Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005

Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I broke new ground together when we introduced the first bipartisan Medicare Prescription drug bill known as SPICE back in 1999. And after Congress passed the historic Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Senator Wyden and I authored legislation aimed at ensuring long term value of the drug benefit to seniors. Today we are joined again by Senator Feinstein, who has been committed with us to forging a bipartisan effort to do what we must today--to move beyond offering a benefit and ensure that we meet our obligation to address affordability.

When we consider both a recent ten year cost estimate of over $534 billion for the prescription drug benefit, and drug price increases which have rapidly outpaced inflation and earnings, we could see the benefit to seniors depreciated--and the cost to the Federal Government increased. So today we introduce The Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005, MEND, today to manage costs, and assure seniors will receive better value for their dollar.

This bill provides both better consumer information to help beneficiaries and the negotiation power to assure that the power of millions of seniors will result in competitive pricing. That is why two of our colleagues--Senators McCain and Feingold--have now joined us in this effort.

Ours is a simple approach informed by a ``healthy dosage'' of common sense. It simply makes no sense to cut off the ability of the HHS Secretary--the individual who is responsible for the success of this benefit--from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. That's why our legislation repeals the ``noninterference provision'' of the prescription drug bill and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in negotiations on drug prices. Last month when Secretary Thompson announced his departure from HHS, he described several issues of critical concern--one of these was that he had been barred from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. He noted, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate''. And for good reason! The Congressional Budget

Office has confirmed that this negotiation authority can help us realize savings, particularly for drugs that lack significant competition.

When Senator Gregg recently queried Secretary Leavitt about keeping the cost of the Part D program within the original $400 billion budget, and the Secretary asserted that ``It's my practice as a manager to act within my budget''. That will require competition, so I ask why wouldn't we employ negotiation to do what it does best--drive costs down? I asked Secretary Leavitt about negotiation at his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee and he told me, ``I know little about negotiation authority, but there are times when the national government should play a role''. Well, that time is now. Senator Wyden and I have received our first report on drug price trends from the GAO, and the news isn't good. Since 2000, the increase in prescription drug prices has increase at two to three times the rate of inflation. And worse, we found the rate spiked in 2002, just as we were working to create a prescription drug benefit. It's no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office projects an annual increase of about 8.5 percent in costs, most of which can be attributed to the rise in prices. But we can address this problem, and avoid depreciating the value of this long sought benefit.

To do so you must do more than simply end the prohibition on the Secretary negotiating, you must do more than simply granting permissive authority, you must actually ensure that when needed, the Secretary will negotiate.

So our legislation will not only empower the HHS Secretary to negotiate but, under two circumstances, requires it. For those beneficiaries who do not have access to two prescription drug plans, the Secretary steps in with a fallback plan, and this plan must be competitive--so the Secretary must assure that he negotiates on behalf of those beneficiaries. In addition, the Secretary must be responsive to the needs of the plan providers. When a manufacturer simply is not inclined to negotiate--as may occur when competition for a drug is lacking--then the Secretary must respond when plans request his assistance in negotiations.

Some will say this will compel excessive involvement by the Secretary, but the truth is quite to the contrary. Plans will compete to gain advantage, and it is when they are stymied and cannot achieve reasonable discounts that they will call upon the Secretary. CBO foresaw one such situation--when a drug lacks significant competition-- and those are among our most expensive drugs!

The buying power of millions of seniors should produce substantial savings, but at the same time, competitive plans won't help if seniors cannot identify which plan is right for them.

Senator Wyden and I believe we must arm beneficiaries with information. Our bill requires GAO to track not only the price of drugs under the Medicare program, but calls for that price to be compared to the price negotiated by the VA, DOD and other privately run systems. We will have a measure of how well the seniors are being served.

This bill will also help seniors determine which Medicare plan offers the most savings by requiring that beginning in 2007 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine the savings received from each plan by the average Medicare beneficiary, using a market basket of commonly-used drugs. This will allow seniors to make the proverbial ``apples to apples'' comparison. This information will be shared with all beneficiaries during the annual enrollment period each fall, and will be a great help as a starting point for seniors to compare plans.

Our legislation will make annual the report Senator Wyden and I first requested following passage of the prescription drug bill in 2003. We asked the GAO to review changes in drug prices from 2000 through 2003, focusing on the drugs most likely to be used by seniors, and the results are in: Prescription drug prices have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation.

Finally, many advocates and seniors alike have raised questions about the restriction of Medigap policies under the new Part D benefit. The prohibition of the sale of new Medigap policies which include prescription drug coverage has prompted the need for a re-examination of the role of Medigap plans. So we have directed the Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies and to evaluate the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. It is an important step in looking at the future of Medigap plans. With this report in hand, we will have the information necessary to make wise adjustments.

Some say we don't need to act now. But we have seen drug price increases which are driving costs upwards--contributing to the estimated 8.5 percent annual increases in costs projected by CBO. We simply cannot wait until 2006 to address the issue of drug prices. This bill provides beneficiaries and our government with the information and tools necessary to achieve access to low-cost prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill so that we can pass it quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Rockefeller and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senators Stevens and Inouye, to introduce legislation to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or ``USF,'' the institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone itself, and this bill today marks one key step in ensuring that this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century.

The legislation introduced today pertains specifically to the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. This bill is very similar to S. 2994, a Universal Service bill that I introduced during the last session of Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily-imposed accounting rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem.

According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more-or-less monthly basis, of monies derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent.

After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last summer, the entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for one year until a permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I decided to pursue a one-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides that permanent solution: a permanent exemption from the Anti- Deficiency Act.

Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other federal programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF has a funding mechanism different from most federal programs. The USF functioned very well for many years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well-- and also a spike in the USF surcharge on consumers' telephone bills.

Finally, I want to ensure my colleagues that a permanent exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act poses no risk of increased fraud or abuse in the E-Rate Program or in Universal Service as a whole. Some well- publicized abuses of E-Rate did in fact occur, and I will fully support efforts to stamp out such government waste. But the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely no connection between the Anti-Deficiency Act land the ability of the Inspector General to effectively monitor the program to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse. As such, government waste cannot be used as a valid reason for opposing this bill.

Last fall we undertook a bipartisan effort among Members on the committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. I am grateful of the continuing bipartisan support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as of Senator Rockefeller, and it is my hope that we can proceed in similar fashion to make this exemption permanent.

Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005, legislation which will address the critical, comprehensive and integrated research needed for abrupt climate change. In the 108th, this legislation was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Its merits are just as pressing, if not more critical, for the 109th Congress as the legislation calls for developing and coordinating a research program over 6 years aimed at understanding, assessing, and predicting both human-induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change.

The abrupt climate change research issue is one that the Maine Senate delegation has been working on for the past 3\1/2\ years, the genesis of which goes back to a Climate Change Conference in Maine in October 2001, which was attended by a wide array of stakeholders in the State who have been active in climate change issues for a number of years.

I believe we all ought to be concerned by the picture scientific research is painting, which points to the reality and potential impact of abrupt shifts in climate. The December 2001 National Academy of Sciences report documented a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests our global climate can swing abruptly, not gradually over time. Moreover, such sudden jumps, and I quote from the Academies' report, ``are not only possible but likely in the future.''

Rather than dismiss this, as some have, as the ``science de jour'' I prefer to take this as a serious warning, based on the best available evidence and analysis. The risk of complacency is to gamble immense environmental and societal consequences. That's why the NAS report urged that a new research program be initiated to examine the potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. And that's also why, back in May of 2002, when NOAA's Admiral Lautenbacher was before the Commerce Committee testifying on NOAA's FY 2003 Budget, I raised the need for abrupt climate change studies, and the Admiral agreed this is a pressing priority. Since the introduction of the research bill in the 108th Congress, NOAA, in a January 15, 2004 report, stated that calendar year 2003 tied 2002 as the 2nd warmest year on record.

Mr. President, as co-chair of the independent International Climate Change Taskforce, I was pleased to disseminate to my colleagues the recently published Taskforce report, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' The ICCT includes leaders from public service, science, business and civil society, from both developed and developing countries. Our goal was to find common ground through recommendations that could be helpful to all governments and policymakers worldwide for developing solutions to address climate change.

Indeed, our first recommendation calls for a long-term objective to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial level by 2100. This target would limit the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change if all countries take various actions. I will ask unanimous consent to submit the ICCT's ten recommendations for the Record. In the upcoming weeks and months, I will be introducing legislation that reflects these public policy recommendations.

The temperature goal is crucial to the debate on abrupt climate change because, if the earth goes beyond the 2 degree C level, scientists have suggested that risks to both ecosystems and humans increase significantly. As the risks of accelerated or--as our report stated--``runaway'' climate change increases, a ``tipping point'' could be reached that would include the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, leading to the rise of sea levels.

On this score, abrupt and paleoclimate research can greatly enhance the evolving body of scientific evidence, and that is why Senator Lautenberg and I spearheaded the effort last year to restore the FY2005 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, research programs that will enable us to examine past climate change patterns. This information will guide the development of future models to assist both scientists and policymakers to improve their understanding of climate change through, for instance, the CORC-ARCHES program and paleo- climate research. The University of Maine, under the direction of Dr. George Denton, has been part of the decades-long consortium that has been studying deep ocean currents in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica, and ice core samples from northern latitudes, which is helping scientists command a greater understanding of abrupt climate change.

There have also been other, newer scientific reports that should give us great pause. Among those reports, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment states, ``Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.''

There is scientific observational evidence that indicates that regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, are already affecting a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the

world. Off the coast of Canada lies a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has existed on the coast for 3,000 years, but it is now disintegrating. That melting has been accelerating over the past 2 years. In addition, coral reefs, an irreplaceable marine resource around the world, are under tremendous stress as coral bleaching is induced by high water temperatures. Indeed, there are reports of a massive region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life across the entire Caribbean Basin.

As we turn to the future, we should harbor no illusions that we are looking at a timetable measured in epochs. We are talking about tens of thousands of years. To the contrary, observed changes tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could vanish in 15 years, the glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible may disappear in another 10 years, and in Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5 and one half degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting permafrost and dying forests.

So my question is, what are we waiting for? Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave to future generations and the next millennium? Why not apply now the lessons of the past and present?

Indeed, if ``past is prologue,'' and I believe it is, this bill will improve our understanding of climate change by calling for research to bolster existing, global records of past abrupt climate change, through the study of ice cores, for instance. In this manner we can improve scientific understanding of the mechanisms of abrupt climate change, and incorporate this knowledge into current scientific models. Even for those who question prevailing scientific opinion on the climate change issue, this bill should hold the appeal of increasing our stock of knowledge, wherever it may lead.

In the final analysis, we need to carry out research that will allow us to gauge climate change secrets of the past, so we in turn might develop future models that will assist both scientists and policymakers in understanding climate change. The reality is, there is no doubt our global climate has changed in the past. There should similarly be no question that it would be beneficial to understand the manner in which that change has occurred and why, and so I urge my colleague's support for this legislation, and will work for its passage out of the Commerce Committee and to the Senate floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Summary of Main Recommendations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Ensign and Senator Bennett to introduce this bill, which will establish a National Heritage Route in eastern Nevada and western Utah.

National Heritage areas, corridors, and routes are designated regions in which residents and businesses, as well as local and tribal governments join together in partnership to conserve and celebrate cultural heritage and special landscapes. The Great Basin National Heritage Route includes historic mining camps and ghost towns, Mormon and other pioneer settlements, as well as Native American communities. The Route passes through classic Great Basin country along the trails of the Pony Express and the Overland Stage. Cultural resources within the route include highly valued Native American archaeological sites dating back to the Fremont Culture.

The creation of this Heritage Route will bring much deserved attention to the Great Basin's natural wonders. Passing through Millard County, UT, and parts of the Duckwater Reservation and White Pine County in Nevada, the Route contains items of great biological and geological interest. In Nevada, it encompasses forests of bristlecone pine, the oldest living things on the earth. In Utah, the Route includes native Bonneville cutthroat trout as well as other distinctive species and ecological communities.

Designation of the corridor as a Heritage Route will also ensure long-term protection of key educational and recreational opportunities without compromising traditional local use of the land. The Great Basin National Heritage Route will provide a framework for celebrating Nevada's and Utah's rich historic, archaeological, cultural, and natural resources for both visitors and residents.

The bill will establish a board of directors consisting of local officials from both counties and tribes to manage the designated route. The board will develop a management plan within 3 years of the bill's passage, and the Secretary of the Interior will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Directors for the management of the resources of the heritage route. Our legislation authorizes up to $10 million to carry out the Act but limits Federal funding to no more than 50 percent of the project's cost. The bill allows the Secretary to provide assistance for 15 years after the bill is enacted.

Our bill benefits not just the people of Nevada and Utah, but citizens of every State in our Union. It highlights an area of outstanding cultural and natural value and brings people together to celebrate common values and a common history of which we all can be proud.

I was pleased that my distinguished colleagues recognized the value of this legislation during the 108th Congress and supported its passage by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and by the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dandini Research Park Transfer Act on behalf of myself and Senator Ensign. This bill will transfer an important tract of land in Washoe County, NV, to the University and Community College System of Nevada.

The University of Nevada holds two patents from the Bureau of Land Management for approximately 467 acres of public land located north of downtown Reno. In the early 1970s, the land was patented to the university pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Now known as the Dandini Research Park, it is the home of Truckee Meadows Community College and the Desert Research Institute's Northern Nevada Science Center.

Truckee Meadows Community College and its predecessor, Western Nevada Community College, have provided educational programs and opportunities to the residents of Reno, Sparks, and the surrounding communities for over 30 years. Construction of the College's facilities on the Dandini campus began in 1975, shortly after conveyance of the original patents.

For over 25 years the Desert Research Institute has excelled in applied scientific research and the application of technologies to improve people's lives in Nevada and throughout the world. Its three core divisions of Atmospheric, Hydrologic, and Earth and Ecosystem Sciences cooperate with two interdisciplinary centers to provide innovative solutions to pressing environmental problems. The Center for Arid Lands Environmental Management and the Center for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific understanding to the effective management of natural resources while addressing our needs for economic diversification and science-based educational opportunities. In doing so, DRI undertakes fundamental scientific research in Nevada and around the globe. For example, as a key participant in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Research Program, DRI plays a critical role in identifying and helping protect the region's scarce water resources.

DRI shares its facility with the Western Regional Climate Center, one of six regional climate centers operating under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate program. The Western Regional Climate Center conducts applied research and provides high quality climate data and information pertaining to the western United States.

The Desert Research Institute wishes to expand its Northern Nevada Science Center. DRI is considering an innovative means of financing the expansion, which would involve a private developer who would build and finance the expansion and lease it back to DRI. The private developers with whom DRI has discussed the proposal, as well as the Institute's counsel, however, have pointed out that the terms of the patents and the restrictions imposed by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act represent obstacles to such an arrangement.

Truckee Meadows Community College and the Northern Nevada Science Center are exceptional assets of the scientific and educational community in the Truckee Meadows. The Center serves not only the citizens of Washoe County, but the needs of all Nevadans and the western United States as well. It deserves the opportunity to grow and prosper with the community--one of the fastest-growing communities in the Nation.

The bill Senator Ensign and I present to you today simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to the University and Community College System of Nevada. Because of the overwhelming public benefit provided by the Center, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the University cover the costs of the transaction.

During the 108th Congress this legislation received strong support from my colleagues and was passed by both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my fellow senators during this session to usher this important legislation towards final passage.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pahrump American Legion Post Land Conveyance Act for myself and Senator Ensign. This Act will transfer approximately 5 acres of BLM land in Pahrump, NV, to the American Legion for the purpose of constructing a post home and other facilities that will benefit veterans' groups and the local community.

The American Legion and other non-profit organizations that represent our Nation's veterans in the vicinity of Pahrump have tripled in size over the last 10 years. The local memberships of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans will soon exceed 1,000 members, and these groups will continue to expand as Pahrump draws more and more new residents.

The existing facility used by the veterans in Pahrump was built by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the 1960s. It is much too small and not at all adequate for the veterans' current needs. The nearest facility that can accommodate them is located in Las Vegas more than 60 miles away.

The Pahrump American Legion would like to build a post building, veterans' garden, and memorial park. These new facilities would benefit not only the local veterans, but would be made available--at no cost-- for community activities. The American Legion has tried for over six years to acquire a suitable tract of land to provide a home for a new veterans center. The Legion started a pledge campaign and raised over $16,000 for the building fund before the parcel of land they sought to acquire was removed from consideration by the BLM. Unfortunately, other tracts of land that might represent alternative sites in Pahrump are not suitable.

This situation is truly regrettable. Without a home, the Pahrump American Legion Post can't offer the kind of services and programs that the veterans in the area deserve. Our veterans aren't the only ones who are suffering, either. All across the United States, the American Legion is deservedly famous for supporting community activities like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, as well as the National Oratorical Contest, American Legion Baseball, Girls and Boys State, and other activities for young people. All of these worthy groups and projects would benefit from the construction of a new post home, and from the conveyance of this small parcel of federal land. In sum, this bill is good for veterans, good for kids, and good for hard-working Nevada families.

Our bill simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to American Legion ``Edward H McDaniel'' Post No. 22 in Pahrump. Because of the great public benefit such a facility will provide, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the American Legion cover the costs of the transaction.

I was pleased that my distinguished colleagues recognized the value of this legislation during the 108th Congress and supported its passage by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and by the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce this bill, which will address a long standing public land issue in central Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the lands in the State of Nevada. This means that Nevadans must frequently seek the assistance of Congress to deal with land issues that would otherwise be relatively uncomplicated. Today we offer a bill to address a simple land ownership issue in Lander and Eureka Counties.

This bill would convey two small cemeteries in central Nevada from federal control back to the local communities to which they should belong. The cemeteries in question the Kingston Cemetery in Lander County and the Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Eureka County--were first established by pioneers and immigrants who settled the isolated high desert valleys of the Great Basin in the mid-1800s. These same pioneers created the Kingston and Maiden's Grave cemeteries to serve as sacred resting places for friends and family. Unfortunately, years after their founding, the private nature of these lands was overlooked and the cemeteries were placed in the hands of federal land management agencies. Today much of the original Kingston Cemetery is on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Beowawe sits on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Under current law, these agencies must sell the cemeteries back to the communities at fair market value. However, these historic cemeteries were established prior to the designation of the Federal agencies that now manage them. For years, Lander County has been required to lease much of the Kingston Cemetery from the Forest

Service. The Forest Service previously sold approximately 1 acre to the Town of Kingston, but this land transfer did not allow for the protection of uncharted graves or for the implementation of the communty' s original site plan.

Because the people of Beowawe and Kingston should not have to buy or lease cemeteries that are rightfully theirs, our bill provides for the simple conveyance of the Maiden's Grave Cemetery to Eureka County and the balance of the original location of the Kingston Cemetery to Lander County, NV. The conveyances provided by this bill will benefit our federal land managers as well as our rural communities. The disposal of these small parcels of land for no consideration will benefit the United States because they represent isolated tracts that prove difficult to manage for public use.

In the 108th Congress I was pleased that this bill received approval from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and from the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete this small conveyance during the current Congress. It is time that we restore ownership of these two small rural cemeteries to the communities to which they rightfully belong.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's small businesses, their employees and their employees' families. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. At the same time, more than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they're called to defend our Nation. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to resist employees called up for active duty and to replace them with a temporary employee. However, too many small businesses are unable to provide this assistance (or temporarily replace the employee called up to active duty. I believe the Federal Government must take action to help small businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect small business employees and their families from suffering unnecessary financial hardship to serve our Nation. That is why I am again introducing legislation that will provide an immediate tax credit assist both military reservists who are called to active duty and the small businesses who must endure their absence.

The Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I am introducing today will provide immediate

help to affected small businesses through a Federal income tax credit and a reduced withholding requirement to help pay the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty and the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Specifically, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $21,000 to any very small business, defined as any business with up to 50 employees, whose employee has been called up for active duty. Up to $15,000 for businesses that pay any difference in salary for the activated reservist and up to an additional $6,000 for the business to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. For small manufacturers with up to 100 employees, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $30,000, up to $20,000 for small manufacturers that pay all or part of the difference in salary for the reservist called to duty and up to $10,000 for small manufacturers to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. This tax credit is critically necessary if we are to immediately help struggling entrepreneurs keep their small businesses running after the loss of an employee to temporary military service. Too many American small manufacturers are already facing a difficult economy and strong international competition. This legislation provides higher thresholds for small manufacturers because they need greater help and they employ more technical workers who typically command higher salaries and are more difficult to replace. It will also help cushion the financial cost of being a citizen solder for our reservists.

To fight our wars and to meet our military responsibilities, the United States supplements its regular, standing military with reservists, citizen soldiers who serve nobly. Since 1973, the United States has built an all-volunteer military of which reservists are an essential part. Our reservists are much more than weekend warriors. When they are called to active duty, they are an essential ingredient of any long-term or significant deployment of American forces. Everyone knows the contributions our reservists have made in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The use of reservists is a significant way to reduce the costs of maintaining a standing army, and those costs, in lieu of having a critical reservist component, are far higher than the cost of providing the small, targeted tax credit offered by this legislation.

Reservists have become a vital component of U.S. forces in Iraq and the war on terror. On September 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 authorizing the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to 2 years of active duty. Since October 2002, there has been a presidentially approved ceiling of 300,000 on the number of reservists that can be on duty at anyone time. Some 475,000 reserves have been called up cumulatively since the issuance of the original Executive Order. Today, there are about 193,458 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism. Of the approximately 150,000 troops serving in Iraq, 40 percent are reserves. This number is expected to increase to approximately 50 percent in the near future as current troop deployments mobilize.

Earlier this month, published reports showed that Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the Commander of the Reserve, has told Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker that the burdens placed on military reservists since the September 11, 2001 attacks, combined with dysfunctional Pentagon policies, have damaged morale and retention and threaten to turn the Army Reserve into a broken force. Lt. Gen. Helmly criticized Pentagon decisions to extend reservists tours in war zones, giving troops as little as 3 days' notice before mobilizations, and calling reservists to active duty after they had served and returned to civilian life. Such policies have strained the Army Reserve to the point that the 200,000 force could be unable to carry out future missions.

Both the Army Reserve and National Guard have suffered shortfalls in recruitment because of the unpredictability, extended call-ups and stop loss policies associated with the Iraq war. National Guard officials said last month that the service must be overhauled.

Everyone knows that small businesses continue to be a most effective at creating new jobs and spurring economic growth nationwide. Small businesses employ over 50 percent of the nation's workforce. Nationwide, small businesses are currently creating 75 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, many of these small businesses provide quality goods and services that are a vital link in the supply chain for our national defense. Many of these small companies need immediate help to keep their business going while their employees are sacrificing for our country in Iraq and elsewhere.

Many of our reservists left their companies in good shape. They were profitable, providing goods or services, creating jobs, adding to the tax base. Our Nation should do everything possible to ensure that upon their return, reservists and their businesses do not suffer unnecessary hardships, which range from impaired operations and financial ruin to deserted clients, layoffs, and even closure. Pedro Sotelo, a 33-year- old veteran from Kansas City, MO, was a reservist for 9 years. From 1997 to 2004 he was called up to active duty 10 times. Each time he was activated, he saw his income drop from $60,000 a year as a small business sheet metal worker to about $30,000 the Army paid him as a staff sergeant. While he was away serving his country, the bills would just keep pilling up. Eventually his credit rating plummeted. The continual financial strain contributed to the end of his first marriage, and after 9 years of service, Mr. Sotelo left the military to take a job selling cars. He is still recovering from the financial ruin created by his service, but I am happy to say that Mr. Sotelo has remarried and was recently promoted to manager at his dealership. Had the bill I introduce today been available for Staff Sergeant Sotelo, his small business employer could have kept his income steady and received a tax credit to cover half of the costs of doing so.

Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, 41 percent of military reservists and National Guard members, like Staff Sergeant Sotelo, face a pay cut when they're called for active duty in our armed forces. Many of these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income to make up for the salary disparity for military reservists called to active duty, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. This makes it more difficult for small businesses to attract and keep workers. I think it is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our Nation. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family.

Back in 1999, I wrote the Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act, which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress and authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding, including disaster loans, for small businesses that have had a military reservist called up for active duty. It also established a low-interest economic injury loan program administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans have been available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. However, in today's economy, many small businesses are unable to take on additional debt to continue their operations. These small businesses need immediate tax relief to assist them in hiring a replacement and to pay their reservist worker who is away serving our country.

This bill will help every small business whose owner, manager or employee is called to active duty. Most immediately, this bill will assist those small businesses whose employees are in service in Iraq and elsewhere but the act also applies to future contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies.

By helping our reservists and the small businesses that employ them, we can ensure that our great tradition of

citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family.

I ask all my colleagues to support this important legislation to help both military reservists and the small businesses they are forced to leave when they are called up for active duty.

Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I broke new ground together when we introduced the first bipartisan Medicare Prescription drug bill known as SPICE back in 1999. And after Congress passed the historic Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Senator Wyden and I authored legislation aimed at ensuring long term value of the drug benefit to seniors. Today we are joined again by Senator Feinstein, who has been committed with us to forging a bipartisan effort to do what we must today--to move beyond offering a benefit and ensure that we meet our obligation to address affordability.

When we consider both a recent ten year cost estimate of over $534 billion for the prescription drug benefit, and drug price increases which have rapidly outpaced inflation and earnings, we could see the benefit to seniors depreciated--and the cost to the Federal Government increased. So today we introduce The Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005, MEND, today to manage costs, and assure seniors will receive better value for their dollar.

This bill provides both better consumer information to help beneficiaries and the negotiation power to assure that the power of millions of seniors will result in competitive pricing. That is why two of our colleagues--Senators McCain and Feingold--have now joined us in this effort.

Ours is a simple approach informed by a ``healthy dosage'' of common sense. It simply makes no sense to cut off the ability of the HHS Secretary--the individual who is responsible for the success of this benefit--from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. That's why our legislation repeals the ``noninterference provision'' of the prescription drug bill and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in negotiations on drug prices. Last month when Secretary Thompson announced his departure from HHS, he described several issues of critical concern--one of these was that he had been barred from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. He noted, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate''. And for good reason! The Congressional Budget

Office has confirmed that this negotiation authority can help us realize savings, particularly for drugs that lack significant competition.

When Senator Gregg recently queried Secretary Leavitt about keeping the cost of the Part D program within the original $400 billion budget, and the Secretary asserted that ``It's my practice as a manager to act within my budget''. That will require competition, so I ask why wouldn't we employ negotiation to do what it does best--drive costs down? I asked Secretary Leavitt about negotiation at his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee and he told me, ``I know little about negotiation authority, but there are times when the national government should play a role''. Well, that time is now. Senator Wyden and I have received our first report on drug price trends from the GAO, and the news isn't good. Since 2000, the increase in prescription drug prices has increase at two to three times the rate of inflation. And worse, we found the rate spiked in 2002, just as we were working to create a prescription drug benefit. It's no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office projects an annual increase of about 8.5 percent in costs, most of which can be attributed to the rise in prices. But we can address this problem, and avoid depreciating the value of this long sought benefit.

To do so you must do more than simply end the prohibition on the Secretary negotiating, you must do more than simply granting permissive authority, you must actually ensure that when needed, the Secretary will negotiate.

So our legislation will not only empower the HHS Secretary to negotiate but, under two circumstances, requires it. For those beneficiaries who do not have access to two prescription drug plans, the Secretary steps in with a fallback plan, and this plan must be competitive--so the Secretary must assure that he negotiates on behalf of those beneficiaries. In addition, the Secretary must be responsive to the needs of the plan providers. When a manufacturer simply is not inclined to negotiate--as may occur when competition for a drug is lacking--then the Secretary must respond when plans request his assistance in negotiations.

Some will say this will compel excessive involvement by the Secretary, but the truth is quite to the contrary. Plans will compete to gain advantage, and it is when they are stymied and cannot achieve reasonable discounts that they will call upon the Secretary. CBO foresaw one such situation--when a drug lacks significant competition-- and those are among our most expensive drugs!

The buying power of millions of seniors should produce substantial savings, but at the same time, competitive plans won't help if seniors cannot identify which plan is right for them.

Senator Wyden and I believe we must arm beneficiaries with information. Our bill requires GAO to track not only the price of drugs under the Medicare program, but calls for that price to be compared to the price negotiated by the VA, DOD and other privately run systems. We will have a measure of how well the seniors are being served.

This bill will also help seniors determine which Medicare plan offers the most savings by requiring that beginning in 2007 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine the savings received from each plan by the average Medicare beneficiary, using a market basket of commonly-used drugs. This will allow seniors to make the proverbial ``apples to apples'' comparison. This information will be shared with all beneficiaries during the annual enrollment period each fall, and will be a great help as a starting point for seniors to compare plans.

Our legislation will make annual the report Senator Wyden and I first requested following passage of the prescription drug bill in 2003. We asked the GAO to review changes in drug prices from 2000 through 2003, focusing on the drugs most likely to be used by seniors, and the results are in: Prescription drug prices have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation.

Finally, many advocates and seniors alike have raised questions about the restriction of Medigap policies under the new Part D benefit. The prohibition of the sale of new Medigap policies which include prescription drug coverage has prompted the need for a re-examination of the role of Medigap plans. So we have directed the Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies and to evaluate the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. It is an important step in looking at the future of Medigap plans. With this report in hand, we will have the information necessary to make wise adjustments.

Some say we don't need to act now. But we have seen drug price increases which are driving costs upwards--contributing to the estimated 8.5 percent annual increases in costs projected by CBO. We simply cannot wait until 2006 to address the issue of drug prices. This bill provides beneficiaries and our government with the information and tools necessary to achieve access to low-cost prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill so that we can pass it quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator Wyden and Senator McCain in introducing the bipartisan Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs, MEND, Act of 2005. This legislation is an important step toward controlling the spiraling cost of prescription drugs for America's seniors.

The MEND Act addresses what I saw as a major weakness of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 when I voted for the bill. The Medicare Modernization Act offers an opportunity for the Federal Government via the Secretary of Health and Human Services to harness its bulk purchasing power to deliver lower drug prices for our seniors.

However, the Medicare bill prohibits the HHS Secretary from doing just that.

I have said several times that I would work to see that this prohibition on the HHS Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers be stricken and I was pleased that Secretary Tommy Thompson, upon announcing his departure as HHS Secretary, acknowledged publicly that he sought the negotiating power that this legislation provides. Secretary Thompson said, ``I would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate.''

First and foremost the bill strikes the prohibition language in the Medicare bill, also called the noninterference provision.

I strongly believe that the HHS Secretary should be given the authority similar to that of other Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate prices with manufacturers of prescription drugs to ensure that beneficiaries pay the lowest possible price for their prescription drug plans.

The CBO has told us that the effect of striking the ``noninterference'' provision would have a ``negligible effect'' on federal spending. CBO's conclusion is based on their prediction that private plans will be able to obtain savings that will be greater than what the Secretary will be able to achieve and that simply striking this provision does not ensure that the Secretary will use the negotiation authority.

Meanwhile, our seniors are being given no guarantee that private plan competition will mean lower drug prices for them. So while CBO makes this conclusion that private market forces will bring about savings, the federal government is forced to sit on the sidelines, unable to leverage its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. The Federal Government cannot even participate in negotiations for prescription drug plans for which it assumes the risk.

That is simply wrong and the MEND Act corrects this flaw in the Medicare bill.

Second, if a future HHS Secretary does not agree with Secretary Thompson's view that he be given the opportunity to negotiate with drug manufacturers, there must be circumstances under which the Secretary is required by law to negotiate.

The MEND Act mandates two scenarios under which the Secretary must negotiate with manufacturers. First, the Secretary must negotiate with manufacturers of covered Part D drugs for the fallback prescription drug plan.

The ``fallback'' plan is a guaranteed drug benefit to beneficiaries living in areas where only one private plan, or none, shows up. In areas where a ``fallback'' prescription drug plan is triggered, the federal government must offer the standard drug benefit and assume performance risk. However, the Federal Government does not have a say in the prices manufacturers charge them in the ``fallback.''

To ensure that the Federal Government achieves the lowest available price for enrollees in a ``fallback'' plan, the MEND Act requires that the Secretary negotiate drug prices in such plans.

The MEND Act also requires the Secretary to participate in negotiations upon the request of an approved prescription drug plan or Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan.

If the untested theory that private plans can achieve larger drug price discounts than the Secretary could negotiate proves to be false because the smaller insurers in the private market cannot achieve the savings larger, more established companies can, a company can petition the Secretary to negotiate with drug manufacturers on their behalf.

So that seniors can make an ``apples to apples'' comparison when determining which drug plan offers them the most competitive drug prices, the bill requires that the Secretary of HHS determine the average aggregate beneficiary costs and savings basic prescription drug plans are able to achieve to better inform seniors about which plan might suit them best.

I have heard concerns raised by many of my constituents about the impact the Medicare bill will have on their Medigap plans. This bill directs the HHS Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies in the new drug benefit for the purpose of evaluating its impact on Medicare beneficiaries.

Lastly, the bill requires GAO to conduct a review of the retail cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. during 2000 through 2003 with an emphasis on the prescription drugs most utilized for individuals age 65 or older. Subsequent reviews will be required annually through 2007.

And, it requires GAO to conduct an annual study that compares the average retail cost in the U.S. for each of the 20 most utilized prescription drugs for individuals 65 or older with the average price at which private health plans acquire each such drug, the average price at which the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration each acquire such drug, and the average negotiated price for each such drug that eligible beneficiaries enrolled in a prescription drug plan under Part D of Medicare pay.

As someone who voted for the Medicare bill and has seen the cost estimate of that bill go from $400 billion to $534 billion and someone who is very concerned about the growth of entitlement spending, I believe that this bill will shed light on one of the big drivers of health care costs, the cost of prescription drugs.

CBO projects that Americans over 65 will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years. Recent studies of U.S. and Canadian drug-price comparisons show that, on average, prices charged by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers were higher in the U.S., most recently by about 70 percent.

For example, an American consumer pays $62.99 for a 30-day supply of the popular cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor. The same consumer in Canada is paying $35.42. For Prevacid, used to treat acid reflux, an American consumer pays $120.99 for a 30-day supply whereas a Canadian consumer pays $44.27.

If we do not address the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs in this country today, we threaten the viability of programs like Medicare for future generations. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Wyden and McCain in the fight for lower prescription drug prices for our seniors.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.