Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I urge adoption of the Johnson amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Grassley amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I in no way intended to express doubt about my colleague's sincerity on this issue. I, in fact, indicated in my comments that I appreciated her commitment and understand this is an issue with which she has been very involved and it certainly is an issue she cares deeply about and an amendment, I am sure, that is intended for all purposes to move in the right direction. I commend her for that. I shared those same experiences when I was in the House of Representatives working with the home health groups and having the opportunity to be very involved as a House Member. I very much appreciate the work of the Senator from Maine. What I question is simply the language in the amendment and the mechanism being used. The practical reality is that if we adopt an amendment that indicates the dollars will be put aside but cannot be used if, in fact, the Medicare trust fund is dipped into, that is an impossible situation because the vast majority of the contingency fund is, in fact, the Medicare trust fund. When we look at what the President has proposed to spend from the contingency fund, which is the Medicare trust fund predominantly, my fear is that we will find a situation where the Senator's well-intended amendment, if adopted, might be in a situation where it could not take effect without dipping into the Medicare trust fund. This bars dipping into the Medicare trust fund, which I support. But by using this mechanism, it, in fact, may not provide the protection she desires. My amendment simply takes the same amount of dollars, but by taking it off the top rather than through some language about the contingency fund and not using the Medicare trust fund, by simply taking it off the top, we guarantee that money can be put aside. We can call it a reserve fund. That makes a lot of sense. Let us work together and call it a reserve fund and put it aside but not make it contingent upon all of the other decisions that will be made by the Budget Committee, the Finance Committee, and others, in ways in which this contingency fund will be structured. That is my concern. I appreciate the fact there is a desire to keep intact the President's tax proposal. I appreciate that. I have a different view in terms of priorities, wanting to see the tax cut as part of the priorities and paying down the debt, and making sure we can carve out a small amount of the total for home health care. I would like to see it written in stone so it is not dependent upon other conditions. The amendment says it would be subject to certain conditions, when taken together with all other previously enacted legislation. In total, if the amount involved would reduce the on-budget surplus below the level of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, then it would not happen. The bottom line is, we see this Senate moving in the direction of ``combining'' when all is said and done because of the desire to move the Medicare trust fund into spending, which is the direction the Senate has been moving. The President has asked to move the Medicare trust fund into spending and because all kinds of things have been promised out of that Medicare trust fund and out of the contingency fund, unfortunately, this language does not guarantee we can protect home health care agencies from the 15-percent cut. I will gladly work with my colleague to find a way to make sure we can guarantee this 15-percent cut will not take effect. I couldn't agree more. We see a 24-percent drop in the number of patients served by home health agencies. We are talking about real people, real people's lives, families who are struggling, people who need care. I couldn't agree more that we need to make a strong statement in support of those who use and need to use home health care services. My concern is, as with other amendments that relate to the whole question of the contingency fund, there is no guarantee that, in fact, this will be able to happen. I welcome my colleague joining with me to make sure we put aside $13.7 billion and that we can work together to make sure that is truly available, regardless of what other decisions are made regarding the budget. As I indicated, in this amendment, unfortunately, it is ``subject to the condition that such legislation will not, when taken together with all other previously enacted legislation'' dip into the Medicare trust fund. I argue strongly that given that exception, in fact, the goal would not be met. I urge my colleagues to join with me in truly protecting home health care. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague to do that. I know we both share a strong commitment on this issue. I want to make sure, as I am sure she does, I want to make sure this language is the kind of language that will guarantee at the end of the day that this 15-percent cut does not take effect, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, that it does not take effect and our families will have the opportunity to use needed home health care services.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from Maine for her comments. I could not agree more about the importance of home health care for families all across America. We all know there are more and more people who desire to live at home, and they can because of modern medicine. There are more and more of us as baby boomers, and others, who have parents or grandparents we wish to help care for in our own homes or in their homes. Home health care is a critical part of the network of health care for our citizens. I could not agree more that we need to make sure the next cut--this 15-percent cut that has been delayed three times by the Congress--does not actually take effect in October of 2002. My problem with the amendment spoken to is it does not guarantee that cut will not take place. In fact, the amendment I am offering would guarantee--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--that this cut would not take effect. When I look at my colleague's amendment, first of all, it says if there is a repeal of the 15-percent reduction, the House and Senate Budget Committees ``may'' increase the allocation of new budget authority--not that they ``shall'' or that they ``have to'' but they ``may.'' I believe we have to say that they ``must.'' Secondly, unfortunately, the way this is put together, it creates a shell game once again. While appearing to protect the Medicare trust fund and saying that these dollars do not come out of the Medicare trust fund, they, in fact, set up a scenario that does, in fact, guarantee, I believe, that the $13.7 billion will not be available because with all of the things being talked about, with all of the on- budget surplus being used for the tax cut being talked about, with the efforts going on here, and what will be happening with all the other priorities, it will be impossible to keep this commitment; in fact, we will see that cut happen--at least there is no guarantee under this amendment that that horrendous 15-percent cut will not happen. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is for the same amount of dollars, $13.7 billion. But instead of having the ifs, ands, maybes, and the mays, what we say is that these dollars are taken off of the top--a small amount of money--of the tax cut and shall be guaranteed and put aside for home health care to guarantee that this 15-percent cut will not take place. This is a very small amount of dollars. I know people in my State-- the people who want us to put forward a balanced approach, who support a tax cut and also want to make sure we are continuing to pay down the debt--also are very concerned about putting aside a small amount of dollars to make sure that our seniors can live at home in dignity; that families can care for loved ones and have the opportunity to have valuable home health care services available to them. As my colleague from Maine indicated, when the Balanced Budget Act was put into place, it was anticipated that the Medicare home health cuts would be $16 billion, and we find just a few years later that it is estimated to be four times that amount. We did not realize that when the BBA was passed. I argue that it was a case of unintended consequences, and that we have recognized that by delaying the 15- percent cut three different times, because we know they are excessive, that there is something wrong when there has been a 24-percent drop in the number of patients served by home health agencies. When we see a 30-percent reduction in the number of agencies serving Medicare patients nationwide--30 percent--we are talking about almost a third of a cut in those serving Medicare patients in home health care across this country, while the demand is going up. The citizens of our country are getting older and living longer, and we all celebrate that we are living longer. Unfortunately, with that comes a greater and greater demand with home health care services. So I agree with my colleague that, in fact, we need to be serious about this. We can all talk about men and women and children and folks of all parts of this country who have been and are today in situations where they are in desperate need of home health care. We can also talk about how it saves dollars--that through home health care we are saving dollars in nursing homes and other institutional care. It means dollars and cents, and it makes sense from a quality of life standpoint. I strongly agree that we need to protect these dollars and guarantee that this cut does not take effect. Again, my concern is that the amendment of my friend from Maine, unfortunately, does not guarantee that this cut will not take effect. We can do that. We can, in this process, say that we are going to, regardless of the other priorities, regardless of what else is passed, put aside this small amount of dollars to protect the home health agencies and the people they serve all across this country. That is what this is about. I urge my colleagues to reject the Collins amendment and to support the Stabenow amendment, which is a guarantee that, in fact, we will be able to protect home health services for our citizens. I can't think of an issue that touches so many homes and families more than this one-- families who are hoping that they have the opportunity and the resources to care for loved ones at home or for people who wish to live in dignity in their own home. Again, I commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle for her comments about the importance of home health care. I could not agree more. I believe very strongly that we need to take as firm a position as we can, and the amendment that I offer does. The amendment I offered is an absolute guarantee that our home health agencies and the people they serve will not lose additional dollars and that those services will be protected. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this very important amendment to the budget resolution. I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership on this issue and on the Finance Committee, as well as the Senator from Florida and my leader on the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota. I very much appreciate his ongoing leadership on this important issue. As a personal aside before speaking about this amendment, I come from the great State of Michigan with Michigan State University. If I might say to the Senator from North Dakota, we are looking forward to betting you in hockey on Thursday evening. Now to the serious issue before the Senate. This is an issue of priorities for the American people as we look at the next 10 years. We all agree it is difficult to look into the crystal ball 10 years from now. We are being asked to do that, and many Members are cautious and concerned about locking in the next 10 years on revenues since it is not possible to be accurate. We know that. Chairman Greenspan called it educated guesses. We do know when we are debating this list of priorities that the President has laid out a plan that says if you were to put Medicare and Social Security surpluses aside--and he does choose to spend part of those, which we will debate later--if you put that aside, the President has said the only priority for the American people for 10 years is a tax cut geared to the wealthiest Americans that we hope will trickle down to everyone else. Now, in Michigan, the people I represent want a tax cut as one of the priorities for the future. I support an across-the-board tax cut that gives as much as possible to middle-income families working hard every day, sending kids to college, to help moms and dads and seniors with their prescriptions, and put money in their pockets, and family farmers and small businesses, as one of the priorities of the country. I support that. I don't think it is the only priority for the next 10 years. What we are talking about today in this amendment is another very important priority; that is, updating Medicare to cover the costs of prescription drugs to assure our seniors, who have been promised that Medicare would be there, that health care would be there when they retire, that those who were disabled and were promised Medicare would be there, that in fact, it really is. We all know that the only way to guarantee Medicare is to cover prescription drugs. That is what this amendment does. It makes it real. It says when you look at this budget and you look at the real costs over 10 years of about $2.5 trillion that is put aside for one priority, a tax cut, we are asking for a very small amount, just a little amount, to come from that $2.5 trillion over into prescription drug coverage for seniors to modernize Medicare--$158 billion. I believe that is a very small change with a very big impact for our seniors and our families. I am concerned for most of our seniors. Most of the seniors in Michigan, most of the seniors in America, will not receive any of the tax cut being proposed. But if we want to put money back in their pockets, we have a chance to do that through this amendment by lowering the costs of their medicine. We all know it is the right thing to do. I bet there is not a person in this esteemed body who did not talk about the importance of prescription drugs and how seniors shouldn't have to choose between their medicine and their meals when they were out campaigning. Now is the time when the rubber meets the road, the time when we have a chance to vote what we have talked about and the real priorities of the country. I can't explain, when a senior citizen comes to me and says he has been told by his doctor there is a pill he can take that will stop him from having open-heart surgery, why the pill costs $400-- one pill a month, $400. Medicare will pay for the operation. It won't pay for the pill. He asks me how that makes any sense. I have to say it doesn't make any sense. Now is the time to correct that. Today, right now, as we are on the floor, there are seniors sitting down at the kitchen table deciding: Do I eat today or do I take my medicine? Do I pay my utility bill or do I take my medicine? Do I cut my pills in half? Do I take them every other day? I have doctors coming to me expressing grave concerns about seniors who put themselves in serious health jeopardy by trying to self- regulate their medication--every other week, every other day, doing something they shouldn't to make the pills last longer. We all know the stories. This amendment says we are serious about fixing it. This is not an issue we have made up. I heard our esteemed budget chairman say that every time we talk about tax cuts, we Democrats make up an issue and it just pops up because we want to spend money. I know the issue of prescription drug coverage is not made up. Everybody in my State, young or old, knows the need to cover prescription drugs and make them available for our seniors is not made up. It is very serious and it is very real. It is very unfair, as we found in a statewide study throughout my State. There we looked at the costs that uninsured seniors pay when they walk into the pharmacy versus somebody with insurance. We found on average they pay twice as much. That is not fair. If you have insurance and they can negotiate a good discount, you get a better deal. Medicare needs to be there to give our seniors a better deal. That is what this is about: updating Medicare to cover the way health care is provided today, having Medicare out there getting our seniors a better deal so they can live in dignity and respect and have the promise kept that was made in 1965 when Medicare was enacted. This is an important amendment. I commend my colleagues, again, for their leadership in this area. With just a small change, we can begin to get some balance back in this debate about the budget. We have a number of important priorities facing our country. I believe a tax cut is one of those, as is paying down the debt to keep money in people's pockets, with lower interest rates, as are jobs. I also believe lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a critical part of this pie. I ask my colleagues, if not now, when? We are not going to do it if we are running deficits. We are not going to be able to do it if we move into a serious recession. If we cannot update Medicare now and keep the promise to our seniors and the disabled when we have surpluses, we never will. We should admit it and stop talking about it, stop using it as a campaign issue. This is the opportunity for us to do what everybody is talking about: provide a substantial Medicare prescription drug benefit and make sure that, in fact, it does something real for our seniors to allow them to live in dignity and have the quality of life they deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I also ask to follow the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to share the concern expressed by my colleagues who have been providing leadership on this budget resolution. I respect the chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I must rise to indicate that I could not be more concerned about the approach that is being taken on this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the underlying Baucus amendment that provides a real prescription drug plan for our seniors. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is real. It is there, and it will not come out of the Medicare trust fund. As to what was said by our distinguished Senator from North Dakota talking about the Medicare trust fund, this budget resolution, unfortunately, is a big shell game. It starts by saying, except for Medicare and Social Security, every penny-plus will go to a tax cut to wealthiest Americans; every penny projected for 10 years of any possible surplus. Then, to pay for funding, it moves Medicare trust funds of $500 billion-plus over into something called the contingency fund. We have been spending a lot of time trying to shore up Medicare and Social Security and protect it for the future. We know the baby boomers are going to be retiring within the next 11 years. The last thing we need to do is be spending those trust funds. But because of the way this budget resolution is put together, the entire Medicare trust fund goes from about being protected over to being spent. This proposal, unfortunately, spends Medicare in order to provide some possible prescription drug coverage. It is an amendment that goes against itself. We need to be protecting the current Medicare trust fund, modernizing Medicare, and adding dollars so we are strengthening it in terms of prescription drug coverage. Earlier this afternoon I heard comments on the other side of the aisle talking about how we don't know how we are going to pay for this proposal, that seniors are going to have to wait, and that we can't afford to do this. How long do the seniors of this country have to wait? How long do they have to wait? I have been in the Congress only 4 years-plus--four in the House and now in this distinguished body in which I am so honored to serve on behalf of the people Michigan. But in the entire time I have been here, we have been talking about updating Medicare to cover prescription drugs. And every day we wait there are thousands or millions of seniors who are sitting down at the kitchen table in the morning saying: Do I eat today or do I get my medicine? Do I pay the utilities today or do I get my medicine? We don't have that same sense of urgency that I hear from the families in Michigan. We need to have that. Our seniors can't wait. We don't need smoke and mirrors. We don't need a shell game. We don't need to spend the current Medicare trust fund. We need to be honest and upfront and say that we are willing to take just a small part--less than 7 percent of the tax cut being proposed--to be moved over and provide the seniors of our country help with prescription drug coverage. The majority of seniors will not benefit from this tax cut. They won't receive the tax cut. The tax cut that we can provide for them, and the money we can put back in their pockets, is by giving them help with their medicine and giving them help with the cost of prescription drugs. That is money back in the pockets of the senior citizens and those with disabilities in our country. I think they deserve something in their pockets as well. While I support a tax cut that is across the board and geared to middle-class taxpayers, small businesses, and family farmers, I think we can also, if we do this right and we are honest about it and if we put together the right priorities, make sure we keep the promise. If we do not do it now, when will we?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the heroic efforts of Mr. Glenn Slucter, a Michigan veteran of the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion. He and approximately 50 other veterans who served with him received a Presidential Unit Citation on February 23, 2001, at the Pentagon for their heroism during World War II. It is certainly fitting that Mr. Slucter and his fellow veterans are now being recognized for their brave and exemplary service. Although it has been more than fifty years since the war ended, it is important that their heroic role in the invasion of Southern France and the Battle of the Bulge is finally being acknowledged and honored. This ceremony was a wonderful reminder of the critical part our veterans have played in protecting and preserving our life of freedom. Mr. Slucter and four of his children traveled to Washington, DC to attend the ceremony. How thrilling it must have been for him and the other members of his unit to renew old friendships and receive the recognition in front of their families and friends that they so richly deserve. I am sure this was an opportunity to reminisce as well as express sorrow for the many members of their battalion who did not make it home. It is my privilege to join the United States Army in paying tribute to a man who has given so much to his country. I applaud Glenn Slucter for his bravery and his selfless acts during World War II. We should all be proud and grateful for the efforts of Glenn Slucter and the members of the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the city of Detroit celebrates its 300th anniversary this year. The citizens of Detroit will mark this milestone with pride and celebration for a city not only rich in tradition and history, but also full of promise. The French are credited with founding Detroit, and like so many Americans, the city bears the remnants of its original French name-- Fort Pontchartain de' Etroit. But it is also important to remember the indigenous people who preceded the French in the region. The Native American people have a rich history and culture, and this history is equally credited with the formation of Detroit. This resolution recognizes the important role the city of Detroit and its people have played in the history and development of a strong and secure America. From great sports teams and automobiles to music and civil rights, each domain is synonymous with Detroit. Its rich musical heritage and artistry has left a lasting imprint on the sound of rhythm & blues, gospel, jazz, and Motown. ``The Motor City'' is a moniker of pride for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan as a whole. The preeminent accomplishments of Detroit's automobile industry began with Henry Ford, a man whose ingenuity and determination changed the landscape of American life. In doing so, a dominant labor movement emerged as a force for equality in the workplace. In addition, people of all ethnicities living and working in Detroit know of the city's distinguished mark in the civil rights movement and understand the fight for equal rights in America is far from over. I believe Detroit's best years lie ahead and am proud of the past accomplishments that forever anchor this city in the history books of our country. I wish Detroit and its residents a Happy Tercentennial and look forward to its anniversary celebrations this year.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just comment for a moment to support the distinguished Senator's comments. Senator Byrd may be in fact a new member of the Budget Committee. He is certainly a person we look to for wise counsel on important subjects such as the budget. I have learned a tremendous amount from him as a member of the Budget Committee. I would add to his comments. I am, in fact, a new Member of the Senate as well as to the Budget Committee, but I have sat through our 16 hearings, had the opportunity to listen to each Secretary, each area of the budget, listening to the views on the President's budget, and at the end of this process when I assumed as a new member I would have the opportunity to put forward the wishes of the people of Michigan--our values, our priorities in the form of a budget--we were told yesterday we, in fact, would not even debate a budget resolution for the first time since 1974 when the Budget Act was put together. I share Senator Byrd's tremendous concerns. I cannot imagine anything more fundamental than this body debating the future of the country through the budget. I strongly support and urge that the leadership on the other side decide to allow us to do our job on the Budget Committee and come forward with, hopefully, what would be a bipartisan document that would allow us to proceed and work together to do the country's business.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have just come from the Senate Budget Committee where we have concluded a series of hearings. We have now held 16 different hearings on all facets related to the budget, tax cuts, and domestic spending. I am very deeply concerned about the conclusion that has been reached at the end of these very important hearings. I must rise today with deep regret that the Republican leadership, in fact, appears to be bypassing the important work of the Budget Committee in order to bring the budget resolution directly to the floor without debate about a budget resolution and without an opportunity for us to vote and to come together on a bipartisan budget resolution that reflects our values and priorities for the families that we represent in our States. We have, in fact, been diligently at work. As a new Member of not only the Senate but the Senate Budget Committee, I have taken this work very seriously. We have been meeting, sometimes several days in a row, hearing from Chairman Greenspan, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of State. We have held hearings on long-term budget projections and demographic trends and Medicare. I have been meeting with people throughout my great State of Michigan to talk about their values and priorities for the future, and how they would like to see us come together and fashion this budget. Unfortunately, all of this work seems to be for naught because the Republican leadership wants to avoid committee debate on the budget resolution for the first time since Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. When you think about it, this is at a time when we have seen our new President come forward to reach out his hand and talk about bipartisanship. Yet, once again, we are forced to come to the floor of the Senate and ask to be partners in this process and to truly move ahead in a bipartisan fashion. It is not enough just to speak about bipartisanship, just as it is not enough to just speak about issues. Our constituents expect us to act. And we have a right to expect what will happen will fulfill the words that are being talked about on Capitol Hill. Our committee should debate all of the critical issues before us: How we pay down the maximum public debt we can so we can put money in our constituents' pockets through lower interest rates, and put money in their pockets through a tax cut, and making sure we have an economic policy that means they have a job. There are several ways in which we need to put dollars back into the pockets of the people we represent. We also need to debate Social Security and Medicare for the future, education, which drives this economy, research, technology and education, increased labor productivity, which drives the economy, as we have heard over and over again in the Budget Committee. We need to debate national defense and protecting the environment. One issue that I think needs great debate is the issue of protecting the Medicare trust fund. We have found, during this budget process, that the President's budget does not protect the Medicare trust fund. The President's budget does not protect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, it takes it from a protected status and moves it over into a contingency fund to be used for spending. We tried a week ago, through Senator Conrad's legislation, to create a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare, and say--as the American public wants us to do--that we will keep our hands off Social Security and Medicare and protect it for the future. In this budget, we go in the exact opposite direction. We not only don't protect it and strengthen it by adding dollars for the future, it is put over into spending which, in fact, could cause Medicare to become insolvent 15 years sooner, when we expect the strain of the baby boomers coming into the system and the fact that we are going to have a long-term liability on Medicare and Social Security. The American people need to understand that if we don't protect the Medicare trust fund, there will be a severe strain when baby boomers begin to retire in 2012. This could mean benefit cuts or increases in taxes at that time. It is not necessary for us to be put in this kind of a situation. I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider, as we asked the chairman of the committee to do today, and reach out to us to get a bipartisan budget and tax agreement. I was fortunate to be in the House of Representatives in 1997, when the President and the Congress, of different parties, worked together to balance the budget, make critical investments in education and in our future needs, and cut taxes. If we did it then, we can do it now. We have to do it together. If we hold a markup in committee and work together, we can get the job done. If not, I fear we continue to go back to policies we have all denounced--the practice of partisanship, one side versus the other. Our committee has worked hard, our members have been there and involved in these hearings. I commend the Chair for holding such comprehensive hearings to be able to bring forward the issues that relate to this budget so we can put together the values and priorities of our country in the form of a budget for the future. It is extremely unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position now, at the end of the road, when the budget hearings come to a conclusion, where we do not have the opportunity to work together to draw up that budget resolution and show, in fact, that we can work together on behalf of the families we represent. I urge the Republican leadership to allow the Budget Committee to do our work and allow us to come together to protect Social Security and Medicare for the long haul, to provide a tax cut to make sure we are paying down the debt for the future for our children, and to make sure we have outlined the priorities for the country that are most important for our families.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair and Senator Reid. I echo Senator Reid's comments of congratulations to Senator Bingaman for his excellent work in forging ahead a very visionary energy proposal covering so many important aspects for American families and businesses. (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to strongly support the Conrad amendment that is before us which would create a lockbox for Social Security and for Medicare. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have watched and listened to the proposals of the administration as they relate not only to the tax cut before us but the spending priorities. I listened on the evening of the State of the Union to a variety of proposals, all of which sounded very good. In fact, in some cases sitting there knowing our fiscal constraints, it sounded too good to be true. I find as a member of the Budget Committee looking at the details now that, in fact, it was too good to be true, and the budget that has been proposed proposes to use all of the Medicare trust fund and a portion of the Social Security trust fund in order to balance this budget. There is still a question about whether or not it adds up. If we proceed as this body and the House of Representatives voted last year to protect Social Security and Medicare to keep it out of the revenue stream for spending proposals, if we support the lockbox notion, which I hope we will--again, it passed this body by 60 votes last year, and I am hopeful it will do the same this year--if we pull those dollars out and protect them as the people of the country expect us to do, not only the seniors but the baby boomers who will be retiring in large numbers beginning in about 11 years, and also my son and daughter who are young people, can look forward to the future expecting us to protect those funds. We find that the President's proposal for his tax cut takes up literally the entire discretionary dollars available to us except for Social Security and Medicare of over the next 10 years. That is assuming we believe the projections, and we certainly hope they are true for the dollars that have been projected in surplus. But we all know, as Chairman Greenspan indicated, that these are educated guesses. Given the fact that if you protect Social Security and Medicare, the President's tax proposal takes every dollar of discretionary income left, rather than the next 10 years and being able to balance that with some dollars for investments in education, infrastructure, prescription drug coverage for Medicare, and balancing that with an important tax cut for middle-class families, it doesn't add up. The administration has chosen to dip into Medicare and Social Security in order to be able to provide dollars for important investments in the American people's priorities in terms of education and other areas. If you protect Social Security and Medicare, the dollars are not there for education. The President has said we are going to say the Medicare trust fund doesn't exist anymore. We heard in front of the Budget Committee from our new Treasury Secretary, as well as the Director of Management and Budget, that they believe there really isn't a trust fund; that, in fact, there isn't a surplus in Medicare, even though every year we get reports regarding the solvency of the trust fund and the date at which it will become insolvent, and the fact that the date has been growing further into the future because of the good economy. Now we fear there is, in fact, no trust fund. Those reports, I guess, meant nothing before. In reality, there is a Medicare trust fund. We know that Part A has been an important part of the solvency of Medicare, and this trust fund is critical in maintaining and protecting the health care benefits for the seniors and future generations in our country. I urge my colleagues to send a very strong message to the White House and to the American people that we intend to keep the promises of Medicare and Social Security, and to lock away the Medicare trust fund along with every penny of Social Security so that we will keep those as a separate promise and protect them for our seniors, for our families, and for future generations. Without this lockbox, we will find ourselves in the situation of seeing the budget continue down the road with the full intention of using the entire Medicare trust fund in order to balance the books, and a portion of Social Security in order to balance the books. That is not in the best interest of the American people. We can do better than that. We can design a budget that protects Social Security and Medicare and strengthens it for the future, provide a real tax cut for middle-class families, small businesses, and family farmers in this country, and also pay down the debt so the interest rates our citizens and businesses are paying for will continue to go down, and at the same time invest in the priority that President Bush has articulated well-- and I agree with--which is the question of education and investing in the future for our children. This budget is about more than numbers. It is about our values as American people. In times when we have choices that we can make because of projected surpluses, the real task for each of us is what will be our priority? What will the choices be when we can make choices? I strongly hope one of the choices made by this Congress and administration is not to use the entire Medicare trust fund to fund other purposes in the budget; that we will join together on a bipartisan basis, as has been done in the past when Republicans and Democrats joined together to support locking away the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund so that they are outside the budget stream and are protected for now and the future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this afternoon I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Conrad and myself and others who are sponsoring S. 21, the Social Security and Medicare Off-Budget Lockbox Act of 2001. I know this legislation came before the body last year and passed by 60 votes, including 14 votes by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think this legislation is particularly critical at this time given the budget that the President has proposed to the Congress, and the fact that while he has indicated support for Social Security--although not reserving all of it but he has talked about Social Security--he did not mention reserving the Medicare trust fund. This is a critical issue for me and all the people I represent. To leave the Medicare trust fund unprotected as we talk about investments and spending and how we are going to address tax cuts for the future is very dangerous. This morning we had the opportunity in the Budget Committee to hear from our new Secretary of the Treasury. Again, he spoke about Social Security but did not indicate a commitment to protecting the Medicare trust fund. We have about $500 billion that needs to remain within the trust fund and be protected for the future. We all know that we are going to see within the next 10 or 11 years additional strains on Medicare as those of us who are baby boomers come into the system, and beyond. We have critical needs in Medicare. We don't need to put $500 billion in the column that is open for spending or a tax cut. We need to place it on the side with Social Security, in a lockbox--all of Social Security, all of Medicare in a lockbox--so we are guaranteeing that we are not touching a penny of either Social Security or Medicare. When I first came to the Congress and was in the House of Representatives for 4 years, we were talking about trying to keep ourselves moving to pay off our debt so we could finally say that Social Security and Medicare trust funds would not be used in the bottom line of the budget. We heard people in both parties--in fact, again a vote was taken last year to support this bill that has been reintroduced--and yet with all of that support, we now find ourselves in the position with a budget being proposed that does not add up, unless you add using Medicare trust funds to the bottom line. I am gravely concerned about that as we look to the future in Medicare. We all want to see a tax cut. We may struggle and debate who ought to be receiving the majority of that tax cut. My preference is that a lot of it go across the board and be targeted to the working class men and women and their families. We all talk about deficit reduction and protecting Social Security and Medicare for the future. Unfortunately, while sitting in the House Chamber on Tuesday night, I saw a proposal in broad terms that did not add up. My fear is that will move us backwards rather than forwards as we have been continuing to strengthen our fiscal position and our economy. We do not need to go back to the eighties and higher interest rates and high unemployment. In my great State of Michigan, those were tough times for families, small businesses, and family farmers that I represent. I am in no way interested in going back to those times with fiscal policies that do not add up. I join with the President and with others who want to see tax cuts for middle Americans. We can do that without spending Medicare and Social Security. We can do it without putting ourselves back into a situation where we are going into deficit spending. I truly believe the people of the great State of Michigan want me to support a balanced approach that continues to pay down the debt and protects Social Security and Medicare, and to provide tax relief across the board that is focused on middle-income workers, small businesses, family farmers; and that we also are committed to a future that includes investment in our children, in education, access to college, and making sure that health care, particularly prescription drugs, is available for the people whom we represent. Again, I urge my colleagues to join with us in a proactive way to support S. 21. I hope we can get everyone in this Chamber to be a cosponsor of this bill which clearly sends a message across the country that we want to work together to fashion a plan to keep our economy going and provide tax cuts, and that we not spend Medicare trust funds to do it. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the lockbox for Social Security and for Medicare. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I regretfully rise today to oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. As a new Member of the U.S. Senate, I did not have the opportunity to serve with former Senator Ashcroft. I have only his record and his testimony on which to make this decision. I come to this judgment after supporting almost all of President Bush's other Cabinet nominees. I believe that the President should be given broad latitude in choosing his Cabinet, but the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the responsibility of advice and consent. It is our responsibility to review the actions and backgrounds of the nominees and speak on behalf of the people we represent. I have listened intently to the judiciary hearings--the questions and the answers--and I would like to commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for the thoughtful and thorough process that was used on this critically important nomination. There is no question that former Senator Ashcroft has a long career of public service. It is that career and the record that he has created that I feel compelled to evaluate as the most important consideration in making my decision. I have always believed that actions speak louder than words, especially when there is a long and consistent public history of questionable actions. This is especially important given the critical responsibilities and broad discretion given to the office of Attorney General. Let me list just a few of the actions that I find most disturbing. I was extremely troubled to learn of Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri's attorney general when he strongly opposed a voluntary and court-ordered plan to desegregate many of the public schools in St. Louis. As the Governor of the State of Missouri, this nominee vetoed the Voter Registration Reform Act, which would have clearly increased the participation of minorities in the electoral process. His record on other antidiscrimination issues is equally disturbing. From his opposition to the ultimately successful appointment of James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg, simply because he was gay, regardless of his qualifications, to his refusal to answer questions during his confirmation hearing about whether he would discriminate against Americans by denying them the ability to gain security clearances simply because of their sexual orientation. His record on women's rights is just as troubling. He has consistently used every opportunity and every power he has had to block reproductive choice for women including the extreme position of suing public health care nurses in the State of Missouri for providing basic gynecological and contraceptive services. In addition, his very vocal opposition to Roe vs. Wade and the basic reproductive rights of women is an issue that not only continues to worry me, but millions of women across this country. For me personally, one of the most troubling aspects of his record, was Senator Ashcroft's unfair treatment of Judge Ronald White when he spearheaded the U.S. Senate's rejection of his nomination to the Federal bench. This action was highly unusual and extremely unfortunate for Judge White and for the U.S. Senate. One of the most basic requirements of any nominee to be the U.S. Attorney General is an ability to exhibit a strong track record of fighting for the constitutional rights of all Americans--black, brown, or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor. In my opinion, Senator Ashcroft's record clearly fails to satisfy that most basic qualification. To the contrary, he has established a 25-year track record of opposing equal opportunities and fair play for too many Americans. The basic fact remains that the U.S. Attorney General is the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer. He is the guardian of the constitutional rights of every American citizen. And I cannot in good conscience support a nominee who has spent much of the past 25 years opposing the constitutional rights of far too many of our citizens. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the introduction of S. 215 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce my first bill in the Senate, the Medication Equity and Drug Savings Act, or the MEDS Act. On January 22, a little over a week ago, I had the privilege of addressing my colleagues in my first speech on the Senate floor. The topic of the speech was health care, specifically the need to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. I pledged my commitment to making health care a priority during my tenure in this esteemed body. Today, I am pleased to share with my colleagues that I am taking the next step in keeping my promise by introducing a bill that addresses another priority health care issue: the price of prescription drugs. We all know that providing prescription drugs for seniors has become a very important issue for the American public. In fact, this was a key issue in many campaigns throughout the country, including my own. On a fundamental level, I believe everyone should have access to affordable prescription drugs, especially senior citizens enrolled in Medicare and the disabled. It is an outrage that not only must those seniors, who rely solely on Medicare for their health insurance, pay for all of their medications out of their own pockets, but that in many instances they pay more for the same drug than their counterparts with other insurance. So we have situations where those without insurance, and most often this falls on our seniors--but anyone without insurance is most often walking into the pharmacy and paying more. We did a study in my State that showed, on average, they paid twice as much as someone with insurance for the very same medications. I have conducted several prescription drug price studies in Michigan, and I have learned that, in fact, there is a genuine problem that touches the lives of so many people whom I represent. My concerns have been confirmed by literally thousands of letters and e-mails and phone calls from seniors and families who cannot afford to buy their medications. I have been saddened by the sheer number of seniors who confided in me that the cost of their drugs is so high that they are often forced to give up their meals or are not able to heat their homes. In Michigan that can be very serious in the wintertime. This is in order to buy their medications. These are not new stories. I know my colleagues have heard these stories as well, but they are real. They are not just stories. They are affecting people today. As we speak, there are seniors somewhere deciding whether or not they are going to skip their meals to get their medicine, or whether they are going to eat and not have the medications they need. I also know from hearing from doctors in my district who are worried about seniors, who decided to do their own self-regulation. They cannot afford all their pills, so they will skip a couple of pills, or they will take them every other day, or cut them in half. Oftentimes they have been placed in serious jeopardy as to their health because they have not been able to afford their medications and they have taken them inappropriately. The bottom line is that Medicare should include a defined, voluntary prescription drug benefit to help cover the costs of prescription drugs for seniors and the disabled. I am committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle, and the administration, to finish what we started last year and create this new component of Medicare that is absolutely critical. Without it, we are not fulfilling the promise of universal health care for those over the age of 65, or the disabled. If we do not cover medications, we are not providing health care in the truest sense for those individuals. In fact, one of the very first bills I cosponsored this year was S. 10, a bill that would create this important benefit in the Medicare program. I am ready to work with my colleagues to make sure that we do whatever it takes to update Medicare and create a defined benefit that will make such an incredible difference in the lives of seniors and their families in my great State of Michigan and all across the country. As we work on this complex issue, there are other approaches we can take in a more immediate sense to cut the costs of prescription drugs. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed into law an important new Act that would permit U.S. manufactured, FDA approved drugs to be reimported back into the United States by wholesalers. I firmly believe that implementing this Act could substantially reduce the cost of drugs, not just for seniors, but for everyone. Many of my colleagues may remember that during my campaign I organized several bus trips to Canada. As you know, Canada is just a short trip over a bridge or through a tunnel for many residents of Michigan. What I discovered on my bus trips was almost unbelievable. With just a short drive across the border, U.S. citizens can substantially reduce the cost of their medications by purchasing them in Canadian pharmacies. The difference in price for medications was absolutely shocking. A price study I conducted, comparing the price of several drugs purchased in the U.S. to the Canadian prices, conformed what we saw happening on our bus trips--the price of the same drug purchased in Canada is substantially lower than the average U.S. price. I have brought a chart to the floor to show my colleagues some of the incredible differences between the average price in Canada and the average price in Michigan. I would like to point those out today. Zocor, a drug to reduce cholesterol, costs $109.73 in Michigan for 50, 5 milligram tablets. The same drug costs only $46.17 in Canada. That is a 138 percent difference in price. Prilosec, a drug to treat ulcers $115.37 in Michigan for 20, 20 milligram capsules. The same drug costs only $55.10 in Canada. That is a 109 percent difference in price. Procardia XL, a drug to treat heart problems, costs $133.36 for 100, 30 milligram tablets in Michigan. The same drug costs only $74.25 in Canada. That is an 80 percent difference in price. Norvasc, a drug to treat high blood pressure, costs $116.79 for 90, 5 milligram tablets. The same drug costs only $89.91 in Canada. That is a 30 percent difference in price. Tamoxifen, a drug to treat breast cancer, costs $136.50 in Michigan for a one month supply. The same drug costs only $15.92 in Canada. That is an 88 percent savings in price. Zoloft, a drug to treat depression, costs $220.64 for 100, 50 milligram tablets in Michigan. The same drug costs $129.05 in Canada. That is a 30 percent difference in price. These are all drugs that have been manufactured in the United States and have met all FDA manufacturing, safety and purity requirements. Furthermore, because these are U.S. drugs, the companies developing and manufacturing them have all benefited from substantial assistance from the U.S. government, including NIH supported research and the Research and Development tax credit. Furthermore, a great deal of this research is conducted in state universities. I believe that U.S. citizens should have access to these U.S. drugs that are sold at lower prices in other countries. Competition is key to ensuring prices that consumers are willing to pay. Keeping the Canadian border, as well as other borders, closed is an obstacle to competition and is serving to maintain artificially high prices for drugs in the United States. I believe that permitting U.S. wholesalers, such as pharmacies, to bring lower priced drugs back into this country could reduce the price of drugs for every American. As my colleagues know, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was given broad discretion in implementing the wholesale reimportation provision of the Act. The former Secretary expressed concerns that the provision may not provide cost savings and could pose risks to the public health and opted not to promulgate rules. I understand that my colleagues are urging the new Secretary to reconsider this decision and to begin the implementation process. I am hopeful this may happen and would like to work with my colleagues to forward this effort. Nonetheless, I recognize that there are some concerns with the law enacted last year. My bill addresses these concerns by correcting these impediments that may delay the Secretary from promulgating regulations and permitting reimportation. Furthermore, my bill directs the Secretary to dispense with the delay and instructs him to begin the rulemaking process within 30 days of enactment of the bill. The first of the concerns about wholesale reimportation addressed by my bill is the sunset provision. My bill would lift the 5 year sunset imposed in the Act. Critics argued that sunsetting the provision would be a disincentive for distributors to develop ways to comply with the reimportation requirements when there was the possibility that reimportation could be prohibited again in the near future. Careful thought was put into the requirements to ensure consumers would be protected. I believe reimporters should be given every opportunity to meet these requirement and that removing the sunset will give these distributors what they need. Further, I believe consumers should always have access to U.S. manufactured drugs as long as they comply with FDA safety requirements and there is no need for a sunset. If Congress or the administration identifies safety concerns in the future, they should be addressed by revising the reimportation safety requirements, not sunsetting the entire provision of the law. The act also did not specify that reimorters could use the manufacturers' FDA-approved labels. These labels are required by law if the products are to be sold in the United States. My bill would make those labels available to the reimporters from the manufacturers for a small fee. Finally, while the act prohibited manufacturers from entering into agreements with distributors that would interfere with reimportation of drugs, critics argue this provision was not strong enough to work. My legislation tightens up this section by prohibiting manufacturers from discriminating against wholesalers simply because they intend to reimport the product. The bill also has stronger language prohibiting price fixing. Wholesale reimportation of prescription drugs is only half the story. While I think it is critical that wholesalers be permitted to bring U.S.-manufactured drugs back into the country to reduce the price for consumers, I also believe individuals should be able to cross the border and purchase medication for themselves. The act we passed last year did not change the current law which prohibits individuals from bringing medications across the border for their own use. That is why my bill also makes personal reimportation legal. I believe individuals should be able to cross the border and purchase prescription drugs at a lower price for their own use. The FDA currently has an enforcement policy that permits individuals who meet specific requirements to bring a 90-day supply of medication with them into the United States from another country, and my legislation would codify the current enforcement policy into law. It requires essentially the same safety precautions currently expected of individuals who bring medication over the border under the FDA's enforcement policy. The bill also recognizes that some individuals may be too ill to cross the borders themselves and permits them to designate a proxy to bring the medication back for them as long as they provide a letter from their doctor indicating that the trip to another country would endanger their health. The bill also provides opportunities for individuals to order medication over the Internet--there are other new sites being developed--and other means--hotlines, et cetera--in order to also have prescription drugs delivered by mail. I am committed to this issue of making prescription drugs more affordable for everyone. This is a matter of fairness. This bill is a matter of fairness to Americans, young and old, who need to have access to affordable prescription drugs. We as Americans ought not to be underwriting the research and at the same time, after the medications, as great as they are, are developed, manufactured, and sold, have Americans paying on average twice as much as those in other countries. That makes no sense to me. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the time I have been given today. This is a critical issue. I cannot think of a more serious issue affecting particularly older people today than the issue of access to medications. I think it is shameful that we have even one senior who is having to choose today, tomorrow, or next week between eating or taking their medicine. We can fix that. One way is to start with this legislation which opens our borders and allows real competition for the best price for American citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce my first bill in the Senate, the Medication Equity and Drug Savings Act, or the MEDS Act. On January 22, a little over a week ago, I had the privilege of addressing my colleagues in my first speech on the Senate floor. The topic of the speech was health care, specifically the need to pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. I pledged my commitment to making health care a priority during my tenure in this esteemed body. Today, I am pleased to share with my colleagues that I am taking the next step in keeping my promise by introducing a bill that addresses another priority health care issue: the price of prescription drugs. We all know that providing prescription drugs for seniors has become a very important issue for the American public. In fact, this was a key issue in many campaigns throughout the country, including my own. On a fundamental level, I believe everyone should have access to affordable prescription drugs, especially senior citizens enrolled in Medicare and the disabled. It is an outrage that not only must those seniors, who rely solely on Medicare for their health insurance, pay for all of their medications out of their own pockets, but that in many instances they pay more for the same drug than their counterparts with other insurance. So we have situations where those without insurance, and most often this falls on our seniors--but anyone without insurance is most often walking into the pharmacy and paying more. We did a study in my State that showed, on average, they paid twice as much as someone with insurance for the very same medications. I have conducted several prescription drug price studies in Michigan, and I have learned that, in fact, there is a genuine problem that touches the lives of so many people whom I represent. My concerns have been confirmed by literally thousands of letters and e-mails and phone calls from seniors and families who cannot afford to buy their medications. I have been saddened by the sheer number of seniors who confided in me that the cost of their drugs is so high that they are often forced to give up their meals or are not able to heat their homes. In Michigan that can be very serious in the wintertime. This is in order to buy their medications. These are not new stories. I know my colleagues have heard these stories as well, but they are real. They are not just stories. They are affecting people today. As we speak, there are seniors somewhere deciding whether or not they are going to skip their meals to get their medicine, or whether they are going to eat and not have the medications they need. I also know from hearing from doctors in my district who are worried about seniors, who decided to do their own self-regulation. They cannot afford all their pills, so they will skip a couple of pills, or they will take them every other day, or cut them in half. Oftentimes they have been placed in serious jeopardy as to their health because they have not been able to afford their medications and they have taken them inappropriately. The bottom line is that Medicare should include a defined, voluntary prescription drug benefit to help cover the costs of prescription drugs for seniors and the disabled. I am committed to working with my colleagues across the aisle, and the administration, to finish what we started last year and create this new component of Medicare that is absolutely critical. Without it, we are not fulfilling the promise of universal health care for those over the age of 65, or the disabled. If we do not cover medications, we are not providing health care in the truest sense for those individuals. In fact, one of the very first bills I cosponsored this year was S. 10, a bill that would create this important benefit in the Medicare program. I am ready to work with my colleagues to make sure that we do whatever it takes to update Medicare and create a defined benefit that will make such an incredible difference in the lives of seniors and their families in my great State of Michigan and all across the country. As we work on this complex issue, there are other approaches we can take in a more immediate sense to cut the costs of prescription drugs. Last year, Congress passed and the President signed into law an important new Act that would permit U.S. manufactured, FDA approved drugs to be reimported back into the United States by wholesalers. I firmly believe that implementing this Act could substantially reduce the cost of drugs, not just for seniors, but for everyone. Many of my colleagues may remember that during my campaign I organized several bus trips to Canada. As you know, Canada is just a short trip over a bridge or through a tunnel for many residents of Michigan. What I discovered on my bus trips was almost unbelievable. With just a short drive across the border, U.S. citizens can substantially reduce the cost of their medications by purchasing them in Canadian pharmacies. The difference in price for medications was absolutely shocking. A price study I conducted, comparing the price of several drugs purchased in the U.S. to the Canadian prices, conformed what we saw happening on our bus trips--the price of the same drug purchased in Canada is substantially lower than the average U.S. price. I have brought a chart to the floor to show my colleagues some of the incredible differences between the average price in Canada and the average price in Michigan. I would like to point those out today. Zocor, a drug to reduce cholesterol, costs $109.73 in Michigan for 50, 5 milligram tablets. The same drug costs only $46.17 in Canada. That is a 138 percent difference in price. Prilosec, a drug to treat ulcers $115.37 in Michigan for 20, 20 milligram capsules. The same drug costs only $55.10 in Canada. That is a 109 percent difference in price. Procardia XL, a drug to treat heart problems, costs $133.36 for 100, 30 milligram tablets in Michigan. The same drug costs only $74.25 in Canada. That is an 80 percent difference in price. Norvasc, a drug to treat high blood pressure, costs $116.79 for 90, 5 milligram tablets. The same drug costs only $89.91 in Canada. That is a 30 percent difference in price. Tamoxifen, a drug to treat breast cancer, costs $136.50 in Michigan for a one month supply. The same drug costs only $15.92 in Canada. That is an 88 percent savings in price. Zoloft, a drug to treat depression, costs $220.64 for 100, 50 milligram tablets in Michigan. The same drug costs $129.05 in Canada. That is a 30 percent difference in price. These are all drugs that have been manufactured in the United States and have met all FDA manufacturing, safety and purity requirements. Furthermore, because these are U.S. drugs, the companies developing and manufacturing them have all benefited from substantial assistance from the U.S. government, including NIH supported research and the Research and Development tax credit. Furthermore, a great deal of this research is conducted in state universities. I believe that U.S. citizens should have access to these U.S. drugs that are sold at lower prices in other countries. Competition is key to ensuring prices that consumers are willing to pay. Keeping the Canadian border, as well as other borders, closed is an obstacle to competition and is serving to maintain artificially high prices for drugs in the United States. I believe that permitting U.S. wholesalers, such as pharmacies, to bring lower priced drugs back into this country could reduce the price of drugs for every American. As my colleagues know, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was given broad discretion in implementing the wholesale reimportation provision of the Act. The former Secretary expressed concerns that the provision may not provide cost savings and could pose risks to the public health and opted not to promulgate rules. I understand that my colleagues are urging the new Secretary to reconsider this decision and to begin the implementation process. I am hopeful this may happen and would like to work with my colleagues to forward this effort. Nonetheless, I recognize that there are some concerns with the law enacted last year. My bill addresses these concerns by correcting these impediments that may delay the Secretary from promulgating regulations and permitting reimportation. Furthermore, my bill directs the Secretary to dispense with the delay and instructs him to begin the rulemaking process within 30 days of enactment of the bill. The first of the concerns about wholesale reimportation addressed by my bill is the sunset provision. My bill would lift the 5 year sunset imposed in the Act. Critics argued that sunsetting the provision would be a disincentive for distributors to develop ways to comply with the reimportation requirements when there was the possibility that reimportation could be prohibited again in the near future. Careful thought was put into the requirements to ensure consumers would be protected. I believe reimporters should be given every opportunity to meet these requirement and that removing the sunset will give these distributors what they need. Further, I believe consumers should always have access to U.S. manufactured drugs as long as they comply with FDA safety requirements and there is no need for a sunset. If Congress or the administration identifies safety concerns in the future, they should be addressed by revising the reimportation safety requirements, not sunsetting the entire provision of the law. The act also did not specify that reimorters could use the manufacturers' FDA-approved labels. These labels are required by law if the products are to be sold in the United States. My bill would make those labels available to the reimporters from the manufacturers for a small fee. Finally, while the act prohibited manufacturers from entering into agreements with distributors that would interfere with reimportation of drugs, critics argue this provision was not strong enough to work. My legislation tightens up this section by prohibiting manufacturers from discriminating against wholesalers simply because they intend to reimport the product. The bill also has stronger language prohibiting price fixing. Wholesale reimportation of prescription drugs is only half the story. While I think it is critical that wholesalers be permitted to bring U.S.-manufactured drugs back into the country to reduce the price for consumers, I also believe individuals should be able to cross the border and purchase medication for themselves. The act we passed last year did not change the current law which prohibits individuals from bringing medications across the border for their own use. That is why my bill also makes personal reimportation legal. I believe individuals should be able to cross the border and purchase prescription drugs at a lower price for their own use. The FDA currently has an enforcement policy that permits individuals who meet specific requirements to bring a 90-day supply of medication with them into the United States from another country, and my legislation would codify the current enforcement policy into law. It requires essentially the same safety precautions currently expected of individuals who bring medication over the border under the FDA's enforcement policy. The bill also recognizes that some individuals may be too ill to cross the borders themselves and permits them to designate a proxy to bring the medication back for them as long as they provide a letter from their doctor indicating that the trip to another country would endanger their health. The bill also provides opportunities for individuals to order medication over the Internet--there are other new sites being developed--and other means--hotlines, et cetera--in order to also have prescription drugs delivered by mail. I am committed to this issue of making prescription drugs more affordable for everyone. This is a matter of fairness. This bill is a matter of fairness to Americans, young and old, who need to have access to affordable prescription drugs. We as Americans ought not to be underwriting the research and at the same time, after the medications, as great as they are, are developed, manufactured, and sold, have Americans paying on average twice as much as those in other countries. That makes no sense to me. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the time I have been given today. This is a critical issue. I cannot think of a more serious issue affecting particularly older people today than the issue of access to medications. I think it is shameful that we have even one senior who is having to choose today, tomorrow, or next week between eating or taking their medicine. We can fix that. One way is to start with this legislation which opens our borders and allows real competition for the best price for American citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.