David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am looking for Senator Cohen, our cosponsor on the other side. I do not see him.

Mr. PRYOR. If Senator Mikulski needs an additional 20 seconds, I will be glad to yield to her.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to conclude by thanking the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, for not only being a cosponsor, but also having labored for many years in this particular field. He supports strongly this amendment. I also would like--

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I also would like to acknowledge Senator Boxer of California who has truly spoken on many occasions and feels compassionate about this amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. If my friend from Maine will yield, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that in the managers' amendment to be offered by Senator Roth tomorrow, the nursing home provision is only a very, very small part of it. There is going to be, as I understand it, a change in the Medicaid formula, also encompassed in the managers' amendment. This is only a small section of it. I think we should go ahead according to schedule. We have all been here all day, playing by the rules. Let us vote for the Pryor amendment and the Pryor-Cohen amendment tonight, and if we need to change it tomorrow, we can, and we can look at it tomorrow.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am the cosponsor on this side of the Bond amendment. I strongly support this amendment. We hoped, originally, that we would be able to permit the self-employed to deduct 100 percent of their insurance premiums, and this looks like they are going to take about 55 percent. This is the best we could do, but it is better than in the past.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I am just going to speak a very few moments on a subject that is and has been very near and dear to my heart during my entire period, you might say, in the field of public life. It relates to nursing home standards, Mr. President. The legislation that we are considering tonight in this Chamber--I do not know how many thousands of pages, about 2,000, I think--includes what we might think of as just about everything, that nothing was forgotten, nothing was left out, nothing was omitted from the budget reconciliation bill that we are considering this Wednesday evening in the Senate. But there is something very critical left out of the budget reconciliation brought to us by our friends from the other side of the aisle. What was left out, what is notably absent is any Federal national nursing home standards. Mr. President, only this week, in Time magazine, we see a remarkable article entitled ``Back to the Dark Ages,'' which predicts what is going to happen in the American nursing home to some 2 million residents if we totally do away with Federal standards. Mr. President, it was in 1987 when the late John Heinz, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the former Senator from Maine, Senator Mitchell, and many of us joined on this side of the aisle with our friends on the other side of the aisle to enact for the first time Federal standards for nursing homes. If I might, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record this article from Time magazine.

Mr. PRYOR. I shall read only one sentence. ``Indeed, the nursing home industry has not even asked for regulatory relief, in part because it would allow unscrupulous operators to flourish and bring shame on all of them.'' Mr. President, that is going to be exactly the status of the residents who are living today in the American nursing home. First, I would like, if I might, to show our colleagues the projected growth in the nursing home population. Today, we have approximately 2 million residents in American nursing homes. By the year 2003, just a few years from now, we are going to see 4.3 million American citizens residing in American nursing homes. In fact, most of the people who reach the age of 65 are going to be in this category. They are going to be living in a nursing home. I can only imagine. If the 2 million nursing home residents in this country could be surveyed or polled on how they felt about removing all Federal nursing home standards, it does not take a great amount of imagination to know what the results would be. Of course, in overwhelming numbers, undoubtedly, they would vote to continue these present Federal standards. For example, the choice of a physician, the care and the treatment in choosing a physician, the freedom from chemical and physical restraints, is this something that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to remove? Just last week in the Senate Finance Committee, on a vote of 10 to 10, every Democrat voted for retention of these Federal standards, every Republican except one, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, voted to eliminate all Federal standards in nursing homes. What about the issue, Mr. President, of privacy in receiving mail and communications? What about the confidentiality of medical records? What about the protection from unwarranted transfer to another nursing home or discharge in the middle of the night from the particular nursing home the resident finds himself or herself in? Mr. President, another chart indicates something that I think is extremely dramatic and once again indicates the real need for us to retain at least the minimum of Federal standards for nursing homes. Look at the characteristics of the nursing home patient or resident today: 77 percent need help in dressing; 63 percent need help in toileting; 91 percent need help in bathing; 66 percent have a mental disorder. And there is one more figure that did not make it to the chart, Mr. President. That is that over 70 percent of the patients today residing in America's nursing homes have no relative and no advocate out there on a daily basis visiting them or advocating their cause or trying to support bringing them a better quality of life. Mr. President, there is also a letter being circulated dated October 24 addressed to our colleague, Senator Dole, making one final plea to Senator Dole and all of us in this body to restore these meaningful nursing home standards. It is signed by the American Health Care Association, by the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, by the Catholic Health Association, and down the line. I ask unanimous consent that this letter all of us received in the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, these particular standards which have been on the books now not even for quite a decade are already paying dividends. For example, if we would just look at an additional chart to see what is happening in improved resident outcomes, the maintenance of the ADL function, what it takes to daily exist, we see the pre-OBRA functional status in the purple, we see the red, the post-OBRA functional status showing a dramatic increase in the very basic quality of life because of these nursing home standards. We look, Mr. President, and see what is happening in improved care for the nursing home resident. ``Decreases in Problem Areas.'' Physical restraints are going down; dehydration is going down; indwelling urinary catheters, 29 percent, going down. What we are seeing here, Mr. President, are hard-won gains that we are about to eliminate in one fell swoop simply because this particular budget reconciliation does not contain Federal nursing home standards to protect the American nursing home resident. Finally, Mr. President, let me ask, how would we vote in this body-- when this issue comes before the Senate, how would we vote if we knew that Monday our mother or our father or our son or our daughter or even ourselves were about to enter a nursing home and become yet another statistic? How would we vote, Mr. President? I ask my colleagues to strongly consider the opportunity, when it becomes available, to retain these basic nursing home standards and to continue them as a part of the law of this land and the basic protections that we must not take away from these 2 million, and going to soon be 4 million, American citizens residing in our nursing homes. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I see no other Senator seeking recognition, and I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 6 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. I would have no objection to that. I see my colleague from Minnesota. I did not see him.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might, I would like to ask my friend from Minnesota, is my friend from Minnesota going to be one of the managers or one of those involved with the resolution or with the issue before the Senate?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this morning I rise today to sound an alarm, an alarm about a $1 million television advertising campaign that supports the Republican plan to cut Medicare and is currently airing all over the United States. I am here to explain to my colleagues why this commercial does not tell the whole story and why the public needs to know more about the organization that is actually paying for this TV commercial that advocates the Republican cuts in the Medicare program. Mr. President, the organization paying for this television commercial is called the Seniors Coalition. We might not have heard a great deal about the Seniors Coalition because it has not been around all that long. It is an operation founded by Mr. Richard Viguerie. The star of this ad is our colleague and good friend from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist. Let me make it clear at the start that I mean no disrespect to Senator Frist. I talked to him this morning, stating I was going to make this statement, and that I was not questioning his integrity in any way. In fact, I sincerely doubt our colleague, Senator Frist, is aware of the information that I will share with my colleagues this morning. The ad, Mr. President, which features Senator Frist talking about the Republican plan to cut Medicare, is not paid for by the Republican Party but by the Seniors Coalition. First, some background on the Seniors Coalition. The Seniors Coalition is one of three so-called seniors organizations that have been working exclusively with the GOP leadership. It is working with the GOP leadership to push and help organize and in some cases to fund activities that support the Republican plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion and to provide a $245 billion tax break--most of it or a lot of it, Mr. President, going to the wealthiest in our society. Here we see a chart that includes the Seniors Coalition. We also see 60-Plus here. And, we see United Seniors, or USA, here. These are all founded by Mr. Viguerie, who has control of perhaps some of the most sophisticated mailing lists in America. The Coalition to Save Medicare was founded to support the House Republican plan to cut Medicare. As one columnist has recently put it, the Coalition to Save Medicare is ``deliriously misnamed,'' and is a ``coalition of huge corporations and insurance companies out to loot Medicare to pay for corporate tax breaks.'' In fact, Mr. President, the Seniors Coalition, United Seniors Association, and 60-Plus, are all 501(C)(4) organizations. They pay no taxes whatsoever. They have use of a nonprofit mailing permit. They are being subsidized by the American taxpayer. The other coalition, which is the Coalition for America's Future--and here is a letter of September 22--was created by the majority party, by the Republican leadership, to apply pressure [[Page S 15518]] during efforts to push the Contract With America, including tax breaks for the wealthy, through the House of Representatives. Let us look at this letter of September 22. This letter is addressed to me: On behalf of the more than 7 million families, senior citizens and large and small businesses of the Coalition for America's Future, we are writing to urge you to make good on the promise of the budget resolution to provide $245 billion in tax cuts over the next 7 years. One of the so-called members of the Coalition for America's Future is the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare. They are listed along with the Seniors Coalition, United Seniors Association, and 60-Plus as seniors organizations who are members and who support the Coalition's agenda. Mr. President, just this morning I received a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, and I will read part of it now: Regrettably, that letter lists our organization as a member of this Coalition and falsely implies our support for its position in favor of the $245 billion tax cut package contained in the budget reconciliation bill. Martha McSteen concludes by saying: I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare did not endorse this letter or approve of the use of our organization's name in connection with this letter. At this point, I would like to explain how these groups were founded, how they operate and exactly who they are. First, letters that will grab the attention of seniors, usually through scare tactics, are sent to thousands of seniors across America. These letters make senior citizens think that their Medicare is in jeopardy, that it is in danger, and that what they need to do immediately is to send their money in to one of the three groups founded by Mr. Viguerie. Here is what happens. The letter is sent by one of these groups to Mr. or Mrs. Smith, Anytown, USA. Then the older American receives this letter, writes a check out of their savings account to either the Seniors Coalition, United Seniors Association, or 60-Plus. Then the dollars go, first-- where? To Mr. Viguerie. We have the contract for Mr. Viguerie that we will show in a few moments, that shows that Mr. Viguerie gets up to 50 percent, possibly one-half of all of these checks sent in by mail by the senior citizens to United Seniors Association. Some of the remaining money is used to generate some more mail to send out to scare the seniors. These groups also use some of the remaining money to lobby the Congress. For example, Seniors Coalition had enough money left over to run TV commercials like we are seeing running in many parts of America today. This ad campaign is telling seniors that the Medicare cuts are necessary to save the Medicare system. Last year, in 1994, these same groups were doing the exact opposite. They were scaring seniors by telling them that President Clinton was cutting $124 billion out of Medicare as part of his health care reform proposal. Here is one letter dated March 28, 1994 from the same organization, the Seniors Coalition, and it was sent out to thousands of seniors all over the country, requesting contributions. In the body of the letter the Seniors Coalition states: Now President Clinton wants to cut an additional $124 billion. This is all part of his plan to have the Government take over health care. Well, they reversed themselves now, 2 years later, because of the Contract With America, because of their desire to cut $270 billion out of the Medicare proposal, because they want to give a $245 billion tax break for the wealthy, and because now they are all in the league with the Republican leadership. This year, however, the same groups are scaring seniors by telling the seniors if the Republican plan to save Medicare is not adopted, they might lose their Medicare benefits. What the letters do not show is that the Seniors Coalition strongly supports the Republican plans to cut Medicare by $270 billion and to provide a $245 billion tax break, a great portion going to the wealthiest in America. Second, many seniors are dipping into their savings--from their piggy banks, like the one shown here--to send so-called contributions to these three groups, thinking the money would be used to lobby Congress to save their Medicare Program. But what these seniors are not told and what they do not know--and they would have no reason to know--is that their dollars are being used, not to save Medicare, but to cut Medicare. A senior sends his check in to one of these groups, and their own money is being used against them, to cut Medicare benefits. This is a fraud. It is a sham. And, after collecting savings from seniors, the groups spend a lot of it, up to 50 percent in the case of the United Seniors Organization, to pay direct-mail companies. Here we have the direct-mail contract between United Seniors Association and Mr. Viguerie. As part of the contract, Mr. Viguerie takes up to one-half of all of the dollars that are sent into USA. And Mr. Viguerie also does the direct mail for another of these groups called 60-Plus. Experts have taken a look at this contract between Mr. Viguerie and 60-Plus. In fact, they have taken a very close look at this contract. These experts have all concluded that the provisions in Mr. Viguerie's contract, when added up, indicate that in fact he controls as much as 70 percent of the so-called ``not-for-profit'' 60-Plus. If this is true, what it means is that the American people, through tax exemptions--because it is a nonprofit organization--and postal nonprofit permits, are subsidizing a private fundraiser's operations. In these days of budget cutting, this sort of thing must be stopped. Mr. President, I think this is an absolute outrage. In fact, it is my understanding the Postal Service is now investigating some of these issues. I hope they will pursue that investigation to its conclusion. The money that remains after the direct mail people get their cut is used to send out more scare letters to seniors and to support the Republican plans to cut Medicare by $270 billion. Once again, the message is clear: Medicare is growing broke. Send us your money, and we will save it. Well, seniors are sending in their money. And what they are doing with the seniors' money is it is used to cut, not to save, Medicare. As I have stated, documents make it very clear that these groups are actively supporting the Republican plans to cut Medicare by $270 billion and to provide a $245 billion tax break, mostly for the wealthy. The ironic thing is that this is not what their members truly want. This summer I received a petition from the United Seniors Association, one of Mr. Viguerie's groups, and they had on this petition the names of almost 300 Arkansans listed as ``members.'' I thought something looked strange about this petition, so I instructed my staff during the August break to sit there and call the people on this list, on this petition, and simply ask a very few basic questions. What we learned was most educational. It made me realize that their ``members'' do not necessarily know that they are members. They do not understand what these groups support, nor do they understand that their names are being used to lobby to cut their Medicare benefits. This chart also shows the results of a phone survey of these Arkansans listed as USA members. First, 53 percent of the seniors listed on the USA petition that I received from Arkansas as members were not actually members. They said they were not members of USA, despite what the petition to me said. Second, seniors listed in the USA petition to me expressed confusion about the positions that USA takes; 83 percent said they did not know that USA is working to rally support by the Republicans to cut Medicare by $270 billion. These same seniors, on this list that was sent to my office as a petition, listed their opposition USA position's position on Medicare. Again, as a matter of fact, on Medicare, 89 percent were in fact against cutting it by $270 billion. They oppose the very position of USA that USA and the House majority claims they support. In sum, the Republicans are saying that a lot of senior groups are supporting these cuts in Medicare. These charts I have shown indicate what these senior groups actually are, how they are motivated, and with whom they are associated. [[Page S 15519]] It is not the case that these so-called seniors groups--Seniors Coalition, United Seniors Association, and 60-Plus--are fighting against these cuts in Medicare. In reality, two things are happening: First, much of the money is going into the budgets of Richard Viguerie and other direct mail vendors. Second, the lobbying that these groups are doing amounts not to the saving the Medicare Program but rather supporting the Republican Medicare cuts--even though these cuts could jeopardize the health care received by seniors. Mr. President, now that we have basically looked at who the players are in this scheme to confuse and to manipulate older Americans, I would like to talk about the million-dollar television campaign that the Seniors Coalition is running across America.

Mr. PRYOR. I will try to be very brief. I will try to proceed if I may.

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to sincerely thank my colleagues, and my colleague from Arizona, for allowing me to proceed. Mr. President, as part of the million-dollar Seniors Coalition ad campaign that we are talking about, the television commercials state that in the Republican plan there are ``no cuts in benefits.'' The facts are simple and indicate otherwise. With this particular Republican plan that the ad campaign is supporting, $270 billion will taken out of Medicare. The question is this: If this level of cuts causes the only hospital to which we have access to close its doors, is this not a cut in benefits? In rural America this is exactly what is about to happen to hundreds of hospitals. Second, if this level of cuts causes the nursing home or a doctor in our town to stop taking Medicare beneficiaries, is this not a cut in benefits? Third, if this gives incentives to home health care agencies and other providers to treat only healthy people, is this not a cut for older and more frail citizens? There is another claim expressed in this television commercial. This commercial states that ``the Republican plan increases spending by nearly $2,000 per senior.'' The fact is, Mr. President, that the yearly per beneficiary growth rate allowed under this plan is 4.9 percent. It is, in fact, much below the expected 7.1 percent growth rate in private sector health care costs. Medicare's ability to respond to health care costs decreases with the severity of these cuts. Mr. President, the commercial further states that the Republican plan gives ``patients more choices.'' The fact is what good is offering choices when only bad choices are offered? While seniors may have more health care plans to choose from, choosing the one that they can afford may mean they must give up their choice of a physician. And, finally, the proposed medical savings account threatens the viability of Medicare by allowing insurance companies to cherry-pick by moving healthy, wealthy people out of the Medicare pool. The result would be far higher costs to the beneficiaries who stay in Medicare. Also, the Seniors Coalition television ad says nothing about the Republicans using the cuts in Medicare to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. Why is this, Mr. President? It is perhaps because seniors who are actually paying for these commercials do not want the Medicare Program to be cut to fund tax breaks. I think this is a legitimate question. Mr. President, only $89 billion is actually needed to shore up Medicare's trust fund in the short term. Why then are our people not being told where the $181 billion cuts are actually going to go? Were those same seniors who sent their dollars to Mr. Viguerie's groups told this? Of course not. They have been used, they have been abused, and they have been manipulated by a slick campaign of distortion and untruths. Mr. President, this is a situation where the seniors of America are being scared to death. They are sending their money in to basically, as the letters call for, to protect Medicare. Mr. President, this television advertising campaign cost the Seniors Coalition $1 million and is running in 19 markets across the country. I want to make sure everyone knows that this campaign was paid for by the elderly, many of them poor and disabled, who sent in money thinking that the Seniors Coalition was going to lobby the Congress to save their Medicare Program-- not cut it. That is why my advice to seniors who are thinking about sending their hard-earned savings to these three so-called seniors groups is that ``Contributions May Be Hazardous to Your Health.'' They should think twice before writing a check to a Viguerie-founded group. As I said earlier, I am here today to sound the alarm and expose this scam. I am concerned not only because some seniors are being taken advantage of, but also because this scam is a cynical manipulation of our political process. It threatens the democratic principles under which we operate. Americans who think they are getting involved with the political process are actually being financially exploited. Furthermore, they are not being represented the way they think they are. This is a perfect example of why so many people today have such little confidence in our political system. Mr. President, older Americans--all Americans--can say ``no'' to this type of cynical manipulation and misrepresentation. Let me encourage every senior to get involved with reform of their Medicare [[Page S 15520]] Program. They can write a letter to us in the Senate. They can call. They can visit. They can fax. But, they do not need to send money to a direct-mail vendor in order to be heard in the Congress. Mr. President, before seniors send in $10, $20, or $30 to these so- called seniors groups they should consider the following. The most effective way only costs 32 cents. I will always place more importance on a personal letter or a visit from one of my constituents than on a letter or preprinted card from a group that distorts their views. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain material, editorials, and extraneous matter that relate to this issue that I have discussed this morning.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. I also once again thank my colleagues for allowing me to go a little longer than I had originally anticipated. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I do not know if this is necessary. But I ask unanimous consent that the time I use be taken out of the time as previously under the order allocated to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the Senate is in the midst of a crucial debate over Medicare and Medicaid. In the midst of this controversy, the fate of a single bill or amendment might be inconsequential. But today I rise to discuss a bill which speaks clearly and directly to a very simple question at the heart of all of this debate, and that question is this: Can the Senate do what is best for the American people? My colleagues, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island and Senator Brown of Colorado, and I have offered just such a proposal. Compared with the matter that we began debate on Wednesday in the reconciliation bill, our proposal is simple, and it is easy to miss. But it is important. It is crucial. It admits a congressional mistake, and it fixes a congressional mistake. It closes a glaring legislative loophole and saves billions of dollars in the process. But, most important, it sends a very simple message to the American people: Congress makes mistakes, but Congress can fix those mistakes when the interests of the American people are at stake. Mr. President, we offered this bill because the interests of the American people--both as taxpayers and as consumers--are clearly at stake here. And deep down my colleagues know it, too. Let me briefly describe our proposal. It enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House and has been endorsed by every single Federal agency involved with trade, patents, or drugs: the U.S. Trade Representative, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Food and Drug Administration. Mr. President, here is what it does: When Congress passed the GATT Treaty last year, we enacted two transition provisions. First, we granted a generous extension to all current patents. Second, as a condition of that extension, we permitted generic competitors onto the market on the old patent expiration date if they had already made a substantial investment and were willing to pay a royalty. That was our agreement. That was our discussion as it related to GATT. These changes were universally understood by all of the negotiators from every country, from every industry, from every economic aspect of our economic life in America. Let me be very clear on this point. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor states categorically in a letter dated September 18 to me that the law was meant to apply universally, that there would be no exceptions. The GATT negotiators themselves--the experts who physically sat down at the table and negotiated the GATT Treaty on behalf of the United States--have personally confirmed that the transition provisions were meant to apply to every single person, product, company, and industry in the country. There was a loophole. And guess who came out smelling like a rose? A few pharmaceutical drug companies, who now--if we do not do something about it--are going to have a free ride for the next 3 years when generic competition is poised and ready to compete with them in the marketplace. This spring the Congress discovered this loophole. We failed to modify this loophole in the Finance Committee because of a technical problem. When we passed the GATT Treaty, we inadvertently gave the prescription drug industry a giant unintended windfall. Of all the companies, of all the products in America--from automobiles to zippers, computers and TV parts, everything--only prescription drug companies, only drug companies, received a competition-free patent extension, a free ride, a windfall. In fact, when one of the officials of Glaxo Co., that manufactures Zantac, heard about this loophole being discovered, his first word was--and I quote--``eureka.'' They got the extension, and they were mistakenly shielded from the competition intended by GATT. Without that competition, today a handful of drug companies are now, beginning today, receiving a whopping multibillion-dollar windfall paid for by consumers and paid for by taxpayers. This was a simple mistake of oversight, Mr. President. I wish to emphasize that. We make mistakes around here every day. Sometimes we correct them and sometimes we do not. But this is an opportunity to correct that mistake. Every authority that I have spoken to, every Member of this body, every Senate committee, and every Government agency admits this was an error, and now we have a chance to change it. Even the companies that gained this unjustified multibillion-dollar windfall admit it was a mistake. This is why my colleagues, Senators Chafee and Brown and myself, will be offering this amendment. This amendment does one thing and one thing only. It applies GATT to those few drug companies the same way it applies to every other company and every other product in this country. Unless we correct this loophole today, enormous profits, unjustified and unexpected, will go to those few companies. We have already taken the first steps to a solution, but 3 weeks ago we were blocked by a procedural technicality in the Finance Committee. And make no mistake. The only way to rectify this problem is here and it is now. The Senate is the court of appeals for this issue to be decided. If there is any doubt whether Congress should fix its own mistakes, I have some news for my distinguished colleagues. The Patent Office and the FDA have tried to correct this problem on their own. They failed because of [[Page S 15422]] technicalities. The problem is, their hands are tied by the letter of the law in the GATT treaty. On last Thursday, despite their best efforts, a Federal court held that three drug makers that had filed suits in the court had actually won, which meant that they ruled against this loophole being corrected. The Federal court said that their hands were tied. Even worse, the court ruling now means that potentially hundreds of products could be affected. This could mean as much as $6 billion--I repeat, $6 billion--in unnecessary health care costs for every purchaser of prescription drugs--the elderly, hospitals, clinics, HMO's, drugstores, insurance companies and, not the least, the governments, State and Federal governments. According to securities analyists, the ruling could ``affect sales of billions of dollars of brand name drugs that would otherwise be open to competition from less expensive generic versions.'' For the average person, this means money out of our pockets for no good reason. If they are one of the millions of people who take the world's best selling drug, Zantac, our legislation would cut the cost of Zantac by one-half. Think of it, cutting the cost of one medication by one-half that is the best selling drug in America. Our legislation would cut the cost of Capoten for hypertension by two-thirds. By over 65 percent we would cut the cost of this drug simply because there would be competition in the marketplace. That competition in the marketplace is going to be delayed unless the court of appeals, in this case the U.S. Senate, the last court of appeals, handles this matter and corrects this very tragic mistake. Let me tell you three other reasons why we should be supporting this amendment at the proper time. Our proposal will save the Government hundreds of millions of dollars for the poor, the veterans, active military personnel, pregnant women, Native Americans, and every American served by Medicaid, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, as well as the Public Health Service and the Indian Health Service clinics. All of those would be included and all of those would benefit with the adoption of our proposal. Second, everyone wants to do what is best for older Americans, the sick and the poor and the consumers. How often do we hear that? Here we have an opportunity to do it. It is clear. It is evident that we can help these groups by supporting this idea. Our proposal is supported by senior citizens, consumers, medical practitioners. It is endorsed by the National Council on the Aging, National Consumers League, the Gray Panthers, the National Women's Health Network, the United Homeowners Association, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the National Black Women's Health Project. Finally, this issue has been the focus of intense media scrutiny for the last several weeks. People are beginning to see how a big ripoff is about to happen unless we correct it. Articles and stories inspired by disbelief have appeared in the New York Times, NBC News, Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Business Week, Reuters, Journal of Commerce, Roll Call, and the Orlando Sentinel, and the list goes on and on. Why is there so much attention on this issue? Well, the bottom line is there is a lot of money at stake. There are multibillion-dollar health care cuts being debated in Congress today, and here we are about to give an enormous windfall to one of the most profitable segments of our economic activity, the pharmaceutical companies. Why does anyone care about this particular legislation? I think the reason people care is because they know this bill is the right thing to do. They are sick and tired of the excuses that are given when we fail to do the right thing. Please let me repeat, this is not a partisan issue. It never has been. It is about fixing a mistake. It is about saving taxpayers' money. It is about precluding an enormous windfall in unjustified profit to several drug companies that have gotten, in my opinion, extremely greedy. This morning, Mr. President, I was just handed a page from the Roll Call newspaper, dated Monday, October 23, 1995, page 8. Here is an advertisement placed by the American pharmaceutical research companies--by the way, that is the old PMA--Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. They changed their name a few months ago, Mr. President, so they could add a little cloak of dignity emphasizing research. They take what we are trying to do apart and they try, as they say, separating fact from fiction in this particular ad. But the bottom line is what they have said is extremely misleading. It is motivated by economic gain. In addition to that, it is simply wrong. The motivation for this particular advertisement, in my opinion, is the continuation of economic greed by some of the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Just in the Wall Street Journal, I believe, on Friday, the drug companies talked about, well, they cannot sell drugs in America as cheaply as they can sell these same drugs in Europe or in the other industrialized nations. Look at this headline: ``Strong Global Sales Lift Drug Company Profits.'' So they are selling overseas these same drugs they sell to us for 40 and 50 and 60 percent more in this country, they sell these drugs overseas at so much less and they are making such an enormous profit that they see their stock is going up in these companies, and once again the drug companies find a way to take advantage of the American consumer and certainly the American taxpayer. If we do not correct this issue now, we are going to be actually a part, in my opinion, of a terrible mistake that we had a chance to correct. Here is the alternative, Mr. President. We can stand here and do nothing, we can let these drug companies make off like bandits with these unjustified profits, or we can vote for the amendment offered by myself and, hopefully, some of my other colleagues. We can rob older Americans, HMO's and every single taxpayer in this country if we do nothing. We can enrich two or three drug companies, we can keep competition out of the market, or we can make certain that they do not receive money they do not deserve. We can let a loophole rob American consumers of as much as $6 billion. We can let the intense lobbying efforts by one or two drug companies sway us. We can ensure special treatment to a few companies while the rest of the country plays fair, following the rules and obeying the law. Once again, Mr. President, a few pharmaceutical drug companies are the only companies that are excluded under this provision. They are the only ones given this mistake. They are the ones taking advantage, I should say, of this mistake in the GATT treaty. Now is our opportunity to change it. And in my opinion, Mr. President, this is the mother of all special interest issues. Let me read from the New York Times when they observed a few days ago: Some of the Nation's largest drug companies will have spent and lobbied heavily against one bill that hardly amounts to budget dust. While its impact on the Federal budget may be minuscule, the measure means a fortune to these drug companies. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this proposal. If we fail, it will allow the legal combination of a legal loophole, a procedural technicality, intense lobbying, big bucks, and our own failure of will, robbing the American consumers of billions of their taxes and their income. Every American citizen will be forced to continue subsidizing an outrageous, unintended windfall to a handful of drug companies simply because we do not have the courage or the foresight or the will to admit and to fix our own mistakes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that documentation of savings from this proposal, letters of support, and recent media articles be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. If the Senator from North Dakota will yield just for a moment, I want to compliment him for his statement. I sat through 2 days last week of pretty excruciating--and I see my colleague, Senator Conrad of North Dakota, here now. We joined in that effort of seeing if we could not return some degree of fairness to the proposal [[Page S 15434]] as sent from the Finance Committee that would be embodied in reconciliation. I have another idea that I proposed and it failed on a party-line split. I think that the small business owner, the self-employed, should have a greater deduction in trying to buy insurance for himself and his employees. Simply put, our colleagues on the other side are now trying to bring capital gains for corporations, the biggest corporations in America, from 35 percent down to 28 percent. My amendment was simple. I said, ``If you want to give a capital gains tax to corporations, let's go not from 35 to 28 percent, let's go from 35 to 32 percent, still give them a little break but list also in that, not a 30-percent deduction for health insurance premium, but a 50-percent deduction.'' I would like to do 100 percent, and I think we should do 100 percent, but the dollars are not there. We could, by shaving this little benefit off the major corporations, give 10 million self-employed individuals a 50-percent tax deduction when they pay for insurance for themselves and their employees. I think it would be one of the best things that we could do. I think we would find a lot of people agree that it makes sense and certainly it represents fairness.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota if he would allow me to, through the Chair, address a question to my good friend from North Carolina and if he would yield to me for that purpose.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will address this question. I am wondering if my good friend from North Carolina would allow the Senator from Arkansas, say, at a time certain, to make a statement on what I consider to be the most important issue that is coming before this Congress through the balance of this session, which is the reconciliation bill. We will not, I remind my good friend--and I know he knows this--we will not have an ample opportunity--10 hours on a side--to properly debate perhaps one of the most monumental issues ever before the U.S. Senate, which is the tax cut and tax increase----

Mr. PRYOR. Well, Mr. President, I am not controlling time.