Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, that is our intent. This legislation would spur innovation and improve modeling and simulation efforts.

Mr. DORGAN. I agree that high performance computing applications are important research tools that can help lead to breakthroughs in energy production. North Dakota State University, NDSU, uses computational modeling and simulations to help analyze theories and validate experiments that are dangerous, expensive or impossible to conduct. Through its Center for High Performance Computing, NDSU is collaborating with the Department of Energy and its national laboratories on a number of energy research projects. The capabilities of VMASC, University of Utah, North Dakota State University and other institutions should receive due consideration as the Department of Energy executes this provision. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are waiting to proceed on the legislation that has come from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which I chair. We are on the bill, but we are waiting for amendments and discussion. But I want to make a point. We have had people coming to the floor of the Senate yesterday, now this morning, incessantly over a long period of time, talking about health care. Health care is, obviously, very important; no question about that. The relentless increase in the cost of health care hurts families. It hurts business. It hurts government programs that provide for health care. So we need to do something about that. But it is interesting. What I hear on the floor of the Senate from the critics of these issues is: What is wrong? What is wrong? Well, it does not take a lot of energy or a lot of time to determine what is wrong and be a critic. I understand that. I have often told the story of Mark Twain, who was asked to debate once, and he said: Of course I will be engaged in that debate, as long as I can take the negative side. They said: Well, we have not even told you the subject of the debate. He said: Oh, it doesn't matter. The negative side will take no preparation. So it is with these discussions on the floor that I have just heard a moment ago and heard all day yesterday as I sat here on the floor, talking about what is wrong. Well, do you know what, we know what is wrong. What is wrong is that we have this relentless rise of health care costs. We spend more on health care than anybody else in the world, by far, and we rank somewhere around 41st in life expectancy. We spend twice as much per person than almost everybody else in the world spends on health care. I notice that all those critics who come out here talking about what is wrong with this plan or that plan never talk about prescription drugs because most of those who have been out here criticizing the various plans are people who vote against legislation to put downward pressure on prescription drugs. Yet one of the fastest rising areas of health care costs is prescription drugs. Let me, if I might, ask unanimous consent to show on the floor of the Senate two bottles that would contain prescription drugs.

Mr. DORGAN. These two bottles I hold in my hand, which I have shown many times, contain Lipitor. It is medicine produced in Ireland and then shipped all around the world. This Lipitor, as you can see, comes from identical bottles. The same tablet, the same medicine, produced in the same plant by the same company, FDA-approved by our Food and Drug administration in our country, is put in two different bottles. One is shipped to the United States, this one, and the other is shipped to Canada. What is the difference? Well, there is no difference in the medicine. It came from the same place, produced by the same company. The difference is price. The Canadians get to pay half the price the Americans pay. It is not just Lipitor, the most popular cholesterol-lowering drug that exists out there. It is not just Lipitor. It is prescription drug after prescription drug. The American people get to pay the highest prices in the world. You want to talk about how you cut health care costs? How about taking a whack at this and saying it is not fair that the American people should pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Why are they required to pay the highest price in the world? Because there is kind of a sweetheart deal in law that says the only entity that can reimport prescription drugs is the drug manufacturer itself. Much of the ingredients in these drugs come from all around the world--China, just as an example. The manufacturers can produce these drugs in Ireland, using ingredients from all around the world, and then bring them in to sell to the American consumer. But the American consumer cannot access the same FDA-approved drug sold in virtually every other industrial country at a fraction of the price the American consumer is charged. Why, when we hear these critics come to the floor on health care issues, do we not hear them suggest: Here is an area where we could substantially cut costs and give the American consumer the opportunity everybody else has; that is, to shop for these FDA-approved drugs in areas where you see much lower prices? The pharmaceutical industry will say: Well, if you allow the American people to do that and if we can't charge the highest prices to the American people for prescription drugs, we will not have the money to do our research to find new drugs. Well, that is not true. The fact is, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money on research in Europe than they do in the United States and in virtually every European country, the European consumers get to pay less money for the same drugs that American consumers are now charged. A bipartisan group of us has offered legislation to give the American consumer the right to access these lower cost prescription drugs from areas where you can pay a fraction of the price for the identical drug the American consumer pays the highest price in the world for. But we have a staunch bunch of folks in this Chamber who support the pharmaceutical industry and who decide that the American people shouldn't have this right. I would say to those who are the critics of virtually anything anybody talks about in health care: Maybe you ought to decide to support those of us who have introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue of the prescription drug prices in which the American people are charged the highest prices in the world. It is not fair; it has gone on too long; and it needs to be changed. With respect to health care, generally, this issue is one of those issues that is very important. We are in the middle of a very deep recession. I think job one in this country, by far, is to put the country back on track so people can get back on payrolls, get back to work, and have jobs. That makes almost everything else possible. This is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and we have a lot of work to do. This President inherited a mess, no question about that. He inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. It is now going to be $1.9 trillion because the President advanced and the Congress passed an economic recovery program to try to stimulate the economy. But we need to get this economy back on track and then we need to begin trimming back these budget deficits. We cannot, for any length of time, continue to provide a level of government the American people are either unable or unwilling to pay for. That is not a path that is sustainable. It is not a path that works. But the President, when he took office, said there are a number of other things we need to do--one of which is to try to get some control over these escalating health care costs. I don't know exactly how this is going to end up. I don't know what plan might or might not exist at the end of the day, but I think Congress is going to find a way through this. I think it is useful and important and productive for us to be working and working hard to see: What are the solutions? How do we put downward pressure on prices? How do we try to provide broader coverage for those who don't now have health care coverage? I think we can do this. It might well be it has to be done in a couple phases, the first of which is to put downward pressure on the pricing and the second of which is to extend coverage. However we do it, we need to decide that health care costs are rising far more rapidly than is sustainable. They blow a hole in the federal budget deficit because the Federal Government, through Medicare and through Medicaid, is the largest consumer of health care, so we don't have much choice but to find a way to do this. I understand there is a lot in this health care system that wants to protect what is, one of which is prescription drugs. I mentioned this prescription drug called Lipitor. Most people would know the name of this. Why? Because when they leaf through Newsweek or Time magazine, they will see a full-page ad for Lipitor. When they shave in the morning or brush their teeth in the morning, if they have a television near their bathroom, they will understand about Lipitor. They will understand about the purple pill. They will understand about prescription drugs because relentless advertising is driven toward the consumer to say: Go ask your doctor if you shouldn't be taking this drug. Go check with your doctor. Isn't the purple pill right for you? There is relentless consumer advertising for something you can't buy unless a doctor believes you need it and a doctor prescribes it for you. Is that something we ought to take care of maybe? I think so. There are a whole range of areas that I think are very important in health care that we need to try to do something about. I think we can. It is horribly complicated, very difficult, a very heavy lift, and we need to do it in a way that first and foremost puts downward pressure on health care pricing. The fact is we cannot and should not be spending twice as much as anybody else in the world per capita on health care only to find out that we rank 41st in life expectancy. That means we are spending much more than anybody else and not getting the outcome or the results. So I would say to the people--including this morning, the first thing out of the box is the critics of health care, once again, relentlessly on the floor telling us what is wrong. As I have said, Mark Twain knew the negative side requires no preparation. So I am not sure these are well-prepared arguments, but they are certainly relentless. It is nice to hear what is wrong. Maybe as 100 Senators who dress up in suits in the morning, we could come and spend the entire day talking about what is right. This is a great country, one of which we have the privilege to live in freedom, we have the privilege to be engaged in public debate. Maybe let's spend a little more time trying to figure out what is right about this country and find out what kinds of solutions can unite us rather than divide us and find out how we get the best of each rather than the worst of both when we talk about the political parties. If we can do that, maybe we will advance this country's interests. The fact is we all stand in the same hole. It is a very deep economic hole, the deepest since the Great Depression, and we will all be well advised, it seems to me, to find ways to begin working together to address these issues. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me further ask unanimous consent that following the presentation of this amendment, we have a unanimous consent agreement to set aside this amendment for a Democratic amendment that is about to be offered.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, let me say that I happen to be a cosponsor of the amendment. It is being offered to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. There may well be a rule XVI against it. It appears to be legislating on an appropriations bill. Before the Senator expands on his remarks, I think he and Senator Warner have offered a constructive idea, one that I support and have cosponsored prior to it being on the floor. I think it is useful for Senators to hear a complete description of the proposal. If it is not resolved on this bill--and it probably will not be--my hope is it will be resolved on another piece of legislation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a point because we have heard a lot of discussion about health care. My colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Utah talked about this yesterday and today and I think it is important to point out. When people talk about the choices Members of Congress have, I think it is giving the impression that somehow Members of Congress have some gold-plated health care system that other Federal employees do not have. In fact, I believe the choices available to Members of Congress are the choices available in the Federal Employees Health Benefit system for millions of other Federal employees. The reason I make that point is we have had a lot of people talk about the choices Members of Congress have with their health plan. This Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is available to all Federal employees. All Federal employees have the same choices, by and large, and those are the choices Members of Congress have. Last weekend, I had several people talk to me about the extraordinary health insurance Members of Congress have, and I think part of that comes from this discussion about Members of Congress have all these choices. It is very important for people to understand that we have the same health care plan other Federal employees have--millions of them-- and the same choices they have. I just wanted to make sure the Record shows that because I think it is important.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are ready to clear several cleared amendments, so I ask unanimous consent to immediately consider amendment No. 1846, which is already pending.

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is the amendment is cleared on both sides. I believe there is no further debate, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendments Nos. 1844 and 1845, en bloc; further, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendments. I believe there is no further debate. These are technical amendments that have been cleared by both sides, and I ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe we will have an amendment by the Senator from Nebraska in a few minutes. But let me say, with the Senator from Utah, we need to have Senators come over and offer amendments. If you have amendments you want to add to this bill, offer, and debate, we expect you to be here. Ultimately, those who have amendments and don't come to offer them are probably going to be precluded at some point because we will move to complete this bill. We have sat here the day before yesterday, yesterday, and now today. This is a very important piece of legislation that deals with the energy and water projects across the country, and we want to complete this bill, preferably this evening, if we can. In order to do that, we need to at least have some semblance of cooperation, which has been little evident, at least in the past couple days.

Mr. DORGAN. I would say to the Senator from Utah there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline today. But the fact is we already have amendments filed but aren't offered. So I expect we will get additional amendments filed. The key is to get people down here to offer their amendments, but there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline. The cloture motion was filed last evening, and I understand why the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, filed it. I don't think he had much choice. We bring an appropriations bill to the floor that has very widespread support and then it largely comes to a standstill. It would not make much sense for us to be here in this position all week. I think Senator Reid had very little choice but to file a cloture motion. My hope is we would not need it. If people will come and offer their amendments, we will work with them. Senator Bennett and I will work to accept the amendments we can and get the votes and perhaps this evening get this bill completed.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are awaiting some word from Senator Alexander. He was here earlier this morning to offer an amendment. We indicated we would very much like to have a vote at 11:30 this morning. We are trying to contact Senator Alexander and his staff. There will be a budget point of order against the amendment offered by Senator Alexander, so the vote would be on the point of order that will be made with respect to the budget. Senator Bennett and I hope we can get this vote so we can get people to the floor and determine which amendments are going to be offered and when. The majority leader has been extraordinarily patient. He is trying to schedule bills to the floor of the Senate. We bring an Energy and Water appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate, people say they have amendments but they do not come to the floor to offer them, so the majority leader filed cloture last evening, a cloture motion that will ripen tomorrow. He did not have much choice but to do that, and I think what is happening today demonstrates the requirement that the majority leader had to file a cloture motion. It would be far better for everybody if we can dispose of the amendments. I think we have three amendments dealing with TARP funds. I think we can dispose of the three of them. If we can have Senator Alexander come and reach an agreement on time and have a vote at 11:30, at least we would at that point get Senators to the floor, dispose of that amendment on a budget point of order. There will be points of order against the other two TARP amendments as well--different points of order, I might add.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the cooperation of Senator Alexander. I know he cares a lot about his amendment. As I indicated, there will be a budget point of order that lies against the amendment. I will make that point of order, but then we will have a recorded vote on that point of order. My hope would be that we can do that at 11:30 this morning, for the information of other Senators and their staffs, and we will determine that when Senator Alexander arrives on the floor momentarily. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Alexander amendment No. 1862 and that Senator Dorgan be recognized to raise a Budget Act 302(f) point of order against the amendment; that once Senator Alexander has moved to waive the relevant point of order, debate on the waiver extend to 11:25 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Dorgan and Alexander or their designees; that at 11:25 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive, with no amendments in order to the amendment during its pendency.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. I understand what Senator Alexander wants to do. I have some of the same instincts. The President does as well. I don't want the Federal Government running America's corporations. We want to divest as quickly as we can. We want the companies to recover. But whatever we do here, we need to do it in a way that protects the interests of the taxpayers. Theirs are the interests that are at risk. To set a date within 1 year does not protect the interests of the taxpayers. I happen to support a Corker amendment. I was a cosponsor of the Corker amendment that talks about the establishment of trustees, three trustees to actually be engaged in running these companies so the government is not running them. It talks about liquidating that trust by December 2011. But they would submit a report to Congress. That liquidation would not happen unless it maximizes the profitability of the company and the return to the shareholder. That is one thing missing in the Alexander amendment, the question of what maximizes the return to the American taxpayer. They are the ones who are at risk. What do we do to maximize the return, or are we going to leave tens of billions of dollars on the table because somebody simply wants to pass a piece of legislation with an artificial end date? I don't disagree with the intent of wanting to get out from under this issue of the Federal Government being engaged in these corporations. That is why I cosponsored the Corker amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to the Lott precedent, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.