Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 5 minutes 40 seconds left. Is that right?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina and 4 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. What I would like to do is give 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New York and 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Vote for cloture and get on with debate. This is an important first step that can take us on the road to lower prices and better availability of drug coverage for people who need it in our country. I understand under the procedure the yeas and nays are automatic; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand all time has expired. Cloture Motion

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to speak for a very few moments, and then hopefully we will be on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. First of all, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Maine, for her very eloquent and passionate speech and statement in favor of the strong prescription drug program. It was eloquent, indeed. There were parts of it that I agree with very much. There were some parts to which I take exception. But I welcome the opportunity to have the kind of discussion and debate that she eagerly awaits here in the Senate. I agree with her that it is long overdue. I agree with her that the time is now. I agree certainly with her that we are going to have to find common ground. I hope very much that we can. I respect those who have gone forward and supported the tripartisan proposal. Let me offer a few quick facts. Virtually none of the senior groups are supporting the tripartisan program. That doesn't have to be the bottom-line test. But they believe it doesn't provide the kind of protections that are in the Graham-Miller legislation--I think that they believe this for a very good reason. The tripartisan proposal has an assets test that will exclude many of the neediest of our senior citizens. The assets test says that if you have assets worth more than $1,500, or a car worth more than $400, or personal property worth more than $4,000, you are not eligible. That would affect a great many of the people in my State. I think it is also demeaning to seniors to have to go in and try to give an assessment of what these personal items really are. I think we will have a chance to debate that. One of the very important aspects of the Graham bill is that it doesn't have that test. Second, there has been a good deal of talk about the estimated premium of $24. That is just an estimate because this program is turned over to the insurance companies. There is virtually no guarantee that the premium is going to remain $24. It may be $34 or $44. I find that senior citizens in my State want certainty, they want predictability, they want to know exactly what that premium is going to be now. That is something that we will have to debate. Third, as the Congressional Budget Office indicated, it will mean that 3.5 million seniors who are covered by their employer will be dropped for a less adequate program because there is no reimbursement for the employers. That is not a finding that I make. It is a finding that the Congressional Budget Office makes. Finally, I want to make this point. The issue of prescription drugs has been before the Finance Committee for 5 years. For 4 of the last 5 years, the Finance Committee has been under Republican control, and we have had Republican leaders on the committee. This is the first chance we have had to debate it. I listened to the Senator talk about wanting an answer to why we are not having a markup. I question why we didn't have one over the last 4 years. Now, under a Democratic leader, we are going to debate and hopefully take action on the floor. I don't think people in my State are wondering about the committee process and how we are going to give adequate time for the committees to work. They want the Senate to act. That is the commitment of our leader. That is what they want. I look forward to having the opportunity to act. As the leader has pointed out, we want to try to deal with some of the issues of accessibility and also cost containment. In that cost containment debate, we have had strong bipartisan support in our committee--now 16 to 5. We had five Republicans who worked very closely on this issue. We are going to find that there will be substantial savings for seniors as a result. We are going to hopefully have the opportunity to consider other amendments on this that are going to help deal with the problems of the cost of prescription drugs. Then we will have an opportunity to debate the other provisions. But, as always, the Senator from Maine is eloquent, she is passionate, and she is knowledgeable about these issues. I am very hopeful that before the end of this debate we will be on the same side in terms of supporting a program that will be worthy of the people of Maine as well as Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will move on from here, but the fact is, as the Senator stated correctly, if it were less than $300 billion, then it would need 51 votes. But the Senator from Maine's proposal is $370 billion. So they are going to need 60 votes, too. Do we understand? I don't understand what the Senator from New Hampshire was talking about. They are going to need 60 votes for their proposal because they are going to violate the point of order. When we are talking about the fact that the seniors are going to spend, over 10 years, $1.8 trillion. With $300 billion you are going to do very little to offset the kinds of challenges they are facing. Finally, I have listened to our Republican leader, to my good friend from New Hampshire about following the committees and how important it is to follow the procedures. I am so thankful that we have a leader who is bringing this to the floor of the Senate at last. Now we hear this is circumventing procedure. In May of 2000, Republicans brought S. 2557 to the floor, an energy bill sponsored by Senator Lott, without committee approval; that was the big energy bill. In March 2000, Republicans brought legislation to the floor to eliminate the earnings test for individuals without committee approval. I voted for that. I am glad they did it. In June of 1999, Republicans brought the Social Security lockbox to the floor without committee approval. In July 1996, Republicans brought the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It seems they were prepared to bring a lot of other things, but they didn't bring a prescription drug bill to the floor. This leader has said this is the priority and that is why we are having this debate today. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. I am very hopeful it will be accepted in the Senate in a short time. There are some interesting underlying facts. What we are finding now has been referenced during the course of this debate. The United States and its taxpayers are subsidizing the world in terms of prescription drugs. That happens to be a fact. The research for brand and generic drugs is basically now conducted in the United States. They have moved dramatically from Europe over the recent years. With the doubling of the NIH budget, much of that is funding basic research which is essential for the development of drugs. So the taxpayer is paying for the funding of the NIH and then paying the additional costs at home. Furthermore, these drugs are a good deal cheaper outside the United States. We are doing for the rest of the world in the area of prescription drugs what we are doing for our national security. We keep the Straits of Malacca open, the Suez Canal open, and the Panama Canal open. The great choke points of the world are free because of the U.S. Navy and that is the way it is. We wish that it could be better. There are things that could be done and should be done in this area. Nonetheless, that is the case. That is one issue, if we are able to have prices that are reasonable for the American consumer, but we do not have that. One of the principal efforts of what we are discussing in the Senate is taking steps to assure those families who are in need of prescription drugs that they are going to have access to them. We have an underlying bill that will make a very important difference. The Dorgan amendment, cosponsored by our Democrat and Republican colleagues, can make an important contribution to that as well, and we will have follow-on amendments. Rightfully, it has been identified that safety is a key issue. However, we are talking about drugs that are FDA approved and produced in plants that have FDA inspections. Many of the safety issues raised in Secretary Shalala's letter some years ago in criticism of a much broader amendment by the Senator from North Dakota have been addressed in this legislation. The safety issues that have been addressed included the counterfeiting, the proliferation of handling, and a wide range of other issues. They have been addressed in a very serious and responsible way. We are doing this against a background where we are free, thank goodness, of examples or incidents where there has been contamination of drugs imported from Canada. That has not been true in terms of Mexico and other countries, but it certainly has been true with Canada. This is a very modest program, but it is an important one. It is a vital program certainly for millions of our citizens who live in or around the northern tier States. It has caught on because of the frustration of our fellow citizens. And it is a legitimate frustration because of the fact that we in the Congress have not taken steps to assure that the generic drugs or that brand-name drugs are going to be sold at a more reasonable cost. It is out of frustration for that. I do not hear those supporting this proposal saying they are in strong support of the underlying proposal that will make the availability of drugs less expensive for the consumer, or other means as well. It is a question of the cumulative effect. This is targeted to Canada, where we have high regard and respect for their system of handling these ingredients. I think the issues which have been outlined and detailed expressing reservations about this proposal, certainly with regard to Secretary Shalala, and to a significant extent Secretary Thompson, have been addressed by the Dorgan amendment. This will be a measured but very constructive and important step in assuring that some of our citizens get vitally needed drugs. As the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, the fact is that if people are not able to get drugs at all because they cannot afford them, they are willing to take some risks to be able to get them. That is what this is about. We cannot make the excellent the enemy of the good. The opportunity for getting good quality drugs at reasonable prices will make a difference, as the Senator has pointed out with his examples of individuals with cancer who otherwise would not be able to afford any of the higher-priced drugs. So with all the inevitable health hazards that they are facing, it is either these drugs or no drugs. This is a measured step. It is one that is eminently worthwhile. I commend my colleague for offering it, and hopefully it will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think it is wise, if we are going to conduct our activities, that we do it in the light of day rather than the twilight of the evening. We ought to have the chance to have an open kind of a process. We have the Senator from Michigan here who has been waiting to make an excellent presentation. I was engaged in a conversation with my friend and colleague from Maine about this. Suddenly, there is a unanimous consent request to just go ahead with the legislation. I think we ought to conduct a full debate on this issue, which is of such importance and consequence to families across the country in terms of the cost, availability, and accessibility of prescription drugs. And we ought to do it in the light of day. We ought to have a good debate on this issue. But since there has been objection to the majority leader proceeding to this issue, because evidently the Committee did not conform to the understandings of certain Senators, and there has been objection raised from that side of the aisle during the course of discussion and debate, I am going to insist that the Senate go ahead and have a roll call vote. We are going to vote on this. And the American people will understand who is for moving ahead with this legislation and who is not. Hopefully, we can then make progress on this legislation. We will consider amendments and begin the substance of this debate rather than just the general debate. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from New York. I believe I have the floor. The Senator from New York has asked for me to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is CBO. There are the assets provisions the Senator just described. There is a provision which is a disincentive for the employers. And there is the doughnut or the wall which the Senator has described. This is enormously important because their bill fails the truth in advertising test.

Mr. KENNEDY. So is the Senator suggesting that, on one hand, the Republican proposal is suggesting that it is addressing the needs of really the lowest income seniors? I think it is always useful to review the average income of our seniors, which is about $13,000 a year, and two-thirds of them have less than $25,000. So we are talking now about the lowest income. I guess it is 135 percent of poverty. So, on the one hand, the Senator is suggesting that those individuals are going to be covered and then he is pointing out that the Republicans have included an assets test, which includes a burial plot that is above $1,500. If they have a little cash in their bank account, which they have saved over their lifetime, evidently, this says they have to spend all of that. You cannot have personal property such as a wedding ring. You would have to give that to the pawnbroker and spend that. Besides those cruel aspects of the assets test, what does the Senator think this does in terms of demeaning our fellow citizens--to have them go in hat in hand in this country--the greatest country in the world-- and have them have to go through and bring out their little sheet and represent the value of their personal goods at home and demonstrate what that bank account is. We have other ways of making these assessments that can be done while treating people with a sense of dignity. Does the Senator not agree with me that this is a particularly harsh proposal as well for our fellow citizens, particularly those who are extraordinarily needy and perhaps feeling a certain amount of despondency for the way life has treated them, and then the Republican proposal adds this additional dimension? Does the Senator not agree with me that it dehumanizes our fellow citizens and humiliates them in ways that are completely unacceptable?

Mr. KENNEDY. On this issue, may I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. In part of the country, winters can be extremely cold. The northern tier States are colder still--up in the State of Maine, across the northern tier, in Montana, across Minnesota and Wisconsin. And the last thing we want for our seniors who are going down to the drugstore to get prescription drugs is to have their car break down. Or if they are in the southern part of the country, on those superhighways where traffic is moving with such rapidity and there is such a degree of intensity in terms of the conduct of traffic, you can imagine what happens to a senior whose car breaks down on those roads as well. We are really flyspecking our fellow citizens. We are trying to set up a system that addresses the needy people in our society. Does the Senator not agree with me that we can do that with a sense of respect and dignity? When we are talking about this point of $4,500 for a car-- which is to try to say that maybe if it is $2,000, we will be more understanding. I must say that this is a humiliating aspect for our fellow senior citizens. I find it so difficult and so unwilling to accept. I particularly appreciate the Senator's long explanation and detailed elaboration of the Senator's own bill. I pay great tribute to Senator Graham and Senator Miller in terms of the fashioning of this proposal. I am grateful to be able to join them. I think his careful review of the other proposal should make our colleagues think of whether that kind of a proposal is worth any degree of support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I ask the Senator, and I am so glad the Senator is taking the time to explain this issue, and I hope our colleagues are going to pay some attention to it because it is very easy to say: A prescription drug bill here, a prescription drug bill there, is there really any difference? The Senator is pointing out in great detail some of the very powerful differences. One that is enormously important is how the Graham bill treats employers. Those good employers who are trying to provide a prescription drug benefit for their employees are hard pressed, particularly smaller businesses that pay a disproportionately high percentage in premiums. Nonetheless, they are prepared to do it. Under the Graham proposal, there are provisions which help those employers maintain at least the coverage for the employees. It seems to me that everyone wins: The employee wins; the employer wins. The objective of the Graham bill is to make sure they have the coverage, as compared to the Republican plan which has disincentives, as I understand, in terms of the employers. There are clear disincentives for employers to maintain the coverage, which means there is going to be additional costs and a higher risk of coverage. It is a very important part of the Graham proposal. I wonder if the Senator will spell that out because that is so important when we are looking at what is going to happen to companies that are providing prescription drugs and which program is best suited to make sure we have a continuity of coverage.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, as I understand, the CBO has estimated there would be 3.5 million people who are covered now with a good program who would lose that good program and be in the substandard Republican plan.

Mr. KENNEDY. Pardon? No?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. On this point the Senator makes--and I hope our colleagues will listen--we will put in the Record the exact figures, but if one were to look at a chart for new drugs and innovation, one would see that chart rising and rising, going up and up until almost the passage of the Hatch-Waxman bill. From that time, the innovations have gone down. It is the darndest thing we have ever seen. I was absolutely startled by this. This might have been maybe one or two circumstances, the evergreening process which the Senator has outlined. On the Senator's point about getting these drug companies back to doing what we had all hoped they would do and we know they can do and hopefully will do, every one of us have family members who benefit from these innovations, but we find that is not where they are going. We have doubled the NIH budget, $33 billion, $34 billion a year. We doubled that over a period of time. Why did we double that at a time of scarce resources? The reason we doubled it is because Democrats and Republicans understood this is a life science century, and it is unlimited in its ability. It seems everybody knows this except the drug companies. That is what has been disappointing. I thank the Senator again for outlining the basic provisions which, as he has mentioned, bring us back to ground zero. They bring us back to what was achieved with the Hatch-Waxman period, and does that to eliminate the collusion which is taking place and the gimmicking of the system which basically means higher prices for consumers. That is the challenge. If others have better ways of doing it, I am sure the Senator will agree, let's do it, but we did not see that. My friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, was in that markup. We did not hear other ways of doing it. All we heard was more delays, more delays, objections, objections, objections. That is because clearly there are billions of dollars at stake. We are talking about billions of dollars of profits for certain of these companies. No wonder they are out here in force trying to resist the Schumer proposal. I thank the Senator for his excellent presentation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that under the regular order, I have a right to object, and I----

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is an interesting proposal. It is 5 o'clock in the afternoon now on Tuesday. We had the opportunity last evening to lay down the bill. We could have considered the amendments during the course of the day and made some real progress on it. But it was the determination of the other side not to permit us to do that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is----