[[Page H7335]] Amendment Offered by Mr. SANDERS Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Agreements for Department of Drugs.--None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into-- (1) an agreement on the conveyance or licensing of a patent for a drug, or another exclusive right to a drug; (2) an agreement on the use of information derived from animal tests or human clinical trials conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services on a drug, including an agreement under which such information is provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to another on an exclusive basis; or (3) a cooperative research and development agreement under section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a) pertaining to a drug. (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend the funds involved that-- (1) the sale of the drug involved is subject to a reasonable price agreement; or (2) a reasonable price agreement regarding the sale of such drug is not required by the public interest. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as many Members know, the U.S. taxpayer is the single largest supporter of biomedical research in the world, spending $33 billion in 1994 alone for biomedical and related health research. Unfortunately, our taxpayers are unwittingly being forced to pay twice for drugs because this Congress is deeply beholden to the very profitable giant drug companies. Members heard it right, our constituents are not getting a fair return on the investment of their hard-earned money, paying twice for pharmaceutical breakthroughs, first as taxpayers and second as consumers. This harms consumers, and it is a form of corporate welfare to many of the world's largest corporations. The bottom line of this amendment is that when taxpayers spend billions and billions of dollars in developing a new drug, the taxpayer as a consumer should get a break and we should not be giving all of this research over to the private industry who then sells the product to our consumers at outrageous profits. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say on this side of the aisle I will be willing to accept the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a good public interest amendment. [[Page H7336]] Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is repeating his amendment that was defeated last year on a 141-284 vote. It relates to the reasonable pricing clause that was in effect for NIH cooperative research and development agreements, CRADA's, and license agreements until April 1995. This provision was originally put in place in response to public concern about the pricing of the AIDS drug AZT, even though AZT had not been developed through a CRADA or exclusive license. It was controversial from the start, and NIH decided to conduct an extensive review of the policy. They held public hearings, consulted with scientists, patient and consumer advocates, and representatives of academia and industry. The director of NIH, Dr. Varmus, concluded after this review that, and I quote. ``The pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with Public Health Service scientists without providing an offsetting benefit to the public.'' The review also indicated that NIH research was adversely affected by an inability of NIH scientists to obtain compounds from industry for basic research purposes. No other Federal agency has a reasonable pricing clause. No law or regulation expressly requires or permits NIH to enforce such a provision. No comparable provision exists for NIH extramural grantees like universities to impose price controls on the licensees of products they develop with NIH funds. Contrary to the impression some may have, the principal function of NIH research is not to develop drugs. NIH supports the basic research that is the foundation for the applied research that the drug companies do. NIH focuses on research that is critical for eventual application, but which is not specific enough to meet the profitability test that private industry requires. The drug companies focus their research on bringing products to market and their investment is considerable. In 1994, the industry supported almost $14 billion in health research and development, which is more than half the entire U.S. public and private investment. While it is appealing to think that reimposing the reasonable pricing clause may lower health care costs and benefits to consumers, we must face the possibility that it will drive drug companies out of their collaborative ventures with NIH and ultimately deny patients access to important lifesaving drugs. I doubt that anyone in this Chamber has a detailed understanding of the impact of this complex issue. I would like to rely on Dr. Varmus' judgment in this matter and the decision of the Clinton administration. I might add, I would hope that Congress does not try to intervene, and for these reasons I must strongly oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]. Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. Consider the case of levamisole. Eleven million dollars in N.I.H. research lead to the discovery that this drug to prevent worms in sheep could also prevent some 7,000 cancer deaths each year. No pharmaceutical company paid for this research, the American taxpayer did. But, what happened when a pharmaceutical company entered the picture? A drug that costs 6 cents a dose for sheep skyrocketed to $6 a dose for colon cancer patients. A few years ago, the television program ``Primetime Live'' highlighted the problem of levamisole costs in the State of Florida. In Florida, some people were so desperate for levamisole they turned to the black market, where sheep pills are ground up into human-sized doses. Asked about that price differential between the sheep and human products, the pharmaceutical executives simply said, ``A sheep farmer probably would not pay $6 a pill,'' but, ``someone dying of cancer that pays $1,200 for a treatment regimen, whose life is saved, is getting one of the most cost-effective treatments they can ever get.'' Well, I resent paying for the development of a drug and then paying 100 times what a sheep farmer pays for it. This is an outrageous abuse of public funds. Let's make sure we get our money's worth on our investment. Support the Sanders amendment. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. PORTER. I have the right to close, am I correct? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment to restore a reasonable pricing clause for drugs that are developed at taxpayer expense. Let me make it clear, this affects, this amendment only affects those drugs that are developed at taxpayers' expense. It does not affect any drugs that are developed solely by the private sector and by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of taxpayer accountability. Taxpayers who fund this biomedical research to the tune of billions of dollars should not be forced to pay excessive prices for the drugs that they themselves have helped develop, but that is exactly what is happening. Mr. Chairman, the drug companies are now free, after getting taxpayers' money to develop their product, to gouge those very same people 10, 20 times the cost of their own product. They charge that to the American people who are paying for their research. The American people end up paying twice. Now, is that not nice? This is a corporate form of welfare, and it has got to stop. Drug companies are making fortunes off the backs of working people. If they developed the product themselves at their own expense, the Government should not step in. But we have continually said in this Congress that we want to cut down the expenses of Government, cut down welfare. This is welfare for the rich, for the corporations. The American people should not be insulted by being forced to pay for the research of a company who then turns around and gouges them for the price of the product that has been developed. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders amendment. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about simply fairness. It says that when taxpayers foot the bill for research, they should not have to pay again for it at the drug counter. We invest millions of dollars in pharmaceutical research. More than 40 percent of all U.S. health care research and development comes from the U.S. taxpayer. This amendment, the Sanders amendment, says that drugs developed with taxpayer dollars cannot be sold back to the taxpayers at excessive prices. Without a reasonable pricing clause, the taxpayers pay to develop the drug, only to get their pockets picked when they go to the pharmacy. In the 1990's, the drug industry was the Nation's most profitable, with an annual profit of 13.6 percent, more than triple the average of the Fortune 500 companies. So while the argument goes that they invest a great deal in R&D, there is plenty left over for them to give back to the taxpayer, and that is what this amendment calls for. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to repeat that we have already voted on this. It lost by a margin of better than two-to-one the last time it was voted on. There are times when we simply have to trust the officials that we have chosen. The Clinton administration has chosen Dr. Varmus to head the NIH. He [[Page H7337]] has looked into this extensively. He believes very strongly that this amendment is ill-advised. He believes that it is counterproductive to achieving the purpose for which it is intended, and I would simply urge Members to listen to his professional and scientific judgment and to reject the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be postponed. [snip, snip, snip] [[Page H7363]] amendment no. 12 offered by mr. sanders The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on which further proceedings were postponed on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment. The Clerk redesignated the amendment. recorded vote The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was ordered. The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, noes 242, not voting 11, as follows: [Roll No. 306] AYES--180 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews Bachus Baesler Baker (LA) Baldacci Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bevill Bishop Blumenauer Bonior Borski Boucher Browder Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant (TX) Campbell Cardin Chabot Chrysler Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coleman Collins (MI) Condit Conyers Costello Coyne Cramer Cummings de la Garza Deal DeFazio Dellums Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Doyle Duncan Durbin Edwards Engel Ensign Evans Farr Fattah Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Flake Foglietta Foley Ford Frost Furse Gephardt Gordon Green (TX) Gutierrez Gutknecht Hamilton Hastings (FL) Hefner Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hoke Holden Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kleczka Klink LaFalce Lantos Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Longley Lowey Luther Maloney Manton Martinez Mascara Matsui McCrery McDermott McHale McKinney Meek Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Minge Mink Mollohan Nadler Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Peterson (MN) Poshard Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reed Rivers Roemer Rohrabacher Rose Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Sabo Sanders Sawyer Schroeder Schumer Scott Serrano Shays Skaggs Slaughter Smith (WA) Spratt Stark Stokes Stupak Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (MS) Tejeda Thompson Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Velazquez Vento Visclosky Volkmer Ward Waters Watt (NC) Waxman Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wynn NOES--242 Allard Archer Armey Baker (CA) Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Bentsen Bilbray Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bono Brewster Brownback Bryant (TN) Bunn Bunning Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Chambliss Chapman Chenoweth Christensen Clinger Coble Coburn Collins (GA) Combest Cooley Cox Crane Crapo Cremeans Cubin Cunningham Danner Davis DeLauro DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dooley Doolittle Dornan Dreier Ehlers Ehrlich English Eshoo Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Flanagan Forbes Fowler Fox Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frisa Funderburk Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gonzalez Goodlatte Goodling Goss Graham Greene (UT) Greenwood Gunderson Hall (TX) Hancock Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayworth Hefley Heineman Herger Hobson Hoekstra Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Jones Kasich Kelly Kennedy (MA) Kennelly Kim King Kingston Klug Knollenberg Kolbe LaHood Largent Latham LaTourette Laughlin Lazio Leach Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder Livingston LoBiondo Lucas Manzullo Markey Martini McCarthy McCollum McHugh McInnis McIntosh McKeon McNulty Meehan Meyers Mica Miller (FL) Moakley Molinari Montgomery Moorhead Moran Morella Murtha Myers Myrick Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Norwood Nussle Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Payne (VA) Pickett Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Pryce Quillen Quinn Radanovich Regula Richardson Riggs Roberts Rogers Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shuster Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman [[Page H7364]] Studds Stump Talent Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Thornton Tiahrt Torkildsen Traficant Upton Vucanovich Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--11 Collins (IL) Dunn Gibbons Gilman Hall (OH) Hayes Lincoln McDade Petri Yates Young (FL) {time} 2381 Mr. de la GARZA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' Messrs. EHRLICH, MEEHAN, and PETE GEREN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . 7