i appreciate his work on hatch/waxman. i obviously wasn't here and didn't know him in those days but i know the public health impact he has has been one of the great public health successes in the last third of a century, and i thank him and congressman waxman for this. congressman waxman is offering an amendment, actually a bill similar to mine actually, identical to the first round before the first compromise. i -- i would like -- i want to call up amendment 200 or at least discuss my amendment 200. the entire -- the entire point of health care reform, the reason we're here, is to do two things, to improve access to -- to improve access to the system and to contain rising costs, improving access to the system means injecting competitions so that these exorbitantly expensive biologic drugs can be less expensive as hatch/waxman showed it could be on the keck call side of pharmaceuticals and obviously it will contain rising costs, costs to are businesses that underwriting the insurance, costs to taxpayers who spend lots and

you look at hatch waxman on market exclusivity and compare market exclusivity followed on biologics.it was a 5-3-1-tiered approach similar to a bill that senator bingaman and i also co sponsors and senator martinez and senator viter, and i'm leaving out another republican when were introduced. and that legislation really is better for competitiveness the 5-3-1 tier mem imiimicking hatc waxman. there has only been one non-industry analysis of the 12 to 14-year issue, 12 to 14-year bill and one other point, i apologize, on the 12-year agreement from last year we also didn't work out the issue of what do you do with evergreening and there was a difference of opinion after we passed it out of committee. never went to the floor because there were differences on to the evergreen 12 plus 12 plus 12. >> we've been working on that, as you know. i know we're working on it, but i would like to see your proposal because my understanding is you want an evergreen 12 plus 12 and more 12s than that, we can certainly talk about that, but the last point, the only real study and the only real analysis

. >> this is a similar bill to hatch waxman, but it is different because of the nature of biologics.you need to look that much more carefully. i can guarantee you that these companies have to raise the money to develop their follow-up on biologics. it is going to cost $1 billion and take 15 years in many cases to get to hopefully successful drugs. it didn't have enough data as lucidity protection, and there does not going to do. people are not going to risk the dollars to do it. this is an area where we may save more money on health care than any other. all forms of stem cell research, in my opinion. the master of the public plan versus the option. your letter says it will not have a substantial effect on cost or enrollment. am i correct? >> yes. >> how much money with the federal government spending to create and operate the government plan over the 10-year window? >> i do not know if i know the answer to that question. the plan is not receiving subsidies from the government. it is being run on a basis where it has to break even in its own finances. >> can make an estimate at all? >

innovation. 25 years ago when hatch-waxman passed the drug company said the same thing. there's no way we'll innovate. this will put them out of business. patients in akron, bowling green, chillicothe and dayton understood this generic hraug from 25 years ago helped to keep prices down, $700 billion in savings. those same people around my state, people in zenia, springfield, mansfield, akron, portsmouth need that same access to generic versions. the vote earlier this week was not in the best interest of patients suffering from multiple sclerosis or arthritis or cancer or alzheimer's or heart disease. it was not in the best interest of taxpayers because who's paying the bill here? either people are paying out of their pocket -- most can't afford it -- or insurance companies are paying it. insurance companies are going to raise their rate to employers and the patients. or taxpayers are paying it. that's who it's costing money. the beneficiaries of it aren't patients. it hurts innovation. the beneficiaries are the drug executives and the biologic company executives. it's no

. >> this is a similar bill to hatch waxman, but it is different because of the nature of biologics. you need to look that much more carefully. i can guarantee you that these companies have to raise the money to develop their follow-up on biologics. it is going to cost $1 billion and take 15 years in many cases to get to hopefully successful drugs. it didn't have enough data as lucidity protection, and there does not going to do. people are not going to risk the dollars to do it. this is an area where we may save more money on health care than any other. all forms of stem cell research, in my opinion. the master of the public plan versus the option. your letter says it will not have a substantial effect on cost or enrollment. am i correct? >> yes. >> how much money with the federal government spending to create and operate the government plan over the 10-year window? >> i do not know if i know the answer to that question. the plan is not receiving subsidies from the government. it is being run on a basis where it has to break even in its own finances. >> can make an estimate at all?

. >> this is a similar bill to hatch waxman, but it is different because of the nature of biologics. you need to look that much more carefully. i can guarantee you that these companies have to raise the money to develop their follow-up on biologics. it is going to cost $1 billion and take 15 years in many cases to get to hopefully successful drugs. it didn't have enough data as lucidity protection, and there does not going to do. people are not going to risk the dollars to do it. this is an area where we may save more money on health care than any other. all forms of stem cell research, in my opinion. the master of the public plan versus the option. your letter says it will not have a substantial effect on cost or enrollment. am i correct? >> yes. >> how much money with the federal government spending to create and operate the government plan over the 10-year window? >> i do not know if i know the answer to that question. the plan is not receiving subsidies from the government. it is being run on a basis where it has to break even in its own finances. >> can make an estimate at all?

this existing regulatory framework established by hatch-waxman created powerful incentives for makinggeneric drugs to challenge brand names companies patents prior to their expiration. because these new generics threaten the patent, protect their profits of brand name companies, branding firms have responded by offering, and i quote, paid for delay celibates to generic firms. in doing so, it is their intention to safeguard their enormous profits and extend new generic versions to enter in the market. which would dramatically drive down the cost of these drugs. my amendment will curb these eyebrow raising settlements, which makes allies of industry sector members when all other respects behave and should behave as arch competitors. earlier, entry by generics would save consumers billions of dollars. this will result in significant cost reduction and contain those costs associated with the health care reform package that we are now considering. the cbo has scored this amendment as saving for the federal government while protecting celibate agreements for patents infringement claims inco