who will lose coverage because they have a private retiree coverage right now through their business, and the way it is designed it will not allow that to continue. The incentive will not be there for the business to continue this even though folks have worked their whole lives to make sure they had coverage when they retired. That was part of their benefit plan, part of their salary, and what they have worked for their entire life.

Yes. I will gladly yield to my friend from Illinois.

Yes. What we are finding--and certainly when we started, we wanted the baseline to do no harm. We shouldn't have people worse off than they are now after we passed this. Yet 1 out of 4 retirees, or 2.7 million retirees, will find themselves in that situation, according to the estimates.

It is stunning, actually. I am so glad the Senator raised that issue. My mother raised it with me after listening to the debate. The first thing she said to me after this was passed was, You are telling me I can't have my Medigap policy. There is a huge hole in the middle of it. There is no coverage. This particular law says under your own choice you cannot voluntarily go out and buy a Medigap policy. It makes absolutely no sense.

That is correct. There is only one group that benefits from that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

What we have in this new law adds insult to injury. Not only could we keep the system which everybody knows about, which is the traditional Medicare, we could have done a traditional prescription drug benefit through Medicare. It is less expensive. It is more efficient. We could have provided a better benefit. But on top of that, Medicare is not allowed to use their clout to negotiate lower prices. The VA does it.

We know if we were to negotiate on behalf of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, we could dramatically bring down the price. The problem is the pharmaceutical industry knows that, too, and they were successful, unfortunately, with their six lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate to get that language in this bill.

That is one of the things that disappoints me more than anything else about what happened. I certainly have not heard from Michigan AARP members saying they support this plan. In fact, after local chapters in Michigan found out the details, they have been writing letters to the national AARP indicating they do not support this.

This is something that in no way, in my humble opinion, should have ever been supported by the AARP.

First of all, it is very simple, I think. They don't want people to know the real facts about this new law. They want to be able to put ads on television that say same ``Medicare, but more benefits'' when, in fact, it is not the same Medicare, and certainly by 2010 it is not the same Medicare with more benefits. Some people won't be able in fact to be able to get those additional benefits. They are pushing out 2 years the implementation hoping they can campaign now and people will not really see what is taking effect.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Thank you very much. I thank my friend from Illinois.

I would simply also go on to say one of the things I find deeply disturbing is while seniors have to wait for whatever meager benefits are in this bill, $46 billion has begun to be spent and given to HMOs to subsidize this effort now. Money is being spent from the Medicare bill we passed, but it is not being spent on helping people be able to pay for their medicine, which is another outrage, frankly, in this legislation.

Let me speak to one other issue. It is true, we see nothing in here that will allow Medicare to negotiate group prices.

There is one thing we thought was going to be helpful this year, a discount card. We were told it would provide from a 10-percent to 25- percent discount on prescription drugs. These are going to be available in the next couple of months.

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, the prescription drug provision for our seniors and the disabled increased 3.5 times faster than the overall rate of inflation in 2002. The prices for prescription drugs has increased more than 3.5 times the rate of inflation in the last year and a half. In fact, Families USA has done a study looking at the price increases that have occurred since the passage of the bill.

This is of great concern to me because it appears seniors may get some help. But will they really? Let me demonstrate why I wonder. I will show the savings in two ways.

We were told it would be either a 10-percent savings through a discount card or up to 25 percent. If we start with 10 percent, we have seen an increase in Celebrex of 23 percent. A 10-percent decrease with a discount card, you still see a price increase of 13 percent.

Seniors are asked to pay $30 for this discount card and they can only change it once. Deeply disturbing to me, a senior may decide: I take Celebrex and I need as much of a discount as I can receive. I will pay my $30 for this year. But the folks administering this can change which drugs are on the discount list every 7 days. So somebody pays their $30, scrapes that together in order to be able to get some meager help, and then they find out next week Celebrex is not on the list. Or next week Lipitor is not on the list, or Zoloft or Zocor. So the seniors are locked in but those administering the program are not locked in.

For whom is this bill written? For whom are the regulations written? I argue, not our seniors but for the prescription drug industry.

If it is a 10-percent discount, given the increases that have been going on--anywhere from 15, 16, 19, to 23 percent--seniors are not really getting a discount if it is a 10-percent discount. That is like right before a sale, the store you go to buy your tires from increases the cost of the tires 25 percent, then they put a sign in the window that says 10 percent off. That is what we are concerned about.

Now, if it is a 25-percent discount, which would be much better, even with a 25-percent discount card, if Celebrex has gone up 23 percent, it means seniors are really getting only a 2-percent discount. Or Lipitor, going up 19 percent, you are getting only a 6-percent discount. On and on and on.

There is another area Families USA raised which is of great concern. First, they say it is difficult to know what kind of a discount you are getting if you do not know the base price. That is what we are seeing. We are seeing the base price go up so it is tougher to get a real discount.

Second, we know under the discount card program the sponsors of the cards are required to pass along to our seniors only a position of the share of the rebate they get from the drug manufacturers. Let's say they negotiate a 30-percent discount. They do not have to pass all of that on to the senior. Instead, they can use that as profits to them.

There are a lot of issues that relate to this, a lot of concerns. In fact, Senator Daschle has introduced a bill, which I cosponsored, that requires that savings be passed on to the senior.

The regulations under this discount card foster a number of bait-and- switch schemes by the sponsors that I talked about before. They are locked in, they cannot change, or they can only change once, yet every 7 days the product being discounted can change.

There is a positive aspect, a $600 credit for low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are placed on the discount card. If you qualify, you get essentially up to $600 which you can use to purchase prescription drugs. That is a positive feature. However, my concern is, given the regulations and the certification process to qualify for low income, and the fact you have to have less than $6,000 in assets, too many people will not qualify for something that was put in place to help.

There is something we could do, something that was not in this bill, something that would make a difference. There is bipartisan support. Instead of dealing with the discount cards and the prescription drug prices that are going up three and four times the rate of inflation, meaning there is not a real discount, real help for people, if we join together, colleagues on both sides of the aisle are supporting this, and allow the pharmacist at the local drugstore in Lansing, Detroit, or Grand Rapids, or Marquette, to be able to do business with a local pharmacist in Canada or other countries that have similar safety provisions as the United States, we could really drop prices in half on Celebrex.

Instead of figuring out these discount cards, seniors having to pay a $30 fee in order to receive them, we simply do what should have been done sometime ago, something that can be done safely, if we had simply allowed the local pharmacist to be able to do business with a pharmacist in Canada.

I talk about Canada because that is the easiest and closest for me in Michigan. I have taken a number of bus trips with seniors to Canada. We could drop prices 50 percent. We could drop the price of Lipitor 40 percent; Zoloft, 37 percent; Prevacid, 50 percent; Zocor, 47 percent.

For women with breast cancer, and I had the opportunity to take a number of women to Canada who are on Tamoxifen, this is most startling. It costs $340 in the United States for a month of breast cancer medication. Women can receive that same drug in Canada for $39. There are things we can do.

In conclusion, while I believe the Medicare law passed did not end up being a bill in the best interests of our seniors, the disabled, or the taxpayers of this country because of the inability

to lower prices, I do believe there are things we can do. There are things we can do together. One of those would be to open the opportunity for local pharmacists to bring down prescription drug prices at a huge discount for our seniors. I am hopeful we will bring that up together in the Senate. I believe we can get that done while we are in the process of fixing this Medicare law.

Mr. President, I rise to join so many of my colleagues and friends in paying tribute to the great Senator from West Virginia. As my friend from Illinois indicated, we are praising and honoring him today not just for the number of votes he has cast but for the courage of his votes. It is one thing to cast 17,000 votes; it is another to look at the quality and the integrity behind those votes.

So I join with my colleagues in saying thank you to Senator Byrd. I was proud to join with Senator Byrd as he spoke out on the Iraq resolution and what our role in the Senate should be and is.

I went home, as did my colleagues, and over and over again people asked me did I know Senator Byrd; did I work with Senator Byrd; listen to what he is saying because he is speaking for all of us.

I also thank Senator Byrd for helping me as one of the 12 Members who came in 2000. When we were in the majority, we had the opportunity to preside over the Senate, and I am very grateful for all I learned about the Senate, about the process, about the importance of being dutiful in our responsibilities, and also about the important role we play in governing our country. I will forever be grateful to Senator Byrd for the lessons that I have learned and continue to learn.

One of the most wonderful images I have of being in the Senate actually occurred during orientation when I was first elected and coming here in December of 2000. I had the opportunity to invite my son to join me in the Old Senate Chamber where we heard from Senator Byrd, some wonderful, eloquent words and stories from the early days in the Senate. It was captivating. It was inspirational. It was motivating. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to share with my son, the new venture I was undertaking and the responsibilities I was undertaking as a Senator from Michigan.

I thank the great Senator from West Virginia for his friendship, for his courage, for his role in the Senate in helping us to understand our responsibilities and our duties to the country.