Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will yield the man 1 minute of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I know the Senator from Connecticut has well-intentioned motivations behind his amendment. The reason why I oppose the amendment is not because of any ill intent. But we have very carefully crafted this product before us after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and the open season and the practice there. As far as I know, we do not run into Federal employees complaining because they cannot change more often than once a year. So I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It has some costs. I will speak about that. The open enrollment period in S. 1, as I said, is modeled after the annual open enrollment period of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I believe this program has been in place for more than 40 years, so we have a lot of experience with it. Consequently, it is a good pattern for us to craft the legislation before us for senior citizens in retirement for their health benefits.

Each year seniors would be able to examine the choice of plans and select the plan that is best suited to their needs. The amendment before us proposes to allow seniors to change plans more than once during a continuous open enrollment period that would last for 2 years. While this may seem a good idea on the surface, it is an invitation, I believe, to more expensive health care for our seniors. I think it is going to lead to chaos and plan instability.

It is very important, at least in the opening years, as we get these new programs underway that there be some predictability in order to encourage more plans to compete. The more plans competing, the better benefits we ought to get for our seniors at a lower price.

It seems to me that providing a long, continuous open enrollment period allows any and all seniors to wait until they are sick before enrolling in a more comprehensive plan. You can understand that we need to have a situation where people are seen buying insurance and doing it in a way in which they manage their own risk as opposed to doing it in the case of only an emergency. This is where you get the insurance aspect that is so important in what we are trying to accomplish.

So if you do that, as the Senator from Connecticut suggests, it is going to add costs to the program because it permits healthy enrollees to stay in the cheaper basic plan until an illness drives them to a generous plan. The generous plan then would become the plan just for sick enrollees.

I have a statement here that the CBO says this would have a cost of $8 billion over the years 2004 to 2008, and $23 billion for the 10-year period 2004 to 2013.

I am going to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an equal 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I have some sympathy for what the Senator from Connecticut says because so many times I have said to my constituents, this is voluntary. You are going to have your choice to go into another plan or change plans. I emphasize the ability to change plans. In addition, we have to have some stability even in the early years. Most importantly, when we are developing a new prescription drug benefit, the most vast improvement in Medicare in 35 years, I think it demands more stability than when you get down the road a ways.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.

Maybe I should ask, are we under time constraints?

What the Senator from New Jersey wants to do I wish we could do. I personally was somewhat astounded when we asked experts at the Congressional Budget Office, experts at the Office of Management and Budget, experts in the Department of Health and Human Services, how much time it would take to get this new prescription drug program underway. We were advised to start it in the year 2006.

In an ideal world, all seniors would have access to our comprehensive prescription drug benefit next year. But our plan, I am sorry to say, cannot go into effect until 2006. Therefore, we need to do something to help our seniors right now. Part of S. 1 does that. They have been doing it because seniors, as I am sure the Senator from New Jersey is trying to respond to, have been waiting a very long time for Congress to act and pass a prescription drug benefit, in the end, helping them with the tremendous costs they are paying for prescription drugs.

This obviously is not satisfying to the Senator from New Jersey who would like to get this plan underway much sooner. Because of the waiting period until the year 2006 to get the very comprehensive program underway, we included in our plan a temporary prescription drug discount card. This is a voluntary program that all seniors can partake of next year. It is available for an annual fee costing no more than $25. Since our low-income seniors need extra help, this fee would be waived. It provides for a 10-percent

to 25-percent discount on all costs of prescription drugs. There are some seniors for whom even a 10-percent to 25-percent discount is still a hardship to purchase prescription drugs. So we have added to this for really low-income seniors to receive a $600 annual help in purchasing prescription drugs during this interim period of time, 2004 and 2005. They will be required to pay a minimal copayment of 10 percent when the spending of the $600 subsidy is in place. Spouses who receive the low- income benefit are also allowed to pool share their deposits.

When the comprehensive drug program begins January 1, 2006, the discount card program automatically ends. However, low-income seniors will be able to use their allotment of $600 until June 2006.

Almost 10 million Medicare beneficiaries with significant prescription drug needs will realize savings from this endorsement program. The Center for Medicare Services projects that the Medicare beneficiaries will save between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion in the program the very first year.

As I said, I feel, not for reasons I like to give to my fellow Senators, that we cannot expect this comprehensive new prescription drug program for seniors, which happens to be the first major improvement in strengthening of Medicare since 1965, to go into effect. Maybe we can push and push and push, but this first major expansion of Medicare in 38 years ought to be carefully done and done right. Consequently, that is why we have deferred to the judgment of the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, as well as the Secretary of HHS. We have tried to compensate for the long period of phasing with the discount card and the $600 subsidy.

I wish I could do more. I wish I could vote for the Senator's amendment but I cannot. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator from New Hampshire will just give me a minute, I have a unanimous consent request on votes coming up I would like to propound.

I ask unanimous consent that at 4:20 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Dayton amendment No. 957, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lincoln amendment, No. 1002; to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment, No. 982, with 2 minutes equally divided for debate for each succeeding vote after the first; further, that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes; and finally that the second and

third votes be limited to 10 minutes in length.

I ask unanimous consent that prior to the first vote, Senator Sununu be recognized for up to 5 minutes in order to offer an amendment.

I modify my unanimous consent request accordingly.

You would have 1 minute and I would have 1 minute.

You will get 2 minutes, one from your leader. Can we go ahead?

I yield back my time and wish to vote now.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I sympathize with those who feel a need to get this program going sooner than we have it in this legislation. But the fact is, CMS has told us it is physically impossible to get this benefit up and running in the year 2004. Now, knowing that, we have provided a prescription drug discount card, starting on January 1, 2004, in order to get immediate relief from the high cost of prescriptions for our seniors.

The amendment would spend close to $24 billion in fiscal year 2004-- the amendment that is before us--and that is money that is not in the budget. We deal with the needs of our seniors in a fair way with this bill, the discount card, and the $600 help for them for each of the next 2 years. So I urge my colleagues to take all this into consideration and oppose the amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd have up to 20 minutes and Senator Grassley up to 10 minutes for debate on amendment Nos. 970 and 998 concurrently. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment No. 970, to be followed by a vote in relation to amendment No. 998, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. tomorrow the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Grassley, or his designee, amendment, regarding the benchmark, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further, that this vote be subject to the approval of both leaders.

I am glad to speak about the man from Connecticut and his amendment but not to support it.

First of all, we need to remember, with or without this subject before the Senate, these plans could be dropped without any hesitation. We can have the prescription drug plan before the Senate, and there could be some reason some companies would drop that. But right now, remember, our passage of this legislation is very much to fill a gap. We are worried about people who do not have any coverage whatever.

As I have said before, we are all very concerned about the future of retirees' benefits and making sure retirees are treated fairly. Under the beneficial before the Senate, retirees get the same protection from high prescription drugs and the costs as any other beneficiary. That is a generous subsidy, far greater than they currently get, which would be zero.

The fact is, typical retiree plans provide much more generous coverage, and the beneficiaries spend much less out of pocket for their prescriptions.

There has been a great deal of interest in the assumption by the Congressional Budget Office that corporations are going to drop their coverage of prescription drugs for about 37 percent of the retirees in retiree health plans over the next 10 years. What we cannot forget is employers, as I indicated, are already dropping or, maybe more, scaling back retiree health benefits not because of our legislation but because retiree health benefits are rising because of very high health care costs. They have already been dropping plans or cutting them back for at least a decade, a point made by my colleague, Senator Dodd.

We have worked hard to address this problem in the underlying legislation. One of the most significant future liabilities faced by retiree plans is the cost of prescription drugs. We have given employers serious and generous subsidies. The Dodd amendment proposes to boost subsidies for employers beyond the 64 percent we have given them already. This change would send millions more in taxpayers dollars to these corporations during the next decade. We had to put priorities first.

We have $400 billion. We have looked at States and the problems of dual eligibles. We looked at corporate retiree plans and what might happen and what can we do to keep those that are going out of business or dumping theirs on a government plan. We have worked with a lot of different problems. We have had to do the best we can to squeeze within that $400 billion. We have tried to help the States to some extent on dual eligibles. We are trying to help corporations with incentives not to dump their retirees on this plan. I can go down a long list we have tried to squeeze in and prioritize.

The overriding goal was to help those who had no drug plans whatever. That was very much a high priority. We have maybe 30 percent or a little more on private plans. We have people on Medicare with Medigap policies. We have people who are duly eligible subject to Medicaid. But we have 30 percent or more with zilch. We go beyond just helping those who do not have any plan. But that has been our priority. We tried to do it in a way that people who have better--and maybe most corporate retiree plans do have better incentives than what we can provide--and they can continue to have better. But we cannot control entirely what corporations are going to do. Particularly, you cannot do that on the amount of money we have here.

As I indicated, this is a very expensive amendment that we cannot squeeze into the $400 billion.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

First, let me explain to the distinguished Presiding Officer why we refer to ``the man from Connecticut.'' When I was going to yield him some time, I didn't think of the word ``Senator.'' I said I will give 1 minute to the man from Connecticut, and I apologize.

First of all, I wish I had an exact number for this amendment. It has

some costs, but I do not have an official score from the Congressional Budget Office so I cannot say that this costs X number of billions of dollars at this point. But it does have some cost.

I am going to try to convince the Senator from Connecticut that we have done a lot in this legislation for people who are low income. Maybe it doesn't go as high up the economic ladder as he would like to have us go. But my point is we have done an awful lot.

We worked very hard to minimize the gap in coverage with resources provided in the budget resolution which would be roughly $400 billion. The bill also provides generous coverage to lower income beneficiaries, those who have income below about $15,000, and couples with incomes below about $20,000. They, in fact, have no gap in coverage. That is 44 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who are completely unaffected by the benefit limit.

In the writing of this bill, a conscious decision was made to devote excess dollars to filling in the gap in coverage for all seniors. Under the underlying bill, the average senior at this income level will still save more than $1,600 annually off the drug spending after paying an affordable monthly premium of $35 per month. This is a savings of about 53 percent off annual drug costs for the average senior who would enroll in the drug benefit.

Let me remind everybody, this drug benefit is optional. People do not have to join it. If anybody is saying I don't want to pay $35 per month to get this sort of coverage, then that person does not have to pay $35 per month for coverage because this is a voluntary program. So the people who enroll in this program would save that $1,600, even beyond the $35-per-month premium.

While I appreciate what the Senator from Connecticut is trying to do, it cannot possibly fit within the $400 billion that we have. We had to draw a limit someplace. We drew the limit at 160 percent of poverty. So I cannot support his amendment. I am sorry to say that to the Senator from Connecticut.

I yield any time I have and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, while I am at it, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on both the Dodd amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it has been almost 10 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--went into effect. Overall, this agreement has been a great success for America's farmers and ranchers. Between 1994 and 2002, U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico grew by 95 percent.

Mexican agriculture has benefited as well from NAFTA. Exports of Mexican agricultural products to the United States increased by almost 97 percent from 1993 to 2001. At the present time, some 78 percent of all agricultural products exported by Mexico are sent to the United States, making the United States by far the largest market for Mexico's agricultural exports. Clearly, the agricultural sectors of both the United States and Mexico have on the whole profited from NAFTA. For this reason, I am confounded by some of the recent actions of the Mexican government that undermine the spirit, if not the letter, of

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code until January 1, 2004. This measure will provide our family farmers with the necessary bankruptcy protections during hard times. However, I remain hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the comprehensive bankruptcy legislation that the House passed not long ago. That bill makes Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent, so family farms are guaranteed the ability to reorganize. The bill also makes significant improvements to Chapter 12 so that it will be more accessible and helpful to farmers. So while I urge quick passage of this temporary Chapter 12 measure, I would like to see the comprehensive bankruptcy Reform bill and permanent Chapter 12 enacted into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce today the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill will be yet one more tool for the United States to use to expand its exports of agricultural products.

Agricultural exports are key to the economic health of rural America. Just last year, $53.1 billion worth of U.S.-produced agricultural products were exported. About one-third of America's farm products are sold outside of our borders. These sales in foreign markets translate to improved incomes for our country's farmers. Today, approximately one-fourth of gross farm income for U.S. producers comes from exports.

Agricultural exports are particularly important to farmers in my State of Iowa. In 2001, some $3.3 billion worth of Iowa's agricultural production was exported. This makes Iowa the second largest agricultural exporting State in the country. Iowa's largest commodities--corn, soybeans, pork, and beef--greatly benefit from sales abroad. Approximately one-half of U.S. soybean production, and 20 percent of our country's corn production, is exported. Last year U.S. pork exports set record levels. Since the implementation of the NAFTA, exports of U.S. beef and beef

variety meats to Mexico have increased five-fold. Iowa's producers clearly benefit from exports.

While Iowa's agricultural exports are already high, they have the potential to grow even more in coming years. Demand in the U.S. market for agricultural products is relatively stable. But populations, as well as disposable incomes, are increasing rapidly in foreign countries. With the hardest-working farmers and ranchers in the world, and with productivity increasing through improved technologies, the United States clearly has the ability to continue feeding a growing world.

But trade barriers imposed by foreign governments often cloud this bright spot for U.S. agriculture. Too frequently, misguided foreign governments overlook the wants and needs of their consumers and take measures to restrict, or prevent, imports of U.S. farm products. These policies hurt U.S. farmers. They also hurt foreign consumers.

In fact, due in part to foreign trade barriers, U.S. agricultural exports declined from $60.4 billion in 1996 to $53.1 billion in 2002.

Unfortunately, even countries that should be our closest trade allies are proving adept at imposing measures that block imports of U.S. farm products. As an example, our NAFTA-partner Mexico is imposing, or threatening to impose, barriers to imports of a wide variety of U.S. agricultural products. These products include corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, beef, rice, apples, and dry beans. Iowa is a major producer of four of these products--corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, and beef.

Not surprisingly, much of U.S. agriculture is upset with Mexico and other of our trading partners at this time. U.S. agricultural producers have traditionally been the strongest supporters of new trade deals. But due to foreign trade barriers, some in U.S. agriculture are beginning to question their support for new trade agreements.

The U.S. Trade Representative, in conjunction with Congress, is working hard to remove trade barriers imposed by Mexico and other countries. But the current tools available to the USTR, including negotiations, NAFTA challenges, and WTO challenges, don't always accomplish the job.

Let me give you an example. For several years now, Mexico has gone to great lengths to block imports of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. In 1998, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of this product from the United States. The United States challenged this antidumping order under the NAFTA. Mexico lost at the NAFTA. The United States challenged this order at the WTO. Mexico lost at the WTO. Following its defeats at the NAFTA and the WTO, Mexico revoked this antidumping order.

But, no, that wasn't the end of the story. Mexico turned around and imposed a 20 percent tax on sales of soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. This discriminatory tax was designed to boost sales of Mexican sugar at the expense of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup.

Mexico's tax in effect shut down the Mexican market for this product. Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers are now being locked out of what was at one time their largest export market. This discriminatory tax is hurting Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers. It's hurting Iowa's corn farmers.

This example clearly demonstrates that existing tools aren't always enough to remove entrenched trade barriers. Despite losing at the NAFTA, despite losing at the WTO, and despite lengthy negotiations, Mexico is still blocking imports of U.S. high fructose corn syrup.

It's time to add yet another tool to our arsenal.

That's why I'm introducing the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill creates a new mechanism with which to confront foreign trade barriers. The new mechanism operates in a similar fashion to the existing special 301 provision for intellectual property. The bill requires USTR to identify and report on those foreign countries that deny fair and equitable market access for U.S. agricultural exports, or countries that apply to U.S. agricultural products sanitary or phytosanitary measures that are not based on sound science. USTR would annually issue a report on its findings.

Out of the countries identified in USTR's report, USTR would identify which ones have the most egregious practices impacting U.S. agricultural exports and, further, are not entering into good faith negotiations with the United States to end these practices.

This legislation also authorizes additional staffing for USTR to focus on these agricultural enforcement issues.

This bill will further strengthen the ability of the United States to enforce its existing market access rights for agricultural exports. Perhaps just as important, it will help Congress and the Administration prioritize barriers imposed by our trading partners. Through such prioritization, U.S. negotiators will be better able to focus upon removing the most egregious of these barriers.

The United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act will not solve all of our agricultural market access problems. We need to move ahead vigorously in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to tear down barriers to our exports. At the top of this list is successful completion of agricultural negotiations in the WTO. However, the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003 will help us identify the most egregious problems, so we can focus our energy on fixing them. It will also provide a new enforcement tool to help make sure American farmers are getting the benefit of our hard fought trade bargains.

This bill is strongly supported by Iowa's agricultural community, including the Iowa Corn Growers, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues Senator Max Baucus, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp for their hard work on this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code until January 1, 2004. This measure will provide our family farmers with the necessary bankruptcy protections during hard times. However, I remain hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the comprehensive bankruptcy legislation that the House passed not long ago. That bill makes Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent, so family farms are guaranteed the ability to reorganize. The bill also makes significant improvements to Chapter 12 so that it will be more accessible and helpful to farmers. So while I urge quick passage of this temporary Chapter 12 measure, I would like to see the comprehensive bankruptcy Reform bill and permanent Chapter 12 enacted into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce today the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill will be yet one more tool for the United States to use to expand its exports of agricultural products.

Agricultural exports are key to the economic health of rural America. Just last year, $53.1 billion worth of U.S.-produced agricultural products were exported. About one-third of America's farm products are sold outside of our borders. These sales in foreign markets translate to improved incomes for our country's farmers. Today, approximately one-fourth of gross farm income for U.S. producers comes from exports.

Agricultural exports are particularly important to farmers in my State of Iowa. In 2001, some $3.3 billion worth of Iowa's agricultural production was exported. This makes Iowa the second largest agricultural exporting State in the country. Iowa's largest commodities--corn, soybeans, pork, and beef--greatly benefit from sales abroad. Approximately one-half of U.S. soybean production, and 20 percent of our country's corn production, is exported. Last year U.S. pork exports set record levels. Since the implementation of the NAFTA, exports of U.S. beef and beef

variety meats to Mexico have increased five-fold. Iowa's producers clearly benefit from exports.

While Iowa's agricultural exports are already high, they have the potential to grow even more in coming years. Demand in the U.S. market for agricultural products is relatively stable. But populations, as well as disposable incomes, are increasing rapidly in foreign countries. With the hardest-working farmers and ranchers in the world, and with productivity increasing through improved technologies, the United States clearly has the ability to continue feeding a growing world.

But trade barriers imposed by foreign governments often cloud this bright spot for U.S. agriculture. Too frequently, misguided foreign governments overlook the wants and needs of their consumers and take measures to restrict, or prevent, imports of U.S. farm products. These policies hurt U.S. farmers. They also hurt foreign consumers.

In fact, due in part to foreign trade barriers, U.S. agricultural exports declined from $60.4 billion in 1996 to $53.1 billion in 2002.

Unfortunately, even countries that should be our closest trade allies are proving adept at imposing measures that block imports of U.S. farm products. As an example, our NAFTA-partner Mexico is imposing, or threatening to impose, barriers to imports of a wide variety of U.S. agricultural products. These products include corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, beef, rice, apples, and dry beans. Iowa is a major producer of four of these products--corn, high fructose corn syrup, pork, and beef.

Not surprisingly, much of U.S. agriculture is upset with Mexico and other of our trading partners at this time. U.S. agricultural producers have traditionally been the strongest supporters of new trade deals. But due to foreign trade barriers, some in U.S. agriculture are beginning to question their support for new trade agreements.

The U.S. Trade Representative, in conjunction with Congress, is working hard to remove trade barriers imposed by Mexico and other countries. But the current tools available to the USTR, including negotiations, NAFTA challenges, and WTO challenges, don't always accomplish the job.

Let me give you an example. For several years now, Mexico has gone to great lengths to block imports of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. In 1998, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of this product from the United States. The United States challenged this antidumping order under the NAFTA. Mexico lost at the NAFTA. The United States challenged this order at the WTO. Mexico lost at the WTO. Following its defeats at the NAFTA and the WTO, Mexico revoked this antidumping order.

But, no, that wasn't the end of the story. Mexico turned around and imposed a 20 percent tax on sales of soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. This discriminatory tax was designed to boost sales of Mexican sugar at the expense of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup.

Mexico's tax in effect shut down the Mexican market for this product. Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers are now being locked out of what was at one time their largest export market. This discriminatory tax is hurting Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers. It's hurting Iowa's corn farmers.

This example clearly demonstrates that existing tools aren't always enough to remove entrenched trade barriers. Despite losing at the NAFTA, despite losing at the WTO, and despite lengthy negotiations, Mexico is still blocking imports of U.S. high fructose corn syrup.

It's time to add yet another tool to our arsenal.

That's why I'm introducing the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This bill creates a new mechanism with which to confront foreign trade barriers. The new mechanism operates in a similar fashion to the existing special 301 provision for intellectual property. The bill requires USTR to identify and report on those foreign countries that deny fair and equitable market access for U.S. agricultural exports, or countries that apply to U.S. agricultural products sanitary or phytosanitary measures that are not based on sound science. USTR would annually issue a report on its findings.

Out of the countries identified in USTR's report, USTR would identify which ones have the most egregious practices impacting U.S. agricultural exports and, further, are not entering into good faith negotiations with the United States to end these practices.

This legislation also authorizes additional staffing for USTR to focus on these agricultural enforcement issues.

This bill will further strengthen the ability of the United States to enforce its existing market access rights for agricultural exports. Perhaps just as important, it will help Congress and the Administration prioritize barriers imposed by our trading partners. Through such prioritization, U.S. negotiators will be better able to focus upon removing the most egregious of these barriers.

The United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act will not solve all of our agricultural market access problems. We need to move ahead vigorously in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to tear down barriers to our exports. At the top of this list is successful completion of agricultural negotiations in the WTO. However, the United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003 will help us identify the most egregious problems, so we can focus our energy on fixing them. It will also provide a new enforcement tool to help make sure American farmers are getting the benefit of our hard fought trade bargains.

This bill is strongly supported by Iowa's agricultural community, including the Iowa Corn Growers, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues Senator Max Baucus, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp for their hard work on this legislation.

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

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I would like to remind the Members of my caucus we do have an arrangement between the two parties that every other amendment offered could be offered by a Republican and then in turn by a Democrat. We have several Democrat amendments pending. There is nothing wrong with that. It hasn't hurt the process at all. But I think it would be fair for me to remind the Members of the Republican caucus if they have amendments to propose, come over and do it. It will speed up the process and I think be considered a little more fair by everybody here. I will not object.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia raises an important point in his amendment. In the underlying bill from the Senate Finance Committee, beneficiaries who are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare--and this is the group we call dual eligibles-- would continue to receive drug coverage under the Medicaid Program.

Some of my colleagues have argued that by having dual eligibles remain in the Medicaid Program, Congress is thus treating these vulnerable seniors as second-class citizens and subjecting them to lower quality benefits. I strongly disagree with that point of view.

I have worked closely with my Finance Committee colleagues on the development of this package, and we had an opportunity during this debate to reflect on the concerns that were

raised by the Senator from West Virginia and also by others during the debate last summer of the so-called tripartisan bill, meaning the bill that was before the Senate in 2002.

All of us authoring the underlying bill took these concerns to heart. We made the decision that it was most beneficial to these seniors to continue to build off the existing Medicare and Medicaid low-income assistance programs that they know and understand.

That said, I remind my colleagues that the intent of this legislation is to expand prescription drug coverage to our senior citizens who do not have access to the prescription drugs and who are faced with paying a large share of their income for their drug coverage.

About two-thirds of the citizens of the United States today have some coverage for prescription drugs. Retirees from major corporations have prescription drugs paid for in their retirement plans. We have people who are in Medicare plus their Medigap policies that also have some coverage, and then we have lower income people who are dual eligibles who are covered under both Medicare and Medicaid. This makes up 60-some percent of the seniors of America who have some drug coverage.

We want to fill in the gap for those who do not have drug coverage or might have inadequate drug coverage. Quite frankly, for people who already have drug coverage, particularly those who have lower incomes, who are covered by State Medicaid Programs, we felt it was best not to upset their coverage, not to give that group any angst about how they might be covered in the future while the debate on this legislation was going on and how it might be put in motion, so we decided just to leave those as is.

The Senator from West Virginia believes it would be better if we would cover them under our plans that are meant for people who have no coverage whatsoever.

We are in a situation where coverage experienced by those who are dual eligible is the issue before us. These seniors currently have drug benefits through the Medicaid Program. In fact, many advocates and beneficiaries describe these benefits as very generous. Medicaid beneficiaries have come to know their drug benefits, along with its nominal levels of cost sharing. We should not require seniors to leave coverage with which they are comfortable.

Further, I remind my colleagues that we are discussing populations eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid was created to assist individuals who do not have the means to pay for their share of health care costs. That is a responsibility that is shared by the Federal Government and by State governments. Medicaid pays for many benefits that Medicare does not.

Is the purpose of the prescription drug bill before us to grant fiscal relief to the States, which would be what the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would do? I do not believe that is what we should be doing.

We all know the purpose of the prescription drug bill is to provide prescription drugs to seniors who do not currently have access to drugs or otherwise would be paying extremely high drug costs and, hence, the provisions of our legislation for catastrophic coverage.

However, recognizing the costs associated with covering the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to dual-eligible populations, the bill before us does provide nearly $18 billion in new Federal dollars to compensate States for some of these additional costs, mostly because it is a fast growing part of the Medicaid budgets of most States.

The funding we provide in this bill will be channeled to States by federalizing the cost of Part B premiums for dual eligibles in a subclass called qualified Medicare beneficiaries. This is because the prescription drug bill before us provides minimum standards that ensure the benefit provided through Medicaid is at the same high quality that is being provided through Part D of our Medicare Program.

As is usually the case, the argument would be made yet that we should still do more and perhaps serve this population differently than we do. But, in fact, we developed the underlying bill to best utilize the availability of $400 billion, an absolute figure that we must be in; otherwise, we are subject to a point of order and, in a sense, instead of 51 votes it takes to pass this body, one could argue it would take 60 votes. If we exceeded the $400 billion, we would have to have 60 votes.

Our approach helps to deliver care that is consistent with current law but, most important, familiar to vulnerable beneficiaries.

A prime rationale behind our legislation is it really does not make seniors do anything they do not want to do. We set up a new Medicare Program that is closer to what baby boomers have in the workplace today. They can choose that or they can choose to stay in the 1965 model Medicare.

People who want to stay in the 1965 model Medicare can choose voluntarily to join a prescription drug program. They do not have to. We wanted to help those who are in Medicaid to stay in Medicaid if they wanted to. They do not have to go into these new programs.

Finally, I remind my colleagues that the adoption of this amendment will not expand coverage at all. It will simply shift the cost to the Federal Government and, in time, to other Medicare beneficiaries.

So after careful thought, because at one time we did debate internally the substance of the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia to federalize all dual eligibles, we thought maybe we should include that in the program, but we figured it raised a lot of questions from people who are already adequately covered and who seemed to be very satisfied.

Also, there are some additional costs that would subtract from what we could do for those who have no coverage for prescription drugs whatsoever, and in order to get the most bang for the dollar within the $400 billion that is in the budget for this program, we decided to leave the dual-eligible program alone. That is why I suggest we defeat Senator Rockefeller's amendment when it comes to a vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator will try to answer a question, yes.

Mr. President, I cannot disagree with the Senator from West Virginia, but I think the answer is that there are 50 different answers to his question from the standpoint of there being 50 different States with 50 different budget situations. So there is not just one answer to his question.

Another way to say it is I would have to understand the situation in 50 different States and then, in a sense, give 50 different answers. But there is a recognition on the part of the Congress of what the Senator from West Virginia says and a response by the Federal Government to that, albeit a temporary response, when over a 2-year period of time we decided to put $20 billion of State aid to the States, and we did that through the tax bill recently signed by the President of the United States, of which $10 billion was earmarked for Medicaid solely because the Congress understood the problems the Senator from West Virginia has adequately described, and then another $10 billion of other State aid that a State is free to use for Medicaid or anything else.

I assume some States that have very bad Medicaid fiscal problems might take some more of that additional $10 billion to use for Medicaid.

In further answer to my colleague's question, what we face is the issue of about $16 billion a year just for drug costs. Multiply that times the 10 years we have to look ahead. That is about $160 billion, I believe, of the $400 billion which would go then for groups who are already covered, detracting then from the 30-some percent of people who have no prescription drug coverage.

We would like to fill in the gap of those who have no coverage as opposed to some who have very good coverage. I know it varies from State to State how Medicaid might cover certain groups of seniors with prescription drugs, but I think the Senator would say they have had a better program for sure than most people--except maybe those who are on a corporate retirement plan, which is only about 30 percent of our people--than anybody else, particularly those who have no coverage whatsoever.

In further answer to the question of the Senator from West Virginia, it is a case of priorities. We have suggested those who already have some coverage, and very good coverage, we would basically leave untouched and then would try to use our resources for those who have no coverage whatsoever.

I yield for an additional question.

Mr. President, I will answer the Senator's question by giving some detail about the issue of the asset test. It is a legitimate point of discussion as we deal with this legislation. Rather than just speaking specifically to his question, I answer it more generally with how we try to respond to the issues he brought up.

The asset test in the underlying bill is the same asset test currently used for determining eligibilities for the qualified Medicare beneficiaries, specified low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and qualified individuals. Those are three separate categories of low- income people that I just described.

S. 1 provides a generous low-income subsidy for those who are below 160 percent of the Federal poverty level. Currently, in order for some individuals under 160 percent of poverty to receive limited Medicaid protections, there must be both an income test and an asset test. In the underlying bill, we simply follow the same rules in order for low- income beneficiaries to see assistance with their prescription drug coverage. By including the Medicaid asset test for Medicare prescription drug subsidies, we are providing beneficiaries with seamless health coverage. We are not confusing beneficiaries, and we are not adding additional administrative burdens to the States.

I will give some background on the current asset test included in the Medicaid Program. The group called qualified Medicare beneficiaries are individuals below 100 percent of poverty. In 2006, the annual income limit is $9,670 for individuals and $13,051 for couples. This qualified Medicare beneficiary group is allowed to have assets below $4,000 for individuals and $6,000 for couples. That is exactly what the Senator from West Virginia asked me about and implied some limitations because of that.

Yes, there are limitations because of that, but they are legitimate limitations within the priorities of our $400 billion budget limit.

Then we have the category of specified low-income Medicare beneficiaries, and then the qualified, and those are people with incomes between 100 percent of poverty and 135 percent of poverty. In 2006, the annual income limits of this group, $13,054 for individuals, $17,618 for couples, these two groups are allowed to have assets below $4,000 for individuals and $6,000 for couples. Beneficiaries between 136 percent of poverty and 159 percent of poverty will have annual income limits of $15,472 for individuals and $20,881 for couples in 2006. Beneficiaries between 136 and 159 percent of poverty would not be subject to those asset rules.

Current law establishes resource limits for low-income elderly or disabled individuals. Let me emphasize, this is not a newly added restriction on certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries. However, current law also provides States with the flexibility to choose to disregard all or part of these resources.

The issue of changing this asset test is one that would very drastically increase the number of eligible beneficiaries. Understand that the question the Senator from West Virginia raised about changing the asset test would very dramatically increase the number of people eligible.

Now, again, we get back to the priorities of fitting in the $400 billion in the budget. Give more help to this group of people that already have some help from our legislation, then there is less for other people, particularly less for people who have no help whatever.

A study was prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation estimating this group could be as many as 11 million individuals if the asset test were eliminated and obviously to a lesser extent if it were increased by some amount.

S. 1 currently includes a provision requiring the General Accounting Office to conduct a study and make recommendations to Congress by the year 2007 regarding the extent to which drug

utilization and access to covered drugs differs between qualifying dual eligibles who receive subsidies and individuals who do not qualify solely because of the application of the asset test. This report ensures that there will be opportunities in the future to debate the question raised by the Senator from West Virginia.

There is a limited number of dollars available for the Medicare drug benefit. In the writing of this bill, we made a conscious decision to devote excess dollars to filling the gap in coverage--which means what we commonly refer to around here as the donut hole--rather than eliminating or changing to some extent the asset test the Senator from West Virginia is asking me about.

This bill already provides generous coverage to low-income seniors. This amendment will not only cost more money, it will add more confusion to both States and Medicare beneficiaries.

I hope I have sufficiently explained the rationale behind our bill. I may not have directly answered the question of the Senator from West Virginia, but I thought I should take time to explain the rationale behind our bill.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Bingaman amendment, No. 933.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays, to have the vote occur at 5:30 and that the time between now and 5:30 be evenly divided.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Before I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I ask unanimous consent Senator Murray's amendment be the first in order after the vote, and that any other amendment in order be laid aside.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment so Senator Harkin can offer his amendment.

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

I am going to call up my amendment numbered 974, which I filed on Friday. I am pleased to offer the Drug Competition Act of 2003.

This is the Drug Competition Act of 2003. I filed it as an amendment to S. 1. I do it in a bipartisan way with Senator Leahy and many others.

Our amendment will help Federal regulators ensure that antitrust laws are not being violated and that there is full and unfettered access to competition for prescription drugs under the law.

What I want to do is make sure American consumers--and in the case of prescription drugs for Medicare, senior citizens--are able to get the lifesaving drugs they need and to do it in a competitive manner with resulting lower prices.

Our patent laws provide drug companies with incentives to invest in the research and development of new drugs,

but the law also provides that generic drug companies have the ability to get their own drugs on the market so there can be price competition and lower prices for prescription drugs. We have a legal system in place that provides such a balance; that is, the Hatch-Waxman law. Ultimately, we want consumers and seniors to have more choices and to get drugs at lower prices.

So I was concerned when I heard reports that the Federal Trade Commission had brought enforcement actions against brand-name and generic drug manufacturers that had entered into anticompetitive agreements, resulting in the delay of the introduction of lower priced drugs. Our amendment targets this problem.

I would like to explain in a little more detail the problem. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, manufacturers of generic drugs are encouraged to challenge weak or invalid patents on brand-name drugs so that consumers can benefit from lower generic drug prices. Current law gives temporary protection from competition to the first generic drug manufacturer that gets exclusive permission to sell a generic drug before the patent on the brand-name drug expires. This gives the generic firm, then, a 180- day head start on all other generic companies.

However, the FTC discovered that some companies were exploiting this law by entering into secret deals, which allowed the generic drugmakers to claim a 180-day grace period, and to block, then, other generic drugs from entering the market, while at the same time getting paid by the brand-name manufacturer for withholding sales of generic versions of the drug. Quite a sweet deal.

This meant, then, under this sweet deal, that consumers continued to pay high prices for drugs rather than benefiting from more competition and consequently lower prices.

The Federal Trade Commission brought antitrust law enforcement actions against the brand-name and generic drug companies that had engaged in this anticompetitive behavior. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission conducted a comprehensive review of agreements that impacted the 180-day exclusivity period. The FTC found that there are competition problems with some of these agreements that potentially delayed generic drugs entering the market--just the opposite of what the FTC wanted to happen. So the FTC made this recommendation:

Given this history, we believe that notification of such agreements to the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice is warranted. We support the Drug Competition Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Leahy, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.

As the Federal Trade Commission has indicated in its report, the Grassley-Leahy amendment, the Drug Competition Act of 2003, is a simple solution to the 180-day exclusivity period and the problems the FTC has identified. Our amendment would require drug companies that enter into agreements relating to the 180-day period to file documents, those very documents with the FTC and the Department of Justice. Our amendment would impose sanctions on companies that do not provide timely notification. This process would facilitate agency review of the agreements. It would do it to determine whether they have anticompetitive effects. Making sure the agreement between the generic and brand-name drug companies is in compliance with the law is good for the American consumer because it guarantees free, full, and fair competition.

Both Senator Leahy and I worked with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, the generic and brand-name drug companies, and other interested groups in crafting the language contained in this amendment, and I think we have a very good work product that I am offering the Senate. We tried to address everyone's concerns and we tried to limit the scope of the act. We also made every attempt to ensure that the notification requirement did not unnecessarily burden industry.

I am not aware of any opposition to this language. In fact, the Drug Competition Act, passed out of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year by unanimous consent, and the Federal Trade Commission report came out in full support of the Grassley-Leahy amendment as a way to help preserve healthy and open competition in the drug markets.

The Grassley-Leahy amendment will ensure that consumers ultimately are not hurt by secret, anticompetitive contracts, so the consumer can get competition and lower drug prices almost immediately. I urge my colleagues to support the Grassley-Leahy amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I assume he asked unanimous consent to set the amendments aside.

Could I say this: If you would allow me, rather than reserving the right to object, when he asks unanimous consent to set aside an amendment to offer his amendment, I am not going to object to that. But the leader has asked we have no more amendments tonight. So I would then be forced to object to any other amendments from either side that would come up.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 24, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Rockefeller amendment No. 976, provided that immediately following that vote and 2 minutes of debate equally divided, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 984; further, at 2:15 there be 10 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Dodd amendment No. 969, with no second-degree amendments in order to the above mentioned amendments prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 160, 204, 205, 241, 243, 244, and 245. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 123, S. 239.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1157 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 179, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 24. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drugs benefit bill.

I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party lunches.

Mr. President, for the benefit of the distinguished Democratic whip, I just came from a meeting with Senator Baucus discussing some of the issues the Senator has suggested. When I am done here serving as acting leader, I will return to that same meeting and we will try to get some of these things worked out tonight.

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefit bill. We currently have approximately 33 amendments pending to the bill and several Senators have expressed interest in offering additional amendments during tomorrow's session. Under the order there will be two stacked votes beginning at 11 a.m. in relation to two of these amendments. In addition, there will be a vote in relation to the Dodd amendment following the policy luncheon recess. Therefore, I inform my colleagues that rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day tomorrow.

For the remainder of the week, the Senate continues consideration of the prescription drug benefits bill. The leader has stated on several occasions that the Senate will complete action on this historic legislation prior to adjourning for the July 4th recess. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the days and into the evenings throughout this entire week. Senators are asked to make the necessary scheduling arrangements.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Lautenberg for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the Dorgan amendment has been amended to further enhance the safety precautions included in the bill. The amendment now gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to certify that reimportation would be both safe and would save the hard-earned money of U.S. consumers. The HHS Secretary would also have the authority to terminate the program if for some reason it is not working.

The fact is, pharmaceutical manufacturers here in the United States are reimporting these very same drugs that seniors are forced across the border to obtain. But if it's safe enough for the manufacturers to do, then it should be safe enough for local pharmacies as well.

After all, these drugs are manufactured in factories that meet FDA standards. And it shouldn't matter whether these drugs come from New Jersey, Alberta, or Atlanta. In fact, a Congressional Research Service study found United States and Canadian drug development, manufacturing, and distribution systems have the same high level of integrity.

If this amendment is accepted and the bill is enacted, Americans will no longer have to drive through an international checkpoint to check out their prescription drugs. Instead, they will have the potential to save an estimated $38 billion out of the $100 billion Americans spend every year on their prescription drugs.

Consider the savings: A month's supply of Coumadin, a blood-thinning drug, costs $40 here in the United States and just $7 in Canada.

The emphysema drugs, upon which some seniors rely to breathe, can cost $1,700 for a 6-month supply in the United States and just $800 in Canada.

Again, let me say that, while the Dorgan amendment provides a step we can take right now to help seniors afford their medication, it is only a stop-gap--not a solution. For the long-term, there is no substitute for passing a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. We need to accomplish this goal so that every senior in America has access to affordable prescription drugs.

With that, I want to again thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for his leadership on this issue, and call on the Senate to accept this amendment and move forward to pass S. 1 to create a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit without delay.