Floor Statements

Mr. President, thank you to my colleague from Ohio. It is so wonderful to have this strong voice, a leader in the House of Representatives on trade and manufacturing and all the issues that affect middle-class families and to now have Senator Brown joining us in the Senate. It is such a benefit for all of us who care deeply about keeping the middle class in this country, about making sure we move forward with a 21st century manufacturing strategy that works for our country in a global economy. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his words and also join with him and with our wonderful colleague from North Dakota who has been such a champion on issues of fair trade.

First, I will start by reinforcing what has been happening to manufacturing in the last 6\1/2\ years. In this country, we have lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs. Why should we care about 3 million jobs that people raised their kids on, sent them to college--middle-

class families with good jobs, good incomes, with health care, with pensions? These are the jobs that have created the middle class of this country. That is not rhetoric. That is a fact.

These are those kinds of jobs, even though they are different. This is not your father's factory. These are new, advanced technology manufacturing jobs now that are being created. But in the future these are needed if we are going to keep the middle class of this country. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate, to express deep concern about the incredibly poor judgment and lack of attention coming from this administration and coming, in general, from those all together making policy that relates to trade and how we compete in a global economy.

We have to pay attention before it is too late, before we lose our economic competitiveness in a global economy, our ability to make things.

I believe any economy is based on the ability to make things and grow things and add value to that. We have to have a strong, vibrant manufacturing economy in order to be able to move forward and compete around the globe now.

We did hold a manufacturing summit, I think the first of its kind in the Senate, last week. I was very proud that Senator Reid, our leader, enthusiastically supported us bringing together 70 different CEOs and high-ranking manufacturing leaders, as well as those representing their labor force, their unions, to come together and talk about what has happened in manufacturing and how we in the Senate can be supportive of keeping manufacturing competitive--a level playing field, which is all we are asking for in a global economy.

We heard some desperate pleas for us to pay attention to what is going on. Over and over again these CEO's talked with us about the fact that in a global economy, now competing with nonmarket economies such as China, they in fact are not competing with companies, they are competing with countries. We go out in the marketplace. There are rules required of our companies to be able to put a plant in another country or have local content in China with auto suppliers. You can't send it in and do business with China. You have to make the product there. Their country owns part of the business or provides great incentives, through a variety of other policies. Yet we are not paying attention. Unfortunately, this administration has not gotten what is happening when we talk about currency manipulation and counterfeiting and all the other policy issues that have put our companies at a disadvantage.

We are happy to export in a global economy. We wish to export our products, not our jobs. Right now we are exporting too many of our jobs.

What is the reality? When China went into the WTO in 2001, we were told two things: our trade deficit would go down and that our jobs would go up. Unfortunately, the facts are exactly the opposite; a $83 billion trade deficit with China. Last year that number skyrocketed to $288 billion, from $83 billion to $288 billion. It is certainly not going down. We have seen the Economic Policy Institute release a study 2 weeks ago that revealed 1.8 million jobs have been displaced through trade with China alone since they entered the World Trade Organization. They promised they would follow the rules. That is part of how you become part of the WTO. We were told: Support them so they can become a part of this international organization, where they will be required to follow the same rules as everybody else. They have not and we have lost, with China alone, 1.8 million good-paying, middle-class jobs.

It is now time to say enough is enough. In fact, 11 agreements have been completed since this administration, new trade agreements. Yet to enforce the agreements, the money has actually gone down by 17 percent. There is no willingness to understand what is going on.

In the counterfeiting business, we have a $12 billion counterfeit auto parts industry alone. What does that mean? These are auto parts coming in that do not meet our safety standards. The brakes may look the same, but if you go to a shelf and say I want this one because it is cheaper and put it in your car, it doesn't meet safety regulations. What happens when you are driving with your kids in the car? These are serious issues for what happens when auto parts are brought in, in a counterfeit manner.

Now, $12 billion worth of counterfeit auto parts have come in. In fact, in the last 5 years, we have lost 250,000 jobs in America because of that, and we have seen six of our Nation's largest auto suppliers go into bankruptcy. This is no accident. We don't have a policy. We passed, here, a counterfeit policy to strengthen our counterfeiting laws and the administration doesn't even use those. They have turned a blind eye. We have lost 250,000 jobs. We have seen our largest auto suppliers going into bankruptcy--Delphi, Dana Corp., Collins & Aikman, Federal-Mogul, Tower Automotive, and Dura Automotive.

Our job is to fight for our businesses that are competing in a global economy where other countries are not following the rules.

Let me give one other example, and I will be happy to turn to my colleague from North Dakota, the issue of currency manipulation. When we say currency manipulation, most people's eyes glaze over. What does that mean? Because a country such as China or Japan, when it comes to the auto industry, purposely keeps their currency down in value, they get a discount on the exchange rate when they bring their product into this country. In China, for instance, again, where we look at an auto part, the same auto parts that are being pirated, snuck into America or they are stealing the patents and making them illegally in China--if they actually bring them in, they also, on top of everything else, get a discount. They can sell the same auto part, the same bolt for $60 that we sell for $100 here, a $40 difference.

When you add that up, that is a $40 discount. On top of that, they are not paying health care the way we structure it. We are the only industrialized country that puts that on the backs of our businesses.

They are following a whole different set of rules. Their wages are dramatically lower. When we say to our auto suppliers or we say to our furniture makers or we say to others: Why can't you compete in a global economy, well, Mr. President, the manufacturers who joined us last week, and the great manufacturers in Michigan I go home and speak with every single weekend are saying: Look around you. We are competitive. We can be competitive. We are productive, but we have to have a Federal Government that partners with us so we have a level playing field on which to operate. Don't let the other team go down to the 20-yard line toward the goal. Put us both on the 50, have the level playing field, and we will compete with anybody and American ingenuity and hard work will win. That is what fair trade policies are all about.

I yield now to my colleague from North Dakota who comes to the floor every day speaking out on these issues and who has been a powerful voice for American workers and free trade.

Madam President, I wish today to pay tribute to the six members of the University of Michigan Survival Flight team who perished this past Monday when their plane tragically crashed into Lake Michigan during an organ transplant mission. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the victims' families. These brave men put their lives on the line to save the lives of those in need of urgent medical care. They touched countless families through their work and the goodness of their hearts and stand as examples to all of us as modern-day Good Samaritans.

Richard Chenault II, 44, from Ann Arbor, was hoping to get back to Michigan on time Monday to attend

the Father Gabriel Richard High School sports banquet. He was being honored for coach of the year in both girls track and girls cross- country. He never made it but is remembered by the students and faculty at the school as a mentor, teacher, and friend.

Richard LaPensee, of Ypsilanti, fought fires for 18 years while serving as an emergency medical technician. He immediately jumped at the chance to work as a University of Michigan life flight medical technician 3 years ago. On Monday morning, Richard had just finished a 24-hour firefighter shift before embarking on the transplant flight.

Dr. David Ashburn, 35, of Dexter, was a cardiac surgery resident at the University of Michigan. He was looking to begin his pediatric cardiac surgery fellowship in July. Dr. Ashburn was a dedicated family man who enjoyed turkey hunting in the wilderness of Michigan.

Dr. Martinus Spoor, 37, of Ann Arbor, was a regular when it came to the air transplant business, making roughly 10 flights a year. Dr. Spoor was known by his friends and family as a ``gentle and kind human being'' and taught heart valve repair techniques to medical students.

Dennis Hoyes, 65, of Blackman Township, was a man who loved to fly. A retired small business owner, Dennis would often spend his days at the Jackson County Airport and worked as an adjunct flight instructor for Jackson Community College's aviation program. Dennis would always give a free lesson to anyone who asked.

Bill Serra, 59, of Macomb Township, had over 12,000 hours of flight time from small planes to 747s. During the Persian Gulf war, Bill worked as a civilian pilot delivering material and ammunition to U.S. forces. The Air Force honored Bill in 1993 for his dedicated service.

Our State of Michigan lost real heroes Monday--heroes who gave back to their communities without fanfare or personal gain, heroes who did their dangerous work out of passion, dedication, and a desire to make the world a better place.

Unfortunately, we often take these heroes for granted, forgetting that their dedication to service comes at life-threatening risk.

The stories of these six men serve as a proud reminder that all of us can give back, that all of us can contribute, and that there are heroes all around us in our communities, our families, and our States. Michigan can never express how proud we are of these individuals' service, and the Michigan family joins the Chenaults, the LaPensees, the Ashburns, the Spoors, the Hoyes, and the Serras in mourning the passing of these brave men.

Mr. President, I rise to join others in paying tribute to a wonderful colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. Tragically, last night, he lost his battle with leukemia. I want to send my heartfelt condolences to his wife Susan, his children, Patrick, Greg, Peter, and Lexie, and to his staff.

Since January, I had the pleasure to serve with Senator Thomas on the Finance Committee. I found him to be a hard-working Senator and very concerned about his constituents' struggling to get health care in rural areas.

I also had a chance to work with him last year on the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act. This legislation sets up a process whereby the National Park Service would work with the State of Michigan to create a lighthouse tourist trail.

As my colleagues know, he was chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, which had jurisdiction over this legislation. During consideration of this bill, he was helpful to me and the people of Michigan even though these lighthouses are thousands of miles away from his home. He held a hearing on this legislation, worked with me to get it to the floor and ultimately to the President's desk.

On behalf of the people of Michigan, we appreciate his support of this legislation.

Senator Thomas was a wonderful man--kind and decent to everyone. We will all miss him.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a bill that directs the Treasury Department to mint 350,000 $1 coins marking the semi-centennial of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded civil rights protections by outlawing racial discrimination and segregation in public places and places of public accommodation, in federally funded programs and employment, and encouraging desegregation in public schools, and has served as a model for subsequent antidiscrimination laws.

This landmark legislation once implemented, had effects that were far reaching and that, clearly from its inception to today, fundamentally changed the course of our Nation.

Equality and access to education were two of the hallmarks of the civil rights movement.

The United Negro College Fund, UNCF, is the Nation's largest, oldest, most successful and comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization. UNCF provides operating funds and technology enhancement services for 39 member historically black colleges and universities, HBCUs, scholarships and internships for students at about 900 institutions and faculty and administrative professional training.

Since its inception in 1943, the UNCF has raised more than $2 billion to help a total of more than 350,000 students attend college and has distributed more funds to help minorities attend school than any entity outside of the government.

Besides being a noble tribute, this commemorative coin will assist the UNCF provide scholarships and internships for minority students and assist

with technology enhancement services for historically black colleges and universities.

In Michigan, the on-time graduation rate for African American students is less than half that of the overall rate for high school students. Moreover, the percentage of Michigan high school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years is just 38 percent, the rate for the top States is 53 percent. These statistics are astounding. Michigan currently is working to invest more State dollars into improving high school education and reforming graduation requirements to some of the most rigorous in the Nation. If we make scholarships like this one available to students, and organizations like the UNCF helping African Americans get into colleges and stay in colleges, not just historically black colleges and universities, these statistics will improve. I am confident this coin bill is a step toward improving the state of college attendance and graduation rates for African American students.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a bill that directs the Treasury Department to mint 350,000 $1 coins marking the semi-centennial of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded civil rights protections by outlawing racial discrimination and segregation in public places and places of public accommodation, in federally funded programs and employment, and encouraging desegregation in public schools, and has served as a model for subsequent antidiscrimination laws.

This landmark legislation once implemented, had effects that were far reaching and that, clearly from its inception to today, fundamentally changed the course of our Nation.

Equality and access to education were two of the hallmarks of the civil rights movement.

The United Negro College Fund, UNCF, is the Nation's largest, oldest, most successful and comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization. UNCF provides operating funds and technology enhancement services for 39 member historically black colleges and universities, HBCUs, scholarships and internships for students at about 900 institutions and faculty and administrative professional training.

Since its inception in 1943, the UNCF has raised more than $2 billion to help a total of more than 350,000 students attend college and has distributed more funds to help minorities attend school than any entity outside of the government.

Besides being a noble tribute, this commemorative coin will assist the UNCF provide scholarships and internships for minority students and assist

with technology enhancement services for historically black colleges and universities.

In Michigan, the on-time graduation rate for African American students is less than half that of the overall rate for high school students. Moreover, the percentage of Michigan high school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years is just 38 percent, the rate for the top States is 53 percent. These statistics are astounding. Michigan currently is working to invest more State dollars into improving high school education and reforming graduation requirements to some of the most rigorous in the Nation. If we make scholarships like this one available to students, and organizations like the UNCF helping African Americans get into colleges and stay in colleges, not just historically black colleges and universities, these statistics will improve. I am confident this coin bill is a step toward improving the state of college attendance and graduation rates for African American students.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the chairman. It has been a pleasure working with him and knowing that, given what he has had to deal with, in terms of the lack of budget resolutions and the deficit that has been created, he has done an extraordinary job of putting the fiscal ship of state back in order. It has been a pleasure to work with somebody who is grounded in what is important to the American people.

I find it so interesting; first, there is all of the rhetoric that is thrown around about Government, about tax and spend. What we have seen in the last few years has been a borrow-and-spend mentality--basically not paying for what we are spending. We had a $5.6 trillion surplus when I came into the Budget Committee in 2001, with President Bush coming into office. He was handed a $5.6 trillion surplus--a pretty nice gift for somebody coming into office. We debated what ought to be done with that. Unfortunately, a more balanced approach to focus on middle-class tax cuts, to grow the economy, investments in science, health care, education, and jobs, and putting some money aside for Social Security, for the long term, was rejected. That was our plan, but it was rejected by the majority at the time. Instead, a plan was put into place that has borrowed and spent us into the largest deficits in the history of the country.

When you look at the total debt right now, we are looking at a debt that is estimated to be $9 trillion by the end of this year. What concerns me as well about that is, who is buying that debt? Half of our foreign debt is owned by two countries, China and Japan. They turn around and don't follow the rules on trade. They manipulate their currency, which means their products come in with big discounts and compete unfairly against American workers and businesses. When we ask the administration to get tough, they don't do it. Why? Because it is pretty tough to try to enforce it.

This huge deficit that has been created is not only something we need to be concerned about from a fiscal standpoint, but jobs and what is happening in the global economy and our ability to fully enforce our trade laws--that is also impacted. That is why I am so pleased at what we are seeing with this budget resolution.

We have not had a budget resolution for a few years. When our colleagues were in charge, there wasn't one put together for a number of years. But now we have made a commitment to put together a budget resolution that is based on a couple of very important principles: first, a return to fiscal discipline. We are going to stop digging that hole that has put us into a deficit, and now we are going to work our way back out to fiscal responsibility. In fact, our budget comes into balance within 5 years. I am proud of that.

Secondly, we are putting middle-class families first. Throughout this budget, whether it be tax cuts or investments in education, or whether it be health care for our children, or making sure we fund law enforcement, or whether we are fully funding the military or homeland security, we are focusing on Americans and middle-class families--the folks who are working hard every day, who have been saying, hey, what about us? We have seen jobs go offshore and more and more dollars going to fewer and fewer people, in terms of spending. We have turned that around.

This is a new direction. I am very proud of the work that has been done with the House and the Senate. I am proud of our leader, Senator Reid, and our leader on the budget, Senator Conrad, who has done such an extraordinary job.

What are the elements we have put together relating to the budget? There are many pieces. We basically reversed what the President has done in terms of cuts in investments in Medicare and Medicaid and the COPS Program and a variety of others. Start with this. Basically, there are six areas we have focused on:

First, a return to fiscal responsibility. We put into place something called pay-as-you-go. At my house, it was called common sense, paying the bills and not spending more than you had coming in. That process has been put back into play so we can, in fact, balance the budget and return to fiscal responsibility.

We also have made investing in education and innovation a top priority. We know we are in a global economy and we are in a time and place where it is harder and harder for families to be able to afford college. Yet college is needed more than ever for advanced skills, for people who are going back to work, or for those who need to train for another type of job; and education from preschool and Head Start all the way up to college is a critical part of investing in the future of our country. America's young people are competing with students from around the world. We are competing in a global economy. Higher skills and focusing on education and opportunity are essential. So is innovation, because we know we have been the engine of great ideas. We have to keep that up, whether it is the National Institutes of Health or whether it is the advanced technology program relating to manufacturing technology--all kinds of ways in which America has been the leader. To maintain that, we have to make an investment, as any individual business makes an investment in the future, in innovation and ideas to be able to create more jobs. Our budget says we are going to return to fiscal responsibility and put education and innovation at the top for our families and for our future.

Then we are making a major commitment to cover health care for children. In fact, this budget puts a major commitment forward for the next 5 years of this budget resolution to cover every child with health insurance. We are talking about children of parents who are working. They may be working one or two jobs or three jobs, and we know the average single parent--the average mom today, to make ends meet, has to figure out how to work three different minimum wage jobs, and they probably don't have health care. We don't think it is right that in the greatest country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, moms and dads are going to bed at night saying, please, God, don't let the kids get sick. Please help our son not break his arm and have to go to the hospital because he has been playing sports or don't let our daughter get sick or hurt playing in sports and break a leg.

We want to make sure every child in America has health insurance. We make that commitment in this budget to fully fund SCHIP, the children's health care program. That is a downpayment on making sure we provide health care for everybody.

In this budget, we start with children, making sure every child in America has access to health care. Then I hope we take the next step within the next couple of years to do what needs to happen, which is to fundamentally say health care is a right and not a privilege in the greatest country in the world, and fully provide access to health care for every American. So we have education and health care as an investment.

Then we do something incredibly important, which I think every American agrees with and, frankly, is shocked hasn't been done in previous budgets in the last 6 years under the previous majority and this President, and that is we are going to keep our promises to our veterans. We have 50 different veterans organizations, service organizations, supporting what we are doing because we are taking their numbers about what is needed. They put together a budget called the independent budget, and they estimate how many new veterans are coming home from the war and how many current veterans are going to need help. For the first time, we are meeting that number on health care and in other areas, which is critical. We are saying we are going to keep our promises to our veterans, and the American people want us to keep our promises.

By the way, all of these things are not ``Washington'' or ``Government.'' It is all of us together. It is what we do in a civilized society, the greatest democracy in the world. We come together and decide how to allocate the precious resources. That is what we are doing. How do we invest these in a way that keeps our promises to veterans and creates opportunity for the future, for the American dream and for people in this country? We have a very important provision; we have middle-class tax cuts. We make sure the middle-class tax cuts that have been passed and are in place under the child credit and the marriage penalty and the tax cuts that

affect middle-class families are extended.

We make sure that we put our focus where it ought to be--on middle- income families--because those are the folks being squeezed, those are the folks who are seeing their college costs go up, their health care costs go up, if they have it at all; their wages go down, if they have a job; their gas prices go up, and Lord knows they are going up and up and up. So it is our working families, our middle-class families, those who are barely scrimping by who are seeing all these costs descend on them.

When we look at that, we say we ought to make sure they are the ones who get the break. That is what our budget does.

Finally, we make sure we reverse the President's continual assault on the COPS Program and on other key investments in health care and technology, areas where every year the President has tried to eliminate, cut back. We have now in Michigan, since 2001, 1,600 fewer police officers on the streets. People can't believe that since 9/11 we actually have fewer police officers--and that number has been going up--on our streets in our communities than we had before 9/11.

We reject the President's further cuts in law enforcement. We restore those dollars. We put back dollars, we increase dollars for homeland security.

That is the picture. This is a picture of responsibility. We want to be fiscally responsible and, at the same time, we want to focus on putting middle-class families first. That is what our budget is all about.

Also, it is true there are some areas of the budget where we are raising revenue, and that comes in the category of closing outrageous tax loopholes for businesses and individuals who owe taxes, which is estimated anywhere up to $345 billion, folks who decided to take the money offshore, take the jobs offshore.

Our chairman has shown so many times the picture of the building in the Cayman Islands with over 12,000 businesses saying that is their business location. Obviously, it is not. We don't think they ought to get away with that.

Middle-class families, the majority of the people in this country, have a right to know if they are following the law, if they are paying their taxes, that we are making sure everybody is following the law and paying their taxes.

So, it is true, we do take some dollars from those folks who cheat, who leave the country, who too many times take jobs with them, and we say: You know what. You need to follow the law like everybody else. We take those dollars, and we put them back into making sure that education is available, health care for every child, police officers, firefighters in our communities, paying for our armed services, keeping our promises to our veterans. I call that setting the record straight, turning things around, and creating the right kind of priorities for our country. The budget is always about values and priorities. That is what it is, it is about values and priorities.

I am very proud of the values and priorities reflected in this budget.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join with us in this new direction set by this budget for the families of America.

Mr. President, would my distinguished colleague yield?

Mr. President, I would like to say thank you to the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee for all her hard work. Nobody cares more about water resources than the Great Lakes States. I don't know, we may have a rival in California, but certainly the Great Lakes States. We are very grateful for the ability to work with the Senator to do some very positive things and to have such a strong vote on a bipartisan basis, and we appreciate her leadership.

Mr. President, the evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming.

That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I are reintroducing our Health- Tech legislation to accelerate the adoption of health information technology.

Businesses across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs.

The use of electronic medical records could save more than $80 billion annually, reducing costs for businesses and taxpayers alike. We should be putting these systems in place immediately!

And, despite the best doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care providers in the world, some patients just are not getting the care they need.

Often times that is because our health care providers do not have the information they need about their patients, when they need it and where they need it.

And, our health care system are not current1y set up to prevent errors; the most common medical errors include medication errors and the extra costs of treating drug-related injuries amount to at least $3.5 billion a year.

As compelling as the cost savings is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system.

Getting health IT into the hands of our doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and community clinics will mean patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting.

The value of health IT--saving lives and saving money--is well-known.

So why is it not being used more widely?

Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs; a major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost.

The costs of implementing health IT can be staggering.

For example, the cost of an integrated electronic health record system for a three- to six-member physician practice is estimated to be $70,000-$100,000.

And, the savings from using health IT go primarily to the patients, employers, and insurers, not the providers.

If a patient needs one less x-ray because a hospital can pull up the x-ray performed by a radiologist in a different setting, that is one less co-payment for the patient, and one less bill to the patient's employer or insurer, or to the Medicare program.

It only makes sense for the Federal Government to invest some seed money.

Every day we delay providing Federal dollars, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives.

The bill that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing today would address just that: It would put IT systems in the hands of providers by establishing a 5-year, $4 billion grant program for health care providers and by providing tax incentives and adjusting Medicare payments for providers who use these systems.

The bill will be referred to the Finance Committee; Senator Snowe and I are both members of the committee and will work to include our legislation in any appropriate package the committee considers.

We have made an important change to our bill this Congress.

A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and is essential to the health care provider-patient relationship.

Therefore we have added a requirement that health IT systems funded by our legislation ensure the privacy and security of personal medical information, and that patients be informed if there is a breach in the privacy of their medical record.

We need to get this done. Widespread use of health information technology can revolutionize our health care system. Getting systems into the hands of providers is the first step.

Our legislation has the support of many consumer, provider, labor and business groups including: AFL-CIO, Altarum, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Health Care Association, American Heart Association, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Ascension Health, Automation Alley, BlueCross/BlueShield of Michigan, DaimlerChrysler, Detroit Medical Center, e-Health Initiative, Families USA, Federation of American Hospitals, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Greenway Medical Technologies, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), HR Policy Association, IBM, Marquette General Health System, McLaren Health Care Corporation, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan State Medical Society, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Business Coalition on Health, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Rural Health Association, Oracle, Saint John Health, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System--Ann Arbor, Michigan; Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland-- Pontiac, Michigan; Saint Mary's Health Care--Grand Rapids, Michigan and Trinity Health.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, the evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming.

That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I are reintroducing our Health- Tech legislation to accelerate the adoption of health information technology.

Businesses across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs.

The use of electronic medical records could save more than $80 billion annually, reducing costs for businesses and taxpayers alike. We should be putting these systems in place immediately!

And, despite the best doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care providers in the world, some patients just are not getting the care they need.

Often times that is because our health care providers do not have the information they need about their patients, when they need it and where they need it.

And, our health care system are not current1y set up to prevent errors; the most common medical errors include medication errors and the extra costs of treating drug-related injuries amount to at least $3.5 billion a year.

As compelling as the cost savings is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system.

Getting health IT into the hands of our doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and community clinics will mean patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting.

The value of health IT--saving lives and saving money--is well-known.

So why is it not being used more widely?

Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs; a major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost.

The costs of implementing health IT can be staggering.

For example, the cost of an integrated electronic health record system for a three- to six-member physician practice is estimated to be $70,000-$100,000.

And, the savings from using health IT go primarily to the patients, employers, and insurers, not the providers.

If a patient needs one less x-ray because a hospital can pull up the x-ray performed by a radiologist in a different setting, that is one less co-payment for the patient, and one less bill to the patient's employer or insurer, or to the Medicare program.

It only makes sense for the Federal Government to invest some seed money.

Every day we delay providing Federal dollars, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives.

The bill that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing today would address just that: It would put IT systems in the hands of providers by establishing a 5-year, $4 billion grant program for health care providers and by providing tax incentives and adjusting Medicare payments for providers who use these systems.

The bill will be referred to the Finance Committee; Senator Snowe and I are both members of the committee and will work to include our legislation in any appropriate package the committee considers.

We have made an important change to our bill this Congress.

A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and is essential to the health care provider-patient relationship.

Therefore we have added a requirement that health IT systems funded by our legislation ensure the privacy and security of personal medical information, and that patients be informed if there is a breach in the privacy of their medical record.

We need to get this done. Widespread use of health information technology can revolutionize our health care system. Getting systems into the hands of providers is the first step.

Our legislation has the support of many consumer, provider, labor and business groups including: AFL-CIO, Altarum, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Health Care Association, American Heart Association, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Ascension Health, Automation Alley, BlueCross/BlueShield of Michigan, DaimlerChrysler, Detroit Medical Center, e-Health Initiative, Families USA, Federation of American Hospitals, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Greenway Medical Technologies, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), HR Policy Association, IBM, Marquette General Health System, McLaren Health Care Corporation, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan State Medical Society, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Business Coalition on Health, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Rural Health Association, Oracle, Saint John Health, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System--Ann Arbor, Michigan; Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland-- Pontiac, Michigan; Saint Mary's Health Care--Grand Rapids, Michigan and Trinity Health.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, under current law, only two categories of individuals pay tax on the sale of their principle residence: the truly fortunate who have realized a capital gain of more than $250,000, $500,000 on a joint return, or the truly unfortunate who lose equity in their home and are forced to pay tax if the lender forgives some portion of the mortgage debt. Surely this is an anomalous result.

Nevertheless, newspaper and television reports describe the burdens families all over the country are facing as lenders foreclose on borrowers who cannot make their mortgage payments. In more and more circumstances, these borrowers, often minorities and the elderly, are unable to make the escalating payments associated with subprime loans and some complex adjustable rate mortgage products.

Other media reports focus on the challenges sellers face if they live in areas with declining home values. There are instances where the value of housing in a whole market occasionally falls through no fault of the homeowner. A plant closes, environmental degradations are found nearby, a regional economic slump hits hard. This happened during the 1980s in the oil patch and in southern California and New England at the beginning of the 90s.

This is happening right now in Michigan with the depressed automotive industry. The Detroit metropolitan area had the highest percentage of households in foreclosure in the 150 largest metropolitan areas, with an average of more than 10,000 foreclosures in each quarter. The foreclosures affected 1 out of every 21 households, nearly five times the national average. Over the first quarter of 2007, Michigan had over 29,000 foreclosures and Detroit was on pace to record 11,000 for that same time period.

One thing these news reports do not mention is the tax problem that sellers or those in foreclosure will face if lenders forgive and do not require payment on some or all of a mortgage debt at the time of disposition. What happens to these people who must sell their homes during a downturn or who cannot make their payments and go into foreclosure? They must pay taxes on the amount forgiven; it is treated as income.

Below are two hypothetical scenarios where owners must have to pay taxes on the amount forgiven and those estimated taxes. The first example is a situation where there has been a downturn in the housing market. The second example is where a family, possibly because of loss of job, illness, or decrease in income or significant changes in the mortgage rate, can neither refinance the property nor sustain the payments and the lender forecloses on the property.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decrease in home prices or ``short sale'' Mortgage................................................... $100,000 Market Value at Purchase................................... 100,000 Market Value at Sale....................................... 90,000 Sale Price................................................. 90,000 Debt Remaining After Sale.................................. 10,000 Taxes Due if forgiven by the lender @ 15 percent tax rate.. 1,500

Lender forecloses Mortgage................................................... $100,000 Foreclosure Amount......................................... 80,000 Debt Remaining After Foreclosure........................... 20,000 Taxes Due if forgiven by the lender @ 15 percent tax rate.. 3,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the ``short sale'' transaction, if the lender forgives the $10,000 of outstanding debt, the family will have taxable income of $10,000 on the transaction and owe $1,500, even though they have just sustained an economic loss and no cash gain.

In a second scenario, if the foreclosure sale does not cover the amount of outstanding debt on the property or $20,000, the lender might forgive remaining debt. Again, the borrower is treated as having received ``income'' when the debt is forgiven and in the example, would owe $3,000 in taxes on the $20,000 that was forgiven.

Clearly it is unfair to tax people on phantom income, particularly right at the time they have had a serious economic loss and have no cash with which to pay the tax. My bill, the Mortgage Relief Act, will relieve families of a tax burden when their lender forgives part of the mortgage on a principal residence.

None of us wants to learn that families in our own districts will be forced to pay taxes when they have no money and have incurred a substantial loss on what, for most, is the most significant asset they own, and possibly the only asset they have. While my legislation will not repair their credit or punish those who mislead them into inappropriate loans, it will prevent them from further financial harm.

(for herself and Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 202

Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems

Society has worked collaboratively with more than 48

stakeholder organizations for more than 45 years to transform

health care with improved uses of information technology and

management systems;

Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership

estimated that the implementation of national standards for

interoperability and the exchange of health information would

save the United States approximately $77,000,000,000 in

expenses relating to health care each year;

Whereas the RAND Corporation estimated that, if the health

care system of the United States implemented the use of

computerized medical records, the system could save the

United States more than $81,000,000,000 each year;

Whereas health care information technology has been shown

to improve the quality and safety of the delivery of health

care in the United States;

Whereas health care information technology and management

systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving

the quality and cost efficiency of the health care system;

Whereas the President and Secretary of Health and Human

Services have made a commitment to leveraging the benefits of

the health care information technology and management systems

by establishing the Office of the National Coordinator for

Health Information Technology and the American Health

Information Community;

Whereas Congress has placed an emphasis on improving the

quality and safety of the delivery of health care in the

United States; and

Whereas organizations across the country have come together

to support National Health Information Technology Week to

improve public awareness relating to the potential benefits

of improved quality and cost efficiency that the health care

system could achieve if health information technology were

better utilized: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes the value of information technology and

management systems in transforming health care for all people

in the United States;

(2) designates the period beginning on May 14, 2007, and

ending on May 18, 2007, as ``National Health Information

Technology Week''; and

(3) encourages the use of information technology and

management systems to transform the health care system in the

United States.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I first thank our esteemed budget chairman for raising what is so important in the context of this debate. I thank him for raising the chart that actually shows the majority of Americans are not seeing their incomes go up. They are seeing them go down.

As the chairman knows, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in the last few years under this administration--3 million good-paying jobs with health care and with pensions. The reality is that, in listening to the debate with my colleagues on the other side, I don't know what they are describing. They certainly are not describing what is happening to the majority of Americans.

I did also want to thank the chairman for bringing up a building in the Cayman Islands he has shown us a number of times, a picture of a five-story building where there are over 12,000, I believe, different businesses that have filed that they are part of that building. In the Finance Committee, I used the chairman's chart and asked--I don't know if the chairman will remember this, but in the Finance Committee I actually asked the IRS and the Treasury if they had sent anybody down to look at that building. Has anybody walked through that building?

We have seen our distinguished leader on Budget point out a specific address, a specific address where we know there are not 12,748 different companies in that building. Yet, Mr. Chairman, to your knowledge, has anybody taken any legal action on this even now? You have raised this time and again.

This is the way we ought to be focusing on what happens on taxes. But the majority of people see their incomes going down, and what do we see? Ships, yachts where people can go offshore to live to avoid paying their taxes and avoid contributing to the war and the economy and schools and roads and everything that is important to us.

Then you have a building. I don't know if the chairman would want to speak to this. Has there, to the Senator's knowledge, been any action taken on this building and what is happening with over 12,748 companies?

Well, I just want to thank the chairman again. I am very proud of this budget because it focuses on hard-working, middle- class families, people I represent in Michigan who will get the tax cuts in this budget. It addresses the kind of things we are talking about here. I am not interested in a tax policy that rewards this kind of tax evasion or folks moving offshore in their yacht to avoid being part of America and contributing to our way of life. I just want to thank the chairman.

Yes.

Madam President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct conferees to include section 307 of the Senate-passed budget resolution in the conference report.

Madam President, this provision will clear the way for the Senate to pass legislation that will ultimately lower gas prices. This is an issue right now of great concern, I know, to people throughout Michigan and throughout the country, as we see prices going up and up and up. This provision does that by putting into place a reserve fund that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy and expand production and use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.

This is a very important part of the budget resolution, and I wish to commend the chairman for putting aside a reserve fund so we can create revenues to do a number of things that will create energy independence and that will create competition, frankly, for the oil companies in this country so we can lower gas prices.

Today, in Michigan, the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.15, and it goes up as high as $3.24. I know it is going to go up and up. We are constantly hearing, of course, it is not arbitrary, that it is all based on competition. Yet I will bet you that right before Memorial Day, in Michigan--a great tourism State, and people want to have an opportunity to travel and see our Great Lakes--the prices are going to continue to go up even further. This summer, again because we are a great tourism State, prices are going to go up, and they will go down when it is not a peak season for driving. We all know that this is a serious issue, and, frankly, it affects every single family in their wallet or in their pocketbook.

A couple years ago, I offered, successfully, a provision in the Energy bill that required the Federal Trade Commission to do a study, an investigation into whether there was price gouging. They came back basically and said there wasn't and that they didn't have the authority because we didn't define what price gouging was. I am pleased to say that as a result of our presiding officer and her legislation, we can address what is happening as it relates to the definition of price gouging, which anyone in Michigan can tell you what it is, and also to be able to give the authority to the FTC to do something about it.

I see my colleague on the floor whom I basically jumped ahead of, so I think if he is ready, I will turn it over to him and will later proceed to talking about gas prices and how we are going to bring them down and how the budget resolution lends itself to that.

I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Madam President, I have a question. The yielding back is time on this motion only?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, first, following the debate we have just been engaged in, let me say that I am very proud of this budget resolution because we are not only not raising taxes, but we are focused on lowering taxes, tax cuts for the middle class. That is what I am most proud of in this budget. Our budget is focused on middle- class families, what families need who are feeling the crunch at every turn right now in their lives. So we specifically focus on tax cuts for middle-class families.

We also focus on what I want to talk about now as it relates to the motion to instruct; that is, an energy reserve fund that puts in place a set of policies and allows us to move forward to lower gas prices. I mean, ultimately, that is what it is about. Let's get off of foreign oil. Let's become energy independent. Let's focus on alternatives.

We have a whole range of things we can and should do together, but the bottom line is what people are asking me about right now in Michigan is why in the world gas prices today are $3.15 per gallon on average. They ask it in the context of another very important question; that is, since this President, President Bush, has taken office, gas prices in my State have increased by $1.75 per gallon--$1.75 per gallon, an increase of 123 percent. This is according to the Federal Highway Administration. Right now in Michigan, families, businesses, farmers will spend $789 million more this month than they did in January of 2001. That is according to the Department of Energy motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditures.

Now, what is happening, though? What is wrong with this picture? While I have been seeing my constituents, and I know the Chair shares this concern, that while we see these prices going up, what has happened on the other side with the oil companies? Well, last year, ExxonMobil had $39.5 billion in profits, the largest annual corporate profit in U.S. history, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history, while the people in my State--the farmer planting in the fields, the businesspeople who are doing their jobs, the families, the folks going back and forth to work, taking the kids to childcare, the students trying to go back and forth to school--saw their gas prices go up.

In fact, they will go up higher right before Memorial Day. I will bet you they are going to go up higher in a beautiful State like Michigan, where we want everyone to come in and swim in our Great Lakes and boat and fish and enjoy what is beautiful about Michigan. When the tourism season comes--you can count it on your watch--gas prices are going to go up.

We hear all about how there is competition when, in fact, we know there is not competition. When you are driving down the road, this gas station says one thing and the one on the other side says the same thing.

Now, this has to stop. We are seeing, not only last year--I am speaking about ExxonMobil, but let me just say there are others. Chevron had an 18-percent increase in the first quarter this year--an 18-percent increase. But we are seeing with Exxon that they kicked off a 10-percent rise in profits, the best ever first quarter, ever, in net profit. To put it another way, with Exxon, their take-home pay equals $1,080 every time the second hand ticks on your clock--every second, $1,080--while the folks in Michigan today are paying $3.15. If you happen to be up north, it is $3.24. This is not right. I know you agree with this. This is not right.

There are a number of things we need to do about it. In the short run, we need to make sure the Federal Trade Commission has the authority--and understands that we expect them to use it--to define price gouging.

Now, in the Energy bill that passed in 2005, a requirement that I offered was put into the Energy bill that the FTC had to investigate price gouging. They came back and said they did not have the authority, we had not defined what it was. They made some general statements that really did not reflect what was going on. So now I am very pleased that Senator Cantwell from Washington State and others have introduced legislation that will clearly define what price gouging is, although I have to say, after years and years of witnessing it, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I think most people in Michigan, anyway, would call it a duck. So we find ourselves in a situation where the FTC says they do not have the authority or the definitions to use. So we want to give them that. We want to give them that in the short run to make sure they can address what is clearly an unfair situation.

Families are seeing increases on all sides, not just gas prices; it is the cost of college; it is the costs that relate to health care in my State. In fact, I should just remind folks that when we hear about all of the rosy pictures in the last 6 years, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since this President has taken office--3 million. Those were good-paying jobs with health care and pensions, and those families now, those workers, are out working other kinds of jobs. Maybe it is two jobs now to try to make up that salary or maybe it is three jobs. They are paying more for health care, if they have it, and worrying about whether they will have their pension.

So that is the backdrop to what I see now happening as it relates to gas prices. One more time, people see those prices going up as they are trying to get to work, as they are trying to take care of their families. This motion to instruct focuses on the fact that we have put aside a reserve fund that gives us the opportunity to address it throughout the budget.

In addition to the fact that we have legislation to stop price gouging right away, and that is very important, I am very pleased our majority is focused on going after those who are price gouging and bringing down gas prices, but we also know we have to look more long term.

There is some wonderful work being done in the Senate by our Energy Committee, Environment Committee, and Finance and Agriculture Committees as it relates to the farm bill and what can be done with alternative fuels, and so on. We are committed to that as well. The structure of this budget allows us to be able to do those things without procedural motions and hoops getting in the way to stop us from going forward. We all know we need to invest more in ethanol and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. We want to be

able to say: Buy your fuel from Middle America, not the Middle East. That is what I am hoping. I know we are committed to doing that.

We also know there is much we can do to together, and, in fact, there are many exiting things that are already happening. I am very proud of our American domestic auto companies that are moving very aggressively. In less than 5 years, we expect that our alternative-fuel vehicles will constitute more than 50 percent of the vehicles that are being produced. That is very positive. I commend them for that.

GM has installed displacement-on-demand technology where the cylinders shut off when not needed, consuming less fuel. DaimlerChrysler has taken the lead on clean diesel and biodiesel. There is excellent work being done in Michigan. Next Energy and other critical research organizations are doing excellent work that would deliver 20 percent to 40 percent more fuel efficiency than conventional automobiles. The Ford Escape hybrid and the work that is being done through hybrids is very significant. Our plug-in hybrids, technology we see being worked on that relates to plug-in electric vehicles, and so on, that is so important. I am excited about the Volt by GM, which will be configured in a way that it will be able to run on electricity, gasoline, E85, or biodiesel. The work goes on on hydrogen and other kinds of things.

But we know that in the end, in addition to focusing on these long- term strategies which are very significant, very important to the environment, to address climate change, to address energy independence, we have an issue right now we have to address; that is, the fact that we continue to see, quarter by quarter, record profits by the oil companies because of the lack of competition. We are seeing, quarter by quarter, increases that end up with those increases and profits, that do not cause them to lower prices for people. They are making more dollars. They do not lower the price. The price goes up as the profits go up.

More and more of our families, our workers, our businesses are feeling squeezed on all sides. We have to make sure the FTC has the ability to call price gouging for what it is, that it is defined and they are given the authority to do something about it.

The American people, unfortunately, are forced to be in a situation right now of choosing between stations and pumps where the prices look awfully much the same. We need to create more competition. We are going to do that in the long run. We are going to create competition in the short run. We need to start putting consumers first, our consumers first. That is what we do in this budget.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modified version of amendment No. 1001 to the desk. We are adding Senator Kohl, Senator Hatch, and Senator Coburn as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and call up amendment No. 1011 for the purposes of offering the amendment.

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

First, Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his incredible leadership and work on this very important legislation, and Senator Enzi, as well, for his leadership and work and partnership with Senator Kennedy on this legislation. I also thank Senator Dodd for his years of advocacy for children. I join with him in opposing the Allard amendment, and believe Senator Dodd has given us the first step as to where we need to go in terms of more medicines being available for children. I thank him for all of his leadership.

Mr. President, I today am offering an amendment--a bipartisan amendment, with Senator Thune, as well as Senator Lott and Senator Brown; we also have Senator Kohl joining us--to close a loophole that the brandname pharmaceutical companies are using to prevent competition by delaying the entry of generic drugs.

Our amendment is based on the citizen petition provision that is included in a bill Senator Lott and I introduced last session and again this session, but it has been greatly improved by contributions from Senator Brown. I particularly thank him for his hard work and contributions to this amendment.

The citizen petition process is intended to allow citizens to raise legitimate issues regarding drug products, and it is very important we have that. However, the brandname pharmaceutical companies have increasingly used citizen petitions to delay access to safe, effective, and affordable generic drugs.

Simply put, citizen petitions have become PhRMA petitions to block consumers from having access to affordable medicines, unfortunately. The cost to employers, consumers, health insurance plans, and Government health plans, as a result of delayed entry of generics, amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars--and in some cases billions of dollars.

For that reason, our amendment has the support of a very broad range of consumer groups, business groups, labor, pharmacy, and other organizations, including the AARP, the chain drugstores, General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, CalPERS, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Families USA, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the UAW, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market, which is a broad coalition of our employers and insurers across the country.

What would our amendment do? Our amendment would, first, preserve the right to file citizen petitions and raise legitimate safety issues. This is very important. We do nothing to take away the citizen petition. It would reduce the filings, though, of frivolous citizen petitions, and it would stop frivolous petitions from delaying generic entry--and thus costing businesses, consumers, and taxpayers--by allowing needed competition to bring down prices in the pharmaceutical market.

It would do so by, first, requiring the generic approval process to move forward while a petition is considered, unless the petition has raised legitimate public health concerns about the drug.

Second, it would require that final action on a petition be taken within 6 months of the petition being received.

Third, it would require petitions to be signed and include a verification that the petitioner has taken reasonable steps to ensure all relevant information is included in the petition and whether any payments have been made in exchange for filing the petition. This is very important.

And, fourth, it would ensure transparency surrounding FDA's decisions on whether to delay generic drugs on the basis of a citizen petition.

Our amendment improves upon the language in the Stabenow-Lott bill in that it sets timelines for FDA to evaluate petitions and absolutely ensures that if it is a legitimate public safety issue, then medicines will not be approved unless and until the safety issues are resolved.

Why do we need this amendment? Any person or organization can file a citizen petition with the FDA raising concern. We certainly want people to be able to do that. However, the process right now is being used in ways that are unintended.

The Medicare Modernization Act closed a lot of loopholes that the brandname companies were using to delay generics from going into the marketplace. So, unfortunately, they have looked to another tool. They are now using these frivolous citizen petitions.

Between passage of the Medicare Modernization Act and April 30, 2006, brandname companies filed 45 citizen petitions requesting that the FDA delay approval of a competing generic drug. Of the 45 petitions, the FDA has ruled on 25 of them. Of the 25 petitions, 92 percent of them were denied.

The brandname companies often file these petitions right on the eve of the generic drug being approved, making it very clear that delay is the goal. These are ``11th hour'' petitions, as they have been called, and 12 of those ``11th hour'' petitions--12 of them--were denied in whole and 1 in part by the FDA.

What do the petitions ask for? Do they raise new and important issues? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Although the petitions are filed before or after a generic drug has received tentative approval from the FDA, they commonly simply request additional studies or additional data, based on mere speculation by the brand companies.

The FDA typically will not approve a generic drug until all the underlying issues of a citizen petition have been addressed. As a result, although the FDA regulators provide that citizen petitions should be addressed within 6 months--and that is what our amendment says--the average review time is 10 months. And 10 months means lots of lost dollars. It leaves consumers paying more, businesses paying more, and insurers paying more.

The fact is the vast majority of petitions filed by brand companies have nothing to do with science and everything to do with delaying generic drugs, stopping the competition. Consumers lose as a result of that.

In December 2005, Merrill Lynch released a report analyzing brand company use of the FDA citizen petition processes. The analysis involved a review of citizen petitions filed by brand companies since 2001. They said there was a ``sharp uptick'' in the number of citizen petitions filed by brand companies in 2004 and 2005 and,

In many instances, the filing of [these citizen petitions]

by branded companies coincided with the expiration of a

product's patent (or other marketing exclusivity) effectively

delaying generic competition for months and sometimes

years.

Why is this important? Well, I want to give you a few examples.

Flonase is a drug that is used to treat nasal symptoms and allergies. It is a very commonly used drug. In this case, the brand company filed multiple citizen petitions in an effort to delay the generic competition, a lower priced drug, from going on the market. All three citizen petitions were denied.

According to the FDA:

[The brand company] has not articulated sound public policy

grounds for supporting a stay. In addition, [the brand name

company] has not demonstrated that the delay resulting from

the stay is not outweighed by public health and other public

interests.

In other words, no sound public policy, but, unfortunately, the delay took months to resolve.

The following quote from Gary Buehler, Director of the Office of Generic Drugs at FDA, was reported in

the New York Times on February 23, 2006:

The agency was required to consider the petitions and to

write responses. That took time and delayed the approval

[process].

So what happened? Even though all of these petitions were denied by the FDA, it took so much time, and generic entry was delayed by 656 days, and the brand company was able to get $1.65 billion more in sales.

We see with all of these drugs shown on this chart delays that have, in fact, allowed the brandname company to be able to continue sales. Unfortunately, these higher costs are paid by our seniors, consumers, and businesses that offer medication, as well as by insurers themselves.

We have not only large delays, but even in the case of 5 days, $17 million more in sales. So there is great incentive to use delaying tactics in order to be able to continue this process.

Mr. President, I see my time is up. Let me say this amendment was carefully constructed to allow citizen petitions to continue. The overwhelming evidence from the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Inspector General, as well as the FDA, and others--the overwhelming evidence is we are seeing this as a new loophole that is being used to delay effective competition and lower cost medicine from going into the marketplace. We can fix that and keep the citizen petition for legitimate issues. We certainly want that. We certainly are concerned about safety, as is the FDA. But it is time to close this loophole.

I thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment and urge support for the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment we have put together, led by the Senator from North Dakota. I thank him for his passionate leadership and advocacy and the way he is able to speak in very commonsense terms about what this is all about. What we are talking about is common sense. We are talking about whether we have the most competition

that will allow the best price for people related to their medicine. I also am looking around for Senator Brown, who is also here to speak. I thank him publicly for his help on another amendment that relates to competition and closing patent loopholes relating to generic drugs. I thank him again. Senator Brown has been a wonderful advocate on these issues.

I find it so interesting whenever we hear that we cannot lower the price of prescription drugs without losing research. Let me comment on that first. Here is what is happening today as it relates to the development of new medicine. We all want that. We all want that, those of us who supported overwhelmingly, the 63 Members of the Senate who voted for stem cell research to provide new lifesaving research and tools for our researchers. We came together and said, yes, we want new lifesaving research.

That is not what this debate is about. The debate is about whether there is going to be a closed market to folks who get to set the price without competition or whether there will be competition so people can afford to buy medicine. The reality is that our structure is such right now, as it relates to the way we bring drugs to market, that you start with basic research, of which last year $29 billion was paid for by the American taxpayer--$29 billion. Now, the industry then added another $39 billion, according to the PhARMA Web site. They are allowed to write off their research as a business expense, or take an additional amount--the R&D tax credit on top of that to write off their research. So the taxpayers are paying, it is fair to say, the majority of what it costs in basic research right now for new lifesaving medicine.

Personally, I am willing to do that because I think it is incredibly important. It is in our public interest. Having all of us together as taxpayers invest in the National Institutes of Health and other lifesaving research makes sense to me. After we do that, we allow the companies to take that information and research and begin to develop medicine. That is fine, too. We then allow up to a 20-year patent, so that the company that does this development can recoup their costs without the same kind of competition from a generic company, another kind of company. So we give them a privileged status. We cover their costs, after we as taxpayers have helped them or may have fully funded the research done in the beginning. So we go through all this, and all that I ask on behalf of the people of Michigan and all I think we are asking for is, when they get done with the patent, people be able to afford to buy the medicine and that we have the kind of competition that allows that to happen.

One piece is to make sure patents are not extended beyond 20 years unfairly by manipulation. I will have an amendment that deals with closing some loopholes. The other is to make sure we open our borders to allow our pharmacies, our hospitals, our medical schools, all those who are providing prescription drugs to consumers, to be able to purchase those and get the best price.

In Michigan, it may be from Michigan or it may be from Ohio or Wisconsin, but it may be 5 minutes across the bridge in Canada. In fact, Mr. President, that is what we find 5 minutes across the bridge. I have had a lot of opportunities to put seniors on buses to go to a pharmacy in Canada to see the fact that you are looking at 30-, 40-, 50-percent cheaper prices. I think of my sister-in-law when I say this. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and thank God is doing well and has recovered. But when I look at the drug Tamoxifen that many breast cancer patients are required to take, or are asked to take, in Michigan, the last time I looked, it was about $360 a month for that medicine. Five minutes across the bridge, it is $60. That is a huge difference. That is a huge difference in somebody's ability to get the treatment they need for breast cancer. That can be replayed over and over again as it relates to medicine.

Now, what is also interesting is that prescription drugs are being brought across the border every day legally by the companies themselves. Lipitor, which was developed in Michigan--and I am proud of that--is manufactured in Ireland. They bring it back. There is no argument about safety when they are bringing it back. We have, right now, around the world, from Slovakia to China to India, medications that are being brought into this country by the companies themselves, under safe conditions.

Our legislation puts into place safety requirements that will allow the same thing to happen if it is a wholesaler, a pharmacy doing business with another pharmacy. There is no rocket science here. The very same safety provisions can be put into place. We also know that, in doing that, it is important to put that language directly into this bill. It is important. We have put in there a chain-of-custody requirement to ensure that drugs are handled not only by authorized persons but shipments must use anticounterfeiting technology to assure the products' integrity.

We do a number of things that relate to registering with the FDA and agreeing to strict requirements to ensure safety. But those requirements are not all in the bill. Why is that? Because we know that in the past we have seen--we see again now--a second-degree amendment to say that citizens cannot get the best price, and pharmacies cannot do business with pharmacies across the border, unless the Secretary certifies safety. And we know that for whatever political reasons, that has not happened over the years. That is actually current law.

To get beyond the politics of this, we have worked on a bipartisan basis, with wonderful bipartisan support, to actually put the safety provisions that are required into the bill so the certification by the Secretary is not necessary.

We have had legislation passed by the Senate with wonderful bipartisan support in the last few years on related issues that involve reimportation. Last July, 68 Senators voted for an amendment to prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Protection from stopping individuals from importing FDA-approved drugs--individual reimportation.

I thank Senator Vitter for his leadership. I have been pleased to work with him on this issue of individuals being able to import medicines for themselves. Senator Vitter and I also worked together to make sure trade agreements cannot be used as a backdoor way to stop reimportation of cheaper prescription drugs into this country.

We are already on record as supporting this effort to lower prescription drug prices and create competition. It is my hope that, once again, in this bill we will reaffirm that we support the FDA creating safety regimens--we know they exist--to be able to bring medicine safely into the United States from other countries, and we will no longer allow a group--it is the only group I know that is able to stop trade at the border. Everyone talks about free and open trade, and yet in Michigan you can bring auto supplies back and forth every day, you can bring all kinds of agricultural products, you can bring anything back and forth across the border except medicine, except prescription drugs, unless you are a drug company. Drug companies can, but if you are somebody trying to make sure you get the lowest possible prices to consumers through a pharmacy, a hospital, medical school, or other businesses, you are not allowed to do it. It doesn't make any sense.

I believe we need to take off this protectionism which has been in place for years which has put consumers and businesspeople, frankly, into a situation where they are paying higher prices for medicine than they should.

This is not about research. I conclude by saying that according to SEC filings, 2\1/2\ times more is spent on marketing and advertising brand-name prescription drugs in the United States than is spent on research. This is not about research. We as taxpayers are leading the way on funding research, and we all support doing that. This is about competition versus protectionism and whether consumers will get the very best price for lifesaving medicine.

I urge the adoption of our amendment.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes S. 1082 this morning, it be for debate only until 12:30 p.m., with no amendments in order during that time, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.