[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.

                          ____________________