Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. They both contained Lipitor that is made in Ireland by an American corporation. They have different colored labels, but they are made in the same plant, FDA approved, and they are sent to different places--this one to Canada and this one to the United States. But we have the privilege of paying triple the price. Sound fair? Not to me it doesn't. Here is a sample. Boniva, for osteoporosis, is up 18 percent this year. Singulair, for asthma, is up 12 percent. Enbrel, for arthritis, is up 12 percent. Here is Plavix--the list goes on. The question is, Is there something we ought to do about this or should we say let's pass health care reform and ignore what is happening to the price of prescription drugs? This amendment I offered, along with Senators McCain and Grassley and other colleagues on this side--30 cosponsors--is all about freedom for the American people. If this is a global economy, how about giving the American people the freedom to access identical prescription drugs, which we know are identical because we require safety if it doesn't even exist in our own supply. Those who talk about safety, I remind them 40 percent of the active ingredients in prescription drugs of the United States come from India and China--from places that have never been inspected. The Wall Street Journal did terrific expose about this. There were over 60 people who died from Heparin in this country. It was contaminated. Here is where they were making it. This picture was in the investigation. Here is a rusty old pot being stirred with a limb from a tree. Those are active ingredients for American drugs. This guy is working with pig intestines--guts from a hog. This old man here, with a wooden stick--it looks unsanitary doesn't it? That is the source of Heparin. These are the photographs by the Wall Street Journal investigative reporter. They are telling us FDA-approved drugs coming from other countries, with a chain of custody identical to ours, would pose some sort of threat. Are you kidding? You can make that charge without laughing out loud? Let's talk about the existing drug supply for a moment. This is a young man named Tim Fagan. He was a victim of counterfeit domestic drugs in this country--not imported FDA-approved drugs. Do you know where this guy's drug came from? Here is the report done on that. It is made by Amgen. It went through all these places. It ended up at a place called Playpen, which is a south Florida strip club--in a cooler in the back room of a south Florida strip club. At one point it was stored in car trunks. Finally, it was prescribed and administered to this young man named Tim Fagan. He survived, but he was getting medicine with one- twentieth the necessary strength for a serious disease that his doctor intended for him. Don't talk to me about the issue of prescription drug safety. We are talking about safety that doesn't now exist in the domestic drug supply, but safety standards are included in this amendment. Every drug should have a pedigree to track where it came from and, in every respect, between manufacture and consumption. There ought to be batch lots and tracers for every drug. There ought to be pedigree for the domestic drug supply as well. I wish to quote a former vice president of Pfizer Corporation, a prescription drug manufacturer, Dr. Peter Rost: Right now, drug companies are testifying that imported drugs are unsafe. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is from a vice president of one of the major drug companies-- ``nothing can be further from the truth.'' He was fired, to be sure. You can't say that if you are working for a drug company. Their business is to try to keep the pricing strategy the way it is. I might say, I don't have a beef with the drug industry. I have a beef with their pricing policy that says we will sell the same drug everywhere in the world at a fraction of the price we charge the American consumer. How do you make that stick? By a sweetheart deal in law that says the American consumer cannot import the drug. The Spanish can import drugs from Germany. The French can import drugs from Italy. But the American consumer is told you don't have the freedom to shop for that same FDA-approved drug--approved because the place where it is produced is inspected by the FDA, in a country with an identical chain of custody, but the U.S. consumer doesn't have the freedom to make that purchase. If I might, Dr. Peter Rost, the same guy just I quoted, said: During my time responsible for a region in northeastern Europe, I never once--not once--heard the drug industry, regulatory agencies, the government, or anyone else say this practice was unsafe, and I personally think it is outright derogatory to claim that the Americans would not be able to handle the reimportation of drugs, when the rest of the educated world can do this. Dr. Peter Rost also said: The biggest argument against reimportation is safety. What everyone has conveniently forgotten to tell you is that, in Europe, reimportation of drugs has been in place for 20 years. Hank McKinnell, a former Pfizer CEO, said: Name an industry in which competition is allowed to flourish--computers, telecommunications, small package shipping, retailing, entertainment, and I'll show you lower prices, higher quality, more innovation, and better customer service. There is nary an exception. OK, there is one. So far, the health care industry seems immune to the discipline of competition. Nowhere is that more evident with respect to pharmaceutical drugs. The question today is, Will we once again offer a prescription drug importation bill that will save consumers and the Federal Government $100 billion; that contains safety standards that do not exist even in the domestic drug supply; that will not pose risk but, in fact, reduces risk, reduces prices for the American people, provides fair pricing for American consumers? Will we be able to vote for that legislation that I and Senator McCain, Senator Grassley, Senator Stabenow, Senator Klobuchar, and so many others have brought to the floor of the Senate? The answer is, yes; we are going to vote on that. The question is, In the 7 days since I have offered this amendment, has the pharmaceutical industry been able to pry enough people away from this amendment because they are raising all kinds of issues of safety? How many votes will we get? By the way, the side-by-side amendment is a killer amendment. We will have a second vote. A lot of people will say: We will vote for the Dorgan amendment and then vote to nullify it by voting for the Lautenberg amendment. Let me read the AARP letter which was sent yesterday: On behalf of the AARP's nearly 40 million members, we urge you to support the Dorgan-Snowe importation amendment to . . . H.R. 3590, the Senate health care reform legislation. This amendment provides for the safe, legal importation of lower- priced prescription drugs from abroad. CBO has scored the amendment as saving taxpayers more than $19 billion. That is just for the Federal Government. There is much more for consumers. We also urge you to vote against an alternative importation amendment proposed by Senators Lautenberg, Carper, and Menendez. AARP strongly opposes this amendment because it includes the unnecessary addition of a certification requirement which is simply a thinly veiled effort to undermine importation and preserve the status quo of high drug prices. So there it is. We are always told this bill is a finely crafted piece; it is like embroidering with some sophisticated colors. This is a finely crafted piece and don't mess with it because if you adopt your amendment, somehow the whole thing is going to come apart. It is like pulling a thread on a cheap suit. You pull the thread and an arm falls off. God forbid anybody should adopt an amendment such as this. Here we are 7 days after I offered this amendment, and we have a circumstance where we now have a side-by-side in order to try to nullify it. We have had all kinds of dealing going on. I have not been a part of it. I don't know what the deals are. I don't know what time they were consummated. Somebody told me late last night. I am like an old Senator who served long ago. I am not part of any deal. I am not part of it. This deal is for the American people. We are going to pass some health care legislation, and then we are going to shuffle around with our hands in our pockets, maybe thumbing our suspenders, sticking out our shined shoes, and say: We did this all right. We feel really good about it, but we couldn't do a thing about prescription drug prices. We couldn't do that. We didn't have the support because the pharmaceutical industry wouldn't let us. Oh, really? Maybe at last--at long, long last--there will be sufficient friends on this vote on behalf of the American people to say: We stand with the consumer. We are standing with the American consumers today. We like the pharmaceutical industry. We want them to produce prescription drugs. We want them to make profits. We just don't want them to charge us 10 times, 5 times, 3 times, or double what is being charged others in the world for the identical prescription drug because we don't think it is fair to the American people. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me at this point yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't know whether the Senator from New Jersey has other speakers. I believe we have a couple other speakers who will be here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged against both sides.

Mr. DORGAN. I believe the quorum call will be momentary. We have people coming to speak. If not, I will take some additional time, as perhaps will the Senator from New Jersey. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged to all sides equally.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I did not speak about the letter from the Food and Drug Administration. My colleagues have described this letter, which I said could have come out of a copying machine. A similar letter has come each time we consider this legislation. It is interesting to me that we export a lot of American jobs. All kinds of jobs are leaving our country. Then we import contaminated wallboard, children's toys that kill kids. And, yes, that has happened. We import contaminated pet food and contaminated toothpaste. We import 85 percent of the seafood into this country every day--85 percent of the seafood--and 1 percent is inspected, by the way. One percent of that seafood is inspected. The rest is not. We import fruits and vegetables. I am wondering if the Food and Drug Administration is sending letters around with concern about the risk to health of fruits and vegetables and seafoods that are not inspected. In many places, these products are produced with insecticides and various things that would not be permitted in this country. I am wondering where the FDA's letter is with respect to that. I called the Food and Drug Administration. I talked with the head of the FDA. I said: I understand there are rumors around that you are going to send a letter here. This was 24 hours before the letter came. The head of the FDA said: I know nothing of such a letter. My question is, Where did the letter come from? Who prompted the letter? I think I know. I find it interesting, I don't see anybody at the FDA sending letters here about the issue of safety on fruits, vegetables, and fish. They raise the issue of safety with respect to a drug importation bill which has the most specific and the most rigorous safety standards not only for imported drugs but for the existing domestic drug supply, the kind of safety standards that the pharmaceutical industry has objected to for many years.

Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is not asking a question. I yielded to the Senator for a question. If he would truncate it, I would appreciate it.

Mr. DORGAN. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Reclaiming my time, the answer is self-evident by the question. Of course, we would benefit from stricter standards for fish, vegetables, and fruits. That was the point I was making. But what we have done with respect to importation of prescription drugs is we have included batch lots and pedigrees and tracers that do not exist in the existing drug supply. Why? The existing drug supply does not have those provisions because they have been objected to over the years by the pharmaceutical industry. We have put in place procedures that will make this safe. You cannot say the same thing about fruits, vegetables, and seafood, unfortunately. A lot of work needs to be done there. But we do not bring a bill to the floor of the Senate, a bipartisan group of legislators, a bill that would in any way injure or provide problems with respect to safety. What we do is bring to the floor of the Senate legislation that dramatically enhances the margin of safety for prescription drugs. But I understand, I understand completely. If I were trying to protect, and I were the drug industry trying to protect billions, boy, I understand the exertion of effort to try to protect that. My only point is this: I have a beef with an industry that decides they are going to overcharge the American people, in some cases 10 times more, in some cases 5, double the price that is paid in other parts of the world for the identical drug. I don't think that is fair, and I don't think we should allow it to continue. The way to prevent it is to give the American people the freedom--every European has that freedom. Let me end with how I began. For somebody to come out here and say this is about unregulated, untested drugs is absolute sheer nonsense. It is not. We do not have to debate what words mean and what words say. That is not a debate we ought to take time to have. All we have to do is read it and then represent it accurately, which has not been the case on the floor of the Senate, regrettably. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is it the case when a quorum call is requested it is equally charged?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally charged on both sides. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, some issues we deal with here in the Senate are unbelievably complicated. This one is not. This is painfully simple, the question of whether the American people should be charged and continue paying the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs--my amendment says no--from other countries in which there is a safe chain of custody that is identical to ours. The American people ought to have the freedom to shop for those lower priced FDA-approved drugs that are sold there at a fraction of the price. I especially wish to thank Senator Begich from Alaska for his work. This is bipartisan, with a broad number of Democrats and Republicans working on this importation of prescription drugs bill, giving the American people the freedom to acquire lower priced drugs. Senator Begich has been a significant part of that effort. I want to say thanks to him for his work on this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment will save $100 billion in 10 years, nearly $20 billion for the Federal Government and nearly $80 billion for the American consumers.

Mr. DORGAN. I would say to the Senator from Alaska, these prescription drugs would be able to be reimported from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the European countries that have identical chains of custody to our chain of custody so that there is safety. It is also the case that we are in politics, so the floor of the Senate is the place of a lot of tall tales. I understand that. I have been in politics for a long time.

Mr. DORGAN. But early on, one of my colleagues said this is about untested, unregulated drugs coming from, oh, parts of the Soviet Union. That is so unbelievable. It is not describing the amendment I have offered. We are talking about a chain of custody that is identical to the United States. When that is the case--if it is the case--why would the American people not have the freedom to acquire that same drug when it is sold at one-tenth the price, one-fifth, one-third, or one-half the price? Why not give the American people that freedom?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the savings is over $100 billion. Look, I want the pharmaceutical industry to do well, to make profits, to make prescription drugs. I just want fair pricing for the American people. I do not have a beef with the industry. I want them to do well. I want them, however, to give the American people a fair price because we are paying the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs, and I think it is flat out unfair. This amendment will fix that. There is a competing amendment that nullifies it, that simply says all this is going to go away and we are done with this bill and nothing has happened to put the brakes on prescription drug prices. I hope my colleagues will stand with me and with the American people saying: We support fair drug prices for the American people. That is what we are going to vote on in a few minutes. I appreciate the questions from the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this amendment is about fair pricing for prescription drugs for the American people. A colleague of mine just came up to me and said: My daughter takes Nexium. It costs her $1,000 a month. I said: I happen to have a chart about Nexium here. This illustrates better than I know how to illustrate the difference in pricing. Here is what Nexium costs: $424 worth of Nexium in the United States is sold for $40 in Great Britain, $36 in Spain, $37 in Germany, $67 in France. If you like this kind of pricing where the American people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, if you like this kind of pricing, then you ought to vote against this amendment. But this amendment is bipartisan--Republicans and Democrats. Over 30 Members of this Senate have supported this approach, saying let's provide fair pricing for a change for the American people. We should not be paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. All I ask is that you support this amendment to give the American people the opportunity for fair pricing for a change.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we have all seen this movie before. We have had these votes before. All I say is this: The pharmaceutical industry flexes its muscles and defeats an attempt for fair prescription drug prices for the American people so we can keep paying the highest prices in the world. And then there is another amendment offered that makes it seem like something is being done when, in fact, nothing is going to be done, nothing will change. Do not vote for this amendment and go home and say you have done something about the price of prescription drugs because your constituents will know better. This amendment does nothing. If you believe, at the end of the evening, we should do nothing, by all means vote for it. Don't count me in on that vote.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 15, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on December 15, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.