THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   I hope as we proceed we will keep that goal in mind. Let's finish this bill today. I hope we can have third reading at about 6 o'clock. I do not see any reason why we cannot.

   There are some Senators who want to offer amendments. We want to hear them. We want to consider them and consider them fully and fairly, but it should not take an unnecessarily long amount of time to do that. So I encourage the Senate to act with dispatch, deliberation, but all deliberate speed. That is a Supreme Court phrase that has been used from time to time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with my distinguished chairman and also the ranking member on the amendment they have proposed. This amendment is worded in such a way as to prevent the proposal from ever taking effect because they know it will be impossible, certainly so difficult as to be unworkable, to prove prospectively that all savings will be passed on to the patients. There is no way that can happen. This is just in there to clean this bill up. I strongly oppose this amendment.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the legislation offered by the Senator from Vermont. But before I speak on that let me just mention to the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin who have brought this bill to the floor, I am a member of their subcommittee on appropriations. I certainly respect the work they have done. They do an outstanding job, they and their staffs, putting together the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is not an easy bill to construct and to bring to the floor.

   One amendment that I will offer at a later time will deal with the disaster now facing farmers who have flooded lands and especially those farmers whose crops are burning up day after day in the deep South.

   Last Friday morning, as we were taking a series of votes, I talked with Senator COVERDELL. He and I were prepared to offer an amendment to assist farmers dealing with flooded lands in my part of the country and drought-stricken lands in Georgia. Georgia is the hardest hit State with drought

[Page: S7196]  GPO's PDF

   I will save further discussion of this problem for a later time in this debate.

   With regard to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, I strongly support this amendment. Several bills have been introduced in Congress on this subject. I introduced a piece of similar legislation along with Senator WELLSTONE and Senator SNOWE. I am also pleased to join as a cosponsor of the legislation authored by the Senator from Vermont.

   All of these bills relate to the same issue. That issue is very important and one we should address. The reason it is being addressed here and now is that the House of Representatives has already addressed it on its Agriculture appropriations bill, and it is important that the Senate also weigh in on this issue. The Senator from Vermont certainly has a right, and is protected with respect to germaneness, to offer this amendment to this bill.

   Let me describe the issue before us in terms that people can better understand, using a couple of different medicines as examples.

   I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use these medicine bottles in my presentation.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DORGAN. I have here bottles of 3 different prescription drugs that are ranked among the top 20 in the United States in the number of prescriptions filled and sales volume. All of these drugs, incidentally, are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

   I have here the actual bottles for these medicines. This one happens to be Zoloft, which is used to treat depression. The company that produces these pills and puts them in different size bottles then sells them all around the world. It is exactly the same medicine produced by the same company, sold in different places. Buy it, for example, in Emerson, Canada, and you will pay $1.28 for a pill. Buy it 5 miles south of there in Pembina, ND, and you will not pay $1.28 for the same pill. Instead you will pay $2.34. It is the same pill in the same bottle, made by the same company in the same manufacturing plant. The only thing different is the price. The pill costs $1.28 in Canada, and $2.34 for an American consumer.

   Or what about Zocor? Zocor is a very popular prescription drug. Pick up any Newsweek or Time magazine and see the multipage ads for this drug. I have here two bottles of Zocor made by the same company, with the identical manufacturing process. One bottle is sent to Canada where it costs $1.82 per tablet; the other is sent to a U.S. consumer who is charged $3.82: $1.82 for someone living in Winnipeg, $3.82 for someone living in Montpelier.

   Norvasc is a prescription drug that is used to lower blood pressure. The bottles are almost identical--again, both bottles

   are by the same manufacturer, and contain the same pill. Norvasc costs the Canadian consumer 90 cents. It costs the U.S. consumer $1.25 per pill.

   Or to look at this price disparity another way, the cost of a 1-month supply of Zocor--the same pill, by the same company, in the same bottle--is $54 when it is sent to a Canadian. When it is sent to an American, it costs $114.

   Or Zoloft--again the same pill, by the same company, made in the same manufacturing plant--costs the Canadian $38 for a 1-month supply; the American pays $70.

   Norvasc costs Canadians $27 for a one month supply and the same quantity costs Americans $37. I can show you medicine where the price inequity is 10 to 1.

   The question our constituents in the States of Vermont, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Washington ask is: How can this be justified? This is the same product. If this is a global economy, why must I go to Canada to try to buy a prescription drug that was manufactured in the United States in the first place in order to buy it for half the price? That is what Americans all across this country are asking.

   The companies that produce these medicines are able to access all of the ingredients they need to produce prescription drugs from all around the world in order to get the lowest prices. If the pharmaceutical manufacturers are able to benefit from the global economy, why then can the consumer not also access that same drug made in a plant approved by the FDA when it is being sold in Winnipeg for half the price?

   What is the answer to that? Many of us believe American consumers should be able to also benefit from the global economy. My colleague from the State of Washington, Mr. GORTON, has sponsored his own legislation to address this issue and he is also a cosponsor of this amendment. All of us have to respond to our constituents.

   This is not just a Canada-United States issue. Americans pay higher prices than anywhere else in the world. How much more do we pay? If Americans pay an average of $1 for a pharmaceutical product, that same product has a much lower average cost in every other industrialized nation. We pay $1; the Canadians pay 64 cents. We pay $1; the English pay 65 cents. We pay $1; the Swedes pay 68 cents. We pay $1; the Italians pay 51 cents. We are charged the highest prices for prescription drugs of any country in the world. The American people ask the question: Why?

   Senior citizens are 12 percent of our population, but they consume one-third of the prescription drugs in America. I come from a State with a lot of senior citizens. They have reached the years of their lives where, in most cases, they are no longer working and are living on a fixed income. Last year, they saw, as all Americans did, prescription drug spending in this country go up 16 percent in 1 year. Part of that is price inflation, part is driven by increased utilization. Nonetheless, older Americans saw a 16-percent increase in prescription drug spending in this country in 1 year.

   Those of us who have held hearings on this issue and who have heard from senior citizens know what they say. They tell us they are forced to go to the back of the grocery store first, where the pharmacy is, to buy their prescription medicines because only then will they know how much money they have left to pay for food. Only then will they know whether they are going to get to eat after they have purchased their prescription drugs.

   This is an issue for all Americans, not just senior citizens, but it is an especially acute problem for senior citizens.

   In January on one cold, snowy day, I traveled with a group of North Dakota senior citizens to Emerson, Canada.

   First we visited the doctor's office--because it is required in Canada--where the North Dakotans who wanted to buy prescription drugs in the Canadian pharmacy showed the doctor their prescription from a U.S. doctor, and the Canadian doctor wrote a prescription for them. Then we went to a very small, one-room pharmacy just off the main street of Emerson, Canada, a tiny little town of not more than 300 or 400 people. Emerson is 5 miles north of the North Dakota border.

   I stood in that pharmacy and I watched the North Dakota senior citizens purchase their prescription drugs, and I saw how much money they were saving on the prescription drugs they were buying.

   As is often the case, senior citizens will take 2, 3, 4, or 8 different prescription drugs. It is not at all unusual to see that.

   I watched these North Dakotans compare what they were paying in the United States to what they were paying at this little one-room pharmacy in Emerson, Canada. It was staggering.

   They asked me the question: Why do we have to come to Canada to do this? Why can't our pharmacists come up here and access this same supply of drugs and pass the savings along to us?

   The answer is that there is a Federal law in this country that says that only the manufacturer can import prescription drugs into the United States.

   The amendment we are considering, offered by the Senator from Vermont,

[Page: S7197]  GPO's PDF

   But he does propose that we amend that law and replace it with a system that assures the safety of the medicine supply, while allowing pharmacists and drug wholesalers to go to Canada and go to other countries and access that same prescription drug, provided that it was produced in a plant that was approved by the FDA. This amendment assures not only the safety of the manufacturing process but also the chain of custody of the supply. In this way we will allow U.S. consumers the full flow and benefit of the global economy.

   Why can't American pharmacists and drug wholesalers shop globally for prescription drugs, provided it is the same pill, put in the same bottle, manufactured by the same company in a plant that is approved by the FDA?

   The answer is that they ought to be able to do that. There is no excuse any longer for preventing them from doing that.

   Zocor, Prilosec, Zoloft, Vasotec, Norvasc, Cardizem--you can go right on down the list of the medicines most frequently used by senior citizens and compare what they cost here with what they cost in Canada and Mexico. Then ask the question: Why? Why are we in America charged so much more for the identical prescription drug?

   The answer is simple: It is because the big drug companies can do it here. The pharmaceutical industry charges what the market will bear in the United States. The U.S. consumers are prevented from being a global consumer.

   Let me say this about the pharmaceutical industry. I want them to do well. I support them on a range of things. I want them to be profitable, and I want them to be able to do substantial research . I do not wish them ill. I applaud them and thank them for the research they do to create lifesaving, miracle drugs. They only do part of the research , of course. A substantial part is also done through the National Institutes of Health, through publicly funded research . And we are dramatically increasing our investment in NIH.

   But some will say to the Senator from Vermont: What you are doing will dramatically reduce research and development by the drug companies. These prices are what support research and development .

   Hogwash. Nonsense. The fact is, a larger percentage of the

   research and development is done by the drug companies in Europe than is done in the United States. Let me say that again. More research and development is done in Europe than in the United States. And that comes from the pharmaceutical industry's own figures.

   Take a look at the billions and billions of dollars the drug industry spends on promotion and compare that to what they spend on research and development .

   In fact, if you pick up a weekly magazine, such as Newsweek, you will see the multipage ads for prescription medicine. They are spending billions of dollars on direct-to-consumer advertising. They are going directly to the consumer and saying: We want you to go to your doctor to demand that he or she write a prescription for this medication for you.

   That just started a few years ago. It is now rampant. Doctors will tell you that patients come to their offices, saying: I read about this medicine in an ad in Newsweek. I want you to prescribe that. That is what is happening.

   Billions of dollars are spent to try to induce consumers to demand medicine that can only be given to them by a doctor who believes it is necessary.

   While all of this is going on, the Senator from Vermont offers a piece of legislation that I fully support. If I were writing the legislation offered by the Senator from Vermont, I would prefer that it not leave out the provision that allows personal use importation. I hope at some point we can allow for that.

   But I just say this. I know that literally $60 or $70 million has been spent by the pharmaceutical industry because it is scared stiff that we are going to pass this legislation.

   In fact, in the Washington Post the pharmaceutical industry has been running a full-page ad for the last several days. I do not know what a full-page ad costs in the Washington Post, but I know it is not cheap. How many citizens, who support our bill, have the ability to go to the Washington Post and buy a full-page ad?

   This full-page ad is just totally bogus. It says: One of these pills is a counterfeit. Can you guess which one? Congress is about to permit wholesale importation of drugs from Mexico and Canada. The personal health of American consumers is unquestionably at risk. Counterfeit prescription drugs will inevitably make their way across our borders and into our medicine cabinets. Counterfeit prescription drugs can kill. Counterfeit prescription drugs have killed.

   This is from the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to scare people into believing the legislation that we are now debating is somehow bad for our country's consumers. That is totally bogus. We are proposing an amendment that assures the safety of the drug supply but finally assures the American consumer that they can access drugs that are priced reasonably.

   If someone in another country is paying half the price or a third or a tenth of the price being charged the American consumer for the same drug that is produced in a manufacturing plant approved by the FDA, why can't the American consumer have access to those drugs in a global economy?

   The answer is: They ought to be able to do it.

   Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.

   Mr. JOHNSON. I commend the Senator for his work and commend Senator JEFFORDS for his work on this issue. In relation to the advertisement in the Washington Post, I wonder if the Senator from North Dakota would share with us the sponsor of that advertisement as it appears on the ad?

   Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The sponsor is Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The drug industry obviously wants to keep things as they are.

   Let me just make one additional point. It is not my intention to have the American people go to another country for their prescription drugs. It is my intention to force the pharmaceutical industry to reprice their drugs here in the United States. If our pharmacists and our drug wholesalers are able to access the same drugs at a much lesser price in Canada or England or elsewhere, and bring them back and sell them at a savings to our consumers, it will force the industry to reprice their drugs in this country.

   That is my goal. It is not my goal to put people in minivans and send them outside this country to access prescription drugs. I want pressures brought through the global economy to equalize prescription drug prices in this country vis-a-vis what they are being sold at in other countries.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

   Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, let's paint a picture, or set the stage, for this debate.

   Most of the research and development and manufacture of prescription drugs goes on here in the United States, in a highly constructive fashion. Drug companies, and their research and development staffs, here in this country experiment and work, literally for years, to develop new and effective prescription drugs.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents