David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Senator Kennedy has been yielded this time.

Mr. PRYOR. The leader is Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PRYOR. If the Senator will yield, does the proposal that the Senator has accepted contain waivers by States?

Mr. PRYOR. That is a change of which I wish to warn my colleagues.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, what we are faced with right now is whether we are going to retain the Federal standards as adopted in OBRA 1987. These are high standards. They are accepted standards. They are understood standards. They are standards that apply across this great country, across this wide land of ours in each of our 50 States. In my opinion, to relax these standards is going to be a statement that we are making to 2 million nursing home residents that we do not care enough about their safety to retain these high standards. I have just seconds ago been informed that even though I had been told earlier my motion would be accepted as is, there is going to be the possibility of relaxation of some enforcement provisions made by the Republicans in their so-called conference, and the conference does not even exist with the Democrats. So this is our last opportunity. I hope we will support the motion that is before the Senate at this time.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding to me. I also thank my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, for his statement about the nursing home standards. I hope that we will have a 100 to 0 vote on that in a few minutes, after the Senate resumes its voting process. I am very grateful for all of the support that we have had throughout the country to retain the present standards. Mr. President, I want to talk about one other aspect of the Kennedy proposal that I strongly support. In fact, I support each of his very splendid proposals within this motion to instruct the conferees. But there is one specifically that I think deserves attention and emphasis at this point. Before 1991, State Medicaid programs faced an intolerable situation. Since 1951, they were forced to pay the very highest prices for prescription drugs in the country. The irony was that these States and their Governors were buying medicines from the pharmaceutical companies for the very lowest-income families in the country. Alone, they could not afford these life-saving medications. Medicaid provided a lifeline for their well-being and their quality of life. But because the drug companies refused to negotiate with State Medicaid programs on price discounts, these programs were paying the highest prices in the country. Something important changed in 1991, something very like the nursing home standards enacted in 1987. A coalition of individual Senators and Congressmen got together from both sides of the aisle and enacted something called the Medicaid prescription drug best-price rebate formula. Instead of being forced to pay the highest prices in the country, we told the States that they could purchase their prescription drugs at the best prevailing price in the country. We guaranteed that-- if the companies would not negotiate in good faith--the States would be assured of rebates justified by the large volumes of drugs they purchased and the acutely vulnerable populations they served. Let me emphasize, Mr. President, how important a change this was for the States. The Congress said that it would be the policy of our country to assure that States receive the best possible prices on medicines for the poorest of the poor. We struck a deal, and that deal has worked remarkably. It has been a remarkable work of efficiency and of fairness. I know of no State that does not appreciate and value this program. It has allowed the States, for the first time, to negotiate with real leverage with the pharmaceutical companies. Since 1991 alone, the States--including Wyoming, Arkansas, Michigan, and Massachusetts--have benefited to the extent of $5 billion in rebates from the pharmaceutical companies. These funds have gone directly to the States to help them support the poorest of the poor within our population. That is not the end of the good aspects of this program, Mr. President. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, over the next 7 years, the States are going to gain another $12 billion in rebates. This is a tremendous boon to the States and their Medicaid programs. Mr. President, this is an amazing breakthrough. It is a program that has worked, and it has worked well. The Governors have lauded this program. They have come to Washington to testify on behalf of keeping this program. The Medicaid directors--those who work daily with a diminishing number of dollars--say that Medicaid rebates are one of the best things that ever happened to them. Let me repeat: Prior to 1991, we were paying the highest drug prices for the poor. The Medicaid rebate program was the first break that the States had in this intolerable situation. Today, billions of dollars a year are paid to the pharmaceutical companies by the Medicaid program. This is the one opportunity for the pharmaceutical companies to do their share--their fair share, I might say--of contributing to helping the poor and to assisting those who cannot afford their medicines. This is their one chance at justifying some of the very lavish tax breaks that we are about to give to some, in my opinion, who should not be getting tax breaks under the Republican proposal. But let me tell you what has happened in the past few weeks. The drug industry has lobbied intensely to water the rebate program down. There are changes proposed by the other side of the aisle which could jeopardize the progress we made in 1991, as well as the progress we have subsequently made on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Service, Public Health Service, and other Government programs. The Senate language would strip flexibility and choices from the States, prohibiting them from negotiating the deepest possible discounts. The House language allows drug companies to ignore the needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Public Health Service and Indian Health Service. The House would also exempt nursing home drugs from rebates outright--gutting the Medicaid program and forcing States to pay far more for 70 percent of their drug purchases. Tens of billions of dollars are being expended every year, and we are on the verge of taking away the leverage in spending those tens of billions of dollars. We are proposing to take leverage away from the States, the Veterans Administration, the Public Health Service--they are going to be cut adrift. They will be forced to say to the public, we are sorry, we don't have the leverage anymore to negotiate. The playing field has been tilted against the poor and in favor of the most profitable industry in the world. This would be a terrible thing, Mr. President, if we were to weaken a highly successful program which was born in a bipartisan spirit, has saved billions in taxpayer's money and which has been kept together by people who truly share the belief and the commitment to raising the quality of life of those who urgently need medicines but lack the resources to obtain them. What will we be left with, Mr. President? A hollowed-out Medicaid rebate program that serves the drug industry more than the poor. Draconian restrictions on the number of drugs we can dispense to children and families under Medicaid. A free license to companies to ignore veterans, AIDS patients, and those served in America's public hospitals and community health centers. [[Page S 16985]] In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to consider this one fact. Rebates have allowed us to expand the reach of Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration and the Public Health Service. They have served the neediest in our country--and have done so efficiently. What we are doing today is turning our backs on that progress. Instead, we want to give an additional windfall to the pharmaceutical companies and allow them the opportunity to escape paying rebates back to the States. Once again, Mr. President, I do not know why we are doing this. It is a program that has worked. It is a program that the Governors support. It is a program that the Medicaid directors support. It is a program that we should keep as it was passed in 1991. We should not change it. I am very hopeful that the Senate will adopt Senator Kennedy's motion to instruct the conferees to keep the concept of buying Medicaid drugs at the best possible price, to preserve the States' leverage in serving taxpayers, and to allow the pharmaceutical companies of America to participate in contributing to this tremendous cause. I understand there is a possibility that Senator Dorgan of North Dakota may want a few moments. At this time, Mr. President, I yield back my time to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. PRYOR. I would be glad to.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to answer my question in 1 minute.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Have we appointed conferees from this body to a conference on reconciliation? Has the Senate appointed conferees?

Mr. PRYOR. So if we do not have any conferees, Mr. President, we do not have a conference. Is that correct?

Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from New Mexico keeps talking about ``we'' have decided, that ``we'' have decided that. But yet, there is no conference because there are no conferees.

Mr. PRYOR. Who does the Senator speak of when he is talking about ``we'' have decided this?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum not be charged against either side.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, later today, the U.S. Senate is going to be making a very, very interesting decision relating to the choice of the standards that we are going to employ for the 2 million nursing home residents who are today residing in America's nursing homes. By the year 2030, Mr. President, we will no longer have 2 million nursing home residents. We are going to have 4.3 million nursing home residents residing in America's nursing homes. The question that we are going to decide this afternoon, Mr. President, is going to be that choice that we express as to which standards and how high the standards will be of protection--or I should say the protection for these nursing home residents who today reside in America's nursing homes. In 1987, the U.S. Congress decided, after serious studies, after absolute horror stories, that it was time to have uniform standards on the Federal level. In 1987, for the first time, sweeping reform measures, sweeping standards were enacted in what we call now OBRA '87. Mr. President, necessitating this action was the fact that many of the States were not complying with the law, nor were they enforcing present State standards, nor was there a uniform code of standards nationwide that governed the policing, you might say, the regulating and the standard setting that protected nursing home patients. OBRA '87 came about. Today we are proud to report that, last evening, approximately 142,000 nursing home residents in America went to bed, went to sleep unrestrained. We are proud to report, Mr. President, that 30,000 nursing home patients today in America do not have bedsores because of the nursing home reforms and the strict guidelines of 1987. In 1987, it was not a partisan effort. In fact, the late Senator John Heinz, former Senator Durenberger, former Senator Mitchell, majority leader George Mitchell of Maine, and many others in the Senate coalesced to bring about a bipartisan effort to have uniform, very carefully crafted procedures and standards on the national level, whereby these nursing home residents would be protected. Mr. President, the irony of all of this argument today is, I do not know why this issue is before the U.S. Senate. These standards were working. In fact, these standards were working very well. I ask unanimous consent that each of these letters I will refer to be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, one of the letters is from Beverly Enterprises, dated October 25, 1995. This is the largest provider of long-term care services in the United States, supporting keeping the stronger--not the weaker--standards embodied in this concept and instructing our conferees to maintain the strongest nursing home standards. I will quote from the letter: Beverly Enterprises, the nation's largest provider of long- term care services in the United States, supports strong uniform and consistent Federal standards for nursing homes and believes the focus of current efforts should be on improving, not eliminating the current standards. This is signed by David Banks, the chief operating officer and chairman of the board of Beverly Enterprises. Here is a statement of Stewart Bainum, Jr., to the Special Committee on Aging, October 26, 1995. As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Manor Care, Inc., I want to express our strong support for retention of the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. Manor Care proudly supported OBRA in 1987 because the legislation offered a valuable means of protecting and promoting the quality of life of one of the most vulnerable segments of our population. Mr. President, what we have seen is, once again, that these standards are working so well--they are working as the Congress intended them to work--and we have seen a dramatic decrease in the dehydration of nursing home residents, a 50-percent decrease in dehydration since 1987. Second, we have seen a remarkable decrease of physical restraints, some 50 percent, as compared to pre-1987 periods. We have seen a remarkable decrease in indwelling urinary catheters used on nursing home residents. We also point with great pride to that significant victory. Across the board, the nursing home regulations have not only worked, but they have worked well and they are working today. So why are we trying to repeal the nursing home standards that everyone agreed to in 1987, that even the major providers agree to today, that all of the statistics show are working, that the nursing home residents are being protected, as they have been never before protected in our nursing homes? Why is it that we are suddenly trying to eliminate these standards? Mr. President, to me, that is a mystery. On October 27, by a vote of 51 to 48 in this Chamber, the Senate went on record as adopting the more stringent and retaining the Federal standards for nursing home protection. A short while later, only about 6 hours later, Mr. President, we were discussing and had laid before the Senate the so-called Roth amendment which was sponsored by our colleague and friend, Senator Roth, the chairman of the Finance Committee. By a vote of 57 to 42, Senator Roth's amendment prevailed. In my opinion and in the opinion of others, Mr. President, we dramatically, I should say, weakened the present nursing home standards. This is just not my opinion that we are weakening these standards, Mr. President. It is also the opinion written on November 1 by the National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Directors, Mr. President. Today we are writing to voice our opposition--from the ombudsmen who are out there in these nursing homes every day--to Senator Roth's omnibus floor amendment [which] was passed and included nursing home provisions that can gravely weaken the quality of care standards you helped to reinstate. . . . we believe this will be harmful to the quality of care provided to nursing home residents across the country. Mr. President, not only do the ombudsmen out there in these homes every day feel that we are about to weaken these standards unless we instruct our conferees to keep the present hard standards--I should say stronger standards. We have a letter from the Nursing Home Reform Coalition group. The Coalition, however, does have serious concerns about the amendment providing for state waivers from the federal standards, passed by the Senate on Friday, October 27. The language in the amendment would allow States with standards ``equivalent to or stricter than'' the federal requirements to use its own standards. * * * * * We urge you, Senator Pryor, and your colleagues, to consider the following recommendations: Do not support maintaining this waiver provision * * * * * Provisions giving the Secretary the authority to take action against a facility providing substandard care, and where the state has not taken adequate enforcement action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Nursing Home Reform group, from the Ombudsmen who have written in about the nursing home standards be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. I offer also some other concerns I have about the standards as set forth in the Roth language versus the language that we are trying to get the conferees to adopt at this time. First, in States that get waivers, the Secretary of HHS will have no enforcement authority against individual facilities and weaker enforcement authority against the States as a whole. Now, why do we want weaker authority? Why do we want weaker standards? This is something that we are asking today as a question. The second weakness is, Mr. President, that the language only says what the Secretary can do to the States, not to individual nursing homes. For example, if a State has been given a waiver, if HHS determines that the State, for example, of New Hampshire has laws and regulations that are equal to or better than the Federal provisions, so the HHS Secretary stamps a document saying, ``You are under no Federal regulations,'' then the State of New Hampshire at that time, notwithstanding that a nursing home or several nursing homes absolutely are giving unconscionable treatment to their nursing home residents, the Federal Government has no authority, no empowerment to do anything about those particular homes. They can move against a State. They cannot move against the particular homes. Those residents, those nursing home residents, Mr. President, are sitting there, lying there, housed there absolutely helpless and without an advocate to come to their side to protect them. The third concern, Mr. President, current law today allows the Secretary to withhold all Medicaid funds from the States that have problems in nursing homes. Senator Roth's amendment that was approved by the Senate which preempted the so-called Pryor-Cohen amendment, the Roth amendment only allows the Secretary to withhold 2 percent of Medicaid funds from waiver States. What kind of a lever is that? What kind of a bargaining chip is that, just to be able to hold 2 percent of the Medicaid funds from those States with a waiver? Also, Mr. President, look at the litigation. Just imagine the litigation that is going to result if we do not keep the present standards. If we wade off into this unknown field that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have presented to us and say, ``If you get a waiver, you can do this,'' but there are no guidelines. We are not sure what is going to be the law or the regulations that each State will adopt. We will just do our best. Mr. President, how much litigation is going to result from this indecision, from this attempt at obfuscation of the nursing home standards that have served us so well since 1987? To me it is unconscionable for us to think about watering down the present standards that we see today that have served us so well in nursing home standards. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that the Senate later on this afternoon [[Page S 16947]] when we begin our voting process is going to support this motion to instruct the conferees to keep the present nursing home standards that we have and, once again, that have served us so very well. Mr. President, we are also looking today at the typical nursing home resident. We look at those nursing home residents and realize that before 1987 and before we had these particular nursing home standards that we are trying to maintain today--look at the characteristics of a nursing home patient, of a nursing home resident. All of us in this Chamber, perhaps, have someone in a nursing home--an aunt, uncle, a mother, dad, grandmother, grandparent, grandfather, relative, good friend. We will look at the characteristic of the nursing home patient and residents that we have today. Mr. President, 77 percent of all of the nursing home residents need help in dressing; 63 percent need help in toileting; 91 percent need help in bathing; 66 percent have a mental disorder. Mr. President, also, over 50 percent of the nursing home residents today in America have no relative, no friend, no one that becomes their friend and their advocate to make periodic visits, to make certain that basic rights are adhered to. We have certain things that OBRA '87 brought about. The right for the nursing home patients and residents to choose their own physician. We are about to repeal that, perhaps. We have basically the protection that the nursing home residents can open their own mail and have the confidentiality of their medical records being protected. We are about to repeal that. Mr. President, the average nursing home resident out there today, we feel, needs every protection, the highest standards that we can bring about. And for us to turn our back and say we are going to, basically, obliterate these standards and have them no longer, in my opinion would be a tragedy and a disgrace. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Michigan, who has now come to the floor. I understand he is going to manage this issue for the other side. So, since he wants to speak, I assume, I will at this point yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum not be charged against either side.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, should the Senator from West Virginia like [[Page S 16951]] some time to ask a question to the Senator from Michigan, I will be glad to yield to him 2 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might inquire, please, of the Chair, what is the time situation for the Democratic side and the Republican side of the aisle remaining on the motion?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time used in the quorum call not be charged to either side.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from West Virginia. His statement was eloquent. It [[Page S 16957]] was delivered with compassion and force as always, and I applaud him for his commitment to this cause. The Senator from West Virginia has brought up a most telling point which brings us to the brink of the so-called closing down of the Government, which does not have to happen. The Medicare issue that is today in the reconciliation bill is also the issue--that is, threatening to bring down the Government--that the Republicans have put into the concurrent resolution. It is the same issue. It should not be debated in the continuing resolution. It should be debated in the reconciliation bill, as my colleague and friend from West Virginia knows, but there is a reason why there is no debate going on between the conferees of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats on reconciliation. We do not have any conferees. There is no one to confer with. And as a result we find the Government is about to close down. We hope not. It is not necessary. It is manufactured, this crisis. In behalf of the Democratic leader, I would like for the Record to indicate that no Democratic Senator would require nor request a vote on sending the continuing resolution in its current form to the President. We understood and hoped this morning that there would be presented the continuing resolution to the Senate. We were not. No Democratic Senator voted for the continuing resolution which passed on Thursday, and we see no reason to delay the continuing resolution going to the President for his disposition. I ask for 30 additional seconds, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR. Nor do we attempt to slow down this process. We want to see this process go forward. We want to prevent this Government closing down. It does not have to. It is our understanding on the Democratic side of the aisle that Republicans may now seek to amend the continuing resolution further and we are now waiting word as to what that amendment might be. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished manager. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I was not planning to respond to my good friend from New Hampshire, and I agree with him 100 percent; it is not the time for name calling and politicization of this issue any longer. But I do feel it is time to set the record straight, and I would like to take just a moment of the Senate's time to sort of begin to set the record straight as to what is happening right now with regard to this issue of so-called shutting down the Government. This is not something that just happened in the last 24 or 36 or 48 hours. This has been going on for several months now. In fact, back on September 22, Speaker Gingrich boasted: I don't care what the price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices. I don't care if we have no bonds for 60 days, not this time. That is a quote in the Washington Post September 22, 1995. Look at what the Republicans have done. This is a fact. They have completely shut the Democrats out of the budget process. We know it. They know it. It is a fact of life. We have not been a part of this process. We have wanted to be a part of this process, but we have not been included. For example, after proposing the most massive cut in Medicare in the history of America, our Republican friends held only 1 day of hearings on this proposal--1 day. It is the biggest cut in Medicare we have had since 1965. By comparison, the House held 42 days of hearings on Whitewater, Waco, and Ruby Ridge. The Senate held 48 days of hearings on these same issues. One day of hearings, 1 day of hearings on this massive Medicare cut. Mr. President, I do think it is time to set the record straight. I also think it is time to realize that the President is not willing to impose an $11 a month premium increase on every single Medicare beneficiary as a condition for keeping the Government running. Look who is being held hostage here. Every Medicare recipient in America is being held hostage, and the price is closing down the Government. And we are going to blame it on the President of the United States. What is happening is we are only implementing what we call the Gingrich strategy. This is the implementation of a strategy that was conceived long ago but today is manufactured. It is an artificial crisis that has been created. It is a confrontation that has been dreamed up by people who do not care if this Government functions or not. It is a shameful experience. It is an experience about which I think most good-willed people in this body actually shudder when thinking about the Founding Fathers of this country--bringing us to this point of closing down the Government in order to make political hay. Mr. President, you know and all of us know that this artificial crisis basically revolves around one provision, the Medicare provision in the reconciliation bill, and the continuing resolution. But the truth is that the Medicare provision in this particular continuing resolution is also included in the reconciliation bill. Why is it we have not straightened that out so far? It is pretty apparent. We have not even appointed the conferees to go to conference on the reconciliation bill, and yet we are about to close down the Government. We do not even have the conferees appointed. There is no one to go to conference with and to solve this issue. That has to be a problem, and it has to be a responsibility of the majority party in the Senate and in the House. The Chair knows this. I know this. My colleagues know this. I think it is time to set the record straight. Earlier this morning, the Democratic party, Democratic side of the aisle had agreed; we thought we were getting ready, with unanimous consent, by voice vote to go ahead and pass the continuing resolution, let it go down to the President, not hold up this thing any longer, not continue the threat of closing down the Government, and then let the President veto it. Let him do it early in the day. We wanted that to happen. I hope that can still happen. Right now I do not know exactly what is going on, but I do know this, that this President at this moment is ready, willing, and able to talk to the other side of the aisle, I assume at the White House or anywhere else, and talk to them about the measures necessary to keep this Government functioning as it was intended to function and to stop implementing this grand Gingrich strategy, this contrived artificial crisis which does not have to happen. Mr. President, I understand my good friend and colleague from North Dakota would like 4 minutes, and I yield my friend 4 minutes at this time.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on three previous occasions I have come to the floor of the Senate to raise the issue that I wish to discuss today. Each time, I have laid out the facts of a particular problem--in fact, a loophole--which Congress created and which only Congress can fix. Left uncorrected, that problem will cost the American consumer and the American taxpayer several billion dollars and will unjustly enrich a few pharmaceutical companies enjoying undeserved and unintended special treatment under the GATT treaty. Over the next several days I intend to spend a few minutes to highlight a different and disturbing aspect of this GATT loophole. Let me give a brief overview, if I might, for those who may not be quite so familiar with the issue, despite the recent attention it has received in the media. There is a very simple way to describe this issue. It is like a person walking down the sidewalk and finding a wallet. After picking it up, he learns it contains $100 and the rightful owner's name. His question is, ``Do I keep the money or do I return it to its rightful owner?'' In this case, this money clearly belongs to the American taxpayer and American consumer. But the drug companies are saying ``OK, you made a mistake. But we want the money and we are going to try to keep it. Don't confuse us with the facts.'' That is what this issue is about. I know that these companies have hired a swarm of lobbyists to come to Capitol Hill. I know today, in fact, that they are distorting the truth and they are deceiving the public. This issue is all about whether a handful of drug companies will be honest--whether they will give the figurative wallet back to its rightful owner, the American consumer and the American taxpayer. Any fair-minded person will tell you that these drug companies are on the wrong side of this issue. But with billions of dollars at stake, how do you think they have responded? With a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign. They are trying to pocket this undeserved profit. It is difficult to believe the lengths they have gone to. They have distorted the facts. They are deceiving the public, and their unvarnished greed is on display for all to see. The only argument they can come up with is, ``Yes, we knew that a mistake was made. Yes, we haven't done a thing to deserve these billions of dollars. And yes, we know you are trying to correct this mistake. But, hey, this fell into our laps. We're going to do everything we possibly can to keep these dollars.'' Mr. President, let me weave together the three pieces of this issue. It is pretty simple. I think they lead to a simple conclusion. We need to fix this problem, and we will let our colleagues judge for themselves as to whether they agree. The first piece is the loophole itself. When Congress voted on the GATT treaty, we did two things. First, we extended all patents from 17 years to 20 years. Second, we stated in that treaty that a generic company in any industry--not just the drug industry--could market their products on the 17-year expiration date if they had already made a substantial investment and were willing to pay a royalty. Why did we do this? We did a favor to patent holders, but in doing so, moved the goalposts on generic companies of all kinds. So we thought this was a fair deal and a good balance of commercial interests. It made sense and it makes sense today. Everyone bought onto it--the automotive companies, the computer companies, the high-tech companies, and yes, the drug companies. Everyone said this is a fair way to solve this problem. We believed it to be fair. And we believed when we voted for the treaty that these provisions covered every person and every product, every company and every industry in the entire country. Everyone had to play by the same set of rules. Let me emphasize: everyone includes our U.S. Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor. He has attested time and again that this was the case. Letters from Ambassador Kantor to myself and my colleague, Senator Chafee, are part of the Record. But Mr. President, we were wrong. We made a mistake and accidentally left the prescription drug industry out of the picture. Today, they get the patent extension of 3 additional years. But the GATT loophole shields them from any generic competition whatsoever; in other words, a free ride for an additional 3 years with no competition--a monopoly, and exorbitant prices. The rest of us are playing by one set of rules while these few companies enjoy special treatment because of our mistake. That is part 1, Mr. President, and that is the loophole. Part 2 is the windfall. Mr. President, may I ask if there is additional time?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I see no other Senator seeking recognition--that my time may be extended for 5 additional minutes.