[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3877-S3878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Prescription Drugs

  Mr. President, last week, President Biden announced the first 10 
medications that would be subject to Medicare price negotiations. I 
chuckle when I say ``negotiations.'' As I say later, it reminds me of 
something out of ``The Godfather.''
  These negotiations were established in the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act. To be clear, the negotiations are a sham. A negotiation 
in which a company, if they don't accept the government's offer, has to 
pay a 95-percent excise tax on profits is not a genuine negotiation. To 
quote ``The Godfather,'' it is ``an offer they can't refuse.'' It is 
the price equivalent of waking up with a dead horsehead in your bed.
  As ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, I have serious concerns about the impact this 
policy can have on our Nation's effort to develop innovative lifesaving 
treatments that Americans need.
  The Presiding Officer is from Massachusetts. I was in Massachusetts 
visiting with small biotech firms, and they said, yes, there is a 
biotech exemption, but there is no way for them to go from being a 
small biotech to being a large biotech under the IRA. When they get to 
this period where they are subject to the negotiations where you get 95 
percent of your profit taken if you don't agree to the ``negotiation,'' 
they will not have the working capital to invest in another product. 
When this happens, they will be taken over by some big company, losing 
that innovation, losing that spark that has made Massachusetts such a 
hotbed for innovation by generating products which have benefited 
patients all over the world.
  And so it begs the question: When Government wields a heavy hand, 
threatening to take 95 percent of profits unless you agree to their 
``negotiation,'' what is the cost to the development of a future cure 
for cancer, dementia, some other neurologic disease which is currently 
devastating and uncurable, and any other terrible condition that a 
patient has?
  As a physician who happens to be a Senator, I regularly come across 
folks who wish to share with me their medical history, not as a kind of 
``let me tell you about myself'' but a plea for help for themselves and 
all those they represent. And they know they represent others. And the 
innovation in the U.S. biotech and U.S. pharmaceutical industry is 
their lifeline. They know it may not help them, but they want to help 
someone else. And there is a community of those who have this 
influence. And when you say, well, my gosh, working capital--boom--will 
be taken away because the negotiation is a 95-percent excise tax. The 
negative effect of this will force some companies to cut programs and 
research in small molecule drugs, shift funding away from diseases with 
small populations, and do other things that would help those who, right 
now, do not have help. Because of the IRA, the investments we make in 
basic science will, ultimately, result in less value for patients if 
those discoveries don't translate into new products for that young 
person with a rare disease.
  Research decisions should be driven by evidence and what is best for 
patients, not top-down price controls.
  What is really unfortunate is that the dynamic, small- and medium-
sized companies will bear the brunt of these misguided Democratic 
policies.
  I will say one more thing: That small company trying to become a 
medium-sized company and them not being able to capitalize and be 
bought by Big Pharma--Big Pharma gets bigger, but the innovation of Big 
Pharma does not match that of the more agile small or medium. And there 
is something being lost here.
  Instead of partisan price controls, we should prioritize bipartisan 
solutions that lower drug costs and preserve innovation so that 
Americans have access to the best possible treatments.

[[Page S3878]]

There was an example of that which passed on a bipartisan basis in the 
previous Congress when Republicans controlled the Senate Finance 
Committee. But that is not being considered at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 
permission to complete my remarks before the rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will not go long before the rollcall vote 
because I know how this place works. So thank you.