[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 112 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7909-H7916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEMOCRATS' PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN BEST FOR AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I could not think it more apt that we
Democrats begin our special order on prescription drugs just after
hearing the Republicans finish their remarks on the very same subject
of prescription drugs.
I was most interested to listen to the remarks of the Republican
House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who
ridiculed Democrats like Al Gore and Joe Lieberman for being out in so
many words to deprive seniors of prescription drug coverage. This is
laughable, and I hope everyone at home will stay tuned and listen. I
can think of no better message than letting Americans compare the
thoughts of the Republicans on prescription drug coverage for seniors,
those of allowing the private sector and the HMOs to continue to drop
seniors and let prices for drugs skyrocket, versus the opinions of the
Democrats like myself who are working to strengthen Medicare with a
drug benefit and work to immediately lower the cost of prescription
drugs.
The GOP believes lowering the cost of drugs is wrong and the
destruction of Medicare is good. I believe lowering drug prices is the
right thing to do for Americans. I hope Americans enjoy this debate and
the debates by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman
over the next 7 weeks. We Democrats gather here to discuss an important
issue with regard to lowering prescription drug costs and providing
greater access to medications to every American who needs those
medications.
As Democrats, we have continually championed the addition of a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare, but the Republican majority
opposed that plan, believing Medicare has been a failure. We Democrats
disagree and believe that Medicare has been an overwhelming success
story in the United States.
As Democrats, we have continually come out in support of the
Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act sponsored by the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen). This would pass along to Seniors the same
discounts given by the pharmaceutical industry that they give to the
Federal Government and HMOs. Under his bill, they would also have to
give those same benefits to pharmacies. In turn, they could pass these
savings on to their customers. Again, the Republican leadership opposed
that. The Republicans apparently believe that seniors are not paying
enough for their prescription drugs. Well, my constituents, quite
frankly, tell me otherwise.
Now, we Democrats are working to change the Federal law which
prohibits the reimportation of safe FDA-approved drugs from countries
like Canada back into the United States. We think it is unfair that
seniors pay twice as much, on average, for their medications than their
counterparts in places like Canada and Mexico. The Republican
leadership thinks it is okay to send seniors to jail for trying to
obtain more affordable drugs from other countries to improve the
quality of their lives.
This chart demonstrates the real price gouging going on in the drug
industry here in America. Here I have three of the most popular drugs
used by seniors in America.
{time} 1600
We see that seniors right here in America, and in my case in Queens
County and Bronx County in New York City, pay hundreds of dollars more
a year than seniors in Canada for the same FDA approved drugs. Seniors
pay $359.93 more annually than their friends in Canada for Zoloft;
$793.20 more than their friends in Canada for Prilosec; and $369.42
than their friends in Canada for Zocor.
In fact, I have received many letters from my constituents. I had a
letter from a constituent from Jackson Heights who pays $409 for a 3-
month supply of Prilosec for his wife. The same drug, the same
manufacturer, the same everything costs $184 for the exact same drug in
Canada. And why is
[[Page H7910]]
this? Because the American pharmaceutical industry is gouging
Americans. This is wrong, and we are here to stop it.
Congress has a great opportunity to stop it now. While the GOP has
prevented any real action on a drug benefit under Medicare, or the
opportunity to pass along discounts to seniors on drugs, we are now
working to allow Americans to reimport prescription drugs once they
have been exported out of America. Essentially drugs that are
researched, patented and made in America oftentimes cost twice as much
here in the States than they do when they travel abroad to places like
Canada and Mexico. It is like a reverse tariff. Once that drug crosses
the international lines, the price for it is drastically reduced.
The drug manufacturers say that Americans' standard of living, our
standard of living, is one of the chief reasons for this increase and
that America should subsidize international sales of their drugs. I
think putting the price burden on American seniors is wrong, and we
Democrats are here to say enough is enough to the drug industry.
Right now, even though drug prices are half as much in Canada and
Mexico, the only way Americans can take advantage of this is if they
slip over the border in the dark of night and sneak some medications
over for their own personal use. We should not be making criminals out
of our seniors. Therefore, during House debate on the agricultural
appropriations act, I offered an amendment to allow for the
reimportation of prescription drugs into the U.S. I was pleased that
this amendment passed the House with overwhelming support.
Since then, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a trained
pharmacist, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) as well as
Republicans like to Jo Ann Emerson, Tom Coburn, a medical doctor; and
Gil Gutknecht) and I have been working together to allow not only
individuals to travel across the border to get less expensive FDA-
approved drugs of the same quality but also to allow pharmacists and
wholesalers to do so as well. This way they can pass on these savings
to their customers, ease the financial burden on seniors who must take
one or more of these prescriptions on a regular basis, lower drug
prices by anywhere from 30 to 50 percent overnight, all without costing
the taxpayers a single dime. It is safe. Any change would mandate
strict safety standards equal to those we enjoy here in the United
States.
Reimportation enjoys the support of groups as diverse as the National
Community Pharmacists, AIDS Action, the American Medical Association,
former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, and Secretary of Health and
Human Services Donna Shalala. I urge my colleagues to ignore the
misleading ad campaigns of fear and distortion lead by the
Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA. By
allowing our Nation's citizens, trusted local pharmacists, and
certified wholesalers to reimport FDA approved drugs, we can
drastically lower the cost of drugs for all Americans who need
prescription drug coverage.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield as much time as he would
consume to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt).
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank
the gentleman from Vermont for setting up this special order. I am
happy to come to the floor today to make a few comments about this
reimportation issue and other issues that I think are related to it.
Let me first cite the fact that we have not passed in this Congress,
and I believe we should have passed, an agenda that really puts
families first; an agenda that is supported by the majority of our
people; an agenda that includes a patients' bill of rights, which is
desperately needed by many families; an agenda that includes reducing
class size, as we spoke today on the education bills and hiring for
teachers; an agenda that includes a real Medicare prescription medicine
benefit, a benefit that will work, a benefit that will be there when
people need it, that will make a real difference in the lives of
millions of Americans. That agenda, in my view, has been blocked in
every way in the name of special interests.
The patients' bill of rights, as far as I can tell, has been blocked
to protect HMOs and insurance companies. The middle-class tax cuts have
been blocked in the name of huge tax cuts to the wealthy. Debt
reduction has been blocked in the same name, huge tax cuts for the
wealthy. Minimum wage has been blocked as a favor to some businesses
that do not want it. Education incentives to modernize our schools and
hire new teachers has been blocked for other ideas for private schools.
The Medicare drug benefit has been blocked at the behest of the
pharmaceutical industry. We need an affordable, meaningful prescription
benefit in the reliable world of Medicare, a benefit that guarantees
our seniors will have benefits when they need them, and real relief on
reducing the cost of drugs.
The special interests have frankly stopped a reliable Medicare
prescription medicine benefit. We have squandered every opportunity we
have had in this Congress to get this done. But right now we have still
in this Congress the ability to do something on price for all of our
citizens, not just our senior citizens. I want to remind all of us that
the reimportation issue has passed both Houses of the Congress. On the
Medicare prescription medicine benefit, we did pass something here. It
was not the right bill, but at least we passed something. Nothing has
even been brought up or passed in the Senate. But on reimportation we
have passed something in both Houses.
What we passed in both Houses would lower the cost of drugs in the
United States by between 30 and 50 percent. This is a dramatic
reduction. It could affect every American family right now. It would
allow the pharmaceutical industry to buy FDA-approved drugs abroad at
reduced rates and consumers could realize the savings, at least with
the Senate-passed version of this bill. And, remember, we probably
could have passed that better version if the rules here had allowed us
to do it, but it did not.
But we have in the Senate, in conference, the right provision. It
would mean that millions of seniors could buy drugs at a fraction of
the current cost. It is sensible, it has bipartisan support in both
bodies, it sailed through the Congress, and the American people are for
it. It would help seniors and other citizens now, this year. Even the
month after we would pass it, people could begin buying drugs at
dramatically lower prices.
Now, the reality is the leadership has not allowed this measure to go
to conference. It is bottled up in the Ag conference committee. It is
languishing. It should not be languishing. Now, what are we doing? Why
are we waiting until adjournment comes and we cannot take this up? Why
has the measure not gone to conference? Why are we not doing something
about this?
It seems to me, and I address this to the gentleman from Vermont,
that we have in these remaining weeks the ability to get this up in
conference, to decide this in favor of the Senate provision, which
gives people the greatest reduction in price and allows companies to
actually reimport these products into the United States and get a
broader price reduction for more Americans. I would simply ask the
gentleman, and the gentleman from New York, who has sponsored the only
thing that he could in the House, which was very positive but not as
good as he wanted it to be, what we can do in the remaining days to get
this done for the American people?
Mr. SANDERS. Well, I just want to thank the minority leader for his
very eloquent statement and for his very strong support of legislation
that, if passed today, would lower the cost of prescription drugs by
between 30 and 50 percent for every man, woman and child in this
country. And the fact that the minority leader has now come strongly on
board, this legislation makes me more confident that we are going to
pass it.
But here is the story, and let us be very clear about it. The
pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful industry in this country.
Last year it made $27 billion in profits, $27 billion in profits while
charging the American people, by far, the highest cost for prescription
drugs than any other country in the world.
I live in the State of Vermont. We border on Canada. Last year, I
made
[[Page H7911]]
two trips over the border with Vermonters to purchase prescription
drugs in Canada, and I want to relay one aspect of our trip. We had
with us a number of women who are struggling against breast cancer,
struggling for their lives, and they take a widely prescribed
prescription drug called Tamoxiphen. What we found when we went over
the border is that the cost of Tamoxiphen, which saves the lives of
women who are struggling with breast cancer, was one-tenth the price
than in the United States of America.
Imagine that, women struggling for their lives are paying ten times
more for the same exact product in this country than a few minutes away
over the border. Now, as the minority leader has indicated, we have
strong bipartisan support for this legislation. In my view, if that
bill that was passed in the Senate were brought to the House and Senate
today, it would pass overwhelmingly. It would not be close. The problem
that we are having now is that the pharmaceutical industry is
exerting enormous pressure on the Republican leadership. And those of
us in Congress and all over America are watching day by day to see if
the Republican leadership has the courage to bring this bill on to the
floor, which has widespread bipartisan support.
Many Democrats and Republicans, like the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and others,
are fighting the right fight. The American people are sick and tired of
being played the fool and paying by far higher prices than anyone else.
As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) indicated a moment ago,
the pharmaceutical industry is spending millions and millions of
dollars on radio ads, on television ads, on newspaper ads which are
dishonest and misleading.
So I would say to the minority leader that the $64 million question
is: Does the Republican leadership have the guts to stand up to the
pharmaceutical industry and allow us to pass bipartisan legislation
that would overwhelmingly sail through both bodies and lower the cost
of prescription drugs by 30 to 50 percent?
And I want to thank the gentleman very much for his active role now
in seeing that the legislation is passed.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent statement, and I
hope in a bipartisan way we can do something that will be very, very
positive and important for the American people, who are struggling to
keep their health and need to have these products at a reasonable price
and are happy to pay a reasonable price to be able to get these
substances to keep their health.
I thank the gentleman for his hard work and the gentleman from New
York and the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the minority leader for joining us.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the health care crisis in
America, there are many dimensions to it, but clearly one of the
dimensions is that in my State of Vermont and all over this country
physicians are writing out prescriptions to their patients, but they
are saying, what is the sense of me writing out a prescription if my
patient cannot afford to get it filled?
So what we are finding is that senior citizens and many, many other
people are simply unable to take the prescription drugs that they need,
or they are dividing their dosages in half, or they are taking their
prescription drugs once every other day.
{time} 1615
We hear from pharmacists that our legislation is supported by the
Community Pharmacists of America. They stand behind their desks, behind
their counters and their hearts are broken when senior citizens cannot
afford the products that their doctors are prescribing, when people are
dying and when people are suffering and we have the cure right in front
of us.
So some of us in this Congress well over a year ago, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who is right here, the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and I introduced legislation which was a very,
very simple piece legislation.
What we said is that we are living in an increasingly globalized
economy. I must tell my colleagues, I have many problems with the
globalized economy. But we are living in that economy. And if we go to
a shoe store, the shoe company is able to purchase shoes anyplace in
the world. If we go to a pant store, a haberdashery, they purchase
their product anywhere in the world.
So we are asking a very simple question. If a prescription drug is
FDA safety approved, why cannot a prescription drug distributor or a
pharmacist purchase that product anyplace in the world at a
significantly lower price than the pharmaceutical industry is selling
it to him in the United States right now? Why cannot competition exist,
free market exist, global economy exist when we are talking about
prescription drugs which are FDA safety approved?
Now, if that legislation were passed today, what we would have is
prescription drug distributors testing the market in Canada, they would
buy tamoxifen for one-tenth the price they would buy other drugs for 50
percent the price, they would be able to resell it to American
consumers for significantly lower prices than we are currently paying.
Now, what is wrong with that legislation?
Nothing is wrong with that legislation. What that legislation would
do is lower prescription drug costs in this country from between 30 to
50 percent at almost zero expense to the American taxpayer. It would
allow American business people who import drugs to take advantage of
the best prices that are available all over the world.
Now, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who last year made
$27 billion in profit, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who
are contributing millions and millions of dollars to both political
parties, our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who, if my
colleagues can believe it, have 300 paid lobbyists here in Washington,
D.C., our friends in the pharmaceutical industry who spent $65 million
on advertising last year trying to defeat any legislation that would
lower the cost of prescription drugs, well, let me tell my colleagues
they are fighting back vigorously. They are putting on dishonest,
misleading ads on radio, TV, and in the newspapers and they are saying
Members of Congress want to import unsafe, adulterated drugs.
What a horrible, terrible thing to say about Members of Congress who
are fighting so that their constituents can afford the prescription
drugs that they need. What a disgraceful thing to say about Members of
Congress that we would want to see an unhealthy prescription drug come
into this country. It is simply untrue.
The legislation that passed in the Senate is very clear. There are
strong safety conditions attached to it. The FDA has said that, if they
have $23 million to increase their capabilities, they will guarantee
that the products coming into this country are safe.
This is not rocket science. It is easily done. The problem is not
unsafe drugs that will come in if our legislation is passed. The
problem is that today Americans are dying, Americans are suffering
because they cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription
drugs. That is the problem.
And the pharmaceutical industry, which is every day showing the
American people how outrageously greedy they are, apparently $27
billion in profits last year is not enough. I guess they need more than
that. Apparently, charging Americans 10 times more than Canadians for
certain drugs is not high enough prices, they need more than that.
Well, all over this country the American people are saying, enough is
enough. Let us lower the cost of prescription drugs. Let us not
continue the rip-off of the American people so that our people are
paying so much more than the people in Europe, the people in Mexico,
the people in Canada.
That is what this legislation is about. Do not believe the dishonest
ads that the pharmaceutical industry is publishing.
As I mentioned a moment ago, over a year ago, legislation introduced
by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and myself set the ground work, started the
process for this. And we are making real progress. If that
[[Page H7912]]
legislation were put on the floor today, we would have overwhelming
bipartisan support.
I challenge the Republican leadership to show the American people
that they have the guts to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry,
that they will allow the House and the Senate to vote on this
legislation.
If they allow us to do it, it will win, we will lower prescription
drug prices in this country, and we will have done something that the
American people will be very proud of us for doing.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) for his comments. He and I share border States with Canada.
Something I have been saying over and over again, it is time that
Americans do not have to go to Canada and Mexico to be treated like
Americans when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs. And it is
something we do deal with even in the Bronx. There has been a bus that
goes from the Bronx to Canada for solely the same point that the
gentleman does and he has taken constituents on.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is an outrage, as my friend indicates, that the American people have to
flee their own country to purchase prescription drugs manufactured in
the United States.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont for
his words and his leadership on this issue, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding to me. I want to congratulate him for pulling several of us
together this afternoon to talk about what is probably one of the most
critical issues that the American public is facing. So to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who are
here on the floor this afternoon, we will continue to be on the floor
of this House for as long as it takes to be able to bring some relief
to the crushing cost of prescription drugs that people are facing in
this country today.
Let me just make one comment, which is that we need to have a
prescription drug benefit that is voluntary, that is universal and
universal in the sense that it covers all seniors and that, in fact, it
ought to be done under the Medicare program that will reach all seniors
and provide the opportunity to, in the best way, allow for doctors and
their patients, our seniors, to be able to prescribe the drugs that are
needed for people to survive and for seniors to be able to get them and
not be at the mercy of an insurance company or an HMO to be able to get
that prescription drug.
That being said, it is unlikely, sadly enough, that in this House and
in this Congress we will be unable to pass a prescription drug benefit
through Medicare before we leave this body in the next few weeks.
So what we need to do in these final weeks of the Congress is we have
an opportunity to pass this prescription drug reimportation
legislation, and we need not to have this legislation slip through our
fingers.
It has been stated quite eloquently that we have FDA regulations
today that only the manufacturer of a drug can import into the United
States. Therefore, the pharmaceutical companies have unfairly used
these regulations to control prescription drug distribution in the
United States at the expense of seniors.
We have in the United States Senate the agricultural appropriations
bill which allows the wholesalers and the pharmacists to reimport or
import FDA approved prescription drugs. The bill that we passed in the
House, I might add, is not as strong as the one that was passed in the
Senate because in the Senate language that protects against the import
of counterfeit, mislabeled, or adulterated drugs, and we need to
protect this language. It is critical. We are here for the good and not
the harm of the American people. We must work together to allocate the
$23 million to get this effort started on the right foot.
Let me just tell my colleagues, to make this very simple, we all know
and our seniors specifically know that in other countries people pay
20, 30, and even 50 percent less than their prescription drugs. The
same medication that costs $1 in America costs 64 cents in Canada, 57
cents in France and 51 cents in Italy.
Let me make the point clearly. Consider Zantac, which is made by
GlaxcoWellcome in the United Kingdom. GlaxcoWellcome is based in the
United Kingdom.
What we are asking is just the same price that they would sell Zantac
to Brits, sell that at the same cost to people in the United States.
With regard to Zantac, it is marked up by 58 percent when it is sold in
the United States, 58 percent.
Why? Our seniors deserve better. They deserve to have the same
medication at the same price.
That is what this bill would allow, pharmacists and wholesalers to
purchase medication at the same low prices that people pay in other
countries, pass that savings on to America's seniors. It is common
sense and it makes the world of difference to people who are
struggling. And they are making those awful choices between
prescription medications that they need to survive and groceries and
heating bills and rent and everything else.
My colleagues have said this. I will mention it briefly. There is an
awful disinformation campaign on our airwaves, and people should act
more responsibly. They have bought millions and millions of dollars of
advertising to sell the American public a bill of goods.
I have done this in my district. I have gone literally from center to
center, senior center to senior center, with the ad and pointed out the
lies in these ads. The public has got to know the truth. The campaign
implies that the importation of pharmaceuticals is unsafe, and nothing
can be further from the truth.
Let me just say this to my colleagues today that the pharmaceutical
industry already imports 80 percent of the ingredients it uses in the
prescription medicines that it sells in the United States, and 20
percent of the medicines it sells in the United States are manufactured
abroad. No matter where they are made, all of these drugs are tested by
the FDA.
Let me say to my colleagues that we need to call on the
pharmaceutical industry. And I will just say straight out, I represent
the pharmaceutical industry in my district in Connecticut and I have
said plainly to them, take the ads off the air. Reasonable people can
come to a table and discuss an issue. They do a wonderful job. And if a
lot of it is taxpayer research that we pay for, I am a survivor of
ovarian cancer, I understand the benefits of biomedical research and
pharmaceutical drugs. They do a good job of producing those. But it
does us no good if people cannot afford to get the benefit of this
taxpayer research and the work that they did.
Let us come together. Let us make it possible for people to afford
the prescription drugs.
I will say, since that has not happened, then we have an obligation
to pass this reimportation legislation before we leave this institution
in the next 2 or 3 weeks.
I thank my colleague for putting this effort together today.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her moving
remarks and for all her work and leadership on this issue and thank her
for being here today.
Let me point out, if I may briefly before I turn the microphone over
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), that the drug industry's
scare tactics are ironic. Because, since 1992, pharmaceutical firms'
importation of drugs for consumer consumption have increased by 350
percent, totaling $13.8 billion last year, imports from Canada have
grown by 400 percent, and those from Mexico by 800 percent according to
the National Community Pharmacists Association.
Here is one of those ads my colleague was talking about. This was in
one of the trade magazines down here. It says that 11 former FDA
commissioners think all Americans deserve to be protected. Well, we
found out that well over the majority, some seven former FDA
commissioners now find themselves being employed by the pharmaceutical
industry.
[[Page H7913]]
Do we expect any other answer but this answer?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
one of those FDA directors, Dr. David Kesler, former director of the
FDA, now dean of the Yale Medical School in New Haven, Connecticut, has
written a statement that, in fact, that is inaccurate. He has been very
clear.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, that just adds more weight to my point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who
himself is a pharmacist.
{time} 1630
Mr. BERRY. I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) for his leadership in this matter, and the Democratic
leadership for providing this hour for us to discuss this important
issue. I appreciate my colleagues from around the country being here
this evening to talk about this issue. I also want to thank the many
Republicans that have provided leadership on this issue: the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and of
course the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who has worked so hard
to see that the American people get treated fairly as prescription drug
prices are too high and we try to bring them down. They have done a
great job in providing leadership for this issue. We want the
prescription drug manufacturers in this country to be successful. We
want them to continue to be profitable. But there is something wrong
when we allow Americans to have to pay 30 to 40, 50, 60 percent more
for their medicine than any other country in the world.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers have engaged in what we try to
charitably call a misleading campaign. The fact is the ads that they
are running and millions and millions of dollars worth of them that
they are running every day now all over the country trying to convince
the American people that their safety is threatened, their health is
threatened if we import these medicines at the same price that other
countries buy them, the fact is that calling them ``misleading'' is
being very kind. It is just simply a lie. These companies are simply
willing to do anything to continue to be able to rob the American
people.
As has already been mentioned, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler
who served under both Presidents Bush and Clinton has said in a letter,
``I believe the importation of these products could be done without
causing a greater health risk to Americans than currently exists.'' The
truth is Secretary Shalala has called the Senate amendment promising
and does not oppose it. All Americans need to be protected from
outrageously high prescription drug prices. There is no need to allow
the pharmaceutical companies to continue to rob the American people.
In June, I was in Cuba to visit with the Cubans primarily to talk to
them about buying some of our agricultural products. We had a great
discussion. They are certainly willing and interested and desirous of
buying our agricultural products. As we concluded our discussions, I
said to them, ``We've talked about food, about agricultural products.
What about pharmaceuticals? Do you not want to buy our
pharmaceuticals?'' And they laughed. These are very nice people. They
did not want to do anything to offend us, but they laughed. And they
said, ``Why would we want to buy your pharmaceuticals? We can buy your
pharmaceuticals anywhere in the world. We can buy them in Canada, we
can buy them in Panama, we can buy them in Mexico for half what you're
paying for them. Why would we want in on a deal like that?''
And then they asked a question that I could not answer and it is
unbelievable to me today that we stand here in an empty House at 4:30
in the afternoon and still we have not answered the question, ``Why do
you do that to your people?'' they said. I could not answer that
question. There is absolutely no reason why the Congress should not
follow through this year and enact this provision that will clearly
lower the price of prescription medicine to Americans.
I was disappointed to read yesterday that some powerful Republican
Members may try to have this provision removed from the agricultural
appropriations bill. They will try to disguise an appropriations bill
in some way where we will not be able to tell that it has been removed
until the bill has passed. Countries in the EU, the European Union,
benefit from international price competition for our pharmaceuticals.
They have been doing this for years, and they suffer no ill effects
from it. This whole idea that the pharmaceutical manufacturers continue
to try to promote that it is unsafe is absolutely ridiculous.
Our senior citizens are crossing our borders en masse to buy
prescription drugs they need from Canada and Mexico. The solution we
support would give all Americans access to safe and effective FDA-
approved drugs made in FDA-approved facilities at international prices
and give FDA the oversight it needs to know imported drugs are safe
through the use of testing and other means.
It is very deceptive and manipulative for the pharmaceutical industry
to claim proposals which require documents, labeling and testing put
American patients at risk. That is just simply not true.
From 1991 to 1997, the amount of drugs imported for consumption by
global drug makers jumped from $6.1 billion to $12.8 billion. All
evidence indicates that these imports have continued to climb. For the
drugs we support allowing the importation of, the new standards will be
more stringent than those that apply to the billions of dollars' worth
of foreign drugs that manufacturers are bringing into this country
today.
Another point that is important to remember is that the effect of our
legislation is not only to facilitate the importation of reasonably
priced medicine; but once U.S. manufacturers are no longer shielded
from international price competition, the free market will absolutely
demand that these prices go down. Interestingly enough, the same people
that talk about a free market, a free market situation day after day on
the other side of the aisle, are the very people today that do not want
a free market situation. They want to protect these drug companies that
have contributed millions and millions of dollars to their campaigns.
Dr. Christopher Rhodes, a University of Rhode Island expert in the
field of applied pharmaceutical research, recently testified before the
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the issue of
safety. He testified that by implementing a system which requires
documentation and testing, it was his ``considered professional opinion
that the process of using reimported prescription medicine in the
United States need not place the American public at any increased risk
of ineffective or dangerous products.''
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, a health and safety expert at Public Citizen said,
``It is ironic how PhRMA worries about safety when lower prices are
involved. The Prescription Drug Parity Act requires safety precautions
above and beyond the FDA requirements and consumer protections
Americans rely on when purchasing pharmaceuticals made in foreign
countries.''
I would ask you today, where is this House? There is a lot of
daylight left today and there is nobody here. Why is the House not here
on the floor today? Because we need this legislation today. We have got
Americans all over this country paying too much for their medicine,
many senior citizens; but all of our citizens are paying more than they
should have to pay. It is absolutely outrageous that this Congress
allows this to go on and the Republican leadership just simply does not
do anything about it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. BERRY. I will certainly yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would agree with the gentleman that we came here to
Washington this week to do the people's work and already we are
finished with the day's business, so to speak; and tomorrow I am told
there may be one vote, maybe not more than one vote. Meanwhile, the
very bill that this issue is in is stalled. We passed it weeks ago,
months ago here in the House; and it went over to the Senate. The
leadership of this institution could bring that bill up here so we
could vote on this whole prescription drug issue and
[[Page H7914]]
whether our people can bring these pharmaceuticals in from other
countries like Canada if they are safe and of similar quality. Where is
the bill? Even the conferees, the people here in the House who are
supposed to sit down with the Members of the Senate to go over this
provision, have not been appointed, even though the bill was passed
here and it has been passed there. We have got plenty of time today. We
have got all day tomorrow. We should have done it weeks ago. We wasted
yesterday; we wasted the day before yesterday. I just wanted to affirm
what the gentleman is saying and as ranking member on the subcommittee
that has jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration, we are
waiting. We are waiting for this Republican leadership to do its work.
Mr. BERRY. The gentlewoman from Ohio, who has provided great
leadership in the Committee on Appropriations on this matter, is
absolutely right. It is unforgivable for the Republican leadership to
let our senior citizens continue to be robbed on a daily basis while we
do nothing. We are gone. No one is here. We should be here working on
this legislation and passing it.
I come from a small town in Arkansas. We do not lock the doors or
take the keys out of our cars. Everybody knows everyone else. If we had
someone going around robbing our citizens, and especially our senior
citizens in that community, we would put a stop to it and we would put
a stop to it right away. We would not wait until tomorrow or the next
day. We would do something about it today. These companies are robbing
the American people, and they are robbing our senior citizens. You do
not have to assault someone to rob them. These people have figured out
a way to rob someone without going into their home or assaulting them.
Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will be kind enough to yield to me
again, when he said that there might be a deception and maybe this bill
might not come to us in a form that we could even vote on, I have
really wondered whether our bill will ever get to this floor again
which is under regular order, or whether these provisions and others
are being worked on behind closed doors here with no public scrutiny
and some of these lobby groups coming in and having an influence when
we do not have the ability to bring the influence of our constituents
to bear on this important question of prescription drugs, the cost of
prescription drugs. I would hope that the leadership of this
institution does not pull something like that and allows our Members a
vote. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), one of our outstanding
new Members of this House, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
who has been a champion on senior issues, certainly in the other body
Senator Jim Jeffords, who tried to work with the administration on the
safety provisions to make sure that we have like product being brought
in here, all these fine Members need to be heard. And we need to bring
the weight of their influence and intelligence to bear on a free vote
on this floor, not have it buried or altered in some committee room
here that none of us have access to.
I would hope that the leadership of the institution hears us and
gives us an opportunity to bring these prescription drugs to the
American people at affordable prices. I will just tell the gentleman
last week when I was doing food shopping at my local supermarket, the
cashout clerk told me that every week she has people that come by there
and they have to separate out their prescription drugs from their food,
and they have to put food back on the counter because they cannot
afford to buy both. This should not be happening in the United States
of America.
Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio again for her leadership
and certainly agree with her comments. I would just make one more plea
to the leadership of this House. Back in 1995 and 1996, we had
lobbyists in the back rooms here writing legislation. That is
absolutely unforgivable. We should not allow this to happen. I hope the
American people realize that the leadership in this House today is
simply ignoring the great need that we have out there to deal with the
prescription drug issue and provide lower-priced prescription drugs and
provide a good prescription drug benefit plan for our Medicare
recipients.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry). I also want to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for her comments as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
I first want to say that I support the pharmaceutical industry and
all that they have done in America over all of these 200-plus years. We
have second to none the strongest companies who represent and who bring
forth medicines that have taken care of America for a long time. I
commend them for that. We support them. We want them to grow. We want
them to hire American citizens. And we want them to treat Americans who
need and must have their products to live. At the same time, we want
the product to be affordable. There is no reason that pharmaceutical
companies must make 20, 30 percent profit on their medicines when the
average Fortune 500 companies make 5 to 10 percent and consider that to
be a formidable profit.
The pharmaceutical industry is a strong one, and we want it to remain
that. But I come from the State of Michigan. My district borders, the
Detroit River borders on the country of Canada. Many of my
constituents, seniors, take between four to eight medicines a day.
After doing the research, those medicines cost anywhere from $20 to
$500 per prescription. Many of them live on fixed incomes. They have to
literally choose between eating and getting their medicines. They have
to choose between paying their rent or getting their medicines. These
are seniors who have built America and, yes, who have built
pharmaceutical companies.
{time} 1645
We must know that much of the research and development that
pharmaceutical companies do are at the taxpayers' expense, and that is
one of the great things of our country. We want them to do the R&D
necessary so that we can live healthier lives as American citizens.
At the same time that we use our tax dollars to assist private
companies to bring product to the market, we want to make sure that
those people, seniors or not, disabled maybe sometimes, who must have
medicines to survive are able, are able, are able to get them and are
affordable.
Mr. Speaker, living on the border of Michigan and Canada, many of my
constituents can go across the river in a half hour or less drive and
pay one third the cost that prescriptions are being charged here in the
country. Why is that? These are, many times, American companies. It has
already been stated, that 80 percent of the ingredients in those drugs
are imported, that is 20 percent of the drugs are manufactured in other
countries. So the whole issue of reimportation, it is already
happening.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would bring the Ag bill to the floor
with the provision of reimportation in the bill. It is the proper thing
to do. We hope and we have heard some debate that there is not a
backroom going on as we speak with six or eight people deciding what
that agricultural bill will look like and whether yea or nay that
reimportation provision will be in the bill, we have a responsibility,
all 435 of us elected by over 600,000 people in our districts to
represent, to speak out, prescription drug access, affordable medicines
remain one of the top priorities of those that we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the reimportation provision in the
agriculture bill. I urge the Republican leadership of this House to
bring the issue to the floor. Let us debate it. We want to have our
pharmaceutical companies remain strong, but we also want to take care
of those many Americans who live from day to day based on the medicines
that they must have.
Michigan, Canada, our border, Canada, Michigan, our border, do not
make my constituents go over the border, U.S. citizens, tax-paying
citizens, raising-family citizens to another country
[[Page H7915]]
to get those medicines that their doctor has prescribed for them and
that they duly need, and we have a responsibility to see that they get
it.
Mr. Speaker, let us work to make sure that we can debate this on an
open floor. Let us make sure that the Republican leadership brings this
to the floor. Prescription drugs are a necessity. We have to see that
they become available to those who need them.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick)
from the Committee on Appropriations for her kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding to me and putting together this
special order.
It is frustrating here we are at almost 5 o'clock on Eastern Time, 4
o'clock Central Time, and the House is not working on this legislation.
We are spending an hour talking about it. It is amazing too that our
seniors who work very hard to make this country prosperous and
successful do not have access to affordable drugs.
H.R. 1885, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act is one way
that we can make it available to them by financial relief so they can
buy the medication they need to maintain their health.
It is widely reported that prescription drug prices are lower in
foreign countries. In fact, studies in my own district show from
Houston, Texas, we can go down to Mexico and get the same drug for
lower costs; in fact, half the price.
Mr. Speaker, I know that myself, because I have done that myself.
When I have been traveling in Latin America, Mexico, Costa Rica, I can
buy the same drugs that I buy in the United States for significantly
less.
While I would have hoped that by now we would have passed a
prescription drug plan that works, why not let us reimport these drugs.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that it is unsafe to
bring these drugs from other countries. Well, that is jut outrageous,
because, frankly, these drugs are made and under FDA standards, and we
imported $12.8 billion worth of drugs in the United States in 1997.
Mr. Speaker, that is not about safety, it is about profits and what
we need to do is make sure that pharmaceuticals who are opposing this
bill know that either they need to support a real prescription drug
benefit for our seniors as part of Medicare or we are going to find a
way to get cheaper prescriptions for our seniors, including bringing
drugs in from other countries that meet FDA approval.
It is not fair that countries in Europe and Japan and other parts of
the world have so many more cheaper drugs than our own seniors and yet
they have the same standard of living.
If I go to Mexico, because Mexico does not have the standard of
living we do, so the prescription drugs are cheaper, but if we go to
Europe, who has the same standard of living, or Japan, there the drugs
are so much cheaper. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would see that
we would have a real prescription drug benefit passed, otherwise we
need to support the International Prescription Drug Parity Act so we
can have these pharmaceuticals reimported in our country for our
seniors.
I'd like to thank Congressman Crowley for putting together this
special order. It amazes me that our seniors, who worked very hard to
make this country prosperous and successful, do not have access to
affordable drugs.
H.R. 1885, The International Prescription Drug Parity Act is one way
that we may be able to provide them financial relief so that they can
buy the medication they need to maintain their health.
It has been widely reported that prescription drug prices are lower
in many foreign countries than in the United States. Studies conducted
in my district confirm that seniors can buy the same drug in Mexico at
a lower cost. However, I didn't need a study to tell me that.
I've talked to the seniors in my district who travel to Mexico and
I've been to Mexico myself and know that the same drugs were
significantly cheaper in Mexico.
While I would have hoped that by now we would have passed a
prescription drug plan that works, why not let us reimport those drugs,
that patients from all over can buy at lower cost.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that it is unsafe
to bring drugs from other countries and that this legislation will pose
a safety risk to consumers.
This is false. These FDA-approved drugs, manufactured in FDA
facilities.
Under H.R. 1885, pharmacies and wholesalers importing drugs would
still have to meet the same standards set by FDA, which allowed 12.8
billion dollars' worth of drugs to be imported into the United States
by manufacturers in 1997. This is not about safety--its about profits
and helping special interest groups. Pharmaceuticals are pressuring
them not to allow this because they know that they will lose business
very soon.
It is not fair that pharmaceutical companies continue to discriminate
against American patients.
It is not fair that countries in Europe and across the world benefit
from international price competition for pharmaceuticals. Many of these
drugs were researched in the United States and funded by our Federal
dollars.
This summer, the Republican leadership forced a prescription drug
bill that provides more political cover than insurance coverage for our
Nation's seniors. The legislation was designed to benefit the companies
who make prescription drugs--not seniors. Instead, they passed a flawed
piece of legislation which will cost seniors more each year, but it
gives them less.
I have met with many seniors in my district who are in serious
financial hardship due to the high costs of their prescription drugs.
They have shown me their prescription drug bills and let me tell you, I
don't see how they can survive. Seniors are having to chose between
paying their bills or buying their medication. Some skip their
medication to make it last longer.
We should be putting benefits into the hands of senior citizens, not
pharmaceutical manufacturers. We should be providing a secure, stable,
and reliable benefit--instead of watered down legislation that does
nothing to address the problem. We should be building Medicare up, not
trying to tear it down.
I hope this Congress will work across party lines and develop a
bipartisan bill that ensures an affordable, available, and meaningful
Medicare prescription drug benefit option for all seniors.
In the meantime, lets support the International Prescription Drug
Parity Act, to level the playing field for American patients as well as
businesses who are struggling to continue providing employees and
retirees with quality, private sector coverage for prescription drugs.
This is about fairness and common sense.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, indeed we are talking about something very basic. We are
talking about the health care of seniors. We are talking about equity.
We are talking about providing opportunities for people to have access
to affordable prescription drug.
I come from rural North Carolina basically where the income is not as
high as in most areas and also where the senior citizens outnumber in
proportion our population and the age factor is greater, so we have a
lot of senior citizens living at a lower income, and they are making
the election between three basics, shelter, food and prescription.
Yet, we here in the Congress have an opportunity to do something
about it, and we are resisting that. We are resisting that. We say
because we want safe drugs we want to make sure that the pharmaceutical
companies can indeed afford to provide that. Well, I support my
pharmaceuticals. I am not against them, but I am also thinking that
corporate America can do good and do well, not at the expense of senior
citizens.
The bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has
introduced, that has passed the House, has been improved in the Senate,
so there is no reason to even fear the safety of those drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I just saw a magazine article, already the
pharmaceutical companies are attacking the possibility that these drugs
will be unsafe, that is a bogus, bogus, bogus claim. No one wants to
have unsafe medicine. I urge this House to do the right thing, pass
this bill so our seniors indeed can have affordable drugs.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley), for his incredible leadership on the issue of
reimportation and getting a fair price for our seniors for prescription
drugs; all people frankly. I wanted to come down to
[[Page H7916]]
the floor today on behalf of my constituents, my constituents in
Portage, Monroe, and Stoughton, Wisconsin and, all the other cities and
towns and rural areas in my district who demand and need affordable,
comprehensive prescription drug coverage.
Mr. Speaker, we are playing election-year politics with the health of
our grandparents, our parents, aunts and uncles. We are ignoring the
voice of the many constituents who have written us, me and all of my
colleagues showing us in vivid detail their outrageously high
prescription drug bills.
Our seniors need prescription drug coverage now. They need the
passage of the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). They
need affordable drug coverage now. So no matter who you are, where you
are or how sick you are, you will have the health care you need.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) for
the remarks. I appreciate that very, very much.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank you for the patience and your
steadfastness, and I appreciate all of the speakers who gave their time
this afternoon on the issue of prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that this is not only on one
side, there are Members on the other side who I am working with, the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), as well as
members in the other House. We are all working together to try to get
this amendment that has passed here in the House passed in the Senate.
It was improved in the Senate, approved in the conference committees,
we have to do it now, we do not have much time left.
We are told we will be out of here in a couple of weeks. We need to
pass this amendment so that seniors can get the prescription drugs that
they need at a rate of 30 percent to 50 percent less than they are
paying right now. We need to pass a patients' bill of rights, and we
need to improve upon the Medicare coverage that this country provides
to seniors throughout this land.
____________________