Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The remaining time. Mr. President, these are people who have built the country. Now we are asking whether they have paid into the system. I was here in 1965 when that commitment was made here on the floor of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. The President who signed it--President Johnson as well--said: Look, play by the rules, pay under the system, and when you turn 65 you will have health security. Everyone in this room understands it. This Chamber understands that we failed the elderly people on that promise. We provided physician services and hospitalization but not prescription drugs. That is a three-legged stool. If you only have two and you do not have the third, you do not have health security. Every family understands that, everyone except the Senate. We are prepared to do something about it. Can you imagine if we had not provided hospitalization or physician services? We would certainly understand it. Would we not be debating that today? Does anybody believe it to be so? Does anybody believe this is not important? Finally, I remind everyone in this body as we are coming in, and as I intend to remind them next week, every Member of this body has a prescription drug program. Every Member of this body has a prescription drug program that is paid for by taxpayers by 80 percent. We understand that. Any Member of this body who wanted to go down to the clerk's office could go in there and say: Take my name off that. I don't want it. I don't believe as a matter of principle that we ought to have the Federal Government dealing with this policy. Anyone could do that. I have checked on it. There isn't a single Member in here who has done that. All we are trying to do with this particular proposal is to treat the American people the same way Republicans and Democrats and this President are being treated. Is that asking too much for this body to do? I don't believe so. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. The last 5 minutes has expired? I asked to be reminded when I used 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I thank our leaders, Senator Reid, Senator Daschle, and our Republican leaders, for this agreement we have entered into. This is a historic time. It will be the first time in over 5 years since there have been prescription drug amendments before the Senate. I am a cosponsor of the Graham-Miller bill and later in this debate, either tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday, I will have an opportunity to go over why I think that measure is so compelling and deserves strong support. We were reminded, once again, earlier in the afternoon, of the publication of a study that reviewed the different options that are before the Congress most actively; that is, the Republican proposal that passed the House of Representatives, the tripartite, and the Graham-Miller proposal. The study examined the impact of each of these proposals on individual States and what impact each would have on seniors and others that would benefit from the program. In every single instance, every single State, without a single exception, the one that was embraced by the seniors, the one that provided the greatest coverage for the seniors, was the Graham-Miller proposal. We will have more of a chance to debate that over the next couple of days. It is very important as we come to vote on the amendment of Senator Stabenow to realize what has happened in the last couple of days. The focus of the underlying legislation--which was originally introduced by Senator Schumer, Senator McCain, and then altered or adjusted by Senator Edwards and Senator Collins--basically addresses the egregious situation taking place today all over our country by unscrupulous brand name drug companies gimmicking the patent laws in order to take unfair advantage of consumers in this country and maintaining higher costs. They are doing it by extending the patent process with a phony regime called ``evergreening'' and also through collusion with certain generic drug companies. This practice is resulting in costs of billions of dollars to our seniors. If there are people who are watching this Senate proceeding, if there are cancer patients and they have been paying higher prices for various prescription drugs dealing with breast cancer, the fact is the pharmaceutical companies delayed Taxol, the generic drug, for 19 months. That means consumers paid $1.2 billion more because of the delay of competition. If patients suffer from epilepsy, as a result of this system, those patients have paid $1.4 billion more than they otherwise would have paid. That has been true with various brand name drugs for depression, and it also includes blood pressure as well. In all those areas, there has been a gimmicking of the system, which permitted those companies that had the patents for a period of time, and under the old Hatch-Waxman legislation were going to have their time expired and the generics would be on the market, to be able to compete, and would have saved the consumers billions of dollars. The actions of those brand name companies have been such as to result in higher prices. That is the basic issue we have before the Senate, whether we will pass that legislation. The Dorgan amendment was favorably considered in a vote yesterday. It will also have a dampening down in the increase of prices of prescription drugs. And American taxpayers are paying taxes, and those resources go to fund expanded NIH research, which I strongly support. This is the time of the life sciences, and we will see unbelievable opportunities in the future in breakthroughs with prescriptions. It is an enormously important time. I believe we will see these breakthroughs in the life sciences, as in the physical sciences last century. We have seen what is happening with the analysis of DNA, and the sequencing of the human genome, and all the breakthroughs with unlimited possibilities, using the high technology available and the advancements in biology. The opportunities are virtually unlimited. It is an enormously exciting time. That is why it is important to have a policy that will make available to all Americans these lifesaving prescription drugs reasonably. We had the excellent presentation made by our friend and fellow colleague, Senator Dorgan. The vote was a clear indication that the Members of this body are prepared to see that prescription drugs that are FDA approved, produced in an FDA-approved laboratory, imported here with the safety provisions included in the Dorgan amendment, would be available to American citizens. Today we have the Stabenow amendment. We have had limited debate on the merits of the amendment. I hoped we would have seen an acceptance of the Stabenow amendment. It makes eminently good sense. We have heard a great deal of debate and discussion about the free enterprise system. That is what the Stabenow amendment is all about. It is the ability of the States to use their economic power in order to negotiate with the various drug companies to try to get the lowest possible price for the neediest individuals, the poorest people in the United States. And the drug companies say no. Yesterday they said: We want to play by the free market system; and now we have a free market system being utilized and they say: No, no, we want to play by our own rules. What does that mean? They have now taken the various States to task and said: We will not permit that because that is government interference in the free market system. The fact is, what is being tried in the State of Maine and the other States is the same kind of market experience we have seen with an HMO when they negotiate with various brand name companies. It is the same kind of negotiations insurance companies have. It is routine, the same as major companies. General Motors does this when they buy prescription drugs. It is the same element, to use market forces to try to get the lowest possible prices. When they do not want to do that, and companies do want them to do it, there is no reason they have to sell. It is a free and open exchange. That is not good enough. We have seen where the drug industry has sued the State of Maine, they have sued the State of Vermont, they have sued Michigan, they have sued Illinois, they have sued Florida. The drug industry is waging war against our Governors and our State legislatures to bring them into court. From the NGA statement of July 15, I quote Michigan Republican Governor Engler: The nation's governors are extremely disappointed with the course of action chosen by PhRMA. It is unfortunate that their organization feels compelled to use the court system to manipulate public policy. I will mention another feature of the attack by the industries on the States. This is what they are about. First of all, the industry sued the State. That probably is not any surprise, given their abuse of the Hatch-Waxman. The drug industry instructed its front group, the so- called Citizens for Better Medicare, to run television, radio, and prints ads in Maine and Vermont attacking the laws. That is what the drug industry does to keep the prices sky high. They sue our State governments, and waste taxpayers' dollars defending against frivolous suits, because the States have to defend themselves; they have to use tax dollars. And then they run attack ads. Lest anyone question whether the so-called Citizens for Better Medicare is anything but a front group for the drug industry, let me quote the June 18 Wall Street Journal, Tim Ryan: PhRMA's past marketing director founded the grassroots sounding Systems for better Medicare at the expense of the major drug companies. So it is a phony organization, but they use the phony organization to attack the public officials in those States for resisting their action. Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the drug industry's abuses. I have an IG report from the HHS inspector general, who issued a report in August of last year which documents the fiscal crisis of sky- high drug prices. Here is the inspector general's conclusion about the current Medicaid discounts shared by the States and the Federal Government: We believe it is not a sufficient discount to ensure that a reasonable price is paid for drugs. This is done under a Republican administration, a Republican IG, August of last year. The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of IG, Medicaid pharmacy. This is what he says in paragraph 2: Although this discount averaged 10.31 percent nationally, we believe that it is not a sufficient discount to ensure that a reasonable price is paid for drugs. We believe that there is a critical need for States to better control the costs of their Medicaid drug program because expenditures are rising at a dramatic rate. Medicaid drug expenditures increased by slightly over 90 percent since our previous review in 1994. I repeat, 90 percent. So says the IG report, a Republican HHS discussing what is happening in the States. Then we have the Governors try to do something about it and PhRMA comes right in and says no. Senator Stabenow's amendment will clarify that. It will support the Governors--support Republican Governors, support Democratic Governors-- support the findings of a Republican IG to help deal with this issue. Just in the last day we had a meeting of the Governors, actually, out in the State of Idaho. The Nation's Governors met out in Idaho and the Governors voiced their concern over the lawsuit that seeks to bar the States from dealing with the Medicaid cost-controlling measures. This is the Governors saying just what Senator Stabenow has been saying, Republican and Democrat alike. This is a serious amendment. Therefore, I am very hopeful it will be accepted. Let me bring to the attention of the membership, something that has developed in my own State of Massachusetts, in the U.S. attorney's office. One of the developments in recent times is the development of a health fraud unit, which has been extremely active. I was talking to our U.S. attorney recently up there. We were discussing the situation about health care fraud. He mentioned to me this particular case. Just last October, the Federal authorities secured the largest health care fraud settlement in history. Not surprisingly, it was against a drug company for overcharging taxpayers through Medicaid--just what we are trying to deal with here in the U.S. Senate. The Top Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in criminal and civil fines for overcharging the States and the Federal Government for the cancer drug, Lupron. It is a life-or-death cancer drug, and here you have Top Pharmaceuticals found guilty of overcharging consumers and now having to pay the criminal fines and civil fines of $875 million. There are now class action litigations brought by consumer advocates in Boston to further recover the overpayments to this drug company. We need to close ranks with our States, Republican and Democratic Governors alike--consumers against high drug prices. The Stabenow amendment is the right tool in the hands of the States to lower drug prices for low-income people and the uninsured. I want to reiterate two facts. Who are the States looking out for? Are they trying to use their bargaining power in terms of a massive purchase of drugs for all the people in their States? No. They are trying to use it for the most needy people in their States in most instances--and I think in the State of Maine, in every instance--those who are uninsured, the poorest of the poor who cannot get insurance for one reason or another, or are not eligible for Medicaid, in order to get them lower costs. It is the poorest of the poor trying to get life- sustaining drugs, and PhRMA, the industry, is going after that and saying they do not want that to take place. They think that is un- American. They think it is price fixing and so forth. We have seen, and I have certainly seen it in our committee because it was not believed we would get this legislation out of the committee because we heard the drug industry is strongly opposed to it--and we have certainly heard that from our friends on this side of the aisle-- we understand that--they are opposed to it. They are opposed to the Schumer proposal. We understand that. They are opposed to the Dorgan proposal. We heard that yesterday. And they are opposed to the Stabenow proposal. What we have not heard is what they are for. What we have not heard is what they would do. What we have not heard is their sense of outrage about these abuses. We have not heard that. We have been here the better part of the day today, yesterday, the day before, and we have not heard that. That is a matter of deep concern to everyone on this side of the aisle. It is the reason the majority leader has brought this up to the Senate, on the floor of the Senate. I heard my good friend--and he is my friend--the Senator from Tennessee, talk about the process and procedure, about whether we are circumventing the procedure in order to consider the legislation. Of course it did not bother him very much in May of 2000 when they brought up the energy bill, sponsored by Senator Lott, without committee approval; or brought up, on March 20, a bill to eliminate the earnings test for individuals attaining retirement age, without committee approval. The list goes on. In June 1999, the Republicans brought up Social Security lockbox without committee approval. It didn't bother them at that time. But what you did not hear about is a prescription drug program for the needy in this country. They were never willing to circumvent the rules to try to protect the seniors or try to get lower prices. No, there is no example for that. We have had legislation in the committees for over 5 years. This is the first time--the first time--the only time that we have had the opportunity to debate. Next Tuesday will be the first time we have had the opportunity to vote. And people are complaining about process and procedure. We know what happens. Every Member in this body knows what happens when you get back in those committee rooms, you get out in the corridors--we know what happens. That is the end of the legislation. That is the end of it. We all know it. But we know next Tuesday we are going to have a chance to vote on this. It will be the first time, and we would not have that opportunity unless Senator Daschle said: This is a matter of national priority. This is a matter of central concern. This is an issue that ought to be debated and discussed on the floor of the Senate. This is a moral issue of central concern to every family, young and old--not only those who take the drugs but the families who look at their parents and are concerned about whether they have the resources to purchase those drugs. The parents themselves do not want to burden their children about their own kinds of conditions. They are proud men and women who want to live in dignity and who have paid a price for this Nation--fought in the wars, lifted the country out of the Depression.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, will the Senator include that the allocation of time be equally divided on Monday and then Tuesday morning?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have not had an agreement with regard to time, but we have had the opportunity to hear from that side of the aisle for about 2 hours 40 minutes of the last 3 hours. So I was going to see if we could recognize the Senator from New York. And although our leaders here don't frown on allocating the time and indicating individuals, the Senator from New Hampshire has been willing to agree to this proposal: The Senator from New York would go for 10 minutes, the Senator from Georgia 10 minutes, the Senator from New Jersey 10 minutes, and I need 20 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If they can answer my question, then I will be seated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the point is that the State is not even doing it for all the citizens; it is not even doing it for all of them. They are doing it for the poorest of the poor. That is whom they are trying to bargain for in these circumstances. The drug industry is contesting that. Let me, finally, ask my friend, Senator Stabenow, if she has a viewpoint on this matter. As I understand, this is not a partisan issue in any respect. I read Governor Engler's very strong comments about this where he was actually talking about manipulating public policy. He was using the word manipulate, suggesting that we have to manipulate public policy. The drug companies are manipulating public policy in their patent policy and in the collusion with the generics, which is being addressed by the Schumer proposal. So we have a Republican Governor talking about manipulating public policy. I was interested in the fact that this should not be a partisan issue. The silence in support from the other side of the aisle is deafening with regard to the Stabenow amendment. I am hopeful there will be voices on the other side that will rise in support of this. To their credit, they supported the Schumer proposal in the committee. Five Republicans did. I hope we will hear those voices again. I just say to the Senator, this isn't really a Democratic or Republican, or liberal or conservative issue. I find there are liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, as well as Republican and Democratic Governors who share the view of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from New York. If the Senators would comment on that, I would appreciate it because it is an important issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. It seems we will hear that somehow the States can't bargain because they are a governmental institution. But the concept is very much the same. For the insurance industry, it is fine--it is a free market system; and for an HMO, it is fine--it is the free market system. But somehow for the State, it is government. Even though the pharmaceutical company is free to say: We don't like these negotiations; therefore, we won't sell to you. If all the pharmaceutical companies did that, obviously, the State would have to bargain in good faith. There is no indication that they are not bargaining in good faith. As the Senator pointed out, there is no indication that these industries have been suffering adversely. They are one of the most profitable industries--and Lord only knows they are paying the highest salaries to their executives as well. But I am not as interested in that as in the concept of what we are talking about here. Finally, if the Senator would agree, I am perplexed: We are not talking about bargaining for high income people in the State; we are talking about bargaining for the lowest income, the poorest of the poor, many of whom would not be able to have access to the prescription drugs unless this were offered. Why is that PhRMA says: No no, you can't do it; we are going to squeeze the very last dollar out of them?

Mr. KENNEDY. What could be the possible logic in denying the people of the States, particularly the smaller States--or large States, for that matter--what is the logic of denying them their bargaining power? If we are going to let the HMOs and insurance companies do it, why not the States? I am sure we will hear that it is because the States are a governmental power and therefore this is price control. As I understand it, if the drug company doesn't want to sell to them, they don't have to, do they?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is satisfactory to me. I generally try to check with our leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was just wondering about the time that the Senator will use. We have several Senators indicating----

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator willing to yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Isn't it true that insurance companies use their leverage and powers to get the lowest cost possible?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have before us the author of the amendment. Since the Senator has the floor, I would like to ask him a question or two. Isn't it true that HMOs use their bargaining power to lower costs of prescription drugs today? HMOs all over the country have been doing that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend my friend and colleague from Michigan for this absolutely excellent amendment. I am hopeful we can get strong support for this amendment because it is so compelling in its logic and reason, and the result will be so important to our fellow citizens across the country. Just to catch up to where we are, Madam President, the underlying bill, the Schumer-McCain legislation, tries to halt the gimmicking that the drug companies use to get around the Hatch-Waxman bill that was passed a number of years ago. They have gimmicked the rules, and they do it in ways that completely circumvent the spirit and the understanding of the law, in order to keep prices artificially high. And every family and every user of prescription drugs knows the challenges families are facing with high drug prices. Under the McCain-Schumer legislation, we have tried to deal with that issue. I think we have dealt with it effectively. That is the matter that is before the Senate. We had a good debate yesterday on different measures that continue to put downward pressure on the escalation of drug prices. I think we had a very good debate on that, both in support of the underlying legislation and in support of the Dorgan amendment, yesterday. Now we have the Stabenow amendment before us, which will, in a very important way, continue this effort to exert downward pressure on the prices of drugs in this country. I am amazed at the opposition to this amendment. For a good part of the afternoon yesterday, we listened to talk about the free market system that urged us to get away from price controls and use the free market system. But when the States use the free market system, in order to bargain for the lowering of the prices, what happens? What is the reaction of the drug companies? The drug companies go ahead and sue the States to try to restrain them from using the free market system. This isn't Government intervention, it is the States themselves, States that have Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. The States themselves are trying to use the States' power in order to get the best price for the neediest citizens in their States: the poorest individuals, the ones without insurance. And here comes PhRMA with their legal actions to make sure the States are not going to be able to do that. When does that greed stop? When does that greed stop? When do they stop wringing the final few cents out of the poorest individuals in this country? That is what this is all about. The States are trying to negotiate lower prices for the poorest individuals in these States, and PhRMA says no. They gimmick and circumvent the clear spirit and language of the Hatch-Waxman law in order to perpetrate billions and billions of dollars of additional profits. Then we hear a great deal of debate in this Chamber and much admonition from many of those who are opposed to the underlying legislation saying: Let's let the free market work. We had hours and hours of discussion about price controls in Canada. We are not for price controls, as in Canada. We want the free market to work. But what is happening when the free market works in the State of Maine, the State of Florida, the State of Michigan, and other States? In comes PhRMA, and they say: No, we are not going to let it work. We want to stop them from doing it. This is the same kind of action that is underlying the basic measure. So I want to review, very briefly, the situation. I understand the problem we are looking at. Under the terrible burden of skyrocketing drug prices, the State governments are trying to use their authority and bargaining power to help residents--and our constituents--obtain lower prices. Already, 30 States have passed laws to extend drug coverage or lower prices. But PhRMA has done it again, suing the States to stop our ``laboratories of democracy'' from fighting the drug industry on behalf of American consumers. The drug industry has sued the State of Maine. They have sued Vermont, Michigan, Illinois, and Florida. The drug industry is waging war against our Governors and our State legislatures in the courts. The Stabenow amendment puts the question to the Senate: Will you stand with the States or will you stand with the drug industry for higher drug prices? Many of my colleagues are former Governors themselves. I hope they take particular note that just yesterday the Nation's Governors issued a statement of solidarity with the administration in its legal fight with PhRMA over the Michigan Medicaid waiver that reduces the State's drug costs. Let me read from the NGA statement of July 15, which quotes Michigan Governor Engler: The nation's governors are extremely disappointed with the course of action chosen by PhRMA. It is unfortunate that their organization feels compelled to use the court system to manipulate public policy. That is a Republican Governor. The Governors, the administration, and consumers all support State efforts to reduce drug prices. Now, with the Stabenow amendment, it is the Senate's turn. The amendment is based on a simple but powerful idea: Extend the scope of an existing Federal law to help the States supplement the rebates we require under Medicaid. Medicaid already collects ``best price'' rebates from the drug industry, thanks to a 1990 law we passed under the leadership of Senator David Pryor from Arkansas, a champion of lower drug prices. I was always impressed by the work and the commitment of Dave Pryor and his strong desire for protecting the consumer. And this tradition follows with Mark Pryor in Arkansas today: they are strong protectors of consumers and lower drug prices. The Stabenow amendment simply permits States to negotiate similar State rebates to help lower-income residents afford their drugs. All this amendment does is let the States use the same negotiating tools used today by the private sector to lower their drug bills. I do not see why those who otherwise support the free market would oppose this amendment. We find out that large companies use their negotiating ability. HMOs use their ability. Why not permit the States to use their ability? But PhRMA says: No, we are not going to let them do that, particularly when they are using it for the lowest income citizens. The amendment empowers the States to use the same tools and negotiations used by the private sector to lower its drug costs. If a drug company refuses to negotiate with a State, its drugs would still be available but would be subject to ``prior authorization.'' This is precisely what the State of Michigan is doing. This is precisely why PhRMA is suing the administration. And this is precisely why the Stabenow amendment is needed. Here is what the drug industry did when the State of Maine and the State of Vermont enacted State laws to lower drug prices. Naturally, the industry sued the States. No surprise so far, given their abuses of the Hatch-Waxman Act. But then the drug industry instructed its front group, the so-called Citizens for Better Medicare, to run TV, radio, and print ads in Maine and Vermont attacking the laws. That is what the drug industry does to keep the prices sky high. They sue our State governments and waste taxpayer dollars defending against their frivolous lawsuits. And they run attack ads. Lest anyone question whether the so-called ``Citizens for Better Medicare'' is anything but a front group for the drug industry, let me quote the June 18 Wall Street Journal-- [T]im Ryan, PhRMA's past marketing director, founded the grass-roots-sounding ``Citizens for Better Medicare'' at the behest and expense of major drug companies. There it is. Enough is enough. The American public is sick and tired of the drug industry's abuses. Let's support the Stabenow amendment, and help our States lower drug prices for all Americans. I see others who want to speak on this issue. I want to mention to our colleagues an excellent report being released today. It is a review of the impact of the three principal proposals that have been advanced on coverage. What this study does is take your State, the key features of each of the programs that have been advanced, the Republican House program, the Graham-Miller program, which I am proud to cosponsor, as well as the tripartite program. Then it takes the numbers of citizens who would be impacted, the number of elderly, senior citizens, and disabled on Medicare, and it runs through how each of these programs would impact the seniors in your State. It reviews for each of the programs who would be affected, what the impact would be on each of the seniors in the State, who would benefit the most, and who would benefit the least. We will be releasing this report this afternoon at 2 o'clock. We can say without question that in the review of all 50 States, their powerful, compelling, and overwhelming conclusion is that if you want to make drugs available, accessible, affordable, and dependable, there is one plan that stands out head and shoulders above all the others, and that is the one introduced by our friend from Florida, Senator Graham. There are others who wish to speak on this. I will come back and address it later.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in just a few moments we will take a vote on the Cochran amendment. I intend to support the Cochran amendment. I thought it might be useful to sum up where we are on the issue of trying to get a handle on the costs of drugs in the United States and also on the availability and the accessibility of drugs for our population. There has been prescription drug legislation before the Senate for 5 years. Four years of this 5 years we were under the Republican control of the Senate, both in terms of the Finance Committee and the floor of the Senate. During that period of time, the Republican leadership found all kinds of ways to circumvent various committees to prioritize issues they wanted to do, but they never did it with regard to the availability of prescription drugs. And now our Republican friends have been complaining all afternoon. We just heard another complaint. This debate is about is how we are going to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and hopefully on how we will increase the availability and the accessibility of prescription drugs. The underlying amendment is the Dorgan amendment. It will mean many billions in terms of savings for consumers.

Mr. KENNEDY

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. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.

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.

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. KENNEDY. I will.

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?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend the Smithsonian Institution and Yo-Yo Ma for this year's extraordinary Folklife Festival, ``The Silk Road: Connecting Cultures, Creating Trusts.'' The festival, which was held from June 26 through July 7 on The Mall, enabled hundreds of thousands to experience the art of 375 musicians, dancers, cooks and storytellers from the nations along the famous Silk Road trade routes through central Asia centuries ago. In the aftermath of September 11, it is more important than ever to expand our understanding of those cultures. Yo-Yo Ma, with broad support from Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Aga Khan, and the Congressional Silk Road Caucus, and many others, helped us to embark on a journey of understanding and appreciation by bringing an incredible diversity of products and ideas that have emerged from central Asia to our Nation's front lawn--the Smithsonian Mall. Yo-Yo Ma deserves special recognition for his unique ability to engage us all in an educational process that celebrates cultural differences. He is one of our Nation's preeminent musical artists. He is also an extraordinary cultural leader who has won the hearts of millions throughout the world with his outreach and education programs. He has used his incomparable talents to inspire us to learn about diverse peoples and cultures. I commend all those who worked so effectively to make this year's Folklife Festival such an unequivocal success. It is a privilege to pay tribute to their efforts. I ask unanimous consent to include remarks at the opening ceremony of the Smithsonian Silk Road Project in the Record.