[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19477-19485]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 19478]]

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 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.
  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

[[Page 19479]]

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).

                              {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

[[Page 19480]]

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. 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 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 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.

[[Page 19481]]

  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, among 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 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

[[Page 19482]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 19483]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 19484]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 19485]]

$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. 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. 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.

                          ____________________