David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to conclude once again by saying that personally I think holding 34 hearings on Whitewater this year is enough. I think spending $27.6 million is enough. I think that expending these amounts of resources that we have expended, for the FBI and all of the other investigation teams, whatever, looking into Whitewater that have been utilized by the Federal Government I think frankly is more than enough. I hope--and I urge my colleagues on each side of the aisle--if there is something wrong that someone has done, let us name the cause, let us bring them to justice, and let us do what is necessary. But, Mr. President, to keep this issue out, to keep it dangling as it is today, to keep it as an issue that I fear is becoming politicized to a very great extent, and to not recognize the simple unfairness that we have created in not bringing charges when we might or might not have charges to bring but to just to keep that issue out there over and over and over and day after day, month after month, millions after millions of dollars, I think is unfair. I think this institution is better than that. I hope that we will reach down and find in our souls somewhere a way to finally conclude the Whitewater witch hunt and our fixation on the Whitewater matter. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, first, I want to add my accolades, if I might, for just a moment, to the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, who earlier this afternoon, I think probably gave one of the more classic speeches that has been given on this floor for many a year. I hope the result of that will be that this Senate makes a video tape of this particular speech available--and certainly the Congressional Record--and that it would be widely disbursed, and that, hopefully, each incoming Senate class in years to come in this great institution would have the privilege, during the orientation period, of listening to the wise and truthful and very strong words of Senator Robert C. Byrd----about the institution that he loves and that we love and respect. I applaud him for his statement. I think it was timely. I think it was on the point. I think all of us owe him a deep debt of gratitude for that statement which was given from Senator Byrd's heart.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences [``GSP''] duty-free import program is currently up for consideration as part of the budget reconciliation package. The GSP program allows duty-free imports of certain products into the U.S. from well over 100 GSP eligible nations as a way to help less developed nations export into the U.S. market. While I support this program, it is essential to remember that from its inception in the Trade Act of 1974, the GSP program has provided for the exemption of ``articles which the President determines to be import-sensitive.'' This is a critical provision to many of our industries. Mr. President, a clear example of an import sensitive article which should not be subject to GSP is ceramic tile. The U.S. ceramic tile market has been repeatedly recognized as extremely import-sensitive. During the past thirty-years, this U.S. industry has had to defend itself against a variety of unfair and illegal import practices carried out by some of our closest trade partners. Imports already dominate the U.S. ceramic tile market and have done so for the last decade. They currently provide nearly 60 percent of the largest and most important glazed tile sector according to the 1994 year-end government figures. Moreover, a major guiding principle of the GSP program has been reciprocal market access. Currently, GSP eligible beneficiary countries supply almost one-fourth of the U.S. ceramic tile imports, and they are rapidly increasing their sales and market shares. U.S. ceramic tile manufacturers, however, are still denied access to many of these foreign markets. Also, previous abuses of the GSP eligible status with regard to some ceramic tile product lines has been well documented. In 1979, the USTR rejected various petitions for duty-free treatment of ceramic tile from certain GSP beneficiary countries. With the acquiescence of the U.S. industry, however, the USTR at that time created a duty-free exception for the then minuscule category of irregular edged ``speciality'' mosaic tile. Immediately thereafter, foreign manufacturers from major GSP beneficiary countries either shifted their production to ``specialty'' mosaic tile or simply identified their existing products as ``specialty'' mosaic tile on customs invoices and stopped paying duties on these products. These actions flooded the U.S. market with superficially restyled or mislabeled duty-free ceramic tile. Mr. President, in light of the increasing foreign dominance of the U.S. ceramic tile market, for whatever reason, the U.S. industry has been recognized by successive Congresses and Administrations as ``import-sensitive'' dating back to the Dillon and Kennedy Rounds of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Yet during this same period, the American ceramic tile industry has been forced to defend itself from over a dozen petitions filed by various designated GSP eligible countries seeking duty-free GSP treatment for their ceramic tile sent into this market. The domestic ceramic tile industry has been fortunate, to date, in the fact that both the USTR and the International Trade Commission thus far have recognized the ``import-sensitivity'' of the U.S. market and have denied these repeated GSP petitions that would result in further import penetration. If, however, just one petitioning nation ever succeeds in gaining GSP benefits for ceramic tile, then all GSP beneficiary countries also are entitled to GSP duty-free benefits for ceramic tile. If any of these petitions were grated, it would eliminate American tile jobs and could devastate this domestic industry. Mr. President, I believe an import sensitive and already import- dominated product such as ceramic tile should not have to continually defend itself against repeated duty-free petitions but should be exempted from this program in some manner. While I understand USTR has serious reservations about granting exemptions without periodic review, I am hopeful we can find some common ground so that the ceramic tile industry does not have to defend itself each and every year. While I support reauthorization of the GSP program, I trust and expect that import-sensitive products such as ceramic tile will not be subject to GSP.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, at this moment I would have to object to that unanimous-consent request. I did not know the Senator was seeking recognition for that reason.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Florida is seeking recognition. The Senator from Arkansas has just about a 3-minute statement, if he will permit me to go forward. I will just take a few moments of the Senate's time this evening. I rise tonight to voice my very, very strong opposition to the Department of Defense authorization conference report that is now before the U.S. Senate. This conference report takes the unthinkable step of actually repealing a bipartisan piece of legislation which was written in 1983, by Senators Roth, Kassebaum, Grassley, myself and many others in this body. We set up a process for an office to test new weapons, in an independent, unbiased, untainted, and a very, very, realistic environment. If enacted, this conference report that we are now discussing would be a gigantic step backwards in the war against $600 hammers, thousand- dollar toilet seats, guns that do not shoot, bombs that do not explode, and planes that do not fly. I truly believe, Mr. President, that if this conference report is enacted in its present form, the lives of our men and women who serve this country in the Armed Forces will be put needlessly at risk. I hope my colleagues in the Senate are aware that this conference report contains a provision that would virtually eliminate the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation by absolutely revoking its charter. Mr. President, no one has yet explained any reason whatsoever to take away the office and the department in that area of our Department of Defense that tests weapons before we go into mass production. It simply does not make sense. Over the past 12 years, this testing office has been an unparalleled success. It has saved time, money, and, most importantly, it has saved the lives of our fighting forces by making weapons better and by keeping flawed systems out of the hands of our soldiers. Support for the testing office has always been bipartisan, Mr. President. Former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said that an independent weapons testing office ``saved more lives'' during Operation Desert Storm than perhaps any other single initiative. The current Secretary of Defense, William Perry, recently described this office as ``the conscience of the acquisition process.'' Mr. President, I was shocked to learn that this conference report revokes the charter for independent testing of our weapons. I could not believe it. Because of this provision, I cannot and I will not vote for this conference report. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that I do not fault my very good friend from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for this language that undermines independent testing. From all reports that I have, he tried to keep the office of independent testing alive. I have always known that this flawed initiative originated not in the Senate but in the House of Representatives. In fact, the Senator from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, supported the sense-of-the-Senate resolution approved by this Chamber as recently as August that voiced the Senate's strong opposition to revoking the charter for independent weapons testing. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate's position did not prevail in the conference committee. The wishes of the U.S. Senate to uphold and to support and to continue this office of independent testing were not granted. I want to thank the chairman at this time for doing what he could in conference to stop, or at least to delay, the elimination of the office of independent testing. I only wish that he had been more successful in keeping the conference committee from endorsing an absolutely terrible idea. As we begin sending American troops into Bosnia, it is wrong, it is dangerously shortsighted, for this Congress to propose eliminating that very office that has been so helpful, so successful in making sure that our weapons work properly in combat. Mr. President, I will be voting against this conference report. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator for yielding me this time, because a few moments ago the Senate voted to confirm 19 ambassadorial nominees. I am very pleased, as I know my colleagues are, that these nominations are finally moving forward. I am especially happy to note that my friend, and I should certainly say our friend and former colleague, Jim Sasser, will soon be allowed to take his post as United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. As we enter a new century, it is my belief no other international relationship is filled with more potential, or fraught with more dangers than the United States relationship with China. In recent years, China has become one of the world's fastest-growing economic and military powers. China is already a major player in Asia, and in the coming years we will likely see it assert itself as a full-fledged international power. The Clinton administration has rightly concluded that it is in America's best interest to stay actively engaged with the Chinese. Although our two countries often have sharp differences on both economic and human rights issues, it is very important to maintain a constant dialogue between Beijing and Washington. Put simply, the future stability and prosperity of the Pacific rim are largely dependent on a cooperative U.S. relationship. Mr. President, this administration has also rightly concluded that the best person, the very best person, to represent America in China at this moment, the right person to guide our foreign policy in China during this critical time, is our good friend and former colleague, James R. Sasser of Tennessee. I want to congratulate Jim Sasser today. I recognize how fortunate our country is that he has agreed to accept this enormous challenge. I also want to commend President Clinton for choosing such an outstanding person to represent our interests in Beijing. Like many of my colleagues, I had the pleasure of working with him during a large portion of his 18 years of service to the people of Tennessee and America. During his time in this body, Jim Sasser earned a reputation as one of the Senate's most thoughtful and skillful Members. As my colleagues know, the dynamics of the Senate require that Members often put partisanship aside in order to get things done. Jim Sasser was someone whom Senators on both sides of the aisle could count on to roll up his sleeves and do the job right. Mr. President, a prominent example of Senator Sasser's skill and dedication can be found in his work as chairman of the Budget Committee. As my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, will tell you, leadership of the Budget Committee can be one of the Senate's most thankless tasks. It is a difficult job, requiring an ability to balance the priorities of colleagues from both parties. I think all of my colleagues will agree that Senator Sasser's chairmanship was notable for its honesty, patience, and above all, fairness. It is the characteristic of that fairness that is the hallmark in Jim Sasser's life. In the coming days, Senator Sasser will begin to put his considerable talents to work as Ambassador to China. As he no doubt realizes, there is much work to be done. During the past year, United States-Chinese relations have been strained by continuing trade disputes and the Taiwan issue. The United States needs someone who can improve the dialog with China while at the same time holding firm to American principles. Jim Sasser is more than up to this challenge. Mr. President, I want to close by wishing our firend Jim Sasser and his family the best of luck as he continues to serve his Nation as Ambassador to China. I have every confidence that his tenure will be marked by distinction and success. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--but if we reach the point, if I may ask this question of the distinguished manager through the Chair, where all time is not being requested, is it possible to even vote before the 6:45 period?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, the day before yesterday I introduced an amendment on behalf of myself and my very good friend from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, and our good friend from Colorado, Senator Brown. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what we are seeing here tonight on the second-degree amendment, and I say this in all due respect to my colleagues who have offered this second-degree amendment to this principal amendment, this is merely an attempt to kill the Pryor- Chafee-Brown-Byrd amendment. That is it, pure and simple. First, it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which all of us know in this body has no force of law. It has no real meaning. It has no traction, as we say around here. Beyond that, it does not require any Committee to hold any hearing at any specific time. It merely says that the Judiciary Committee would conduct hearings to investigate the effect of the new patent provisions of title 35 U.S. code as amending subtitle C. of title 5 of the Uruguay Round agreements. Mr. President, this amendment would probably end up in the wastebasket. There is no date certain for a hearing. Additionally, the amendment sends instructions for a hearing, under this sense-of-the- Senate amendment, to the Judiciary Committee. It would not be sent to the Labor Committee that has jurisdiction over food and drug issues. It is being sent to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. Once again, there is no date certain for when a hearing might be held on [[Page S 18200]] the effect of the proposal that we are discussing this evening in the U.S. Senate. Make no mistake, what this amendment is all about is an attempt to kill the Pryor-Chafee-Brown-Byrd amendment. It is a tactic to delay. It is a motion to protect one of the greatest windfalls that we have ever created in the history of our entire Government. Now, Mr. President, I have several things I want to say during the course of this debate. I see my very good colleague, Senator Chafee, my colleague on the Finance Committee, who has been so loyal as a friend and as a supporter in trying to close this loophole that we created when we did not conform the food, drug and cosmetic law to the GATT treaty and its provisions. Mr. President, I also see my friend from Colorado, Senator Brown, an original cosponsor of our amendment. Mr. President, expecting that my colleagues might have something to say on this issue, for the moment I yield the floor and I reserve the opportunity to address this issue further.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I respond to my colleague from Rhode Island, there is absolutely no date set forth in the sense-of-the- Senate resolution to require the Judiciary Committee, or any other committee of the Senate, to hold a hearing. It is totally open ended. Again, there is no date specified in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. PRYOR. Let me respond, Mr. President, to my friend from Rhode Island once again. It would certainly be more palatable if we had an imminent date for the Judiciary Committee to hold such a hearing. But, to be honest, I do not think a Judiciary Committee hearing is going to give us any more facts than we know today. We pretty well have the facts. Those facts are that the Congress made an mistake. We created an error in the GATT legislation. We opened a loophole, and now we have an opportunity to fix it. As the Senator from Rhode Island just stated, this is really a very, very [[Page S 18201]] simple matter. It becomes dramatic because of all the dollars involved: All the dollars that appeared unexpectedly in a windfall that goes to a small handful of drug companies that had no idea a year ago that this windfall would occur and that these billions of dollars would basically be falling out of the trees into their bank accounts. So I say, even if there were a day certain, we are about to leave for Christmas. If we even set a day certain of 10 days from now, perhaps the Senate and the House will not even be in session. We do not know when we are coming back in session next year. So I say once again, this is an attempt to kill the original Pryor-Chafee-Brown-Byrd amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. PRYOR. I believe the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is the author of this amendment. Perhaps he could advise us as to why the amendment is being sent to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if the Senator from Rhode Island will yield--then I want to hear, and I know we all do, our friend from Colorado, Senator Brown--I'd like to ask if in the history of the Judiciary Committee has that committee held hearings on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? That committee does not have jurisdiction over this act, yet that is where we are about to dump this issue. The second point I would like to raise is my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, has talked about, ``Oh, this is relating to patents. We have to protect these patent rights.'' That seems ironic, since on June 7, 1995 the United States Patent Office ruled--the Patent Office ruled, Mr. President--that they determined the expiration dates of the patents in question. They are in force on June 8, 1995 and, therefore, are entered into the greater of the term of 20 years from their relevant filing days, or 17 years from grant. In other words, they held in our favor. The Patent Office held in our favor that the generics could in fact come in and compete with the brand-name companies. Of course, the brand-name companies with all of their high-powered lawyers, money, et cetera, moved on to the courts. And because the courts interpreted literally our mistake as being the intent of Congress, and I must say that I think they made a mistake, Glaxo and other major pharmaceutical companies won out. I would like to make one more point, and then I am going to sit down for a spell.

Mr. PRYOR. I would like to just say, if we allow this situation to persist and refuse to close this loophole, let us for a moment look at what is going to happen to one pharmaceutical company that has inherited this windfall. Let us look at Glaxo. They make Zantac. Here is some Zantac. It cost $170 a bottle. You can go over to Canada, by the way, and buy this for about $70 a bottle. Or, if in our country we had the competition for Zantac on the shelves today, as we should have occurred earlier this week, it would cost about half of what this $170 bottle of Zantac cost. But, if we go forward, let us say even for an additional 30 days and allow this windfall to continue, or let us say just to Christmas day-- and Christmas day is just a few days away, Mr. President--Glaxo is going to make another $115 million. If we hold a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, say next November, and then keep this thing in effect, maybe until 1996, a year from Christmas and do not correct it until a year from this Christmas, this one company--because of our mistake and because of our refusal to correct that mistake--will have made an extra $2.328 billion. Do we want our patent law in this country to be based upon an error, to be based on a mistake that we made, and refuse to correct? I do not think so, Mr. President. I look forward to hearing some of the comments from other colleagues who feel, I believe, as strongly about this issue as I do.

Mr. PRYOR. The way that I understand the law, I say to my friend, if a generic company has been out there and has made what we call a substantial investment where they are ready to come into the market at the end of the 17-year patent protection period, then the generic would be allowed to go on the shelves, to go on the market, to be advertised, to be marketed, selling for one-half of what the brand name sells these drugs for today. At that time a royalty for this time that was unexpired--like for 600 additional days for Glaxo and Zantac--a royalty would be paid even to the Glaxo company by the competing generic drug company. The amount of that royalty would be established in a court of law, and there is a system whereby that amount would be established. I think that is the question the Senator from Rhode Island is asking.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from Rhode Island. I did not understand his original question. I do now. In other words, if we were to correct this, even in March or April, whenever, and admit we made a mistake, which we did and we all agree that we did, then the company gets to keep all of that money. There is no refund. The Medicaid programs have continued to pay the highest price for these drugs. The Veterans Administration has continued to pay the highest price for these drugs. The consumers get no rebate. The consumers get no relief. The only benefit accrues to a very few drug companies that we failed to include in the coverage of the new law in the GATT treaty. They get to keep all of these excess profits. And that is what this fight is all about. Every time, every day that these drug companies get to keep this amount of money, these exorbitant profits, this windfall, it comes out of the pocketbooks of the consumer, the veterans, the Medicaid programs, and every citizen of this land.

Mr. PRYOR. I might suggest that we vote at 8:35. If there are no speakers on the other side, I would like to take the remaining time.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, do I have the floor at this time?

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I do not know where the time agreement stands. We have been negotiating during the course of the evening. I know Members of the Senate are at home for dinner and need at least 30 minutes notification. I would like to say, and I think I can speak for Senator Chafee, that we are reaching a point where we are ready to determine a time certain to vote. I would strongly encourage that. I do not know of any other speakers we have on our side. I have a few more comments I would like to make about this subject. I wonder if the Senator from New Hampshire, the manager of the bill, might have any comments on a time agreement, or a time certain?

Mr. PRYOR. I think, more importantly, is the Senator going to vote?

Mr. PRYOR. Here is what our policy committee has requested. We think it is going to take at least 30 minutes to get our Members here. Therefore, I would like to respectfully suggest that we vote at 8:45 on the motion to table the second-degree amendment.