[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 84 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3815-H3816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to talk about the high 
cost of prescription drugs and, more importantly, the difference 
between what we in America pay for those same drugs and what they pay 
in other parts of the industrialized world.
  I have a chart here, and again, I want to remind my colleagues, these 
are not my numbers. I did not invent this chart. This chart was 
developed by some people who have been studying this issue for decades, 
and disparities get worse by the year. And here we see some of the most 
commonly prescribed drugs in America. Let me point out a couple of 
them.
  Cipro, a drug that we became very familiar with last year when we had 
the scare over the anthrax, and let me say that Tommy Thompson did a 
very good job in negotiating with the German maker Bayer, we sometimes 
call it Bayer, and we got a very good price for the Federal Government, 
but if someone is a normal individual and they need Cipro, they need 
that antibiotic Cipro, in the United States average price for a 30-day 
supply of Cipro is $87.99. That same drug in Europe sells for half that 
price, less than half, $40.75.
  Let us look at another drug that is important to diabetics, one of 
the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States or in the 
world, Glucophage. The average price in the United States $124.65. That 
same drug made in the same plant under the same FDA approval in Europe 
sells for an average of $22.
  I think we should pay our fair share for prescription drugs. We ought 
to pay our fair share of the cost of developing those drugs, but I do 
not think we ought to have to subsidize the starving Swiss, and that is 
what is happening today. It is not shame on the pharmaceutical 
industry, it is shame on the FDA, and it is shame on us.
  It has been said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. 
Next week we are going to have two very interesting debates on the 
floor of this House, one about trade promotion authority. We are going 
to have people

[[Page H3816]]

 come to the well of this House, and they are going to talk about how 
important it is that we have free trade, that we ought to have open 
markets, that we ought to allow our markets to work. In fact, some of 
them may even quote the former President Ronald Reagan when he said 
that markets are more powerful than armies.
  Some of those same people are going to come to the floor of the House 
the next day, and they are going to say, well, we need open markets, 
but not when it comes to pharmaceuticals, not where it can really save 
Americans billions of dollars. And it really is billions of dollars, 
because according to the estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, 
seniors over the next 10 years in the United States of America, that 
is, people 65 and over, are going to spend $1.8 trillion on 
prescription drugs. They cannot afford that, and neither can the 
taxpayers.
  It is time to open the markets and allow Americans to have access to 
these world drugs at world market prices and let us talk about the 
savings.
  The estimates that we have from independent experts is that Americans 
could save 35 percent minimum simply by opening up the markets and 
allowing Americans to have access to those drugs at world market 
prices. What does that mean? If we take $1.8 trillion, divide it evenly 
over the next 10 years, that is $180 billion a year. If we could save 
35 percent, how much is that? That is over $50 billion a year, $50 
billion a year, and we have arguments here on the floor about tax cuts.
  How much good would we do if we gave Americans a $50-billion-per-year 
tax cut? That is what we are talking about if we simply open the 
markets. There is something wrong when we allow our own FDA to stand 
between American seniors and lower prescription drug prices. We ought 
to pay our fair share, but we should not be held hostage to the big 
drug cartels that are exploiting their market opportunities here in the 
United States at the expense of seniors, at the expense of taxpayers, 
and incidentally, I had a meeting this morning, at the expense of the 
big corporations.
  One of the largest corporations in the United States, one of the 
representatives told me today they spend $1 billion a year on 
prescription drugs. They are spending $1 million a month on just one 
name-brand pharmaceutical each month, $1 million a month just on one 
drug. Even they are starting to say, wait a second.
  We believe in open markets. We believe in free markets. We believe in 
competition. It is time to open the markets, create some competition so 
that we do not have these huge disparities between what Americans are 
required to pay for the same drugs, made in the same FDA-approved 
facilities.
  Let us have that debate next week about free markets. I believe in 
free markets. Let us have that debate about making it easier for all 
Americans, not just seniors, to pay for the drugs they need. No senior 
should have to choose between food and prescription drugs. We can go a 
long way simply by opening markets, allowing world markets to work, 
allowing that thing that we talk about and will talk about next week, 
free trade, to work to the advantage of American consumers. We could 
save American consumers $50 billion a year.

                          ____________________