Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the majority leader, and I agree with him on many subjects, but earlier tonight he had some pretty harsh words for some of the economic statements that I and others of my colleagues have been making in recent weeks. He called them ``canards'' which is a nice sounding word but means they are false statements. I feel compelled to rise and present what I think is a better version of the facts which, as we can see, are very different. The majority leader, as I understood his argument, was saying the new jobs that are now being created in the economy are better paying on average than the average of other jobs that were in existence in the year 2003. But that misses the essential point, which is that most of those newly created jobs pay less and offer lower benefits than the over 2.5 million jobs lost during the first 2\1/2\ years of the Bush administration. Most of those jobs were good-paying manufacturing jobs, and most of them have not come back. Many of them have been transferred to other countries with lower wages and no standards. They are not coming back at all. Those are the jobs that the unemployed workers of America are now finding and that are paying on average thousands of dollars less than the jobs those workers held before the recession began in March of 2001. They are among the millions of Americans whose incomes have fallen, who used to have jobs with health insurance but now don't. I quote from an editorial in today's New York Times in part which states: From three different vantage points . . . the same basic picture emerges: While there has been an increase in job creation over the past four months--an unusually belated and anemic spurt by historical standards--the bulk of the activity has been at the low end of the quality spectrum. The Great American Job Machine is not even close to generating the surge of the high-powered jobs that is typically the driving force behind greater incomes and consumer demand. This puts households under enormous pressure. Desperate to maintain lifestyles, they have turned to far riskier sources of support. Reliance on tax cuts has led to record budget deficits, and borrowing against homes has led to record household debt. These trends are dangerous and unsustainable, and they pose a serious risk to economic recovery. We hear repeatedly that the employment disconnect is all about productivity--that America needs to hire fewer workers because the ones already working are more efficient. This may well be true, but there is a more compelling explanation: global labor arbitrage. Under unrelenting pressure to cut costs, American companies are now replacing high-wage workers here with like-quality, low-wage workers abroad. It was only a matter of time before the globalization of work affected the United States labor market. The character and quality of American job creation is changing before our very eyes. Which poses the most important question of all: what are we going to do about it? That is a subject which both of our major party candidates for President this year need to address--what are we going to do about it? The response of President Bush and his economic apologists thus far is to deny even the reality. Fortunately, we have their own earlier predictions by which to measure today's economic facts. In May of 2003, the President's own Council of Economic Advisers stated that his what was then called jobs and growth plan of more deficit-driving tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich would result in the creation, they said, of 5.5 million new jobs by the end of this year. Congress passed the President's plan, and it took effect in July of 2003. The actual number of jobs created in the past 12 months is over 2.2 million fewer jobs than the President's Council of Economic Advisers forecast. In fact, the job creation in this country has failed to meet the President's forecasts in 10 of the last 12 months. Once again, the administration trots out their favorite apologist, Chairman Greenspan, whose salary now should be paid by the President's reelect committee rather than the American taxpayers, who preached fiscal responsibility for 8 years to President Clinton's administration and to the Congress at that time and was instrumental in creating a balanced Federal budget in the year 2000, after taking out the Social Security trust fund--the first time in 40 years that the budget of the Federal Government, the operating accounts were balanced. He then turned around and has acquiesced with every tax cut that has been passed and which has led to the deficits that now exceed over $500 billion a year and which the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, chaired by former Republican Senator Rudman, has called the most reckless fiscal policy in this Nation's history. Mr. Greenspan, who acquiesced in those, now comes forward and says the tax cuts prevented a deeper recession. In part, he is probably correct that the child tax credit, which certainly passed here with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the 10-percent bracket had those benefits, but certainly nobody could say eliminating the estate tax in 2010 was a force in either dampening the recession or speeding our recovery, nor did making the top tax brackets for the rich and the super-rich even lower, according to most economists, result in that kind of economic stimulus. In fact, the Federal Reserve's own econometric forecast states that public spending is a better multiplier for jobs and economic growth than the tax cuts. He has gone farther in the last day to say the reason we have lower paying jobs in America is now because American workers are not well enough educated. It is pretty hard to understand how the educational quality of the American workforce could change from what it was prior to the recession when employment had expanded at a robust pace for almost 8 years to where it is less than 3 years later. In fact, the reality is that many American workers are overeducated for the jobs that are available, as the New York Times editorial and other economic analyses have attested. We are not providing the jobs in this economy that people need with the talents they have. We are not providing the jobs people need to maintain the standards of living they enjoyed before. And we are not providing enough jobs for the unemployed and underemployed people of this country. That is the reality, not a canard. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, after the vote on the Defense appropriations, will there be opportunities for Senators to speak on other subjects?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Minnesota radio station, KTCZ-FM, which recently won a National Association of Broadcasters Crystal Radio Award. The Award honors KTCZ-FM for its continuous commitments and exceptional dedication to community service throughout its listening region. KTCZ-FM, which is known locally as ``Cities 97,'' deserves this honor for its many charitable contributions. Last year, the station donated over $2.7 million in airtime, which enabled nonprofit service organizations to raise almost $5 million for their important work. The station also aired over $1 million worth of public service announcements and provided almost 80 hours of public affairs broadcasts. Their tremendous community support previously earned KTCZ-FM the Camp Heartland Heart of Hope Award, the Make-A-Wish Recognition Award, the University Pediatrics Foundation Corporate Friend Award, and a Proclamation by the Governor of Minnesota. KTCZ-FM's employees share the station's dedication to helping others. Last year, they donated over 2,500 hours of their own time to help worthy causes. On behalf of the thousands of Minnesotans who have been helped by Cities 97's generosity, I thank the station, its management, and its employees for their extraordinary contributions. I congratulate them for winning a 2004 Crystal Radio Award. I trust that their giving back to their community will continue to lead the way for many more years.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . . With those immortal words 228 years ago, the signers of the Declaration of Independence set forth the founding principles of this country. They chose the word ``unalienable'' to mean that those rights were God-given. They were rights with which every person was born, not to depend upon the attitudes or ideologies of any government. Eleven years later, after winning their War of Independence, after trying one unsatisfactory design of government, after many discussion, debates, arguments, and compromises, others signed their name to our United States Constitution. It was a remarkably farsighted document-- deserving of the word ``visionary''. It was intended to define, provide, and protect the rights of American citizens and the structure of their democratic government. Unfortunately, their founding principles and idealism had some glaring deficiencies. When they said all men were created equal, they meant only men, and only white men. It took 130 more years before those constitutional rights were extended fully and equally to all citizens-- to African-Americans, to women, and to everyone else. Those constitutional amendments signaled only the starting points, not the finish lines, to full opportunities, equal protections, and freedom from discrimination, harassment, and assault. Those paths were difficult, often dangerous, and sometimes even fatal for their travelers. Slowly, too slowly, unevenly, yet inexorably This country has progressed toward the realization of those God-given rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for every American citizen. The life that God gives each of us; the liberty to be as God made us; and the right to pursue our individual needs, goals, and fulfillments-- whatever necessary ingredients of our happiness. We receive no assurances of happiness, but the promise we have the God-given right to pursue it. Today, we are a Nation of 293 million citizens. That is a lot of very different people pursuing a lot of very different forms of happiness. It is an enormous and continuous challenge for government to permit life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and to decide where limits must be established. The Constitution requires, however, that those limits must apply fairly and justly--and that those liberties can only be taken away for a compelling reason and through a due process. People's differences are no longer legitimate reasons. Not different colors of skin, different religious beliefs, different genders, nationalities, or physical characteristics. People don't have to like other people's differences, but they must allow and tolerate them. Allowing and tolerating differences is what separates democracies from dictatorships. Even dictatorships allow behaviors and beliefs which conform to their ideas and ideologies. However, they will not permit or tolerate behaviors and beliefs which differ from theirs. Those groups of people are persecuted, punished, and even murdered for their differences. It is sometimes difficult for those of us who live in democracies to allow other beliefs and behaviors, which we dislike or disapprove of. It is especially difficult if those other beliefs or behaviors differ from our own moral or religious views. Although our Constitution separates ``church and state,'' we do not willingly give up or even compromise our strongly held beliefs based upon our religious teachings or moral values. Many Americans who oppose gay and lesbian relationships or marriages believe they are called to do so by God, by Jesus Christ, by the Bible, or by another religion's instructions. Recently, I reread the Bible's New Testament, which provides the foundation and instruction for my Christian faith. I reluctantly bring the Bible into this debate, because I often hear people, who denounce homosexuality, claiming that ``the Bible'' or ``the New Testament'' supports their views. However, in the entire New Testament, there is only one reference to same-sex relationships, in Chapter Two of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Jesus Christ does not mention them even once in any of the four Gospels. Instead, His overriding instruction was to love thy neighbor as thyself. That was his second great commandment, which superseded all the rest. Jesus also warned several times to beware of false prophets. How could they be identified? He said that they spread hate, instead of love. I do not understand how some religions developed their strong prejudices against gays and lesbians--prejudices which are not only unsupported by Jesus' teachings in the Bible, but which even violate his instructions to love one another, as I have loved you, to judge not, lest ye be judged, to spread love, not hatred. Yet the discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country has been filled with judgment and hatred. Thousands of American citizens have been fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, harassed, threatened, assaulted, even murdered, because of their sexual orientations. Some other Americans have spread that hatred and caused that harm, while professing their own religious piety and moral superiority. Who has the authority to dispute that every human being is God's intentional creation; that we are different because God made us different, not superior, not inferior, just different, equal in the sight of God, equal in the U.S. Constitution? There is a better way to resolve this widespread concern about the effects of couples' State court decisions on marriage--decisions which are being resolved by the legislatures and the people of those States, and which contrary to the ``marriage is under terrorist attack'' hysteria, as some politicians are promoting, do not threaten either the Federal laws or the State laws against same-sex marriages. As others have noted, a 1996 Federal law, called the Defense of Marriage Act, already does what the proponents of this constitutional amendment want to do. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed ``to define and protect the institution of marriage.'' That law states: In determining the meaning of any act of Congress or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The law goes on to say that no State shall be required to recognize a same-sex relationship treated as marriage anywhere else. That is the law of the United States of America, unchallenged Federal law. How much more protection could the institution of marriage need from the Congress? None. The proposed constitutional amendment has not one whit of additional legal protection to what the Federal law already provides, so why are we being subjected to this charade of politicians' piety, an oxymoron if ever there was one? It is an election year, a Presidential election year. It is no coincidence that the defense of marriage law was passed in 1996, another Presidential election year. One can only wonder how marriage managed to make it through the 2000 Presidential election without something being done to it then. That is really what is going on. This political ploy is not about ``saving marriage''; it is about saving politicians' jobs. Thank goodness we have Senator so and so, they will say back home, to save us from the heathen hordes. Thank goodness we have the President saving us, too. We may not have jobs or health care. We cannot afford prescription drugs or gasoline. They are bankrupting the Federal Government with deficits, they are destroying our credibility throughout the world, they made a mess of Iraq, they cannot find weapons of mass destruction or Osama bin Laden or whoever shut down Congress with anthrax or ricin, but they are defending marriage--again and again and again and again. Let's reelect them. It is a tragic day in America when politicians exploit the Constitution of the United States to get themselves reelected. It is a tragic day for millions of Americans who are being exploited by those politicians. This is a hurtful, hateful, harmful debate for America, one that only will get uglier, meaner, more divisive, and more dangerous if it moves on to State legislatures as the constitutional amendment requires. It must be stopped here and now. That is why I will vote against the constitutional amendment. If my colleagues really do want to save marriage for now and for posterity, turn it over to the authority of established religions. In the many wedding ceremonies which I attend, marriage is described as an institution created by God. Yet those services conclude with ``whom God has joined together let no one cast assunder.'' If marriage belongs to God, as I believe it does, then our separation of church and state government should not interfere with its administration by the properly chosen religious authorities. Instead, government should adopt a different term to use for the legal rights and responsibilities under a civil contract, which I believe any two adults should equally be able to enter into. Giving marriage back to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and separating it from government is marriage's salvation and society's solution. Let us direct our efforts to protecting America from al-Qaida. Leave the Constitution alone and leave marriage to God. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jordan Dorfman from my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on S. 2062.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I arrived to hear the final comments of my very respected colleague from the neighboring State of Iowa. With all due respect, I am surprised, at least as I heard it, that my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle are being vilified for the status of this legislation. I was curious because the Senator, of course, knows, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, about the fate of the legislation that he saw through in his own committee to which he just referred, the FSC/ETI bill. From my understanding of that legislation, what happened to that after it left the Finance Committee, to the point where it reached the Senate floor, and not always with the chairman's concurrence, what was added to it as part of the process and what has been done to it over in the House, if we want to talk about legislation that has had measures added to it where there is no connection to the public interest--and I see no connection to the bill at all which is called the JOBS Act; in the House it was called the Jobs in America Act--and then provides the kind of tax breaks that it does in the Senate bill for $39 billion worth for outsourcing American jobs and expanding businesses and their subsidiaries in other countries, it is hard for me to see how we are the sole culprits in wanting to add measures to this bill. I believe there are members of the other caucus who also desire to add measures to this bill because there are not many bills that are likely going to be passed and confereed and signed into law. We have our genuine interests in seeing that some of these important measures receive at least an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and then either proceed or not accordingly. The Senator said we devoted 15 days to that corporate tax bill. I do not know why there is this rush to close the door on this legislation which is before us now. I do not support this bill, but I do support dealing with it and having an up-or-down vote on it, but only after all of us on both sides of the aisle have had the opportunity to bring forward our amendments and have them acted upon. That is the tradition of the Senate. That is the spirit of the Senate. Those are the rules of the Senate. I do not see anybody on this side who is trying to be an obstructionist. I see people on this side who thought that was our understanding and agreement and want to proceed on that basis. I do rise to oppose this underlying legislation, which is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. Its proponents claim, as a top U.S. Chamber of Commerce official is quoted in yesterday's Washington Post, that it is strictly process, that it does not affect anyone's substantive rights. That is nonsense. If that were true, we would not be debating this bill on the Senate floor yet again and it would not be the third time that this issue has been brought before the Senate in this session. That same Chamber of Commerce official also said: There are a number of juries on the State level where a lot of abuses are going on. What are those abuses that we hear about over and over by the proponents of this legislation to justify the actions that it would take? Well, the people who are pushing this legislation are unhappy with the decisions that juries are making. Too often the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other proponents claim juries are deciding for the plaintiffs, for the groups of people who have claimed that they have been wronged, and against the defendants, which are usually large and wealthy corporations. So that is the abuse: Juries, comprised of qualifying citizens agreed to by the attorneys for both sides, are deciding too many cases for the people who have been harmed and then are awarding financial settlements more costly than the convicted defendants would like. Well, our country's judicial system has a long roster of defendants who are unhappy with the verdicts and their punishments, but Congress is not considering changes that benefit all of them. This present judicial system is not perfect--nothing ever is--but it works better than most systems in our country. In fact, it may be the last place the people without money have a fair chance against people who do. People without money cannot afford to hire a full-time lobbyist to influence Congress or State legislators or Federal and State administrations. They do not make big campaign contributions or hold fancy receptions at party conventions. Many Americans cannot even afford to hire a lawyer to assert their rights in a court of law. They do not have the hundreds or thousands of dollars needed to pay for the preparation of complex cases and all the time required to go through the judicial process. They cannot afford the special consultants that many legal defense teams use to select the juries that are most sympathetic to them. Thus, many Americans have to join together with other alleged victims in order to be able to afford all together to seek justice, to have their day in court. They might win; they might lose, but at least they have their day in court. They do lose, many times, in State courts as well as in Federal courts. But of course we don't hear any complaints from the Chamber about those juries. The only ``abuses'' are when the people win, and the moneyed interests lose. So the moneyed interests have come to the Congress to get the special favors they want in order to have the world their way. Tragically for this country, it is likely, it appears, that Congress is going to give the powerful, moneyed special interests what they want at the expense of everyone else in America. Hundreds or thousands of the people we are supposed to represent will be hurt by this legislation. Most of them do not realize yet that they are in the process of being harmed; they are too busy working, raising their families, going about their lives, until something bad happens to them and they need to seek justice. This legislation would hurt their chances to get that justice. This bill would move many of their cases to Federal courts where the delays are greater, where the waits for justice are much longer, and where, evidently, the rich and the powerful win more often. That is why this bill's proponents want us to pass it. To me, that is exactly why we should reject it. There are other reasons to reject this bill. The Chief Justice of the United States has asked Congress not to shift cases from State courts to Federal courts. In 1998 he said: In my annual report last year I criticized the Senate for moving too slowly in the filling of vacancies on the Federal bench. That was back in 1998. I also criticized Congress and the President for their propensity to enact more and more legislation which brings more and more cases into the Federal court system. If Congress enacts and the President signs new laws allowing more cases to be brought into the Federal courts, just filling the vacancies will not be enough. More recently, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the entire Federal judiciary, wrote Chairman Hatch on March 6, 2003, of their opposition: . . . based on concerns that the revisions would add substantially to the workload of the Federal courts and are inconsistent with the principles of federalism. So this bill ignores the advice of the Federal judiciary and the Chief Justice of the United States, and it ignores the best interests of most Americans in order to further advantage the rich and the powerful. Proponents say the judicial system is broken and needs to be fixed. I say what needs to be fixed is this legislative system, whereby the rich and the powerful get special legislation passed that helps them and hurts everyone else. I have seen it tried time after time in my 3\1/2\ years here. I have seen the rich and the powerful win most of those times, and the people who are not rich and powerful abandoned. It looks like that will happen again. What a tragedy for the Senate. What a tragedy for America. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his concurrence. Mr. President, I want to say at the outset, as I said yesterday, but in the absence of my colleague from Arizona, I have the utmost respect for him and also for those who take a different position on this issue. But I am a little perplexed at the dire consequences that are being asserted if my amendment were to be adopted, because my amendment simply strikes language that is in the bill before the Senate which is itself modifying current law. My amendment simply takes us back to current law. My amendment simply takes us back to the principles and the policies and the standards and the law in the Buy American Act, which has been in effect in this country for 70 years. So I am astonished that these dire consequences are being asserted on something that has been in existing law for 70 years, that has benefited companies represented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Defense Industrial Association, that may have certain members that have exported jobs and instead set up bases of operation in other countries, including those affected by this amendment. So there may be those who have that particular financial interest for their own companies involved, but, overall, as the Senator from Arizona pointed out, national defense and military equipment are areas of our trade where we enjoy a surplus. So it seems evident that the policies and the laws of this country affecting both ``Buy American''--which provides exemptions for the Secretary of Defense in just the circumstances that the Senator from Arizona cited: if there are not products available that are of the right quality, if there is a delay in obtaining them, if the prices are not competitive, if there are any factors at all that would harm our ability to provide for our national defense or to supply our fighting men and women who serve us so heroically around the globe--if there were anything at all that were an impediment to them getting the best equipment, getting the most advanced equipment, in a timely basis, at a competitive price, then the Secretary of Defense, under the current law, is entitled and has the authority to make a waiver and grant an exception. But this ``Buy American'' law has said--for 70 years, under six Democratic administrations and five Republican administrations, until this administration started to object to it--try to buy American because if you buy American, you strengthen America by supporting American companies producing products in the United States of America, employing American citizens, providing jobs in this country. It is this administration which seemingly has very little concern about that job base. Given that we have lost, since President Bush took office, in the last 3\1/2\ years, over 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs in this country--that is, 2\1/2\ million Americans who were holding those jobs when President Bush took office, who are now without those jobs. Maybe some have found lesser paying service sector jobs, but many of them are unemployed and have been for a long time. Under those circumstances, you would think this administration would be unwilling to adopt any violations of the Buy American Act that would have the consequence of costing more American manufacturing jobs or not recovering some that would otherwise be possible to be recovered for the benefit of American citizens, for the benefit of American companies. But evidently that is not a concern. I appreciate that Senator McCain has, by his proposed substitute amendment--and I would support that if my own were not successful-- reduced the number of countries that are going to be given this special treatment, this special advantage under the existing armed services language--section 842 that I propose to strike--and has stated that the countries that will be given this special exemption are those that have signed statements of principle with the United States rather than memoranda of understanding regarding U.S. purchases from those countries. I am a little perplexed that the Senator from Arizona cited letters in support of his position from the countries of Canada and the Netherlands because, according to the information I have been provided, those two countries do not have statements of principle signed with the United States, so they would not be included. In fact, they would now be excluded by Senator McCain's proposed substitute amendment. As I understand it, the countries that have signed these statements of principle include Australia, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, and Italy. I am pleased that the number of countries then that would be exempted from ``Buy America'' are only 7, as opposed to 21 before, but those are still 7 countries, frankly, that enjoy, on an overall basis, a sizable trade surplus with the United States. In other words, this country, if you take all goods and services, imports far more products from those countries, buys more products made in those countries than we export to those countries. One of the few exceptions to that is the sale of military equipment. That is to our advantage. That means we are exporting more than we are importing. That means we have more jobs generated in the United States to produce those goods and products than we are importing in return. But on an overall basis, taking all products--commercial, industrial, agricultural, and services--we are paying more money to import goods and services from those countries than we are exporting. So why are we willing to sacrifice one of the very few sectors in which we enjoy a trade surplus and give that up by agreeing to buy the same amount of product from them as we sell to them in this one sector and then leaving all others aside? If we want to take that approach, if we believe, as those countries do, that these kind of reciprocal agreements are valuable to them, as they are, because they provide jobs in those countries, why don't we make that requirement for everything we import from those countries? Or better yet, why don't we make that agreement for everything we import all over the world? Because as the latest figures show, we are running a world trade deficit that now exceeds on an annual basis $550 billion a year. That is $550 billion that leaves the United States to buy foreign products. Here we are, in one of the few sectors where we enjoy an export surplus, prepared to give that up on the basis of getting contracts or selling products to those countries. I can understand why those countries who wrote those letters of support would do so because that kind of agreement benefits them. But we are not making laws--or we should not be--and we are not making trade policies--or we should not be--that benefit Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark--with all due respect, important friends and allies as they are--any more than they pass laws or make trade policies that benefit the United States to their own disadvantage. So if they are not prepared to do so, and they should not, why would we do so when we should not? My goal is not to change current law; my goal is to stay with current law. It is to strike the language in this bill that would create these additional exceptions, that would allow other companies in other countries to gain contracts that are for goods and services that are now produced in the United States by American companies, employing American workers, paying taxes in American communities that benefit our schools, our local governments, our State and Federal Government, but, most importantly, that provide jobs for American citizens, the same as current law. I am not asking for any more protectionism. I am not asking for any more of anything affecting trade policy or trade agreements than exists under current law. I am simply asking my colleagues not to go further. I ask my colleagues--at a time when we have lost over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs under President Bush and his administration--not to go further, not to cost us more manufacturing jobs, but to take a stand on behalf of those who are working in American industries today, those who want to return jobs to American industries tomorrow. Let's stick with current law. That is what my amendment does. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment 3197 and ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges for the purposes of discussing my amendment be given to my aide, Walter Zampella.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I meant to say that it changes the overall law and which the Barry amendment is part of this general reference to ``Buy America.''

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the chairman is correct in that regard.

Mr. DAYTON. Does the Senator say we should apply that same principle to all of our trade agreements and require that the $478 billion we spent last year in deficits, we should require those countries buy the equivalent in U.S.-made products?

Mr. DAYTON. Then we can conclude this discussion so the Senator can leave the floor. I am glad to see the second degree would reduce the number of countries exempted to seven. I ask if the Senator and Senator McCain would consider language in the amendment that would prohibit the consequences that I just outlined of the sale of goods and military products to China, that there be language in this amendment that would preclude these countries that are getting these benefits from, then in turn providing those gains to countries that are outside of our own military and foreign policy.

Mr. DAYTON. If the Senator will yield for one last question.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, we are going to spend, in the next fiscal year, some $500 billion. That is a half trillion dollars, a huge amount of the taxpayers' money; in fact, about one-fourth of all the money the Federal Government will spend for everything next year, including Social Security, Medicare, health care, and education. The purpose of these expenditures is to strengthen our national security for now and the future. The six priorities that were approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am proudly a member, along with the Presiding Officer and others, reported in the bill before us unanimously by the committee, include such measures as combating terrorism and winning the global war against terrorism, supporting our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to sustaining the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct the full range of military operations against all current and anticipated threats. It goes on to state: Another object is modernizing and transforming our Armed Forces to successfully counter future threats. So we need to spend this money on the immediate needs and missions of our military and support the phenomenal job they have been doing on our behalf around the globe, but we also need to try to anticipate the future. That is difficult, but it is also important. It requires us to look at the big picture, at the global picture, and into the years and even, if possible, the decades that lie ahead. It means we don't want to do something now that is expedient or briefly beneficial that will have negative consequences for us in the future. Ideally, we want policies that strengthen our country now and in the future. That has been the compelling reason for the so-called ``Buy American'' requirements of the Department of Defense, the military branches, and all other Federal agencies for the past 70 years. ``Buy America'' came out of the depths of the Great Depression. Buy America to strengthen America is really what it should be called. Buy America to strengthen America--that was the reason, the purpose, and it has been the result for seven decades. However, the law has always provided for exceptions, exceptions that essentially give, as they should, the full authority to the Secretary of Defense to waive domestic purchase requirements whenever necessary to provide our Armed Forces with equipment, weapons, clothing, food, or anything else that is not available in the United States, that could not be produced or provided in this country when it is needed, that lacks the quality or features or advantages, or that is not priced competitively with non- U.S.-made products. So the law has essentially said: Try to buy American, but if you can't or you shouldn't, then don't. It has worked for almost 70 years, through 11 different administrations--six Democratic, five Republican-- until last year this administration and this Senate shredded that bill. That shredding was reduced to a few slices by the strong opposition of the House conferees, led by the House Armed Services Committee chairman. We in this body are exceedingly fortunate to have the chairman of the Senate Armed Services, who is unparalleled as a leader and public servant. Last July, I traveled to Iraq with the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. We went through the country with 115-degree temperatures. I struggled to keep up with him as he charged fearlessly into every perilous situation. He is in every respect--leading that committee, here on the floor, or out in the field around the world--one of the most outstanding leaders and pubic servants I have ever met anywhere in my walk of life. I also greatly admire my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, whose military experience and expertise and whose devotion to his country and his service to it are all remarkable. However, on that occasion last year regarding ``Buy America,'' I thanked our Founding Fathers for the wisdom of bicameralism. And I must respectfully but strongly again disagree this year with the Senate bill's provisions that would effectively destroy ``Buy America'' by its exceptions to it. If we pass the legislation that is before us now with the language in it, the second degree to my amendment that has been put down today, we might as well eliminate the entire ``Buy America'' statute as it applies to the Department of Defense and the armed services and others that are funded by this bill because that will be the result if this current Senate language if we pass it. I challenge those in the Bush administration and those in the Senate and those lobbying for the big multinational corporations and for the foreign governments they represent, who truly believe that we will be better off without any ``Buy America'' requirements, or certainly, in the case of the paid lobbyists, who know that they and their clients will be better off without them, and those who believe that for whatever reason, they should just say so and put the repeal before us in black and white and have us vote on that rather than just creating more exceptions and more loopholes that give more foreign countries and the corporations that operate in them more and more of the money from this bill in the products that they buy and the jobs for which they pay, because under this language that exists in the bill now, those tax dollars, those products, those jobs will go to people in other countries but not to Americans. There will be no more ``Buy America'' to strengthen America. It will be buy abroad, because of what? Because it is cheaper? Because it is better? Because it doesn't matter? Let's have that debate in the Senate. Is it cheaper to buy overseas? After counting all the costs of not only the product prices but also the wages that are gained or lost, the taxes paid by those wage earners in this country or somewhere else, the unemployment costs in this country, the welfare cost, the food stamp cost, not to mention the human cost of people who lose their jobs, is it better to buy these products overseas? Better for whom? Who gains, who loses, when American dollars are spent abroad to buy foreign goods made by foreign workers instead of American goods made by American workers? Does it matter? Evidently not to this President or to this Pentagon leadership. But it sure matters to the American people, who will lose their jobs or won't get new jobs or better jobs. Do they have a say in where their tax dollars are spent? Does it matter to this Senate that there are now 2\1/2\ million fewer manufacturing jobs in this country than there were when President Bush took office? Yes, 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country in the last 3\1/2\ years, despite the so-called recovery and recent job gains in some other sectors of our economy. There are still 2\1/2\ million less manufacturing jobs today than there were in January 2001. Many of those American jobs have been sent overseas and were replaced in other countries by low-wage jobs. Importing all those foreign- manufactured products has now produced a U.S. trade deficit that last month was $48.2 billion. That is another all-time worst trade deficit-- $48.2 billion for a single month, and it will probably be broken again next month or soon thereafter. Over the next year, if that continues, it will produce an annual trade deficit of $578 billion--almost $100 billion more than last year's record trade deficit. We are told we cannot do anything about this massive bleeding of jobs and wages, capital investments, profits, and tax payments out of our country. We are told we should not even try; it is free trade, globalization, and it is good for America. Is 2.5 million lost manufacturing jobs good for America? Over $100 billion in lost wages and benefits every year is good for America? Over $30 billion of lost tax revenues each year for Federal, State, local governments, and school districts is good for America? Our Federal budget deficits, our State and local government deficits, U.S. trade deficit, national debt increasing, all of which are going higher and higher--is that all good for America? Jobs and wages, production of goods and services, capital investment by businesses, allowing people--as consumers buy goods and services, producing tax revenues, individual and corporate, they are the lifeblood of any economy. They are its vitality. Corporate profits, stock prices, dividends, and capital gains are all vitally important as well, but they are not enough. This country's economic vitality is bleeding away. Our economic strength is weakening. Our economic strength is essential to our military strength. Our economic security is essential to our national security. This legislation, this authorization to spend $500 billion on our national security, had better strengthen, not weaken, our economic security as well. I am aware of the letter to the chairman from a group calling itself the National Defense Industrial Association. It claims to represent over 1,300 member companies and purports to be the ``voice of the industrial base.'' Who are these companies? Whose industrial base are they speaking for? Many are companies that have moved their production overseas, that are making better profits from paying low wages to foreigners instead of good wages to Americans. We cannot stop them from doing so. But why should we reward them with American tax dollars going to support their foreign production? They can certainly continue that foreign production, and they will. But if they want these U.S. military contracts, they should fill them with American workers, not with foreigners. They should make those products or provide those services in American communities, not foreign cities. They should pay taxes from those profits to our school districts and local governments, not someone else's. These are American tax dollars that are paying for our national defense, not from their corporate profits from foreign operations-- profits on which they will pay taxes to foreign governments, not our own. Someone has to look out for the best interests of this country, and it sure is not the National Defense Industrial Association. Maybe that is not their responsibility. But the best interests of this country are our responsibility here in the Senate. So they should not tell us or try to make us or the American people believe their interests are America's interests. In their letter, they claim it would negatively impact the ability of the U.S. industrial base to compete in the international marketplace and would therefore negatively impact the Warfighter, and the bill's amendment gutting ``Buy American'' will represent important steps in the Department of Defense's transformation plans and send positive signs to our allies that the United States is supportive of existing trade agreements. I am deeply offended that American companies, most of which are headed by American citizens, would try to hide their financial self-interests behind pretenses like these. They want defense contracts they can fulfill with their existing foreign operations that provide them with greater profits. They don't want to have to shift that production back to the U.S. and employ fellow American citizens. They want only what is good for themselves, not what is best for America's military strength or our Nation's economic vitality. In some cases, as the letter discloses, they coddle foreign governments that want to buy American military hardware and then want us to buy the same amount of their foreign-made military products from their countries. We signed, evidently--somebody in the Department of Defense signed these agreements. There are countries where our trade deficits last year totalled over $120 billion for all goods and services. But in this one sector of military goods and services, where we run a trade surplus, we agree to give up our surplus by buying more foreign products, some of which, of course, are made in those countries by--surprise-- some of the companies in the National Defense Industrial Association. Those companies win both ways, but the rest of America loses. These memoranda of understanding are not free trade; they are certainly not fair trade. They are dumb trade. It is amazing to me that somebody would sign them. It is like something out of the movie ``Dumb and Dumber,'' where I give you $20. You are going to give me $10 back, but you say, wait a minute, I am losing my $10. You have a responsibility to make up for my $10 with your $10. So we do that. We agree to that in this memorandum. We are going to match their $10 with ours and even up that part of the deal and leave the $20 that goes to them--leave it out and let it go. That is dumb trade. We spend more on our defense products, goods, and services than the next 10 countries in the world combined. They need our markets; we don't need theirs. They are cutting back on their military production, so they want these agreements to prop up their industries and provide jobs for their workers at our expense. They are smart enough to look for it, and we are dumb enough to give it to them. It is also dangerous trade. This month's Jane's Intelligence Review, a widely regarded international publication, reports that ``Europe Considers Ending Chinese Arms Embargo.'' The Chinese premier was in some European Union countries last month and he concluded, saying, ``I have great confidence that there will be a solution to this problem.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and others for setting aside their amendments, and I call up amendment No. 3197.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON. It reads: On the European side, the attractions of tapping China's defense market are significant: China is the world's largest importer of defense equipment ($3.6 billion worth in 2002), and . . . France and Germany in particular are pushing to lift the arms embargo; France because the government is under pressure from its defense industry to resume arms sales; and Germany because it wants to maintain its currently good and close relationship with Beijing. Opponents to lifting the ban include, most vociferously, the USA. . . . Richard Fisher, from the Jamestown Foundation, told [Janes Intelligence Review]: ``The real impact of a deep and wide EU-PLA [People's Liberation Army]-- The army of China, the People's Republic of China-- military alliance will fall on the USA, in terms of accelerating a military-technical arms race that will burden U.S. taxpayers and place ever greater pressure on the U.S. political/military alliance system in Asia.'' Who are these countries protecting or helping in this language I want to strike out of this bill that have these offsetting reciprocal agreements with the United States? They include Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland--all European Union countries. Others that are also exempt by other features include France, Italy, and Luxembourg--all European Union countries. We are going to contribute to their building up their defense industries, and then they are going to turn around, most likely, soon and sell those products, that technology, those military advantages to a country in opposition to our foreign policy and against our own military interests, against our own national security interests. That is just one example of how this kind of expediency and also the corporate pressures that drive some of it are a danger to our national security and to our future economic strength. In conclusion, for the last 70 years, ``Buy America'' has worked for America, and it has helped Americans work in America to build a strong national defense, to build a strong national economy, and to build a strong American industrial base until this administration arrived. The Bush administration believes evidently we can have a strong national defense and a strong national economy without a strong American industrial base, without Americans making American products in American communities. They are so indifferent to that need that at a time when the United States has lost over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs held by 2.5 million American workers in the last 3\1/2\ years, they support this bill and its language to send more American taxpayers' dollars to pay for foreign products made by foreign workers. Maybe those who do not care about other Americans' jobs should offer to give up their own job. Practice what they preach and find out for themselves what unemployment is really like. But it is our responsibility, exercising our collective wisdom, to act in the best interests of the United States of America. I know my colleagues share that desire. We may have our honest differences and disagreements, but I beseech my colleagues in this instance to review this measure and this language and consider the consequences of it for our military strength, for our economic strength, as well as for the jobs of Americans and the quality of products and the security of products provided to the men and women serving courageously around the globe. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From Jane's Intelligence Review, June 1, 2004] Europe Considers Ending Chinese Arms Embargo (By John Hill) Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao began his first official visit to Europe on 5 May with the issue of lifting the European Union's (EU) ban on the sale of weapons systems to China high on his agenda. Beijing had hoped that a decision to end the ban would be made at the meeting of EU foreign ministers on 26 April, but at the annual Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) held in Dublin a week earlier, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Brian Cowen, said that a change in the issue was unlikely during Ireland's EU presidency. Undaunted, in Brussels on 5 May, Wen said: ``I have great confidence that there will be a solution to this problem.'' For months now it has appeared that the arms embargo, which was imposed following the Tiananmen Square violence in 1989, would be scrapped, and Beijing certainly has many powerful European friends working on its behalf. Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Policy, as well as representatives from both France and Germany have in recent months assured the Chinese publicly that they think the time has come to resume arms sales. On the European side, the attractions of tapping China's defence market are significant: China is the world's largest importer of defence equipment (US$3.6bn-worth in 2002), and currently Russia is the main beneficiary. According to Jean- Pierre Cabestan of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, France and Germany in particular are pushing to lift the arms embargo: France because the government is under pressure from its defence industry to resume arms sales; and Germany because it wants to maintain its currently good and close relationship with Beijing. Both the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and the French electronics company Thales told JIR that although they do not currently export military equipment to China, they are monitoring the situation. Opponents to lifting the ban include, most vociferously, the USA. In January, Richard Boucher, spokeswoman for the US Department of State, said: ``Our statutes and regulations prohibit sales of defence items to China. We believe that others should maintain their current arms embargoes as well. We believe that the US and European prohibitions on arms sales are complementary, were imposed for the same reasons, specifically serious human rights abuses, and that those reasons remain valid today.'' The UK is remaining circumspect; although obviously its defence industry would like to sell to the Chinese market, the government is reportedly upholding the US line on the issue. There is debate over the consequences that lifting the ban would have. Professor Shen Dingli, an expert in International Relations at Shanghai's Fudan University, told JIR: ``[Ending the embargo] won't be significant, as China has its own arms research, development and manufacturing capability, and can access Russia's military aircraft and ship technology. Reportedly, soon China will acquire its own manufacturing capability of more modern military aircraft, and by that time, China will export its own technology.'' However, the USA remains worried that the end of the embargo could spark an arms race. US China analyst Richard Fisher, from the Jamestown Foundation, told JIR: ``The real impact of a deep and wide EU-PLA [People's Liberation Army] military alliance will fall on the USA, in terms of accelerating a military-technical arms race that will burden US taxpayers and place ever greater pressure on the US political/military alliance system in Asia.'' Fisher argued that if the ban was lifted, the French would be ``first out of the gate'' with submarine and satellite technology. He added that the competition would also spur on the Russians, who ``are now openly talking about selling advanced SSK [submarine] co-production rights to the PLA to trump the

Mr. DAYTON. I yield to the chairman. Amendment No. 3461 To Amendment No. 3197

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, my amendment strikes two sections of the bill, sections 842 and 843, which relate to ``Buy America'' and the Berry amendment, which are features that have been in existing law for quite a number of years to strengthen our national defense and our national economy. This bill authorizes $422 billion for national defense programs for fiscal year 2005, a sum that doesn't even include the funding for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you include those additional amounts, our national defense spending for the next fiscal year will be almost $500 billion.

Mr. DAYTON. I agree with that. Exhibit 1 The Ambassador, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Washington, May 17, 2004. Dear Senator: Mindful of the long standing and strong relationship between the United States and the Netherlands I would like to express support for several very important amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill 2005 that were agreed this week in the discussions in the Senate Armed Services Committee. I refer specifically to the proposals in Title VIII-- Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management and Related Matters, Subtitle D--Industrial Base Matters (Sections 841, 842 and 843). I consider the Section with regard to a ``Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base'' as a highly constructive proposal. Specifically the balanced tasking of the Committee seems to inherently guarantee certain success. Taking into account the increasingly important subject of interoperability, specifically relevant in the present day environment, I also value the amendment concerning the ``Conforming standard for waiver of domestic source or content requirements'' as an important building block for a fertile environment for defense trade of which the warfighter of today and of tomorrow will be able to benefit. Also the section that deals with the ``Consistency with United States obligations under trade agreements'' is seen as a positive and relevant assurance for other countries. Although not directly related to the above referenced proposals allow me to share with you the idea that in our perception, part of the discussion which is seen by some as the danger posed by foreign dependency can be satisfied by bilateral Security of Supply agreements which can be negotiated as more detailed arrangements under a Declaration of Principles or a reciprocal defense procurement MOU. In conclusion I would like to assure you of my broad support for the proposals which I mentioned above.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for making that arrangement. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for giving me that opportunity and also the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for allowing this as well. I will be introducing my Unshackle Seniors Act, which will allow seniors and others who are on Medicare to purchase their Medicare discount cards as they choose and to cancel their participation with full refunds and other returns whenever the cards are changed in their coverage or their discounts. As you know, last year Congress passed a prescription drug coverage plan that was far different from the Senate-passed version which I supported. I voted against the final conference report after voting for the Senate bill. I did so for several reasons, but one was the excessive delay until the actual program would begin, which necessitated these drug discount cards being made available until the program begins in January of 2006, which is over 2 years after the bill's passage. Until then, seniors are going to be able to sign up for only one, just one drug discount card and only one for that entire year, even though the care plan providers can change the coverage and the amount of the discount they are choosing. What kind of deal is that, where seniors are stuck with one card for the entire year, but the plan can be changed at the discretion of the provider, yet seniors can't change theirs accordingly? My bill would unshackle seniors from that restriction and would allow them to purchase as many drug discount cards as they choose and also grant them a full refund whenever the card providers change the coverage or the discount, thereby unshackling seniors from this ridiculous restriction that works to the benefit of providers rather than the patients. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, when I was in Minnesota last week, I read a very disturbing news report about the cost of prescription drugs in this country. The American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute looked at the prices charged by the manufacturers of 197 brand-name prescription drugs most widely purchased by Americans. Last year, their average price increase was 6.9 percent, over three times the overall inflation rate of just 2.2 percent. From December of 1999 to December of 2003, for 155 of those drugs on the market during all 4 years, their prices increased by a cumulative average of 27.6 percent compared to the general inflation rate of just over 10 percent. That is a price increase of over 2.5 times the overall inflation rate during the past 4 years. It is not as though those drug prices were low at the beginning. Last summer, my staff compared the retail prices of 52 leading prescription drugs in the United States and Canada. For exactly the same drug, same amount, same strength, made by the same company, prices in Canada were one-third, one-fifth, even one-eighth the prices in the United States. That was after factoring out the different values of the U.S. and Canadian dollars. So in an apples-to-apples comparison, prices for the exact same medicines in the United States were three times, five times, even eight times higher than prices in Canada. My study shows that Americans are being gouged by exorbitant prescription drug prices, and AARP's study shows that it is getting worse. Those excessive and rapidly increasing prices afflict all Americans, not only senior citizens. This year, almost 12 percent of all the money Americans spend for their health care will go for prescription drugs. That is almost one out of every eight health care dollars. Over the past 6 years, prescription drug costs have been the fastest growing part of total health care spending in this country. So if Americans are getting ripped off by the drug companies, and if the problem is getting worse, then certainly President Bush and Congress would do something about it, right? Well, last year, the President and a majority in the Senate and House did something, but they made things worse, not better. Let me restate that. President Bush and a majority in Congress made sure prescription drug prices could keep going higher and higher and hurt most Americans, which means more money and larger profits for the drug companies. President Bush and his friends in Congress helped the rich get even richer, while making the rest of America poorer. How did they do that? Well, on the prescription drug bill that was passed last year, the final version that most of my Democratic colleagues and I voted against, Federal health care officials are expressly prohibited from negotiating or in any way affecting the prices being charged for prescription drugs. When prescription drug coverage, inadequate as it will be, fully begins in the year 2006, the people on Medicare will be buying over half of all the prescription drugs purchased in America. Most of those bills will be paid at least in part by the Federal Government with taxpayer money at whatever prices are charged. Imagine if you had to pay whatever someone else decided to charge you. You couldn't negotiate. You couldn't refuse to pay above a certain price. You would have no say; you would just pay. And you would pay and pay and pay. No wonder a bill that was supposed to cost taxpayers $400 billion over the next 10 years is already projected to cost over $541 billion, a $141 billion increase, and the program has not even begun yet. I guarantee the program's cost will run even higher than that, as long as that prohibition against price negotiating is in law. It is a license to exploit Americans, all Americans, since all Americans will have to pay those higher prices. Conversely, if Federal officials negotiated lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries, some, most, or even all of that price reduction would affect the prices the rest of us have to pay for those medicines. Drug company lobbyists and their friends in Washington call this price fixing and claim the Federal Government would destroy profitability, end research and development, and even cause bankruptcies. Nonsense. The Federal Government can't force any vendors to sell their products or services below prices acceptable to them. It can't legally--except in a national emergency--it doesn't try to, and it should not want to. Take the Pentagon, which is often the only legal buyer of many of its products or services. It doesn't dictatorially set some price and require some company to make a product and sell it at that price. The Pentagon or the service branch purchaser might put the contract out for competitive bids or, if there is only one suitable provider, the Pentagon or military officials would sit down with the company officials and they would negotiate, truly negotiate, a mutually agreed- upon price. Is that price as high as the company might charge if the company could set the price as high as it would like? No, probably not. Would the company agree to a price so low as to be unprofitable? No, definitely not. Does the Pentagon even want that low price? No, because if that company doesn't make a profit, it won't be around to keep producing that product or other products. Those national defense projects frequently require extensive research and development, then testing, then modifications, and then more testing, requiring often several years before the actual production and sales can begin. Those costs--research and development, testing--are made part of the contract, usually paid in advance of production, and often revised upward if unforeseen circumstances develop. The Federal Government is a partner in those endeavors and vested in their positive outcomes while still being, hopefully, a responsible purchaser, assuring that taxpayers get their money's worth. Would anybody here believe the Pentagon should be prohibited from negotiating the prices it will pay for what it needs, that it should be required to pay whatever prices its suppliers decided to charge? That would be ridiculous and scandalous, as it should also be for prescription drugs. That part of the new law would be bad enough for most Americans just by itself. But the Bush administration and its congressional allies were not done helping their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. In our economic system, if the price of something becomes too high, you can shop around for a lower price elsewhere. I come from a retail family. My great-grandfather opened a department store in Minneapolis in 1903. My father and uncles and thousands of Minnesotans and other Americans built the company into Target Corporation, now the country's second largest retailer after Wal-Mart. Retailers, especially discount retailers, understand competition. They expect their customers to be looking for lower prices, better deals, and higher value elsewhere. They don't go to the President or to Congress and say: Make Americans buy from us at whatever prices we charge and prohibit them from buying anywhere else. That is what the drug companies wanted. That is what President Bush and a majority in Congress gave them. They banned what is being called drug reimportation, which is actually a bit of a misnomer because many prescription drugs are made outside of the United States and then imported into this country. In fact, over $14 billion worth of those prescription drugs were imported legally into the United States last year and sold to us at the manufacturer's prices. Neither the FDA nor the companies objected as long as that massive drug importation was occurring at their high prices. But many Americans objected to paying those prices, and many other Americans couldn't even afford to pay them. So they want to do what Americans can do in almost every other situation in our economy--shop around for lower prices and buy them where they can find them. Lower prescription drug prices can be found in Canada and in other countries. The prices are much lower in Canada, as I said earlier, for the same product made by the same company. Some Americans can actually travel to Canada because they live near the United States-Canadian border. I donate all but $1 of my Senate salary to the Minnesota Senior Federation for bus trips into Canada to buy those lower cost medicines. The Canadian Government allows pharmacists in that country to fill only prescriptions signed by Canadian doctors, and that takes an appointment and time and then more time to get the prescription filled. Thus, when I went on one bus trip from central Minnesota into Canada and back, the entire round trip took us 19 hours--from 7 o'clock in the morning to 2 a.m. the following morning. That is what I call a long U- turn. The average savings among the 40 seniors who were on the trip was over $250. Almost all of them bought more than one medicine, and most bought a 2 or 3-month supply so they would not have to make the trip so often. However, even a 19-hour round-trip bus ride is not an option for most Minnesotans and other Americans who live too far from Canada and are not able to make such a trip. The Internet is their ticket, and many more Americans are discovering that possibility. They are discovering they can save hundreds, even thousands, of dollars when buying prescription drugs over the Internet. Thus, many Americans-- especially our senior citizens--can then afford to buy medicine they would otherwise have to forego at the higher U.S. prices. You would think our Federal Government--which, after all, is supposed to be a Government of, by, and for the people--you would think the people elected, appointed, or hired to serve the people, and being paid by the people to do so, would want to help the people save lots of money. But, again, that would mean less profits for the drug companies--still very high profits, but less very high profits. Yet, incredibly, inexcusably, for this administration and the majority in this Congress, higher drug company profits are more important than everyone else in America. So they made it illegal to buy prescription drugs outside the U.S. and bring them into this country, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services guarantees their safety--which he already said he will not do. If the Secretary of Transportation had to guarantee in advance every commercial airplane trip would be safe, it would put an end to air travel as well. President Bush and Congress could have written the law to require the Secretary and his huge agency to help people make safe purchases over the Internet, as, to his credit, the Governor of my State of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has instructed our State Department of Health to do. Hopefully, he will not be arrested by the Federal Government for providing that help. If he is, I promised to help him make the bail. But with this administration and with the majority in this Congress, there is no help for Americans with the overpriced prescription drug costs, except for another drug discount card, which, in Minnesota, is now a choice of 1 out of 48 possible cards for a discount on some drugs we now learn from AARP have increased a total of over 27 percent in price over the last 4 years, which means they can offer a discount and still make more money. When this bill was passed by a majority in the House and Senate last year, after the Bush administration and the industry lobbyists had written a bill in conference committee so very different from the earlier Senate version--which I supported--I was left with two questions: First, how could people vote for a bill they knew did not represent their constituents' best interests? Secondly, how did they assume they could do so and still get reelected? Americans don't deserve the highest, by far, prescription drug prices in the world--allowed to go even higher and higher. Americans should not be forced to pay those exorbitant prices and be prohibited from buying their medicines at much lower prices elsewhere. America's senior citizens don't need another 48 discount cards to choose from. They all need, and deserve, to be able to go to their neighborhood pharmacies everywhere in their country and buy prescription medicines at prices comparable to the rest of the world. That is what governments of other countries assure for their citizens. That is what our Government should do for our citizens. When Government officials don't serve the best interests of the people, they should no longer be Government officials. That is why we have elections. I yield the floor.