Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, Americans deserve Continued access to safe and effective drugs which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. A number of recent reports demonstrate that serious problems exist with products from other countries. The New York Times ran a front-page story yesterday about how counterfeit drugs contaminated with an industrial solvent have poisoned hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world. The toxic syrup has been involved in at least eight mass poisonings around the world in the past two decades, and researchers estimate thousands have died as a result. Most recently an epidemic of contaminated cough syrup was traced back to counterfeit medication from China. The FDA last week issued a warning to U.S. consumers to be especially vigilant because of the risk of the poison reaching the United States. The New York Times article is entitled ``From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine.'' Counterfeit products, those that have been tampered with, or those of unknown origin, should not be brought into this country. The amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota will put in jeopardy the process we now have to ensure the safety of prescription medications and protect the health of the American people. I have offered a second degree amendment, with bipartisan support, that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the importation of drug products will not pose additional risks to Americans and will indeed lower costs to consumers. We have had this issue before the Senate on several previous occasions. In all of these cases, the Senate has adopted this certification amendment overwhelmingly. Safeguards continue to be necessary and are even more important now considering the terrorist threats we face. I urge the Senate to again support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New York Times article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, point of order: What is the order?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor to urge the Senate not to invoke cloture. This is a very serious amendment the Senator from North Dakota has proffered and is being considered by the Senate, and it should attract the attention and careful review of all Senators. I noticed in the Washington Post, in an article on Thursday, May 3, the editorial writer says--of the amendment the Senator from North Dakota has offered, which ``would allow the importation of prescription drugs from other countries,'' which he claims and other supporters claim ``would let cut-rate pharmaceuticals flow into the United States'' allegedly ``saving ailing Americans untold amounts of money.'' But here is the catch, and I quote from the editorial: This is a mirage; importation will not solve the problem of drug pricing. U.S. drug firms sell prescription medications to countries such as Canada at low prices, a situation that would quickly change if Canadian distributors started to recycle large quantities of drugs back to the United States. Another fact in this debate that should not be overlooked is that President Bush has threatened to veto the bill if it contains this language. So to achieve our goal of helping to ensure safe and unadulterated prescription drugs marketed in the United States are safe, we need to have the Federal agencies that have the responsibility of assuring that safety to be in charge of certifying that. So I have offered an amendment to the Dorgan amendment--if cloture is invoked, it will be subject to consideration--that says unless the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Health and Human Services can certify and vouch for the safety and efficacy of imported drugs, this amendment would not be operative. And we have been told by administration officials they cannot make that certification. They do try. We all try to help by working together to ensure that what the consumers are buying is what the labels on the drugs say they are. But we have seen in recent years a growing threat from counterfeit drugs that are made in other countries--not Canada necessarily but other countries--which could be transshipped through Canada or could be mailed directly to purchasers in the United States that aren't what they say they are. Some are even dangerous. Some contain nothing at all--nothing that is effective to do what the drug is supposed to do. So we are already confronted with a serious problem. This is going to make it much worse and exceedingly difficult for those who are charged with certifying the efficacies of drugs, protecting our citizens from dangerous drugs, counterfeit drugs, to do their job. This is going to make it much more difficult. This is not the first time the Senate has been asked to make a decision on this amendment or amendments similar to it. On three different occasions the Senate has, without objection, or on a vote-- one vote was 99 to nothing--rejected this amendment. There have been votes that have been closer. Recently, I think Senators have gotten the message this is not an amendment that is going to achieve the goals that the proponents who are offering it say it will. There will be some cheaper drugs coming into the country--but maybe temporarily--for the reasons that have been pointed out by others and in the Washington Post editorial this morning. So I am hopeful Senators will carefully look at the situation we face. The intent, of course, is certainly laudable, but we have an overriding responsibility to make sure medications purchased by American citizens in the United States are safe and that those are decisions made by the regulators and the inspectors in the United States who have the responsibility of making those decisions. So I am hopeful the Senate will not vote to invoke cloture. If it does, we will talk a little more about the situation. But up until that point, I hope Senators will review the history of the Senate on this subject and vote against the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article I referred to from the washingtonpost.com be printed in the Record, and I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his excellent statement. We urge the Senate to reject this motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is to S. 1082. I propose this amendment in my behalf and in behalf of Senators Carper, Nelson of Nebraska, Hatch, Bennett, Enzi, Burr, and Menendez. I ask the amendment be stated or reported.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Dorgan-Snowe bill, pending before the Senate as an amendment, eliminates language from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that allows importation to take effect only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can demonstrate to Congress that it will pose no additional risk to the public health and result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer. The amendment I have offered to the Dorgan-Snowe bill would restore this language. The Senate has overwhelmingly voted on three occasions to include a safety and savings certification provision in prescription drug importation legislation for the purpose of protecting the public health. Following passage of the safety and savings certification requirement, no Secretary of HHS, Democrat or Republican, has been able to demonstrate that importation is safe or will lead to cost savings. Both Secretary Shalala in the Clinton administration and Secretary Thompson in the Bush administration could not demonstrate that importation poses no additional risk to public health or would lead to significant cost savings. Back in 2000, Secretary Shalala concluded it was ``impossible . . . to demonstrate that it [importation] is safe and cost effective.'' Secretary Thompson reached a similar conclusion in the next year, 2001, by saying he could not ``sacrifice public safety for uncertain and speculative cost savings.'' The Dorgan-Snowe bill contains numerous provisions that would expose Americans to harmful or adulterated imported drugs--could expose. In particular, the bill permits the importation of drugs that originate in such countries as Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Greece, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. These are outside the control of the manufacturers and outside of the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. The bill also permits the importation of drugs that are not FDA approved and are not equivalent to FDA-approved products. Some of the drugs that could be imported under this provision would violate Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requirements against adulteration and misbranding. Canadian law has been discussed here. It permits the transshipment of unapproved prescription drugs from any country in the world through its borders to the United States. These shipments move across borders, free from examination from Canadian regulators who have said their Government will not ensure the safety and effectiveness of exported drugs. The FDA and Customs officials have seized counterfeit drugs entering the United States from alleged Canadian pharmacies that are established for the purpose of permitting transshipments from other countries outside of Canada into the United States. These places where the drugs have originated include countries such as India, Pakistan, China, and Thailand. If my amendment is not adopted, the underlying bill, as amended by the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, would permit transshipment and severely restrict the ability of border officials to stop suspected drug shipments entering the United States. My amendment would not allow importation to begin unless these safety concerns are resolved and the Government can assure the American public that imported drugs will not endanger their health. There is no guarantee that American consumers will experience reductions in their prescription drug costs if the Dorgan bill takes effect, because middlemen have shown they may keep the savings. The amendment I have offered ensures that consumers would benefit from importation before weakening consumer protections against potentially unsafe drugs. In conclusion, the Dorgan bill requires the FDA to allow importation from Canada within 90 days of enactment, whether the FDA has had time to set up an appropriate regulatory framework or not. In addition, the bill places an arbitrary cap on user fees collected to oversee the importation system. My amendment would ensure that an importation program would take effect only after a regulatory system has been put in place to protect American consumers. I hope the Senate will approve my amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, I will seek to define in more specific terms exactly what the Dorgan-Snowe prescription drug amendment does. Before proceeding to that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1010.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am advised that the FDA has said it could not put a regulatory framework in effect to guarantee what my amendment insists it should guarantee; that is, the effectiveness of the drug, the fact that there will likely be savings that will result for American consumers if the Dorgan amendment is adopted.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to require, before importation can be undertaken, a certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Food and Drug Administration that the importation of the drugs will indeed have an economic benefit to the consumers who buy those drugs and that they are safe and not harmful for human consumption. We have had discussions over the last several years, really, with administration officials who have been very concerned that the importation of drugs that would be permitted by the Dorgan amendment needs to be balanced by the interest we have in protecting the integrity of the marketplace so no counterfeit drugs are imported, creating the impression that they are something that they are not. This is a very real problem. I recall having meetings here in the Senate with members of the committees with jurisdiction, learning about the growing problem and the continuing increase in instances where postal inspectors and others who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing our laws and protecting American consumers are finding that drugs which are manufactured in other countries--not Canada necessarily but in India, in Asia, in South America--are counterfeit. They look like the real thing. The labels look like the legitimate and ordinary labels you see on the drugs being purchased, but they are not what they say they are. This is a very difficult issue to deal with. What we are asking in this amendment is that the Senate insist that if drugs are going to be imported, then there has to be a certification by the FDA or the Department of Health and Human Services that they are safe for human consumption, that they have not been tampered with, and that they are not counterfeit. I hope the Senate will approve this amendment to the Dorgan amendment. I don't know of anything else to say. I submitted, in earlier comments, a washingtonpost.com article, which is printed in the Record now, which supports this effort and talks about the importance of certification to the consuming public. We have a lot of information. We will be happy to discuss the details with any Senator who is undecided about approving this amendment, but I hope the Senate can adopt this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, these conditions contained in this amendment are the same as those the Senate has previously adopted on other occasions on other bills. I urge the Senate to again support this language and approve this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment for myself, as well as for these cosponsors: Mr. Carper, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Menendez. This is an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Dorgan. Improving the health and quality of life for Americans is very important to all of us, and access to safe and effective prescription drugs is a major step in accomplishing these goals. With recent scientific advances, a number of medical therapies have been made available to treat and, in some cases, to cure diseases. We want Americans to continue to have access to safe and effective drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But we must not create opportunities for potentially dangerous drug products from foreign countries to reach the American consumer. For example, counterfeit products, those that have been tampered with or those of unknown origin, should not be brought into this country. I am concerned that allowing the importation of prescription drugs would allow such risks to become more likely. The amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota will put in jeopardy the process we now have to ensure the safety of prescription medications and protect the health of the American people. I am offering this second-degree amendment to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the importation of drug products will not pose additional risks to Americans and will, indeed, lower costs to consumers. If, as some argue, a policy of importation is safe and will reduce costs, this amendment should not be a problem. We have debated this issue before on several previous occasions. For example, during the consideration of annual appropriations bills for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies, when considering the Greater Access to Pharmaceuticals Act, and even during the debate and passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, a similar amendment to require the safety of imported drugs was considered and unanimously approved each time. In all these instances, the Senate has adopted this amendment by a unanimous vote. The safety of the American consumer must be our No. 1 priority. These safeguards should also be applied to this proposal. We should be certain that any change we make in the law does not result in less protection in terms of the safety of the drugs supplied to the American people and will, indeed, make prescription drugs more affordable. Liberalization of protections that are designed to keep unsafe drugs out of this country, especially considering the terrorist threats we face now, should occur only if the necessary safeguards are in place. This amendment will ensure that the concerns of the last two administrations regarding safety and cost-effectiveness are addressed prior to the implementation of this proposal. Counterfeiting of drugs has become a more common practice throughout the world, and the transshipment of these counterfeit products through Canada is one of the most serious dangers we face. The Canadian Government itself has said that drug products shipped to Canada for resale in other countries do not fall under the Canadian regulatory system, and they can provide no assurance as to the safety or authenticity of such drugs. In fact, President Bush yesterday released a Statement of Administration Policy strongly opposing any provision that allows the importation of drug products outside the current safety system of the Food and Drug Administration. The statement declares that the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if this provision is included. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this conference report is the wrong response to the President's request for the supplemental funding that is urgently needed by the Department of Defense. While most of the funds--over $109 billion--are appropriated to wage the global war on terrorism, to continue operations in Afghanistan, and to support Iraqi security forces, the conference report also includes funding for continuing the recovery from Hurricane Katrina and ensuring that our veterans receive the care they deserve. I am very disappointed this bill includes language that sets forth a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We should be providing the President with a bill he can sign so our military forces can receive the funding they now need. I recently brought to the attention of the Senate a letter I received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on April 2 describing the urgency of an appropriations bill and their concerns about further delays of funding. It has been now over 3 weeks since that letter was received. It is very clear that delay is occurring, and it is undermining the ability to manage the responsibilities of the Department of Defense. We are talking about life-and-death situations and the ability to obtain equipment, armaments, and the training that is necessary by our Armed Forces to carry out their mission. The Joint Chiefs pointed this out in their letter: Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations. In addition, they stated: These restrictions increase the burden on servicemembers and their families during this time of war. I cannot support this effort to dictate the management of this very serious threat to our Nation's security interests. The opponents of the President's efforts to win the battle against the terrorists should not be permitted to hijack this supplemental appropriations bill. The responsible thing for us to do is to send this conference report to the President so he can veto it. We can then revise it so it can be enacted without the offensive language.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to come to the floor and urge the Senate to expedite the consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill that is now in conference between House and Senate members on the Appropriations Committee. This supplemental request for funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has been pending now for way too long, without action to send this bill to the President for his signature. Over 2 weeks ago, I received a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlining the urgency of this appropriations bill. I am going to read a couple of excerpts from that letter now: With the increasing pace of operations and material needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, we ask that the Congress expeditiously complete its work on the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental. Timely receipt of this funding is critical to military readiness and force generation as we prosecute the war on terror. Given the current status of this legislation, we are particularly concerned that funding could be significantly delayed. It is very clear that delay is occurring, and it is a serious matter. We are talking about life-and-death situations, the ability to furnish the equipment, the weaponry, the training that is necessary for our Armed Forces to carry out their mission. This is not a time to play politics with the well-being of troops in the field. I am afraid that is what we are witnessing. I do not have any particular problem with the Senate and House members of our conference committee seriously engaging in a discussion of our differences and resolving those and submitting a final conference report as soon as possible. I urge that is what we do. But we are seeing more and more delay. That is just not justified under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. In this letter I received the other day, here is another thing that is pointed out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations. The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. We will have to implement spending restrictions and reprogram billions of dollars. Reprogramming is a short-term, cost- inefficient solution that wastes our limited resources. Spending restrictions will delay and disrupt our follow-on forces as they prepare for war, possibly compromising future readiness and strategic agility. Furthermore, these restrictions increase the burden on servicemembers and their families during this time of war. I do not know how the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those who are working closely with him in this very difficult period could be more clear about the importance of action now on this supplemental appropriations bill. I am not going to belabor the point, but I think for us to continue to engage in who is going to win this political struggle about deadlines, forced redeployments from Iraq and Afghanistan, suspension of activities of this kind or the other, and who is in charge, it makes the world wonder whether our Nation is competent to deal with an emergency that threatens the very security of our country. I know when I came to Congress, you would hear it said that partisan politics should stop at the water's edge, that whatever is going on in other parts of the world that affects our security, our economic well- being, threatens us all as a nation, Democrats, Republicans, young and old, the military, and the civilian leaders of our country--we are all in this together. We need to work out our differences and resolve them somehow. Let's look to compromise that is fair, that carries out the intent as expressed in these bills by those who have supported and passed an appropriations bill in the Senate and one in the House. Let's resolve the differences. That is what we are waiting on. And do you know what. The conference committee has not even met. There has been no meeting of the conferees on the part of the House or the Senate to discuss the differences. Now, that is inexcusable, and I lay that at the feet of the leadership of the Senate and the House. We are all in this together. I am not saying just the Democratic leadership or the Republican leadership, but we as Members ought to call on our leaders now. Let's end this logjam. Let's end this confrontation and the political grandstanding that is going on on the part of some. I think we need to immediately move to conference. Let's work on these bills. Let's get them resolved in a conference report that the President can sign. We are talking about a supplemental appropriations bill for our military forces. There have been other things added in both the Senate and the House. Well, that is not unusual. That happens. What we can agree on, let's agree on and send it to the President. But let's stop the delay, the procrastination, the finger-pointing, the political accusations that the President does not have the interests of the country at heart--whatever is being said in so many words. It is a political attack against the President. This is not the time for partisan politics. This is the time for the Senate and the House to get together, resolve our differences, and move on, support our troops, and protect our national security interests. That is what this bill does. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter signed by Peter J. Schoomaker, General, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff; Michael G. Mullen, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations; T. Michael Moseley, General, U.S. Air Force, Chief of Staff; James T. Conway, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time available on this side. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, how much time remains to this side of the aisle under the order?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here to hear the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my good friend, and to join with others who have honored and paid tribute to Senator Stevens on the occasion of his reaching a milestone where he has served in the Senate longer than any other Republican Member in history. I had the privilege, when I was a new Member of the House of Representatives after my election in 1972, to observe Senator Stevens as he worked with Howard Baker as the Republican leaders of the Senate and to come to respect him and know him and then to join the Senate body after the election of 1978. He has been a mentor and a dear friend throughout my career in the Senate, and I can say one could have no greater fortune than to serve in the presence of Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens and others who were the true leaders of the Senate when I was a new Member. I have come to appreciate and respect them more as time has gone on. I recall Senator Stevens becoming chairman, after Senator Byrd had served as chairman, of the Appropriations Committee. It was my good fortune to become a member of that committee after only 2 years in the Senate. I have appreciated the opportunity to work closely with him ever since. Senator Stevens, of course, was our President pro tempore. I don't recall a more diligent and hard-working President pro tempore than was Senator Stevens. He had some big shoes to fill: Strom Thurmond, Jim Eastland from my State of Mississippi, and Senator Byrd; and all were dutiful. I recall Senator Stevens personally being there every morning to open the Senate, usually a duty delegated to others; and he probably presided personally over the Senate as much as any person who has occupied that position of responsibility. To be here today and to hear Dan Inouye talk about his early recollections of their service together in the Senate, and other Senators who have spoken on this special occasion in the life of our Senate, has made me happy to be here and to be able to observe and appreciate this day in the history of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Tom Gary of Greenwood, MS, for his distinguished service during the past year as president of the Delta Council. Delta Council is an economic development organization representing the business, professional, and agricultural leadership of the 18 delta and part-delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Delta Council was organized in 1935 to help meet the challenges which confronted this region of our State. A major concern of the Mississippi Delta was the impact of Mississippi River and tributary flooding. Flood protection and drainage have severely challenged the delta region throughout its history. This is an area of concern where Tom Gary has distinguished himself as a leader. Tom took the leadership of the Delta Council Flood Control Committee following a serious delta flood in 1991 and led the effort to accelerate construction and completion of all Yazoo Basin projects. The 1991 flood inundated more than 1.1 million acres in 15 delta towns; and it seriously damaged schools, roads, public facilities and cropland. After Gary's term as Flood Control Committee chairman, cities such as Greenville, the largest town in north Mississippi, received benefits that will provide 100-year flood protection. Tom serves as vice president of Delta Wildlife, chairman of the Leflore County Farm Service Agency Committee, commissioner and treasurer of the Leflore County Soil and Water Conservation Commission, director of the Business and Industry Political Education Committee and as the Cotton Board director of Farmers Supply Cooperative. He was also appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Cotton Board. Through his work with Delta Council, Tom has become a strong advocate and effective leader in advancing Delta Council's mission in adult literacy, the fight against critical teacher shortages in the primary and secondary school system, improved access to health care, and in transportation developments which are so vital to the delta region. I congratulate Tom Gary and his wife Moxie for the contribution they have made to the delta through their service in Delta Council during the past year.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.