[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18842-18843]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   REIMPORTATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS WILL BENEFIT AMERICAN SENIORS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, as the conference for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit gets under way, we are reminded how difficult 
this compromise will be and that the bills in both the House and the 
other Chamber will leave many seniors with many high prescription drug 
costs.
  We have a bipartisan bill with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and myself, 
other Republicans and Democrats from both sides of the aisle, people 
who do not usually see issues alike and come together, but find a 
common set of values in this legislation that opens up the market on 
prescription drugs to Canada and other, European countries.
  Through competition, we would lower prices, and the truth is for all 
too long the elderly and the American families in our country, in our 
districts, have been subsidizing the poor, starving French and German 
and Swiss and English and Canadians who have artificially low prices. 
And we have been charged overwhelmingly; we pay in this country top, 
premium prices for prescription drugs.
  What I want to do and what this legislation would call for in a 
bipartisan fashion would open up the market. We have a closed market 
now. We do not have that type of closed market when it comes to cars, 
when it comes to steel, when it comes to food products, when it comes 
to software, when it comes to all types of products; but in the area of 
pharmaceuticals, we have a closed market, and Americans are paying top, 
premium prices.
  Two weeks ago Families USA released a study. Prices for the top 50 
drugs most commonly prescribed to seniors increased at 3\1/2\ times the 
rate of inflation. Total spending for senior citizens on prescription 
drugs rose an estimated 44 percent between 2000 and 2003. The only 
means available to reduce prices of prescription drugs which our 
families and our seniors pay at the local pharmacy is to have real 
competition.
  In Canada, in England, France, Germany, many of the folks there pay 
30, 40, 50 percent less for the same name-brand drugs. Why? Because the 
pharmaceutical industry can, here in America, charge a premium. We pay 
the highest prices, and the only way we pay the highest prices is so 
they can afford to pay the lowest prices.
  In my view, it is time that we have legislation that ensures open 
access, open markets in the area of pharmaceutical medication, and 
through that free market, we will reduce prices.
  Second, if you are about to embark on the largest expansion of 
entitlement in over 40 years, $400 billion, would you not want to 
ensure that the taxpayers got the best bang for their buck? $400

[[Page 18843]]

billion we are about to ask the taxpayers to spend, and yet we do 
nothing to protect the taxpayers or the elderly to get the best price 
for that.
  Now, this question is whether we will go over 10 years. My view is, 
if we are about to ask them to pay $400 billion to subsidize 
prescription drugs for our elderly, we should ensure that if we can 
save 25 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, which is what you can do 
through market access, we should afford the taxpayers and the elderly 
reduced, affordable prices.
  One, guarantee the taxpayers of this country the best prices their 
money can buy. Two, ensure that our elderly, who are on fixed incomes, 
get the types of prices that are now being paid for the same 
medications in France, Germany, England or Canada. We will then need 
not ask our seniors to pay the premium price.
  Now, one myth that the pharmaceutical industry keeps spreading is 
that somehow this is about safety, that the FDA cannot do this. The 
truth is, if somebody tells you it is not about money, it is about 
money, and that is what is at stake here. The pharmaceutical industry 
understands that for a very long time they have had a protective market 
here in the United States. If we were to open up the market, they would 
have real competition and the prices would drop.
  Second, I think it is very, very important. I understand the 
political process, as everybody does. We should all know that the 
pharmaceutical industry has about 600-some-odd lobbyists here in town. 
It is about a lobbyist and a half for each Member of the United States 
Congress. They give out and support through donations and other 
entertainment close to $200 million and support the candidates and 
Members of Congress through entertainment and donations. But the $200 
million we get, and there is nothing wrong with that, that is what they 
do, that is what they advocate for their position.
  But the $200 million they give out in donations, contributions and 
entertainment pales in comparison to the $200 billion our seniors have 
been overcharged.
  When this vote occurs this week, each Member will ask to speak and 
vote on behalf of the people of their district, and the question will 
be, will we continue a practice in which our elderly are overcharged by 
$200 billion, our taxpayers will be overcharged and pay the top, 
premium price rather than the most affordable price; or will we 
continue to accept these types of donations and entertainment and put 
our interests above the people that we represent?
  I have full faith in my colleagues here that we will stand up for the 
people we represent, because we came here not just to be another vote 
but to be a voice for their values. Their values say, it is time to 
ensure that our taxpayers and our elderly stop subsidizing those in 
Europe and in Canada with more affordable prices while we in America 
pay premium prices.

                          ____________________