Orrin Hatch: “Third, it may subject the Federal Treasury to substantial financial liability under the takings clause of the fifth…”

“Third, it may subject the Federal Treasury to substantial financial liability under the takings clause of the fifth amendment. On this last point, let me just say that the takings issue was discussed at our February hearing. I was very interested to learn that analysts at CBO have independently raised this issue, so I think it is a very real concern. We should attempt to ensure that it is the generic drug manufacturers and pioneer pharmaceutical firms, respectively, who are financially responsible for paying any court-ordered equitable remuneration and equitable compensation. In addition to these three major policy concerns that I have just outlined, I also take strong exception to the manner in which Senator Pryor has attempted to characterize this debate. There are two basic arguments that are repeatedly advanced as justification for the Pryor amendment. The first is the uneven playing field argument. You have heard it many times in this debate. Somehow only the generic drug industry has not been able to take advantage of the GATT transition rules. But the truth of the matter is that there are no reported cases of any generic product manufacturer, from any other industry reaching, or for that matter even seeking to reach, the marketplace through the transition rules. If adopted, the Pryor amendment would tilt the playing field by creating a virtually industry-wide advantage being granted to only one industry--the generic drug industry.”