[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10539-H10540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REIMPORTATION IS THE RIGHT PRESCRIPTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this week's issue of Congressional 
Quarterly Weekly reports that on the subject of drug reimportation, FDA 
Commissioner Mark McClellan said the following in an October 20 speech 
to the National Press Club, ``These Members are out of touch with the 
realities of keeping our drug supply safe, and the clear and present 
dangers to America's supply of drugs that their bills would create.''
  Evidently, it is Mr. McClellan who is out of touch with reality. 
Millions of Americans are finding prescription drug reimportation from 
Canada and other countries to be a viable and necessary alternative to 
high-priced drugs in the United States. The number of those Americans 
is growing every day. It would be wrong for Members of Congress to 
ignore this reality and to ignore the excessive cost of prescription 
drugs in America.
  If Mr. McClellan thinks Americans are content to allow price gouging 
on prescriptions to continue, he is mistaken. American consumers are 
understandably fed up.
  Large pharmaceutical manufacturers have long been gouging American 
consumers by charging substantially more, in some cases up to 90 
percent more, for prescription drugs sold in the United States than in 
Canada and other industrialized countries. Americans refuse to be 
exploited by the pharmaceutical industry any longer. The exploitation 
of American consumers must end. The excuse that most of the world's 
pharmaceutical research and development takes place in America does not 
justify the continued degree of cost shifting onto the backs of 
American consumers. Profit levels of American, foreign, and multi-
national pharmaceutical firms are huge, as is the

[[Page H10540]]

level of their advertising budgets and their level of inducements 
offered to prescribing physicians.
  This Member firmly believes that many of the safety issues which 
opponents have brought to the forefront in this debate are really red 
herrings. The real issue is the prices Americans pay for the medicines 
they need.
  According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, there is strong 
support for opening drug markets, despite warnings by FDA that it 
cannot guarantee the safety of these life-saving medicines. Even with 
the possibility of a drug safety issue being mentioned in the question, 
more than two-thirds, or 69 percent of respondents, said it should be 
legal for Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other 
industrialized countries. In fact, 12 percent of those surveyed said 
that they or a family member had purchased prescription drugs from 
Canada or other country in order to obtain a better price.
  The reimportation debate is not a battle of right versus left, it is 
a battle of right versus wrong. It is simply wrong to require Americans 
to pay the world's highest prices for prescription drugs, so they 
thereby can subsidize consumers everywhere else on earth to generate 
the research, advertising and profit revenues for pharmaceutical 
companies.
  As a Member of Congress serving in the people's House, this Member 
has a responsibility to do what is right for Nebraskans and all 
Americans. This Member supports prescription drug reimportation because 
Americans deserve access to quality drugs at world market prices and 
reimportation seems to be the only solution immediately available to 
reduce the gross overcharge of American consumers for prescription 
drugs.
  A typically cynical comment was made by an unnamed health care 
lobbyist found in the November 1, 2003, Congressional Quarterly Weekly 
regarding the Medicare bill and the likelihood that the final bill will 
include importation provisions that will never be implemented. The 
unnamed source is quoted as saying, ``You tell them that this will only 
kick in after FDA has appropriated $100 million for border safety, or 
FDA has a counterfeit, tamper-resistant device packaging system in 
place.'' The lobbyist concluded, ``Whatever the trigger is, just say it 
will never be met.''
  Mr. Speaker, there have been rumors that the Medicare conference 
report will come out of committee with a drug reimportation provision 
which will contain language under which the FDA can say they cannot 
responsibly or legally implement, as they did on two previous 
congressional efforts to provide for prescription drug reimportation. 
This is unacceptable.
  Governor Rod Blagojevich, our former colleague in the House, is 
asking the FDA to allow Illinois to explore a plan to import approved 
medications from Canada, and knows this issue well. He recently said, 
``It is awfully hard to stop an idea whose time has come.'' He is 
absolutely right in that assessment. Americans will find a way to buy 
FDA-approved drugs from abroad, either legally or illegally. The FDA 
needs to face the fact and get on with the method of discharging its 
responsibilities given those realities.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a serious call for action from the American 
people. We must open the drug markets so Americans can obtain the 
prescription drugs they need when they need them most and at affordable 
prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article published in the Los 
Angeles Times today entitled, ``Open Door to Drug Imports.''

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 2003]

                       Open Door to Drug Imports

        In the 2002 election cycle, the U.S. drug industry gave 
     political candidates nearly $30 million. For the 2004 cycle 
     it has already spent more than $3 million, two-thirds of it 
     on GOP members of Congress. The industry is getting a good 
     return on its money. Bush administration officials and 
     sympathetic legislators are still trying to add a $400-
     billion drug benefit to Medicare that prohibits, not just 
     omits, cost controls. House and Senate conferees have 
     proposed forbidding the federal government to negotiate 
     better prices, as such countries as Canada and agencies as 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs do.
        The glimmer of good news is that at least one consumer-
     friendly reform may survive. The conferees, pressured by 
     state and local leaders, last week began considering an 
     amendment to let consumers buy drugs directly and more 
     cheaply from Canada.
        The Bush administration and most legislators on the 
     conference committee, including some Democrats, say it is 
     dangerous to legalize drug purchases from Canada. They echo 
     Food and Drug Administration head Mark B. McClellan's line 
     that the agency can't guarantee the safety of drugs that 
     aren't manufactured, stored and distributed under FDA 
     guidelines. McClellan says he fears tampering by shippers as 
     well. Canada, however, has one of the world's most stringent 
     pharmaceutical quality oversight systems. As for adulteration 
     in shipping, that can happen in any mail-order operation.
        Californians are right to ask why importation from Mexico, 
     which also has lower prices than the U.S., was excluded. 
     Legislators argue that Mexico's prescription drug oversight 
     is too lax, but it's also because strong proponents of drug 
     importation--Reps. Bernard Sanders (I-VT.), Gil Gutknecht (R-
     Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.)--are in states closer to 
     Canada.
        A temporary solution, which the Canada measure would be, 
     is better than no solution. Plenty of individuals and even 
     municipalities are already importing from Canada, mostly over 
     the Internet. Legalizing the practice would allow for better 
     safety regulations.
        On Tuesday, two top negotiators on the conference 
     committee, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield) and Sen. Edward 
     M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), said the Medicare drug benefit was ``on 
     life support,'' imperiled by partisan disagreements. That's 
     good news, because the bill would create a gigantic, cost-
     ineffective benefits shaped behind closed conference doors.
        Regional leaders whose budgets are being busted by drug 
     prices--including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and New York 
     City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, both Republicans--are 
     pressuring the conferees to pass the Canada measure even if a 
     larger Medicare drug benefit dies. As Pawlenty recently 
     framed the issue: ``There's a rebellion brewing across 
     America. It is the prescription drug equivalent of the Boston 
     Tea Party.''

                          ____________________