Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business so I can engage the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a colloquy.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that shortly the Senate will be voting on a measure that will take a very significant step forward by bringing sunshine and public accountability to the Senate. If you walk the streets of this country and ask someone what a hold is in the Senate, I don't think you will get 1 out of 100 people who will have any idea what you are talking about. But the fact of the matter is, a hold in the Senate is the ability to block a piece of legislation, block a nomination from being even discussed in the Senate. As a result of a hold, the Senate will not even get a peek at a topic that may involve millions of our citizens, billions of dollars, and affect the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land. It would be one thing if the Senator who exercises this extraordinary tool--this tool that carries so much power with it--if that Senator would exercise the tool in public and could be held accountable. Unfortunately, holds are now placed in secret. They are done behind closed doors. The sponsor of a piece of legislation will not even know about it. It seems to me a Senate that is serious about lobbying reform absolutely must stop doing so much of its important business in secret, behind closed doors. I will offer later in the day, I hope, with Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Salazar, an amendment to bring a bit of sunshine to the Senate. It is an amendment that would not abolish the hold. Senators' rights would be fully protected. Senator Collins is in the Senate, and as a result of the colloquy we had several weeks ago, this legislation also protects the Senator's right to be consulted on a piece of legislation. Certainly, that is something all Members feel is important. If there are bills that affect a Senator's State or that they have a great interest in, that Senator would have an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on what it means. What we say in this bipartisan amendment is when a Senator digs in, when a Senator plans to exercise this extraordinary power, the power to block a bill or a nomination from ever being heard, we are saying that Senator has got to be held publicly accountable. What we require is that a Senator who exercises a hold would have to so state in the Congressional Record. They could still use their procedural rights to make sure they have a chance to oppose the legislation and to oppose it strongly, but they would be identified as the person who was so objecting. The intelligence reauthorization bill is now being prevented from coming to this Senate as a result of a secret hold. A lot of Senators give lengthy and eloquent speeches about fighting terrorism, but now a bill that is vital to national security is being held up in secret. It has been held up for months and months as a result of this secret hold. That ought to change. Certainly, it ought to change if Senators are serious about lobbying reforms because one of the best ways for lobbyists to work their will is to have procedures that help them behind closed doors. That is what the secret hold is all about. It is written nowhere in the Senate rules, but it has become one of the most significant and powerful tools a Senator can exercise. It is done without any public accountability at all. There has been a bit of irony in the last couple of days about this legislation. I thought it was going to come up already, given the fact that we had come back from the recess. I was under the impression that would be the first order of business. But we could not get to the bipartisan measure to abolish secret holds because, lo and behold, there was a secret hold on an amendment to try to get the Senate to do its business in public. That pretty much says it all. Not only do we have secret holds on national security legislation, legislation that would make a real difference in terms of striking a balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting civil liberties, not only do we have national security legislation being held up, but even efforts to bring about basic reforms such as openness and sunshine for the Senate are being held up as a result of this secret procedure. I emphasize what the change will mean for the Senate. No longer if this change is put in place will staff be able to keep secret from Members an objection; no longer will leadership be the only one to know about an objection; no longer will it be possible for a Senator to be kept in the dark about something they have worked on for years and years. The fact is, Senator Grassley and I have worked on this legislation for a full decade. Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has been particularly helpful in terms of working with us on this measure. There have been hearings. Senator Byrd, who, of course, knows more about the Senate rules than anyone in the history of this Senate, has been very helpful in terms of giving us background about what we ought to do. This amendment puts the burden on the person who ought to be held publicly accountable: squarely on the shoulders of an objector. The person who exercises a hold will be identified and colleagues can discuss with that person how to move forward in a bipartisan way. No Senator is going to be stripped of their rights. No Senator is going to be kept from protecting constituents that have serious concerns about legislation. But with the right to stand up for your view and to object to a piece of legislation, there ought to be some responsibility. There ought to be some accountability. I find it stunning the Senate would even consider lobbying reform without an effort to do its business in public. We have already spent several days on this legislation. Hopefully, it will be completed shortly. It seems to me one of the most obvious reforms that Senators ought to be in favor of, if this Senate is serious about reform, is doing its business in public. Nowhere in the Senate rules does it say anything about secret holds. Nowhere is it written down that a Senator can exercise this enormous power and do it without any accountability at all. Senator Grassley and I believe it is time to bring some sunshine for the Senate and for Senators to do the people's business in public. Secret holds have been the bane of the Senate for decades. Back in the 101st Congress, then-majority Bob Dole said: I have never understood why Republicans put a hold on Republican nominees. Maybe I will figure it out some day. I have been working on it. I have not quite understood it. In that same Congress, former Senator John Glenn observed: . . . as one hold would come off, there was agreement another one would be put on, so that no one really had to identify themselves. The objecting Senator would remain anonymous. So much for sunshine in the United States Senate. Those are the words of one of our most respected colleagues, John Glenn, words that I hope Senators will remember later in the day when we will have a chance to vote on a bipartisan amendment to bring some sunlight to the Senate and some openness in the way the Senate conducts the public's business. When we have important national security legislation held hostage today by a secret hold, that alone says that this Senate needs to change the way it does business. It ought to do its business in the open. It ought to do its business in a way that will hold Senators accountable. After 10 years, Senator Grassley and I have watched these secret holds block legislation, block nominations in a way that does a disservice to all the people we represent. We are going to have a chance to end this. We are going to have a chance to ensure that while Senators can exercise their rights and debate topics that they feel strongly about, they can also be held publicly accountable. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Lott.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my desire to yield the first 3 minutes to Senator Inhofe, the next 3 minutes to Senator Grassley, and then I will speak. I thank my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is available on my side? My understanding is we have 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think Senator Lott, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Grassley have said it very well. This amendment is about a simple proposition; and that is, the Senate ought to do its most important business in public, where every Senator can be held accountable. We have offered this bipartisan amendment to eliminate secret holds on the lobbying reform legislation for the same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks: Banks are where the money is. And secret holds are where the power is. Secret holds are one of the most powerful weapons available to lobbyists. I expect that each of our offices has gotten at least one call asking if the office would put a secret hold on a bill or nominee in order to kill it without any public debate, and without a lobbyist's fingerprints anywhere. Getting a Senator to put a secret hold on a bill is like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator's identity protected, but so is the lobbyist's. A secret hold lets a lobbyist play both sides of the street and gives lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients. In my view, secret holds are a stealth extension of the lobbying world. It would be particularly ironic if the Senate were to claim it was adopting lobbying reform legislation without doing away with what is one of the most powerful tools available to a lobbyist. This has been a bipartisan effort. It has gone on for literally a decade. Senator Lott, to his credit, tried a voluntary approach with Senator Daschle. We want to emphasize--for example, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, was involved in this--that this in no way eliminates the right of a Senator to have a consult, to have the opportunity to look at legislation, to review it when it comes out of committee. A Senator can seek that. In my mind, a consult is similar to a yellow light that says proceed with caution. A hold, on the other hand, is similar to a red light, a stop light. It is when a Senator digs in and says they are going to do everything they possibly can to block a piece of legislation from going forward. I want to protect Senators' rights, but Senators' rights need to be accompanied by responsibilities. We are talking about legislation that can involve billions of dollars, millions of our citizens, and the public's business ought to be done in public. What this amendment does is ban a staff hold, the so-called rolling hold where the hold is passed secretly from Senator to Senator. And when a Senator exercises the power of a hold to deal with an issue that is important to them, in the future, they will be held publicly accountable. This is long overdue. Senator Dole, when he was majority leader, spoke out on this, more eloquently than perhaps any of us are doing today. Senator Grassley, myself, Senator Inhofe, Senator Lott believe that it is time to bring sunshine to the Senate and for the Senate to do the people's business in public. I can't think of a more appropriate place to do it than on the lobbying reform bill we are working on today. I urge my colleagues to pass the amendment and to bring some sunshine to the Senate.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate has been working away at a lobbying reform bill, which is a good start at curbing the influence of special interests, but that alone is not enough. Everyone knows the root of the problem is money. Money is the oil that runs the engine of a viable campaign for office. Every single one of my colleagues and I are in a perpetual campaign. Whether you were born a multi-millionaire or come from more humble origins, you are chasing money. Senators are elected or reelected on a Tuesday, sleep in on Wednesday and by Thursday they are back on the phone, dialing supporters for contributions to fuel the next campaign. I do not believe Senators should have to operate this way. I believe the people send Senators to the Capitol to resolve their and the Nation's problems; I don't believe they send us to the United States Senate to spend all our time calling donors for support. Senators are here to do the people's business, and that's why Senator Graham and I are introducing the first bipartisan bill that would let Senators focus on what the voters of our States sent us here to do. This would be the first serious step toward shutting the door on the 6- year stockpiling of campaign contributions. Our bill would amend the Senate rules to prohibit incumbent Senators from raising money until 18 months prior to their re-election. An exception to this ban would be triggered if an opposing candidate or group targeted a Senator with more than $100,000 in paid advertisements. Such a targeted campaign would free an incumbent Senator from the prohibition on soliciting contributions. Likewise, the ban would not apply to contributions to retire campaign debt. I have long admired the system used in many European countries for keeping campaigns focused on a short but intense period. That would require an amendment to the Constitution, an avenue that time and again has proved too difficult to navigate. Short of a Constitutional amendment I believe the new approach Senator Graham and I are offering could prove viable. Campaign finance reform is much like nuclear disarmament: everyone is for it but few are willing to take the first step unilaterally. I believe that those of us who are already here in the Senate bear the responsibility to take that first step. Our proposal aims not just to treat the symptoms of scandal and corruption; it aims to cure the overall disease by going after the endless race for money in politics. Our bipartisan approach enjoys the support of a number of groups, including Common Cause, Democracy21, US PIRG and Public Citizen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate has been working away at a lobbying reform bill, which is a good start at curbing the influence of special interests, but that alone is not enough. Everyone knows the root of the problem is money. Money is the oil that runs the engine of a viable campaign for office. Every single one of my colleagues and I are in a perpetual campaign. Whether you were born a multi-millionaire or come from more humble origins, you are chasing money. Senators are elected or reelected on a Tuesday, sleep in on Wednesday and by Thursday they are back on the phone, dialing supporters for contributions to fuel the next campaign. I do not believe Senators should have to operate this way. I believe the people send Senators to the Capitol to resolve their and the Nation's problems; I don't believe they send us to the United States Senate to spend all our time calling donors for support. Senators are here to do the people's business, and that's why Senator Graham and I are introducing the first bipartisan bill that would let Senators focus on what the voters of our States sent us here to do. This would be the first serious step toward shutting the door on the 6- year stockpiling of campaign contributions. Our bill would amend the Senate rules to prohibit incumbent Senators from raising money until 18 months prior to their re-election. An exception to this ban would be triggered if an opposing candidate or group targeted a Senator with more than $100,000 in paid advertisements. Such a targeted campaign would free an incumbent Senator from the prohibition on soliciting contributions. Likewise, the ban would not apply to contributions to retire campaign debt. I have long admired the system used in many European countries for keeping campaigns focused on a short but intense period. That would require an amendment to the Constitution, an avenue that time and again has proved too difficult to navigate. Short of a Constitutional amendment I believe the new approach Senator Graham and I are offering could prove viable. Campaign finance reform is much like nuclear disarmament: everyone is for it but few are willing to take the first step unilaterally. I believe that those of us who are already here in the Senate bear the responsibility to take that first step. Our proposal aims not just to treat the symptoms of scandal and corruption; it aims to cure the overall disease by going after the endless race for money in politics. Our bipartisan approach enjoys the support of a number of groups, including Common Cause, Democracy21, US PIRG and Public Citizen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, with the consent of both sides, I call up amendment No. 3004, the Snowe-Wyden amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate that. What Senator Snowe and I want to do is not spend any taxpayers' money; we want to save some taxpayers' money. I appreciate that. I was here about 45 minutes ago thinking that was the point where we would be in the queue. When Chairman Grassley gets here, we would appreciate the chance to discuss our bipartisan amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Without being argumentative, it is the Snowe-Wyden amendment, but we are talking about the same thing. I thank both the chairman and the ranking minority member.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Senator Snowe will close this afternoon for our bipartisan amendment, but I want to highlight a couple of points. There is a reason that AARP strongly supports the Snowe-Wyden amendment. There is a reason that Secretary Thompson, before he left the Health and Human Services Department, said he wanted this authority, and that is this is just plain common sense. Everybody else in the marketplace who is in a position to use their clout does it but not Medicare. I want to set the record straight on a couple of comments that were made by my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee. Again, at lines 13 and 14 of the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment, in addition to the prohibition against price controls, there is a prohibition against a uniform formulary. So we are using all of the same forces in the marketplace of the private sector under this amendment that go on all across the land today. There are no price controls. There is no uniform formulary. For colleagues who want to see the language, it is at line 13 and line 14 of the Snowe-Wyden amendment. Let us have some practical, smart shopping with respect to this program, where the costs are going into the stratosphere. I don't know of anybody in the United States who would shop the way Medicare is shopping today for prescription drugs. It would be one thing if it was working. AARP supports this amendment because the cost of medicine is rising twice the rate of inflation. So if you want to say to the seniors when you go home next week that you took some practical steps to control the costs of medicine, you will support the Snowe-Wyden amendment. If you think everything is working fine right now--and we don't--then I guess you oppose us. But I hope colleagues will, as they did last November, a majority of them, support us because now they can make a difference. They can make a difference for older people. They can make a difference for taxpayers. I hope my colleagues, when Senator Snowe wraps up for our side this afternoon, will support this bipartisan amendment because it is just plain shopping smart at a crucial time when older people need that approach to hold down the cost of health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we all have seen the frustrations and the heartache that senior citizens have experienced over these last few months as the prescription drug legislation has gone into effect. Certainly, some folks are being helped, and we are glad to see it. But in order to really make a prescription drug benefit work, we have to contain the costs of medicine. That is what Senator Snowe and I are trying to do. We are trying to do it by using marketplace forces, not Government but marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine. A majority of the Senate is now on record as favoring this proposal. A majority of the Senate voted for it last fall before all the headaches and the frustrations that seniors have experienced. So in my view, the case is a lot stronger today than it even was last fall when a majority of the Senate voted for it. I think that is the reason the American Association of Retired Persons has written to the Senate saying they are in support of the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation. They have something they call their Rx Watchdog group. It is an effort by AARP--a very laudable effort--to monitor the cost of medicine. They report that the cost of medicine is going up twice the rate of inflation. Of course, we know older people use more medicines than the rest of the population. It would be one thing if people were trying to go about doing this in an arbitrary kind of fashion, using a one-size-fits-all Government approach or price controls. That is not what the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation does. We want to be very clear, as we offer this legislation, that at line 13 and line 14 of this amendment, there is a statutory prohibition on price controls as an effort to hold down the cost of medicine. Let me repeat that to the Senate. The bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation at line 13 and line 14 includes a bipartisan statutory ban on price setting as an effort to control the cost of medicine. This is about using marketplace forces to hold down the cost of these drugs that are clobbering our older people. I don't see how anyone can oppose this amendment and, in fact, Secretary Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, said in his last press conference that he just wished he had this authority. He wished he had the kind of authority that is in this amendment. It doesn't mean it is going to be used all the time, but it means it is a tool, an opportunity like we have every single day in the private sector of our economy to hold down the cost of medicine. The way Medicare is going to go out and buy these prescription drugs reminds me of somebody going to COSTCO and buying one role of toilet paper at a time. Nobody would go shopping that way. Everybody who is in a position to do so exercises their marketplace clout, the opportunity to be a savvy shopper, the opportunity to say I am going to purchase a lot of something. I want to get my money's worth. I just hope the Senate this time, when we have seen all the frustrations older people are having, uses this chance to do something about it. We know lots of lobbyists are against this amendment. Last week we had a discussion on lobbying reform. I can tell colleagues in the Senate that probably the biggest trophy on a lobbyist's wall is to defeat the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment, but that doesn't make it right. What we need to do is what is right for older people and at a time when millions of seniors are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against their medical bills, this is a chance to use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine. For older people, there are no costs going up like prescription drugs. Some are saying: We can get these cost savings without the Snowe-Wyden amendment. A lot of those people are the same ones who said that the rollout of the prescription drug program would go perfectly. We say that certainly has not been the case. Now there is a chance to go home at this break and say you actually moved to do something important that older people are talking about at their kitchen table every single day, and that is the cost of medicine. I don't know of any special interest group in this country that got the kind of sweetheart arrangement in this legislation that the pharmaceutical sector has. There is no other group in this country, no other group that got a specific carve-out so we couldn't use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of medicine. It is really staggering that one group was singled out to be immune from the forces of the marketplace. Secretary Thompson thought it made no sense. It certainly makes no sense right now when older people are being clobbered by the cost of medicine and finding it hard to secure the benefits of this program. In fact, my sense is one of the reasons a lot of older people have been reluctant to sign up is they can't see any cost savings in the program. Here is a chance to generate some real cost savings. That is why AARP indicated its support for the amendment. That is why Secretary Thompson said he wished he had the authority. That is why every timber company, steel company, and auto company in the country uses its marketplace clout to hold down the cost of medicine. Fifty-one Senators voted for it last fall before we saw all the older people have the problems they have had over the last couple of months. I hope colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, will support this amendment. Senator Snowe and I have worked on this now for 3 years. We said we were going to work on it at the time the original legislation was voted on. AARP, like Senator Snowe, like myself, like Chairman Grassley, for whom I have enormous respect--we are all in support of the original legislation. I still have the welts on my back to show for my support for the legislation. But as AARP says, don't miss the opportunity to improve on this legislation which we can do by using marketplace forces. I urge colleagues, particularly in light of some of what has been written, to take a look at line 13 and line 14 of the amendment which specifically prohibits the use of price controls under this amendment as a tool to hold down the cost of medicine. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I have no intention of objecting, I want to clarify what the distinguished chairman and ranking member said--and they have been very helpful. My understanding is that we go to the Conrad amendment after that, the avian flu amendment. It is my understanding per the agreement between the chairman and ranking minority member that after the Conrad amendment has been discussed, we would next go to the Snowe-Wyden amendment. Is that the understanding of the chairman and the ranking minority member?

Mr. WYDEN. That would mean that somewhere in the vicinity of a half hour or 40 minutes or so we would deal with it.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, is there a time limit for these amendments?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as AARP notes--and they publish an Rx Watchdog report--they have noted that for the nearly 200 brand-name medications most commonly used by older people, the costs of those medicines have gone up twice the rate of inflation. So all Americans get hit by prescription drug costs. Particularly hard hit are older people, and low-income older people, and people with very big prescription drug bills. As noted by AARP, these seniors are hit more than any other segment of the U.S. population by prescription drug costs. At a time when the costs of this program and the costs of Government have gone through the stratosphere, one would think the Government would be doing everything possible to hold down costs. Yet, unfortunately, in the original prescription drug legislation, a bizarre restriction was put in place that literally bars the Government from being a smart shopper. Everybody else in this country tries to use their clout in the marketplace to get the best possible deal, but not Medicare--not Medicare, which offers a benefit to more than 30 million older people. They are not using the opportunity to go into the marketplace and hold down the costs. I compare the Government's approach to buying prescription drugs under Medicare to somebody going into Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would shop that way. No savvy shopper would ever give up, even before they walked into the store, the opportunity to hold down the costs. But that is what Medicare is doing, and that is what Senator Snowe and I want to change. Now, we have seen over the last couple of months older people and their families absolutely up in arms, up in arms about the frustrations of getting this prescription drug program out and usable in a commonsense kind of fashion. It is far too complicated. There are far too many alternatives. Some seniors say that even with a Ph.D. they can't sort it out. But what is especially troubling is at a time when the costs of the program continue to go up and up and up, the Government isn't even taking commonsense steps to hold down the cost of these medicines. So what Senator Snowe and I have tried to do in a bipartisan effort for going on 3 years now is to make sure that when necessary the Secretary of Health and Human Services can negotiate for the best possible prices of prescription drugs for older people. Now, this isn't price control. Specifically, our bipartisan amendment stipulates that the authority granted here cannot be used to set prices or to set a uniform formulary. Nowhere in this amendment is there a call for price controls or anything that can be interpreted as price controls. This is about using marketplace forces. This is about using the market just as millions of Americans do every day to hold down the cost of medicine. Senator Snowe and I believe one of the most flagrant mistakes in the Medicare law--and both of us voted for that legislation--was to write into law that the Secretary could not have bargaining power under any circumstances at all. We have seen drug prices increase, as AARP has noted, far higher than the rate of inflation. The Wall Street Journal has reported price spikes. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated there can be savings from negotiations in the area of single- source drugs that do not face competition, and suffice it to say, many of the single-source drugs are ones that are commonly used by Medicare patients, such as Lipitor and Zocor and Prevacid. I will wrap up, Mr. President, with only a couple of additional points because I know my colleague from Washington has been very patient. The authority that Senator Snowe and I seek to grant to the Department of Health and Human Services is the authority that Secretary Thompson at his last press conference as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, said he wished he had. So the last head of that agency, at a time when they were moving to implement the prescription drug law, said specifically he wished he had had this authority. The last point I would make, Mr. President, is that some have said: Well, seniors are seeing some savings already. If that is the case, we are glad to see it, but it comes about because the basic benefit covers 75 percent of the cost of the drug after the $250 deductible. So the question for the Senate is where are you going to look in order to hold down the cost of this program? Are you going to look at taxpayer subsidies? Are you going to look at marketplace forces? Senator Snowe and I believe that at a time when the costs of Government are soaring and the costs of this prescription drug benefit are soaring, we ought to use commonsense marketplace principles to hold down the cost of medicine, not continue to rely on taxpayer subsidies, and that is what our amendment is all about. Mr. President and colleagues, I do not know of a single private sector entity, whether it is a timber company in my home State of Oregon, or a big auto company in the Midwest, that when they are buying something in bulk, say: What about the possibility of some discounts? So why shouldn't Medicare ask that question, just to have that authority so as to make marketplace forces work? Why wouldn't we want to assure that there is every possible tool to help seniors hold down the costs of medicine? We will debate this at greater length in the course of the week. As I noted, Senator Snowe and I received 51 votes, a majority of the Senate, for this legislation before the program went into effect. I would just say to our colleagues tonight, everything that has happened in the last few months suggests that there is an even better case for the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden amendment to hold down the costs of medicine. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this difficult evening, I wish to take just a few minutes to talk about the budget. Last Congress, Senator Snowe and I, on a bipartisan basis, saw 51 Members of the Senate support our bipartisan legislation to lift the restriction on Medicare so that program could bargain to hold down the cost of medicine. That vote, where a majority of Senators went on record in supporting the effort to hold down the cost of medicine, took place before the program went into effect. It seems to me everything that has happened over the last few months, since a majority of the Senate voted for our bipartisan amendment, supports our case for passing that legislation now. We will be offering our bipartisan proposal, the Snowe-Wyden amendment, later this week, and I wish to take just a few minutes to outline why it is so important. The American Association of Retired Persons says it all in a letter endorsing our bipartisan Snowe-Wyden proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter endorsing the Snowe-Wyden legislation be printed in the Record.