Yet, Congress is scheduled to adjourn in less than a month and congressional leaders say it's not going to happen.

"I don't think we can address it adequately in the next 17 days," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday.

That's despite the fact that members of both parties in Congress support what is being called drug importation and it's extremely popular with the public, which will decide whether to re-elect members of Congress in November.

So why isn't Congress acting?

Observers and those on both sides of the issue cite various reasons, including:

• President Bush's opposition.

• The opposition of the pharmaceutical industry.

• Safety concerns.

• Questions about whether it would actually save people money.

Brand-name prescription drugs sell for less in Canada and in many other countries largely because of government cost restrictions.

Americans are banned from buying even American-made prescription drugs being sold in other countries, but many do anyway through the Internet, through other intermediaries or in person.

A recent survey of 1,020 adults conducted for the Civil Society Institute found that 6 percent have bought prescription drugs from another country. About one-third said they are considering doing so.

Opponents say Americans are taking a big health risk by buying foreign drugs and the risk will increase if the government officially opens the borders.

"Before I'll allow that to happen, I'm going to make sure that you're safe," Bush said Monday. "Because all you need to do is get a batch of drugs manufactured elsewhere that sounds like they're legitimate and get sick, and then you're going to be wondering, where were the people, why weren't they doing their jobs of protecting consumer safety?"

But supporters say the safety argument is a smoke screen to defend the profits of the drug companies.

"The issue of safety is a hoax, and when somebody tells you it is not about money, folks, it is about money," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Illinois Democrat pointed out on the House floor this week that the vice president of marketing for Pfizer Inc. recently publicly disputed his industry's position that importation can't be done safely.

But even if safety concerns are met, there's still the question of whether importation would permanently lower drug prices for Americans.

"Nobody can sit here today and say if the ban were lifted how things would shake out," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute. Although Pilon argues that importation should be allowed because the ban is politically unsustainable, he says it's impossible to predict how the drug companies and the markets would react.

Drug companies might block countries from reselling their drugs. Or raise their prices. Or pharmacies and drug wholesalers - who would do the actual importing - might not pass on the savings to customers.

"I don't think it's going to happen," said Geoffrey Joyce, an economist at the Rand Corp., a nonprofit research company. "I think there's enough opposition from not only the (drug) industry, but most economists are opposed to it."

But officeholders are having an increasingly hard time explaining to their constituents why they have to pay more for drugs than citizens of other industrialized nations.

Nearly eight in 10 people surveyed by the Kaiser Family Foundation this summer said they support changing the law to allow Americans to buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies. Two-thirds said doing so would make medicine more affordable without sacrificing safety or quality.

And states and local governments are moving on their own to help citizens buy drugs from Canada.

Vermont is suing federal regulators for turning down its request to import prescription drugs from Canada. Iowa is looking at joining the suit.

Governors in states including Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Rhode Island have set up Web sites to help people buy drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

Even in Indiana, where drug giant Eli Lilly and Co. is one of the state's largest employers, Gov. Joe Kernan - who is facing a tight election - has promised to back importation if the federal government doesn't do anything to lower drug prices.

"It is important for us to take control," Kernan said, "if the federal government does not."

Presidential candidates take their stances

President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have debated whether to allow the importation of brand-name prescription drugs from Canada and other countries, where they often sell for less.

Here are the highlights of each candidate's position, along with the reality check from economists.

President Bush

• Opposes drug importation because he says the government can't guarantee the drugs will be safe.

• Says a better way to reduce drug costs is to encourage consumers to shop around and to get generic drugs to market faster.

• Says the Medicare prescription drug bill he signed will help seniors buy drugs and will increase competition from generic drugs.

Sen. John Kerry

• Supports lifting the ban on drug importation.

• Says the Medicare prescription drug bill would mostly help the pharmaceutical industry.

• Wants to lift the bill's ban on the government negotiating with drug companies for lower prices.

Reality check

The reality, according to economists and health-care analysts:

• Drug importation could provide short-term relief, but it's unclear whether it would work in the long run. Drug companies could find ways around it. Prices could decrease only slightly. Pharmacies and wholesalers who import the drugs could siphon off savings.

• If importation does lower the costs of drugs, it could affect the amount of money drug companies have to develop new products.

Check for yourself on the Web:

• www.georgewbush.com, George Bush.

• www.johnkerry.com, John Kerry.

• www.fda.gov/importeddrugs, Food and Drug Administration.

• www.aarp.org/legislative/prescriptiondrugs, AARP, formerly American Association of Retired Persons.