[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6497-S6498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. President, on another matter, I introduced a bill with our 
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, to address the rising 
costs at the pharmacy counter. Senator Blumenthal is a Democrat. I am a 
Republican. He is from Connecticut. I am from Texas. But we both heard 
the same thing from our constituents: Prescription drugs--particularly 
the out-of-pocket costs to consumers--are too high, especially with the 
huge deductibles and the huge copays under the Affordable Care Act.
  Over the last several months, we have dug into the reasons behind 
those high costs, and it is safe to say there is a lot that concerns 
us.
  One of the most egregious forms of abuse we have seen deals with the 
patent system. Under the patent system, if you come up with a new 
lifesaving drug, then you are guaranteed the exclusive right to make 
and to sell that drug, and you are protected from any competition for a 
period of time. But after that period of time expires, what is supposed 
to happen is that generic alternatives are supposed to be available to 
compete and bring down the price for consumers. That is the case for 90 
percent of the drugs we take.
  Our country offers the most robust protection in the world for 
intellectual property. We know companies are unlikely to pour extensive 
time, money, and resources into developing these new cures unless, at 
the end of it, there is some reward. I get that, and I support that.
  But the patent system is designed to provide a limited time period 
during which the manufacturer can be the sole seller on the market 
before generic alternatives can become available and before competitors 
can enter the market. What is happening is that some companies are 
abusing that system and extending that period of exclusivity by filing 
tens--sometimes in excess of 100 patents.
  In one case involving a drug called HUMIRA, which is one of the best 
selling drugs in the world, there are four approved competitors in 
Europe. In the United States, HUMIRA has in excess of 120 separate 
patents designed to crowd out and prevent any competition while 
maintaining their exclusivity in the marketplace.
  That is what is called the patent thicketing. It involves using 
intricate webs of patents to keep competition at bay for as long as 
possible, meaning that your profits and your exclusive rights to sell 
this drug are high.
  There is also something called product hopping, which occurs when a 
company develops a reformulation of an existing drug about to lose its 
exclusivity and then pulls the original product off the market. This is 
done not because the new formula is more effective necessarily but 
because pulling the original drug off the market before it loses its 
exclusivity prevents generic competitors. That is called product 
hopping.
  The bill Senator Blumenthal and I introduced aims to stop these anti-
competitive behaviors, allow competitors to come to market sooner, and 
bring down prices for consumers. The Affordable Prescriptions for 
Patients Act streamlines the litigation process by limiting the number 
of patents companies can use when they are litigating their patent 
rights. Ultimately, we believe--and I believe it is borne out by the 
Congressional Budget Office scoring--this would allow competitors to 
resolve patent issues faster and bring those generic drugs to market 
sooner. This is how we improve competition and lower prices without 
getting in the way of lifesaving innovation.
  The added benefit to this bill is the Federal savings it would 
provide for

[[Page S6498]]

taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill would 
lower Federal spending by more than half a billion dollars over 10 
years. That is not a panacea, but it is a good start. This is just 
savings to the Federal Government for Medicare and Medicaid. There 
would undoubtedly be more savings for consumers who get their health 
coverage through private health insurance.
  It checks every box. It checks innovation, increases competition, 
lowers prices for patients, and saves money for taxpayers. On top of 
that, this bill has a raft of bipartisan cosponsors. This is not a 
partisan bill; this is a bipartisan bill. In addition to Senator 
Blumenthal, five other Democrats have endorsed the bill, including both 
the Democratic whip and the assistant Democratic leader.
  I am sure it comes as no surprise that this bill sailed through the 
Judiciary Committee without a single Senator voting against it. It was 
unanimous. During simpler times, it would have quickly passed the full 
Senate and moved on to the House for their consideration and then gone 
on to the President for his signature. But we all know things aren't 
quite that easy these days, and even bipartisan bills get caught up in 
the political crosshairs.
  According to a report in POLITICO, the minority leader from New York, 
Senator Schumer, is blocking this bill from passing in the Senate. He 
is blocking one of his own Member's bills--and one to lower 
prescription drug prices, of all things. While the American people 
suffer from the crush of high costs at the pharmacy, he stonewalls, and 
it is to the detriment of just about everybody--except one group.
  I know there are some drug manufacturers that must be thrilled with 
his blocking the bill that would reduce their compensation and increase 
competition. You see, the army of special interests who have been 
fighting my bill since day one when it was introduced is ecstatic that 
the Democratic leader is blocking this bill, but I am not, and I don't 
think the rest of the Senate is either because this is a 
noncontroversial, bipartisan bill. The only thing that Democrats are 
doing by continuing to hold up this bill is to carry water for one of 
Washington's most prominent special interest groups. As long as they 
do, it will be to the detriment of the American people.
  I know this frustration is bipartisan because my friend Senator 
Blumenthal is just as frustrated by this ridiculous holdup as I am. We 
have tried to reason with the minority leader. We have tried to 
negotiate. We have tried to get him to allow the bill to come to the 
floor, but we have had no luck so far.
  Last week, I came to the Senate floor to ask unanimous consent to 
pass this bill, and what happened next felt like a scene from a bad 
made-for-TV political drama. The minority leader, who was unwilling to 
come to the floor and block the bill himself, tried to have one of the 
cosponsors of my bill do it for him, the Senator from Illinois. He 
would rather force his own member to block a popular bipartisan bill, 
which happens to have my name on it, than allow it to pass on its own.
  Well, as you can imagine, that didn't go very well. So then it was on 
to plan B. They wanted to link the fate of our bill, which passed 
unanimously in the Judiciary Committee, with another bill that hasn't 
even passed out of committee.
  The other bill was introduced by our friends, Senators Grassley and 
Durbin, and aims to provide greater transparency on drug prices, 
something that is definitely needed, and I don't object to it. But 
these bills are in very different places in the legislative process, 
and some Members on our side have concerns about a bill coming to the 
floor that hasn't even been through the committee of jurisdiction.
  Now, to the minority leader this is just another creative way to stop 
passage of a noncontroversial bill and attach a free rider onto the 
bill, which, in essence, is a poison pill. The result is the same. 
Nothing passes.
  As I said, the bill Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced is 
bipartisan. It is not controversial. It went through regular order. 
Every member of the Judiciary Committee had a chance to vote on it, and 
no one voted against it. We checked on our side, and there is no 
objection. We have run a hotline on the Democratic side, only to find 
that the Democratic leader is the one himself who is blocking it.
  Well, unfortunately, politics, once again, has overwhelmed our 
collective good judgment and good sense. I know the Democratic leader 
doesn't want any bills to pass that Republicans can use to tell their 
constituents that they are listening to their concerns and acting on 
those concerns in the run up to the next election. He doesn't really 
care about the merits of the legislation or that it would, in fact, 
help New Yorkers. It is politically inconvenient, and that, clearly, is 
his top priority.
  The American people deserve better. With the House working day and 
night to remove the President from office and the next election less 
than a year away, the opportunities for us to pass any sort of 
bipartisan legislation are getting slimmer and slimmer.
  I plan to return to the floor later this week with my colleague from 
Connecticut to ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed. If the 
Democratic leader is going to block the bill, I want it to be clear to 
the American people and the people who would benefit from the passage 
of the bill being signed into law. I want them to see him do it and to 
hold him accountable for his misguided politics.
  I hope the minority leader will rethink his decision to block this 
bill so that we can all work together to deliver bipartisan results for 
our constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.