[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13007-13009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     MEETING THE SENATE CHALLENGES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me take a couple of minutes to speak 
on a couple of subjects which I feel very strongly about and that we 
are facing.
  First of all, I want to talk about energy. Certainly, during this 
whole year we have been giving consideration to and having some 
emphasis on energy. The public interest has been higher, and we have 
problems. When gas prices are higher, everybody recognizes the issue 
that we have with energy. But when those settle down a little, the 
problem is still there. We in the Congress have tried to deal with it 
for this whole year. Now we are in the process of having a conference 
committee try to come out with conclusions. I just wanted to urge that 
we move forward with the conference committee and that we finally come 
up with an energy policy in this country. We do not have one.
  We find ourselves in the position of being nearly 60 percent 
dependent on importation of oil in order to meet our needs. We don't 
want to be in that position, particularly with the unrest in the Middle 
East from where much of our oil comes. We certainly need to find 
solutions that will make us less dependent. It is not only an energy 
issue, it affects our economy. I do not know of anything that affects 
our economy more than energy. We use energy when we turn on our lights, 
when we have heat, and when we have air-conditioning.
  In terms of the economy itself, nothing is more important than 
energy.
  I am hopeful that we can move forward. We have put together a 
conference committee. The House bill is somewhat less extensive than 
the Senate bill. On the other hand, certainly there are a great many 
things in which there is common interests. Someone reviewed it and 
found that there are probably 55 issues in which we have a common 
interest.
  We need to move forward. We are ready to do something. The committee 
has not yet actually met. Staff is meeting. I just can't say how 
important it is for us to move forward and complete that conference 
committee and bring those issues back to the Senate and the House 
before the September time expires.
  We are talking, of course, not only about the idea of having 
increased production in our country, which we can have, we are also 
cognizant about renewables. We are talking about research to make coal 
cleaner for the air.

[[Page 13008]]

We are talking about all kinds of issues with a balance between 
production and conservation. That is what we ought to be doing in 
policy.
  I am really anxious that we find a way to move forward. Obviously, 
there are some issues on which there is disagreement: For example, an 
opportunity to have production in ANWR on the North Slope, which is 
part of the House bill and not part of the Senate bill. We ought to 
resolve that and come to a conclusion. That ought not be what holds up 
having an energy policy in this country. We can deal with the idea of 
having access to public lands so we can have production. And we can 
conserve and protect the environment at the same time. We have done 
that for a very long time in the West where most of the public land is 
located. We can do that.
  There are those who try to make the point that if you have access to 
the land, it suddenly is going to be spoiled, and so on. That doesn't 
need to be the case. There are ways in which we can have effective 
production and at the same time have effective maintenance. Obviously, 
there are areas in which we don't want to have that kind of use, 
whether it be wilderness or the national parks or special parts of the 
forest. But, in general, half of Wyoming belongs to the Federal 
Government. The largest percentage of that is Bureau of Land Management 
lands. Those are lands that ought to be available under law for 
multiple use. Certainly, it should be used carefully. We want to do 
that.
  There is also a great debate over what we do in terms of trying to 
get better efficiency out of our energy. And we can do that. There is a 
great debate on CAFE standards and mileage standards and whether that 
ought to be the best we can do or whether that ought to be put in law 
over a certain length of time. Again, we can resolve those issues.
  The idea of using ethanol can also be resolved. We need to work at 
it.
  The other issue that obviously is going to be on the floor right away 
is one that we have worked on in the Finance Committee for some time; 
that is, prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals, which we will be 
talking about today, and, as I understand it, from the leader's 
comments, probably for the next 2 weeks, which is fine. It is an issue 
that really needs to be resolved. Obviously, it impacts a great many 
people in this country, particularly those on Social Security, the 
elderly.
  More and more, we find ourselves utilizing pharmaceuticals. 
Hopefully, that has been helpful to health care. Utilization is one of 
the reasons, of course, the costs per individual have gone up, in 
addition to the price of pharmaceuticals.
  In the Finance Committee we worked on this bill, which is where the 
jurisdiction is. But I am disappointed that coming to the floor with a 
bill that has been approved by the committee is apparently not going to 
happen. The leader is going to go ahead and has already put a bill on 
the floor that has to do more with the patent rights than it does on 
the whole question of pharmaceuticals, and then to bring a bill as he 
chooses to do it as opposed to the committee approving a bill.
  Interestingly enough, that is exactly what happened with energy. The 
bill was taken out of the Energy Committee by the leadership here, and 
then we dealt with it on the floor for I don't remember how many weeks. 
But that is not the way we are supposed to work.
  We have committees and committees are supposed to report and bring 
their recommendations to the floor so that the great detail of these 
things has already been done. When you do not do that, then it comes to 
the floor, and we find ourselves, as we are now, frankly, behind in the 
work we ought to be doing towards the end of this session, and largely 
because of the idea of going around the committees and then bringing 
these controversial issues to the floor.
  I do not think pharmaceuticals are controversial in terms of us 
wanting to deal with it, but there are lots of things in it. It is a 
very difficult issue. I am disappointed--if that is finally the way it 
works out--that we don't have a bill reported from the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  It is a tough issue. There are lots of issues to talk about. Who 
should be the beneficiaries of a pharmaceuticals program of this kind? 
There are some who want it for everyone. There are some who want it 
simply as part of Medicare. And then, should the emphasis be on low-
income individuals or should it be for everyone? I do not know the 
answer, but that is one of the issues that has to be talked about.
  What can we do in terms of trying to get better prices, in terms of 
having prescription drugs available for people to buy? Or do we simply 
want to subsidize them at whatever price comes out? It is a very 
difficult issue, and one with which we have to deal.
  Since we are talking about a kind of stand-alone situation with 
pharmaceuticals, we have to talk about a delivery system. How do you do 
this? How do you do this to allow for the local pharmaceutical, the 
local drug stores, the local pharmacies to be able to participate, as 
well as mail distributors? I think that is very important, particularly 
for those of us in rural communities. We need to make sure the drug 
system--whatever we come up with--and the delivery system are available 
in rural areas. We find some problems with that generally in terms of 
health insurance. In low-population areas, there are not the choices 
available as in other places. We need to ensure that is the case.
  And then there is the cost, of course. There are at least three 
proposals that will be before us. One of them--I think it is called the 
Graham bill--will be one that gives very extensive coverage but over a 
10-year period costs nearly $1 trillion, apparently. At least that is 
the best sort of pricing that we can get so far.
  There is one that is the tripartisan bill. That comes out to a price 
of about $370 billion over 10 years. Again, it is difficult to get the 
scoring on these, but we have that.
  And then, of course, there is another proposal out there. I think it 
is the Hagel bill. That is largely one in which there is a group 
purchasing process, and you would belong to the purchasing card 
arrangement and basically use the idea of volume to be able to have 
substantially less cost. I think it would cost about $150 billion. I 
never thought I would be talking about $150 billion being less, but 
that, nevertheless, is the way it is.
  So we are faced with some tough decisions. Unfortunately, we will not 
have a committee-approved bill before us to deal with, I am afraid. The 
difficulty with that, of course, is that in the Senate we also do not 
have a budget; therefore, a point of order rises on anything that is 
above what was considered to be in the budget, which is $300 billion. 
So a point of order can be raised on two of these three bills that I 
mentioned; and then it takes 60 votes to get those passed. If there are 
not 60 votes, they will not be successful.
  I think we find ourselves in a real difficult situation in dealing 
with something that almost everyone wants to complete. Unfortunately, 
it now becomes something of a political issue in terms of what you can 
do during the election period to talk about what an advocate you were 
on the floor. That should not be the purpose. The purpose ought to be 
to come up with a workable program designed to deal with the people in 
most need of assistance, designed to have a delivery system that gives 
people some choices which comes through the private sector; and those 
choices would exist all around the country, not simply in cities and 
highly urbanized areas, with some control over cost.
  We are finding ourselves, obviously, in a great spending spree. Part 
of it, of course, is the result of terrorism and some of the events 
that have happened, and partly as a result of less revenue coming in as 
a part of the economy.
  So I guess on balance I am saying we find ourselves in a tough 
position. I hope we can zero in on what it is we want to accomplish and 
find the best method of accomplishing that and get it done in the very 
near future.
  So I think we have lots of challenges before us. I mentioned a 
couple: energy, pharmaceuticals. We ought to be

[[Page 13009]]

able to get a budget so we have limitations on our spending. In the 
Senate, we obviously have not yet begun to deal with the 13 bills that 
we need on appropriations. We have not started on that.
  So I think we have allowed ourselves to get into a pretty tight 
situation in terms of dealing with the issues. I am pleased that 
yesterday we were able to at least complete something in the accounting 
area that will deal with some of the problems we have seen in terms of 
corporate misbehavior. Hopefully, that will work. So I just wish we 
could move and get on with the work we know we have to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________