[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1999-2001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE JOBS FOR AMERICA ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, millions of Americans have seen 
corporations move their jobs overseas. Americans are losing jobs in 
every sector of our economy--not only in manufacturing, but also in 
computer technology, the service sector, and health care. Positions 
like call center technician, information technology specialist, and 
even health care worker are evaporating at an amazing clip.
  Experts estimate that 40 percent of Fortune 1000 companies are 
currently using some form of overseas outsourcing. As many as 3.3 
million jobs may be offshored in the next 15 years, causing American 
workers to lose $136 billion in wages. Worst of all, we are losing jobs 
in sectors that once provided our economy with its greatest growth like 
the information technology sector. As many as 500,000 information 
technology jobs could go overseas in coming years.
  The tragedy of our disappearing jobs is about more than just numbers. 
This week, a Wisconsin auto parts manufacturer announced that it was 
moving 500 jobs overseas, putting an equivalent number of workers out 
on the street. IBM has announced plans to displace thousands of 
computer programmers by moving their work to other countries. These 
workers represent the human cost of offshore outsourcing.
  This cost--all too real for most Americans--is ignored by the Bush 
administration, whose chief economic advisor stated this week that 
outsourcing

[[Page 2000]]

is ``a plus for the economy in the long run.''
  Tell that to the 15 million Americans who are out of work today. Tell 
that to the millions more who had to settle for new jobs at lower pay. 
Tell that to the millions of Americans struggling every day to provide 
for their families, pay the bills, and cope with rising health care and 
college costs.
  What we are seeing is a President out of touch with the needs of 
working Americans. He thinks it is good to deny overtime pay to 
workers. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage. He opposes 
unemployment coverage for workers looking for new jobs. And now he 
wants to ship your jobs overseas.
  Exporting American jobs may help the bottom line on Wall Street, but 
it hurts the bottom lines of America's families.
  Today, we are saying enough is enough. If President Bush and his 
corporate pals want to send your job overseas, then they will be held 
accountable.
  The Jobs for America Act amends the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 
Notification, WARN, Act to require companies to report whenever they 
lay off workers to send jobs overseas. When company plans to lay off 
workers and send those jobs overseas, they need to tell workers in 
advance. And they need to inform the Department of Labor, and local 
government officials. They will have to tell the public how many jobs 
are affected, where the jobs are going, and why they are being 
offshored.
  This act also requires the Department of Labor to compile much-needed 
statistics of offshored jobs and report them on an annual basis to the 
Congress and the public. Finally, it applies WARN Act protections to 
all cases where 50 or more workers are laid off.
  The bill shines a spotlight on offshoring practices--not only in 
corporate boardrooms but at the White House. It is time for President 
Bush and Corporate America to let every American know whether they 
stand only for more profits or whether they stand with the American 
people.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senator 
Snowe and Senator Wyden, to support the bipartisan Medicare Enhancement 
for Needed Drugs Act. This legislation is an important step toward 
controlling the spiraling cost of prescription drugs for America's 
seniors.
  Last November, I voted in favor of the Medicare Prescription Drug 
Improvement and Modernization Act because I believed it was the right 
step toward finally delivering on a promise Congress made to its 
seniors to modernize Medicare by providing prescription drug coverage 
in the nearly 40-year-old program.
  I personally ran the numbers and looked at a variety of options to 
add a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, but I decided to support 
the final bill that was passed last November and signed into law in 
December because I felt it would make a genuine, positive difference 
for the seniors in my State, particularly those with low incomes or 
very high drug bills.
  The key to the Medicare bill is that the prescription drug coverage 
is voluntary. No senior will be forced to enroll in drug coverage in 
Medicare, also called Medicare Part D. Those who do will receive 
assistance from the Federal Government for their drug bills up to 
$2,250 in total drug costs and will only pay 5 percent of their drug 
costs above $3,600 in out-of-pocket spending.
  I have said several times on the floor of the Senate that I was 
dismayed at a provision in the bill that prohibits the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prescription drug 
prices. Similarly, I said that I would take action to remove this 
provision and work toward lowering costs of the program.
  I feel strongly that savings to the Medicare Program can be achieved 
by provisions in the Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs Act. Now is 
the time to find solutions that reduce the cost of prescription drugs 
for our Nation's seniors and for the future of Medicare. I know seniors 
in my State who have had to make the terrible choice of paying for 
their prescription drugs and paying for rent and groceries. In the end, 
many skip or reduce their dosages putting their health at risk. That is 
simply unacceptable.
  This bill represents a comprehensive approach to strengthening the 
drug coverage in the Medicare bill by addressing the skyrocketing drug 
costs.
  First and foremost, the bill strikes language in the Medicare bill 
called the ``noninterference'' provision. That section bars the HHS 
Secretary from interfering with the negotiations between drug 
manufacturers and pharmacies and sponsors of prescription drug plans. I 
strongly believe that the Secretary should be given the authority 
similar to that of other Federal entities that purchase prescription 
drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part 
D drugs.
  CBO estimates that the effect of striking the ``noninterference'' 
provision would have a ``negligible effect'' on Federal spending 
because the savings CBO predicts private plans will be able to obtain 
will be greater than what the Secretary will be able to achieve.
  However, what if CBO's predictions are not the reality and private 
plans cannot achieve the lowest prices available? What if competition 
among private plans does not bring about greater cost savings? In that 
scenario, the HHS Secretary would not be able to step in and use the 
full force of the Federal Government's bulk purchasing power to lower 
prescription drug prices.
  A 2001 inspector general's report from the Department of Health and 
Human Services found that the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA, paid 
an average of 52 percent less for a list of two dozen drugs than did 
Medicare. The VA employs a number of cost-saving techniques such as 
using generics whenever available and substituting high-priced 
medications with just as effective ones for lower prices.
  I strongly believe that the Federal Government should employ the 
cost-saving techniques for Medicare as the VA does for the acquisition 
of prescription drugs.
  As an incentive to participating Medicare drug plans to negotiate the 
lowest possible drug prices, the bill allocates $500 million from the 
Medicare Stabilization Fund to be used by the HHS Secretary for those 
plans to secure negotiated prices that are on average within 10 percent 
of VA or Department of Defense.
  In order to ensure that seniors can make an ``apples to apples'' 
comparison when determining which drug plan suits them best, the bill 
requires that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
determine the negotiated savings received from each plan.
  The bill makes a significant step toward increasing access to lower 
cost reimported prescription drugs by ensuring access to these markets. 
It prohibits any company that discriminates publicly, privately or 
otherwise against foreign retailers or wholesalers who pass along 
discounts to consumers living in the United States from taking 
advantage of the advertising deduction allowed under the U.S. Tax Code. 
The purpose of this provision is to stop the practice of drug 
manufacturers limiting their shipments to foreign countries expressly 
to prevent reimportation by American consumers.
  I have heard concerns raised by many of my constituents about the 
impact the Medicare bill will have on their medigap plans. This bill 
directs the HHS Secretary to work with the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the 
medigap policies in the new drug benefit for the purpose of evaluate 
its impact on Medicare beneficiaries.
  CBO projects that Americans over 65 will spend $1.8 trillion on 
prescription drugs over the next 10 years. Recent studies of United 
States and Canadian drug price comparisons show that, on average, 
prices charged by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers were higher 
in the United States, most recently by about 70 percent.
  If we do not address the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs in 
this country today, we threaten the viability of programs like Medicare 
for future generations. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe and Wyden 
in the fight for lower prescription drug prices for our seniors.

[[Page 2001]]

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

                          ____________________