Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I go on to touch on the issue of prescription drugs for a few moments, I, too, join with the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority whip, Senator Reid, in congratulating Senator Byrd on the anniversary of his Senate service. I think what is especially striking about Senator Byrd's contributions is that when so many get tired, and so many get frustrated and exasperated with public service--we all know there is plenty in which you can be frustrated about--Senator Byrd does not give up. He does not flinch from the kinds of travails of public service. He seems to get stronger and stronger. Those of us who watch him and seek him out for his counsel very much appreciate his contributions to the Senate. But this Senator especially appreciates one of his traits, which I think is the hallmark of being successful in any field, and that is his persistence. He is persistent about public service. He is persistent about upholding the standards of the Senate. I join with the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority whip in congratulating our friend and colleague, Senator Byrd.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. What the minority whip has essentially said is: We have what amounts to a permanent campaign. You have the election the first Tuesday in November; people sleep in on Wednesday; and then the whole thing starts all over again on Thursday. It is time, in effect, to turn off this treadmill and, heaven forbid, come to the floor and talk about issues, such as prescription drugs, which I have tried to focus on for a number of months now. Many of our colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, want to talk about that, and the Patients' Bill of Rights, and education. To the extent that campaign finance dominates so much of the American political focus, it detracts from those issues. I commend the minority whip. I thank him for his excellent presentation.

Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator makes an extremely important point. I recall in the campaign with my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, to succeed former Senator Packwood--we are from a small State as well, a little bigger than Nevada--Senator Smith and I, between us, went through pretty close to $10 million in about 5 months. Before the minority whip leaves the floor, I want to tell him I so appreciate him speaking out on this issue. Certainly in Europe, for example, they are doing some of the things the distinguished minority whip is talking about: shortening the election cycle trying to generate interest in the elections because the campaign is over a short period of time. I think we can do that in this country and require, for example, that the campaign funds be disclosed online, which many of our colleagues have proposed on both sides of the aisle. I want the Senator to know, before he leaves the floor, I very much appreciate his leadership in speaking out on this campaign finance issue, because we saw in Oregon much of what the Senator saw in Nevada.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this morning the Democratic Policy Committee had a very important hearing on the issue of prescription drug coverage under Medicare for the Nation's older people. We heard from senior citizens, we heard from pharmacists, we heard from gerontologists, extraordinarily compelling testimony about why this prescription drug benefit is so important. Frankly, I do not think there is a single Member of the Senate, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican, who would not be moved by what we heard this morning. The senior citizens, as we hear again and again in townhall meetings at home, are pointing out that they cannot afford their prescription medicines. The pharmacists went into detail about how frustrated they are that so many of the older people lack bargaining power in the marketplace, bargaining power that can help them drive down the cost of their medicine. I thought the gerontologists we heard from this morning were very compelling in making the case of how so many of these drugs today can promote wellness and help seniors stay healthy and keep from racking up these extraordinary medical bills that are so often incurred and require hospitalization under what is called Part A of the Medicare program. It is so important that we come together as a body to address this issue. Senator Daschle, in particular, mentions to me on almost a daily basis how he wants to reconcile the various bills. He wants to reach out to colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In particular, I praise my colleague, Senator Snowe. She and I have worked for over a year on a bipartisan effort with respect to prescription drugs. I know colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in this issue as well. Frankly, I think any Member of the Senate who heard what the Democratic Policy Committee heard this morning had to have been moved by how great the need is for prescription drug coverage for seniors. One of the issues that has come up in recent days is this question of whether private insurance companies are going to be interested in this benefit and whether they are going to be willing to update their policies. We are hearing a lot of talk that maybe they are not and they are not going to come forward. I guess we are starting to hear from the same crowd who said doctors and hospitals in the early sixties were not going to participate in the Medicare program. It is preposterous to say private insurers are not going to participate once we go forward and enact a responsible bipartisan prescription drug program for seniors under Medicare. What the Snowe-Wyden legislation does is make it very clear the money that would be earmarked under our bipartisan bill would be made available to pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior citizen's private health insurance bill. The Presiding Officer, who has great expertise in this area as well, knows that the vast majority of seniors have these private policies-- Medigap policies, HMO policies, a variety of private policies today. I am absolutely convinced that when we go forward to enact this program on a bipartisan basis, as we heard in the Democratic policy session this morning, private insurance companies all over this country will tear up their existing contracts with older people and add the prescription drug program that we enact this year to their coverage. By the way, they would not be required to do it. Under our legislation and other bills, this would be voluntary for both private insurance companies and for older people. The reason why I believe private insurance companies are going to be very eager to participate is that they will not be able to be competitive with the various other companies in an area unless they offer the benefit. If you took a Salt Lake City, UT, or a Portland, OR, or a Denver, CO, where there are a variety of insurers, once we enact this program, seniors are going to go to private insurers and ask: Are you offering this particular benefit? Because we see the Congress has passed a law making available funds to pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior citizen's private health insurance bill. I think all this talk about how private insurance companies are not going to be interested in offering this benefit is incredibly farfetched. While our proposal and the other good proposals that are offered are voluntary, we are already hearing from insurance companies that they are going to be very interested in offering this benefit. In fact, many of them are going to believe they have to do it in order to be competitive in their community. I hope--I did want to be brief tonight--we can go forward in the days ahead and act on this matter as priority business before the Senate. I intend to keep coming to the floor to bring to the attention of this body cases from home and from across this country of older people who, when they are done paying their prescription drug bills, literally have only a few hundred dollars a month to pay for their food and their rent and their utilities. It is outrageous, in a country as good and strong as ours, that we have not updated our health care system to provide this coverage. Because I have come to the floor now 25 times in 3 months to talk about this issue, and Senator Daschle's effort to bring the Senate together, to reach out to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am asked all the time: Can America afford to cover prescription drugs for older people? My response is: We can't afford not to cover prescription drugs. What the gerontologists told us today is that if you want, for the long-term, to promote wellness and to keep seniors healthy, make these drugs--the drugs that lower blood pressure and cholesterol--available to seniors because with them seniors will be able to stay healthy and not rack up these much larger medical bills that are incurred when they are ill. One of the most striking examples I have seen in this discussion involves the anticoagulant drugs, the drugs that prevent strokes. It might cost $1,000 or $1,500 for a senior to get those drugs for a year--certainly that is expensive--but if, through drugs such as that, you can prevent stroke--which will cost upwards of $100,000--it seems to me it makes a very clear case that we ought to be offering this benefit. I recognize that colleagues have different views as to how to go about doing it. Several of my Democratic colleagues have bills. I do not expect to have the last word on this subject. I know colleagues on the other side of the aisle have legislation, as well. I am very honored to have been able to team up with Senator Snowe for 15 months now in an effort to pass this prescription drug benefit on a bipartisan basis. But let us make sure this issue does get addressed, and addressed in this Congress. Because to let this become fodder for another political season, and to have the back and forth that would go on in a political campaign, where one side blames the other side, is not productive. That is not what Senator Daschle wants to have, as he tries to bring together the various approaches that have been offered by Members of the Senate. I know there are a number of Republicans who want to avoid that kind of train-wreck scenario where you do not act on this issue; instead, it just becomes the fodder for another political campaign. What the Democratic Policy Committee heard this morning from seniors, from pharmacists, from gerontologists, ought to be compelling to every Member of this body--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. Let us debate the specifics about how to go about offering this benefit, but let us make sure this issue gets done because I do not think it is right for the country to wait any longer to move forward on an issue that is so vital to health care reform. I intend to keep coming back to the floor to address this issue. The session held by the Democratic Policy Committee was so compelling this morning that I wanted to take a couple minutes to bring it to the attention of the Senate. I wish to make it clear that I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. The Presiding Officer--the Senator from Utah--and I have talked about health care on a number of occasions since I have been in the Senate. He has great expertise. We are going to involve him in this cause and get it done in a bipartisan way. I think this morning's program by the Democratic Policy Committee was another step in the right direction. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, to offer the New Millennium Classrooms Act as an amendment to the Education Savings Account legislation. This is an issue on which he and I have worked for several years now. The New Millennium Classrooms Act is about digital recycling. It gives companies an incentive to recycle technology. It says the computer Bill Gates may see as a dinosaur, is really a dynamic new opportunity for a student who has none. The E-Rate program, authored by Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, has been an enormous success, helping to wire almost all of the nation's schools and a good portion of the nation's classrooms. What schools need now is good equipment. That's the purpose of this amendment. We know that very early in this new Century 60% of all jobs will require high-tech computer skills. To prepare our children for the jobs of the future, they not only must have access to technology, but they must be trained to use it as well. The purpose of our amendment is to build more bridges between the technology ``haves'' and the ``have nots;'' to build more on-ramps to the information superhighway. You can't get 21st Century classrooms, using Flintstones technology. Technology is not cheap and school budgets are limited, making it tough for schools to upgrade their systems by themselves. The point of our amendment is to enhance existing incentives to businesses to donate computer equipment to schools. There is a federal program in place, the 21st Century Classroom Act of 1997, but its use has been limited. It allows businesses to take a tax deduction for certain computer equipment donations to K-12 schools. But most businesses take longer to upgrade their computers than allowed for under the law. The New Millennium Classrooms Act would make this law work the way it was intended. First, our legislation would increase the age limit from two to three years for donated equipment eligible for a tax credit. This more realistically tracks the time line businesses follow for their computer upgrades. It will cover hardware that possesses the necessary memory capacity and graphics capability to support Internet and multimedia applications. Second, our bill expands the current limitation of ``original use'' to include both original equipment manufacturers and any corporation that reacquires their equipment. We believe that by expanding the number of donors eligible for the credit, we will expand the number of computers donated to schools. Third, our bill provides for a 30% tax credit of the fair market value for school computer donations, and a 50% credit for donations to schools located in empowerment zones, enterprise communities and Indian reservations. The Department of Commerce report highlights the need to encourage computer donation in these notoriously under-served communities and we want to target donations toward these communities. Finally, our bill requires an operating system to be included on a donated computer's hard drive in order to qualify for the tax credit. This will ensure students don't get empty computer shells, but the brains that drive the computers. Our legislation is supported by a wide range of business and education groups. Leaders of technology associations, like the Information Technology Industry Council and TechNet, and the National Association of Manufacturers have joined education associations, such as the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges, in support of the amendment. The Digital Millennium Classrooms Act promotes digital recycling. It will encourage companies to put their used computers into classrooms instead of into landfills. It will help build a safety net under students trying to cross the digital divide. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and again wish to commend Senator Abraham for his leadership on this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for many months now, I and other Members of this body have been coming to the floor to talk about the need for prescription drug coverage for our older people under Medicare. I have brought to the floor on more than 20 occasions specific cases of older people who, in so many instances, are walking an economic tightrope, trying to balance their food costs against their prescription drug bill, their prescription drug bill against some other necessity. More and more of these older people and their families simply cannot make ends meet. I wish to address the question of whether this country can afford to cover prescription drugs for older people under Medicare. I submit this Nation cannot afford not to cover these essential health care services. We talked on the floor about the important drugs such as Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering drug used by many older people. These drugs are absolutely key to keeping older people well. There is no question that right now if the Government were to pick up the costs of these medicines there would be additional costs, but the savings generated as a result of extending prescription drug coverage to older people, in my view, would be staggering. I continually cite the exciting contributions made by these new medicines that prevent strokes. They are known as anticoagulant drugs. For an older person, it might cost perhaps $1,000 a year to pay for the drugs, anticoagulant drugs that prevent these strokes, but if you prevent a stroke you could save upwards of $100,000 through an investment that is just a small fraction of those costs. I am very hopeful it will now be possible to reconcile the various bills that cover prescription drugs for older people. Senator Daschle has talked to me on a number of occasions, even a few hours ago, indicating he is very interested in seeing the Congress come together on a bipartisan basis and enact this legislation to meet the needs of older people and better utilize the dollars that are available for health care in this country. The stories we have accumulated from home are tragic. I heard yesterday from an older woman in Tillamook, OR. She recently took another senior, an 80-year-old woman, to the emergency room. This 80- year-old woman said she could not afford the one medication she needed to control her high blood pressure. As a result, she almost died. From what we are seeing across this country, we either now go forward and make a well-targeted investment to make sure vulnerable seniors get help with prescription drugs or we end up with vastly more people suffering and much increased costs. I have received scores of letters from across rural Oregon. These are from people who have to drive 40 miles, 50 miles to a pharmacy. They don't have big health plans that negotiate discounts for them. In Baker City, OR, I have been told by an older couple they are getting by on $200, the two of them, for their entire month after they are done paying their prescription drug bills. There is not a one of us in the Senate who could live in that kind of arrangement where they essentially had only a couple of hundred dollars a month to pay for their food and shelter and other essentials. A country as good and rich and strong as ours is capable of addressing this need. I think it can be done using an approach that relies on marketplace forces. I particularly wish to praise my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. I have been able to team up with her on this prescription drug issue for 14 months. When we started in the Budget Committee, I think a lot of folks looked at us and said, Senator Snowe, Senator Wyden, they are well meaning but there is no chance this prescription drug issue is going to be addressed. We have seen over the last few months tremendous progress. There is not a Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who goes home and doesn't get asked about this issue. We have a chance to bring the various bills together. Senator Daschle wishes to do so, and I know a number of Republicans want to do so as well. Our colleagues in the Senate recognize this ought to be a voluntary program. A lot of lessons have been learned since the catastrophic care issue came before the Congress. This is not going to be a mandatory program. This is not going to be a one-size-fits-all program from Washington. This is going to be based on voluntary choice. We are going to use the dollars that are raised for this program to pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior citizen's private health insurance. I am not talking about a federalized health care system. We are talking about using private health insurance, making sure older people have a variety of choices and offerings. As a result of those choices and offerings, they can have some big bargaining power. What happens right now is the health plans, the HMOs, big buyers, go out and negotiate a discount. If you are an older person in rural Nebraska or rural Oregon and you don't have prescription drug coverage, you walk into the Rite Aid or a Fred Meyer or one of your drugstores and you, in effect, have to subsidize the big buyers who are in a position to negotiate discounts. We can use private marketplace forces, the way the Snowe-Wyden legislation does, and the way several of the other bills do, to make sure older people have the kind of bargaining power that makes these prescription drugs more affordable. I am very pleased that this issue has become a bigger priority in the Congress in the last few weeks. I think now is going to be a test of whether we can, as Senator Daschle and others have suggested, reconcile the various bills that have been introduced on this issue. I do not expect to have the last word on this matter. Senator Snowe and I are very proud the financing of our legislation received 54 votes in the Senate when it came up last year. On the Snowe-Wyden amendment, we saw Senator Wellstone vote for it, Senator Santorum vote for it, Senator Kennedy vote for it, and Senator Abraham vote for it. That is a pretty good coalition. That is the kind of coalition we can build if we pick up on the counsel of Senator Daschle, and I know a number of Republican leaders, to come together and reconcile these various bills. I intend to keep coming to the floor and reading these cases. Our friend, Senator Kerrey, is here. I know he is going to be speaking on an important issue, and I do not want to detain him. I think in this country we are now seeing older people break their pills in half because they cannot afford to pick up the cost of medicine when we have, as we saw in Tillamook, OR, 80-year-old women being taken to emergency rooms and not able to afford their medicine. It is wrong. It is just wrong for this Congress to not address this issue in a bipartisan way this year. This is not one we ought to put off until after the election and see it used as a political football. It should not be used as fodder for the campaign trail because if it is, too many older people who cannot afford their medicine are going to suffer. We have a chance to move on a bipartisan basis to reconcile these various bills. I intend to keep coming to the floor of this body again and again to describe these cases, to show how urgent the need is. The President at the State of the Union Address made it clear he was extending the olive branch to both political parties to work with him on this issue. We ought to seize, on a bipartisan basis, the opportunity to use private health insurance, not some federalized Government program, to make sure we meet the needs of older people for prescription medicine. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the Senator from Georgia for graciously expediting my opportunity to speak this afternoon. I know he has been dealing with a bill of great importance to him. I thank him for his thoughtfulness this afternoon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for many months now I and other Members of the Senate have been coming to the floor of this body to talk about the need for prescription drug coverage for our older people under Medicare. We have been going through case histories of stories we have been hearing from our States. I have been describing the many older people I am hearing from in Oregon where after they are finished paying their prescription drug bill, they only have a couple hundred dollars for the rest of the month to live on. I talked about instances where older people at home in Oregon are actually breaking their Lipitor pills. Lipitor is an important cholesterol-lowering drug. A lot of the seniors at home in Oregon can't afford to take these vital medicines, and they are actually having to break them in half in order to try to meet their health care needs. It is just outrageous to think that in a country as rich and as powerful and good as ours so many of our seniors walk on this economic tightrope. I have come to the floor repeatedly over the last few months to talk about the need for bipartisan legislation that would address the needs of older people and secure important Medicare coverage for them. I believe there is now genuine interest in reconciling the several bills before the Senate on this issue and a real opportunity to enact good legislation that can generate overwhelming support in this body and get the senior citizens of this country the help they need. I have spoken, for example, with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, several times this week on this subject. He is very interested in bringing Senators with varying approaches on this issue together so we find the common ground to get help for older people. I especially want to praise my colleague from Maine, our friend, Senator Snowe. She and I have worked together for 14 months now--for more than a year starting with the budget resolution last year--to come up with a bipartisan plan to address this enormous need of older people. Before I describe some of the new cases we are getting from seniors across the country, I will talk about some areas where I think there is common ground, the common ground I have heard Senator Daschle and others talking about in recent days. For example, I think Senators overwhelmingly believe there ought to be a significant role for marketplace forces in the delivery of this benefit. Certainly we differ about the details. We recognize that. I will not have the last word on this subject. I think virtually all Senators believe there ought to be a significant role for marketplace forces on this issue. Second, I think there is overwhelming support for the proposition that this program ought to be a voluntary program. Senators and others have learned the lesson from the catastrophic care bill when a lot of the older people in this country said: This is something I am already getting; I don't want it required; I think my money can be spent better elsewhere. This time, I see Senators with varying political philosophies desiring to make sure this benefit is voluntary. I think Senators overwhelmingly are interested in making sure this prescription drug coverage for older people is consistent with long- term Medicare reform. Many want to have comprehensive Medicare reform in this session of Congress. It may still be doable. I prefer going that route. If it is not possible to have comprehensive Medicare reform, I can tell Members that Senator Snowe and I have teamed up over the last several months in an effort to make sure the prescription drug coverage program is consistent with long-term Medicare reform. Finally, we want to make sure this benefit is adequately funded. In the last session of Congress, 54 Members of the Senate voted for the Snowe-Wyden amendment with respect to funding. We brought together Senator Wellstone, Senator Abraham, Senator Kennedy, Senator Santorum, Senators of all political philosophies of both political parties. Mr. President, 54 voted for allocating dollars for a prescription drug program. There is an opportunity now to find the common ground. I want to describe a few of the accounts I have heard from at home that made it clear to me why it is so important that Senators come together and enact this program for the elderly. I heard recently from an elderly woman in Deschutes County in central Oregon. She is 83 years old; she lives at her sister's. She and her 79-year-old husband take 12 drugs to cover diabetes, hypertension, and a variety of ailments. Their sole source of income is Social Security. They spend nearly 25 percent of their income now on prescription drugs. In Clatsop County, a retired couple in their seventies from Warrenton, OR, is spending $450 a month on prescription drugs. If they have another increase in their supplemental insurance--and we all know the vast majority of seniors have these supplemental policies, and we all know in almost every instance they go up--this older couple has told me they will have to stop taking their medication altogether. An older woman in Coos County, aged 75, getting by on only $813 a month, is spending well over $200 of that $800 on prescription medicine. I could go on with these cases. I have done that on more than 20 occasions in the last few months on the floor of the Senate, trying continually to bring before the body 3 or 4 cases that highlight how great the need is and how important it is we address this issue. I believe the President of the United States wants this issue addressed in a bipartisan way. I have talked with him about this subject. He recognizes how urgent it is that seniors get this coverage. I think he made it clear in the State of the Union Address he wants to work with Members of Congress of both political parties to get this done. We have accomplished a great deal in the last 14 months. Fourteen months ago when Senator Snowe and I brought this issue to the Budget Committee, I think we were essentially looked at as well-meaning souls but people who just did not have much of a prospect of seeing this go forward. Now we see the issue of prescription drug coverage as one of the two or three most pressing domestic issues. The American people are disgusted. Our job now--and I commend Senator Daschle, but I know there are a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who feel the same way--is to reconcile these various bills. We want to make sure we build on private health insurance. There has been a lot of talk in the last few days about whether private health insurance companies would be interested in this program. Having talked with them at home in Oregon, they are definitely going to be interested in this program because what we envisage doing, what essentially all the bills envisage doing, is having the Government pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior's private health insurance program. That is what is going to go on here. We will not set up new bureaucracies and redtape. We will be looking at an effort to have this program pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior's private health insurance. We want to use marketplace forces to the greatest possible extent. We want older people to have bargaining power in the marketplace. Right now, Medicare does not cover prescriptions, but the older person who walks into a pharmacy perhaps in Rhode Island, Oregon, or any other part of the country and does not have prescription drug coverage, in effect, has to subsidize the big buyers of prescription medicine. If, for example, you are a younger worker and have the good fortune of having a company health plan that covers prescription drugs, that company plan can go out and negotiate a discount. The senior, without any coverage, walks into the pharmacy, doesn't get that same rate, and in effect has to actually subsidize those who do have the good fortune of having a health plan where they can have some real bargaining power. That is not right. Vulnerable seniors deserve a fair shake. They deserve to be able to secure their medicine at an affordable price. I believe the cases I brought to the floor of the Senate tonight again show how urgent the need is for this benefit. I believe there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to reconcile the various bills that have been introduced on this issue. I have teamed up with Senator Snowe on this matter now for 14 months. We don't think we have the last word on this issue. We want to work with colleagues to find the common ground, to get the help to older people that they deserve. Senator Daschle has told me a number of times recently that is what he wants to do. I believe colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to do so as well. The hour is late. I do not want to keep the Senate in any longer than necessary, but I intend to keep coming back to the floor, bringing to the Senate these truly poignant cases of how great the need is in this country to cover prescription drug costs of the Nation's older people. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer of the Senate, a new Member of this body, and one from a very special family, in my opinion, because his father was so kind to me as a new Senator. I know he shares many of the same concerns I have, that we address this issue in a bipartisan fashion. I am going to keep coming back to the floor of the Senate talking about why this is so important and why it is so important for the Senate to bring these various bills together. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, similar to many of our colleagues, I have been back home in my State at townhall meetings. One of the very consistent themes I heard is that folks want to see us address some of the key issues of our time, particularly the economic issues. I have heard again and again--and it is clear--that millions of senior citizens cannot afford their prescription medicine. I heard again and again that millions of married couples are being shackled by this marriage tax penalty. It seems to me Congress can fashion a prudent, well-crafted bill that addresses this marriage tax penalty and also responds to the concerns of seniors--without blowing up the budget, without violating the principles of fiscal responsibility, and by prudent use of the surplus. Democrats want to see--and Democrats are anxious to work with Republicans on this--an effort to help the many seniors and families who are walking on an economic tightrope trying to afford their prescription drug bills. We want to see meaningful tax relief for married couples. What we have to do is work together, in a bipartisan way, to fashion that. I will spend just a minute talking about how serious this prescription drug problem is for the Nation's older people. When I was home recently, I heard from an elderly woman in Yoncalla, OR. She lives by herself. She lives in southern Oregon. She has an income of about $500 a month. When she is done paying her prescription drug bill, she has just a little bit over $200 to live on for the rest of the month. She lives a long way from pharmacies, so she cannot very well comparison shop. She wants to know, why isn't it possible for this Congress to enact a prescription drug benefit for her and for others similarly situated? My view is, if we do not enact a prescription drug benefit for this person, she is going to end up a lot sicker and with a lot more health problems than she has today. That will be much more expensive to the taxpayers. In addition, I recently heard from an elderly couple from Baker, OR, who have to take a great many prescription drugs. After their monthly medication, together they have less than $200 on which to get by. They said in their letter: ``That is not living. That is existing.'' Colleagues, it is very clear that in a country as rich and as strong as ours, we clearly are capable of doing justice to the vulnerable older people, such as the elderly folks I described from rural Oregon who are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford their prescription drugs. People ask us all the time: Can we afford prescription drug coverage? My message is: We cannot afford not to cover prescription drugs. One of these anticoagulant medicines that helps prevent strokes in older people might cost $1,000 or $1,500 a year--certainly pricey--but you prevent that stroke with the medication and you save upwards of $100,000 that an older person might incur in expenses for problems associated with the stroke. What we need to do--and the President has one approach; Senator Kennedy has another approach; Senator Snowe and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis--is bring these bills together and make sure we use marketplace forces to hold down the costs of prescription drugs for older people. Each one of these bills--the kind of approach the President is talking about, as well as the approaches Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe and I are talking about--each one of these approaches makes sure the dollars we earmark for this program are used to pay the prescription drug portion of an older person's private health insurance bill. You hear a whole lot of talk these days about how the insurance companies would not possibly be interested in this. Of course they are going to be interested in this. I have talked to them from my area. They are anxious to see the Government in a responsible, prudent program, for which I believe there is now bipartisan support. They are anxious to see Medicare pick up the prescription drug portion of a senior's private health insurance bill. With a lot of my colleagues on the Democratic side--and I know Senator Snowe and others on the Republican side want to address this as well--I intend to keep coming to the floor of the Senate and keep reading these letters and describing the circumstances of older people who want to see this Congress enact meaningful relief for prescription drug costs before we adjourn. Medicare did not cover prescription drugs when it began. Right now, the senior citizen who does not have prescription drug coverage is basically subsidizing other people in this country who do have coverage whose plans are able to negotiate discounts. That is not right. It is not fair. We can enact meaningful prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program in this session of Congress. Until we do, I and other Democrats are going to keep coming to this floor, reading the accounts of seniors who are facing these staggering prescription drug costs they cannot afford. I intend to keep working with Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, so the legacy of this session of the Congress can be that we stood up for a fair shake for the millions of vulnerable older Americans and their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to tell the Senator from Minnesota how much I appreciate him speaking up for the Capitol Hill police officers. When we think about the many people in this country who are decent and caring, right up at the top of the list are those folks who serve this country as Capitol Hill police officers. I commend the Senator for his persistence in being willing to speak up for those folks day after day. I will find time to come out and join him.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I have made it clear my top priority for this session of Congress is to make sure that we finally add prescription drug coverage for senior citizens to the Medicare program. Towards that end, I have teamed up for more than a year with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine with a proposal we believe can win bipartisan support in this Congress and effectively respond to the enormous need that all of us are seeing as we go home to our communities and visit with older people. The Snowe-Wyden prescription drug legislation is bipartisan. It is marketplace oriented--we use competitive forces as a tool to hold down the prescription drug bills for senior citizens. All of us in the Senate can identify with the approach we are using because the Snowe-Wyden legislation is modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan which all of us in the Congress are fortunate to enjoy. As part of our campaign to get this bipartisan legislation enacted, I have made a commitment to come to this floor again and again and urge senior citizens, as this poster says, to send in copies of their prescription drug bills. We would like seniors to send in copies of their bills to each of us in the Senate, Washington, DC, 20510. As part of the effort to win passage of this legislation or a similar approach to it, I am going to come to the floor of the Senate again and again and again and read from some of the letters I am receiving from older people. For example, recently I had a chance to hear from an elderly woman who lives in Yoncalla, in southern Oregon. It is a small town. Her closest pharmacy is about 30 miles away. She has diabetes; she has osteoporosis. Her Social Security check, the entire source of her income, is $567 a month. She is taking eight different medications for her health problems. Her monthly drug costs come to about $400 a month. That leaves this elderly woman in southern Oregon with less than $200 a month to live on after she is done paying her prescription drug bill. Think about that, think about what it is like for an older person in this country having just a couple hundred dollars a month to pay for food and heat or other medical expenses. She told us she has had to basically cut back on buying her drugs on a monthly basis because she knows, unless she juggles all her bills, she is not going to be able to come close to meeting all of her obligations. She has $567 a month, lives in a small town, Yoncalla, Oregon. The pharmacy is a pretty good distance away; she has diabetes; she has osteoporosis, and when she is done paying her prescription drug bill, she has only about $200 a month left to live on. That is a disgrace. That is wrong in a country as rich and good and powerful as ours. Under the Snowe-Wyden bipartisan prescription drug legislation, with a modest copayment that woman would be able to get health insurance to cover her prescription drug bill. Our legislation would pick up essentially completely the prescription drug portion of her health insurance premium. The reality is, a person such as that older woman in Yoncalla is hit by a double whammy. Medicare does not cover prescription drugs and hasn't since the program began in 1965; and, second, she is in effect subsidizing big buyers, health maintenance organizations, big health plans that go out and negotiate discounts. It is no wonder that very often we see older people in our communities in this situation. This story is representative. I am getting accounts similar to this continuously. In every community in this country there are similar people who are walking an economic tightrope, seniors who, every month, balance their food bill against their fuel costs, and fuel costs against medical expenses. If they have any unexpected expenses at all that month, they fall off the economic tightrope and go further and further into the hole. Another older couple I heard from recently, this time from my hometown in Portland, told me they spend $5,264 a year on medications. This older couple gets Social Security benefits. The husband has a veteran's pension. Between the various sources of income they have, they receive just under $12,000 a year. They have to spend over $5,000 of it on prescription medicines. I am not going to go into all the details of this, but they sent me an itemized bill of four pages that outlines the prescriptions they are paying for on a regular basis. Mr. President, $5,000 a year of their $12,000 income goes to pay for these medicines. I think we can come up with a bipartisan approach to deal with this issue, one that is marketplace oriented. We have a good model in the Federal Employees Health Plan. Senator Snowe and I are very proud that when we brought the funding plan for our legislation to the floor of the Senate as part of the budget last session we got 54 votes. A majority of the Senate is now on record in support of ensuring we fund prescription drug coverage for older people. I was very pleased with how the President handled the prescription drug issue at the State of the Union Address. He made it clear he was not interested in scapegoating anybody or saying Republicans were at fault or somebody else was at fault for not getting this enacted. He made it clear he wanted to work with the U.S. Congress. He said the need is urgent. He left open the opportunity to work with Republicans and Democrats on the particulars. Senator Snowe and I believe our approach is one that makes sense. We are proud of the fact we got the majority of the Senate on record voting for a funding approach for it. But our colleagues have lots of other good ideas. We recognize that. Our bill is called SPICE, the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act. Other colleagues have other ideas as well. I hope seniors across the country will consider this poster I have up here that says, ``Send In Your Prescription Drug Bill,'' to each of us in the Senate, Washington, DC, 20510. I am going to keep coming to the floor of the Senate, reading from these letters, reading from these accounts. Today you heard about an older person in Yoncalla, an older woman in southern Oregon literally with less than a couple hundred dollars a month left to live on when she is done paying for her prescription drug bill, and an elderly couple in Portland who worked hard all their lives, always played by the rules, who are spending more than half their income on prescription drugs. I will wrap up with this point. We as a nation are just starting to have the debate about whether we can afford to cover prescription drugs. My view is we cannot afford not to cover prescription drugs. If that older woman in Yoncalla cannot get help with her prescriptions when she has diabetes and osteoporosis and she is taking eight medications, if that couple in Portland cannot afford their medications, all of the gerontological research proves what is going to happen. Those folks are going to get sicker. They are going to land in the hospital where they need much more expensive care under what is called Part A of the Medicare program. I see my friend from Minnesota. He and I have worked often on these issues. The Presiding Officer of the Senate handled the Social Security issues in the House. We know what needs to be done. We know it needs to be done in a bipartisan way. We can only get important issues addressed in Washington, DC, if we work in a bipartisan way. That is what I have teamed up with Senator Snowe for more than a year to do. I hope, as I bring additional cases to the floor of the Senate and talk about the extraordinary suffering we are seeing among our seniors, that we can come together on a bipartisan basis to deal with this issue. I have spoken with Senator Daschle and Senator Lott about it. I know Senator Snowe is doing so as well. This is an issue to which every single Member of the Senate can point as an achievement if we come together and address it in a bipartisan way. Towards that end, I intend to keep coming to this floor and describing these cases. I have believed since the days I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers that this was an important issue to address. It becomes even more important by the day as these new drugs are key to keeping seniors well and keeping them from landing in the hospital and incurring greater expenses. I hope seniors will take heed of this poster and send copies of their prescription drug bills to their Senators in Washington, DC, 20510. I will keep coming to the floor of this body again and again urging bipartisan support on this issue. It is my top priority for this session, and it ought to be a top priority for every Senator. I look forward to working with my colleagues to have this issue addressed in this session of Congress and give our older people meaningful relief from their prescription drugs bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Internet Non- Discrimination Act. The central principle of this bill is that our tax policy should not discriminate against the most vibrant part of our nation's economy. The legislation would extend indefinitely the Internet Tax Freedom's Act's three-year moratorium on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and electronic commerce. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Abraham and Leahy. Three years ago, when Congressman Chris Cox and I introduced the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), we said you can't squeeze the new economy into a set of rules written for smokestack industry. At that time, opponents predicted that retailers would vanish from Main Streets across America. Transcripts from hearings held on the legislation in the summer of 1997 are replete with opponents' predictions that a parade of horribles would be visited on every small merchant in every town in the United States. I am pleased to report that none of the horribles has come to pass. In fact, this is what has happened in the 15 months since the Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed by the Senate 98-2 and became law. States and localities have continued to collect sales and use taxes, and state budgets ended fiscal l999 with a $35 billion surplus. In California--one of the most wired states--1999 sales tax collections are up 20 percent over 1998. Traditional bricks and mortar retailers had one of their best holiday seasons, recording a nearly 8% jump in sales over the previous year. A recent survey of 1,500 Main Street businesses nationwide found that 74 percent have gone online since l997. E-commerce has become part of the retail landscape, but still accounts for only \3/10\s of one percent of total retail sales. States with the highest level of Internet use are also those with some of the largest gains in tax revenues. It is clear to me that while state and local tax collectors sat wringing their hands, America's merchants were working on web pages. Main Street merchants seized the opportunity to expand their sales to new markets by going online. They also recognized the efficiencies of conducting their business-to-business transactions online. Rather than weaken Main Street merchants, the Internet has strengthened them. Rather than drain state and local tax coffers, the technological neutrality of the Internet Tax Freedom Act allowed online business to grow and state and local authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory taxes. The technological neutrality of the ITFA contributed to the rapid transformation of a bricks and mortar economy into a clicks and mortar economy. I want the success of the bricks and clicks economy to continue, but consumers and businesses need some certainty. They need to know they won't have to start paying new taxes targeted specifically at e- commerce when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. That's why the ban on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and e-commerce should be made permanent. The Internet Non-Discrimination Act we are introducing today will do just that. It continues the policy of technological neutrality. It allows state and local tax authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory sales or use taxes on online sales. It will give the governors time to see if they can move forward with their technological fix for collecting remote sales and use tax--a voluntary plan which will require the cooperation of every business in this nation, from Bandon, Oregon to Bangor, Maine. And, finally, it extends permanently a policy that has worked well for the last 15 months and under which consumers, businesses and state and local tax collectors have lived-- and thrived. In about two months the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce will issue its final report. After having talked yesterday with the Chairman of the Commission, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, I am hopeful that the Commission will endorse the approach we are taking in this bill. If Congress does not act this year to extend the technologically neutral policy that is at the heart of the Internet Non-Discrimination Act, consumers and businesses will face thousands of tax authorities in this country jumping into their pockets when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. Consumers and businesses want certainty that they won't suddenly be facing an onslaught of new, confusing and discriminatory taxes. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Chris Cox, with whom I've worked on this issue for four years now. I am hopeful that this, our fourth bipartisan Internet effort, will be as successful as our previous three. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Internet Non- Discrimination Act. The central principle of this bill is that our tax policy should not discriminate against the most vibrant part of our nation's economy. The legislation would extend indefinitely the Internet Tax Freedom's Act's three-year moratorium on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and electronic commerce. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Abraham and Leahy. Three years ago, when Congressman Chris Cox and I introduced the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), we said you can't squeeze the new economy into a set of rules written for smokestack industry. At that time, opponents predicted that retailers would vanish from Main Streets across America. Transcripts from hearings held on the legislation in the summer of 1997 are replete with opponents' predictions that a parade of horribles would be visited on every small merchant in every town in the United States. I am pleased to report that none of the horribles has come to pass. In fact, this is what has happened in the 15 months since the Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed by the Senate 98-2 and became law. States and localities have continued to collect sales and use taxes, and state budgets ended fiscal l999 with a $35 billion surplus. In California--one of the most wired states--1999 sales tax collections are up 20 percent over 1998. Traditional bricks and mortar retailers had one of their best holiday seasons, recording a nearly 8% jump in sales over the previous year. A recent survey of 1,500 Main Street businesses nationwide found that 74 percent have gone online since l997. E-commerce has become part of the retail landscape, but still accounts for only \3/10\s of one percent of total retail sales. States with the highest level of Internet use are also those with some of the largest gains in tax revenues. It is clear to me that while state and local tax collectors sat wringing their hands, America's merchants were working on web pages. Main Street merchants seized the opportunity to expand their sales to new markets by going online. They also recognized the efficiencies of conducting their business-to-business transactions online. Rather than weaken Main Street merchants, the Internet has strengthened them. Rather than drain state and local tax coffers, the technological neutrality of the Internet Tax Freedom Act allowed online business to grow and state and local authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory taxes. The technological neutrality of the ITFA contributed to the rapid transformation of a bricks and mortar economy into a clicks and mortar economy. I want the success of the bricks and clicks economy to continue, but consumers and businesses need some certainty. They need to know they won't have to start paying new taxes targeted specifically at e- commerce when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. That's why the ban on discriminatory taxes against the Internet and e-commerce should be made permanent. The Internet Non-Discrimination Act we are introducing today will do just that. It continues the policy of technological neutrality. It allows state and local tax authorities to continue to collect lawful, nondiscriminatory sales or use taxes on online sales. It will give the governors time to see if they can move forward with their technological fix for collecting remote sales and use tax--a voluntary plan which will require the cooperation of every business in this nation, from Bandon, Oregon to Bangor, Maine. And, finally, it extends permanently a policy that has worked well for the last 15 months and under which consumers, businesses and state and local tax collectors have lived-- and thrived. In about two months the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce will issue its final report. After having talked yesterday with the Chairman of the Commission, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, I am hopeful that the Commission will endorse the approach we are taking in this bill. If Congress does not act this year to extend the technologically neutral policy that is at the heart of the Internet Non-Discrimination Act, consumers and businesses will face thousands of tax authorities in this country jumping into their pockets when the current moratorium expires in October 2001. Consumers and businesses want certainty that they won't suddenly be facing an onslaught of new, confusing and discriminatory taxes. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Chris Cox, with whom I've worked on this issue for four years now. I am hopeful that this, our fourth bipartisan Internet effort, will be as successful as our previous three. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Michigan for a very important amendment which I think has one central point. Pass the Levin amendment and we will end the legal gymnastics that gun manufacturers have used to dodge their responsibilities. Pass the Levin amendment and the U.S. Senate sends a clear and simple message to these gun manufacturers that have played games with bankruptcy. Our message is the game is over. There is absolutely no reason to allow fraudulent activity by gun manufacturers to go without sanction. I am very troubled as I read through the history of what my colleagues have talked about--the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts-- what it says about the nature of this debate. There are gun manufacturers who are actually bragging that they are taking advantage of the system when they know they cannot win on the merits. We have a situation where as we debate the bankruptcy law and talk about making sure it is fair to all sides--good people may have fallen on hard times--and at the same time sensitive to the needs of business and others who otherwise wouldn't be able to get the funds they need that are so central in a marketplace kind of system, all of those people, it seems to me, end up without the treatment they deserve. They are, in effect, put in an unfavorable light when, in fact, the gun manufacturers are given a free ride. Let us make sure that everybody is treated fairly--small businesses that have these claims, and many people we are seeing who have fallen on hard times and need a fresh start. But let us not send the worst possible message, which is that if you engage in the kind of reprehensible conduct my colleagues have documented, in effect, you will get a free ride if you are a gun manufacturer. It is important to vote for this bankruptcy legislation. I voted for it last year, as did 96 of my colleagues. It is important to ensure that we have fairness for all parties. Unless the Levin amendment is adopted, it seems to me that we allow a continuation of these legal gymnastics that are being practiced by gun manufacturers. That is wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I intend to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about the prescription drug issue for senior citizens. As many of our colleagues know, I have made it clear that I am going to come to the floor repeatedly between now and the end of the session in the hope we will get a bipartisan piece of legislation through this body that will meet the needs of so many vulnerable older people. In the past, I have come to the floor and have read two or three of the cases I have been getting from seniors across the country. A lot of these older people, when they are finished paying their prescription drug bills, have only a few hundred dollars a month on which to live. Picture that: After you have paid your prescription drug bill, you pay for your food, your rent and utilities, and you have virtually nothing left over. I think it is extremely important this Congress pass legislation to meet those needs. I have teamed up for more than a year with Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine. We have a bill that is market oriented. It would avoid some of the cost-shifting problems that we might see with other approaches. We want to make sure that as we help senior citizens, we do not have to cost shift it over to somebody who is, say, 27 or 28 and just getting started with a family and having trouble with their own medical bills. The Snowe-Wyden legislation avoids that kind of approach. The reason I am taking a moment to speak this afternoon is because the comments made by the President last week at the State of the Union Address opened up a very wide berth for the Congress to address this issue in a bipartisan way. Prior to the President's comments, I know there was widespread concern by a variety of groups as to what he would say about the issue and how he would say it. What the President of the United States said in the State of the Union Address on this issue of prescription drugs seems to me to capture our challenge. First and foremost, the President made it very clear he is aware that in every nook and cranny of this country there are scores of senior citizens who cannot afford their medicine. They simply cannot afford it. His remarks spoke to the millions of older people in this country who walk on an economic tightrope; every month they balance their food bill against their fuel bill and their fuel bill against their medical costs. After the President described this great need, he did not get into any of the particulars of writing a bill. He made it clear he wanted to work with the Congress to get a bipartisan piece of legislation that will meet the needs of older people. Yes, he has his approach. His approach--and I am not going to get into all of the fairly complicated details--involves a role for what are called pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs. The Snowe-Wyden legislation that has been proposed takes a slightly different approach. We use private entities which, in effect, will have to compete for the senior citizens' business. We think that makes sense as a way to hold down the costs of medicine for older people because it has worked for Members of Congress. The Snowe-Wyden legislation is modeled after the health care system to which Members of Congress belong. I have been asked again and again whether you could reconcile the President's approach, in terms of using pharmacy benefit managers, and the kind of approach that is taken in the Snowe-Wyden legislation, with these private entities that would have to compete for senior citizens' businesses. I think it is possible to reconcile these two approaches. I think we are making a lot of headway now in terms of addressing this issue, in terms of the parties saying the need is urgent. We have to come together, in a bipartisan way, to do it. The President opened up a real opportunity for the Congress to come together on this matter. The reason it is so important, of course, is that we cannot afford, as a nation, not to cover prescription medicine. I repeat that. People ask if we can afford to cover prescription drugs for older people. The reality is, our country cannot afford not to cover prescription drugs. A lot of these drugs today are preventive in nature. They reduce problems related to blood pressure and cholesterol. I have talked a number of times on the floor about the anticoagulant drugs which prevent strokes. Perhaps it would cost $1,000 a year to meet the needs of an older person's prescriptions for these anticoagulant drugs. Sure, $1,000 or $1,500 is a lot of money, but if you have a legislative opportunity to help an older person in that way, and you save $100,000, which you can do because those drugs help to prevent strokes--and strokes can be very expensive, even upwards of $100,000--that is something our country should not pass up. The elderly in this country get hit with a double whammy when it comes to pharmaceuticals. First, Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. It has been that way since the program began in 1965. I do not know a soul who studied the Medicare program, who, if they were designing it today, would not cover prescription drugs simply for the reasons I have given, that they are preventive in nature. The other part of the double whammy for older people is that the big buyers--the health maintenance organizations, the health plans, a variety of these big organizations--are able to get discounts; and then when an old person, a low-income older person, walks into a pharmacy, in effect, they have to pay a premium because the big buyers get the discounts. So this is an important issue for the Congress to address. As I have done in the past, I want to put into perspective exactly what so many of these vulnerable people are facing in our country. I see our friend from Michigan. I want to make sure he has time as well. Democrats have a few more minutes. I want to make sure my colleague can be heard, as well. But one of the cases I want to touch on this afternoon follows a 65- year-old senior from West Linn, OR. He wrote me recently as part of the campaign I have organized to have older people send in their bills. He wrote me that he used to have prescription drug coverage when he was working. Now he has no coverage at all. He is taking medication for high blood pressure, for high cholesterol, for heart-related problems. He had triple bypass surgery in 1991 and anticipates he is going to be taking medications for the rest of his life. He found that, as he tried to shop for medicines, the cost was 18 percent higher than when he had insurance coverage, which illustrates the double whammy that I described. When he was in the workforce--and the Senator from Michigan knows a lot about this as a result of the company-retiree packages that autoworkers and others have--the workers were in a position to get a bargain. But then that senior retired and lost the opportunity to have some leverage in the marketplace. That senior in West Linn found that his prescription prices were 18 percent higher. This person from West Linn has written, saying he hopes the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation is successful. We have received scores and scores of other letters. Because my friend from Michigan is here, and I want to allow him time to talk, I am going to wrap up only by way of saying that the last case I was going to go into in more detail is an older woman in eastern Oregon, just outside Pendleton, OR, who told me during the last recess that when she is done paying her prescription drug bill, she has only $200 a month on which to live for the rest of the month. Perhaps other people can figure out some sort of financial sleight of hand so they can get by on a couple hundred dollars a month for their food and utilities and housing, and the like, but that is not math that I think adds up. We need to address this issue in a bipartisan way. The Snowe-Wyden legislation does that. I was particularly encouraged by the President's remarks last week on prescription drugs because I think, through the conciliatory approach that he took, making it clear that he wants to work with all parties to get this addressed, we now have a window to climb through to get the job done and provide a real lifeline to millions of older people. That is some good news for our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of National Biotechnology Month. Biotechnology has produced drugs that hold the promise for many to live healthier lives. Biotechnology also holds enormous promise to make even more profound contributions to public health in the future. For example, biotechnology strategies include the development of cancer vaccines as well as drugs that target specific cancer antigens to stimulate a patient's own immune system to kill tumor cells. There are so many other diseases that devastate families, like Alzheimers and heart disease, which biotechnology could be applied to successfully. The Federal government has increased funding for basic scientific research. Private sector investments and small business development should also be encouraged. As remarkable as some of its achievement so far, biotechnology is only beginning. It is appropriate to begin the 21st Century with National Biotechnology Month because biotechnology holds so much promise for medicine and improving the quality of life.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we spend less than a quarter of our nation's education dollars to educate approximately half of our nation's students. You don't have to be a math whiz to know that the numbers just don't add up. Thousands of rural and small schools across our nation face the daunting mission of educating almost half of America's children. Increasingly, these schools find that they are underfunded, overwhelmed, and overlooked. While half of the nation's students are educated in rural and small public schools, they only receive 23% of Federal education dollars; 25% of State education dollars; and 19% of Local education dollars. We all grew up thinking that the three R's were Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Unfortunately for our rural school children, the three R's are too often run-down classrooms, insufficient resources, and really over-worked teachers. Increasingly, Mr. President, rural and small schools are plagued by disparities connected to their geographic location and limited enrollment. To top it off, rural and small schools face shrinking local tax bases, higher transportation costs associated with the greater distance students must travel to school, and crumbling school buildings that may not have air conditioning, hot water, or roofs that do not leak. Rural school districts and schools also find it more difficult to attract and retain qualified administrators and certified teachers. Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to provide instruction in two or more subjects than their urban counterparts. Rural teachers also tend to be younger, less experienced, and receive less pay than their urban and suburban counterparts. Worse yet, rural school teachers are less likely to have the high quality professional development opportunities that current research strongly suggests all teachers desperately need. Limited resources also mean fewer course offerings for students in rural and small schools. Consequently, courses are designed for the kids in the middle. So, students at either end of the academic spectrum miss out. Additionally, fewer rural students who dropout ever return to complete high school, and fewer rural higher school graduates go on to college. On another note, recent research on brain development clearly shows the critical nature of early childhood education, yet rural schools are less likely to offer even kindergarten classes, let alone earlier educational opportunities. Limited resources also mean less support for teacher training, technical assistance, educational technologies, and school libraries. To make matters worse, many of our rural areas are also plagued by persistent poverty, and, as we know, high-poverty schools have a much tougher time preparing their students to reach high standards of performance on state and national assessments. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently show large gaps between the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and students in low-poverty schools. Our bill would provide funding to approximately 3,400 rural and small school districts that serve 4.6 million students--a short-term infusion of funds that will allow these schools and their students to take substantial strides forward. Local education agencies would be eligible for REDI funding if they are either ``rural'' (serve a non-metropolitan area) and have a school- age population (ages 5-17) with 20 percent or more of whom are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or ``small'' (student population of 800 or less) and a student population (ages 5-17) with 20 percent or more of whom are from families with incomes below the poverty line. Like the Education Flexibility Act of 1999 (Ed-flex) I authored with Senator Bill Frist earlier this Congress, REDI is voluntary--states and school districts could choose to participate in the program. Both Ed- flex and REDI are designed to provide states and districts with the flexibility they need in order to use funding to deal with their local priorities. I've heard it said that this would be the Education Congress, but we have much to do before we earn that title. Ed-flex was a good start, but it was a start, not a finish. It's time to show that we when it comes to education, we won't leave anyone behind, and REDI will give poor, rural children a real chance. We can't afford to stop now.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we spend less than a quarter of our nation's education dollars to educate approximately half of our nation's students. You don't have to be a math whiz to know that the numbers just don't add up. Thousands of rural and small schools across our nation face the daunting mission of educating almost half of America's children. Increasingly, these schools find that they are underfunded, overwhelmed, and overlooked. While half of the nation's students are educated in rural and small public schools, they only receive 23% of Federal education dollars; 25% of State education dollars; and 19% of Local education dollars. We all grew up thinking that the three R's were Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Unfortunately for our rural school children, the three R's are too often run-down classrooms, insufficient resources, and really over-worked teachers. Increasingly, Mr. President, rural and small schools are plagued by disparities connected to their geographic location and limited enrollment. To top it off, rural and small schools face shrinking local tax bases, higher transportation costs associated with the greater distance students must travel to school, and crumbling school buildings that may not have air conditioning, hot water, or roofs that do not leak. Rural school districts and schools also find it more difficult to attract and retain qualified administrators and certified teachers. Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to provide instruction in two or more subjects than their urban counterparts. Rural teachers also tend to be younger, less experienced, and receive less pay than their urban and suburban counterparts. Worse yet, rural school teachers are less likely to have the high quality professional development opportunities that current research strongly suggests all teachers desperately need. Limited resources also mean fewer course offerings for students in rural and small schools. Consequently, courses are designed for the kids in the middle. So, students at either end of the academic spectrum miss out. Additionally, fewer rural students who dropout ever return to complete high school, and fewer rural higher school graduates go on to college. On another note, recent research on brain development clearly shows the critical nature of early childhood education, yet rural schools are less likely to offer even kindergarten classes, let alone earlier educational opportunities. Limited resources also mean less support for teacher training, technical assistance, educational technologies, and school libraries. To make matters worse, many of our rural areas are also plagued by persistent poverty, and, as we know, high-poverty schools have a much tougher time preparing their students to reach high standards of performance on state and national assessments. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently show large gaps between the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and students in low-poverty schools. Our bill would provide funding to approximately 3,400 rural and small school districts that serve 4.6 million students--a short-term infusion of funds that will allow these schools and their students to take substantial strides forward. Local education agencies would be eligible for REDI funding if they are either ``rural'' (serve a non-metropolitan area) and have a school- age population (ages 5-17) with 20 percent or more of whom are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or ``small'' (student population of 800 or less) and a student population (ages 5-17) with 20 percent or more of whom are from families with incomes below the poverty line. Like the Education Flexibility Act of 1999 (Ed-flex) I authored with Senator Bill Frist earlier this Congress, REDI is voluntary--states and school districts could choose to participate in the program. Both Ed- flex and REDI are designed to provide states and districts with the flexibility they need in order to use funding to deal with their local priorities. I've heard it said that this would be the Education Congress, but we have much to do before we earn that title. Ed-flex was a good start, but it was a start, not a finish. It's time to show that we when it comes to education, we won't leave anyone behind, and REDI will give poor, rural children a real chance. We can't afford to stop now.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief this afternoon. I note Senator Hollings is here and also Senator Grams. I come to the floor because last fall I indicated that I would come to the floor of the Senate again and again until this body passed bipartisan legislation to make sure the Nation's older people secure prescription drug coverage under Medicare. We have had some very exciting developments on this issue in recent days. I think all the work that has been put in by so many parties is beginning to pay off. I think the reason there is such intense interest in this issue is that while Medicare provides important health insurance coverage for older people, its coverage still today has many gaps. In particular, it doesn't cover prescription medicine. There is not anyone I know today--Democrat or Republican--who would argue that if we are going to redesign Medicare now, we would leave prescription drugs out. Quite the contrary. Virtually everyone who has studied this issue believes prescription drug coverage is absolutely critical because today's medicines are key to keeping older people well. The drugs of the future are going to help lower blood pressure and cholesterol. I cited on the floor of the Senate the important anticoagulant medicines. If you spend perhaps $1,000 or $1,500 in a year, you can prevent stroke. If an older person suffers a stroke as a result of not having access to those medicines, they could incur expenses of $100,000 or more. So the need is intense. This is an issue that must be addressed in a bipartisan way. For many months now, there has been a bipartisan effort in the Senate. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up on legislation which we believe, using marketplace principles, addresses many of the concerns Senators on both sides of the aisle have had. It doesn't contain price controls or a sort of one-size-fits-all approach. We would allow for a tobacco tax to finance the program. We don't require one. We say that it would be possible to finance the program using the general fund. But 54 Members of the Senate, a majority of the Senate, voted for the Snowe-Wyden funding plan for prescription drug coverage for older people. We now have a majority of the Senate in a recorded vote saying they would be willing to pay the dollars needed for a good prescription drug benefit for older people. Our approach in the Snowe-Wyden legislation focuses on making these drugs accessible and affordable. Right now Medicare, of course, doesn't cover prescriptions. But just as importantly, older people, when they can afford their medicine, and go to a drugstore are, in effect, having to subsidize the big buyers--the HMOs and the health plans that can negotiate discounts. In effect, the older people are getting shellacked twice when it comes to this issue of prescription drugs. They get no coverage. They have to subsidize the benefits, in effect, of those who have real bargaining power--those who are on the health plans. I would like to wrap up with a couple of minutes on an issue that I know is important to South Carolina and in Minnesota, as well as my home State of Oregon. That is the plight of rural older people. There has been some discussion of this prescription drug issue, of course, on the floor of the Senate, but never before has there been a focus on the special needs of older people in rural communities. In my State--and I know in the States of Senator Hollings and Senator Grams as well--if you live in a rural community, you have fewer physicians available to write medications. You have fewer pharmacies so that medication is not accessible. You have to drive longer distances in order to get your medicine. We found, according to the Oregon Health Sciences University's Office of Rural Health, that a conservative number of seniors in rural Oregon who live in poverty is 16,500. I can tell you, having gone through many of those rural communities during the break, that there is a special need for coverage for prescription drugs for older people in rural communities. I will wrap up by reading a few of the accounts older people from rural Oregon have sent me about the problems they are having in affording their medicine. An elderly couple, for example, in Baker City depending solely on Social Security takes prescription drugs for chronic back ailments. After they purchase their monthly medication, they have only $200 for that month left over to pay for their necessities. They wrote me, and I am going to quote: ``. . . that is not living, that is existing.'' I think all of us know you cannot live on $200 a month. Yet that is what an older couple in Baker City, OR, are faced with after they finish paying for their prescription medicine. In Clatsop County, after an older couple paid for their supplemental coverage, they had to spent $450 a month on their prescription medicine. They fear their supplemental insurance premium is going to go up again this year. That is always the case. They are then going to have to stop taking their medication altogether. In Coos County, a 75-year-old female resident is getting by on a fixed income of about $800 a month. Every single month she is spending more than 25 percent of her monthly income on prescription medicine. One older woman in that county lives on Social Security and doesn't have any prescription drug coverage at all. She is now at the point where she cannot afford spending the necessary $200 a month for her medications. Before I came to Congress, I tried to specialize in the gerontology field. As sure as night follows day, when we have a vulnerable older woman who cannot, in a cold Oregon winter, afford to take her medications, she is going to get much sicker. Very often she will end up in the hospital needing extensive medical services that are available under what is called Part A of the Medicare program, the institutional program. We ask: Can we afford to cover prescription drug medicine? That example I just gave of the older woman in Coos County makes it very clear this country cannot afford not to cover prescription drugs for older people under Medicare. If older folks do not get these medications, they are going to get sick and the medical bills will be far higher. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record many other cases from rural Oregon.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will come to the floor of this Senate again and again and again these next few months to urge bipartisan action on this issue. The Snowe-Wyden legislation is one approach. Certainly, our colleagues will have other good ideas. There are a variety of ways this issue can be addressed in a bipartisan way. I am pleased our approach garnered 54 votes when it came to actually paying for it. I intend, with Senator Snowe, to continue to urge older people to send in copies of their prescription drug bills to each Member in the Senate in Washington, DC, so we can read their personal accounts into the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before Senator Reed leaves the floor, I wish to commend my colleague from Rhode Island for all of his leadership on this issue. I was proud to join him as one Member of this body on the brief. He has consistently talked about the need to drain the swamp that has become America's system of financing campaigns. I share his view. I note also Senator Hollings is here as well. Senator Hollings I think is absolutely right as well in saying that we probably ought to have a constitutional amendment to ensure we have comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the good news is that the Supreme Court today opened a window for meaningful reform opportunities and meaningful reform legislation. I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for all of his leadership.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I have notified the minority leader that I have placed a hold on H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. This legislation would negate Oregon's physician assisted suicide law which was debated and passed twice by the voters of Oregon.