Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is it in order to ask unanimous consent to have the yeas and nays and a vote to occur at 2:05?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to address the Senate on trade promotion authority and the opportunity this country has before it to participate in free trade. I am a free trader. I believe it is a net benefit for both my State and the country to reduce tariff barriers and open markets to other nations. We must do this in a manner that respects fair trading practices by important industries in the United States that are the engine of our economy. Need I remind everyone that in the war against terrorism, it is not only that we have to be politically and militarily strong, but we have to be economically strong as well? There is some debate over our last free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. I was a supporter of NAFTA and believed it was an important part of the economic growth the United States experienced in the decade of the 1990s. But NAFTA arranged for side agreements relating to certain industries our trading partners did not live up to. One of those clearly affected Florida. It was a side agreement that was going to be protective of winter vegetables, specifically tomatoes. That side agreement was not lived up to with regard to the importation of Mexican tomatoes, with the result that whereas Florida used to have a huge percentage of the national market of winter vegetables, we now supply only 30 percent. You can imagine what that has done to some of the fruit and vegetable farmers in Florida. As we open our markets to all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, we must consider how we can learn from and prevent these kinds of situations we have had in the past with things such as NAFTA and how we can prevent that from occurring in the future. That is why Senator Graham and I have introduced this amendment to the TPA legislation that cuts right to the heart of free and fair trade. This amendment says tariffs may not be reduced on commodities on which there is an existing antidumping order or an existing countervailing duty order. What does that mean? Well, I am going to explain it, if I may. When the executive branch, the Congress, or particular industries believe a certain nation is engaging in some kind of unfair trade practice on a particular commodity, then they go out and petition the International Trade Commission to investigate the trade of that particular commodity. That is what has happened with the recent steel case. If a thorough investigation by the International Trade Commission finds that an important product is being sold below fair market value and that a U.S. producer is thereby being harmed, it is considered dumping, an anticompetitive practice. Dumping is, in essence, price discrimination against U.S. consumers. Now, there is another kind of order. This is an order that if a foreign government is subsidizing a particular commodity--a foreign government subsidizing a particular commodity--then that order would provide that those foreign manufacturers, or exporters--because they have that unfair competition because their government is subsidizing their particular commodity, and they are going to have an unfair competitive advantage; therefore, the Department of Commerce would issue a countervailing duty order. So it follows that if a country or company is found by the International Trade Commission, or the Department of Commerce, to be actually engaging in unfair trade practices in such a clear-cut manner that it is issued either an antidumping or countervailing duty order, then under this amendment, while those orders are in place, those tariffs would not be reduced on those commodities until that dumping, or subsidizing, had ceased and the order had been removed. That is just as common sense as you can make it. If you have anticompetitive behavior by a foreign government or foreign countries and there is an order out there put in place by the Department of Commerce or the International Trade Commission, as long as those orders are in place, you are not going to let the tariff be reduced that protects the U.S. consumer because it simply doesn't make sense to reward countries by further opening U.S. markets to commodities that are currently being dumped in the country by our trading partners until the dumping has ceased. Now, some may argue that this amendment is not compliant with the World Trade Organization, the organization that administers trade agreements among nations, the organization that acts as a forum for trade organizations, the organization that settles trade disputes, and the organization that reviews trade policy. Well, some may argue that this amendment doesn't comply with that. I disagree. First of all, the World Trade Organization's compliance should be judged based on the substance of trade agreements. This legislation is not the substance of trade agreements; rather, this legislation states the terms by which Congress will consider providing fast-track authority to such trade agreements. World Trade Organization compliance will be assessed later when a trade agreement is completed. So that argument doesn't wash as a counter to Bob Graham's and my amendment. Second, they might argue that this amendment provides a double penalty upon countries that practice anticompetitive behavior. Well, that argument is not accurate either. It is widely understood that antidumping orders are not viewed by the WTO as punitive. Instead, they are viewed as remedial. Finally, some would argue against this amendment and act as if tariff reductions are a divine right. Tariff reductions are not a divine right. Tariff reductions should be viewed and approved on their face after consideration of all the facts. They should be viewed as mutually beneficial in a bilateral or multilateral scenario. Withholding a benefit should not be considered assessment of a penalty. I might also add that this amendment of Senator Graham's and mine does not violate the core basis of the Uruguay Round of tariff negotiations, and ultimately that Uruguay Round created the World Trade Organization. WTO compliance is not an issue in this debate. Instead, it is being used as a red herring to try to defeat this amendment. For all of these reasons, I submit that this legislation doesn't violate the norms of the WTO and, actually, should strengthen the administration's hand at the negotiating table. Let me say that again to my friends in the administration, who have fought Senator Graham and me tooth and toenail on what is free and fair trade. This amendment will actually strengthen your hand at the negotiating table by being another instrument to help you make sure there is free and fair trade, as we want to open up free and fair trade. While the $9 billion Florida citrus industry is a concern to this Senator and my senior Senator from Florida, this amendment clearly affects many other commodities, including honey, steel, preserved mushrooms, Atlantic salmon, and sugar, and a whole number of other items I am going to list. We must not reward countries that engage in anticompetitive, predatory trading practices. Madam President, my concern that we not undermine our antidumping procedures does not make me any less of a proponent of trade promotion authority in the best interests of my State and the country. Florida is an exporting State, and exports mean good jobs. According to the Department of Commerce, 11 greater Florida metropolitan areas posted exports of more than $120 million in 1999: Miami; the Tampa Bay area; Fort Lauderdale; Orlando; the West Palm-Boca area; Jacksonville; Melbourne, my hometown in the Brevard County area; Lakeland; Sarasota; Panama City; and Daytona Beach. Florida exported goods worth $24 billion in that year to more than 200 foreign markets. These goods include computers, electronic products, machinery transportation equipment, chemical manufacturing, electrical equipment, appliances, and agricultural products. Trade promotion authority has the potential to open markets to Florida's entrepreneurs and small businesses and farmers. I have been contacted by many Floridians asking me to support TPA, and I have by voting for cloture so we can move on with this bill. I helped out the Senator from Texas yesterday when there was an amendment that was threatening the stability of the bill. I ask my colleagues to support TPA, and I also ask our colleagues to support this amendment of Senator Graham and me that improves the underlying legislation and would ensure we have free and fair trade. I will tell my colleagues how important this is--other than to Senator Graham and me for frozen orange juice concentrate, of which Brazil has 50 percent of the world market. If that tariff protecting the Florida citrus industry, the California citrus industry, and the Arizona citrus industry from unfair competition by dumping a product is taken away, Brazil, with 50 percent of the market, will take over 100 percent of the market, and that is not free and fair trade. I do not know why the Senator from Texas and others--we talk about the purity of the legislation. I helped him yesterday. I cannot understand. We are talking about free and fair trade. We are not talking about monopoly trade which will occur to the detriment of California, Arizona, and Florida unless this amendment is adopted. There are plenty of other States, I say to Senators, that better be forewarned and forearmed that if they do not protect this legislation with this amendment, then those orders protecting the commodities from their States are not going to be protected in the future. Let's talk about some of them. How about Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Illinois with regard to steel products--steel products including barbed wire, welded carbon steel pipe, line and pressure pipe, oil country tubular goods, hot-rolled carbon steel flat products--all of those products that are manufactured in Senator Lugar's State of Indiana. The two Senators from the State of Ohio, Senators DeWine and Voinovich, and the two Senators from Pennsylvania: Are you paying attention? The Senators from New York: Are you paying attention? Maryland, Illinois: You are going to lose the protection of your steel products and the orders that are out there protecting them unless you vote for this amendment. Let's take honey. The Senators from Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California--California has a big honey industry: You are going to lose your protection of those existing orders if this amendment is not adopted. How about sugar? Sugar is going to be threatened by Belgium, France, and Germany, and I am talking about Louisiana, Hawaii, Texas, California, Idaho, Michigan, and Minnesota. I inquire, Madam President, it is my understanding the side proposing the amendment has 1 hour; is that correct?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. I want to make sure those interests that are protecting sugar from the European Union, Germany, France, and Belgium, which include Louisiana, Hawaii, Texas, California, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana--do you realize that your commodities are threatened if you cannot protect them with your existing orders? Let's talk about some of the steel products that would be threatened by Brazil. Carbon steel butt welded pipe fittings, iron construction castings, brass sheet and strip--and I could go through a whole list of steel products. Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin: Senators, are you listening? How about fresh Atlantic salmon from the States of Maine and Alaska? Senators from Maine, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe: Are you listening? Your orders protecting the dumping of products out of Chile are not going to protect your salmon. Senator Murkowski: Are you listening? You are not going to be protected from Chile's dumping of Salmon unless you protect those orders that are outstanding. How about Oregon's mushrooms being protected from Chile? If they do not keep those orders and they allow those orders to be cast aside and the tariff to be reduced, it is not going to protect them. How about Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and Kansas on the cement industry being protected from Mexico? Senators from Alabama, Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions: You are not going to be protected on your orders that protect your cement industry unless you protect those orders from being undermined by the adoption of this amendment. What about the State of New York? Antifriction ball bearings being protected from Singapore. There is an order there. How about Montana, the Dakotas, and California, as I mentioned earlier on honey? The last time I mentioned honey, it was Argentina. Your products are not going to be protected. Also in Argentina, they produce hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, and Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald, they are not going to be protected, those same States being protected from Brazil on a countervailing duty. Earlier, I talked about the antidumping orders, honey from Argentina, hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina; steel products from Brazil has another kind of order against it, according to the Department of Commerce, because they have evaluated the situation and determined those two countries have unfairly subsidized those products I just listed--honey, affecting Montana, the Dakotas and California; Argentina, affecting hot-rolled carbon steel flat products affecting Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Illinois; and Brazil, affecting a multiplicity of steel products; that the governments were, in fact, subsidizing those products; that the Department of Commerce of the United States would have an order to protect those products. Folks, this is a foreign country subsidizing against the products coming from your States, the U.S. Department of Commerce issues an order, and that order is going to be in jeopardy of being ignored unless you adopt our amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. It is an amendment that simply states that as long as there is an order from either the International Trade Commission or the U.S. Department of Commerce protecting a commodity because it is being unfairly dealt with in anticompetitive behavior in international trade, that as long as that order exists, this amendment says you cannot reduce the tariff. Madam President, to retain the floor, since we have had some squabble, I yield to my colleague, and upon the finishing of his remarks, I seek to retain the floor. I yield to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, pursuant to the discussions we have had, I call up amendment No. 3454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If there is no more debate, I am ready to put the question. If the Senator will instruct Senator Graham and me when to put the question, we will request the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from Montana yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Iowa wants to speak. I would simply defer if he would like to speak. But in light of the fact that he is not seeking recognition, let me address some of the points the Senator from Texas, my friend, has just raised. The Senator from Texas said the President can negotiate. The fact is that this amendment will help the President in his negotiations, for addressing the question of the existing orders in trade negotiations is ultimately going to foster that negotiation. The question is not whether the President and the administration can negotiate. Clearly, the President is unimpeded in that ability to negotiate. The subject of this amendment is whether or not, when there are orders existing, they have to be taken into consideration in the negotiations with regard to the reduction of a tariff. Mr. Gramm, the Senator from Texas, asserts that clearly 100 items with existing orders and protection from anticompetitive behavior would be taken off the table. He is right. The Senator and I agree on two things. First of all, we support the overall legislation as free traders. We certainly agree that there are lots of items. All of these items are covered by antidumping orders or countervailing duty orders. This amendment forces the President to address the anticompetitive behavior that led to the order being issued in the first place. Who issues the order? If it is anticompetitive behavior through dumping of a product onto a market and trying to drive the U.S. competitor out of business, then it is the U.S. International Trade Commission. If it is the anticompetitive behavior of a foreign government that is subsidizing the product to the disadvantage of the American product, then the order is issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce. So this amendment does not deny the ability to negotiate. It does assist the negotiations. I think in this arcane language of trade promotion, and so much of which we refer to by acronyms--TPA, and TAA, and whatever the acronym is for the Andean Trade Act, which I support-- it is often lost over the bottom line of what is free and fair trade. We, of course, want international trade. We want competition. So as I see my colleague from Florida in the Chamber, who wants to speak on this amendment, I will just again reiterate the points that I made before in rebuttal to the Senator from Texas. First of all, in relation to World Trade Organization compliance, whenever anybody says this is going to mess up the process of the WTO, well, the WTO compliance should be judged based on the substance of trade agreements. With this particular amendment, the substance of the trade agreement is not harmed, but, rather, this amendment states the terms by which the Congress will consider providing the fast-track authority to such trade agreements. The World Trade Organization compliance will be assessed later when a trade agreement is completed. It does not impede the President's ability to negotiate at all. Second, when the opponents of this amendment say this amendment provides a double penalty upon countries that practice anticompetitive behavior, that is not accurate. It is widely understood that antidumping orders are not viewed by the WTO as punitive, that they are viewed as remedial. Third, let's understand that tariff reductions are not a divine right. Tariff reductions should be viewed as mutually beneficial as we go about the process of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Withholding of a benefit should not be considered assessment of a penalty. Rather, what we should try to strive for is the goal, at the end of the day, of free and fair trade, not the running of a particular business or industry out of business just for the sake of doing that, when, in fact, there are existing orders to protect them against anticompetitive behavior. Madam President, I yield the floor and look forward to the comments of my distinguished senior Senator from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Madam President. May I inquire of the chairman of the Finance Committee, it is my understanding that the number of the amendment that you just asked me to call up--I want to make sure that is applicable postcloture, because I have amendment No. 3454 that I understand is in order. It is the same subject matter, but there was some technical scrivener's reason of why there had to be two amendments instead of one.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The present amendment does not amend the bill in two places. The one that has been called up by the chairman of the Finance Committee is the original one. The junior Senator from Florida is purely trying to get the issue out so that we can discuss it. I was told that postcloture it had to be drafted in a separate way. It is an identical amendment. I will proceed with the amendment on the reliance of the statement by the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, do I have the floor?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is fine with me. I wanted to make sure we were in the proper legal structure because I had filed two other amendments that were the same subject matter that would be correctly drawn to the bill. As long as the chairman indicates that the one we had filed originally is OK, that is fine with me. The subject matter is identical.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. No. The amendment is the same. It is my understanding that for a technical reason, postcloture, it was to be divided into two amendments instead of one. It is the same amendment. I am just asking, before we start debating the amendment, to make sure we have the proper one called up.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Madam President, it is interesting we are talking about free and fair trade. What we ought to have is free and fair debate. Earlier, because of some technical reason, people from that side of the aisle were trying to prevent me from offering my amendment that I have been waiting in the queue very patiently for weeks to offer. I have become a constant visitor with the chairman of the Finance Committee and with the ranking member, seeking to protect an industry from Florida facing life or death, an industry that is so important to the State of Florida that the license tag of the State of Florida has emblazoned upon it the emblem of that industry, the Florida orange. I thought about free and fair trade we could have a free and fair debate. So, Madam President, I have said my piece. I will relinquish the floor. I hope others will accord me the privilege within the span of the hour, that should additional things arise, they will give me the courtesy of being able to speak. I thank the Senate for indulging us and giving us an opportunity in which to air an issue that is most important to all of these States and most important to the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I would like to put into the Record--and intended to do so earlier--a letter from the Florida citrus industry indicating their support for our amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from California for yielding. I would like to talk about 1 of those 1,222 sites around the country, 51 of which are in my State, 111 in the State of New Jersey, 100 sites in the State of California. One of those sites is about 12 miles west of Orlando near Lake Apopka at a site called the Old Tower Chemical plant which was shut down in 1980 after a plug of witches' brew that had been created in a holding pond as a result of cooking DDT--I am not making this up; it sounds like a fantasy tale but it is true--after cooking this DDT in order to get a chemical byproduct, all of this residue flowed into a holding pond. What they didn't know was that the holding pond was a sink hole that allowed that cooked witches' brew to go right into the water supply, the Floridian aquifer and, even with that sink hole, a plug escaped over the top of the holding pond and into a creek which flowed into Lake Apopka. Lake Apopka is a huge lake west of Orlando. It has had quite a few environmental problems, not the least of which is a lot of agricultural runoff, and so forth. But this Tower Chemical plant was finally shut down by EPA when it found that some of this holding pond brew went into Lake Apopka. Today Lake Apopka's population of 4,000 alligators is down to 400. And of those 400, they have found deformities in the alligators. You know how tough an alligator is. This site, the Tower Chemical plant, still sits out there, not treated, not cleaned up, and there are traces of these chemicals in the area in the water supply. There are eight residences right in the immediate vicinity. I am trying to get EPA to give filters for the water wells that tap the water supply right next door to the Tower Chemical plant, just for starters, not to speak of the underlying point. If we don't have a trust fund that is filled with money for that principle that the ``polluter pays,'' there is not going to be any money. The money in the trust fund is going to run out next year. So how are we going to clean up the Tower Chemical site that could be threatening a huge water supply for the State of Florida? There is simply no way. As to the Bush administration--I said this in Florida the other day-- what has happened to them? Have they taken leave of their senses; to say that they are not going to fund, through the principle of the ``polluter pays,'' the trust fund so we can clean up these 51 sites in the State of Florida, the 1,222 sites around the country? If you don't do that, either you don't clean up the sites--and there is just too much environmental risk--ergo, witness the example I have just given you west of Orlando and the Floridian aquifer being threatened--or if you are going to clean them up, guess who is going to pay. The general taxpayer is going to pay instead of the polluter paying. When we passed this bill in 1980--I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and I voted for it--it was with the understanding that there would be a tradeoff, that the oil companies would trade off their liability in future lawsuits by agreeing to the principle of the polluter paying, and they and the chemical companies over the years would pay into the trust fund. If we don't keep that same principle, then the oil companies get off scot-free. They don't have any lawsuit liabilities now because of their agreement in exchange for paying in to help us clean up these sites. Are we to let them completely off the hook so that they will not pay? I wanted to bring that one case to the attention of the Senator from California as she is talking about the national implications of this. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Certainly.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last week I learned of the death of three men. They lived apart from each other--one in Florida, one in Virginia, and one in Maryland--but they shared a special past. All three played in baseball's Negro Leagues. They did not receive million-dollar contracts. They did not get endorsement deals. They just played baseball. Sadly, these three men were part of a group of about 165 players who never received a pension for their time in the leagues. The Negro League was founded in 1920 by Andrew ``Rube'' Foster. With 72 teams and more than 4,000 players, the Negro Leagues lasted until 1960, when its last team folded. For half a century, most of the Negro League players were denied the opportunity to play in the Majors. Even though Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, it took another decade for Major League Baseball to really become integrated. All the while, baseball had its antitrust exemption to unfairly compete against the Negro Leagues, and systemically discriminated against most Negro League players for many years after 1947. That is the crux of the argument many of these old-timers have about not getting even a small pension. Though Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig sought to fix some of the problems of the past when, a few years ago, he awarded an annual $10,000 pension benefit to some of the Negro Leaguers, he left out those who played solely in the Negro Leagues from 1948 to 1960. Major League Baseball contends they were left out because the sport was integrated during that time. But an accurate reading of history shows it took the Big Leagues many years to integrate following Jackie Robinson's debut. In fact, the Boston Red Sox didn't have a single black on its team until 1959--more than a decade after Robinson's move to the Majors. The players still seeking a small retirement have been reaching out to Commissioner Selig now for 5 long years now. But their requests have been ignored. I joined them last year in trying to find some resolution to this dispute, but my efforts to meet with Commissioner Selig also have been ignored. Meantime, these ex-players are getting old. Three of them died late last month--two on the same day. On April 23, we lost James ``Pee Wee'' Jenkins, a native of Virginia. Jenkins pitched for the New York Black Cubans. Just last year, Jenkins threw out the first pitch at Shea stadium, as the 2001 Mets--dressed in Black Cuban uniforms--paid tribute to Jenkins and the rest of his fellow 1947 Negro League World Series champions. James Cohen, Sr., of Washington DC, also died on April 23. A World War II veteran, he pitched for the Indianapolis Clowns from 1946 to 1952, earning the nickname ``Fireball.'' In his last year with the Clowns, he played with the great, legendary Hank Aaron. Mr. Cohen went on to be a postal clerk for 35 years. And in 1994, he was honored at the White House by Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Cohen was survived by two sons, seven grandchildren and five great- grandchildren. Back in Florida, we lost Eugene White, of Jacksonville, on April 26. He was an infielder for the Chicago American Giants and the Kansas City Monarchs. As a retiree, he coached little league. On the playing field, he taught more than baseball. Rob Stafford, one of Mr. White's former players, recently recalled some of the lessons Mr. White taught the kids. Said Mr. Stafford: He taught me a lesson that I only learned to appreciate as a man--the lesson of tolerance. He taught to never prejudge, minimalize or marginalize a person. He taught me that every person deserves a chance to participate, to be included. . . . He is now a star on God's level playing field. Mr. White, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Cohen were some of baseball's living legends. But these legends are dying. And so today, to Mr. Selig and to Major League Baseball, I say this: time is running short for you to do the right thing. Major League Baseball can choose to resolve this issue and, can give these players a small token for their achievements. I sincerely hope Major League Baseball will.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. And comprehensive health care reform has to deal with the 40-plus million who don't have health insurance by creating a system whereby they are covered. That then allows the principle of insurance to work for you because the principle of insurance is that you take the largest possible group to spread the health risk, and when you do that, you bring down the per-unit cost. Thus, any comprehensive plan is going to have to have pooling of larger groups. It is going to have to have consumer choice. It is going to have to have free market competition to get the most efficiency, and it is going to have to have universal coverage. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to join the debate on prescription drugs.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding. I want to underscore a number of the remarks the Senator from Michigan made--this issue of health care, home health care, and prescription drugs. I start my comments by saying, has the Bush administration taken leave of its senses with regard to a number of these proposals? What the Senator from Michigan has just said in relation to copayments for home health care, home health care is something we want to encourage. Home health care is certainly an alternative to being in a nursing home from a cost standpoint. It is certainly a cost incentive as an alternative to being in a hospital. But home health care, if it is the right kind of medical care, is also a lot better quality of life for the patient than having to be in a nursing home or a hospital, if that is the appropriate medical care, because they are surrounded by family in their home. The Bush administration now wants to propose a new copayment. Therefore, for senior citizens who are having difficulty paying medical bills as it is, because Medicare does not cover everything, now the Bush administration wants, in fact, them to pay more in order to be eligible for home health care? Have they taken leave of their senses? Take, for example, what the Senator mentioned on prescription drugs. The Bush administration is saying: Oh, we want a prescription drug benefit. Well, certainly all of us do. Why? Because Medicare was set up in 1965 when health care was organized around acute care in hospitals. But 37 years later, health care is a lot different. Thank the Good Lord for the miracles of modern medicine. So to provide those miracles of modern medicine--otherwise known as prescription drugs--to our senior citizens, we ought to be modernizing Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. The administration says: Yes, we want it. But they are saying, $190 billion over 10 years. That is a drop in the bucket.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleagues. They are very generous with the time. I thank the Chair. I was talking about prescription drugs and providing a realistic prescription drug benefit by modernizing Medicare. We talked about a level in the last campaign. This was a primary topic of concern. In every television debate I had, this issue came up. The level we were talking about was in the range of $300 to $350 billion for a prescription drug benefit over a 10-year period. The fact is, the escalating cost of prescription drugs is going to be more than that. Of course, with a budget that now has no surplus--we had about 14 months ago an ample surplus for the next decade--it is going to be very difficult. But we are going to have to face that fact. And don't talk about window dressing of $190 billion over a decade because that is not going to cut it. For example, why don't we step up to the plate on Medicare reimbursement? Look at the doctors and the hospitals that are having difficulty making it because Medicare is not reimbursing on a realistic payment schedule. We are going to have to address that. I say to my colleague from the great State of Michigan, the fact is, eventually this country is going to have to face the fact of health care reform in a comprehensive way. What are we going to do about 44 million people in this country who don't have health insurance? The fact is, they don't have health insurance, but they get health care. They get it at the most expensive place, at the most expensive time; that is, when they get sick. They end up in the emergency room, which is the most expensive place at the most expensive time because without preventative care, when the sniffles have turned into pneumonia, the consequence is that the costs are so much higher.