[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21020-21021]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             LOWERING THE HIGH COST OF DRUGS FOR AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today in USA Today, they released a poll 
that showed that 71 percent of the American people believe they should 
be allowed to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other European 
countries. People from around the world come to the United States for 
their medical care, yet Americans are forced to go around the world for 
their medications. The American people know what is going on here, and 
they know the situation is wrong and it is unsustainable.
  A recent Families USA study found that the prices of 50 drugs most 
commonly used by seniors have increased in price by an average of 3.5 
times the rate of inflation over the past year. Between 2000 and 2003, 
seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent.
  For too long, seniors have been paying premium prices for the same 
prescription drugs that are available in other countries. Take 
tamoxifen. It costs $60 in Germany, and $360 in the United States.

[[Page 21021]]

  We cannot sit back and allow this situation to continue. Right before 
we left for recess in August, the United States House of 
Representatives passed legislation to allow Americans, elderly, folks 
of any age, to buy their medications in Canada and Europe. It is 
competition, the free market, and allowing choice to exist.
  Today we exist in a closed market and Americans pay the highest 
price. If we had a free market system, allowing Americans to buy their 
prescription drugs if they want in Canada or Europe, their name-brand 
drugs, prices would drop dramatically in this country. Today we are 
paying 40 to 50 percent more than the poor starving French and Germans. 
That price would be reduced here in the United States.
  A lot of folks in the pharmaceutical industry say it is a safety 
risk. Right after our vote here in the House, Pfizer, the largest 
pharmaceutical company in the country, said they were going to pull out 
of the Canadian market or limit their sales in Canada. It had nothing 
to do with safety. When people tell you it ain't about money, folks, it 
is about money.
  The second argument the pharmaceutical industry raises is they say 
this will endanger research and development. Today the American 
taxpayers fund the National Institutes of Health for $27 billion. They 
also fund research at the pharmaceutical industry with a tax credit for 
R&D.
  There is not a single cancer drug or major AIDS drug or drug dealing 
with diabetes that has not been developed without taxpayer-funded 
research. The American people pay for the research on the front end, 
and they pay the most expensive prices on the back end. That is a 
system we have created. It is working for the pharmaceutical industry, 
and it is time we changed the law so it works on behalf of the American 
people.
  Today our legislation is in conference on the prescription drug bill. 
We are thinking about a $400 billion expansion of an entitlement, the 
largest expansion of an entitlement program in over 40 years, and I 
think we owe the taxpayers of this country, if we are about to go spend 
$400 billion of their money, we owe them the decency to get them the 
best price, not the most expensive price.
  Today, all we can guarantee is 20-year-old legislation on generics 
that guarantees that generics are held off the market, which would save 
our seniors money. We guarantee the pharmaceutical companies tax credit 
R&D as well as the National Institutes of Health funding, so the 
taxpayers pay for all the research, and we guarantee that the Americans 
pay the highest price for the prescription drugs.
  There is a reason the pharmaceutical industry has paid $28 million to 
try to defeat the legislation, because they have got a good thing going 
here and they do not want to change it; because they have got taxpayers 
funding the research on the front end, and they have got Americans 
paying the most expensive prices on the back end.
  So we have a chance to change that system. We have a chance to bring 
competition and choice to bear on the market, and the pharmaceutical 
industry will try to live under the free market, like every other 
industry. Right now, they have a closed market, and the end result of 
it is the American people are paying the highest prices.
  We can make a difference here. We did it in the House. We now need 
our colleagues in the other Chamber to do better and join us in giving 
a voice to the 71 percent of Americans who said they too want the 
choice of the free market. No more continuation of this closed market, 
forcing Americans to pay the highest prices.
  Over the summer, the reputable group called the AARP, that speaks for 
34 million seniors, endorsed this legislation. Today their seniors, who 
are members of the AARP, who buy their pharmaceutical products in 
Canada, get reimbursed from United Health Insurance that represents the 
AARP members.
  Now, do you really believe the AARP would be endangering the health 
of their members? There is a reason they did this: because the market 
is speaking. They pay 25 to 30 percent less in Canada than we here in 
the United States for the same drugs.

                          ____________________