Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the order has to be reversed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, most of the pending amendments which are now pending have been objected to from his side of the aisle. I don't have any objection to looking at some of his amendments and seeing if we can vote on them. But I can't do that right now. I obviously can't give him any kind of consent right now. It is a difficult situation. It is a sort of rolling veto type of situation. If objection is made, we can't have votes on amendments which are pending. I am willing to look at what he has suggested. As he talked through some of them, they sort of stung pretty hard in my State of West Virginia, but I am willing to look at them. But I can't do that without consent from folks on my side. So for the time being, I object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Baucus amendment No. 75, as further modified--this is the amendment for the finance title of the bill we are on which was reported out by the Finance Committee last week-- further, that the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will be objecting to your amendments because you objected to the pending amendments, and there will be no reason to add more unless you lift your objection.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I wish to catch up the membership on the floor and off the floor a little bit about where we are. We are at midweek for a third week of consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill. Last night, Senator Reid filed cloture on this bill. In a perfect world we would have finished this bill already without filing cloture, but we need to finish and that is what cloture motions are for. I will support cloture, needless to say. Senator Hutchison also filed cloture on an amendment that will bring conclusion to a debate on slots at National Airport. I will talk about that issue in more detail later. But I am saying right now slots are very important but they do not need to consume all of the arguments and all of the discussion on the floor about this bill. They are a very small part of the bill--an important part of the bill, recognizing the West has to be served much better than it is being--but it is not the entire bill. It is a very small part of the bill. Last night we disposed of two pending amendments by voice vote. I believe we have made progress to resolve some of the pending amendments, but votes will be required on several of them and I expect we will have those votes today. Senator Hutchison and I are trying to clear a number of other filed amendments. There were at one point 100 of them. I hope we can accept a number of them. I have heard from any number of my colleagues on their amendments and I am trying to be helpful in getting them adopted where they contribute to the bill. I know Senator Hutchison is committed to supporting the bill. We need to resolve the issue of slots. She has been working--we have all been working diligently and almost exclusively on that matter, and we will do this with a vote. We will resolve that issue. After that vote we will vote on cloture, which I believe will pass and I am extremely hopeful we will reach agreement to get this bill done this week. The farthest possible day and most unhappy thought would be if we had to go through the recess and do it on the day we came back. I think it is far better that we get it done this week. There is no excuse for not doing it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Safeguarding Our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Value of Education Choices: Saving the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Federal Employment of People with Disabilities.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Targeting Websites Dedicated To Stealing American Intellectual Property.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 406 to hold a hearing entitled, ``National Leaders' Call to Action on Transportation.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 3 p.m. in Room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Inouye, Stabenow, and Schumer, to reintroduce an important piece of legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act. Our legislation eliminates one of the most prominent loopholes that brand name drug companies use to limit consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called ``authorized generic'' drugs during the 180-day exclusivity period that Congress designed to provide specific incentives to true generics to enter the market. An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. However, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for consumers over the long-term. After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug--the brand-name manufacturer--which has already been handsomely rewarded for its investment--doesn't want to let go of its profits. So, it repackages the drug and refers to it as a generic in order to extend its market share, while cutting in half the financial incentive for an independent generic to enter the marketplace. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals expire. In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to provide consumers greater access to lower-cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the first generic firm that successfully challenges a brand-name patent under the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, process--thereby providing a crucial incentive for generic drug companies to enter the market and make prescription drugs more affordable for consumers. Filing a patent challenge is expensive and requires enormous up-front costs for the generic company. Yet, the 180-day exclusivity incentive to launch a patent challenge is being widely undermined by authorized generics. According to one account, since 2004, ``authorized generic versions have appeared for nearly all drugs with expiring U.S. patents.'' And, because authorized generics are still allowed, an independent generic can get all the way to the end of a patent challenge--even winning in court--but still lose the anticipated reward of 180-day market exclusivity because the brand-name company can, and does, launch an authorized generic. The fact that the brand-name company can launch an authorized generic even if it loses a patent challenge to a generic company gives it an incentive to pursue multiple additional patents on dubious grounds, just for the sake of extending its market share. The fact remains that brand-name firms regularly introduce authorized generics on the eve of generic competition, further extending their hold on the market and chilling competition from independent generic drugs. Every American agrees on the need to reduce health care costs. Today, generic medications comprise 69 percent of all prescriptions in this country, yet only 16 percent of all dollars spent on prescriptions. Furthermore, in 2007, the average retail price of a generic prescription drug was $34.34, compared to the $119.51 average retail price of a brand name prescription drug. In fact, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make a huge difference, particularly during difficult economic times. Passage of the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act would revitalize and protect the true intent of the 180-day marketing exclusivity period created in the Hatch-Waxman Act. This bill does just that by eliminating the authorized generics loophole, protecting the integrity of the 180-day exclusivity period, and improving consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Inouye, Stabenow, and Schumer, to reintroduce an important piece of legislation, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act. Our legislation eliminates one of the most prominent loopholes that brand name drug companies use to limit consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs; it ends the marketing of so-called ``authorized generic'' drugs during the 180-day exclusivity period that Congress designed to provide specific incentives to true generics to enter the market. An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet repackaged as a generic. Some argue that authorized generic drugs are cheaper than brand name drugs and, therefore, benefit consumers. However, authorized generics only serve to reduce generic competition, extend brand monopolies, and lead to higher health care costs for consumers over the long-term. After up to 20 years of holding a patent for a brand name drug--the brand-name manufacturer--which has already been handsomely rewarded for its investment--doesn't want to let go of its profits. So, it repackages the drug and refers to it as a generic in order to extend its market share, while cutting in half the financial incentive for an independent generic to enter the marketplace. This is a huge problem and one that is becoming even more prevalent as patents on some of the best-selling brand name pharmaceuticals expire. In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to provide consumers greater access to lower-cost generic drugs. The intent of this law was to improve generic competition, while preserving the ability of brand name manufacturers to discover and market new and innovative products. Specifically, the Hatch-Waxman Act provided for a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the first generic firm that successfully challenges a brand-name patent under the Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA, process--thereby providing a crucial incentive for generic drug companies to enter the market and make prescription drugs more affordable for consumers. Filing a patent challenge is expensive and requires enormous up-front costs for the generic company. Yet, the 180-day exclusivity incentive to launch a patent challenge is being widely undermined by authorized generics. According to one account, since 2004, ``authorized generic versions have appeared for nearly all drugs with expiring U.S. patents.'' And, because authorized generics are still allowed, an independent generic can get all the way to the end of a patent challenge--even winning in court--but still lose the anticipated reward of 180-day market exclusivity because the brand-name company can, and does, launch an authorized generic. The fact that the brand-name company can launch an authorized generic even if it loses a patent challenge to a generic company gives it an incentive to pursue multiple additional patents on dubious grounds, just for the sake of extending its market share. The fact remains that brand-name firms regularly introduce authorized generics on the eve of generic competition, further extending their hold on the market and chilling competition from independent generic drugs. Every American agrees on the need to reduce health care costs. Today, generic medications comprise 69 percent of all prescriptions in this country, yet only 16 percent of all dollars spent on prescriptions. Furthermore, in 2007, the average retail price of a generic prescription drug was $34.34, compared to the $119.51 average retail price of a brand name prescription drug. In fact, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. For working families, these savings can make a huge difference, particularly during difficult economic times. Passage of the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act would revitalize and protect the true intent of the 180-day marketing exclusivity period created in the Hatch-Waxman Act. This bill does just that by eliminating the authorized generics loophole, protecting the integrity of the 180-day exclusivity period, and improving consumer access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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