[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6878-S6883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  GREATER ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PHARMACEUTICALS ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 
812, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 812) to amend the Federal Food, Drug and 
     Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to affordable 
     pharmaceuticals.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the 
Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Hampshire or their 
designees.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, just to state the obvious so all of our 
colleagues understand exactly where we are, the bill before the Senate 
is the Schumer-McCain Greater Access to Affordability Pharmaceuticals 
Act of 2001.
  This legislation closes loopholes in the law that deny patients 
access to low-cost, high-quality generic drugs.
  It is the most important single step the Senate can take to slow the 
galloping increase in the cost of prescription drugs, and make 
medicines more affordable for all Americans. I anticipate that other 
constructive measures to control the cost of prescription drugs may be 
offered as amendments to this underlying legislation when we get to the 
legislation.

  We have been denied the opportunity, for the last 2 days, to get to 
this legislation, but I believe there will be an overwhelming vote in 
the Senate to say: Let's move ahead on this legislation.
  To a very real extent, what the Senate does with this legislation is 
a key indication and a key test, I believe, of the Senate of the United 
States. We have a major problem and concern for families all over this 
Nation; and that is, the cost of drugs and the availability of drugs. 
We have carefully thought out solutions to these particular problems. 
There are different solutions to it, but this institution has the 
opportunity, over the period of the next 2 weeks, to resolve a public 
policy concern that is of real deep concern to families all over this 
Nation.
  This debate is not about technicalities, although if you listen to 
those who have been opposed to bringing this legislation up, they would 
list the various technicalities. They talk about jurisdictions. They 
talk about everything but the substance of the facts.
  The interesting point is, there has been prescription drug 
legislation before the Senate in the committees over the last 5 years. 
This is our first opportunity to address this issue on the floor of the 
Senate. We have a responsible measure now that is going to be voted on 
now as to whether we are going to address this. That is how we are 
going to be able to deal with the problem which is called evergreening, 
which means that brand name companies can continue their patents on 
this and deny legitimate generic drug companies from getting into the 
market to produce lower cost quality drugs. And this is how we will be 
able to get to the issues of collusion between brand name companies and 
generic drug companies which also work to the disadvantage of 
consumers.
  Our best estimate is that the savings, when this is scored, will be 
tens of billions of dollars, as much as even $60 billion. We will wait 
until that report is in.
  Can you say to parents, can you say to children, can you say to 
families across this country, we can save you $60 billion, and yet our 
Republican friends refuse to let us get to this issue? We will get to 
this issue. It is of vital importance.
  I look forward to continuing this debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator, is it not true that in the last 2 days 
we have really failed to seize an opportunity to move this bill 
forward? Have we not been tied up on the floor of the Senate with 
tactics from those who oppose prescription drug reform, to slow down 
the Senate debate, to try to stop us from passing this legislation 
before the August recess? Is it not true that we are now going to have 
a vote this morning to finally bring this to an issue so we have 
Members on the Record--Democrats and Republicans--and maybe once and 
for all we can see who is willing to stand in the path and who is 
willing to move forward when it comes to the issue you raised this 
morning?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The measure that is 
before us passed the committee by a 16-to-5 vote, including five 
Republicans. It was bipartisan in nature. That is why it is difficult 
for us to understand why our Republican friends--because the objections 
were not from the Democratic side; the objections were all from the 
Republican side--why they would object to this, when five of their 
members--and I think we have more support from other members of the 
Republican Party who support this--why they would object to us, the 
Senate, considering this legislation, and other measures that are going 
to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for families.

  I say to my friend from Illinois, I think the Senate will respond 
overwhelmingly and say: Let's get on with its business. But I regret 
the fact it has taken us 2 days in order to move this process forward.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. On the substance of the issue, when you use the term 
``generic drugs,'' that has a lot of connotations. But is it not true 
that a drug such as

[[Page S6879]]

Claritin, made by Schering-Plough, which is for allergies, widely 
advertised across the United States, when the patent on that drug 
expires, other drug companies can make the Claritin formula and sell 
it? It is exactly the same as the prescription drug that has been sold 
under patent for years and years, and that what you are talking about 
is making certain that kind of drug, generic drug, at a lower cost, is 
available to consumers across America so they can cut their drug bills 
and still have the same drug, which, under patent for years and years, 
was advertised as the very best for allergies and problems such as 
that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct.
  I welcome the fact that the Senator has pointed out these generic 
drugs are effectively and actively the bioequivalence of the other 
brand name drugs. We will deal with those issues. They are effectively 
the same but at a very reduced cost.
  I am glad to yield because I see my colleagues in the Chamber.
  Madam President, we have how much time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Nineteen minutes. So why don't I yield 4 minutes to the 
Senator from Michigan and do the same for the Senator from North 
Carolina. And other Senators want to speak.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank our leader, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, who is such a stalwart and passionate advocate on this 
issue.
  I wish to respond to one of my colleagues as to one of the reasons 
why I think this bill is being held up. I think it is being held up 
because it is not supported by the pharmaceutical industry.
  We know there are six drug company lobbyists for every Member of the 
Senate. It is clear they would prefer the House plan, which they helped 
to write. I would, once again, share with my colleagues a quote that 
was in the Washington Post when the House plan was passed:

       A senior House GOP leadership aide said that Republicans 
     are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA [the 
     pharmaceutical lobby] to make sure that the party's 
     prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies.

  I believe the reason the bill is being held up is that, in fact, our 
prescription drug plan does not suit drug companies. Our prescription 
drug plan is written for the seniors and the disabled of America.
  Our plan for lowering prices through the generics bill and through 
other options, to increase competition, is to make sure that prices are 
lower for everybody. The small business, which has premiums 
skyrocketing, and which has difficulty affording health care coverage 
for its employees, would see a major change as a result of our efforts 
to lower prices and create more competition. The manufacturers in my 
State would see decreases as well.
  So, in fact, what we have are two distinct views of how to proceed. 
One, as was indicated in the paper, is a plan for the elderly that 
suits drug companies. We will have various versions of it on the floor. 
But I would argue that those fighting proceeding to a real Medicare 
plan are doing so because our plan does not suit the drug companies.
  One of my major concerns is there is so much money that is going into 
this effort to promote the House plan--the drug company plan. What does 
the drug company plan do in the end analysis?
  When we look at this, they are asking the senior citizens of our 
country, up front, to pay a $250 out-of-pocket deductible before they 
get any help. Then, out of the first amount of money, the beneficiary 
would pay $650 to get help with $1,100. But then the beneficiary would 
continue to have to pay while they have a gap in coverage. They would 
pay $2,800 when they received no help in the middle here, as shown on 
the chart, in order to get some catastrophic help at the end.
  So what does this mean? It means, out of pocket, the average 
beneficiary will pay $3,700 to get $4,800 worth of help.
  I am not that great on math, but I would suggest that, in fact, the 
$3,700 out of pocket for $4,800 is not that great a deal. I would 
suggest it is not that great a deal for the average person.
  I have read a number of stories in this Chamber; one last night was 
of a gentleman who had an $800 a month income and his prescription 
drugs were $700 a month. This will not help him. This will not help the 
individual, the average individual who is struggling to pay their bills 
versus getting their medicine every day.
  We have a better plan, a plan that will, on average, pay for 65 
percent of the bill, which is a good start. It is a good step forward. 
It would not have a deductible. It would be a voluntary plan that would 
make sense and lower prices.
  I realize my time is up, but I would like to also join with my 
colleagues in advocating that we get on with the business of real 
Medicare coverage and lowering prices for everyone.
  Thank you.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina and 4 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this is a very simple proposition. Our 
friends on the other side of the aisle who oppose this prescription 
drug benefit largely oppose it because they say it is too expensive; we 
can't pay for it. They propose a prescription drug benefit that leaves 
lots of senior citizens behind.
  The problem is, when we respond with, No. 1, a more comprehensive 
prescription drug benefit that, in fact, protects all senior citizens 
and, No. 2, with a real and meaningful proposal to bring the cost of 
prescription drugs under control so that we can, in fact, afford a 
comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all senior citizens, that 
will work for all senior citizens, then they also block us on that 
front. This makes no sense. There is no logic to this.
  What we are saying is we want to provide a real and meaningful 
prescription drug benefit, No. 1; No. 2, in order to afford it, we have 
to do something about the cost of prescription drugs.
  The costs of prescription drugs have been going up anywhere from 10 
to 20 percent a year, way above the cost of inflation. We have to do 
something about that.
  One of the issues Senator Schumer and Senator McCain have worked very 
hard on is legislation to close the loopholes in the patent system that 
allow brand companies to keep a patent on a drug when the generic ought 
to be able to enter the marketplace. We know the way this works. The 
brand name company has a patent. As soon as the generic is allowed to 
enter the marketplace, the cost of the medicine goes down so that not 
only senior citizens but all Americans are able to afford it.
  What we are doing and what they did in that legislation was to close 
loopholes that allowed brand name companies to keep generics out of the 
marketplace automatically for 30 months, if, in fact, a generic tried 
to enter the market at the time that a patent was about to expire.
  What we have done is worked to close those loopholes so we get 
generics into the marketplace, so we have real competition and, most 
importantly, so we lower the cost of prescription drugs for all 
Americans and so we have a prescription drug benefit that we can, in 
fact, afford.
  Senators McCain and Schumer actually had a very good bill. It dealt 
with the abuses that were occurring, situations such as a brand name 
company had a patent that was about to expire. They would come in and 
say: We are entitled to a new patent because our pills have to be in 
brown bottles; or we are entitled to a new patent because our pills 
have two lines on them, as opposed to one, for scoring when you have to 
cut the pills--no innovation, no creativity, no new medical benefit. 
This is not the reason the patent system was created. It is not the 
reason the original legislation, the Hatch-Waxman legislation, back in 
1984, was created.
  What has happened is, the brand name companies have found a way to 
game the system, to exploit the system. The problem is, the people who 
pay the price of that are not the generic companies. The people who pay 
the price are Americans who have to go buy their medicine at the 
drugstore because when the generic can't get in the market, their cost 
stays up. And the

[[Page S6880]]

only people who benefit are the brand companies that keep their patent, 
and their profit, as a result, stays much higher.
  What we have done, Senators McCain and Schumer have done, was help 
close the loopholes. When that legislation came before our committee, 
the Labor Committee, the HELP Committee, we worked, Senator Collins and 
I, in a bipartisan way, along with a number of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, to address some of the concerns that others had 
about the McCain-Schumer bill. I actually think their bill was a very 
good bill and the work they did was very good.

  We dealt with it in a responsible way, found a bipartisan compromise. 
That is the legislation that is now on the floor of the Senate. It got 
the vote of five Republicans in committee. It is the kind of 
legislation that could actually do something about the cost of 
prescription drugs so we can afford a real and meaningful prescription 
drug benefit for all senior citizens in America.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and my colleague 
from North Carolina.
  We have all been working together on this issue, as the Senator from 
North Carolina has said. It has been bipartisan--Senator McCain and 
myself and then he and Senator Collins as well. The reason we are all 
coming together at this moment is a very simple one: These wonderful 
drugs that make people live longer and make people live better are just 
getting so darn expensive that most people can't afford them.
  It is not just senior citizens, although it is certainly them. What 
about a family who has a child with a disease and they need that drug 
and the man works for a small business, the wife maybe works at home; 
they can't afford this drug for their child? Maybe a year from now it 
might be affordable, 6 months, because the generic is available. Then 
the pharmaceutical company goes and hires their lawyers and plays some 
trick and says the price is going to stay at $250 a month instead of 
$70 a month. What does that family think?
  We have an urgency here. This is not just a political game. This is 
not just rhetoric. This is not just a stick to beat one party up or the 
other party. This is what we are all about--life. Our job is to make 
sure people can get these wonderful drugs.
  I have no relish beating up on the drug companies. I think they have 
done great things, but unfortunately, as the Senator from Massachusetts 
said last night, they have lost their way. The generic drug proposal we 
are talking about puts them back on track. It says, instead of spending 
your time innovating patents, spend your time innovating drugs. Instead 
of going to Harvard Law School to hire people to come up with new legal 
tricks, go to Harvard Medical School and come up with the best 
researchers. For years this system has worked so well, but it has begun 
to get off track.
  I make a plea to people on both sides of the aisle--I make a plea to 
the drug industry--get back with it. Go back to your noble mission of 
creating these wonder drugs that save people's lives, that avoid people 
having to go to the hospital and needing an operation.
  The Schumer-McCain bill does that. It doesn't take away any of the 
incentives, the profits. We are a free market system. When you innovate 
that drug, you will make some money. But then don't, 15 years later, 
say: I have a new idea. I will make a blue pill red; I want another 15 
years. I have another idea, I am going to say this drug is good for 
tennis elbow as well as pancreatis; I want another 15 years, not only 
for tennis elbow but for the pancreatis as well. That is what we are 
against here.
  It is no longer that technical. When the Senator from Arizona and I 
started on our journey, people said: This is a very technical bill to 
which no one will pay attention. But now people realize what it is all 
about. It is about lowering costs dramatically.
  By the way, it doesn't just lower the cost to the citizen. That is 
our paramount goal, to the average citizen. It lowers the cost to 
American business which has drug plans. Why is General Motors for this 
plan; why are so many corporate leaders for this plan? Why, when the 
pharmaceutical industry went to them and said, stop supporting Schumer-
McCain, did they say: We can't for the very simple, self-interested 
reason, it means hundreds of millions of dollars to them? Why are State 
governments for this? Go to your counties, your State, and ask them 
what their biggest cost is. It is Medicaid.
  What is the biggest cost within Medicaid? Whether it be Utah, 
Massachusetts, or New York, it is the rising cost of prescription 
drugs. This will limit it.
  I urge that we not try to fight the Schumer-McCain bill but we, 
rather, try to build on it with some of the other proposals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed being here this morning 
and hearing the debate. When I came to the Senate, I was interested in 
health care, anxious to do what I could to improve health care in this 
country, and recognized rather quickly that one of the major things 
that has happened in this country is that technology has long since 
outstripped, overcome, and ignored legislation.
  I tell town meetings, among people who talk to me about Medicare, 
Medicare is the best Blue Cross Blue Shield fee-for-service indemnity 
plan that we could devise in the 1960s, frozen in time. Legislation 
does not allow flexibility; legislation freezes things. And we have a 
Medicare system that, frankly, makes little or no sense in the face of 
the way we practice medicine today.
  In the 1960s, when Blue Cross Blue Shield laid down their fee-for-
indemnity plan, which Congress basically embraced and froze in 
legislation, prescription drugs didn't make much of an impact. The big 
financial challenge in those days was the cost of going to the 
hospital. So a plan was frozen in place that said, We will reimburse 
you for going to the hospital and, today, 40 years later, the way 
Medicare is structured doesn't make any sense. People take pills rather 
than having an operation, but the pills, even though they are many 
times cheaper than the operation, are not reimbursed, whereas the 
operation would be.
  There is a disincentive to practice intelligent medicine under 
Medicare. So to suggest that any rational individual looking at our 
present health care system does not support a prescription drug 
solution to our present dilemma is to misstate the facts. Everybody who 
looks at this, who has any understanding of the system, is in favor of 
a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. All right. We are all in 
favor. Let's do it. It is a little like someone having a medical 
condition back in the 1700s and turning to a physician and saying: We 
are all in favor of medical assistance, let's do it. And then the 
physician, acting on the conventional wisdom of the time, says: Bring 
in some more leeches, because that is the accepted technology.
  Unfortunately, that point of view would cause someone who had greater 
knowledge to say: Don't seek medical assistance under this 
circumstance. Do something different.
  Oh, no, we have to act quickly, and the prescribed method is to bring 
in some more leeches. So let's act quickly on this. The prescribed 
method is to simply attach a prescription drug benefit to the existing 
Medicare system and not pay much attention to any of the side effects.
  I was here in 1993 when we debated health care almost exclusively on 
this floor. It was the raging issue through the end of 1993 and through 
almost all of 1994. I was here when the effort to reform our health 
care system died on this floor. A lot of people think it was voted 
down. It was not voted down. It simply died of its own weight.

  George Mitchell, who was the majority leader at the time, despairing 
of the committee's not being able to produce a bill that might pass, 
took the whole process into his office and he produced, without any 
committee background, the Mitchell bill.
  I was part of the effort to defeat the Mitchell bill. We met twice a 
day in Senator Dole's conference room. We met under the leadership of 
the then-ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Packwood from Oregon, who understood this issue about as well as 
anybody, and we laid out the traps that we were setting for Senator 
Mitchell.

[[Page S6881]]

  Quite frankly, it was not very difficult. His bill was filled with so 
many problems and so many challenges that we didn't have to be very 
expert or very careful to be able to shoot it down. As we would raise 
one issue after another, Senator Mitchell finally withdrew the bill and 
simply let it die. It was never voted down. It died of its own weight.
  During that debate, Joe Califano--who served on the White House staff 
with Lyndon Johnson and was appointed Secretary of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, and who some have called the father of Medicare--wrote an 
editorial. I would like to quote from the Washington Post of August 18, 
1994. He was urging caution based on his experience. Here is the 
relevant paragraph:
  History teaches two lessons about Federal health care reform: It will 
cost more than any reasonable estimate at the time of enactment, and it 
will provoke a bevy of unintended consequences. The danger is that 
Congress may repeat history with a vengeance.
  Picking up on Secretary Califano's two points--it will cost more than 
any reasonable estimate at the time of enactment and it will provoke a 
bevy of unintended consequences--let's talk about cost. I have heard 
this morning that we can solve the problem of cost by--if I may quote a 
colleague--``closing a few loopholes.'' We can solve the problem of 
cost by telling the drug companies to hire fewer lawyers. We can solve 
the problem of cost by preventing the pharmaceutical industry from 
having 30 months more of control on the prices of their original drugs.
  For just 30 months more, they are somehow raising the price to the 
point that it is costing us so much money that we cannot afford this 
bill. And if we can just change that 30 months--just close that one 
little loophole--suddenly we will have enough money to pay for the 
whole thing.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Utah. He is always gracious in 
the spirit of debate. I ask two questions. First, does the Senator 
realize the generic drug is usually about a third of the cost?
  Mr. BENNETT. I realize that. I am talking about loopholes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Second, not only is it one 30-month extension, many of 
the pharmaceutical companies line them up--30 months, 30 months, 30 
months. So after they have made their rate of return, which they 
should, and I admire them for making these drugs, but I was asking the 
Senator if he realizes that the new practice is not just to have one 
automatic 30-month extension when you change the color of the bottle, 
but to pile them on and to have the patents extend long beyond the 20 
years that was expected.

  Mr. BENNETT. I realize the battle between the original creators of 
the patent and the generic drug companies has been going on ever since 
generic companies were formed, and that one group will always try to 
get the advantage over the other, and that a number of tactics are 
going on. I also realize the generic companies have been successful far 
more than many of the original companies would like, and to step in 
that battle and legislate that the generics will always win is fraught 
with all kinds of possibilities and all kinds of unintended 
consequences that Secretary Califano warned us against.
  The Senator from New Jersey wishes to ask a question.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, it is New Hampshire, but we are all in the East.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am often considered the Senator from Idaho. So that is 
fair.
  Mr. GREGG. I simply ask the Senator if he is aware that under the 
bill brought forward to us, as amended, the 30-day rolling exclusivity 
would be able to continue to roll over, that under this bill it is 
potential--and in fact likely--that second and third 30-day periods 
could be driven under this bill--and even fourth 30-day periods. There 
was actually language that would have eliminated that opportunity 
completely.
  Mr. BENNETT. I was not aware of that. If I may, reclaiming my time, 
make this comment about this whole circumstance, one of the reasons I 
was unaware of that is because I am not a member of any of the 
committees that deal with this. I often thought that since I was not a 
member of the committees, I would not have an opportunity to be 
involved in the details of the bills. But I have discovered in this 
circumstance that not being a member of the committee is not a barrier 
to being involved, because the committee is not writing this 
legislation. The committee has been dismissed. The members of the 
committee who have expertise, the committee staffs that have been 
working on this for the 5 years that the Senator from Massachusetts 
referred to, have been dismissed. Their expertise is being ignored.
  The majority leader has taken the bill into his office, and he has 
created his own bill, much like Senator Mitchell did back in 1994. I 
trust it will have the same effect. The Mitchell bill, however well-
intentioned, hit the floor with all of the flaws in it that could have 
been worked had it had a proper committee process.
  I submit that this bill is hitting the floor with this process. It is 
hitting the floor with all of the same potential so that Senators, such 
as the Senator from New Hampshire, who has expertise in this area, have 
been frozen out. Senators in the Finance Committee who have tremendous 
expertise in this area have been frozen out. And the majority leader 
has taken this all to himself.
  That means all of us who have gaps in our knowledge are suddenly 
confronted with the responsibility of dealing with this issue without a 
committee report, dealing with this issue without the guidance of 
ranking minority concurrent opinions. We are just faced with this on 
the floor, and all of us, willy-nilly, have to do our best to do our 
homework.
  I apologize to the Senator from New Hampshire for not knowing the 
specific he raised, but I point out that this is to be expected under 
the circumstances with which we are presented in this bill.
  Mr. President, the phrase that is used over and over with respect to 
medicine goes all the way to the Hippocratic oath, which says: Do no 
harm. That is a more specific way of summarizing what Joe Califano 
warned us about in 1994, the unintended consequences and the cost.
  The Senator from Massachusetts used the figure $60 billion in 
savings. I would like to see the background for that figure. He said it 
has not been scored yet, but I am sure he has some basis for coming up 
with that figure, and I do not challenge it. I am being told that the 
bill he would prefer to have passed, which also has not been scored, 
will eventually cost $1 trillion over a 10-year period--$1 trillion. 
Somehow, $60 billion does not get us to $1 trillion.
  I cannot intuitively think that closing some loopholes in an area 
where there has been intense competition and litigation for years is 
somehow going to give us such dramatic savings that we can pay for this 
bill in a way that will not end up hurting the senior citizens and 
hurting the people at the bottom of our economic ladder.
  Let me make this one additional point because I see one of my 
colleagues here, the Senator from Pennsylvania, who would like to speak 
further.
  For those who say cost is important but health care is more 
important, that cost is important but compassion is the most important 
thing, and we should not let cost stand in the way of our helping our 
least fortunate citizens, that is an emotion with which I totally 
identify. That is a feeling that all of us can accept and agree with. 
But the fact--the cruel fact--is that if the economy is in trouble, if 
the Government is feeding inflation through tremendous deficits and 
soaring expenditures, the people who get hurt the most in those 
difficult economic times are the people at the bottom.
  Conversely, in the period we have just gone through when everything 
was soaring and doing well, someone asked Alan Greenspan: Who benefited 
the most from this boom?--thinking he would say it was the Donald 
Trumps and the Bill Gates of the world who benefited the most from the 
boom.
  He said: Without question, the evidence is overwhelming that the 
people who benefited the most from the sound economy were the people in 
the bottom quintile; that is, the people in the bottom fifth had the 
greatest benefit in terms of what happened to make their lives better.

[[Page S6882]]

  When we talk about costs, we are not being cold hearted. We are not 
being green-eyeshade accountants. We are recognizing there is an 
element of compassion that redounds to the benefit of the people at the 
bottom if we keep our finances under control, if we see to it that the 
Government is properly funded and properly financed, and we do not 
allow expenditures to run willy-nilly out of control. That is part of 
compassion. That is part of taking care of the least fortunate, and 
that is a debate we are having on this floor now that some would like 
to wave aside.
  I reserve the remainder of the time and yield to Senator Gregg, as he 
takes over the leadership spot, but yield to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield a second, I want to clarify. I 
wandered in in the middle of the discussion and misunderstood the 
issue. I believe the Senator from New York is correct in his assessment 
of the bill on the 30-month issue. It was the 180-day rule to which I 
was referring.
  Mr. BENNETT. So I was correct in saying I did not understand the 
Senator's point.
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, that is correct. That happens to people from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. BENNETT. I will be more than happy, Mr. President, to turn the 
control of the time over to the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7\1/2\ minutes remaining for the 
Senator from Pennsylvania; 5 minutes 40 seconds for the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Does the Senator from Massachusetts want to go or have 
me finish the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to make sure we understand, No. 
1, this vote did not have to occur. We saw woeful crocodile tears today 
about how we have to have this vote today and be delayed 2 days. The 
Senator from New Hampshire yesterday afternoon agreed to vitiate this 
vote and agreed to proceed to the bill. We could be discussing 
amendments right now if we wanted. We could have been discussing 
amendments last night. When I was on the floor at about 5 o'clock, we 
could have been debating amendments, but we were debating whether we 
would allow this vote to be vitiated or not and agree to the motion to 
proceed.
  I have to question how genuine the concern is about having this delay 
of 2 days when we could have been on the bill yesterday and we could be 
amending the bill as we speak. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, let's understand, the underlying bill is the discussion, which 
has to do with the generics versus the main line pharmaceutical 
companies, and how we deal with the issue of reimportation of drugs is 
going to be an issue--there will be other issues--related to 
prescriptions. But this is a vehicle for a much broader and I think to 
the American public more important debate, and that is how we are going 
to provide prescription drugs for seniors. That is what the majority 
leader has said this debate is going to be all about that we are going 
to move to very quickly once this motion to proceed is agreed to, and I 
believe it will be unanimous.
  Let's understand the game that has been set up. The majority leader 
has set up a procedure on the floor of the Senate to guarantee--and I 
am underlying that word--to guarantee that no bill to provide 
prescription drugs would pass the Senate. I do not say that lightly. I 
use the word ``guarantee.'' We have 100-percent assurance under this 
procedure that no bill to provide prescription drug coverage will pass 
the Senate. Why? Because in last year's budget agreement--I say last 
year's budget agreement and you say: Senator, what about this year's 
budget agreement? We do not have a budget agreement for this year. We 
have no agreement of the budget that provides for money to be set aside 
for a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  So we have to go to last year's budget agreement to see what that 
provides for with respect to Medicare and prescription drug benefits.
  What does that provide for? Two things. No. 1, any bill that is not 
reported from the Finance Committee to the floor of the Senate on 
Medicare prescription drugs will have a 60-vote point of order against 
it. What does that mean? That means if we had a $10 bill, a bill that 
costs $10 to the American Treasury, on the floor of the Senate it would 
be subject to a budget point of order. It would have to have 60 votes.
  So what the Senator from South Dakota, the majority leader, has done, 
is he has required every single Medicare prescription drug bill to get 
60 votes. The other budget provision says it had to be under $300 
billion.
  Now, what we are hearing is that there is some outrage that we have 
delayed this all of less than a day actually, and that the majority 
wants to go forward and move their prescription drug bill. Fine. Let's 
look at this prescription drug bill. This is a bill they could not get 
through committee. Had they been able to get it through committee, I am 
sure they would have allowed Senator Baucus to mark up this bill and go 
through committee, but they could not get it through committee. So they 
bypassed the committee, thereby assuring, as the Senator from New 
Hampshire said, mutual assured destruction. This is a partisan 
exercise.
  So the bill will come to the floor. This is a bill that I have heard 
out in the hallways is going to cost upwards of a trillion dollars. 
Nobody has seen this bill. This is the largest expansion of 
entitlements in the history of this country, and no one has seen the 
bill. It is going to cost hundreds of billions, potentially a trillion 
dollars, over the next 10 years; it has not had one hearing in 
committee and it has not been marked up in the committee. What we are 
expected to do in the Senate is somehow agree to pass this bill within, 
according to the majority leader, the next 7 days. Within 7 or 8 days, 
we are going to pass a prescription drug bill that no one has seen, 
that nobody knows how much it costs--it could cost up to a trillion 
dollars--that no hearing has been held on, that no markup has been done 
on.
  If we are serious about getting a prescription drug benefit, this is 
not the way to present this to the Senate. What this is, pure and 
simple, is politics. This is about the majority leader being interested 
in setting up a procedure that will assure that no bill passes so they 
have the issue of saying, see, we wanted to give you all these 
wonderful things, we wanted to give you all these benefits, give you 
Cadillac this and Cadillac that, and these lousy Republicans do not 
want to let you have it.
  I suggest that we have three proposals on this side of the aisle on 
which we would love to get votes. Senator Smith from New Hampshire has 
one; Senators Hagel and Ensign have one; and then there is the 
tripartisan bill, all of which will move the ball down the field 
substantially when it comes to providing prescription drug benefits for 
seniors, all of which I believe could pass the test of the budget, 
which is getting through the Finance Committee and being under $300 
billion in expenditures.
  That is what we should be doing. We should be trying to pass a bill 
that gets through the Senate so we can get it to conference, work with 
the House, and get a drug benefit by November, not get a political 
issue by November.
  This process has been set up to fail. This process has been set up to 
fail so some believe they will get political advantage by doing so. I 
want everybody to understand that when next Friday rolls around and we 
are at loggerheads because nobody can get 60 votes on a budget point of 
order and everybody is now gnashing their teeth and wringing their 
hands and saying, oh, woe is us, we could not get a bill done, we 
failed the American public, the Republicans would not let us pass our 
bill, or whatever the case may be, understand the template has been set 
for that today. The template has been set for that today by bringing a 
bill to the floor which requires 60 votes as a budget point of order. 
Once that template was set, once the majority leader decided to bypass 
the Finance Committee, a Finance Committee that, without question, 
could pass a bill--there is no question they could pass a bill, but 
again the majority leader, as he did with trade, as he has done with a 
whole

[[Page S6883]]

lot of issues with respect to the Finance Committee, has basically 
pushed the Finance Committee aside.
  I do not know whether he does not trust the committee, whether he 
does not trust the leadership. I do not know what it is, but the 
Finance Committee has pretty much been made irrelevant over the past 
several months by the majority leader. What we have as a result of that 
is a procedure that is doomed to failure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 5 minutes 40 seconds left. Is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What I would like to do is give 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
Senator from New York and 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield my remaining time. Senator Gregg corrected the 
time. I would be happy to yield my remaining time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the unspeakable, as 
far as I am concerned. I picked up the paper this morning and I read 
House GOP leaders fight audit plan, an audit plan that passed this body 
97 to 0.
  There are rumors circulating out among those on the Hill that a 
procedural process called blue-slipping has been applied to the Senate-
passed corporate responsibility act, more formally known as the 
Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, which our Nation is 
crying out for, in response to corporate malfeasance and the 
deterioration of the quality of financial reporting corporate 
governance in this Nation.
  If we have ever seen a situation where politics is an overwhelming 
necessity, where the politics of a given issue is undermining the needs 
of the American people, investors across this country, retirees, people 
who are dependent on our financial system having integrity and how it 
responds to information presented from companies, it is demonstrated by 
these actions with regard to trying to stop or hold back something that 
is absolutely essential for making sure that our economy and our 
markets function properly.
  In case people had not noticed, we have lost over $2.5 trillion in 
our financial markets this year alone with respect to what is going on 
in corporate governance, corporate malfeasance. Yesterday we heard a 
positive statement out of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board 
about the underlying fundamentals of the economy. Productivity is up; 
inflation is down. There is plenty of reason for why our market should 
be moving forward, why the marketplace should feel comfortable with 
itself, but what is standing in its way is the integrity of corporate 
responsibility, the integrity of our financial statements, the 
integrity of how our marketplace works. We are refusing to deal with 
this on a straightforward and expeditious manner.
  The President has asked for it to be placed on his desk in less than 
3 weeks, and now we are being stopped cold dead by the House 
leadership.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CORZINE. Absolutely.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I could not agree more with what my colleague from New 
Jersey has said. We passed a 31(e) bill, which reduced taxes on 
corporate transactions but was supposed to fund the SEC. We could not 
even get an authorization to have pay parity for the SEC to hire new 
people. That is one of the reasons we are in the pickle we are in.
  So I ask my colleague from New Jersey: Is this not the same type of 
thing where they say, oh, yes, we are for enforcement, but they do not 
put any money in to either get enforcers or the quality of enforcers 
that we need?
  Mr. CORZINE. The reason we have had responses like we have had in the 
marketplace in the last 2 weeks is that people are hot on rhetoric and 
low, low, low with regard to results and doing anything that is proper 
action to deal with the problem.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will continue to yield, the best place we 
can have action is in the bowels of the agencies where they find the 
wrongdoing; capable people, Government workers, they find it, nail 
them, so it does not happen again. Am I wrong about that?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator is certainly right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. I hope we take real action soon to stop this crisis of 
confidence from continuing.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Vote for cloture and get on with debate. This is an 
important first step that can take us on the road to lower prices and 
better availability of drug coverage for people who need it in our 
country.
  I understand under the procedure the yeas and nays are automatic; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand all time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion 
     to proceed to Calendar No. 491; S. 812, the Greater Access to 
     Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2001:
         Senators Harry Reid, Jon Corzine, Byron L. Dorgan, Ron 
           Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Dick Durbin, Thomas Carper, Tom Daschle, Jack Reed, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Kent Conrad, Zell Miller, Charles 
           Schumer, Ernest Hollings, Hillary Clinton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 812, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to affordable 
pharmaceuticals, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 99, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________