Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the 5 minutes--and I thank my colleague from Alaska. Mr. President, I have spoken about the budget agreement on the floor of the Senate several times. I have said I very honestly and truthfully believe it is an agreement without a soul. I have compared the tax cuts over the next 10 and 20 years as we project to the future, and who is likely to benefit--those at the very top--alongside the failure to invest in rotting schools, invest in early childhood development; alongside some of the cuts in programs that affect the most vulnerable citizens. And I do not see the standard of fairness. I do not see the soul to this budget. I think we can do much better. I have challenged my colleagues to please avoid symbolic politics and, if we are going to talk about children and opportunities for children, let us make the investment. Now, we have in this continuing resolution, which I am sure has been offered in good faith, a couple of problems. First of all, many of us-- all of us from the States that have been affected by this flooding with people who have just felt the devastation--have made the plea, please do not attach extraneous amendments. If we have to deal with the problem of Government shutdown--and there is not one person in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives who is going to let that happen. I think people learned their lesson--we can deal with that in the fall, if it ever should be a problem that is staring us in the face. I do not think that will ever happen. But why such an amendment would be put on a disaster relief bill where what we are trying to do is get the assistance to people as soon as possible so they can rebuild their lives, rebuild their homes, rebuild their businesses--I don't understand this. I think it is a profound mistake, and I do not believe this amendment should be on this bill at all. In addition, when I look at the budget agreement--and I do not think we have done it nearly as well as we should for people --and now I see additional, I won't even go through the statistics, additional cuts from what the budget agreement calls for in Head Start, in research at the National Institutes of Health, over and over again I am faced with the painful choice, and other colleagues are as well, of meeting with people struggling with Alzheimer's or struggling with Parkinson's or struggling with breast cancer or struggling with diabetes, and we do not want one group of people who are struggling with an illness pitted against another, or struggling with mental illness --what in the world are we doing with a resolution that is going to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. President, Meals on Wheels, a senior nutrition program --cut? Substance abuse and mental health services--cut? The Centers for Disease Control--cut? Pell Grant Program--cut, when we know the whole question of affordable higher education is an issue that cuts across a broad section of the population? So, in the 5 minutes I have, I make two points. One, please vote against this, I say to my colleagues, because it is extraneous to what the mission is, which is to get the assistance to people in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and across the land who have been faced with a real disaster in their lives. And, second, do not vote for this amendment because we are talking about real cuts in programs that are vitally important to families' lives in this country. And people in the country do not favor these priorities. People do not want to see reductions in Head Start, in Pell grants, in the National Institutes of Health research on disease. People are not in favor of that. This is, in a way, a back-door approach to trying to effect cuts in programs that command widespread support in this country. So, I rise to speak against it. I hope we will have a strong vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That was a unanimous-consent agreement that I have up to an hour to speak?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I only planned on taking an hour or so--5 minutes?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have an agreement on the floor. Let me thank especially Senator Hollings from South Carolina for his assistance. Mr. President, I want to give a little bit of context for this amendment because I think it is important for people to know what has happened and what had to happen. This is about Toradol, which is manufactured by the Hoffman-La Roche Co. By the way, I would like to thank the company. We had a very good discussion in my office yesterday with my staff. I appreciate their coming by. I understand exactly what they have been trying to do. Also, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that this went through the process. This was an effort that many people thought was a worthy one. So this is not a bashing on my part at all. Mr. President, the problem is as follows: This drug is an anti- inflammatory drug; very important. It can be taken orally, or it can be injected--very important--dealing with, for example, postoperative pain. It is a very important medication for pain reduction. About two- thirds to 80 percent of the market was in the injectable form. The effort in this supplemental appropriations bill was to go ahead with a 14-month patent extension, which would have been for 14 months of market exclusivity for Toradol, this one drug. That means there would have been only one drug available; no alternatives. There is every reason to believe that, as a matter of fact, there is a generic alternative which would have been the same kind of assistance for people but at much less cost. Mr. President, when we were making some projections about this, we felt that, on the basis of looking at the data, this would have been about a $350 million cost for consumers. I felt as a Senator that the one party that was left out of the negotiations was the consumer. I could say with a twinkle in my eye, in many ways I have always tried to be a Senator that pushes hard on the consumer end. While I think the company--I want to make this clear--Hoffman-La Roche Company has made some important arguments about the delays in getting drug approval, about some of the problems it had with GATT, and all of the rest, the fact of the matter is--this was my perspective, and this is the consumers' perspective--a 14-month patent extension would have been maybe $50 million to $60 million--maybe it was the injectable part, two-thirds of that--in additional cost passed on to consumers. I think we ought to be doing our very best to make sure that we get this kind of medication to consumers in the most cost-effective way possible. So, Mr. President, I think the only unfortunate part was--not the process; I think people worked hard, and they worked in good faith--but I don't think there was the representation for the consumers. This amendment knocks out this patent extension. Senator Hollings joins me in this amendment. We agreed. I believe that Senators on both sides of the aisle are now comfortable with this agreement. This amendment knocks out that patent extension. I think this is the right thing to do for consumers. This was an amendment that I offered for consumers in Minnesota and consumers in the country. I am very pleased that now, after some negotiation and discussion, we have agreement on this on the floor of the Senate. I understand the position of the pharmaceutical companies in this particular case. Again, I appreciate their work. But ultimately I think my job is to represent not so much the pharmaceutical companies but the consumers. On this point, I think there was divergent interest. I wanted to come down on the side of consumers. I am really pleased that Senator Hollings and other Senators have joined in this effort. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor. We can go further. I think we can proceed.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I will so modify it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I again appreciate the Senator from Alaska and his wisdom on this matter. The Senator is quite correct. A little bit of background about this: We have been working very hard with the administration over the last month to get them to release this contingency funding. I talked with the Office of Management and Budget and others about releasing some of this funding to the State of Minnesota. Under the best of all circumstances, you want to keep this contingency fund intact because you may need it for the summer cooling assistance. We don't normally think about that. But not too many summers ago we were faced with a tragic situation in our country where people actually died from the heat. I understand the need to keep some of that money in the contingency fund. It just so happens that this flooding and the extent of this devastation is unprecedented, and we are trying to take some of this fund to deal with an emergency--indeed, the emergency that confronts people in our States. Let me, first of all, explain the reason for this amendment. This money is in a contingency fund to provide assistance to people who really need that assistance, who are really faced with an emergency situation, and that is the case in Minnesota and the Dakotas. But what we are faced with in Minnesota is the situation where many people are now going back to their homes and they are trying to rebuild their lives. This money, which can be delivered expeditiously and will help people repair their furnaces so that they can begin the process of rebuilding their lives by cleaning up and moving back into their homes. If I could get both Senators' attention, if I could get the attention of the Senator from Alaska, I want to say to the Senator from Alaska and to the Senator from West Virginia that we will accept the very generous offer. We have now made some calls and this is fine with us. Maybe I could summarize this amendment and we will be done with it, if that is OK. Mr. President, in Minnesota alone, we have estimates of around $30 million to help people with their emergency energy needs. Once this amendment is accepted, and it will be and hopefully be part of this disaster relief bill, we are in a position, out in Minnesota, to deliver this assistance to people within a couple of weeks. We are talking about, roughly speaking, in Minnesota alone, about 16,000 households which will be eligible for this assistance. So, I say to my distinguished colleague from Alaska, and I say to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia as well: Thank you. I want this assistance to help people in, not just three States, but other States as well. It sounds like this additional funding will really make a difference. It sounds like a small amount. I thank my colleagues, all of my colleagues, because, while it may sound like a small amount, given the context of the overall disaster relief bill, this will be a huge help. I have been receiving a lot of calls from State officials and from families in Minnesota saying: Look, we are going home. We are trying to rebuild our homes, trying to rebuild our lives. If you could get just a little bit of assistance to us to repair our furnaces, for example, this would make all the difference in the world. I say to Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, you have helped make all the difference in the world for some families in Minnesota. I thank you and I am very pleased to have this amendment accepted.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, perhaps I will then lay out the rationale for this. The reason I hesitate is that perhaps we might need, in the agreement, to work on another number. In other words, the $45 million was based upon the very best advice that I received from Governors of our States about what we needed. It may be that we are going to talk about other States as well, which I am pleased to do, however, I just want to have some understanding of what the need is and whether or not this is enough funding. Altogether I think there is a contingency fund of over $200 million that Health and Human Services has in the LIHEAP program. So, if my colleague would not mind, I would like to explain why I have offered this amendment. First of all, I very much appreciate the offer from the Senator from Alaska. I also want to say at the very beginning that both Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd have--I want people in Minnesota to know this--really left no stone unturned when it comes to this effort to get the assistance to people. I thank them.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say to my colleague from Alaska that I hope we will be able to eventually negotiate this out. We have been in contact with the Department of Health and Human Services to find out exactly what the need is in other States and see how we can make the best use of low-income energy assistance money to help people who have been the victims of floods. So I thought, that while I know that my colleague is willing to perhaps take this, that I might start by explaining this amendment, unless my colleague has remarks which he wants to make at the moment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to. This is an amendment that has to do with brand name drugs for adults. I was going to simply offer it, lay it aside, and then go to the energy assistance amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Please.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to lay this amendment aside and get to an amendment we may agree on. But I want to briefly mention the first two amendments that I have discussed with my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have several amendments that I would like to offer and I would be more than willing to wait for the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, to come to the floor, if the Senator from Alaska so desires.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will, just for a minute, suggest the absence of a quorum, and then I will be right back on the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am ready to speak about the bill, the disaster relief bill, and how important it is to Minnesota. I am waiting on the amendment for Senator Hollings.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am ready, but in deference to both Senators, they had wanted me to lay aside the extension of the drug patent?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to do that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Alaska that I have several amendments that I am ready to proceed with. I don't know exactly what his plan is, so I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Sarah Neimeyer, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the votes relating to S. 672.