Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, May 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I certainly would not object, but I want to understand the time. We have a vote at 4 o'clock, I believe, which is already ordered. Would the President tell me what the time is between the two parties, how it is divided and who controls time at this point?

Mr. DORGAN. Senator Kennedy is asking for 10 minutes in morning business?

Mr. DORGAN. Might I ask to follow Senator Kennedy in morning business for 10 minutes?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will allow the Senator from Kansas, if he would prefer, to proceed for his 5 minutes, asking that I be recognized for 10 minutes following his presentation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if and when we pass the underlying bill, we will have advanced this country's interests, I believe. But if we pass this bill by adding the Cochran amendment, which effectively kills the underlying amendment on which we have now voted cloture last Thursday, dealing with the safe importation of FDA-approved drugs at a much lower price--if we kill that by agreeing to the Cochran amendment, we will have substantially diminished the opportunity to provide for drug safety. That is a fact. The underlying bill doesn't have in it what we have in the Dorgan- Snowe amendment, for which we have 33 cosponsors. We have pedigree requirements. We have serial requirements to be written on the pill bottles. We have anticounterfeiting measures. We have addressed all of those issues in the amendment. None of those requirements exist today, and none of those will exist with the domestic drug supply or with imported drugs when this legislation passes. The only way those provisions will exist is if we defeat the Cochran amendment and then pass the amendment that we have offered, allowing for the safe reimportation of prescription drugs, because we put the safety provisions in our amendment. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to show once again two bottles of Lipitor.

Mr. DORGAN. This is a prescription drug made in Ireland. It is made in Ireland. It is called Lipitor. It is for the reduction of cholesterol. It lowers your cholesterol--the same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, made in the same FDA-approved plant. It has only one difference--only one. That is, this one costs twice as much. Why? Because this one was sent to Canada and this was sent to the United States. The U.S. consumer is told: Congratulations, you get to pay twice as much for the prescription drug. But that is not unusual. It is happening all the time. Let's talk about counterfeiting. This is a $20 bill. This is a new $20 bill, you know, the ones we brag about, the ones the mint has press conferences about. We have all kinds of technology in this $20 bill to prevent and prohibit counterfeiters from reproducing this $20 bill. We can build a technology in a $20 bill to prevent counterfeiting, but we can't do it for medicine? Are you kidding me? What we have provided in this amendment is a series of steps: complete pedigree, serial numbers, RFID technology and anticounterfeiting measures. We can do it for a $20 bill but not for a bottle of medicine? Don't believe it. We are going to vote at 4 o'clock. The question is going to be: Will the pharmaceutical industry have their way once again, as they have so often? Let me make a point that is important. The Cochran amendment is already law. It was passed in 2003--in 2003. It already exists in law. The result is the Secretary of Health and Human Services says it can't be implemented because I can't certify there is no risk. The fact is the Secretary can't certify there is no risk with any new drug. He couldn't certify there is no risk with spinach coming from Mexico or strawberries coming from any other country. He couldn't certify there is no risk with any food product being imported. They can't certify there is no risk with the domestic drug supply. In fact, the domestic drug supply, without our amendment, will be dramatically less safe because you will not have the protections we put in this amendment. The pharmaceutical industry has never wanted them, and the underlying bill doesn't include them. It doesn't include the anticounterfeiting provisions. It doesn't include the pedigree, the serial requirement on the individual bottles to track back. It does not include that. That is a fact. So don't vote for the Cochran amendment and then tell people you want to allow Americans to import FDA-approved, lower priced drugs. The question is this: Should the American people be paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? The answer is, no; it is not fair. Why should that be the case, that we should pay the highest prices in the world? So we have put together a piece of legislation--bipartisan, people on both sides of the aisle, 33 cosponsors. Then we are told, well, it is unsafe to do this. It is unsafe. That is nonsense. It is not unsafe. Europe has done it for 20 years. Europe can do it, but we can't do it? It gives consumers the opportunity to take advantage of the global marketplace. We are talking about FDA-approved drugs, made in FDA-approved plants, sold all over the world with one difference--price. The American consumers are told they have to pay the highest price. Dr. David Kessler is the expert on this, in my judgment. He was FDA Commissioner for 8 years, the head of the Food and Drug Administration. The Dorgan- Snowe bill ``provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective.'' Safe and effective. End of story, in my judgment. I understand the pharmaceutical industry does not want this. I understand that. They want to control prices. Yes, we have price controls in America, not Government price controls but price controls by the pharmaceutical industry. It is the only industrialized country in the world that I am aware of that says to the drug industry: Price it as you wish. It doesn't matter. You just price it as you wish. Well, what they have done--I had a hearing. Here is what they told me. They price at the level they price prescription drugs in this country because they can. Because they can. That might sound OK for the bottom line, but what does it mean for the person walking into the grocery store tonight in a small town in the Midwest who does not have much money and has to decide--the pharmacy is at the back of the store--I better go buy the prescription drugs the doctor says I need first to find out how much money I have left for groceries? It goes on all the time. Many of us believe, Republicans and Democrats, we ought to at least open the global marketplace for consumers to be able to pursue those FDA-approved drugs, made in FDA- approved plants, at lower prices, the prices at which they are sold in virtually every other country in the world. This is unfair to the American consumer. That is the point. Interestingly, there was a long description of counterfeit drugs in the New York Times this weekend. None of that would be available to report, in my judgment, because it would not have happened if we had had the provisions, the safety provisions we have in the Dorgan-Snowe amendment. The fact is, you would not have danger in the drug supply because you would have much more money going to the FDA for the purpose of making certain the drug supply is safe. I am not just talking about the imported drugs, I am talking about a drug supply sold in this country, produced here and sold here. The lack of serial numbers, the lack of a pedigree, the lack of effective anticounterfeiting technology, the lack of resources to go after RFID technology, all of that is lacking in the underlying bill. It is not in the bill. The only way it is going to get there is if we are willing to defeat the Cochran amendment and to pass the amendment I have offered along with many of my colleagues. This is not a new issue. We have come to this issue on many occasions in the past. Each and every time the pharmaceutical industry has been able to trump us with votes on the floor of the Senate or the House. I hope--first I wish, second I hope, and finally I expect, that one of these days we will be able to prevail. One of these days we may be able to win this debate. Maybe it is today at 4 o'clock. I hope so. Some say, well, there will be no savings with your amendment. Well, the Congressional Budget Office says it is $50 billion in 10 years--$50 billion. Is that a savings? It seems to me it is. Some say, well, this would be unsafe. You cannot prevent counterfeits from coming in. Once again, we have all of this technology to prevent somebody from counterfeiting a twenty-dollar bill, but we cannot with respect to medicine? Of course we can. Europe has done it for 20 years in a manner that is safe, but we cannot because we are not as smart as they are. Nonsense. Finally, at last, at long last, I hope this Senate will stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and say this: You are a good industry. We appreciate what you do. We like lifesavings drugs. But lifesavings drugs save no lives if you cannot afford to take them. We do not support your pricing policy. We believe a pricing policy that says to the American consumer: You pay the highest prices in the world, we believe that pricing policy is wrong and you have to change it. That is what I hope the message will be in this Chamber this afternoon. It is past the time, long past the time, in my judgment, for this Congress to stand up on these issues. In this case, let's stand up on the side of the American people who have been denied their right to participate in the global economy, to access a safe supply of drugs, FDA-approved, when it is sold in every other country for lower prices. Let me conclude by pointing out, as I did last week, an old man sitting on a straw bale on a North Dakota farm told me one day, he said: I am in my eighties. My wife has fought breast cancer for 3 years. For 3 years we have driven to Canada to buy her Tamoxifen. Three years we have driven to Canada to buy the Tamoxifen. You can bring a small supply across the border if you do it personally. Why? Because it costs three-fourths less than it costs in the United States. He said: I save 80 percent by buying it in Canada. Yet for 3 years my wife has had to fight breast cancer and fight the high prices here, and we have had to drive into Canada. Well, the fact is, most Americans cannot drive to Canada. This bill is for most of the Americans who are paying prices that are too high. They want a safe drug supply, but they, for sure, finally, at long last, want a fair price, one they have not been getting, one they ought to get starting at 4 o'clock today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Am I to be recognized for 1 minute at this point?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator's point is I am entitled to 1 minute.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Cochran amendment. The Cochran amendment has been law since 2003. The Secretary cannot certify as a result of it. So it is an amendment that will void anything that is in the bipartisan legislation we have offered to try to make imported drugs, FDA-approved drugs, at a lower price available to American consumers. All Senator Cochran described would be dealt with by the safety amendments in our amendment. If his amendment prevails, none of the safety issues--pedigree, certification, anticounterfeiting--in our amendment will survive. That is the problem. If we stand with the American people who want lower drug prices--a safe drug supply, FDA approved--and believe they should not be paying the highest prices in the world, vote against the Cochran amendment and for the underlying Dorgan-Snowe amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we received the managers' amendment about 30 minutes ago and I am still reviewing some of the amendments. I object at this point.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am all for pulling or pushing the FDA into whatever century we determine at this point. I only pointed out that I wish to review some of the managers' package that deals with ginseng, baby turtles, tanning beds, and more, and I want a bit of time--and perhaps others would if they don't know these amendments exist--to take a look at the amendments.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator held up one or two charts dealing with Vioxx, a pain medicine. He is aware, I know--and I believe it was Dr. Graham from the FDA who testified--that somewhere around 50,000 to 75,000 Americans died of heart attacks as a result of that drug. I know Senator Harkin is talking about the advertising of these drugs. That was a drug that was advertised as a new generation of pain killers-- distinctly different and distinctly better. Not only was that not the case, but it turns out that it posed a very substantial risk to tens of thousands of people, in the FDA's own testimony, who died. If I might make one additional point. The Senator is raising a question I have raised on the floor in the last week or so about this issue. You turn on the television in the morning while you are brushing your teeth--if you have a little television in your bathroom--and you are minding your own business, when a commercial comes on and says: You know what you ought to be doing? You ought to go to your doctor and ask him if the purple pill would be right for you. You don't know what the purple pill is, but there is a lot of advertising saying you are somehow unworthy if you don't go to the doctor to see if the purple pill isn't right for you because life would be a lot better if you were taking the purple pill. That is the way this advertising goes. You can only get these drugs by a doctor's prescription. Yet the television set is giving us all this advertising from a pharmaceutical industry saying: You know what you need to do, you need to ask your doctor if you shouldn't be taking more prescription drugs. Maybe a green pill, maybe a purple pill, but life will be better if you would do this. The reason I wanted you to yield, is that doctors are saying that what they are finding in their offices these days is patients are coming in and the patients are saying: Here is the medicine I want because I saw it on television. Obviously, the doctors aren't happy about that because they are the ones who should be diagnosing and prescribing. I wanted to make the point that I think your presentation is right. I think there are only two countries in the world, us and New Zealand, that allow virtually unrestricted, complete public advertising on prescription drugs that can only be prescribed by doctors.

Mr. DORGAN. It is the case with this advertising that if you take this purple drug, you know, you will be riding in a convertible, perhaps through a beautiful meadow, where the Sun is shining and the birds are singing and life is wonderful. Why? Because you took the purple drug. And by the way, go ask the doctor if you shouldn't have some of this. The Senator is raising a very important question, especially about the dramatic growth in direct-to-consumer advertising about a product that can only be achieved through a prescription by a doctor.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have been trying to review the managers' package, as I indicated before. I read a number of the provisions. The one on domestic pet turtles--I looked that over. I guess I don't have an issue with that. Ginseng is all right. Tanning beds--we have a number of amendments, some small, some large, some important, some perhaps not. I have looked through them. I do think there a couple that ought to be added. I noticed in the managers' amendment that there is a note that there is additional language coming on several of them. I don't know what that would be. I suggested two additions to the managers' package that I hope will be considered. One is country-of-origin labeling with respect to prescription drugs: Any prescription drug dispensed in the United States shall affix on each dispenser or container of the prescription drug a label that includes the country in which the drug was manufactured. The reason for that is there has been an assertion here that somehow the importation of prescription drugs would be unsafe because it comes from another country. In fact, a substantial portion of our prescription drugs comes from other countries. It would probably be useful for consumers to know that. I do not suggest they know that because it is apparently unsafe, as some seem to suggest with reimportation, but nonetheless I think that would be a useful thing. The second is the Secretary shall certify prior to the approval for marketing any new prescription drug that the approval of such drug poses ``no additional risk to the public health and safety,'' which is the identical provision in the Cochran amendment dealing with reimportation of prescription drugs. I would provide the same requirement for the new prescription drugs that are approved for use in this country. These are at least, to the extent there is validity in the Cochran amendment, as judged at least by a small majority of the Members of the Senate today--to the extent there is validity in that, it seems to me there might be some use for some consistency, and the consistency would be we would want to be able to have the same approval process with respect to no substantial risk from new drugs as they are suggesting would be the case when a U.S. consumer is trying to purchase a prescription drug, FDA approved prescription drug from another country. The second, the country-of-origin labeling just makes sense to me inasmuch as every time we debate this subject, we have people implying that there is something inherently unsafe about importing a prescription drug from another country. As I have indicated time and time again, they do this routinely in Europe and have done it for 20 years. If you are in Italy and you want to buy a prescription drug in Spain or if you are in Germany and you want to buy a prescription drug in France, there is no problem. There is something called parallel trading, and you can easily, as a consumer, access the best price on that approved drug. It is just, if they can do it in Europe, we are told by our colleagues we do not have the capability or the wherewithal or the knowledge or whatever to be able to do it in our country. That, of course, I think, seriously shortchanges the ability of the American people to develop a system that the Europeans have used for 20 years, a system that would help consumers. It would allow the global economy to work for consumers. Maybe the little guy ought to have a shot at accessing the benefits of the global economy. So I think both of those amendments have merit. I would ask that those who are working on the managers' amendment consider adding these two amendments to the managers' package. I hope between now and perhaps tomorrow, over either supper or breakfast, they might have some sort of an epiphany and believe that consistency is a virtue in the Senate, and as a matter of consistency include both of these amendments in the managers' amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield myself 5 minutes from the time allotted. Mr. President, the vote that will occur at 10:30 or thereabouts is a vote that will determine whether we can proceed to have a vote on my amendment. It is called a cloture vote--to shut off debate so we can move to the amendment I have offered. I wish to remind my colleagues again of what this amendment is. This amendment is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by 33 Senators, Republicans and Democrats--Senator Grassley, who just spoke, myself, Senator Snowe, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, Senator Stabenow; a wide range of Senators, Republicans and Democrats--who believe U.S. citizens ought to be able to purchase FDA-approved prescription drugs, the identical FDA-approved drugs that are sold in other countries for a fraction of the cost of what they are sold for in this country. We believe the American people ought to be able to make the global economy work for them and ought to be able to access those same prescription drugs as long as they are in a chain of custody that makes them safe and as long as they are FDA approved. I described them yesterday, and let me, again, ask unanimous consent to describe to my colleagues these two bottles.

Mr. DORGAN. In these bottles is the medication called Lipitor. Lipitor is made in Ireland. It is a common cholesterol-lowering drug taken by a good many Americans. As you can see, when made in the plant in Ireland, it is put in these bottles--identical bottles--with a label that is blue in this case, red in this case, otherwise identical. The difference in this situation is that this blue bottle is sent to Canada from Ireland, this red bottle is sent to the United States. It is the same pill, same bottle, made in the same manufacturing plant, FDA approved. The difference? Well, the American consumer is told: You get to pay twice as much for the identical drug. You get to pay twice as much. It describes a serious problem of what I believe is the overpricing of prescription drugs in this country. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. I do not know of anyone in this Chamber who stands up and says: Let me sign up for that. Let me tell you, I think it is right, I think it is fair, and I think it is important that the American consumers pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. I do not think anybody stands up here and claims that. What they claim is, if they do not get that kind of money, they will shut down research and development, and they are forced to charge lower prices overseas because those governments overseas won't allow them to make money. Let me show you what happened a while ago. This Chamber--without my support because it was a foolish thing to do--said: Do you know what. We want to say to the biggest economic interests in our country, the biggest companies that have moved American jobs overseas and make investments overseas, we want to say to them that if you make profits overseas, we will allow you to repatriate those profits into this country, back here, and you get to pay a special tax rate. Normally, when a company repatriates its profits made elsewhere, it pays normal income tax rates. But this Congress said to them: Do you know what. We will give you a special deal, a big fat tax break. If you repatriate your foreign profits, you get to pay a 5.25-percent income tax rate. Nobody gets to pay a 5.25-percent income tax rate. I would love to pay that. Everybody else would, as well. But the biggest companies in our country got to repatriate a massive amount of money and save, I estimate, about $100 billion in taxes that should have been paid because they got a 5.25-percent sweetheart deal. So let me just turn to one drug company--Pfizer, a good company, one of the world's biggest drugmakers. This is from the New York Times of June 24, 2005. It said it would return ``$8.6 billion in overseas profits.'' So the combined repatriation of $36.9 billion--it had already announced $28.3 billion--so that makes it $36 billion they are repatriating in profits they have made overseas. The New York Times says that is four times what Pfizer spent on research and development last year. But isn't it interesting that they charge lower prices for prescription drugs in other countries, they say they do not make money in other countries, yet when they get a big fat sweetheart deal to pay a 5.25-percent income tax rate, they repatriate $36 billion. That is on the profit they made in other countries. It looks to me as if it is profitable selling these drugs at lower prices in foreign countries. So much for that argument. The price discrepancy I have indicated previously. I used Canada as an example, but I could use France, Italy, Germany, Spain--it would not matter. Lipitor, 96 percent higher prices for Americans; Prevacid, 97 percent higher prices for Americans; Nexium, 55 percent higher prices; Zocor--the fact is, we are paying the highest prices for brand-name prescription drugs in the world, and it is unfair. We are trying to change that. What we are saying is: Let's let the global economy work for everybody, not just the large pharmaceutical industry. How about allowing it to work for regular folks, to buy a safe FDA-approved prescription drug, for example, from a Canadian pharmacy. Can anybody give me one reason why a U.S.-licensed pharmacist should not be able to go to a licensed pharmacist in Winnipeg, Canada--both licensed, both with an identical chain of custody--why a U.S.-licensed pharmacist should not be able to go to a licensed pharmacist in Canada and acquire an FDA-approved drug, such as Tamoxifen, at one-fourth or one-fifth of the price charged in the United States and pass the savings along to the consumer? I am not asking for five reasons. I am asking: Can anyone give me one reason why that should be prohibited? I think the answer is that there is not a good reason why we should prohibit that sort of thing. So we will have a vote on this amendment. My hope is we will be able to invoke cloture so we will be able to proceed to the amendment. There will be a Cochran amendment to my amendment, a second degree, and then a vote on my amendment. My hope is we will be able to do that today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague is apparently going to win a debate we are not having: that this is a bill that will allow the import of prescription drugs from any country around the world. I don't know of that piece of legislation, but if it exists, I will be happy to vote against it. That is not what this amendment is. This amendment doesn't allow imported drugs from anywhere around the world at all. So I am not interested in losing a debate I am not involved in. This debate is about a piece of legislation, carefully constructed, in which we allow imported drugs from countries which have been judged to have a safe supply of drugs. Let me give an example of testimony from David Kessler. I would say if you could find an expert better on these subjects than David Kessler, I would like to hear the name. He ran the FDA for 8 years and has been identified by everybody as an outstanding FDA Commissioner. Here is what he says. The Dorgan-Snowe bill provides: A sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most notably, it provides additional resources to the agency to run such a program, oversight by the FDA of the chain of custody of imported drugs back to the FDA- inspected plants, a mechanism to review imported drugs to ensure that they meet FDA's approval standards, and the registration and oversight of importers and exporters to assure that imported drugs meet these standards and are not counterfeit. All of this discussion about counterfeit that is happening today, under today's rules, without importation. That is a specious issue. Dr. David Kessler says it provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Let me show you a chart from Dr. Rost. I mentioned earlier that they have been doing this for 20 years in Europe. Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of marketing at Pfizer, said: During my time responsible for a region in northern Europe, I never once--not once--heard the drug industry, regulatory agency, the government, or anyone else saying that this practice was unsafe-- He was talking about importation of prescription drugs. If you are in Germany and you want to bring a drug in from France, you can do it through what is called parallel trading. If you are in Spain and want to bring a drug in from Italy, you can do that. So he said not once has anybody raised the issue that this practice was unsafe. He also said: Personally, I think it is outright derogatory to claim that Americans would not be able to handle reimportation of drugs, when the rest of the educated world can do this. That is the fact. One other thing: the Congressional Budget Office says this amendment will save $50 billion in 10 years. The leading expert says there is no safety issue. We have a regime in this bill that provides for safety. So the question isn't on all of these ancillary issues--by the way, the Washington Post doesn't take on this issue with respect to safety. It says there is, in fact, a problem with drug pricing. I will read it. They don't want this passed, but the reason is they are worried it will undercut the underlying bill because the President will veto it. Here is what the President said when he was running in 2000. He was asked: What about importing drugs? The President said: Well, if it is safe, then it makes sense. Obviously, he was telling those at that debate that he thinks it makes sense if it is safe. How about consulting Dr. David Kessler, who says it is safe and effective, as we have described it in this legislation. So what the Washington Post says--because the President threatened to veto the bill--they are talking about ``importation will not solve the problem of drug pricing.'' Apparently, the Washington Post thinks there is a problem in drug pricing. What is that problem? To respond to my colleague's comments, in the first quarter of 2007 we had the largest price increase in prescription drugs in this country in 6 years. The American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, said in 2006 the price of prescription drugs rose four times the rate of inflation. There is no problem? I think there is a problem. The Washington Post says there is. The numbers show there is a problem. The question is, Are we going to solve the problem, or are we going to punt it down the road one more time? Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I regret he cannot be a supporter of cloture and the amendment. I respect and understand his position. We disagree, and I do so respectfully. I do wish to mention one thing with respect to a pilot program. Following that hearing, I did put together a pilot project and went to Tommy Thompson. I went down to his office and made a presentation of a northern plains pilot project on prescription drugs. He felt like he couldn't move forward with it. I do want to say what he said to me after he left Health and Human Services. I met him in the elevator outside the Senate Chamber one day after he left being Secretary. I badgered him a lot about the issue of reimportation. As I got off the elevator and he was getting on, we greeted each other. I liked him. I thought he was a good Health and Human Services Secretary. He said: By the way, Byron, you keep working on the imported drug issue. You are right about that. That was after he left Health and Human Services. Let me again respond with respect to David Kessler. All this talk about safety. First of all, this is where this amendment belongs, on this bill. This improves the bill. It doesn't detract from safety issues at all. It does address something not addressed in this bill, and that is a serious pricing problem with prescription drugs in our country. There is no answer to this that I have heard in all the discussion. David Kessler, head of FDA for 8 years--I think he is the expert on these issues--said: The Dorgan-Snowe bill ``provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective.'' He says they will be safe and effective. Why would someone go to some fraudulent Web site, as was discussed, or maybe go to a bad Web site, why would somebody go to a bad Web site in order to import prescription drugs if a Web site by the FDA exists that would describe where they can access these prescription drugs safely? Those are specious arguments. The Congressional Budget Office says this amendment will save $50 billion over 10 years. Why would they say that? Precisely because the Washington Post acknowledges there is a pricing problem with prescription drugs in our country. There will be a $50 billion savings over 10 years. I mentioned that in the first quarter of this year the price of prescription drugs had the largest increase in 6 years in this country. Last year, 2006, according to AARP, it rose four times the rate of inflation. There is a pricing problem with prescription drugs. The identical drug FDA approved, same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, is sent virtually every other place in the world at a lower price, and the American consumer is told: You know what, we have a special deal for you. You get to pay the highest price in the world. The question is whether this Congress will decide that special deal of the highest price in the world ought to stop. I hope this Congress will decide we are going to stand with the consumers. Yes, we are going to insist on safety, but we are going to stand with consumers. There is a pricing problem. This amendment is one way to fix that problem in a manner that is safe and effective. Finally, Mr. Rost says that for 20 years, they did this in Europe. He said: I think it is outright derogatory to claim that Americans would not be able to handle reimportation of drugs, when the rest of the educated world can do this. Of course, we can do this. Of course, we can allow someone to go to Canada and buy from a Canadian drugstore that has as safe a chain of custody as we do and buy prescription drugs, in this case Lipitor, for half the price that is being charged 5 miles south across the border. Why on Earth should the global economy not be able to work for average folks? The pharmaceutical industry imports all of these drugs. Why should the average person in this country not be able to put downward pressure on prescription drug prices by being able to access FDA-approved drugs from other countries, such as Canada and other countries, that have a supply of safe drugs. That is what our amendment does. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Then I yield the floor, Mr. President. Cloture Motion