Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR Research and Competitive Act of 2007, and I am proud to have the bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Reed, Hagel, Baucus, Roberts, and Cochran.

The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is part of the National Science Foundation and is intended to assist smaller States competing for research grants that historically have not received as much funding from the NSF as larger States. Twenty-six States, representing 20 percent of our Nation's population and 25 percent of our doctoral and research institutions are currently eligible for the EPSCoR program yet receive only 10 percent of the total NSF research funding. EPSCoR funding provides valuable research opportunities in States with unique scientific features. States such as West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and New Mexico all stand to gain from EPSCoR funding, and our country will gain from the scientists and innovations made in our States.

EPSCoR has the additional bonus of having a proven track record. Over 50 percent of researchers supported by EPSCoR funds have successfully competed for non-EPSCoR funding. EPSCoR is also helping drive the economy in active States by providing cutting edge job opportunities. Seventy-five percent of new technology companies started by university research are based in the States where the original research was done.

In order for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace, EPSCoR will play an important role in promoting science nationwide. This legislation provides some specifics to meet that goal. First off, this bill proposes that the Research Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million beginning in fiscal year 2009 and remain at that level through 2012. Secondly, it seeks 20 percent of the EPSCoR budget for the cofunding program, an innovative initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. Thirdly, it encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, including cyberinfrastructure and major research instrumentation.

The citizens of West Virginia have benefited tremendously as a result of this program. Competitive Federal research has increased 68 percent in West Virginia since 2001. In 2005 alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and supported 4,432 jobs. Much like other States involved, EPSCoR has been a tremendous boon to our flagship higher institutions with West Virginia University and Marshall University having worked together through this program to come up with innovate solutions like never before. To help ensure that EPSCoR States remain competitive, this legislation suggests that EPSCoR grow proportionately with the foundation. To achieve our competitiveness goals and to increase the numbers of engineers and scientists, every State needs to play a role. It is encouraging to note that the administration's budget request for this year seeks a $7 million increase in EPSCoR.

Ensuring the economic well-being of all our States is an essential part of keeping our entire Nation competitive and EPSCoR is an important step in that direction. EPSCoR States are the home for 25 percent of the doctoral and research universities, and our States train nearly 20 percent of our science and engineering graduate students. This legislation will help encourage and promote competitiveness.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Olympia Snowe and Vice-Chairman Ted Stevens, to re-introduce the Antideficiency Act to protect the Universal Service Program.

This is a bipartisan effort to ensure that all of the fundamental universal service program can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. Last year, this legislation garnered the support of 55 members, and I hope that it will gain additional support in the 110th Congress. It is also important to note that the House also has a similar bipartisan legislation.

For many years, I have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner.

The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists.

Over the past decade, the E-Rate discounts have helped to connect our classrooms and our libraries to the Internet and modern technology. In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of classrooms were connected, and just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $70 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries

face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections.

This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act. Over the last few years, we have done one year exemptions. It makes good sense to enact a long term solution for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to change an unfair administrative decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This bill is designed to correct a problem from legislation enacted in 2001, to help VA nurses' retirement. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses, who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do.

In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. At the time, nurses joined the VA, and they believed in the promise.

Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will not fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error.

Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the retired nurses who cared for our veterans, but sadly retired in the wrong years, between 1986 and 2002.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Olympia Snowe and Vice-Chairman Ted Stevens, to re-introduce the Antideficiency Act to protect the Universal Service Program.

This is a bipartisan effort to ensure that all of the fundamental universal service program can continue to operate smoothly and effectively. Last year, this legislation garnered the support of 55 members, and I hope that it will gain additional support in the 110th Congress. It is also important to note that the House also has a similar bipartisan legislation.

For many years, I have fought hard for universal service, including the E-Rate. It is essential for all of the universal service programs to operate in a timely manner.

The Universal Service Fund is accomplishing its mission. Our country has a strong telecommunications network, and rural customers are getting service at affordable rates. Lifeline and Linkup programs help the poorest of customers keep basic telephone access which is essential in our modern world. Rural health care is helping connect our rural clinics to modern medicine and specialists.

Over the past decade, the E-Rate discounts have helped to connect our classrooms and our libraries to the Internet and modern technology. In 1996, when the Telecommunications Act passed, only 14 percent of classrooms were connected, and just 5 percent of the poorest classrooms were connected. The latest data is encouraging with 93 percent of all classrooms connected and 89 percent of the poorest classrooms connected. Since 1998, West Virginia schools and libraries have received over $70 million in E-Rate discounts. While this is extraordinary success, the need for E-Rate discounts remains because schools and libraries

face monthly telecommunication costs and Internet access fees. Every school and library will periodically need to upgrade its internal connections.

This legislation gives the Universal Service Fund a permanent exemption from the Antideficiency Act. Over the last few years, we have done one year exemptions. It makes good sense to enact a long term solution for the Universal Service Fund.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to change an unfair administrative decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This bill is designed to correct a problem from legislation enacted in 2001, to help VA nurses' retirement. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently VA nurses, who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full pension benefits as current retirees do.

In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. At the time, nurses joined the VA, and they believed in the promise.

Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will not fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error.

Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to the retired nurses who cared for our veterans, but sadly retired in the wrong years, between 1986 and 2002.

Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague Mr. Smith in the introduction of the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act. Two years ago, we first introduced this legislation to help provide businesses with an important tax incentive to install lifesaving sprinkler systems, believing that the legislation would be one way to keep our Nation's citizens, and the firefighters who dedicate their lives to fire safety, free from unnecessary fire-related injury. At that time, I could not imagine that in 2007 West Virginia would suffer one of the worst fire-related tragedies in many years. In January of this year, a fire at the Emmons Junior Apartment Building in Huntington, WV, took the lives of nine individuals, including three teenagers

who were all siblings and another unrelated child who was only seven years old. My heart goes out to those families and to a devastated community. We later learned that the complex was built in 1924 and was not equipped with a sprinkler system. I cannot help thinking that if the tax incentives provided by this legislation were already in effect, many businesses including those operating apartment complexes might have had enough financial incentive to allow them to make the decision to install life-saving sprinkler systems.

Fire safety is a national problem. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) indicates that in 2005 there were over 1.6 million fires reported in the United States, which caused 3,675 civilian deaths, 17,925 civilian injuries, and $10.7 billion in property damage. As a result, 80,100 firefighters were injured and another 87 died responding to these fires in an effort to protect the lives of their fellow citizens. High-rise buildings and other living facilities that were built under older codes often lack adequate fire safety protection and leave vulnerable those citizens who cannot as easily save themselves from a fire, such as older adults, young children, and people with disabilities. There were 511,000 structure fires in 2005, and 381,000 of those occurred in family home structures including dwellings, duplexes, manufactured homes, apartments, townhouses, rowhouses, and condominiums. These home structure fires accounted for 82 percent of civilian fire-related fatalities and $6.7 billion in direct property damage.

Protecting our citizens and first-responders from these fire-related injuries and fatalities is of the utmost importance, and a real way to improve fire safety exists in the use of automatic sprinkler systems. These devices react quickly and save lives by dramatically reducing the heat, flames and smoke produced in a fire. The NFPA reports that when sprinklers are present, the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by between 50 and 75 percent and average property loss is cut by one-half to two-thirds. The NFPA also has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a building where a sprinkler system was properly installed and fully operational.

The benefits of fire sprinkler systems are overwhelming, even for business owners, but one thing that inhibits their implementation is cost. Under current law, installations in residential rental property and non-residential real property must be deducted over a 27.5- or 39- year period, respectively. The financial cost of upgrading existing structures with fire safety measures is prohibitive for most property owners, and under our present straight-line method of depreciation, there is disincentive for building safety improvements due to an extremely low rate of return on investment. This legislation, by amending the internal revenue code to classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as depreciable over a 5-year period, would mitigate the expense of retrofitting older buildings with costly automated sprinkler systems. It helps businesses make the choice to take advantage of fire safety systems that have been proven to have life-saving results.

I again express my support for the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act as a way to promote the use of fire sprinkler systems that are now an invaluable asset in our efforts to protect citizens and firefighters from fire-related death and injury. This proposal has been endorsed by firefighters, the insurance industry, and general contractors, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today the Senate has confirmed the nomination of VADM Mike McConnell to be the next Director of National Intelligence. It is hard for me to imagine a better choice than Admiral McConnell.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence received Admiral McConnell's nomination to replace John Negroponte on January 22, 2007. He completed all the requisite paperwork and the committee held a hearing with Admiral McConnell on February 1. The committee met on February 6, and voted unanimously to report the nomination to the Senate with a favorable recommendation.

I am pleased that the Senate has moved quickly to act on this recommendation. I think this swift consideration of the nomination is recognition of both the importance of this position and of the qualifications of Admiral McConnell.

As my colleagues know, the position of Director of National Intelligence was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004. That legislation drew on recommendations from the congressional and commission reports on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq prewar intelligence, the Report of the Joint Inquiry by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into the events of 9/11, and the recommendations of numerous other commissions and reviews going back 50 years.

The creation of the DNI was an important step. We now have, for the first time, an individual whose primary job is to run the intelligence community as a whole. Until the creation of the DNI, the old Director of Central Intelligence wore two hats--as the head of the Intelligence Community and as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But this structural change, while important, was only the first step to reforming intelligence. The DNI must make the 16 agencies of the intelligence community work as one toward a common goal. Director Negroponte has started the community down that path. It is going to be up to Admiral McConnell to move us further along.

A quick review of his resume will show even the casual observer that Admiral McConnell is incredibly well qualified for this critical position. He retired from the Navy as Vice Admiral after 29 years of service. Most of his service during this distinguished career was as an intelligence officer.

While on active duty he served as Director of Intelligence on the Joint Staff during the Persian Gulf War. This made him the principal intelligence advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, GEN Colin Powell. He went on to become the Director of the National Security Agency, our Nation's largest intelligence agency.

Upon retiring from the Navy, Admiral McConnell went to work for Booz Allen Hamilton where he has been a senior vice president for intelligence and national security. He also is currently chairman and chief executive officer of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an industry group that works with the Government looking for ways to solve some of our complex intelligence problems. He has the requisite Government experience supplemented by a decade in the private sector.

In his appearance before the Intelligence Committee last week I think it is fair to say that he impressed all members of the committee with his knowledge of the issues and the difficulty of the task ahead. But I was particularly encouraged by his answers to questions about the relationship with Congress.

It is no secret that I have not always been happy with the level of access the intelligence committee has had to materials it needs to do its job. On some of the most important and sensitive programs in the Intelligence Community, we have been frustrated in our attempts to do oversight because we have

not been able to get documents and other information critical to understanding and therefore evaluating these programs. In other cases the administration has placed burdensome and unwarranted limits on access by Senators and staff.

Vice Chairman Bond and I are making a concerted bipartisan effort to deal with these questions. And we are making headway. One issue that we both raised with Admiral McConnell at his hearing has now been resolved. We also have seen movement, if not complete satisfaction, in other areas. Admiral McConnell's answers convinced me that he will be an ally in this area. It is my view that the intelligence community needs to view Congress as a partner in supporting intelligence activities that protect America and I think he will do that.

I thank all of my colleagues for supporting support the confirmation of Admiral McConnell and I look forward to working with him in his new role as Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. President, death is by no means an easy subject to talk about; nonetheless, end-of-life care continues to be a controversial topic that must be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills that I hope will go a long way to improve end-of-life care in this country. Senator Susan Collins and I are reintroducing our Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, comprehensive legislation that would ensure that patients' final wishes for end-of-life care are known, respected, and complied with. This legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to move it this year.

I am also introducing the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act with Senators Lugar and Bill Nelson. This important bill is based on an amendment that I introduced during the Finance Committee's consideration of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It would require physician consultation regarding advance directives during the initial ``Welcome to Medicare'' physician visit. An end-of-life care consultation during a Medicare recipient's first contact with the program would emphasize the importance of advance planning and give him or her the tools necessary to understand advance directives, the Medicare hospice benefit, and other end-of-life care concerns. Having such a benefit in Medicare would undoubtedly improve patient care and quality at the end-of-life.

The final bill that I would like to talk about today is the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act, legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Lugar. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act complements both of the bills I am introducing today. It includes my language on the ``Welcome to Medicare'' doctor's visit, which I believe is critical, but it also includes two other important provisions. It improves the policies for use and portability of advance directives across state lines, and it directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a public education campaign on the importance of end-of-life planning.

I am happy to be an author of each of these bills. As we have seen recently with the well-publicized case of Terri Shiavo, end-of-life decision making can be confusing and cause added anguish to an already sorrowful situation. The delicate nature of life and love make it very difficult to create strict rules governing end-of-life care, nor should we want to. In its present form, however, end-of-life planning and care for most Americans is perplexing, disjointed, and lacking an active dialogue. We can, and must, take action to make this process as easy as possible.

It is not surprising that we face this problem. Health care professionals frequently use terms that are too technical or confusing for the average person. Patients who appear too sick to participate in the discussions may be excluded from determining their own destiny. And all too often the entire conversation never happens due to the discomfort of all parties involved. As a result, patients and families, suffer needlessly during these already difficult times. A report issued by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Care at the End of Life stated that, and I quote, ``suffering arises when the aggressive use of ineffectual or intrusive interventions serves to prolong the period of dying unnecessarily or to dishonor the dying person's wishes about care. Too often, dying people and their families are either not aware of these care options, not fully apprised of the probable benefits and burdens of these various options, or are the recipients of care that is inconsistent with their wishes as expressed in written or oral directives.''

Despite these shortcomings, the evidence tells us that most people want to discuss advanced directives when they are healthy and they want their families involved in the process. According to the American Psychological Association, almost 60 percent of individuals 65 or older state that they want their family to be given choices about treatment should they become incapacitated rather than leaving the decision up to physicians. How can we allow these serious problems to persist when dealing with the lives of our family and friends?

Death is hard to think about. Death is hard to talk about. And the final period of time leading up to our death is hard to plan. But we must encourage our family, our friends, and our loved ones to discuss this difficult topic in an open and effective manner in order to avoid any additional pain when a loved one passes away. We must also provide them the best tools to do so.

The legislation I am introducing today accomplishes this objective by developing standards for end-of-life care, facilitating opportunities for patients to discuss end-of-life issues with a trained professional, and authorizing funds for demonstration projects on innovative approaches to end-of-life care.

Death is a serious, personal, and complicated issue that is eventually relevant to each and every one of us. Americans deserve end- of-life care that is effective in fulfilling individual wishes, avoiding unnecessary disputes, and, most importantly, providing quality end-of-life care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in improving end-of-life care and reducing the amount of grief that inevitably comes with losing those who we hold dear.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of each of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, death is by no means an easy subject to talk about; nonetheless, end-of-life care continues to be a controversial topic that must be addressed. Today, I am introducing three bills that I hope will go a long way to improve end-of-life care in this country. Senator Susan Collins and I are reintroducing our Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, comprehensive legislation that would ensure that patients' final wishes for end-of-life care are known, respected, and complied with. This legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able to move it this year.

I am also introducing the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act with Senators Lugar and Bill Nelson. This important bill is based on an amendment that I introduced during the Finance Committee's consideration of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It would require physician consultation regarding advance directives during the initial ``Welcome to Medicare'' physician visit. An end-of-life care consultation during a Medicare recipient's first contact with the program would emphasize the importance of advance planning and give him or her the tools necessary to understand advance directives, the Medicare hospice benefit, and other end-of-life care concerns. Having such a benefit in Medicare would undoubtedly improve patient care and quality at the end-of-life.

The final bill that I would like to talk about today is the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act, legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Lugar. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act complements both of the bills I am introducing today. It includes my language on the ``Welcome to Medicare'' doctor's visit, which I believe is critical, but it also includes two other important provisions. It improves the policies for use and portability of advance directives across state lines, and it directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a public education campaign on the importance of end-of-life planning.

I am happy to be an author of each of these bills. As we have seen recently with the well-publicized case of Terri Shiavo, end-of-life decision making can be confusing and cause added anguish to an already sorrowful situation. The delicate nature of life and love make it very difficult to create strict rules governing end-of-life care, nor should we want to. In its present form, however, end-of-life planning and care for most Americans is perplexing, disjointed, and lacking an active dialogue. We can, and must, take action to make this process as easy as possible.

It is not surprising that we face this problem. Health care professionals frequently use terms that are too technical or confusing for the average person. Patients who appear too sick to participate in the discussions may be excluded from determining their own destiny. And all too often the entire conversation never happens due to the discomfort of all parties involved. As a result, patients and families, suffer needlessly during these already difficult times. A report issued by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Care at the End of Life stated that, and I quote, ``suffering arises when the aggressive use of ineffectual or intrusive interventions serves to prolong the period of dying unnecessarily or to dishonor the dying person's wishes about care. Too often, dying people and their families are either not aware of these care options, not fully apprised of the probable benefits and burdens of these various options, or are the recipients of care that is inconsistent with their wishes as expressed in written or oral directives.''

Despite these shortcomings, the evidence tells us that most people want to discuss advanced directives when they are healthy and they want their families involved in the process. According to the American Psychological Association, almost 60 percent of individuals 65 or older state that they want their family to be given choices about treatment should they become incapacitated rather than leaving the decision up to physicians. How can we allow these serious problems to persist when dealing with the lives of our family and friends?

Death is hard to think about. Death is hard to talk about. And the final period of time leading up to our death is hard to plan. But we must encourage our family, our friends, and our loved ones to discuss this difficult topic in an open and effective manner in order to avoid any additional pain when a loved one passes away. We must also provide them the best tools to do so.

The legislation I am introducing today accomplishes this objective by developing standards for end-of-life care, facilitating opportunities for patients to discuss end-of-life issues with a trained professional, and authorizing funds for demonstration projects on innovative approaches to end-of-life care.

Death is a serious, personal, and complicated issue that is eventually relevant to each and every one of us. Americans deserve end- of-life care that is effective in fulfilling individual wishes, avoiding unnecessary disputes, and, most importantly, providing quality end-of-life care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in improving end-of-life care and reducing the amount of grief that inevitably comes with losing those who we hold dear.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of each of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer,

Kohl and Leahy to reintroduce an important bill for all Americans. The bill that we are reintroducing today would reduce barriers to affordable prescription drugs by eliminating one of the prominent loopholes brand name drug companies use to limit access to generic drugs.

Our bill, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act of 2007, would end the marketing of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the l80- day period Congress created exclusively for true generics to enter the market. I have spoken with my colleagues many times about this important issue.

In an effort to balance the need for returns on research facilitated by brand name prescription drug companies with the need for more affordable prescription drug options for consumers, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman law in 1984. This law provided brand name companies with a number of incentives for investing in the research and development of new medications. These included a 20-year patent on drugs, 5 years of data exclusivity, 3 years of exclusivity for clinical trials, up to 5 years of patent extension, 6 months exclusivity for conducting pediatric testing, and a 30-month automatic stay against generic competition if the generic challenges the brand patent. Generic prescription drug manufacturers, on the other hand, received a l80-day exclusivity period, awarded to the first company to successfully challenge a brand name patent and enter the market.

This 6-month exclusivity period has been crucial to encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the 180-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers.

Since 1984, there have been many attempts to exploit loopholes in the law in order to delay generic entry to the market and extend brand monopolies. The 2003 Medicare law addressed many of these loopholes. However, brand name manufacturers have found another loophole in current law, so-called ``authorized generics.''

An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic and does not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the market and offering lower-priced prescription drugs.

As I have said many times, authorized generics are a sham. This practice of re-labeling a brand product and placing it on the market to undermine the 180-day exclusivity period will only serve to reduce generic competition and lead to longer brand monopolies and higher healthcare costs over the long-term.

Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs,

Today, generic medications comprise more than 56 percent of all prescriptions in this country, and yet they account for only 13 percent of our nation's drug costs. In fact, generic drugs provide 50 to 80 percent cost-savings over brand name drugs. These savings make a big difference in the lives of working families. That is why we must protect the true intent of Hatch-Waxman.

The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer,

Kohl and Leahy to reintroduce an important bill for all Americans. The bill that we are reintroducing today would reduce barriers to affordable prescription drugs by eliminating one of the prominent loopholes brand name drug companies use to limit access to generic drugs.

Our bill, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act of 2007, would end the marketing of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the l80- day period Congress created exclusively for true generics to enter the market. I have spoken with my colleagues many times about this important issue.

In an effort to balance the need for returns on research facilitated by brand name prescription drug companies with the need for more affordable prescription drug options for consumers, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman law in 1984. This law provided brand name companies with a number of incentives for investing in the research and development of new medications. These included a 20-year patent on drugs, 5 years of data exclusivity, 3 years of exclusivity for clinical trials, up to 5 years of patent extension, 6 months exclusivity for conducting pediatric testing, and a 30-month automatic stay against generic competition if the generic challenges the brand patent. Generic prescription drug manufacturers, on the other hand, received a l80-day exclusivity period, awarded to the first company to successfully challenge a brand name patent and enter the market.

This 6-month exclusivity period has been crucial to encouraging generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable. Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the added revenue provided by the 180-day exclusivity period to recoup their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and ultimately pass savings onto consumers.

Since 1984, there have been many attempts to exploit loopholes in the law in order to delay generic entry to the market and extend brand monopolies. The 2003 Medicare law addressed many of these loopholes. However, brand name manufacturers have found another loophole in current law, so-called ``authorized generics.''

An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic and does not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the market and offering lower-priced prescription drugs.

As I have said many times, authorized generics are a sham. This practice of re-labeling a brand product and placing it on the market to undermine the 180-day exclusivity period will only serve to reduce generic competition and lead to longer brand monopolies and higher healthcare costs over the long-term.

Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic drugs,

Today, generic medications comprise more than 56 percent of all prescriptions in this country, and yet they account for only 13 percent of our nation's drug costs. In fact, generic drugs provide 50 to 80 percent cost-savings over brand name drugs. These savings make a big difference in the lives of working families. That is why we must protect the true intent of Hatch-Waxman.

The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers.

For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trading practices.

American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer.

A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen antidumping remedies, third, it will expand

the reach of countervailing duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in certain circumstances.

The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to candlemaking are all too familiar with this point.

This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade Organization under this legislation.

Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing field for American manufacturers.

Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties have raised concerns about the fairness of the system.

To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed in responding to adverse decisions.

Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing'' on dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, and these provisions would help restore it.

Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as ``nonmarket economies'' (NMEs). These countries presently include small former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME status.

Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti- dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy law.

Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two significant sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners.

Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations regarding NME countries.

Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a ``basket'' of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice what it is, an ``effective subsidy.'' This provision of Title III would allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy.

Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on ``direct'' taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute subsidies, whereas rebates on ``indirect taxes'' such as sales and VAT taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) systems.

Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country products entering the United States.

This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs.

Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called ``Section 421'' cases. Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to the WTO is a ``safeguard'' provision that provides for temporary relief from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended ``safeguard'' relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the ITC the final word on the matter.

The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is a reasonable start.

I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to joining

forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with foreign manufacturers.

For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair trading practices.

American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer.

A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen antidumping remedies, third, it will expand

the reach of countervailing duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in certain circumstances.

The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to candlemaking are all too familiar with this point.

This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade Organization under this legislation.

Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing field for American manufacturers.

Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties have raised concerns about the fairness of the system.

To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed in responding to adverse decisions.

Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing'' on dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, and these provisions would help restore it.

Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as ``nonmarket economies'' (NMEs). These countries presently include small former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME status.

Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti- dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy law.

Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two significant sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners.

Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations regarding NME countries.

Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a ``basket'' of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice what it is, an ``effective subsidy.'' This provision of Title III would allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy.

Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on ``direct'' taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute subsidies, whereas rebates on ``indirect taxes'' such as sales and VAT taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) systems.

Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country products entering the United States.

This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs.

Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called ``Section 421'' cases. Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to the WTO is a ``safeguard'' provision that provides for temporary relief from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended ``safeguard'' relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the ITC the final word on the matter.

The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is a reasonable start.

I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to joining

forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my heart is full as I think of Mike DeWine and his service here in the Senate. I didn't know Mike when I first came here. I didn't know anything about his visits, I think 13 or 14, to Haiti, his concern for the poor. He seems to have always been motivated by a moral compass which never wavered from those who needed him, and who weren't getting help from others. It is ironic in the best sense that he and I have cooperated on so many pieces of legislation that had to do with children and families and adoption and all kinds of things. It is ironic because in a sense he followed the father, Mr. President, of our Presiding Officer, in that role. You go to Mike's office, Mike would come to this Senator's office, legislation would appear, it would pass--and almost invariably get very little attention. That was not the purpose or the interest of the Senator from Ohio. He wanted to do good.

I think of his interest in children and I think that is a moral compass. If you have that in life and you are not going to let go of that in life, then that fixes you, as the Senator from Illinois indicated, in the legacy of the Senate. I also think that his interest in Haiti says more about him than words can possibly measure. What drives a man and his wife to go to that country where most of us have never been? Most of us have the image of it that the Senator from Illinois described but know not of it directly by experience. Vacations, free times, are valuable to Senators and their families. Yet the Senator from Ohio took his time and went to Haiti, year after year, and fought for their problems and said not a word to anybody. I found out about it not from the Senator from Ohio but from somebody completely different. I found out more about it and then deepened my knowledge and my respect for the Senator from Ohio.

Finally, I want to say I have the privilege of serving with him on the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee is serious business. The Senator from Ohio rose to the peaks of discretion, determination, simply trying to find the truth. He wasn't out to get anybody, to punish anybody, to embarrass anybody. He wanted to get the facts and then from that make his decisions through his votes.

National security on the one hand, children and all of their problems--not just education but children with all of the most complex problems of what happens when you get to be 18 and you have 3 years to get to be 21. The father of the Presiding Officer and I worked on that. Virtually every problem that can afflict children, unattended by most politicians, was taken to heart by the Senator from Ohio who had the advantage of many years of being a prosecutor.

I look upon the Senator from Ohio as absolutely extraordinary, as the majority leader indicated. He is an extraordinary Senator, an extraordinarily fine person, a friend in whom I could put complete and absolute trust, who only was here to do his work for the people and causes he cared about--most of all Ohio but then special groups probably unknown except to his conscience.

I wish you well, sir.

I yield the floor.

Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus, I would like to begin by thanking you for your efforts to address the impending Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, shortfalls as part of this end-of-the-year package. As many as 17 States face the prospect of not having enough Federal CHIP dollars to cover the children currently enrolled in their programs. Estimates by the Congressional Research Service and others indicate that these shortfalls will total approximately $920 million next year and could put the health care coverage of as many as 630,000 children in jeopardy. This compromise, struck between you, Congressman Barton, and Congressman Dingell, while not 100 percent of what everybody wanted, takes a significant step toward addressing that problem.

Your comments are helpful because I think Members are concerned that accepting this CHIP shortfalls proposal means they will be giving tacit approval to other provisions in the bill that they don't really support--such as decreasing the CHIP allotment from 3 years to 2\1/2\ years, or putting restrictions on how States can use the redistributed money, for example. But what I hear both of you saying, I think, is that the CHIP provisions in this package are causing a little bit of pain for everyone, but that the benefits of getting something done now far outweigh the downsides and that nothing in this CHIP package binds us as we move to reauthorize the program next year.

I thank my colleagues for their tireless efforts on behalf of children, and I look forward to working with both of them to address the remaining shortfalls early next year.