Reliable Entry for Medicines at Everyday Discounts through Importation with Effective Safeguards Act of 2004

Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to yield such time as our friend and colleague from Louisiana would care to use.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I yield myself 30 minutes.

The issue, as my friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from New Hampshire, pointed out, is the issue of pensions that are facing a very challenging time due to the economic challenges we are facing now in this particular time, and the efforts of Congress to try to give these pension programs some time to be able to recover. As the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, that is a very worthwhile goal we should embrace.

As she pointed out in an excellent presentation, we had passed bipartisan legislation to help all those at risk, those workers who were going to be in single-employer plans and those who were going to be in the multiemployer plans. We passed legislation 86 to 9. Rarely does the Senate, particularly in the present climate, come together and recognize there is an immediate problem and then begin to face up to it.

As we were listening to the Senators from Louisiana and New Hampshire, and thinking about points to be made regarding this legislation, I am once again reminded Senators' pensions are not at issue. All our pensions are adequately funded. I dare say, if the issue arose where we were going to leave over 20 percent of the Members of the Senate out, as this bill does for workers, there would be more Members in this Chamber right now than there are.

The American people understand the pensions the Members have here are adequately funded. What we are talking about is a proposal that has been advanced, with the support of the White House, that is going to take care of about 80 percent of those who are in trouble and leave over 20 percent out.

The Senate, in a bipartisan way, included everyone. This proposal excludes over 20 percent. This doesn't mean we are not for the remedies that are available to the other 80 percent. We are. We are strongly in favor of those. But we do think fairness demands we also include the other 20 percent. We understand if we were able to defeat this particular proposal today, it would take about 5 minutes to remedy this in a way that would provide fairness and equity for all those who are vulnerable. The House of Representatives would take that so fast, people's heads would turn. It would be on the way down to the White House as well.

That is the question, whether we believe we ought to have a solution that takes care of not only workers in the Fortune 500, but workers who are in the fortune 10,000. That is the issue. The issue is fairness. The issue is workers.

I will mention very briefly, to set the stage, what the challenges are with regard to pensions nationally at the present time. The troubled economy is jeopardizing workers' retirement. There are 3.3 million Americans who have lost pension coverage since the year 2000. Only 53.5 percent of the Nation's workers are participating in a retirement program, the lowest level in over a decade. The declining quality of jobs in our country also means declining benefits for American workers. Part-time and low-wage workers are far less likely to have a pension than full-time workers. This is what is happening in the real world.

We don't have enough pensions to cover all workers, and many of the workers who are covered are losing it. The pension system is in crisis. Rather than addressing the whole problem, our Republican friends say: We are not going to do that; we are only going to take care of some.

We believe everyone who is part of a pension system ought to get fair and equal treatment.

This chart points out the issue. We have 35 million Americans who are covered by single-employer defined benefit programs. These workers will be protected. The Senator from Louisiana and I are for giving that kind of protection. But we don't understand why, if we are going to give the protection to 35 million Americans, we leave out the 9.7 million Americans who are covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension programs.

The Senator from Louisiana asked exactly the right question. Why are we taking care of 35 million and leaving out effectively 10 million. There is absolutely no other answer than the White House decided it was going to be punitive and pulled the strings on the conference--of which I was a member, and I will go through that shortly--and said: We are not going to do it because so many of these are union members and we don't like unions.

That is telling us something new in the Senate, when we know what has been happening recently?

Before I get into that, this chart shows what has been happening with regard to general benefit pensions. We have what you call a perfect storm of factors hurting pension plan funding levels: The prolonged downturn of the stock market during the Bush administration, the longest since the Great Depression; extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates; weak economic conditions which mean companies cannot afford to make the additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by pension laws.

These factors have affected the single-employer and the multiemployer the same. That is why the Senate decided to deal with both single and multiemployer plans. But not the conference committee. Although we made real progress, the fact is, we are facing an administration that at best is indifferent and at worst hostile to working families.

I don't make that statement lightly. But you cannot look at the record of this administration with regard to working families and not come to that conclusion. If you look at what has happened with the creation of jobs, we have an administration that said, yes, we are going to create 5.2 million jobs. They made that statement in 2001. But we have seen the loss of 2 million jobs because of their economic policies.

This chart shows there are 2.4 million more unemployed workers now in 2004 than there were in 2001. Workers are

losing their jobs, and there are 10 million workers who are in the multiemployer plans who are going to get shortchanged as well. They are losing their jobs. If we look at the job growth over the last 3 years, as compared to other economic recoveries, from 1991, this shows the expansion of jobs, the recovery from 1991 to 1993. This chart indicates the current recovery is virtually flat.

How are workers reacting to this? American workers are working longer and harder than ever before. Look at this chart that shows what is happening for workers in industrial nations. These bars represent different countries. These are mostly the European countries: Denmark, France, Ireland, United States, Italy, and Germany. Look at the United States, about 400 hours more per year than any other industrial nation. Workers are working longer. They are working harder. More and more of them are losing their jobs. Of the new jobs that are being created, they are paying 21 percent less than the jobs that were replaced.

The average wage in 2001 was $44,000 a year. Now it is $35,000, a 21- percent loss. Workers working longer, harder. And if they lose their job and come back into the market, look what happens to them. They are suffering under this administration's economic policies.

We ask, I wonder why that is happening?

Well, Mr. President, the answer is it is very easy to see why it is happening. If you look at the recoveries from the early nineties and before, when you had an expansion of the economy and coming out of the recession, what you had with the new investments, 60 percent went to workers' wages and 39 percent went to corporate profits. In today's recovery, you have 86 percent going to corporate profit and 13 percent going to workers' wages.

This system is stacked against workers. We have an administration that has the opportunity to help American workers in with multiemployer pensions--they won't do it, again. This is what is happening. Corporations are doing very well. Under this bill, they are going to do very well, too. But not the smaller companies. We have seen this--if you look at what has happened, we have gone through this on unemployment compensation. Under President Clinton, even at a time when we were coming out of the recession of the early nineties, they kept in the unemployment compensation until we had seen the growth of 3 million new jobs.

We have seen now the early loss of over 2 million jobs and this administration cuts off the unemployment compensation. What is the effect of that to those workers? The effect of that is there are 90,000 Americans a week losing their unemployment compensation. That is 2\1/2\ times the capacity of Fenway Park in Boston. And they say that this administration is concerned about workers, concerned about the expansion of jobs, concerned about the unemployment compensation. They are opposed to the increases in the minimum wage. We have had that battle. When you look over the value of the increase in the minimum wage, the administration says thumbs down; we are not going to go for the increase in the minimum wage. If we don't have an increase in the minimum wage, the minimum wage will be at almost its lowest purchasing power ever in the history of the minimum wage. When we offered that amendment, the current Republican leadership pulled the bill rather than having a vote on an increase in the minimum wage.

No increase in the minimum wage, no unemployment compensation, proposals to eliminate overtime, which is going to affect the firefighters and policemen and nurses in this country. That is their record. These are the groups that are going to be affected with the proposal under the administration to eliminate overtime.

I make this point because what we are facing today is a continuum of the administration's indifference and opposition and hostility to workers, and primarily union workers, who are affected by this.

Let me point out what is happening across this country. We are finding out as a result of these conditions, there are real people and families who are hurting. More than half of the unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment, 57 percent; or cut back on spending for food, 56 percent; 1 in 4 has had to move to other housing or move in with friends or relatives; 38 percent have lost telephone service or are worried they will lose their phone; more than one-third--36 percent--have had trouble paying their gas or electric bills. That isn't even the beginning.

I want to take a minute or two to talk about what is happening out in the countryside in terms of hunger. I don't know how many saw this. This is last week's Parade Magazine. ``How can we help end childhood hunger?'' Imagine that in the United States of America, childhood hunger. How can we avoid that? The Agriculture Department reported 300,000 more families are hungry today than when President Bush first took office. That is going to increase. Let me read some of this article. This is from the Parade Magazine:

Last year, according to the Department of Agriculture, 34.9

million Americans . . . were ``food insecure,'' the

Government's term for those who must survive on a diet not

nutritious enough to keep a child healthy. More than 13

million of those people were children. The U.S. Conference

of Mayors expects that requests for emergency food for

families with children will increase to 91 percent of the

Nation's cities this year. They also document that

emergency food outlets in 56 percent of the Nation's

cities turned away hungry families last year because they

ran out of resources. The safety net that most Americans

presume is there to catch children before they sink too

far is torn in too many places, leaving too many in free

fall. ``Food is a basic right for every American child,''

says Bill Schorr, executive director of Share Our

Strength, the anti-hunger organization that works with

Parade and other partners to sponsor the Great America

Bake Sale. ``This is the wealthiest Nation on Earth. We

have the resources to wipe out child hunger in our time.

All it takes is the political will to make the welfare of

children one of the Nation's top priorities. The first

step is coming to terms with the shattering effect the

unstable economy has had on the families.''

``Despite a recent report that the economy has rebounded,

our pantry soup kitchens are trying to serve a surging number

of families,'' says Robert Forner, CEO of America's Second

Harvest, a network of more than 200 regional food banks.

Second Harvest distributed nearly 2 million pounds of food

last year to 23 million hungry Americans, 9 million children.

``Millions of people have used up their unemployment

insurance benefits, spent their savings, sold off their

assets, and come to us because they have no way to feed their

families.''

This is happening, Mr. President. So we have a thumbs down on minimum wage, thumbs down on unemployment compensation, overtime, and now an undermining of the pension system.

I want to mention who is being affected by the decision to exclude the multiemployer pension programs. By cutting the multiemployer relief plan, President Bush--I will review the bidding. We went to the conference and we had 5 days of hearings. We basically had agreed we could not do 100 percent because the House didn't do it, so we were going to do 20 percent. That was reported in the newspapers. They all show we had an agreement. The conferees understood that, until the White House said, no, no, we are not going to do that. They said you are going to take 3 or 4 percent. We said that is not a bargain, that is an insult. They said you can take it, and effectively they wrote the conference report, submitted it to the conference, and then during the final conference, Senator Grassley, to his credit, tried to find common ground. He said, OK, we won't take the 20 percent, but let's go to 8, or 10, or 9 percent on this. Many of us supported that. It was not a great proposal, but it was at least targeted on the neediest multiemployer programs. That was rejected under the orders of the White House--not the conferees. We worked it out at 20 percent. Now we have the proposal, according to the Wall Street Journal today, that effectively eliminates all--except perhaps 2 percent of the multiemployer programs.

Let's find out what this is all about. The 9\1/2\ million people--who are they? Millions of workers could find themselves in the same situation as 500 retired ironworkers in Buffalo, NY, whose plan is on the verge of collapse because of stock market losses, economic downturn. These retirees could lose half of their pensions if their plan fails. Four hundred workers from Rockford, IL, whose employers have drastically increased contributions, cannot guarantee future benefits, so workers are paying for a pension they may never receive. A thousand workers in Connecticut, who have 50 employers

who contribute to their pension fund--these employers are facing collapse if the pension fund fails. Workers across the country, from cement masons in Missouri, to sheet metal workers, to carpenters in Wisconsin, and electrical workers in Alaska are seeing their benefits cut as they and their employers are trying to save their plans. The problem is growing too rapidly. They are seeing the collapse of the pensions under the multiemployer system, and we are putting a death knell to them with this proposal before us.

Low-wage workers are also being hurt. Hundreds of thousands of grocery store workers across the country are seeing the rate at which they earn their pensions slashed, sometimes cut in half. Many of these workers' only pension is a few hundred dollars a month. They are earning only half of that, so they will never have enough to retire. We are talking about grocery store clerks and cashiers around the country who are facing a threat to their pension.

These workers earn from $10 to $15 an hour. Their average pension is only $500 a month. They cannot afford to see those pensions cut. Mr. President, 30,000 grocery store clerks and cashiers in the Seattle area have pension funds that are hitting a funding deficiency, where their employers owe excise taxes that drastically reduce the contributions, putting that whole program at risk. Workers agreed to cut their future pensions in half to save the plan. They are still facing a crisis in their plans.

They did not need to face this crisis. All we need is to give consideration to the multiemployer plans, as we did to the single- employer plans, and at what risk to the Pension Guaranty Corporation? Virtually zero, as the Senator from Louisiana pointed out. Virtually zero risk. All they need is time. But, no, because these are workers and many of them belong to unions.

In southern California, 70,000 workers have had the rate at which they earn pensions slashed. They are facing an imminent funding crisis. In the Southeast, 40,000 workers at Kroger and Bruno grocery stores in Georgia and neighboring States have had their pensions cut by a third. In Portland, OR, 20,000 workers had the rate at which they earn pensions cut in half. But this is not nearly enough to avert what is an imminent funding crisis.

All these funds are in serious crisis, with companies facing increased contributions, penalties, and workers having their pensions cut. Not a single one of these funds is eligible for relief from the narrow bill dictated to the Congress by the White House in the conference report. These are basically the small businesses that are affected.

Just a week ago, the President claimed the small business agenda is vibrant and foremost on his agenda. He says it is important to reduce taxes to small businesses so they will have more money to invest, while at the same time he was saying this, the staff at the White House was pulling the rug out from under thousands of businesses in multiemployer plans.

Over half of the 65,000 multiemployers are small businesses. Small businesses, family businesses are the ones that will be hurt. They will not be able to use their money to invest and expand, and they will be paying excise taxes imposed by the IRS on the pension plans. These are just a few examples.

Acme Industrial Pipefitting in Chattanooga, TN, which has 50 workers, is going to see their annual contributions to its pension plan more than double from $200,000 to $500,000. We had their president, Jim Bailey, say: I am not asking for a nickel from the Federal Government; just give me the time you are giving to the big boys. No, we are not going to do that, not for Acme Pipefitting in Chattanooga.

The Coghlin Electrical Contractors, a fourth generation family business, faced increased payments of millions of dollars. Mr. Coghlin, and other contractors in the area, say this is catastrophic.

Procaccio Painting in the Chicago area: Mr. Procaccio tells us he just cannot participate in any economic recovery.

You know what they are basically saying, although they will not announce it. They are going to terminate the pension programs, and this is completely unnecessary. This is what we are facing.

That is where we find ourselves. This conference report provides $80 billion--$80 billion--for single-employer plans and $1.6 billion for airlines and steel, but less than $250 million for a handful of multiemployer plans. These provisions are punitive, unfair, and discriminatory. Clearly, President Bush cares more about hurting the union workers than helping small businesses.

This chart shows who gets the relief. Here it is: $81.6 billion for the single-employer; less than $250 million for the multiemployer. That represents effectively 10 million workers. I can show just who they are.

The multiemployer plans allow workers to earn pensions under different employers. This helps workers in short-term or seasonal employment--construction, hospitality, entertainment or retail--to earn a pension. Many could not earn pensions in the single-employer system.

The multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage workers, including hotel workers, restaurant workers, and janitors. Multiemployer plans are a critical source of pensions for employees of small businesses. Without these plans, small businesses could not afford to provide pensions.

This chart shows the percentage of workers in construction, about 38 percent; truck transportation, 10 percent; services, 15 percent; retail trade, 14 percent; and manufacturing, 15 percent. These are workers in small businesses.

As I pointed out earlier, this chart shows what has happened in this legislation. The Senate bill provides 100- percent relief for the single-employer plans. The conferees agreed to provide relief for 20 percent of those who need it the most in multiemployer plans, and the White House insisted the final conference comes out with less than 4 percent. It is wrong, Mr. President. We are talking about the same workers who have been the most vulnerable in the job market, who have lost their jobs, and if they get reemployed, they will be paid less. They are the ones who depend on unemployment insurance when they lose their jobs. That is being terminated. Many of them depend upon an increase in the minimum wage. That has been lacking. Many of them depend on overtime, and this administration is threatening them. Finally, they may just have been able to have something put away for a pension, and that is being destroyed. That is wrong. It is unfair.

The bill that applies to the single-employer plan should give the same coverage to multiemployer plans. That is all we are asking. We have fought for the single-employer, but we also fight for the multiemployer. All we are asking is fairness to both. This bill does not provide it.

If we were able to defeat this proposal, as I said, it would take 5 minutes to readdress it, the House would pass it, and we would have a bill on the President's desk. That would be fair. That would be just. That is the way we should proceed.

I will be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the small business organizations and business groups that are in strong support of the conference including the multiemployer provisions. They include the Association of General Contractors of America, the Cherne Contracting Group, Energab, Inc., the Finishing Contractors Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, Printing Industries of America, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Schnuck Markets, Inc., the Food Marketing Institute, the Mechanical Contractors' of America United Association of Journeymen and

Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and the Washington Group International, as well as others. This represents only part of the small business groups and associations that believe if we are going to provide help and relief for the single employer, we should do it for the multiemployer as well.

Madam President, I point out for the Record the fact that when the Senate considered the pension reform bill, the provisions in the bill that provided for the multiemployers actually provided a $42 million favorable score for the Federal Treasury. They made money while the single-employer had a cost of $1.5 billion. The multiemployer actually made money for the Treasury.

The idea included in the White House letter opposing the inclusion of the multiemployer because it was going to put the burden on the Pension Guaranty just does not measure up. That is the point of the Senator from Louisiana. There has to be another reason. It is not because it will cost the PBGC.

This chart says PBGC assistance to multiemployer plans is less than 1 percent of assistance to single-employer fans. This is the GAO finding representing 35 million workers. This represents 10 million, except these programs, although they have not been costly--$5 billion in 2003--are excluded. That is what is unfair. The question is, Why are we excluding them? It is not the additional burden. It could not be. The facts do not justify it. There has to be another reason. The reason is, I believe, the fact they are the union members which the administration has been strongly opposed to providing.

We say the White House is against it. The House is against it. Therefore, why should we include it? The fact is, the Senate had 100 percent, the House had nothing. You should have at least 50 percent.

The nature of the discussion in the course of the conference was, let's find out what the real need is. That seemed to be a sensible and responsible position, whatever the percentage. So we looked at what they call the single corporation, which is accepted by Republican and Democratic--certainly, the staffers, the professionals on this--as being a fairminded assessment. They found one in three of the multiemployers are facing difficulty, but one in nine are facing severe difficulty. We took the one in nine and tried to translate that into a formula that would help those in the most serious trouble. We all agreed on that--get a formula. It came out to approximately 20 percent.

That was in the newspapers. That is what the staff would certainly have agreed Thursday, 2 weeks ago. That was the agreement. It was in the Washington Post, not that that is the final word, but they have been following it closely. There is agreement that 20 percent of the worst-off plans should get assistance. That was my understanding. That was reported. No one contested that.

Then we get a surprise. We are about to have a final meeting and the White House suddenly gets the word on this and says, no, no, we are not going to do that. They come up with language that will get us down to approximately 4 percent.

The rest is history. The efforts that were made to try to get it up, move it from 20 down to 12 or 10, were all rejected as well. According to the Wall Street Journal, taking the language and going back to Segal, it is now probably 2 percent. The fact is, this is not going to put an additional burden on the Pension Guaranty Corporation. The employer plans are more stable than single-employer pension plans because even if one employer goes out of business, the other employers continue to support the pension fund.

Of the thousands of multiemployer plans that have been insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, only 33 multiemployer plans have ever received financial assistance from the PBGC, and the PBGC multiemployer program has enjoyed a surplus for a 20-year history.

The idea is we have a fragile Pension Guaranty Corporation; we can only do the single employer; we cannot afford to do the other. It does not hold. So we have to ask, What is the other reason? Particularly after we reached a fair compromise to only deal with those that were at greatest risks. The answer was, we are not going to compromise on this. As I mentioned at the time of the proposal, it was not a compromise, it was basically an insult.

That is it. What the conference did was admirable with regard to single-employer plans. It is grossly unfair to the multiemployer plans. It is basically excluding coverage for almost 10 million workers who are facing the same kind of economic challenges. The others, I seriously believe, we would have passed overwhelmingly, a proposal that would have taken into consideration those that were at the greatest risk in the multiple. They are the ones that are the pension programs that deal with the smaller businesses. Some of those small business associations strongly support the inclusion of the multiemployer and, of course, the large number of workers that will be affected.

I still believe we ought to take a position and a stand that says, look, what we did for the single one makes sense. We are supporting. But we also think it is grossly unfair to 10 million Americans to say we are giving them the back of the hand when their expansion plans are under the similar kind of pressure and they are representing workers who are generally lower income and from smaller businesses and whose pension plans are heavily stretched, given the economic times.

I talked to my friend from New Hampshire, and the Senator from Washington wanted some time. I believe the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, wanted a few minutes, and the Senator from New York. Then we would be prepared to suggest to work out with the leadership an appropriate way to have a vote at an appropriate time and let others who would like to speak on another subject be able to address the Senate. If there are other colleagues who want to speak, if they can let us know forthwith, we will try to work out with the leadership and the other side an appropriate time for a vote.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when 3\1/ 2\ minutes have been used.

Mr. President, the issue before the Senate at this time is whether we are going to treat all workers fairly and equitably in the pension system.

As we know, there are two different pension systems. The single- employer pension system has 35 million Americans, and effectively 9.7 million are in the multiemployer plans. Both of those pension systems are under pressure because of the adverse economic impact.

We have tried in conference to make sure those 9.7 million Americans in a multiemployer pension system which are at serious risk are going to get the same kind of fairness and attention as in the single- employer plans. We were unable to do that. We had that basically agreed on.

They are effectively excluded. It is like taking 100 Members of the Senate and saying we are going to take care of 80, but we are leaving 20 out. That is not right. What we ought to be doing is taking care of the whole 100.

That is why I ask people to vote in opposition and give us a chance to come back and include all of those. We shouldn't exclude all those.

Who are the 9.7 million?

First of all, if we look at what has happened in the pension systems in America, we see the rapid decline and loss of pension coverage in America. Among the groups that are losing it the fastest are those low wage workers. They are the ones in the multipension systems. They are the ones at the greatest risk. They are the ones we ought to be out there trying to protect. They are the ones involved as workers in the small business. That is what this is all about.

Why shouldn't we provide the protection for those workers in small businesses that are at the lower economic income as we are providing for the Fortune 500? This legislation provides for the workers in the Fortune 500. We are saying there are ``fortune 10,000'' companies as well. I have read into the Record the various companies and corporations.

We now know there is an assault on pension coverage. Without the kind of protection of including multiemployers, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of workers at risk, who play by the rules, work hard, and who have been falling further and further behind in the economic progress of this country.

Final point: The point has been made that the White House says we can't include the multiemployer programs because we do not want to put more pressure on the Pension Guaranteed Corporations.

Look at this: Last year, $2.4 billion in 2003 drawdown on the pension PPGC for single-employer plans; less than $5 million last year for multiemployer plans.

These smaller companies need protection, they need fairness, they need equity. These companies need the kind of attention and relief that we are providing for the single employer. This legislation doesn't do it.

Let us defeat this legislation and then embrace it and include all the workers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is interesting. Pensions are sort of like health insurance. We all have it in the Senate. We all have good health insurance, unlike the rest of the 270 million Americans. We all have good pensions.

Can you imagine how many Members of the Senate would be over here now if we said over 20 percent of the Senators are going to see their pension effectively undermined?

That is what we are effectively saying to the workforce in this country. We are looking out after 80 percent. There is another 20 percent out there. We all have good ones in here. Why don't we at least make sure, if we are going to protect the 80 percent of American workers, that we protect the other 20 percent?

That is the issue that is before the Senate. It is an issue of fairness in how we are going to act for workers in this country. That is why I hope Senators will vote no.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his courtesy, as always. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I understand we have about 2 hours on the Democrat side to debate this important bill. I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts giving me such time as I might use. It will probably be 15 or 20 minutes, perhaps longer but hopefully not.

I want to start by asking my colleague from New Hampshire--I appreciate his work on this important piece of legislation. I actually agree with him. The people who are covered in this bill need relief in the pension provisions which we govern through our laws covering ERISA as well as in our Tax Code. I don't disagree with him that we have provided much needed and extremely important relief. But I want to ask, before I start my remarks, if he could comment on the approximately 9.5 million Americans who seem to be left out of this act and are working in the construction industry. If we seek to create jobs in America, that is one of the sectors we have the potential--as the economy begins, hopefully, to recover--where we could see some people actually going back to work.

I was wondering if maybe the Senator could comment about the multiemployers. I think there are about 9.5 million. Would he care to comment about why they have been left out?

Mr. President, I will leave the question out there. I appreciate the clarification.

As we debate for the next 4 hours, I hope someone might come to the floor who is arguing that this bill is as good as it can get. I happen to believe this bill was pretty good when it left the Senate, and it has come back fairly effective. I would like to leave that question open to any of my colleagues who would care to come to the floor and explain in front of the cameras and for all to review why when it left here everyone was covered--all of the single employers and multiemployers--and as it has come back, why they have only received partial relief.

I have a reason, but I am not sure my reason is correct. I am going to leave that question out there and hopefully my good friend from Massachusetts and I can get an answer to that question before this debate concludes in 4 hours.

I am going to begin by refreshing our collective memory about what the President said. When President George Bush was elected in one of the closest elections ever in our Nation, he said it was time to rise above a house divided and to move together to create economic opportunity and economic hope.

When this bill had as its core very good purposes, when it left the Senate we were united. It had 86 votes, a majority of both the Democrat and Republican caucuses to give relief to every pension. Times have been tough. There were certain rules that were in place that prevented some of these multiemployer pension plans from stashing away money in the good times. They were prevented from doing that by our laws, rules, and regulations. When the market turned down and they started losing some of their investments, they had to kick in extra contributions, which caused them to take money away from employment and put it into their pension plans.

They asked for relief. Our Senate Republicans and Democrats said that large corporations as well as multiemployer pension systems deserve that relief. It left here with 86 votes a couple of months ago. It has come back, however, with only one group included and the other group left out.

I am concerned and worried. I am not confused. The answer is not pretty. I am told by the experts there is no economic justification for this. There is no cost to the Treasury to have those plans included. Although their plans are not run the same way, they deserve the same help and same relief because they are invested in the same stock market. I don't think there are two separate stock markets, one where the large corporations are invested and then another for everyone else. They have suffered the same up-and-down swings of the market.

However, I have to believe, unless my question is answered, the only reason they did not get help is simply because the White House did not want to help them. It would not cost the Treasury anything to give help to these plans. It would not cost the Treasury a nickel. It is a change in the law that buys them additional time that the actuaries and the experts believe would be

responsible and safe, that would still make sure the pensions are safe and the money is there.

The bill left the Senate, with Democrats and Republicans working together. It went to what is seeming to be every day the most politically driven White House, where they were simply eliminated from the bill.

I ask, during the four hours we are discussing this, if any Member would be willing to come to the Senate and state why this has happened to 9.5 million workers, many of whom are union workers but not all, and some businesses that are affected, that are employing people, not minimum-wage workers?

These are workers who wake up early before the sun comes up, construction workers. Even when the temperatures go below freezing, they put their gloves on and an extra jacket and they go out and work. These are the workers we see on tops of buildings. These are the workers we see digging deep holes under the ground, driving electric lines, making sure the infrastructure in this country is what it should be, making sure when buses go over a bridge, the bridge does not collapse.

I ask anyone in the Senate to tell me why these workers have been left out. The only reason I am given is it is a political directive from the White House. These are evidently Americans who the President either does not like, does not want to help, does not think they deserve it, does not think they need help. If this is the kind of administration we are a part of, then I don't want to be a part of this kind of administration. I want to be part of an administration that helps everyone when everyone can be helped unless there is some real good reason not to.

I can understand we cannot afford to give everybody the same kind of tax cuts when there is money coming out of the Treasury. I understand about making priorities. It is my understanding that does not cost the Treasury a penny. It is my understanding, having served as State treasurer of my State for 8 years and served on my pension boards, and having some knowledge of the way pensions are made and the estimates and assumptions actuaries make in terms of pensions that control how much contributions are put in and taken out of a pension plan, it is my understanding the experts agree everyone could use some help.

One plan is helped, which is included in this bill, making a temporary adjustment to the rate of return to give them some relief. Another group said, We do not operate exactly that way, but we could use some help just stretching out our payments for 3 years so we could create more construction jobs. This White House, for some reason, said no to 9.5 million Americans.

Maybe we are getting to a point--I hope my colleagues will come down here and correct me--maybe we are getting to some ridiculous point in this Capitol where before you can get relief you have to show your voter registration card. When Democrats are in control, if you are a Republican, if you do not show a Democratic card, you do not get relief. Most of the people who were left out were union members. Not all of them, but most of them were union members. Again, there are businesses that were affected.

If it was the White House's intention to punish this group of people because they are not overwhelmingly supportive of administration policies, this is not an administration I want to be a part of. I would not for 1 minute walk to the Senate and say some of the corporations that are getting help in this business, because they are not overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, do not deserve a fair shake by this body. They got a fair shake when it left the Senate.

We had Democrats and Republicans come to the Senate and say, yes, these large corporations that have suffered terrible losses in the stock market--and we all did; whether you were a little or big investor, everyone took a big loss--yes, we want to create jobs. Yes, they deserve relief. Democrats came down. Senator Baucus from Montana argued passionately for this bill and 87 Members voted for it. It comes back with 9 million people missing, and they just happen to be part of multiemployer pension plans, most of whom are union but not all, and some small businesses have been cut out with no explanation.

It is a very ugly way to do the people's business and it flies in the face of what this administration promised: to unite us and not divide us, to give help to everyone who needed it when it was in our power to do so, whether they were a little fry or a big fry, whether they were a little fish or a big fish, whether they were a union company or not.

I don't know how others feel, but people in my State, whether they are for or against unions, are for jobs. We have lost almost 3 million jobs since this administration took office. I remind my colleagues that people want good jobs. They do not want jobs that pay $5.15 an hour. You cannot feed your children, pay rent, and put gasoline in your car for $5.15 an hour.

We want to create construction jobs. My construction workers make good money. They usually build darn good buildings and they build them for little towns and big cities in Louisiana. They came up here asking for help--not a lot of help. It does not cost a dime. Not a dime. They are turned away because they might be Democrats? They might be union members?

I have been to the Senate before on a number of other issues in my disappointment with this administration. Across the hall in some other building, Condoleeza Rice is testifying. We have marines being killed in Iraq. If the President were leading in the right direction, I think he would use every opportunity, even small ones such as this. This is not a huge deal, but it is a big deal to the 9.5 million workers who have been left out.

I would think he would be using every opportunity to unite this country, to create jobs at home, to create goodwill so we can get through maybe one of the toughest times in recent history. But, oh, no, the bill leaves the Senate with 87 votes--of Republicans and Democrats--and comes back with Republican-only fingerprints all over it, taking 9.5 million workers out because they dared to ask for help in times of tough economic downturn.

I have to hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House: They are trying to create jobs. Well, let me tell you, here is a good chance to create jobs, to help save those pension plans people have contributed to, to give them a little help that does not cost anything--and they were sent away emptyhanded.

So I am going to sit here for 4 hours. I may have to leave for a few minutes, but I want my colleague from Massachusetts to know I am going to sit on this floor until I get an answer to my question: Why were 9.5 million workers left out, when it does not cost us a red penny to help them? If it was not done for political retribution reasons, I would like a good explanation as to why it was done. If I can get a good explanation, then I will change these remarks and I will acknowledge perhaps I was mistaken about the reason.

But I know the way pension funds work. I know what they asked for was not much to ask. I know it would not cost us any money to do it. I know the experts said we could help them, if we had the will to. But we just willed a different way. We made other choices.

Finally, I am going to tell you, these choices--we all make these choices. Choices have consequences. The choices the White House made to leave these 9.5 million workers out--and the businesses that employ them--are going to cost us jobs. They are going to make people more cynical. They are going to raise the anger level in this country, when we need to be pulling people together and not tearing people apart. For the little it would have cost to keep them in, I think there is going to be a big price to pay for taking them out.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, until some other Members come to the floor, I want to add for the Record that, for

Louisiana, there are 56 electrical contracting companies that participate in the National Electrical Workers Plan that will receive no relief in this bill. There are 18 Louisiana sheet metal contracting companies that have joined the Sheet Metal National Plan that will have their pensions in jeopardy, perhaps. But whether their plans are in good shape, they came here to ask for relief that would not have cost a penny, and they were turned away.

There are 1,200 Louisiana workers who belong to the grocery store workers plan. They perhaps need to start worrying about when they will be able to retire because they were left out of this plan.

Mr. President, 32,000 construction workers in Louisiana who have multiemployer pension plans have been excluded.

Let me repeat, all of these workers--the thousands--the 18 Louisiana sheet metal contracting companies that employ thousands of people; the 32,000 construction workers; the 1,200 grocery store workers; and the 56 electrical contracting companies, which probably together employ, I am going to estimate, at least over 5,000 workers--all of those workers were included, along with these multinational corporations and large businesses. They were all included because they all need help. They all have legitimate requests that could be given by the Senate. When we debated this in the Senate, they were all included. And 87 of us-- Republicans and Democrats--voted to keep them in.

So I am going to be on the floor. If someone would come to tell me why these thousands of workers in Louisiana have been left out, I would be happy to know the answer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged to both sides.

I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam President, can I simply inquire from the Senator from Iowa, who I know wants to speak in favor of the bill, how much time he may take, because there are other Senators who want to speak on our side.

OK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Iowa speaks, I be allowed to speak for another 10 or 15 minutes. And I understand there are other Senators coming down to speak.

Yes, I will.

Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that time is not applied to the Democratic side that remains on the underlying bill.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I know the issue he wants to speak about--asbestos--is a very important issue that has great ramifications for workers and businesses in our country. I know he spent a great deal of time on that subject.

We only have, on this side, about 45 minutes to debate this very important pension bill that also affects large, small, and medium-sized corporations and workers, whether they are union workers or not. I wanted to come to the floor after the opening of this debate this morning and answer some of the questions that were raised, or comments made by my good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, and also the Senator from Iowa.

Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, I thank him for his leadership. He has worked very hard on this bill and there is no doubt, as the Senator from Mississippi came to the floor and said, that there is a great deal of good being accomplished in this pension reform bill that helps us to direct capital in a much more effective and productive way, at a time when our country needs to be creating jobs, not destroying them, and at a time when we need to be strengthening all of our companies, not weakening them.

There is no argument on this side about that issue--none. No Democratic Senator has come to the floor to argue that there are not a lot of good things in this bill for companies in America, particularly the airline industry and steel companies, which are in very precarious situations with a deadline looming. Let me put that in the Record.

What is at issue is why 10 million workers are left out--10 million workers and the companies that employ them. Some of those companies are small and medium-sized companies that employ unionized workers. Some of them employ nonunionized workers.

I want to respond to a couple of things. The Senator from Iowa made a statement I would like to correct. He said it could not possibly affect 9.7 million workers. I have the GAO report--and that is where we get this information--which says 9.7 million participants, because of the White House's position and the very partisan Republican approach on the House side that was taken--this is the GAO report that shows clearly there are 9.7 million workers who will be left out. About 13 million workers in the country are unionized, and a great deal of them will be left out.

The second point is, the Senator from New Hampshire came to the floor and said: The Senator from Louisiana could not possibly be right because she claims this bill--the compromise purposely denied help to union workers because the underlying bill protects unions.

For the record, I will say he is correct in part. This is the difference. If you are a union that is fortunate enough to be attached to a big company that the Republican leadership in the House wants to help, you get help in this bill. Let me repeat that. If you are a union that happens to be attached to a very large company that the Republican leadership in the House, with the support of the White House, wants to help, you get relief, and you get relief whether your company is in trouble or not.

Let me submit for the record that General Electric Company will get relief, and they deserve it. General Electric deserves this help. Their pension is funded at 116 percent. Verizon is funded at 104 percent. AT&T pensions are funded at 111 percent. Prudential is funded at 112.1 percent. Edison Electric is funded at 100.2 percent. J.P. Morgan is funded at 102.8 percent. Southern Companies is funded at 112.8 percent. Wells Fargo is funded at 102.8 percent.

These are large companies; some are union, some are not. There is a company that was written in on a special provision, and they may deserve it, but it causes some of us to be cynical about how these conferences, behind closed doors, work. UPS, which is a large company and a union company--and I support their help--gets help. If you are a company that is overly funded, and a company that has union workers, the union is lucky to be attached to you because if they are left on their own, they don't get help. If you are a multiemployer plan, a union, not fortunate enough to be attached to a big company, but you are attached to a little company, or to a medium-size company, the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided you don't deserve the help.

I have been waiting on the floor for 4 hours to get an answer to the question, why were they denied help? The Record shows--and I will submit for the Record--the fix that Senator Kennedy asked for and that 86 Members of this body voted for--the fix in this bill, which would have given relief to everyone, whether you are a big company or a little company, whether you were union or nonunion, and that passed the Senate with 86 votes.

We are proud of that work. It went over to the House, and under partisan political leadership, the help for 10 million workers was stripped out because they were not lucky enough to be attached to a big enough company. That is the truth. The fix would have given money to the Federal Treasury, not taken money. Again, this fix did not cost anything. I can understand if someone would come to the floor and say: Senator, we simply could not afford it; we just could not afford it; we are fighting a war in Iraq; we have deficits; we cannot afford it.

Let me remind everyone, there is no cost to the Federal Treasury for this particular fix. In fact, as Senator Kennedy spoke about, fixing the multiemployer pension plan adds money to the Treasury.

I have to sit here and listen to people argue that this was a good compromise? I have to go home and explain to my constituents, and I cannot explain it to them. Let me just tell you how it works in Washington these days: Bills that cost money to the Treasury get passed all day long. Bills that add money to the Treasury cannot get passed. I don't know how to explain that to my constituents in Louisiana. I don't know how to go home and explain to my constituents in Louisiana that the big companies, some union and some nonunion, get help, but the small companies that some people purport to represent and union workers got left out for no good reason.

Let me answer another charge. One of the Senators said: Senator, this is just the process; this happens all the time. I remember a time when it did not happen this way. I came to the Senate 7 years ago. When I got here, there used to be a Senate position and a House position, not a Republican position and a Democratic position. We had a Senate position. I am proud to be part of the Senate of men and women, Republicans and Democrats, who can put a fair deal together and will fight for a fair deal and not collapse, capitulate, and give in, and that is exactly what happened in conference.

So when my colleagues ask, Does this give this Senator confidence or any Senator confidence that the conference process works, I would say simply, No, it diminishes confidence. It undermines confidence. It does not build good will. It tears down what little good will is left and makes a mockery of it.

I wish for once the Senate would stand up and send a bill over to the House and say there is no reason we can't include everyone; it doesn't cost anything. These poor people who wake up early in the morning and stay up late at night trying to put bread on the table and pay their rent and buy gasoline that is now over $2 deserve a fair shake. It doesn't cost anything. There is no skin off your back. But no, we just cave, all of us just cave. It is a shame.

No, this does not help the process. This does not build confidence. This does not encourage anyone.

The fourth point I want to answer is, oh, there she goes, the Senator from Louisiana and other Senators on the Democratic side, making the perfect the enemy of the good. I am not looking for a perfect bill. I am looking for a square deal. I did not come here looking for a perfect bill. No Senator comes here looking for a perfect bill. There is no such thing. But I am still waiting for one Senator to come to the floor and give me one--one--good reason why 10 million workers and the companies that hire them that came here asking us for help when it is in our power to help, when it does not cost us anything to help, why were they taken out of this bill?

I have not received an answer to that question yet. I will tell my colleagues, we may vote on this bill in an hour or so, and I may end up voting for this conference report. Some Democrats will vote no. But because there are some very good provisions in this bill and there are companies in my State that will be helped--and I want to support large companies because they are hiring, they are struggling; some of them are not; some of them are doing very well. I have no problem. We all need to be pro-business, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.

I am probably going to vote for this conference report. I don't know how the rest of the caucus will vote. Some will and some will not, but that still does not answer my question or solve this problem.

I have to go back and tell 10,000, maybe more, workers in Louisiana: Sorry, you were left out. When they ask: Senator, we didn't cost them anything, why did they leave us out? I want someone to tell me why so I can go back and tell them. I am going to ask that question on every bill, and I am going to put an amendment on every bill, with Senator Kennedy's help and other colleagues, whether this conference report is adopted or not, until we finally get an answer.

I hope it is not the answer I think it is. I will state it again and, until I get my answer, I am going to keep stating it. I think the answer is, because these employers that have multiemployer plans are mostly unions that are not attached to big companies, that have a lot of money invested in lobbyists and others who can be here talking to everybody all day long, and I think the White House decided that because most of these are unions that do not support them at election time, they are not going to support them at this time.

I know that is harsh, and I know it sounds very direct. I don't know any other way to be because that is the only conclusion to which I can come.

Again, it does not cost money. They were in the original bill; 86 of us voted for it. Until I get a better answer, I am going to have to go around and tell people that is the answer. If someone wants to debate me here, in a private debate somewhere else, write me a letter, give me a report, then I will stop saying that, and I will just say I was wrong and here is a good reason, and I will accept that and accept it as the process and just go on and fight another day. But I have yet to hear the answer.

Let me state again for the Record, in case anybody thinks the only businesses that are getting help are businesses that are in trouble, GE is funded at 116 percent; AT&T at 111 percent. So we are not just helping companies whose pensions are in bad shape. Part of the bill is to not put money in a pension that doesn't need it--obviously, these pensions don't need it because they are overfunded--and to get that money back in circulation to create jobs. I am for that 100 percent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. President, if it works for these big guys, why can't it work for the little guy, the little contractors, for the union guys? We better get past the politics of deciding something is good or bad, whether it helps people who vote Republican or vote Democrat, and start thinking about the country, start thinking about America, start thinking about our troops and get serious about creating jobs.

When this White House says they are serious about creating jobs, I am going to bring this up to the White House at every point. You could have created jobs. It didn't cost you a penny to do it. In fact, it would have added money. But you turned your back, you walked away, and you left them standing there.

I hope those who were thinking maybe they would not get active might get active because of this, because it would sure wake me up if I wasn't paying much attention to what was going on.

I don't want to take any more time. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has been very patient. I will yield the floor but reserve the time that is remaining for debate on this side, according to the unanimous consent agreement. I think it is the Senator's time to speak.

It is my understanding there are 4 hours equally divided; is that correct?

This is an important piece of legislation which deals with the solvency of a large number of companies and benefits that are paid to those companies' employees. The core, the essence of this bill is the fact that traditionally, companies have been required to fund their defined benefit plans in relationship to the rate of return that is accounted for on a 30-year Treasury bond. That affects how much money they must pay into these plans.

Unfortunately, for companies that have such plans, the 30-year bond no longer exists as a viable benchmark. That is because we as a government are not issuing 30-year bonds. Therefore, when people value a 30-year bond, it has become, in the last few years, an understated value. It is not reflecting what the true interest is, the true rate of return is, in the marketplace any longer.

If we continue to use the 30-year bond as a benchmark, an inflated payment is required by those companies which come under this rule.

The effect of that is a large amount of money--it is estimated to be $80 billion--would flow inaccurately or inappropriately as a result of the fact that the decision as to that payment is

based on the 30-year bond which no longer exists and is understated. It understates returns.

That $80 billion, if it is artificially moved around, becomes a problem because it means companies actually have to come up with the money. When they do, they are taking money away from investments which create jobs. If a company is planning to create a new plant or buy new equipment to create new efficiencies or simply to pay its people more-- the people who work with that business with that activity--find they can't do that. As a result, the jobs which would be created through that $80 billion infusion of money will not be created. And it will have a fairly significant chilling effect on the economy generally, if we do not make this change in the calculation of the interest rates.

This bill replaces the 30-year bond with a market basket of high- grade corporate bonds as a reflection of what the appropriate interest rate should be. I think there is general consensus on that part of the bill, and it is the most important part of the bill.

The bill also has a series of rifleshot changes for some single- employer plans and for a small number of multiemployer plans.

That is where the contest over the bill occurs most intently because those single-shot changes affect a few industries, a few airlines, a couple of steel companies, and a large multiemployer plan in the Midwest.

But that was not my reason for aggressively pursuing this piece of legislation. I wanted to fix the 30-year bond rate. I have been trying to do that now for almost 9 months. I feel very strongly if we don't do it we will end up losing jobs in America. We will end up making ourselves less competitive. We will end up with less investment, and we will end up with fewer people in our country working for businesses which are efficient and, therefore, can compete internationally.

I think it is critical that we pass this piece of legislation.

These other items which are part of this legislation are obviously important to those employees who participate in those different areas-- the airlines, the steel companies, and the multiemployer plans that are impacted.

But for me, the core of this bill is fixing the 30-year bond rate and the problem it has in artificially affecting the playing field as to where investment flows in America.

It is very critical in a market economy that you allow dollars to be invested where they can be most efficiently used. When you have a system which creates an artificially inaccurate benchmark or how these various funds must be funded by using the 30-year bond, you undermine the ability of the marketplace to adequately discipline through market forces the investment of dollars. The practical effect of that is to produce inefficiency, less capital investment, and less jobs.

This is a very important bill. In fact, it is the ultimate jobs bill. Eighty-billion dollars of investment is a lot of investment which is going to create lots of jobs. There are important jobs bills, but amongst the jobs bills we are taking up in Congress, this is certainly one of the most important. It is subject to some significant time restraints. If we don't do this by April 15, then some of this miscalculation of resources begins to occur, and we end up losing the investment in jobs we need.

That is the essence of this bill.

As I understand it, Senator Kennedy, who is the senior Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, intends to speak on the bill. A number of other folks also wish to make points on the bill.

At this point, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time and hope we can get to a vote fairly promptly.

How much time remains?

And the minority?

Mr. President, I had not thought this debate was going to enlarge itself into the issue of the testimony before the 9/11 Commission, but it appears the other side of the aisle has decided the pension bill is not enough to debate today on this floor, even though that is what it was to be limited to, but it raises this issue. So I think it is appropriate to at least respond briefly, although the response could be much more extensive. However, I will try to return to the pension bill at the appropriate time since that is what we are debating.

I will respond briefly to the statements of the Senator from New York,

which I found to be outrageous. Maybe the Senator from New York did not listen to the testimony of Mr. Clarke. He very possibly did not, because he appears to have decided to make up his mind long before the National Security Adviser, Ms. Rice, testified.

I think it was Mr. Clarke who said--in fact, I know it was Mr. Clarke who said, in response to a question from Senator Gorton, if the administration had put in place every recommendation you suggested to the prior administration and to this administration, and which you put in your memos and your statements upon arrival of this administration in office in January, if the administration had done that--in other words, if the administration had pursued every course which had been laid out by Mr. Clarke, who was the guru of terrorism in the prior administration, which I also wish to comment on, would that have stopped the 9/11 event? Would that have prevented the 9/11 event? A one-word answer from Mr. Clarke: No.

Yet we have the Senator from New York say the opposite. I do not think the Senator from New York has the expertise of Mr. Clarke, and most certainly he has not presented himself as an expert on terrorism. Mr. Clarke has presented himself as an expert on terrorism, was the expert on terrorism in the Clinton administration, and did say definitively, in a one-word answer, no, 9/11 would not have been avoided had everything gone into place I wanted in place--I being Mr. Clarke.

The statement by the Senator from New York is excessive, to say the least, when he says 9/11 could have been avoided.

Then when he goes on to accuse this administration of not learning from lessons of the past--I will tell you something. This administration did learn from lessons of the past. The lessons of the past were the lessons of the Clinton administration, which were when our embassies were attacked in Africa and when our ship was attacked in Yemen, what was the response of the prior administration? They lobbed a missile into an empty terrorist camp in Afghanistan and then lobbed another missile into the wrong factory in Sudan and then washed their hands of Mr. bin Laden and said they had accomplished their purpose of defeating terrorism.

What we learned after 9/11 was that those sorts of marginal responses, those sorts of tepid responses to terrorism do not work in the present world and certainly this administration learned that.

I hesitate to think where we would be today had Al Gore been elected President. I suspect we would still be negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This administration decided not to negotiate. This administration decided to take action. It went into Afghanistan and it destroyed the base of al-Qaida operations in that country and replaced a repressive regime that did not even allow women out of their houses and supported all forms of terrorism across this globe and especially the al-Qaida terrorism. They learned the lessons of the prior administration, which were tepid response does not work.

Then we moved into Iraq. As a government, we voted to move in that direction. Why? Because some of us understood that Saddam Hussein was a significant, dramatic threat to world peace and specifically was a dictator who had the capacity and had used weapons of mass destruction, who was oppressive at a level which hadn't been seen since the times of Nazi Germany, and who had the capacity to use his oppressiveness and his megalomania and his criminal view of the world to our detriment. He was a threat to us because of his ability to pass on that threat, the capacity to pass on weaponry, the capacity to be a sanctuary, and the capacity to be a feeding ground for people who caused us harm.

We are at war, there is no question about that, and we have, as a government under this President, pursued that war with an aggressiveness which was absolutely appropriate. We have chased these people who wished to do us harm across the globe. We have kicked over the rocks under which they live and we have brought them to justice so today their fear, their concern, is about where they sleep, not who they are going to attack tomorrow.

That is the type of response we needed as a government and as a nation, in light of what happened to us on 9/11. For the Senator from New York to come down here and say we did not learn the lessons of 9/11 and the lessons of the prior administration--which approached terrorism with such tepidness--is an absolute misstatement.

For them to come down here and say, after Mr. Clarke, who they have held up as the epitome of knowledge and expertise in the area of terrorism, testified in one word that 9/11 could not have been stopped, when he said ``no'' to that exact question, had all of his proposals been put in place--for the Senator from New York to come down here and make the statement we could have avoided 9/11, in light of that testimony, I find excessive to an incomprehensible degree.

I didn't intend to speak on this issue, but unfortunately it was drawn into this debate and I think it required a response.

The National Security Adviser today went before the Commission and testified under oath and made a clear and concise statement of how we as a nation are responding to terrorism, how we as a nation are fighting a war against people who have decided to try to destroy our culture and who have proven their willingness to kill Americans indiscriminately, whether they are men, women, or children.

We are using all our resources as a result of this President's commitment, which is total and absolute, to bring these terrorists to justice. I do not think statements such as those of the Senator from New York are constructive to the debate on that issue.

To return to the pension fund, a little less inflammatory subject, obviously not having the import of the fight for survival, which is what this war on terrorism is about for us as a culture, but still legislation we need to address on the floor.

We have heard from a number of speakers on the other side of the aisle how the bill, as it came back from conference, to use their phrase, is an attack on 9.5 million union workers who were not included in the multiemployer reform language of the bill.

My interest in this bill was to correct the interest rate question, which has been done. It was the essence of this bill. As I said earlier, it corrects the fact that $80 billion could be misallocated if we did not correct it. If we did not correct it, we could undermine capital investment and job creation.

But I do want to respond, not necessarily to the debate about how many multi's should have been included, but to some of the language which was used as to why the ``multi'' language was limited in scope, because it was partisan, to say the least, especially from the Senator from Louisiana, who said that 9.5 million construction workers who are union people would be left out of the ``multi'' reform bill as it was structured.

That is hard to do, because there are only 8.5 million people who are in the private sector union membership rolls, so she must have found another million people somewhere in the private sector union membership rolls to come up with that number. She must have assumed that none of the people who were protected--whose concerns were addressed, as was pointed out by the Senator from Massachusetts, where he had the number of 35 million people who would be positively impacted by the fix on interest rates--that none of those people are union people and that none of the people whose issues are addressed by the rifleshot DRC reform dealing with airlines are union people and that the White House somehow, according to the Senator from Louisiana, just picked out union people and decided to cut them out of this agreement.

But on the face of it that doesn't fly. First off, there are not 9.5 million people in the private sector union movement; there are only 8.5 million or 8. That is a lot of people, 8.5 million people. A large number of those folks are included in the DRC program, which is a targeted program, which happens to be the reason the UAW supports this bill--another large group of these people who are included in the interest rate fix, which is why the UAW supports this bill. A large number of the union people are pilot union people and other union people who work for airlines who are included under the DRC

section of this bill, so they are happy with this bill.

This bill is not broken down on the basis of whether you are union or not union. To make that statement is totally disingenuous on the face of the fact that it can't be defended. In fact, it is so indefensible that when Senator Kennedy spoke he talked about how the people impacted here were small businesspeople and how the administration left out all of the small businesspeople by not including all the multi's because most of those are small businesspeople. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the White House is attacking the labor movement by leaving out a group of multi's in this bill claiming that was the case--I will get to that in a second; it wasn't necessarily the White House--and at the same time say you are attacking the small business folks by leaving out the multi's.

That is so inconsistent on its face that it brings a smile. Obviously, small businesses, theoretically at least, traditionally have been considered to be very supportive of this President and of Republican philosophy. If they are saying the White House, by not agreeing to the full multi language, was attacking small business, then at the same time you can't say the bill was structured to attack unions, which is exactly what they said. It is exactly what the Senator from Louisiana said, anyway. I think the Senator from Massachusetts also had some comments in that vein.

The inconsistency of the argument on its face is so apparent that it holds no validity. I was not actively involved in this negotiation. Obviously, I was in the conference, but I didn't, as they say, ``have a dog in this fight'' because I was focused on trying to get the interest rate fix through, which I think is a bigger part of the package. But the reason the debate on multi's got shifted around was that--I would, again, point this out to the Senator from Louisiana who asked why this didn't happen, why didn't they get their way--it is two branches of Government. When it left the House, this bill had no multi's, none, zero, zip. The White House took the position there should be no multicoverage. That is one-half of the legislative branch and all of the executive branch saying they do not want any multicoverage. The Senate came out with language that said all multi's should be covered.

In the process of negotiation, compromise and conference, which happens to be basically how you do things in a democracy, what is known as an agreement was reached which gave coverage to a certain number of multiplans, about 50. It was a limited number; no question about it. It was a very small number.

But the way that number was reached, as I understand it, there was an understanding that all multi's shouldn't be covered. There was a general consensus on that.

Again, when the Senator from Louisiana came down here and said not all multi's had been covered, that this was an attack on multi's, that was never the understanding when we reached conference. Everyone in that room in the conference came to the conclusion that the multi's which should be covered were those at serious risk of defaulting. Those were the ones we were going to try to take care of. We had a real issue from an actuarial standpoint of figuring out exactly which that was and how you calculated it. It is not an easy issue to resolve.

The Senator from Massachusetts took the very legitimate position that 20 percent of the multi's were probably at risk. That was a calculation which he reached through an actuarial firm that took a look at it.

The White House took the position there should be no multi's at all.

Remember, these multi's are small employers. It wasn't an attack on unions. It was both small employers and unions.

It wasn't a philosophical or a political decision, as the Senator from Louisiana said. If you have a union card, and you weren't allowed to play in the game, or Democratic card I think they said that is absolutely ridiculous. The small businesses don't carry union cards, and hopefully not too many carry Democrat cards, either. But who knows?

As a practical matter, they did not divide on the issue of whether you voted and why you voted. They divided on the philosophical position of whether multi's should be included in this 2-year reform package.

The impact of the White House position equally impacted union plans, union members, and affected more significantly small businesses than it did members of the union. It is quite obvious. I suspect there are more small businesses affected by the White House position that multi's shouldn't be included than there are members of unions. It was such a fallacious argument that it doesn't even stand up to the laugh test.

But the point is, when we got into the conference, there was a difference between the Senator from Massachusetts who said 20 percent of the plans were at risk and the White House that thought no plans should be included. The White House initially said no plan should be included, but then after a while, due to the strong and effective advocacy of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa, a series of different proposals were put on the table until they finally got to a point where they could get a majority vote in the conference to support a position. It was a compromise position; no question about it. It was definitely a compromise position.

Senator Grassley did make another offer that was not accepted. The offer that was finally accepted--because we happen to be a government where you have to get the Senate and the House to agree and you have to get the White House to agree--was the package that is before us. The package that is before us has the inherently good benefit, as the Senator from Massachusetts appropriately pointed out, of benefiting 35 million American workers by correcting the interest rate fix issue, and of benefiting, if you are so inclined, three major airlines which potentially would go under if this bill didn't pass, and two major steel companies, which are integrated steel companies which would go under if this bill didn't pass, and 50 multiplans, including the single largest plan in the country, the Midwestern plan.

That is how we got to this point. It is not the perfect bill. Nothing that ever comes out of conference is the perfect bill. We have certainly proven that over and over again. I think judicial note can be taken about that. But it is a bill that was reached by compromise through the process with a lot of different players at the table who had a very strong opinion as to where we should go. It was not done on the basis of any sort of retribution or attempt to single out an interest group and negatively impact them. On the face of it, that position cannot be defended because so many small businesspeople are impacted by the multilanguage in this bill, and also because of the fact so many union members are benefited by the interest rate fix in the bill and by the targeted rifleshot that goes into this bill dealing with airlines and steel companies.

That, hopefully, puts to rest that side of the argument made on this case.

If the Senator from Massachusetts has other very legitimate concerns in this bill, I acknowledge the fact we didn't get the 20 percent he wanted on the multi's that were at risk which might go into default. That is a legitimate reason to oppose this bill, if that is the position. You cannot oppose this bill, as the Senator from Louisiana did, on the basis that it is an attack on some group. That is simply a function of politics. It clearly isn't, and the facts and the debate from the other side prove it.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

I object.

I would like to ask my colleague Senator Grassley, a fellow manager of the conference report and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, whether he shares my view that, notwithstanding the enactment of this legislation, all of the existing relief measures applicable to multiemployer plans under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code will remain available to multiemployer plans. Specifically, the multiemployer plan relief provisions in this legislation are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the existing relief measures applicable to multiemployer plans. Multiemployer plans that satisfy the criteria for relief under the existing measures are not precluded from obtaining relief under the existing relief measures. Is that your understanding?

The Senator from New Mexico suggested today in the debate on the conference report to S. 3108 that the provisions of the conference report relating to Graduate Medical Education Residency Matching Programs were not intended to apply to antitrust litigation currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

That is not the case. The legislation applies to all anti-trust lawsuits, including pending and future lawsuits brought against Graduate Medical Education Residency Matching Programs which appropriately aligns the preferences of medical students and residency programs.

Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Iowa.

Will the Senator allow me to make a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the pending conference report occur at 2:45 today, with the time until 2:45 being equally divided, provided further that the last 8 minutes of debate be divided so that Senator Kennedy or his designee be recognized for up to 4 minutes, to be followed by the chairman of the committee or his designee to close for the final 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be charged to our side until we get to the 8 minutes which was reserved for the two managers of the bill if there is nobody speaking.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be allowed to speak until there are 4 minutes remaining prior to the vote.

Mr. President, what is the time remaining?

Does the Senator wish to make any further statement?

I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the issue before the Senate is how we correct an imminent problem, an immediate problem that many pension funds are facing because the present way their payments into their pension funds are valued is based on an instrument that no longer exists, the 30-year Treasury bond; therefore, they are being asked to contribute an artificial number which has no relationship to the actual interest rate charges and revenues or interest rate return that the marketplace would naturally generate.

The practical effect is $80 billion will be misallocated within the marketplace. The practical effect is that a significant amount of investment--the purchase of machines, the purchase of things which make things more efficient, contributions to people's employment and other areas, including wages--will be impacted negatively because dollars will be artificially moved, rather than where they are most efficiently used, meaning a loss of jobs.

The companies will be less competitive, the people who work for these companies do not have the support they need in the way of capital equipment and compensation, and there will be a negative impact on employment in the marketplace. We need to correct that in the short term. This is a short-term bill, a 2-year bill.

The Senator from Massachusetts has raised some very legitimate concerns about where the multiemployer plans are going, but that is a very complicated issue. This bill is a very small attempt to address the most severely distressed elements of the multiplans. It has targeted language to address a few individual plans which are employer plans which are under clear stress--specifically, airlines and steel companies--but it does not try to solve all the problems.

The understanding behind this bill is that we are going to come back to this issue, hopefully promptly, for long-term substantive review of the question and a fix. This is a 2-year bill. The most important part is to get the 30-year bond issue straightened out so the $80 billion is not misallocated and the jobs that would be lost are not lost. That is why we need to pass this bill at this time.

I urge adoption.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the question.

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today.

What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs.

Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe.

Here are some examples.

The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51.

Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86.

And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't.

One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair.

This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy.

I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate.

Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless.

I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry.

So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement.

With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done.

Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority.

I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate.

You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue.

Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan.

In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over

competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent.

What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise.

It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment.

No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today.

This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself.

Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it.

Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted.

Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today.

The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety.

Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians.

From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania.

My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well.

The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs.

A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs.

The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation.

Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation.

So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs.

Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible.

But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses.

Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit.

I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of

drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs.

I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements.

Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development.

So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair.

I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation.

Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world.

My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm.

Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority.

Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill.

I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level.

I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year.

We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November.

The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to the Chamber today.

What would you call it if Americans were paying up to 300 percent more for the same product as consumers from other countries were paying? Back in Iowa, we would call that ``highway robbery.'' Yet, highway robbery is what is happening every day in this country, and it is happening over prescription drugs.

Yes, prescription drugs are being sold at prices that are 30 to 300 percent higher in the United States than in places like Canada or Europe.

Here are some examples.

The price in Canada of Nexium which is for heart burn and ulcers, is about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. Nexium would cost about $120 for 28 20-milligram capsules if you bought it here in the States. If you order the same Nexium from Canada, you'd pay about $51.

Here is another example: The price in Canada for Vioxx which is for arthritis pain, is also about 40 percent of the price in the U.S. If you purchased 30 12.5-milligram tablets in Canada, you would pay about $36 and here in a U.S. pharmacy, you would pay about $86.

And why is that, Mr. President? The reason is the importation of prescription drugs, those very same drugs that patients are using in Canada, and Australia, and Japan, is illegal in this country. So consumers in other countries get price breaks from the drug manufacturers and the American public doesn't.

One way to look at this is that by paying those higher prices, the American public is paying more than its fair share for the cost of research and development for future new drugs. That is not fair.

This means when a new drug comes on the market, the American consumer has paid for the research but consumers in other countries benefit from the new therapy.

I have supported amendments to permit Canadian drug purchases before. We have had numerous votes in this Chamber on legalizing importation. We had a vote most recently during the Medicare debate.

Last year, the House overwhelmingly passed a drug reimportation bill by a vote of 243 to 186. But, in the end, the conference report for the Medicare bill watered down the possibility of legal importation such that it was meaningless.

I was very disappointed about that. I think it was victory by subterfuge for the pharmaceutical industry.

So, I decided to roll up my sleeves and go to work on drafting my own bill that would address the problems surrounding importation. In fact, I was working very closely since the beginning of the year with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. We were working together until 3 weeks ago to create a bipartisan piece of legislation. We made a lot of progress. We still had some issues to work out but we were very close to having a final agreement.

With my leadership on the Finance Committee, and Senator Kennedy's leadership on the HELP Committee, let alone his expertise on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, I figured we had a good shot at getting something done.

Our discussions certainly created a lot of buzz around town. I had reporters and all manner of interest groups asking me and my staff about the bill and when we would introduce it. But those discussions have since evaporated. Apparently, the Democratic caucus was concerned that things were moving too quickly or that too much momentum was building behind a bipartisan effort. What I do know is that our bipartisan product was no longer the priority.

I was disappointed about that too. Senator Kennedy and I work well together. In fact, we are joining forces even now to get the Family Opportunity Act to the floor and passed out of the Senate.

You can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle had determined lowering the costs of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue.

Members can understand why I was discouraged to learn that Senator Daschle determined lowering the cost of prescription drugs through importation was going to be a partisan issue. This reminded me of what happened in the year 2002 with the Medicare prescription drug debate. There, too, Senator Daschle became concerned that the Finance Committee--then chaired by my friend, Senator Baucus--would report a bipartisan prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Senator Daschle, in 2002, as the majority leader, bypassed the Finance Committee and took the prescription drug bill straight to the floor. That is not how we get legislation passed in the Senate, and everyone around here knows it. As I say so often to my colleagues, nothing gets done in the Senate if it is not bipartisan or at least somewhat bipartisan.

In the year 2002, it resulted in a very partisan debate in the Senate over

competing Medicare drug benefit proposals. There were multiple partisan proposals by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I had a proposal supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic caucus fought our bill, which was dubbed the tripartisan bill because one of the key authors, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, sits in the body as an Independent.

What happened in the final analysis in 2002? The Senate did not pass a Medicare drug benefit proposal that year. The debate fell apart in partisan bickering in the Senate. That happened because partisan politics intervened to prevent a bipartisan compromise.

It looks to me that this is what is happening now on the issue of the importation of drugs into the United States to help our seniors. When we go to the pharmacist to pick up a prescription, I don't remember the pharmacist asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When you pay your health insurance premium, I don't think the insurance company looks for an ``R'' or a ``D'' by your name before they accept your payment.

No, I don't see the importation of drugs as a partisan issue. Being forced to pay higher prescription prices because there is a lack of competition in the global pharmaceutical industry is not a partisan issue. That is why I decided to move ahead and introduce the bill I am introducing today.

This bill I am introducing today in a large degree is the bill on which I worked very closely with Senator Kennedy when our efforts got superseded by the Democratic caucus. I made a few changes, but this bill is basically what Senator Kennedy and I were working on together before partisan politics got in the way. I thought what we had was a good proposal. We were close to having all the details worked out. I am going ahead and introducing that bill today by myself.

Let me explain the bill. Quite simply, it would legalize immediately the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. After 2 years, consumers would be able to order their drugs from other countries, as well. It creates a practical and safe system to do it.

Today the law prohibits the importation of prescription drugs until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that importation can be done safely. Under current resources and under current authority, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to provide such assurance on the safety of drugs coming in from other countries. We have had Health and Human Service Secretaries in both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. This is not Republicans protecting pharmaceuticals, if you want to look at it this way. It is both Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents making a decision that the certification and safety of drug importation was not legally permitted.

Even though the law says you can import drugs, because of the lack of certification, they cannot come into the country. More and more people have been getting prescriptions filled in Canada, regardless of what the law says. Technically, that is illegal today.

The Food and Drug Administration and our customs officials have been looking the other way. The Food and Drug Administration has said there are serious safety issues with drug importation from other countries. They say this because no public health authority is overseeing many of the prescriptions coming in from other countries. In fact, the Canadian Government has said it will not take responsibility for assuring the safety of drugs being shipped to the United States from Canada. They have basically told the U.S. consumer: You are on your own from the standpoint of safety--I suppose, as far as the Food and Drug Administration, efficacy as well as safety.

Today, importation is no longer limited to organized bus trips across the border to pharmacies in Canada. Instead, it is becoming a booming mail-order pharmacy operation with customers all over the United States. We see press accounts on a regular basis describing Americans who log on to the Internet to purchase drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted an investigation into drug importation. They found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through JFK Airport every day. JFK Airport houses the largest international mail branch in the United States. From Miami, 30,000 packages of drugs come into the United States; 20,000 packages come into Chicago each day of the year. About 28 percent of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. These are addictive drugs that require close supervision from physicians.

From where are most of these drugs coming? I was surprised to hear it was not only Canada, but also Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Romania.

My bill immediately halts unsafe importation from rogue operators but permits individuals to obtain prescriptions from licensed Canadian pharmacies on an interim basis while the Food and Drug Administration gets a new drug importation system up and it runs well.

The American public is tired of waiting for the Federal Government to take action to legalize importation and to assure the safety of imported drugs. Under my bill, the Food and Drug Administration is required to issue final regulations for the new drug importation system within 90 days of enactment. Under the new importation system, individuals and pharmacies could purchase qualified drugs for import into the United States from foreign exporters that register with the Food and Drug Administration. To be registered, the foreign exporters must demonstrate compliance with safety measures, must submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and take other steps to assure the safety of imported drugs.

A user fee charged to registered exporters would provide the financing needed for the Food and Drug Administration to register and oversee foreign drug exporters and assure the state of imported drugs.

The drugmakers do not want to see their lower priced products from other countries coming into the United States. That is certain because the present laws do not permit this competition to them. They would say it undermines their profits here. They will want to do everything they can to stop drug importation.

Even though this bill might pass, these companies will find some way to keep these drugs out of the country. So I have to deal with that fact in this legislation.

So under my bill, drugmakers that take steps to prevent importation of their products from these registered drug importers will lose their tax deduction for their advertising costs.

Now, that is going to upset the trade associations that deal with advertising. That is going to upset TV and newspapers and magazines that get a lot of money from advertising. I have had a long history of supporting the deductibility of advertising expenses as a legitimate business expense. I have not changed my mind in regard to that, not at all. In fact, I have a history of voting against amendments that are offered on the floor of the Senate that would make advertising not deductible.

But we are not talking about not allowing the deductibility of advertising costs. Only if a company tries to do something illegal and keep drugs from coming in from out of this country, then they will pay the penalty of not having their advertising costs deducted. But I assume, when we pass this bill, these drug companies are going to abide by this law. There will not be one cent of advertising that cannot be deducted as a legitimate expense, so I do not want the advertising fraternity to get upset with this legislation, when I have been a backer of the legitimate writeoff of advertising expenses.

Now, this not only has the stick that I just described, but we have a carrot as well, to encourage companies to abide by this law and not try to keep imported drugs from coming into this country by some sort of requirement they would put on supplies outside the country not to ship drugs into this country; and that is, they will get a 20-percent benefit--a 20-percent benefit--by having an increase in their R&D tax credit.

I am going to discuss that further, but going back to the advertising costs, I do sense, from my people in Iowa--at every town meeting some person complains about the advertising of

drugs on TV. I defend the advertising of drugs on TV because that is commercial free speech. I think our citizenry ought to be as educated about drugs as they can be, so they are not beholden to their own doctor or doctors for what might be applied. I think we ought to have an educated patient group, so this advertising is very good. But I still have to say that my Iowa constituents are pretty fed up with all those drug ads they see on TV, and how they are probably adding to the cost of prescription drugs.

I am fully in favor of this free speech, and I do not, in any way, want to prohibit companies from running the ads they want to run. But if drug companies are not going to allow U.S. consumers to have access to these lower prices in other countries, then, under this legislation, they would lose the tax deduction for the cost of those advertisements.

Now, on the other hand, I said there is a carrot out there. The drugmakers complain to us that these lower prices might take money from research and development. They would rightly say: Where are we going to get the money to have the next generation of ``magic'' drugs that we have? We want that to happen, because when I buy a drug today, my mother or grandmother, when they bought pills, paid for that research for the generation of drugs I take. I want my children and grandchildren to have a new generation of drugs for the future. So we do not want to hurt research and development.

So my bill, then, creates an incentive for drug companies that do not fight this importation of drugs. Companies that do not prevent importation from registered exporters will get a 20-percent increase in their R&D tax credit. I hope everybody will think that is very fair.

I have a more detailed summary of this bill that I am going to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this summary and a question and answer document be printed in the Record following my statement.

I believe that free trade principles argue in favor of permitting the importation from Canada and perhaps from other developed countries as long as we can implement a system for safe importation.

Today, there is no assurance of safety--no one is watching the store--and products are coming in from all over the world.

My legislation has two objectives. First, it will put an immediate end to the unregulated and unsafe situations of drug imports that we have today by default. This is key because the situation today threatens the safety of our Nation's drug supply and puts patients who obtain these drugs at risk of harm.

Second, the legislation will provide the Food and Drug Administration with the resources and authority to ensure the safety of imported drugs, and importation will only be permitted by registered exporters who submit to the Food and Drug Administration authority.

Now, this bill will get referred to the Finance Committee because it has tax provisions in it, but the bulk of my bill falls under the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee, and my friend, Senator Gregg, as chairman of that committee, has announced he will hold a markup this year on a drug importation bill.

I do not intend to assert jurisdiction over this proposal, and I believe we should rely upon that regular committee process to work. That is how we get legislation passed in the Senate. Because that is where bipartisanship is formulated, at the committee level.

I hope my colleagues will look at this bill. I wanted to get these ideas out here for discussion. I hope some of my colleagues will want to cosponsor this bill. It is time we got this done, and this is the year to get it done, particularly following upon the vote that was in the House of Representatives last year.

We must not let partisan politics get in the way, and I think it is getting a little bit in the way right now. I hope we overcome that. I hope I am able to develop a relationship with Democrats, once again, to work on this bill in a bipartisan way. If we do not do this, I think there is going to be a penalty paid at the ballot box in November.

The American consumers are waiting. Let's get the job done.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary be printed in the Record.