Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 111 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 111 (Thursday, July 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7531-H7539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2427, PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET ACCESS
ACT OF 2003

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 335 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 335

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2427) to authorize
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate
regulations for the reimportation of prescription drugs, and
for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2427 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a well-reasoned rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market
Access Act of 2003. This rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate, evenly divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees.
The rule also provides that during consideration of the bill,
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may
postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the
Speaker.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 2427, the
Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003. The fact that this
legislation is on the floor today demonstrates the willingness of the
House Republican leadership to deal with contentious issues publicly on
this House floor and to allow democracy to work by giving every Member
an opportunity to cast their vote on an important issue and issues that
are important to them and the American public.
But, while I believe that the underlying legislation that we will
bring to the floor later is well-intentioned, it is also deeply flawed
and puts the health and well-being of the American public at great
risk. Congress needs to find a way to provide affordable prescription
drugs to all Americans. This, however, is not the way to do it.
Mr. Speaker, the problems with this legislation can be divided into
three main categories. First, safety; second, fairness; and, lastly,
legal liability.
On the topic of safety, H.R. 2427 is certain to harm Americans in a
number of ways. First is the issue of

[[Page H7532]]

verifiability. Today, on nearly every single East Asian street corner,
an American traveler can pick up for only a few dollars what looks like
at first inspection to be a Polo shirt that would retail in American
stores for around $50. However, as anyone who has ever bought one of
these shirts has learned, perhaps the hard way, after a few washings,
these shirts fade, rip and generally fall apart. But I believe the
consumer knew what the consumer was buying at the time that they bought
it.
H.R. 2427 would open American consumers of prescription medicine up
to this same kind of potential scam by allowing them to be ripped off
by offering an inferior product that looks like the genuine article,
but with life or death consequences not associated with purchasing
illegal leisure wear. The difference here is that the consumer does not
know what they are purchasing. The other can be verified and they know
for sure.
I believe that the health and well-being of American drug consumers
is all too important to allow them to be taken advantage of in this
fashion by passing a law that would allow clever black market
manufacturers with the capability to make superficially similar
reproductions of prescription drugs and to pass them off as the real
thing to unsuspecting American consumers.
Of course, the difference here is that when you buy that shirt on the
street corner, you know that what you are buying is probably a fake and
it will fall apart after a few washings, whereas our Nation's seniors
and other prescription drug buyers will think that they are getting the
real thing, a mistake that could have dangerous or even fatal
consequences.
Another safety issue raised by this legislation is that it leaves us
utterly defenseless if a health safety crisis caused by substandard or
fake imported medicine is discovered. The bill would remove 16
important provisions in the U.S. law which currently protect American
consumers from unsafe, counterfeit and substandard imported medicines.
For example, importation would be required under H.R. 2427 even if
the Secretary of Health and Human Services believes it would pose ``an
additional risk to the public health and safety.''
To demonstrate the full nature of this threat, an analogy can be
drawn with yet another health crisis that happened recently. Earlier
this year, when there were concerns about Mad Cow Disease in cattle
from Canada that might make it its way into the United States, the Food
and Drug Administration took immediate action to close the border to
Canadian beef. Likewise, we need the same kind of protection for
counterfeit prescription drugs that may be making their way across the
border. Unfortunately, this legislation provides no protection.
The removal of these important safety provisions will lead to an
influx of counterfeit and dangerous medicines into the United States. I
believe that our public health and safety officials should have the
right to close our borders to counterfeits and to importers who
counterfeit prescription drugs. However, once again, H.R. 2427 would
strip the ability of the Department of Health and Human Services to
suspend reimportation of specific products or from specific importers,
even if the agency discovers a pattern of counterfeits.
Existing law already allows for reimportation of prescription drugs
when the health and safety of Americans can be ensured.

{time} 1815

This bill would change that and allow importation even when health
and safety could not be assured.
This legislation says that safety, in essence, does not matter. But I
do say that safety matters, and it should matter whether we are talking
about the beef we eat or the prescription drugs that we take.
Finally, this legislation poses a safety risk to consumers because it
prevents consumers from being able to guarantee the source or
effectiveness of their prescription drugs. In fact, in a letter to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the Commissioner of the Drug Administration, Dr.
Mark McClellan stated that this legislation would ``create a wide
channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to
enter the United States that are potentially injurious to the public
health and that pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug
supply.''
A real live example of this case is of an Internet-based counterfeit
drug provider, TrustedCanadianPharmacy.com, that claims to be the most
trusted pharmacy in Canada. The site is actually registered in Barbados
which, I believe, is an island off Venezuela, not a Canadian province.
The products from this site could be imported into America
fraudulently, with consumers believing that they were getting
reimported drugs through Canada. That is why the Canadian Government
has ``never stated that it would be responsible for the safety and
quality of prescription drugs exported into the United States, or any
country, for that matter.''
The second set of problems created by this legislation relates to
fairness, both to American consumers and to the developers of the new
and innovative drugs of tomorrow. If Congress were to pass this
legislation, America would be justified in importing the practices of
those countries that coerce drug innovators into providing their
lifesaving products at below market rates. These other countries get
these anticompetitive prices for medicine by blackmailing drug
innovators with the threat of breaking their patent rights and
illegally transferring their intellectual property to a domestic
manufacturer if they refuse to concede in providing their drugs at an
artificial, nonmarket rate.
As it currently stands, American prescription drug consumers already
subsidize the anticompetitive practices of countries with socialized
medical schemes, and I believe that is unfair. However, the answer to
this problem is not to import the price controls and strong-armed
tactics of the European Community. It is to address the issues through
trade negotiations and the enforcement of legal mechanisms to protect
American manufacturers' intellectual property.
By being unfair to the producers of these innovative medicines, H.R.
2427 also has shortcomings that consumers need from these medicines to
live healthy, productive, and pain-free lives. Importing the socialist
price controls of other nations will create a disincentive for drug
companies to reinvest in new drug research and development, and could
set back the search for cures for breast cancer, AIDS, and a number of
other deadly diseases for decades by starving the private sector of
these funds and the incentives that it needs to conduct this ongoing,
time-consuming, and often unprofitable research. In fact, in a letter
to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy
Project noted that ``It is foolhardy for Congress to double NIH
research and then launch hasty reimportation schemes that will
undermine the entire drug development process by opening the floodgates
to counterfeits which will destroy the value of intellectual
property.''
Finally, this legislation raises a number of complicated and
troubling legal issues. For example, if a consumer who purchases a
tampered or counterfeit medicine gets sick or simply does not get
better because they are taking a counterfeit placebo, where do they
turn for legal relief? Will they sue the drug manufacturer of the real
drug who had nothing to do with the counterfeit product consumed? Will
they sue the doctor who prescribed the medicine, thinking that their
patient will be using the real or true product? Will they sue the
pharmacy that reimported it? How about the hospital or medical complex
where the doctor has that practice?
There is no telling how great the overall drain on these productive
and helpful industries could be as a result of being in court with
these tort claims arising from this faulty reimportation scheme, nor is
there any indication of how much this inefficiency will increase the
health care and insurance costs of every American.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would create a congressionally mandated
litigation disaster that has the potential to destroy the viability of
health care and insurance in America.
I would like to close by listing just a few of the organizations who
oppose

[[Page H7533]]

this bill: the American Medical Association, the United States Chamber
of Commerce, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Leukemia and
Lymphoma Society, the Society for Women's Health Research, the Seniors
Coalition, 50 Plus, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and the
National Prostate Center Coalition. These are simply a few of the 200
organizations that have looked at this underlying legislation and wish
to make their words known that they do not support the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague, I can
hardly believe that this is the same bill that passed the House twice.
I had no idea that the Canadians were posing such a danger to us. That
is really quite frightening. It strikes me, I think probably the danger
is that the drug companies think that they may lose some research
money; but since a great deal of it comes from the taxpayers of the
United States, I do not know why they are so worried.
But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are here again today with a rule that
silences debate and deliberation. Late last night, along party lines,
the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule for this bill. The closed
rule prohibits anyone from offering amendments, including the
gentlewoman from Missouri, who is, in large part, responsible for the
consideration of this important legislation. The floor procedure
muffles the voices of millions of Americans suffering under the
outrageous cost of prescription drugs. And each side, for and against,
deserves equal time and equal treatment.
Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to live in an age when the wonders of
science produces medicines that cure illness and improve the quality of
life. Yet, the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot
buy them. The soaring costs of prescription drugs is a cancer on the
body politic, threatening public health and our health care system.
Prescription drug spending is the fastest growing component of health
care spending. This spreading affliction harms everyone: seniors,
working families with children, and small businesses that are doing
everything they can to provide medical insurance for their employees.
A few years ago as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of
seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at a fraction of
the cost charged in American markets. We had far more people interested
than we could accommodate on our trip, but those who went saved
anywhere from $100 to $650 on 3-month supplies of medication.
Right now, 10 million Americans are looking outside of the United
States for affordable medicines. My constituents continue to write to
me desperately looking for information on how to buy cheaper
prescription drugs from Canada.
The U.S. market constitutes half of the worldwide revenue of
pharmaceutical corporations. In 2001, for every dollar earned by the
top 10 largest drug makers, 60 cents came from the U.S. market. U.S.
consumers are routinely charged 20 to 80 percent more for prescription
drugs than consumers in other industrialized nations.
If a woman from Niagara Falls fills a prescription at a pharmacy near
her home, she could pay 67 percent more than she would if she crossed
the Whirlpool Bridge and filled her prescription in Ontario. Tamoxifen
is a highly effective, state-of-the-art medicine used in breast cancer
therapy. An average prescription costs $340 in the United States, $340.
In Canada, the same prescription is $40. Women in the United States
should not have to pay 750 percent more for this lifesaving medicine.
People with diabetes and high cholesterol and arthritis and
osteoporosis and other chronic illnesses should not be forced to buy
needed prescription drugs at inflated prices just so that the
pharmaceutical company executives can enjoy gargantuan profits. H.R.
2427 could reduce an average drug price by 35 percent and reduce drug
spending by $635 million over 10 years.
The impact of these drug prices is particularly harsh on older
Americans. Seniors disproportionately rely on prescriptions, and many
have no drug coverage. It is estimated about one-third of the Medicare
beneficiaries have no drug coverage at all, and others have partial
coverage. Seniors are forced to pay most or all of their drug costs
out-of-pocket.

Due to the ever-increasing costs, many older Americans go without
filling prescriptions. Disturbingly, a study found that many seniors
with serious health problems reported that they skip doses to make
prescriptions last longer. According to a study released just today,
African American Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older are more than
twice as likely as white beneficiaries to fail to fill prescriptions
merely because of the cost.
The opponents of the legislation have put forth several arguments
against drug reimportation. And, after hearing some of these arguments,
I feel like I should call my friends and my colleagues across Lake
Ontario and warn them about the grave danger posed by the prescriptions
in their medicine cabinets.
But the fact is that drugs from Canada are safe. If the U.S. was
faced with a medical crisis and a shortage of medicine to deal with it,
I assure my colleagues we would not hesitate a second to import the
drugs we needed from Canada to save our population.
Opponents claim that drug reimportation will result in a boom of
counterfeit drugs. But the vast majority of counterfeit operations have
been broken up here in the United States, not Canada, perhaps because
the unaffordable cost of drugs in the U.S. creates a market for cheaper
and sometimes counterfeit drugs.
Opponents are also saying that lower drug prices will impede
research. The U.S. taxpayer already pays for much of the research
through the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical
industry remains by far the most profitable sector in the United
States' economy. From 1994 to 1998, the after-tax profits averaged 17
percent, compared to 5 percent for all other industries. The high drug
prices in the United States enabled pharmaceutical companies to spend
more on marketing and administration than on research. And in the year
2000, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $15 billion on
marketing.
A few years, Schering-Plough spent more money marketing Claritin than
Coca Cola spent advertising Coke, and more than Anheuser-Busch
promoting Budweiser beer. The pharmaceutical companies have the funds
necessary to continue research to discover the next breakthrough
treatment, but consumers do not have the funds to buy the medicine at
the inflated prices.
Some opponents of drug reimportation question the safety and efficacy
of medicines brought into the United States. The underlying bill
restricts the exporting countries to other industrial nations like
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the countries of the European
Union. And the United States imports guns, it imports explosives, it
imports lethal chemicals and uranium and food and medical devices like
pacemakers and heart valves. If we can safely and effectively import
these, we can safely import prescription drugs.
The technology to ensure the safety and efficacy of imported
medicines exists; we just need to use it. Even the Federal Government
shops for pharmaceuticals in foreign markets. When the Federal
Government needed additional doses of Anthrax vaccine after our
domestic supplies had run out, where do you suppose the Pentagon bought
the vaccine? From Canada.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2427 is an effective remedy for the crippling cost
of prescription drugs and is an immediate treatment that benefits
seniors, working families, and small businesses. In the end, the only
loser is the inflated profits of the cash-rich pharmaceutical industry.
We can and we must do better for the American people. We owe it to them
to pass this legislation for the third time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Girardeau, Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

[[Page H7534]]

{time} 1830

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank
my colleagues and thank the Speaker of the House for allowing us to
have debate on this very, very critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, Americans will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs
over the next 10 years according to the CBO, and over the same period a
policy of pharmaceutical market access will save them $630 billion.
Americans pay higher prices for prescription drugs than any other
nation in the world. Our tax dollars heavily subsidize research and
development. But prices for the same pills right across the border, Mr.
Speaker, are a fraction of those here at home. Pharmaceutical market
access means a great deal on the bottom line of the drug companies. But
it means much more to the bottom line of America's senior citizens.
Because of the enormous costs of prescription drugs, some of
America's senior citizens are forced to cut their pills in half, some
must alternate months of taking their medication, and even more must
choose between food and medicine, people like my mother-in-law who live
on fixed incomes, but she is lucky because she has me and our family to
help her. But what about the others, Mr. Speaker, what about the
seniors living in my district in Missouri, the ninth poorest district
in the United States of America, who do they have to help them?
The answer, well, the answer is right here in this room. They are
counting on us today, my colleagues. We can end the bus trips to
Canada. We can stop the pill cutting. We can alleviate the budget-
busting burdens on American seniors. We can do it, and we can do it
safely. The only question is, will we?
I was raised, Mr. Speaker, to put people before politics. As a Member
of this House, I have a mandate from my constituents. I was not sent
here by drug companies, and I will not stand by and see American
seniors take a back seat to the pharmaceutical industry.
In this place, Mr. Speaker, our credibility is our currency, and our
credibility is on the line tonight.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, first it is important to acknowledge what everybody
knows. We are not here on the House floor today because the Republican
leadership has seen the light on the high cost of prescription drugs,
and we are not here discussing drug reimportation because the
Republican leadership suddenly thinks it is a good idea. We are here
because during the vote on Medicare a few Members of the majority stood
up and stood their ground and demanded a vote on it.
Now, it has been widely reported, Mr. Speaker, that during the
discussions that led to today's debate, the Republican leadership
promised that they would not lobby against the reimportation bill. That
lasted about 5 minutes. They have even bragged about their reference in
the press. As the majority leader said the other day, ``We are trying
as hard as we can to defeat it.''
Now, apparently, the Republican leadership, and the majority leader
in particular, has gotten bored with breaking the promises they made to
seniors and to students and to middle-income workers and to Democrats
and Independents, and now they are breaking their promises to their own
Members. I hope that they fail in their attempts to defeat this bill,
because our seniors, gouged by the high cost of prescription drugs, are
looking for affordable alternatives. They are our mothers and our
fathers and our grandmothers and our grandfathers and our neighbors.
Too many of them living on a fixed income simply cannot afford to pay
thousands of dollars for their medicines. Something must be done. And
while I believe the only long-term answer is a true prescription drug
benefit under Medicare, a benefit that allows the Secretary of HHS to
negotiate for lower prices for prescription drugs, the Gutknecht bill
is a good step.
There has been a lot of rhetoric about safety. Let us set the record
straight. First, prescription drugs will not be reimported from Mexico
or other developing countries. Instead, under the Gutknecht bill,
Americans can buy FDA-approved drugs produced at FDA-approved
facilities in other industrialized nations.
Second, the same technology used by the U.S. Treasury Department to
prevent illegal counterfeiting of American currency is being used by
the drug industry in Europe to prevent illegal counterfeiting of
prescription drugs. It is clear to me that the real motivation behind
the massive lobbying campaign we have seen is not safety. The
motivation is money. The pharmaceutical companies do not want anything
to affect their profits.
What they do not tell you is that the prices set by these companies
are artificially high, 30 to 300 percent more than in other countries
with the same medicine.
Now, I am not against businesses succeeding, and I am not against
companies doing well; but those profits should not be made unfairly, on
the backs of our most vulnerable senior citizens.
Thousands of my constituents, desperate for affordable medicine, are
way ahead of our Congress on this issue. Several times a year they
travel by bus to Canada to get the drugs they need at low costs they
can afford.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this rule only allows for 1 hour
of debate. But then again, this is an important issue. And this body,
thanks to the Republican majority and the Committee on Rules, has
become a place where we debate trivial issues passionately and
important issues hardly at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Gutknecht bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Surf Side, Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I also strongly
support the bill itself, H.R. 2427. And I would like to advise other
Members here that I approach all legislation the same way. I look at it
through two prisms. One, I look to see if it promotes freedom, and the
other I look to see if it conforms to the Constitution.
Every piece of legislation I look at it in this manner. Now, the sad
part is I do not get to vote for many bills. They come up short on
quite a few occasions. So I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for
giving us a bill tonight that I can vote for enthusiastically. I
finally found one, and I thank them very much.
But in looking at the particular bill, one of the specific reasons
why I oppose it, is I came to Congress opposing all welfare. Some
people oppose welfare for the poor, but they support welfare for the
rich. Others support welfare for the rich, but not for the poor; and
some people support both kinds of welfare. I do not support any kind of
welfare. This bill is needed to stop the indirect welfare through
regulation for the rich and the pharmaceutical corporations. This is
corporate welfare. That is one of the strong reasons why I am opposed
to that.
I also believe in freedom of choice. People have the right to make
their own choices. We do not need to promote the nanny state. People
are wise enough and cautious enough to make their own choices. Today we
had two votes on free trade legislation. They were promoting
international trade agreements, but done in the name of free trade. Why
do we have free trade legislation, so-called? To lower tariffs, to
lower prices to the consumer. But those very same people who worked so
hard on free trade legislation are saying now we cannot allow the
American people the option of buying drugs from other countries and
saving money.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2427.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2427,
the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, because I believe it is an
important bill that will benefit all Americans. As my colleagues are
aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription
drugs. These high prices particularly affect senior citizens who have a
greater than average need for prescription drugs and a lower than
average income. Of course, some of these seniors may soon have at least
part of their prescription drug costs covered by Medicare.
However, the fact that Medicare, that is already on shaky financial
ground, will soon be

[[Page H7535]]

subsidizing prescription drug costs makes it more important than ever
that Congress address the issue of prescription drug costs. Of course,
Congress's actions should respect our constitutional limits and not
further expand the role of government in the health care market.
Fortunately, there are a number of market-oriented policies Congress
can adopt to lower the prices of prescription drugs. This is because
the main reason prescription drug prices are high is government
policies, that give a few powerful companies monopoly power. For
example, policies restricting the importation of quality
pharmaceuticals enable pharmaceutical companies to charge above-market
prices for their products. Therefore, all members of Congress who are
serious about lowering prescription drug prices should support H.R.
2427.
Opponents of this bill have waged a hysterical campaign to convince
members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe
products. Acceptance of this argument not only requires ignoring H.R.
2427's numerous provisions ensuring the safety of imported drugs, it
also requires assuming that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals
without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying quality
products. The experience of my constituents who are currently traveling
to foreign countries to purchase prescription drugs shows that
consumers are quite capable of purchasing safe products without
interference from Big ``Mother.''
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned
about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of
powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the
current policies that endanger health by artificially raising the cost
of prescription drugs. Oftentimes, lower income Americans will take
less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some even
forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their
medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals, H.R. 2427 will
help ensure that no child has to take less than the recommended dosage
of a prescription medicine and that no American has to choose between
medication and food.
Other opponents of this bill have charged that creating a free market
in pharmaceuticals will impose Canadian style price controls on
prescription drugs. This is nonsense. Nothing in H.R. 2427 gives the
government any additional power to determine pharmaceutical prices.
H.R. 2427 simply lowers trade barriers, thus taking a step toward
ensuring that Americans pay a true market price for prescription drugs.
This market price will likely be lower than the current price because
current government policies raise the price of prescription drugs above
what it would be in the market.

Today, Americans enjoy access to many imported goods which are
subject to price controls, and even receive government subsidies, in
their countries of origin. Interestingly, some people support
liberalized trade with Communist China, which is hardly a free economy,
while opposing H.R. 2427! American policy has always been based on the
principle that our economy is strengthened by free trade even when our
trading partners engage in such market distorting policies as price
controls and industrial subsidies. There is no good reason why
pharmaceuticals should be an exception to the rule.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the
numerous D.C.-based ``free-market'' organizations that are opposing
this bill. Anyone following this debate could be excused for thinking
they have entered into a Twilight Zone episode where ``libertarian''
policy wonks argue that the Federal Government must protect citizens
from purchasing the pharmaceuticals of their choice, endorse
protectionism, and argue that the Federal Government has a moral duty
to fashion policies designed to protect the pharmaceutical companies'
profit margins. I do not wish to speculate on the motivation behind
this deviation from free-market principles among groups that normally
uphold the principles of liberty. However, I do hope the vehemence with
which these organizations are attacking this bill is motivated by
sincere, if misguided, principle, and not by the large donations these
organizations have received from the pharmaceutical industry. If the
latter is the case, then these groups have discredited themselves by
suggesting that their free-market principles can be compromised when it
serves the interests of their corporate donors.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to show
that they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs
and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interests by
supporting H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if you are defending the indefensible, that
U.S.-manufactured, FDA-approved drugs are available at half the price
or less in Canada, well, then change the subject. Say it is about
safety. PhRMA has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising how it
is about safety.
Which capsule has been tampered with? Well, actually the answer in
Canada is neither. Not a single one has been found in the last decade
in Canada of a USA-manufactured, FDA-approved drug that has been
tampered with. However, what is really at risk here and the real danger
is the danger to their profits.
Look at the difference in price. Which one of these capsules is the
one that is 50 percent cheaper? Guess what? They are identical, but
this capsule took a short vacation to Canada and the price dropped in
half.
That is what we are defending against here on the floor. This is not
about safety. You want to talk about safety for my seniors. I am a
gerontologist, and I have sat with seniors who cried because they could
not afford the prescription drugs they needed, couples who decided
which one would get the prescription month in month out. Go talk to
your pharmacist. Go talk to your seniors. Ask them how they divide the
drugs and the dosages in half, not to save money but because they
cannot afford to take a full dosage. That is what is killing seniors.
It is killing them today.
Now you want to create this mythical threat of adulteration. So the
manufacturers, the drug manufacturers, the most wealthy, profitable
industry on Earth cannot afford to invest in tamper-proof packaging?
I guess it is beyond their capabilities. Come on. Let us get real.
Let us talk about what it is really about. It is about profit. The
profit center for the drug industry is in the United States because
other countries have negotiated the price down on behalf of their
citizens, and we were getting gouged to pay for it.
The research is not going to go away. That is the last thing that is
going to go away. They only make money on the patented drugs. They will
maybe cut the CEOs salaries and maybe the $6 billion a year in direct
advertising before they cut the research. We will still get the
research. We will get the new drugs, and we will have healthier seniors
if we pass this legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), one of the brightest young Members of
Congress that we have.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Let me start by saying, I do not mind when pharmaceutical companies
make profits. In fact, I want them to make profits because it is
evidence that they are providing a product that people value and people
need. I am also one of the most vehemently opposed, amongst all Members
of Congress, there is nobody more vehemently opposed to price controls
than me. And I have nothing but criticism for countries overseas that
fix their prices and intentionally set artificially low prices on drugs
or anything else for that matter.
The main reason that I support this rule and I support this bill is
because this is the only way I can think of that we can begin the
process of tearing down the artificial prices around the rest of the
world that are forcing Americans to subsidize drug consumption all over
the world. This is what we need to do in order to get to more normal
market prices everywhere in the world.
If we pass this legislation and American consumers start to go to
other countries and buy drugs at those artificially low levels,
pharmaceutical companies will have no choice but to confront those
countries and threaten to either withdraw from those countries entirely
or have those governments raise their prices to normal market levels.
That is what they will do.
Now, if a foreign country refuses the deal and says, go ahead and
leave and we will make a knock-off product ourselves, then we have to
use every vehicle available to us to enforce the intellectual property
rights that are inherent in our patents laws and prevent them from
going in every multilateral and bilateral forum that we have. That is
an obligation that we have.
Now, I wish I could wave a wand and make these price controls go away
so that everyone in the world is paying their fair share of the cost of
prescription drugs, but I cannot do that. And as

[[Page H7536]]

the world-famous and brilliant economist Art Laffer said, and he
supports this bill, by the way, he made the point that trade barriers
have never made a problem better.
Well, that is the case here today as well. The status quo is
unacceptable. We need to take whatever measures we can to start to
dismantle this very artificial construction of prices that are
extremely unfair and unequal all around the world. I think this bill is
the best chance to do that. I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and support the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in 11 years here I have never seen anything like this.
The drug industry and its allies have spent the past few weeks
unloading a lobbying blitzkrieg on Members of Congress. They have run
disingenuous ads likening America's closest allies to rogue states.
They have targeted individual House Members, accusing them of putting
their constituents' lives at risk. They have manufactured claims that
importation would encourage abortion.
These are the actions of a lobby that knows it loses on the merits
and desperately wants to change the subject.
Nothing new here.
For years the drug industry has been spending a lot of time and a lot
of money trying to change the subject. During the past decade, the drug
industry spent a half billion dollars to tell public officials and the
American people what they should believe and how they should think.
They have spent $100 million to assist President Bush and the
Republican leaders in this House.
These are the actions of a lobby that wants desperately to talk about
anything but its unsupportable and unjustifiable prices.
If this were a sincere, serious debate about the public's interest in
securing safe, affordable medicine, opponents of this bill would not
just be complaining about safety, they would be suggesting ways to help
importation address their concerns. In an honest debate, Mr. Speaker,
opponents would not just be lambasting importation; they would be
suggesting alternative strategies for bringing prices down. They have
done none of that with their heavy-handed lobbying.

{time} 1845

It is not about protecting consumers. It is about protecting the drug
industry. It is just the latest tool in a drug industry lobbying effort
that knows no bounds.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, many people will talk about the substance
of the bill. I want to talk about what is really at stake here tonight
and what is really at stake is the integrity of the legislative
process.
The gentleman from Ohio just talked about the spending program that
has gone on here by the pharmaceutical industry. We are all knee-deep
in Washington, D.C., with money being spent on this issue.
Extraordinary numbers of groups have been brought to bear on this
issue, massive spending, nothing like it that I have ever seen since I
have been here.
When I went to my town hall meetings, I saw my name, my picture,
informing me by the Senior Coalition exactly why counterfeit drugs were
so potentially lethal and such a big loss to the protection of
consumers. It was funded by the Senior Coalition. Ask AARP how much
money from the pharmaceutical industry comes to the Senior Coalition.
What is at stake here, I would say, is whether or not this is the
people's House, whether or not we have integrity in this House to do
what is right for our constituents.
Four of my colleagues actually have a Dear Colleague out which says,
``The Canadian-European socialistic price controls already dictate drug
prices in the United States because drug-makers and policy-makers are
willing to pander to price control systems overseas. We enable
protectionism and fixed high prices at home,'' and that is exactly
right. What we have is massive cost-shifting on drug costs in this
world, and it is all coming on the back of the American consumer. Every
developed country on Earth has price controls. We do not.
Of course, research and development is important, but it is being
paid for primarily by American consumers, and its costs ought to be
spread across the world to at least a reasonable degree.
I think it will be interesting to compare what the pharmaceutical
industry spends on advertising and what it spends on inducing health
professionals to prescribe their particular drugs. Compare that with
what they are spending on R&D, it would be very interesting for
constituents to see that.
My constituents understand what is happening there. I think we need
to protect the integrity of the House. Vote for the Gutknecht bill. It
is the best thing we have, and we ought to proceed with it.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, this Member wishes to add his
strong support for the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003 (H.R.
2427). This legislation would provide American consumers with access to
markets where they can obtain more affordable prescription drugs.
This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for sponsoring H.R. 2427 and for his personal
interest in providing Americans with access to world class drugs at
world market prices. This Member would also like to commend the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for her persistence on this
issue and her work to ensure that this measure was debated on the House
Floor.
Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that American consumers pay the
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Canadian and
European senior citizens frequently pay half or less of the amount U.S.
seniors pay for the same drugs. The same drugs are often even less
expensive in Mexico. This anomaly has led some Americans to travel
outside of the U.S., particularly to Canada, to purchase prescription
drugs.
This Member has concluded that drug companies charge Americans what
they believe the market will bear and that high pricing probably is
abetted by the fact that effectively under current law, only the drug
companies themselves can import or reimport prescription drugs into the
U.S. In fact, all or nearly all developed countries have imposed price
controls on drugs. Thus, there is huge international cost-shifting;
pharmaceutical companies are charging what the market will bear in
America. American consumers are being forced to subsidize the
dramatically lower prices paid by consumers elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act provides a solution
to this problem. This legislation would provide individuals,
pharmacists, and wholesalers in America with access to FDA-approved
drugs from FDA-approved facilities in industrialized nations abroad.
Those countries are limited to: the European Union, Australia, Canada,
Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland,
and South Africa.
The pharmaceutical industry has spent millions of dollars trying to
defeat the concept of market access. The industry claims that H.R. 2427
would undermine the safety of the U.S. drug supply and place American
consumers at risk. This is simply hogwash! There have been no reported
deaths from Americans taking imported pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Speaker, if prescription drugs are not affordable, they are not
accessible. American consumers cannot afford to continue to pay
excessive prices for prescription drugs so that Canadians, Europeans,
and individuals of other countries can pay significantly lower prices
for their pharmaceuticals. American citizens should not continue to be
held captive from the global marketplace.
In closing, this member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 2427.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, as the first Member of the Congress to take constituents
across the Canadian border in order to purchase safe and affordable
medicine, I have been involved in the issue of reimportation for many
years; and the reason for that is, I will never forget the look on the
faces of Vermont women who went with me across the border, who were
struggling with breast cancer, and they were able to purchase in Canada
Tamoxifen, the widely prescribed breast cancer drug, for one-tenth the
price that they were paying in the United States, women

[[Page H7537]]

fighting for their lives, same product, same company, one-tenth the
price.
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this debate is all about.
Those of us who are sick and tired of seeing Americans being forced to
pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs are
taking on the most powerful lobby in the country. In the last several
years, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their
profits the highest of any industry and to make Americans pay the
highest prices in the world. If people are on Capitol Hill today, they
will see a swarm of hundreds of paid lobbyists trying to defeat this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the pharmaceutical industry lies
and lies and lies again. Whether it is telling Americans that this
issue has something to do with abortion, it is a lie. Whether it is
telling advocates for low-income people that a two-tier prescription
drug system will be set up, it is a lie, and the safety issue is a lie.
They are going to bring out their charts of rat-infested laboratories
where medicine is made. It is a lie.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we eat food, pork bellies and beef that come from
Canada, vegetables that come from Latin America, food products that
come from China. We can safely import FDA-safety-approved products, and
that is what we have got to do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, there is not one Member of Congress who
would ever jeopardize the safety of their constituents. We all agree,
no matter what the costs of prescription drugs are, safety is the
first, most important thing, but the wildly exaggerated claims that
this bill would jeopardize safety is typical of the type of rhetoric we
have heard from pharmaceutical companies.
The truth is, the Americans know the truth. Over one million
Americans get their drugs right now from Canada and places around the
world. They reimport. We see articles like the one on the front page of
my paper that talks about how to get drugs from the Internet or from
overseas, and the truth is, we know that our friends, our families,
none of them have been harmed by this.
Why is that? Because developed countries around the world share all
the same production facilities, all the same license distribution
facilities, all the same licensed pharmacies so that our drugs are as
safe as any in the other developed countries.
This may be the wrong rule. It is the toughest bill. It is the latest
hour, but I have faith that Congress will do the right thing and pass
this rule and this bill tonight.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am from New Jersey, and a lot of the
pharmaceutical companies are based in my District. But I have to tell
my colleagues, when I talk to my constituents, when I have my town
meetings, do my colleagues know what they say to me? They say,
Congressman Pallone, we know the drug companies are never going to let
the Republicans pass a decent prescription drug benefit. The only hope
for us is if you pass this drug reimportation bill because that is the
only way we are going to get low-priced drugs now at this time.
They do not believe any of the stories about the problems with
safety. Many of them are already getting their drugs from Canada, and
they know exactly what the previous speaker said on the Republican
side, which is these are FDA-approved facilities, these are FDA-
approved drugs. We are already importing them in some fashion to the
tune of about $15 million a year from overseas. So there is no reason
in the world why we cannot pass this bill.
Do not believe anybody when they talk about the safety. That is
something that the pharmaceutical industry is telling my colleagues and
sending over the airwaves in the same way that they are opposed to a
decent prescription drug benefit. And they are opposed to any mechanism
that would bring down the price. It is just a price. It is nothing
more. Pass this bill and give the people a chance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who is the author of this legislation.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I rise in reluctant support of this bill.
This is the people's House. This is an historic night. Tonight we
will decide whether we represent the people or whether we represent the
big pharmaceutical companies. This is an important vote, and I am proud
of the discussion we have heard here tonight. It is Republicans, it is
Democrats, it is Independents.
This is not an issue of right versus left. This is an issue of right
versus wrong, and we have an opportunity tonight to right that wrong,
and the wrong is all around us and we see it.
Look at the numbers. I am just a guy with a chart. I do not have a
big PAC. I do not have 600 lobbyists, but I have got charts and I have
got facts, and John Adams said it best, Facts are stubborn things, and
look at the facts.
Look what Americans pay for these drugs. Look what my father has to
pay for coumadin in the United States, almost $90. The same drug can be
bought in Germany for $21. Look at glucophage, $5 in Germany, $29.95
here in the United States.
The worst one is this one, Tamoxifen. This is a lifesaver for women
with breast cancer. It sells in the United States for $360. This same
drug made in the same plant under the same FDA approval sells in
Germany for $60. That is unacceptable, and those who defend the system
by saying safety, let them explain how it is that this industrialized
Nation can import hundreds of thousands of tons of food every week. We
import 40 percent of our orange juice. We will import 318,000 tons of
plantains, but somehow we cannot import prescription drugs.
My bill makes it even safer because we require tamper-proof,
counterfeit-proof packaging. Frankly, we should not even have to
require that. If I ran a pharmaceutical company, we would put that out
there right now. Do my colleagues know how much this package will cost
in an additional cost to pharmaceuticals? Less than a nickel to make
certain that our drug system is even safer.
I support this rule. I support this debate. We ought to pass this
bill tonight by an overwhelming majority.
I thank my colleagues and may God bless America.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
I congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and so many on the Democratic
side who have worked so hard on this issue.
Seniors in Maine have come to rely on Canada to get their low-cost
medicines, and this reimportation bill will make it easier for
Americans to take advantage of lower prices that other Nations
negotiate on behalf of their citizens.
We really should, of course, fix the problem here with a true
Medicare prescription drug benefit and giving the Secretary of Health
and Human Services the power to negotiate lower prices. I would remind
my colleagues that the Medicare prescription drug bills that we have
passed in both the House and the Senate actually prohibit the Secretary
from negotiating lower prices.
The cold, hard truth is that PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry, has
had a stranglehold on this Congress, 675 registered lobbyists in this
town, $150 million for a lobbying budget this year. This is a
concentration of economic and political power that undermines our
democratic traditions. Until we break that power, seniors will continue
to pay the highest prices in the world.
We have an historic opportunity today to give seniors a chance to
escape from the anxiety and the frustration that they face every day
due to the high cost of their prescription

[[Page H7538]]

drugs. We can give them hope and we can make this once again not
PhRMA's House, but the people's House.
Support this rule, support this legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the minority know that
I have two additional speakers, but I would like for them to feel free
to run down their time and then just before the gentlewoman from New
York closes, we will have one speaker for 1 minute and then we will
close; and if we could proceed under that agreement.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is fine, Mr. Speaker. We would be happy to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn).
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, seniors in America are crying out for help.
Heart patients in need of blood thinner, coumadin, are having to pay
$64 in America but only $24 if they can get it from Canada. Diabetics
have to pay $124 in America but only pay $26 if they could get it from
Canada. We ought to give them some help and cut out the lip service.
The arguments we hear from opponents is always safety-safety-safety.
That is absolutely false. It is the worst kind of scare tactic. There
is overwhelming consensus reflected in editorials in the Washington
Post, the New York Times, there are no safety concerns.
My colleagues have stood before us and talked about antitampering,
anticounterfeiting technology. We have the methodology to prevent the
safety concerns, the safety problems that are being discussed.
What we need this evening is the will to do the right thing to really
help seniors. We hear a lot about what we want to do, what we ought to
do, what we could do. It is time to quit talking. It is time to do. We
need to pass this bill.
Let me say this in conclusion: Whenever we see Democrats and
Republicans walking down the aisle hand and in hand, it is something
called bipartisanship. It also means we have got a good bill.
Let us pass the Gutknecht bill.

{time} 1900

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bad rule on a bad bill.
This is a bill which is going to come up simply because somebody wanted
a vote, and it is also a bill which is going to put our senior citizens
and everybody else at risk.
Some of my colleagues think that prices are going to be lower. They
are not. What in fact is going to happen is that the country is going
to be flooded with unsafe pharmaceuticals, counterfeits, over-aged
pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals that do not preserve and protect the
safety of our senior citizens. That is what the House is doing. There
were no hearings, there was no opportunity for the committee to
consider this legislation; and as a result, we are at risk of passing
legislation that is liable to hurt our senior citizens and other
Americans.
Let me tell my colleagues what the AMA says. These are doctors: ``We
believe that H.R. 2427 would be so dangerous to patients' safety that
we must oppose it. This legislation would eliminate most of the
important safety restrictions on reimportation to pharmaceuticals in
current law and replace them with a system of unverifiable and unsafe
provisions.''
The American Osteopathic Association says, ``H.R. 2427, while
increasing the possible number of drugs reimported into the United
States, does nothing to ensure the safety and efficiency of these
drugs. There is no bargain to be found for our patients who purchase
drugs that are ineffective or contaminated.''
The Food and Drug Administration says this: ``H.R. 2427 would
authorize the importation of prescription drugs from foreign sources
without adequate assurance that such products are safe and effective.
H.R. 2427 creates a wide channel of large volumes of unapproved drugs
and other products to enter the United States that are potentially
injurious to the public health and pose a threat to the security of our
Nation's drug supply.''
That is what my colleagues are doing here today. They are not making
cheaper drugs available; they are putting our citizens at risk.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule and
to the bill.
I can respect and agree with the intentions of the bill's sponsors in
wanting our seniors to have access to more life-saving, life-enhancing
prescription drugs; but this bill could actually endanger the health
and safety of millions of seniors. And I think the worst tactic, and I
have heard what some of the worst tactics supposedly are, is to suggest
that there are no safety issues here whatsoever. Under this
legislation, the Food and Drug Administration would no longer be able
to adequately ensure the safety of our Nation's drug supply because of
the dramatic influx of foreign pharmaceuticals flooding our market from
countries with drug regulatory policies inferior to ours.
This bill would authorize the importation of prescription drugs not
from Canada but 25 different countries, including some which have
rampant drug counterfeit problems and substandard drug safety
enforcement measures. By creating an expansive inlet for counterfeit
drugs and other second-rate pharmaceuticals to enter our borders, this
bill poses a clear and considerable threat to the security and safety
of our Nation's drug supply.
Now, the reason we will have so many Republicans come down here and
argue in favor of this bill is because they want seniors to be diverted
from the real issue. Instead of debating this bill, we should be
considering the real issue of providing a guaranteed universal Medicare
drug benefit for our seniors so that they have access to affordable and
safe medicine.
Mr. Speaker, bring a real Medicare drug benefit to this floor where
prices will be forced down because of the purchasing power of 40
million seniors so that they will not have to worry about the
affordability or the safety of their medications. That is why this bill
should be opposed. That is why we should get to a real prescription
drug benefit under Medicare, universally guaranteed. And that is why
many, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, say that
this bill should be defeated.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this is about safety, who will safely
protect the profits of the drug companies. The pharmaceutical industry
wants to maintain the world's highest prices in America by telling
consumers imported pharmaceuticals are unsafe, even though the drug
companies import drugs as a normal business practice. They sold $15
billion in imported drugs in 2001. They save money buying from
overseas. They do not want the captive customers in America to save
money.
The Gutknecht bill is the pill which will cure the drug companies of
their greed. It will also signal a moment in this House when the power
of government of the people, by the people, and for the people rises to
its glory.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from New York
has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. People from around the world, Mr. Speaker, come to
America for first-class medical care, but Americans need to travel
around the world for affordable medications. Between 2000 and 2003,
seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent.
The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition
into drug pricing to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25
to 40 percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. For too
long, price gouging of our seniors has gone on, subsidizing the
discounts the French, Germans, and Italians enjoy.

[[Page H7539]]

We are about to embark on the largest expansion of an entitlement in
over 40 years, spending $400 billion of taxpayer money. We owe it to
our taxpayers to ensure that they are getting the best price, not the
most expensive price.
And to the issue of safety, I would like to address two points. One,
I spoke to Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of HHS, on Friday. She
never said that you could not do this. She said you could ensure the
safety if you put the resources behind the FDA. And a lot of folks
wants to build a mythology around what she said.
Second, in 2001, we imported $14.8 billion of medications. Lipitor is
manufactured in Ireland, and it is on the shelves here in the United
States. So to those who spout this myth about safety, we better take
Lipitor off the shelves.
Let me also say one thing. When people say something is not about
money, well, it is about money. I understand how this system works.
There is a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half for every Member of
Congress. They have spent $100 million in contributions, entertainment,
and lobbying expenses all focused on this body. Meanwhile, our seniors
are being overcharged by approximately $100 billion.
The question before us tonight is, are we going to put more priority
on the $100 million focused on us or the $100 billion our constituents
are overcharged?
Now, I know we all came here for a set of values and a set of ideas.
We ran on those values and those ideas. Whether we believe in
competition, protecting taxpayers, or affordable prices for our
seniors, let us ensure tonight that the people we represent have a
voice, not the special interests.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this issue of safety is nothing more than a red herring,
and to the American people it is another example of big corporate
interest and big government joining together against the interest of
the American people.
Tonight we are going to learn who here in this body represents PhRMA
and who here represent the interests of the American people. We will
find out who here refuse to be swayed by the prescription drug
companies who have tried everything, from 650 lobbyists to millions of
dollars in campaign contributions, to false and misleading
advertisements, to company letters threatening they will do no more
research, and to threats to their employees that they have to write us
letters because they are afraid they will lose their jobs.
Greed, fear, lies, and ignorance are their weapons and their tools.
But tonight we are going to find out that those supporting this bill
can defeat it with the truth, with the facts, with common sense, and
with an abiding commitment to serving those people who sent them here
to represent them and an abiding commitment to fulfill their
responsibilities to this institution.
This is about hope. This is about renewal. This is about hope that
the American people can finally overcome a large corporate interest and
an overwhelming government that too often does not listen to them. And
this is about the renewal of this institution, of people standing up
for the integrity of this institution and for the American voice.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the
remarks of the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), and rise in strong opposition to the Gutknecht bill, which
would basically legalize the dangerous practice of reimportation of
undocumented medicines from foreign countries into the United States.
The American people, especially senior citizens, need to know that this
provision could threaten their health and safety.
Earlier this month, the Committee on Energy and Commerce released a
bipartisan report on the safety and efficacy of drugs imported into the
United States. This report should be a must-read for all Members of
this House as it raises serious questions about reimportation, and
describes ``a system overwhelmed with an avalanche of imported
counterfeit unapproved drugs into the United States.'' Yet tonight, the
House is giving serious consideration to a bill that would allow
American pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from
Canada and other foreign countries and resell them for a lower price
here in the United States with absolutely no regulation.
There is no doubt that Congress must and will act to help older
Americans cover the cost of expensive prescription medicines, but this
amendment is not the right prescription.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire and confirm that I
have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker for about 4
minutes, and then I will consume the last 30 seconds. So I will let the
gentlewoman decide if she would like to finish and then we will close.

____________________