John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is an important yet a sad day for our Nation because it represents the 85th day that our fighting men and women in uniform have been waiting for emergency aid from the Congress. Yet they have been left waiting because of political gamesmanship and political theater in Washington, DC. The latest is reported in the Congressional Quarterly today, an article I have here in my hand-- actually the date is April 30, 2007, 10:45 p.m., entitled: ``President's Veto Dependent on House Speaker's Signature.'' The report is that Congresswoman Pelosi wanted time to personally read the emergency supplemental bill and to sign it before sending it to Pennsylvania Avenue. I would have thought that Congresswoman Pelosi and Members of Congress would have read legislation before they voted on it, not afterwards. Also, in today's edition of The Hill, there is a story that says: Congressional leaders today will put an exclamation point on their political showdown with President Bush on Iraq spending, staging a signing event to send their Iraq supplemental bill to the White House. I don't think this is Congress's finest hour, and I think it is an embarrassment that when our troops are waiting on an emergency spending bill to provide them essential equipment, we are staging signing ceremonies and going through political kabuki theater just to demonstrate on the part of some their disagreement on the present strategy in Baghdad and in Iraq. I think it is inappropriate and irresponsible. I know one of our colleagues here has talked about, for example, the MRAP vehicles, the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Prevented V-shaped hull vehicles that are awaiting $3.1 billion in spending in this appropriations bill to get those to the Marines and Army in Iraq, something that has proven, in the hands of the Marines, to be very resistant to the improvised explosive devices. They save lives. That is one example, one concrete example of funding for equipment that is being held up because Congress continues to dither and play political games now 85 days after the President has requested this funding for our troops. The bill that will--after this so-called signing ceremony and after this reading of the bill after it has passed rather than before it was passed exercise--be sent to the President and he will veto it is simply unacceptable. Why? For two reasons. First of all, because it imposes arbitrary timelines on our generals in Iraq, including GEN David Petraeus, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, who was here last week to explain the progress that is being made in places such as Al Anbar Province, west of Iraq, which has been controlled by al-Qaida for some time now, and we are finally starting to see some real, concrete improvements being made there. We are seeing the local sheiks offering troops to supplement Iraqi police officers and the Iraqi Army to fight al-Qaida--the same organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11--right in Iraq. That is good news. We are beginning to see some real security measures going forward. So why we would have Congress tie the hands of General Petraeus and these successful efforts in Al Anbar Province, west of Baghdad, controlled by al-Qaida, and why Congress would want to tie the hands of our military leaders at a time when we are seeing some real improvement there is, frankly, beyond me. Why would we simply give up when we are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel? Then, of course, there is the second matter of providing porkbarrel spending in order to secure the votes of some Members of the House for this bill that they would not support on the merits. It is completely demeaning to our troops and the nobility of their sacrifice, not to mention the sacrifice of the military families who wait anxiously hoping their loved one will return from the fight only to be told that Congress is causing unnecessary delays in this spending--85 days now-- putting arbitrary timelines on the troops, making it harder for them to succeed, denying them the equipment necessary for their very safety, while Congress engages in more porkbarrel spending in order to secure a political consensus for this ill-considered piece of legislation. The bill, on its way to the President after this kabuki theater, substitutes congressional mandates for the considered judgments of our military leaders. This bill assumes and forces the failure of a new strategy, which is only halfway implemented. The new Baghdad security plan to back up Iraqi forces in Baghdad to implement the clear hold- and-build strategy that GEN David Petraeus is the architect of as part of our counterinsurgency measures is only halfway deployed. Only half of the troops that are a part of this so-called surge are on the ground. While we are seeing some progress, we are also seeing some increased violence and, unfortunately, deaths as a result of meeting the enemy in places where previously they were safe and secure because we could not even go into places such as Sadar City, which was controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who has since left to go to Tehran. He has left the country because he is afraid of the American and Iraqi military forces joining together. He has instructed the Shiite militias, one of the major causes of death squads and violence and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, to lay down their arms. What is there not to like about that kind of progress? Yet Congress, thousands of miles away in the safety and comfort of the Senate Chamber and our offices, is undermining the good efforts that are going forward in Iraq. While no one believes success is assured, we know, in the words of General Petraeus: The mission is hard, but it is not hopeless. The only thing that would make it hopeless is if Congress continues to undermine General Petraeus and our troops who are in harm's way. It boggles my mind that we have that sort of mindset in Washington, DC because of some rabid, antiwar, left-leaning groups that insist we ought to simply tuck our tail and run. They haven't come up with an adequate explanation as to what they think would happen if we were to leave precipitously, as some of them suggest. I happen to believe that notwithstanding the fact that Darfur, where 400,000 people at last count have died as a result of terrible violence there, would pale compared to the ethnic cleansing and the violence that would follow if America were to betray our Iraqi allies and would leave precipitously. It would also create a regional conflict where Sunni majority nations would come in and try to stave off the Shiites from Iran for helping them and trying to prevent them from killing the Sunni minority there. The Democratic leadership has not helped the situation in Iraq with their recent pronouncements either. Democratic leadership in recent floor statements has suggested that if the President vetoes this bill, then he will be the one endangering the troops. They further stated they hope the President would realize that with his pen in hand he can honor soldiers, honor his country, and bring an end to this war. To that I say baloney. That is sheer fantasy that by cutting and running, by neglecting our allies in Iraq, by neglecting the improvements we have been able to make, by recruiting tribal sheiks to help us in fighting al-Qaida, that somehow, by giving up on that, we are going to bring an end to the violence and the death in Iraq. To the contrary, we would create a failed state where al-Qaida, the very same people who hit this country on September 11, 2001, could reorganize, train, and recruit, and export future terrorist attacks to the United States. I am chilled by comments made a few months ago when I attended a ceremony where the Deputy Secretary of Defense spoke. He asked rhetorically: Do you know why al-Qaida killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, DC? Then he answered his own question. He said: Because they could not kill 30,000, because they could not kill 3 million. His point is if they had the kind of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons they are seeking, they would have killed thousands--perhaps hundreds of thousands more innocent Americans. And they will do that at will if they are provided that sort of weaponry. So it is sheer naivete on the part of those who say all we need to do is leave and somehow these people will go away. They will not go away and they will visit us here again with deadly results. With General Petraeus back from Iraq for the first time last week since he assumed command of U.S. forces, and the emergency supplemental, I hope, reaching the President later today, it is appropriate to reflect on the majority leader's statement, where he said we have ``lost the war.'' Two weeks ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from GEN Barry McCaffrey, a proven combat commander from the first gulf war, and a recognized expert on the tactical, operational, and strategic situation in Iraq. I will quote for a moment from his statement. He said: The consequences of failure in Iraq will be a disaster to the American people and our allies if we cannot achieve our objective to create a stable, law-based state at peace with its neighbors. . . . We have 150,000 U.S. troops battling in Iraq and 22,000 fighting bravely in Afghanistan. These are the finest, most courageous military men and women we have ever fielded in battle. Their commanders--who have almost without exception at company, battalion, and brigade level served multiple combat tours--are the most capable leaders that I have encountered in my many years of watching our Armed Forces with admiration. He goes on to say: Our new leadership team in Iraq--our brilliant new commander, General David Petraeus, and the equally experienced Ambassador Ryan Crocker--are launched on a new approach to use political reconciliation, new methods and equipment to strengthen the Iraqi security forces and enhanced U.S. combat protective power to stabilize the situation. We must give them time and space. That is exactly what we are trying to do, to provide the basic security General Petraeus said is necessary, but not sufficient, to solve the problem. I submit our colleagues who have said General Petraeus said there is no military solution in Iraq are not listening to what he is saying, because what he has said is that improving our security situation is necessary but not sufficient. It is not a question of whether we are going to do the security part or the political reconciliation part. One must precede the other. It makes common sense that it is hard to sit down and work out your differences around a conference table in a political debate, or an attempt at reconciliation, if people are driving automobile-borne improvised explosive devices or people are walking into the Parliament in a suicide vest. So security must precede the political reconciliation that we all recognize is so absolutely important. That is what General Petraeus is saying. That is what we have to accomplish. We have some hopeful signs in Iraq now, for the first time in a long time, as a result of this new strategy that is only about half way implemented. But if we are going to succeed, it won't be because our commanders have had their hands tied by arbitrary deadlines in Washington, DC. It won't be because of the political theater going on here 85 days after the President had requested the emergency spending included in this bill for necessary equipment for our troops. The leadership should sign this legislation and get it to the President so he can veto it and we can get down to the serious business of providing for our troops. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, call up amendment 902, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor. Yhe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I told the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, it is my intention to withdraw this amendment following my remarks. But I believe it is important, when we are talking about America's competitiveness, to talk about people with some of the very most desirable skills and education and how it is that we might attract them to live and work and create jobs here in America. First, I express my gratitude to both Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander for their leadership on this issue. It is not often enough that we have an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis on something that is so right and so good and so meritorious as this. It feels good. I think we ought to do it more often. I do wish to talk about this amendment which is called the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act amendment, otherwise known as the SKIL bill. This was a component of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year. Of course, that did not go anywhere. We are back again. I assure my colleagues that we will be coming back time and time again until we get this matter voted on. In the past 2 years, there has been much focus by Congress and the administration on restoring America's competitive edge. While some have viewed the SKIL bill, as it is called, as an immigration issue, I believe it should be considered as a competitiveness issue, not just an immigration one. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences included similar recommendations in its study ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This very report was the original, the genesis of America COMPETES and several other bills introduced in the 109th Congress. That report recommended to Congress that it should ``continue to improve visa processing for international students and scholars to provide less complex procedures and continue to make improvements on such issues as visa categories and duration, travel for scientific meetings, the technology-alert list, reciprocity agreements, and changes in status.'' The report also recommended that Congress should ``institute a new skills-based, preferential immigration option. Doctoral-level education in science and engineering skills would substantially raise an applicant's chances and priority in obtaining U.S. citizenship'' under this particular legislation. The United States has always been blessed by recruiting the best and the brightest from all around the world, whether they be scholars, scientists, or researchers. As we all know, the United States is now engaged, though, in a global competition for these very same scientists, scholars, and researchers. In this global economy, there are only three ways for us to retain the most brilliant workforce in the world: No. 1, we can grow our own talent, which is the intent of the bill we are debating right now; No. 2, we can continue to recruit the top students from around the world from other nations; or, No. 3, we can watch our companies move their workforce and jobs to other countries in order to find that talented workforce and to remain competitive. I don't know if there are any other choices than those--grow our own talent, import the best talent, or see our jobs go overseas. Those are the choices we have. The countries that can attract and retain the best and the brightest will obviously have an advantage over other countries in this global competition. As we have heard, the United States does not produce enough engineers. Over half of master's and Ph.D. degrees in the United States go to foreign students each year, foreign students who study in the United States. China graduates four times as many engineers as we do, and within a few years approximately 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be in Asia. Foreign students help us fill the gap right now--a gap we are going to try to make up through growing more of our own talent right here through the great provisions of this legislation--but then our immigration policy, as currently constituted, forces these best and brightest students, these foreign students, to return home because there are no high-tech visas. Our immigration policy has not adapted to the changing international environment or this global competition. Only 65,000 visas are issued each year to this category of the best and the brightest. For the past few years, the cap has been reached before the fiscal year even begins. But this year, on April 1, 2007, there was a loud outcry for immediate relief in our highly skilled immigration policies because that was the day the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced the 2008 cap for H-1B visas was met. That is right, because the United States has already met the cap for H-1B visas, foreign students graduating from our universities this spring are virtually shut out of the U.S. job market. We hit that cap on the very day the opportunity for filing for those types of visas was presented. This situation is unprecedented. What it means is employers cannot hire highly educated workers for up to 1 year, until the next allotment of visas becomes available. With global competition, of course, these workers have a lot of other options as to where to go. They can go to England. They can go to France. They can go to India. They can go to China. In short, they can go to our global competitors and work there and take the jobs that could be created here in America with them. This SKIL bill has important protections for American workers, and I hope my colleagues will listen to this because there is, frankly, a lot of misconception about foreign students and foreign workers coming here and taking American jobs at a lower wage. In fact, high-tech visas generate fees to pay for U.S. worker training programs. Every time an employer sponsors a foreign worker, that employer must contribute to a fund to train U.S. workers. Of course, under our law, they cannot be hired to come in and work at a lower wage than would have to be paid to a comparable U.S. worker. Immigrant professionals actually create jobs here in the United States. The founder of Intel is a prime example. He was an immigrant from Hungary and has created hundreds of thousands of jobs at his company here in America. So sound policy will start by retaining foreign students who are educated here in the United States, particularly in the most sought after areas of math, science, and engineering. We should exempt from the annual visa limit any foreign student who graduates from a U.S. university with a master's degree or a Ph.D. degree in these essential fields. It is simply a matter of economic survival and competition for the United States. Also, insourcing talented workers, as I pointed out, is preferable to outsourcing those jobs and the associated economic activity that goes with it to other countries. We should make it easier for those who do comply with our immigration laws to travel in and out of our country as well. We must also attract the best and brightest who are working in other countries to come here and do their work in the United States so those jobs can stay here. In the long run, we have to improve our schools and encourage more U.S. students to study engineering and mathematics, and the America COMPETES Act, as it is currently written, does just that. But in the short term, we have to adapt our immigration policy so when those U.S. students are educated in engineering fields, there will be jobs right here in the United States for them to perform. Then we can reap the benefits of the most outstanding college and university education in the world, which students travel from all around the world in order to be able to obtain, and then that they not have to go home after they graduate from college if they are in the essential fields of math, science, and engineering. If we do not act, America's technology industry, its health care industry, higher education, research institutions, financial services industries will be harmed and our economy will suffer. The intersection of our immigration policy and our country's ability to compete for global talent is critical, and we cannot wait years to address this issue. It is imperative we address it as soon as possible. Amendment No. 902, withdrawn My only regret is we are unable to do so on this bill because it belongs on this bill. But I understand the practical ramifications of continuing to insist upon a vote on this particular amendment at this time. So it is with some regret that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment but urge my colleagues to continue to work to support H-1B visa reform and see that the SKIL bill, as currently presented as an amendment to this bill, is ultimately enacted into law because, frankly, it is in the best interest of the United States and American jobs right here at home.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that is my intention.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the past several weeks, there has been a lot of debate and discussion about the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that has been pending now before Congress for more than 2 months. Completion of this emergency supplemental is critical for our troops serving on the front lines and for their families here at home. The President has requested, and Congress should be prepared to send immediately to the White House, a clean bill that meets our obligations to the troops. This legislation should not be used as a vehicle to pass billions of dollars of unrelated Federal spending or impose artificial deadlines on our commanders in the field. We have to move forward with this important military funding legislation because our troops deserve nothing less. I want to highlight a few of the items that are included in this supplemental appropriations bill so our colleagues can appreciate how essential it is to get these funds to our troops as soon as possible. This funding will ensure that our forces who are engaged in operations overseas have the very best force protection equipment available, as well as the most effective weaponry, communications gear, munitions, and other essential items. For example, high priority items in the supplemental for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan include: funding for body armor and other personal protection items; aircraft survivability components, radios, night vision equipment, armored vehicles, and high mobility, multipurpose vehicle Fragmentation Kits; funding for Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Systems, at $2.4 billion. Yes, that Improvised Explosive Device Defeat System is the very type of technology we need to protect our troops from the type of weapon that has been more responsible than virtually any other for injuring our soldiers. In the supplemental, more than $5 billion in funding is designed for the ongoing surge of U.S. forces to support General Petraeus's revised strategy in Baghdad. Nearly $4 billion in funding is to accelerate the transition of two Army brigade combat teams and establish a new Marine Corps regimental combat team. Nearly $2 billion is to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to build combat capability, and lengthen the time soldiers and marines have between deployments. There is some very important equipment our troops are being denied while we linger in passing this important supplemental. As I mentioned a moment ago, IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, continue to strike our troops during ambushes, and IEDs are responsible for a substantial number of the casualties. The Marines and the Army have responded to enemy tactics with the acquisition of substantial numbers of up-armored HMMWVs and advanced armor kits for other vehicles. But the Army and Marines must continue to develop and field a mine-resistant ambush protected, MRAP, combat vehicle fleet capable of sustained operations on an IED-heavy battlefield. A type of the so-called MRAP is depicted on this chart I have in the Chamber. I believe this particular one shown here is known as the Cougar. What is distinctive about this vehicle, which is so important to get to our troops, is it represents a change in technology, with a V-shaped hull underlying this vehicle, which actually will disperse the energy from an improvised explosive device away from the troops located inside the vehicle. I had occasion to visit a manufacturing facility located in Sealy, TX, owned by Armor Holdings, which is constructing these very same vehicles, which are the subject of some of the funds contained in the supplemental. The President's fiscal year 2007 supplemental request asked for $1.83 billion for mine-resistant ambush protected, or MRAP, vehicles like this one shown in the picture. In addition, Senator Biden offered an amendment, which passed the Senate 98 to 0, that provided an additional $1.5 billion in funding for these critical MRAP vehicles. The total MRAP funding in the supplemental is now almost $4 billion. From what I saw in Sealy at the Armor Holdings facility, and from what I have heard from our troops, this is exactly the kind of equipment they need but which is now being delayed as Congress continues to debate this supplemental appropriations bill. The mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle is an armored combat vehicle capable of providing superior protection to our warfighters against these kinds of IEDs. According to Marine Corps BG John Allen, Deputy Commander of Coalition Forces in Anbar Province, in more than 300 attacks since last year, no marines have died while riding in a new fortified MRAP armed vehicle. There has been an average of less than one injured marine per attack on the vehicles, while attacks on other types of vehicles caused more than two casualties per attack, including deaths, according to Brigadier General Allen. Our deployed servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve this latest class of armored protection to protect them against the ever- present IED threat, and they do not need funding for this important vehicle to be held up. Let me close by highlighting the effect of delayed supplemental funding on our military. The Army announced on April 16 that because of the lack of passage of this supplemental, it will materially slow spending to various places. In order to stretch the money it has, the Army will tell commanders to slow spending in certain areas so war-related activities and support to families can continue. The Department of Defense will also request that Congress approve the temporary reprogramming of $1.6 billion from Navy and Air Force pay accounts to the Army's operating account. Beginning in mid-April--about this time--the Army has begun to slow the purchase of repair parts and other supplies, relying instead on existing inventory to keep equipment operational. Priority will be given to repair and refurbishment of immediately needed war-fighting equipment, while training and other nonmission critical equipment repair will be deferred. In addition, the purchase of day-to-day supplies with governmental charge cards will be restricted, nonessential travel will be postponed or canceled, and shipment of equipment and supplies will be restricted or deferred altogether, unless needed immediately for war efforts. The Army has added it will also delay the repair of facilities and environmental programs unless the work is for safety or health reasons, or has effects on family support. These actions carry significant consequences, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency, and potentially further degrading the readiness of nondeployed units. These decisions may actually add to the Army's costs over time. Just as importantly, as Army Deputy Budget Director William Campbell said in the New York Times: Frankly, what I worry about is that second- or third-order effect that might affect a soldier or a soldier's safety or his ability to do a mission. Mr. Campbell said: As we put these brakes on, I do worry about the impact that we don't know about, that someone will take some action trying to do the right thing, but it will have a negative impact on the ability of a soldier to do his or her job. The New York Times also reported that unless the budget standoff is resolved by the end of June, Pentagon officials have warned that units preparing to go to Iraq may not have enough money to undertake all of their required training. It should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said again, our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. Without it, it is simply a fact that our troops will be put at increased risk. We have been ready for weeks to work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill the President can sign as soon as possible. But every day we do not fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened and they are exposed to additional danger. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time this side of the aisle has remaining in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I see the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee here. I will speak briefly and then certainly yield the rest of our time to him. There is a much larger question than has been addressed so far before the Senate this morning on this particular motion to proceed; that is, whether we are going to see the incremental growth of Government involved in intervening between decisions that should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors as a matter of individual choice. If, in fact, the advocates of this particular legislation are successful, it will be one step further down the road toward a single- payer system where the Government will decide what kind of health care we get and our family members receive rather than we as a matter of individual choice in consultation with our personal family doctor. That is a dangerous trend. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers pay for 50 percent of health care today. I am staggered by the suggestion that the Federal Government can somehow do a better job than the private sector through choice and competition in setting drug prices. Rather than a negotiation, this is like a take-it-or-leave-it offer with a gun to your head. The consequences, if this legislation is successful, will be that seniors will have fewer choices, Government will have grown that much bigger and interfered much more in the private choices we should all make as a matter of personal choice. The irony is, this is one of the Government programs--I would say rare Government programs-- that actually works better than we thought it would. As a matter of fact, I voted for the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003, but I was concerned when some of the estimates that came out of the Congressional Budget Office indicated it would actually cost a lot more than we originally thought. But this is a good news story. What I don't understand is why our Democratic friends want to ruin a good thing that 80 percent of seniors who have access to this prescription drug plan say they like and 90 percent of seniors eligible have signed up for, saving on average $1,200 a year. Why in the world would we want to mess up a good thing? I don't understand it, unless it is that incremental step toward a single-payer, Government-run health care system that would be a bad direction, rather than leaving the private sector to provide choices and competition, which improves services and lowers price. Listening to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, they live in dread that somebody somewhere is actually making a profit in a private enterprise. I don't particularly care if shareholders in a company decide they want to risk their money to invest in a competitive enterprise to provide me and my family a service that I want and like and need and do it at a price that is lower and a service quality that is better than the Federal Government. The fact that they make a profit, good for them. That is what this country is built on. That is why our economy is the envy of the world. Competition provided in the prescription drug benefit has forced costs down far below what was anticipated. In 2007, the average premium for the benefit is $22 a month--40 percent less than projected. We have heard the statistics before, but they bear repeating. The Congressional Budget Office new budget estimates that for the next 10 years, the net Medicare cost for the prescription drug benefit will be more than 30 percent lower than originally forecast, $265 billion. I have only been in the Senate for 4\1/2\ years, but I don't think I have ever seen or even read about a Government program that actually came in under budget at a lower cost than originally projected. For some reason--and it escapes me--some of our colleagues here want to change that, and that is a mistake. One of the editorials in one of my newspapers back in Texas, the Austin American Statesman, writes: The incoming majority of Congressional Democrats, it seems, has a problem: a promise to fix something--the new Medicare drug program--that might not need fixing. The basic point is this: We passed a prescription drug benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at costs much lower than projected. The results so far demonstrate the familiar principle that competition and choice could bring lower prices, something that should not surprise any of us. I must say, I am surprised at the magnitude of the benefit and the magnitude of the savings and the way this has lived up or, I should say, even exceeded expectations. Today in the Wall Street Journal there is an article entitled ``Bitter Pills'' which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. This speaks directly to the comments made by the Senator from Michigan about the Veterans' Administration. Let me briefly read this paragraph: Supporters of federal price ``negotiations''--really, an imposed price--also like to point to the example of the Veterans Health Administration which negotiates prices directly with drug companies. But it turns out that the vaunted VHA program has a few holes of its own. The LEWIN study-- Which it alludes to earlier, a health policy consulting firm examined the availability of the 300 drugs most commonly prescribed for seniors. It found that one in three--including [the most] popular medicines as Lipitor, Crestor, Nexium and Celebrex--are not covered by the VHA. Not covered. That is what the advocates of this legislation, I guess, believe is the ideal, to cover less drugs, and that is what the consequences of this legislation would be. Let me read the last sentence: However, 94 percent of these drugs are covered under the private competition model of Medicare Part D. Fewer than one of five new drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available under the VHA plan. If the right vote on this upcoming motion to proceed is to end the debate, it is not true that we haven't had debate. We are having the debate right now. But I believe the country would be better off, seniors would be better off, and choice and competition would remain available if we voted against the motion to proceed. That is how I intend to vote and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2007] Bitter Pills The Senate is scheduled to vote today on legislation to allow the government to negotiate drug prices under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Democrats and such liberal interest groups as AARP claim this would save money for seniors and taxpayers, but the more likely result is that seniors would find that fewer of their therapies are covered. We opposed the prescription drug bill as a vast new entitlement, but there's no denying the program's innovation of using private-sector competition has worked far better than critics predicted. In the first year alone, the cost of Medicare Part D came in 30 percent below projections. The Congressional Budget Office calculates the 10-year cost of Medicare Part will be a whopping $265 billion below original estimates. Seniors are also saving money under this private competition model. Premiums for the drug benefit were expected to average $37 a month. Instead, premiums this year are averaging $22 a month--a more than 40 percent saving, Democrats don't like to be reminded that many of them wanted to lock in premiums at $35 a month back in 2003. No wonder recent polls find that about 80 percent of seniors say they're satisfied with their new Medicare drug benefits. Democrats who opposed all of this private competition now say that government-negotiated prices will do even better. They must have missed the new study by the Lewin Group, the health policy consulting firm, which found that federal insurance programs that impose price controls typically hold down costs by refusing to cover some of the most routinely prescribed medicines for seniors. These include treatments for high cholesterol, arthritis, heartburn and glaucoma. Supporters of federal price ``negotiations''--really, an imposed price--also like to point to the example of the Veterans Health Administration, which negotiates prices directly with drug companies. But it turns out that the vaunted VHA drug program has a few holes of its own. The Lewin study examined the availability of the 300 drugs most commonly prescribed for seniors. It found that one in three-- including such popular medicines as Lipitor, Crestor, Nexium and Celebrex--are not covered under VHA. However, 94 percent are covered under the private competition model of Medicare Part D. Fewer than one of five new drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 are available under VHA. Here's the real kicker: Statistics released March 22 by the VHA and Department of Health and Human Services show that 1.16 million seniors who are already enrolled in the VHA drug program have nonetheless signed up for Medicare Part D. That's about one-third of the entire VHA case load. Why? Because these seniors have figured out that Medicare Part D offers more convenience, often lower prices, and better insurance coverage for their prescription drugs. In short, seniors are voting with their feet against the very price control system that Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to push them into. Of course, the greatest threat from drug price controls is not to our wallets, but to public health. Price controls reduce the incentive for biotech and pharmaceutical companies to invest the $500 million to $1 billion that is often now required to bring a new drug to market. If government price controls erode the profits these companies can earn to produce these often life-saving medications, the pace of new drug development will almost certainly delay treatments for AIDS, cancer, heart disease and the like. Congress is proposing dangerous medicine, and if it becomes law seniors may be the first victims.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act. But before I do, I wish to address remarks made this morning by the majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, for whom I have a lot of respect, but I have to tell you, I disagree with those comments, and I wish to take a few moments to explain why. Throughout his comments, the Senator repeated the theme that Republicans were stopping debate on the floor and not allowing bills to be debated. I disagree with him, and I believe nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, as I see it, the majority has tried to force things through the Senate, and they have done so in a way that has denied the minority an opportunity to offer amendments and to allow this body, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, to even have votes and make decisions on those important amendments. This morning, the Democratic whip talked about our Founders' intent that ``minority rights would always be respected.'' In this body, minority rights are not being respected. That is the problem. So we have no choice but to assert the last protection against majority tyranny; that is, to object or vote against invoking cloture or closing off debate. In the past, the majority has used cloture when necessary to move a bill forward, after debate has been exhausted, but the minority refuses to allow movement on the legislation. I think that is a perfectly legitimate use of the cloture motion. By this date in the 109th Congress--the Congress just preceding the current Congress--Republicans, when they were in the majority, had filed cloture four times. In the 108th Congress--the immediately preceding Congress--at this point in time, when Republicans were in the majority, Republicans had filed cloture five times. In the 107th Congress, Republicans only filed cloture one time at this point in time. By comparison, since the Democrats have now become the new majority in the Senate, Democrats have filed cloture 22 times. The question naturally arises: Why are Democrats using this divisive tactic so frequently to close off debate? Well, I think my colleague from Illinois disclosed the reason this morning when he stated: Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their strategy. That is what elections are all about. It is the view from this Senator, from my perspective, the Democrats are using this tactic to paint Republicans as obstructionists, when the exact opposite is true. The new Democratic majority in the Senate is refusing to allow full and fair debate on issue after issue and, more importantly, denying us an opportunity to offer amendments on important legislation and to simply have an up-or-down vote on those amendments. I can tell you, from my perspective, Republicans do not enjoy the procedural clash any more than Democrats do. But it is necessary to protect this institution and, even more importantly, necessary to protect the rights afforded in the Senate to the minority. We have been eager to engage in full debate, and we understand the rules that majorities will prevail when majorities have an opportunity to vote. But the rules do not permit the new majority, the Democrats, to unilaterally set the terms for the debate. Until the Democratic majority recognizes all Members of this body have the right to debate legislation, to offer amendments, and to have votes on those amendments, we will continue in this standoff. It is true, I believe, that only the majority--the new Democratic majority--can fix this problem by simply allowing full debate to go forward and by allowing up-or-down votes on amendments on the Senate floor, which requires discussions, which requires negotiations, and, yes, it requires compromise. Filing cloture--closing off debate--is an intensely aggressive move. It says: We do not want to hear your opinions. We do not want to hear your views. We do not want to consider your ideas on how to improve the legislation on the floor of the Senate. We want to shut down the debate, and we want to shove this legislation through the Senate. It is a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislation. And do you know what. It does not work. I would point out--and I guess it is fair to say if you have been in the Senate long enough--and I have not--but I have been told, if you have been in the Senate long enough, you will find yourself, at some points in your career, on the side of the majority, and at other times you will find yourself on the side of the minority. It is the way it works. Last Congress, when Democrats were in the minority, they insisted that the filing of cloture turned the Senate into the House of Representatives--a refusal to allow open and broad debate, with hard majority rule. Here they are now, though, attempting to cut off debate at, it seems, almost every possible turn. It is the reason--and this is the consequence of it; it is not just complaining about it; this is the consequence that has a very real impact on the American people because the new majority, the Democratic majority, has refused an opportunity for full and fair debate and votes on amendments--that is the reason why Democrats have not sent any real legislation to the President for his signature after 3 months in power. They have chosen the hard edge of party politics instead of bipartisanship. Our Democratic friends have chosen to pursue this agenda driven by campaign rhetoric instead of seeking the broad middle ground and trying to negotiate and to pass legislation on behalf of the American people. It is true that Democrats won the last election--and my congratulations to them--on a message of bipartisanship, on a message of, let's get things done. But their choices to date have not reflected any effort to seriously reach across the aisle to do that. One example that comes to mind is on Iraq. My colleague from Illinois claimed: We were stopped, stopped by the Republican minority. They would not allow us to go to the substance of that debate. They didn't want the Senate to spend its time on the floor considering a resolution, going on record as to whether we approve or disapprove of the President's action. The fact is, completely the opposite occurred. Republicans on this incredibly important debate asked only that we be allowed to discuss the issue fully, and the Democratic majority repeatedly attempted to ram through their resolution without offering any alternatives or any opportunity for alternative resolutions to be considered and voted on. We explained this on the Senate floor over and over during that discussion, but our colleagues in the majority simply turned a deaf ear to our concerns. When they finally allowed several options to be considered, we were able to have a full debate we had been asking for all along, and then the process moved forward. I would point out that was on the 20th iteration of the resolutions on Iraq before we had an opportunity to have that debate, a vote, and to move the process forward. My colleague from Illinois repeated several times this morning his hope that we could ``find some ways to establish bipartisan cooperation.'' I say to my colleague, there is a way to do that. The majority must stop trying to ram legislation through and allow us to debate openly and to file relevant amendments and allow an up-or-down vote on those amendments. My colleague from Illinois talked about the ``do-nothing Congress'' of last year--that was his phraseology--and placed sole blame for the current majority's lack of accomplishments on the minority's refusal to invoke cloture or close off debate. The Washington Post just this morning reported that only 26 percent of the public thinks the current Democratic majority in Congress has accomplished ``a great deal'' or ``a good amount.'' The fact is, this approach to legislating has not produced a single piece of significant legislation so far in this Congress due to the lack of bipartisanship and due to the lack of opportunity the minority has had to fully participate in the debate and shaping of legislation. Of the 17 laws enacted this Congress, 10 of those are naming of Federal properties. Let me say that again. Of the 17 pieces of legislation enacted in this Congress so far, 10 of them involve naming of Federal properties, Federal buildings, post offices and the like. Not one of the ``six for '06'' campaign promises has been passed by Congress. The majority, to be sure, is blaming the minority for the lack of progress here based on the result of cloture votes, but let's look at the facts. On the 9/11 bill, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the House and the Senate passed different bills. Democratic leadership in neither body has brought up the other's bill so that those might be resolved in a conference committee. On the minimum wage bill, the House and the Senate passed different versions, but no conferees have been appointed by either body. On the emergency war supplemental, perhaps the most urgent piece of legislation we could possibly pass and send to the President to support the troops who are in harm's way as I speak, the House and the Senate passed different versions of the bill. The House, fresh off of a 2-week recess, has yet to appoint conferees to start working out the differences between the bills to get funding to our troops. This is especially damaging and reckless, considering the majority is insisting we send a bill to the President that has a timeline for withdrawal, a provision that has caused the President to promise to veto that legislation. That means before the troops can get the money they need-- in other words, to get them the equipment they need during this war-- before we can get them the money, we have to come up with a bill the President will sign. Yet the Democratic majority has continued to play politics and stall the bill. On stem cell research, no conferees have been appointed. The same for the budget. The same for lobbying reform. The list goes on and on. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, explained that due to the numbers in this body: On any given day, if we're going to pass or consider important legislation, it has to be bipartisan. And that: If we're going to be constructive in the United States Senate, we need much more bipartisan cooperation. He continued, saying: We should come together, Democrats and Republicans, and compromise and cooperate. And asking, Isn't it time we really start out on a new day in the Congress trying to find bipartisan ways to cooperate and solve the real problems that face our country? To that I say amen. It is past time for the new majority in this body to stop acting like they are Members of the House of Representatives who are going to be able to force their will by a simple majority through the Senate because this is not the House. This is the Senate. The only way we are going to be able to get any legislation passed is through bipartisan cooperation. The only way we are going to get that cooperation is to meet in the middle somehow, to debate as our constituents would expect us to debate, to take positions--yes, firmly held positions--based on our convictions. But then ultimately we need to have votes on amendments and votes on legislation and let the majority prevail. Let's send the bills to the President for his signature. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is the way it has not been working, but we know the way forward. I have to tell my colleagues that I and my Republican colleagues would welcome the opportunity to sit down on a bipartisan basis and to reach a consensus on important issues such as how to preserve our entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare by protecting their long-term solvency. How do we avoid passing the bills incurred by the baby boomer generation on down to our children and grandchildren? How can we expand health care access to more Americans? How can we solve our broken immigration system, along with the broken borders that pose a national security risk to each and every American citizen? After all, I have to believe that is the reason we ran for public office. That is the reason we wanted to be elected to serve in the Senate--whether we are a Republican or a Democrat--to make a difference for the American people, to make our country a better place, and to make tomorrow better for our children and grandchildren than it is today. Instead, we spend day after day taking partisan votes that lead to nothing but gridlock. This is the choice of the majority, not the choice of the minority. After the first 100 days, the Congress is, again, at a fork in the road. So far the new majority has taken the path of partisanship, but we know that will not get us down the road to progress. I hope during the second 100 days of this new Congress, the new majority will pause and decide to take the road less traveled--the road of cooperation and accomplishment. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the Court Security Improvement Act, a bill of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. As we have already heard, this bill is designed to address the critical issue of the security of our judges and courthouse personnel. I have to add as a personal note, this is not a matter of just some academic interest to me. I believe I am correct in that I am the only current Member of the Senate who has served as a member of the judiciary, in my case for 13 years in our State court system in Texas, both at the trial bench and at the Texas Supreme Court level. So this is more than a matter of academic interest to me. Protecting our men and women who personify the rule of law and all that it means is very important. The dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses, from the judges to the court reporters to the bailiffs, preside each day over difficult, contentious, and sometimes very emotional disputes. These public servants, just like our police, are placed in harm's way by the very nature of their jobs. They fulfill essential roles that keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect for the people who try to do this job and try to do it well. Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise, from escalating violence against police officers to courthouse attacks--including in my State of Texas--these despicable actions threaten the administration of justice and threaten our ability to invoke the rule of law. This Congress has the power, and now we must exercise it, to ensure that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed, the health of our very democracy--depends on our ability to attract dedicated public servants to work at our courthouses. So we must do everything in our power to provide adequate security to these men and women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply because of the position they hold and the decisions they are called upon to make. As a former attorney general in my State, I had the responsibility of defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found guilty of violent acts. So I am acutely aware of the devastating effects criminal acts of violence have on not only the victims themselves but also on their families. Because I also used to be a judge, I am fortunate to have a number of close personal friends who continue to serve on our benches and work at our courthouses. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those victims and their families. Our judges are impartial umpires of the law. We know they cannot help but disappoint some people because that is what they do--they make decisions. They determine winners and losers. Judges, witnesses, and courthouse personnel must not face threats and violence for simply doing their job. The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system and serve the public and law enforcement is essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. This important bill takes big steps toward providing additional protections on these dedicated public servants. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendments Nos. 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, and 853, en bloc.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Amendment No. 849.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern on my staff, Maggie Haas, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this week.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also want to stress the last sentence that I read one more time, where he says: It is a great system, if you need an antibiotic. But if you are hoping to avoid open heart surgery through access to a miracle drug, it can be a nightmare. We don't need to go down this path. We don't have to change course. Right now, under Medicare Part D, market forces and competition have created a wildly popular benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at costs much lower than projected a few short years ago. I have spent a few moments describing my concern with the Democrats' plan to ``so-called'' negotiate prices. I would say to ration drugs is a more accurate description. But by far my biggest concern about this bill is, of course, another example of their preference for Government control in health care rather than market-driven, patient-centered approaches favored by those of us on this side of the aisle. I would urge my colleagues to call this debate what it is: It is not so much about noninterference clauses in Medicare prescription drug laws. There is a much more importantly and potentially consequential debate about whom Americans want to be making decisions in our health care system. Do they want it to be the Government or do they want it to be patients themselves and their doctors? I recently read a quote from a physician in Switzerland that I found particularly poignant. He reminds us that: We all have a single-payer health care system. Citizens always wind up paying for health care, either through taxes, insurance premiums, or out-of-pocket costs. The real question is whether they will have a single-decider system. In many European countries, there are single-decider systems in which governments and their agents control what medical services its citizens will or will not receive. Of course, we know all too well how close we are in this country to having a single-payer health care system. Roughly, 50 cents of every health care dollar we spend in the United States is spent directly by the U.S. Government. The health care economy is approximately $2 trillion annually, or one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy. I believe we have to reform our health care system, emphasizing individual choice and trusting patients and their families and their doctors to make the right choices--not lawyers or, yes, even bureaucrats in Washington, DC,--to make the important health care and treatment decisions. So make no mistake about it, this bill is about a much larger issue than the title of the legislation itself would suggest. We are not debating some sterile provision called a noninterference clause. We are debating something far more significant. The Washington Post believes this debate is about something much larger than the noninterference clause as well, and they have written: The Democrats' stance is troubling because it suggests an excessively governmental-led view of health care reform. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right balance, see whether it attracts customers, and then adapt flexibly. In my State, the Dallas Morning News has written: When congressional Democrats press for this change next year, remember they're pushing for much more than lower prices. They're seeking to move the line where government should stop and the marketplace should start. I do agree with the Democrats that this debate is about negotiation, but the real question is not should we have negotiation but who should negotiate. The proponents of this legislation believe it should be the Government, and I couldn't disagree more. The proponents of this legislation believe the Government is more skilled in making pricing decisions than the free market, and I have to say, I think that is wrong. We have been presented in this legislation with a remarkably clear choice: If you believe the way to improve our broken health care system is to embrace a market-driven approach that lowers costs and does not reduce choices for seniors, then you will vote to continue the prescription drug program that we passed a few short years ago. If you believe, as the advocates of this legislation do, that Government bureaucrats are better suited than the free market to make pricing decisions for thousands of prescription drugs, then you will want to vote for this legislation. I will vote for the current market-driven approach that provides choices for seniors and puts patients and doctors in control rather than the Government, and I urge my colleagues to join me. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2006] Drug Price Path To Avoid (By Alberto Mingardi) The next speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.), has let it be known that within her first 100 hours on the job, she will move to allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to obtain lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Her plan would create a Medicare drug program that looks a lot like the system we have in my country, Italy, where drug prices are among the lowest in Europe. And that's pretty low, considering that drugs in Europe average about 60 percent less than in the United States. Even as U.S. prices rose, Italian drug prices decreased by 5 percent last year. At first glance, this might seem an enviable model for America to follow. But before Pelosi rushes down the road to Italian-style health care, allow me to offer a word of caution. Italy is hardly a health-care paradise. In fact, it's more like a quagmire of red tape. For the most part. Italy's lower drug prices are the product of government price controls. The state purchases nearly 60 percent of the nation's prescription drugs. And it supposedly negotiates prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. But since the Italian government controls such a disproportionate share of the market, it in effect dictates drug prices. In Italy, these price controls have created a number of problems. First, they distort the laws of supply and demand. Because of the country's artificially low drug prices, demand for pharmaceuticals is artificially high--higher than it would be under free-market conditions. The point is that the Government's attempt to force down drug prices has not reduced overall health-care spending. Rather, it has resulted in a spike in demand--which is one reason why Italy's health- care spending has skyrocketed, growing nearly 68 percent between 1995 and 2003. As for the quality of Italy's care, that, too, is suffering. With demand for drugs rising, the Italian government has attempted to save money by adopting reimbursement policies that favor certain drugs over others. Unfortunately, the most innovative products often aren't considered reimbursable by the government precisely because they are the most expensive. It's a great system if you just need an antibiotic. But if you're hoping to avoid open-heart surgery through access to a miracle drug, it can be a nightmare. And Italians are lacking more than just choice in cutting-edge drugs. They also lack information. According to a recent survey, more than 50 percent of Italy's patients believe that the national health service cannot even supply adequate information about treatments and drugs. The economy is also harmed. Because it's simply not profitable for companies to invent cures in Italy, price controls have decimated Italy's pharmaceutical industry. Today not one of the world's 50 largest drug manufacturers has its headquarters in Italy, even though the country is the world's seventh-largest economy. Because most drug and biotechnology companies are outside Italy's borders, there are only 84,000 pharmaceutical workers in Italy's entire drug industry. The industry has become a perfect target for Italy's politicians, because they can rail against it with little political downside. The more we follow this path, the less likely it is for Italian companies to develop valuable innovations--at great risk for both our economy and our health. So by attempting to hold down drug prices, the Italian government has deprived its citizens of the best care without reducing health-care spending. And it has deprived the country of what could be a vibrant sector of the economy. In their rush to revamp medicare, U.S. Policy leaders should be careful not to make the same mistake.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Medicare prescription drug program that Congress passed a little over 3 years ago with a bipartisan majority. We have all heard the very impressive statistics associated with the Medicare Part D program. More than 90 percent of seniors eligible for the benefit have drug coverage, and they will save on average $1,200 per year. More importantly, more than 80 percent of enrolled seniors have expressed their satisfaction with the program. Competition in the prescription drug benefit has forced down costs far below what was anticipated. In 2007, the average premium for the benefit was $22 a month, 40 percent less than projected at the outset. The Congressional Budget Office's new budget estimate for the next 10 years shows that net Medicare costs for the prescription drug benefit will be more than 30 percent, or $256 billion, lower than originally forecast. Not only are the costs for this prescription drug benefit lower than expected, but for 2007 more drugs are also being covered by participating plans than last year. The average plan now covers 4,300 drugs in its formulary versus 3,800 last year, a 13-percent increase. The basic point is this: We passed a prescription drug benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at a cost much lower than originally projected. The results so far demonstrate a familiar principle: competition and choice bring lower prices and, I might add, better service. There are some who want to change that successful model, so we have to ask ourselves: How does their plan improve on this very successful Government program? Since I believe being a zealous guardian of the taxpayers' dollars is one of the reasons my constituents sent me here, one of the first questions I ask is: Will the alternative plan of interfering with this market-based competition actually save taxpayers money while continuing to provide choice and access to prescription drugs for seniors? The simple answer to this question is, no, and you don't have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that the proposal that is before us would have a ``negligible effect'' on reducing Government spending. The advocates of this particular proposal that is pending before us cannot point to any Government source that will support their claim that the Federal Government can negotiate more effectively than the private market. Specifically, CBO writes that ``CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on Federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law.'' Secretary Leavitt describes in practice how having the Government negotiate drug prices will not lead to lower costs for beneficiaries or taxpayers. He has written: We are seeing large-scale negotiations with drug manufacturers, but they are being conducted by private plans, not the government. A robust market with a lot of competitors has driven down prices. It's the magic of the market. To assume that the government, in our genius, could improve on this belies the reality of a complex task. In fact, public opinion polls back up Secretary Leavitt's comments. A study by the Tarrance Group found that only 28 percent of seniors believe that the Government would do a better job in setting drug prices than a competitive marketplace. The Washington Post agrees. It has written, on January 14: Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the medical realm. As policymakers, it is also our job to ask: What are the potential consequences of this new legislation that is pending before us? Quite simply, the consequences are dire. Since Government will decide which drugs seniors have access to, seniors will be left with fewer choices. In terms of analyzing the consequences of this alternative plan, it is helpful to look at examples in other countries that have tried what Democrats are now advocating in this model. We don't have to guess about what the consequences would be because other countries have tried it. I recently read a piece published in the Washington Post and written by Alberto Mingardi, president of a think tank in Italy, and I want to quote from this article because I believe it demonstrates my point. He writes about the Democrats' plan to require the Government to set prices, or at least giving the Secretary the authority to do that. He said: It would create a Medicare drug program that looks a lot like the system we have in my country, Italy, where drug prices are among the lowest in Europe. At first glance, this might seem like an enviable model for America to follow. But before Pelosi rushes down the road to Italian-style health care, let me offer a word of caution. Italy is hardly a health care paradise. In fact, it's more like a quagmire of red tape. For the most part, Italy's lower drug prices are the product of government price controls. In Italy, these price controls have created a number of problems. The government's attempt to force down drug prices has not produced overall health-care spending. Rather, it has resulted in a spike in demand--which is one reason why Italy's health-care spending has skyrocketed, growing nearly 68 percent between 1995 and 2003. As for the quality of Italy's care, that, too, has suffered. With demand for drugs rising, the Italian government has attempted to save money by adopting reimbursement policies that favor certain drugs over others. Unfortunately, the most innovative products often aren't considered reimbursable by the government precisely because they are the most expensive. It's a great system if you just need an antibiotic. But if you're hoping to avoid open heart surgery through access to a miracle drug, it can be a nightmare. He concludes. The economy is also harmed. Because it's simply not profitable for companies to invent cures in Italy, price controls have decimated Italy's pharmaceutical industry. So by attempting to hold down drug prices, the Italian government has deprived its citizens of the best care without reducing health-care spending. And it has deprived the country of what could be a vibrant sector of the economy. In their rush to revamp Medicare, U.S. policy leaders should be careful not to make the same mistake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in its entirety in the Record at the conclusion of my comments.