[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12995-12996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
courtesies, as always.
  Mr. President, I serve on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee and am pleased that we reported out a bill to improve generic 
drug competition in America and to address the high cost of 
prescription drugs. The Hatch-Waxman Act, which passed in 1984, is 
considered to be a remarkable piece of legislation. It strives to 
provide patent protection to companies that invests hundreds of 
millions of dollars to develop new drugs. At the same time, it limits 
that protection by allowing generic competition. It allows generic drug 
manufacturers to take a patented drug, produce it, and sell it at a 
much lower price, a competitive price, driving down the price of the 
drug for consumers.
  Since 1984 the scales, it appears, have tilted too much in favor of 
the name-brand producer of the drug, the patent holder of the drug, and 
too much against the generic manufacturers. There have been some 
problems on both sides of this issue. Loopholes of the Hatch-Waxman Act 
are being exploited, giving one side an advantage over the other. In 
fact, one of the things that has occurred is some generic companies 
have challenged patents and have gotten the right to produce patented 
drugs, because they have challenged it using the procedures of the act. 
Then they enter into an agreement with the original patent holder to 
not produce the generic drug--thereby agreeing to not compete with the 
name-brand manufacturer. This is a loophole that needs to be 
eliminated.
  I believe S. 812 will help recover the delicate balance that was 
originally intended by the Hatch-Waxman Act. I believe it will help 
contain the rising costs of prescription drugs. I believe it will also 
encourage production of drugs the way we intended, but at the same time 
will eliminate unfair patent extensions. I believe that by reporting 
this bill out of committee, we are moving in the right direction. I 
salute Senators Edwards, Collins, Schumer, and McCain who have worked 
to produce this legislation. I think it is going to be something we can 
all support.
  I know we will be beginning to talk about prescription drugs in 
general later this week, and I think it is time to do so. This Congress 
voted--I voted--for a budget last year that set aside $300 billion for 
a prescription drug benefit. However, we were not able to pass a 
prescription drug benefit last year, and it remains to be seen whether 
we will be successful this year.
  There are a lot of different views about how prescription drugs 
should be handled. Over the Fourth of July weekend, I visited two 
assisted care living facilities in Alabama: Chateau Vestavia near 
Birmingham and Westminster in Mobile, Alabama. I talked with seniors 
who have high drug bills and listened to what they had to say. I wanted 
to have their input as the Senate moved toward considering a 
prescription drug proposal. They told me that they are most concerned 
about high drug prices. I spoke with seniors

[[Page 12996]]

that are struggling to pay for their drugs.
  My mother is in her eighties. She has a $300-a-month drug bill. She 
is in relatively good health, although she has arthritis and high blood 
pressure. Her sister's drug bill is even higher than that each month. 
They are both in an assisted living center. They are getting by, but it 
is not easy. For people who rely on their Social Security as their sole 
income, they are not able to get by with those drug prices.
  We know we have a problem. The theory is this: If this federal 
government, through Medicare, will pay for the removal of a kidney, or 
will pay for the amputation of a leg, is it not irrational that we 
would not pay to fund drugs that would keep people from having to have 
a kidney removed or keep people from having to have an amputation 
because they are diabetic?
  We are at a point where drugs are such a central part of health care 
in America, that we cannot leave them out of Medicare.
  The seniors I visited with in Alabama want us here in the Senate to 
address the high cost of drugs. They believe they are higher than they 
need to be--and I agree. They would like to see less paperwork in the 
process, less bureaucracy, and less fraud. They would also like to see 
that they can go to their local pharmacy and buy the drugs there and 
talk to a pharmacist about them if they choose. They would like to be 
able to buy through direct mail and mail order if they choose. Those 
are things we will have to wrestle with. I intend to be talking with 
more seniors as time goes by so we can listen to their concerns and 
desires and see what we can do to pass a responsible bill.
  We are not doing anything to help Medicare beneficiaries pay for 
drugs today. We should not fail to act at all and do nothing simply 
because we can't do everything we would like to do today.
  We need to have some relief now. We have people this day who are 
having to choose between food and rent and drugs. They often are not 
able to buy the drugs they need to keep themselves healthy, and that 
leads to complications and even greater health care costs.
  We need to quit putting this off. If we cannot afford the Cadillac, 
we need a Ford. We need to do something to move forward. Seniors need 
help now.
  People who need drugs, seniors who need drugs, all Medicare 
beneficiaries who need them and simply cannot afford them need help. We 
can do that through the budget we passed last year. There is, through 
President Bush's plan, an idea of using group purchasing power to 
reduce the cost through a prescription drug discount card. A number of 
my pharmacist friends are concerned that could hurt them. That was not 
the intent. They have challenged this card. But a card plan should not 
harm our pharmacists. We ought to be able to drive down the cost of 
prescription drugs by up to 20, 30, or 40 percent. That would be a 
tremendous savings. It would be good if we could do that today--and not 
wait any longer. It would be a monumental step forward.
  We want our seniors to have choice and to not have to give up their 
current coverage plans. We do not want them to have to enter into some 
sort of mandatory plan that costs them more and provides less benefits.
  Beneficiaries should have information and the choice to choose 
between whether they want generic drugs or name-brand drugs. That is a 
choice that many can make. We need to make sure that option is 
available to them.
  We did vote for a budget last year that provides for $300 billion for 
prescription drugs. We have allowed our spending here to get out of 
control. Our discretionary spending last year hit about a 7 percent 
increase. This year, likewise, with defense and supplementals, it could 
be greater than that. If we get our spending under control and contain 
excessive spending, we ought to be able to fund a plan that would meet 
the needs of thousands of seniors who are in a crisis situation today.
  Politics should be put on the back burner. It is time to ask 
ourselves how we can accomplish passing a piece of legislation that we 
all can support, that the American people would like to see passed, and 
that we can afford. We can do this, if we watch our cost and do not let 
it get out of control. If we are smart and work at it and do it in a 
way that is bipartisan as this generic bill we passed out of the HELP 
Committee last week, we can make good progress for America. I look 
forward to the debate and hope we can achieve that before the recess.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________