Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support medical malpractice reform but I oppose this bill. H.R. 4600 lays the blame for rising medical malpractice premiums solely on individuals whom a court and jury determine have been injured by medical malpractice. Apparently Congress knows better than judges, juries and patients; but we do not know better than insurers. This bill does not have a single provision acknowledging the insurance industry's accountability for skyrocketing premiums. Insurers have tripled their investment in the stock market over the past 10 years. Of course, now they are trying to recoup their losses. Democrats have tried to negotiate with the majority to even look at this issue. But the majority rejected every attempt to force the insurance industry to assume any responsibility for its dramatic premium increases. There are avenues we could take to stabilize medical malpractice premiums, loss ratio requirements, reinsurance pools, transparency to help us see exactly why insurers are raising their rates. But no, in this billing the insurance industry is held harmless. It is the patients' fault. California has the most stringent liability caps in the country. Premiums are higher in California than the average for the rest of the country. Premiums have grown faster in California than the average for the rest of the country. Still somehow the solution to the medical malpractice crisis is to cap jury awards. And by the way, to cap them in a way that promises wealthier patients larger rewards than other patients. This bill apparently says those who are more wealthy suffer more than those who are not. H.R. 4600 will also shield HMOs that fail to provide the needed care. It would shield drug companies whose medicine has toxic side effects. It would shield manufacturers of defective medical equipment. In this bill, businesses are never at fault. Patients are greedy. Jurors are misguided. It is the patients' fault. That is the problem. At a time when the public is calling for greater corporate accountability, this bill turns on the public itself and holds injured patients, not the insurance industry, accountable. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from northeast Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my friend on the committee.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle). (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The other side of the aisle has repeatedly quoted the American Medical Association. Members need to understand they have taken no position on this bill. They are not in support of it. They have not taken a position either way. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have asked for a ``no'' vote on this bill because they really understand this issue better than anyone. They know this bill is not a minor change in Federal law, but a broad-reaching change that denies information and access to women, even women whose health is in jeopardy or women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I have seen one Republican man after another Republican man after another Republican man come down to the House floor and insist that we are forcing physicians and hospitals to perform abortions that in good conscience they do not want to perform. That is not part of the issue. That issue is solved. No one will have to perform abortions. We do not think people should have to perform abortions, doctors or hospitals, if they do not choose to. That issue is settled. For them to continue to put up that straw man, for them to continue to use that red herring, is intellectually dishonest, and their far right, no exceptions for rape and incest, far right agenda, they know that; and they should just be a little more honest with the American public. Now, what is wrong with this whole debate today? First of all, what is first wrong with the debate is we are talking again about a health issue that we really should not be talking about, and we are not acting on prescription drug legislation. We are doing nothing in this Congress to try to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The second thing that is wrong with this debate is this bill is on the House floor today having bypassed the committee structure. With all the disagreements on what people think about this bill and all the interpretations, it should have been in committee. My friends on the other side of the aisle know that we should have discussed it in committees, we should have had a markup, we should have been able to figure out all these questions. Third, my friends on the other side of the aisle always talk about States' rights, we should respect what the States do. This legislation overrides States' rights. They are for States' rights, unless they do not like what the States do, then we are going to override States' rights. Four, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) said, as an example, a for-profit health maintenance organization having nothing to do with religion, a for-profit health maintenance organization can simply refuse counseling services to a woman who has been a victim of rape or incest, for example, can refuse it just to save money. Now, insurance companies, will they do that? These are the same insurance companies that cover Viagra in many, many cases, in most insurance companies; but they do not cover contraceptives for women, which is one of the biggest expenses that women of child-bearing age face. So, sure, some HMOs are going to do that. To save money, they are going to refuse counseling to a woman that might be a victim of rape or incest whose health might be in jeopardy. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no allowance in this legislation for rape, there is no allowance for incest, there is no allowance for protecting the life and the health of the woman. I know that fits the far right Republican agenda. They want no abortions in this country, they want no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, no exceptions for the life and health of the woman. That is why this legislation is on the floor today, in order to fulfill that agenda and play to that far right base of the Republican Party. But, frankly, where I come from, Mr. Speaker, there are differences of opinion on abortion. Some say we should allow them; some say we should not. But almost everybody I know thinks that when a woman has been a victim of rape or incest, and particularly if her life is in danger, almost everybody I know thinks that woman should be entitled to make that choice if she chooses. That is why this legislation is a bad idea, Mr. Speaker. That is why this Congress should oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Of course we are not telling hospitals and doctors to provide abortions. We have already settled that issue. No doctor, no hospital should be forced to do that. We are just saying that a woman who has been raped or a woman who has been a victim of incest, whose life because of the pregnancy might be in danger, who comes to a hospital, comes to any hospital, should be given access to information, should be referred, should be told where she might be able to get counseling or might be able to get help. That is all that we are saying, that we know this legislation takes that right away. Again, think about that. Imagine, a woman who has been raped, a woman who has been a victim of incest, who is pregnant, whose life may be in danger from that pregnancy gets turned away from a hospital under this legislation, gets turned away from a hospital, nobody will talk to her because this rigid, far-right agenda of the Republican Party says we are against abortion and we make no exceptions for rape, we make no exceptions for incest, we make no exceptions for the health of the mother. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my friend, said that the drug companies did not write the drug bill that this House in a partisan vote passed. I guess we are all mistaken, but I would like to recount for a moment how this drug legislation passed this House of Representatives. Back in June we worked on a markup on a bill that the drug companies were totally in support of. There was a fundraiser that had been scheduled for one evening. We stopped the markup so that Republicans could troop off to the fundraiser with the President and the Vice President which raised $30 million, $3 million of it from drug companies. The sponsor of the fundraiser, the chairman of it, was the CEO of a British drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, which gave $300,000 to the Republican campaign coffers. The next day we came back, passed a bill, defeated every amendment on a partisan vote that was a proconsumer, prosenior amendment. The bill then passed in a partisan vote. It passed the House in a partisan vote. And then in the most cynical move I have seen in 10 years in Congress, the drug companies spent literally millions of dollars advertising on television, thanking the Republicans for passing their drug bill. The only thing was, Mr. Speaker, they did not say ``paid for by'' Pfizer or Merck or Eli Lilly or Pharmacia or Glaxo. They said paid for by United Seniors Association or paid for by 60 Plus. So the drug companies spent millions of dollars thanking the Republicans, but they used a front group to make it look like it was a senior organization or actually two senior organizations thanking the Republicans. If the public only knew that all those ads were paid for by the drug industry, then Republican Members of Congress would not be getting calls thanking them for voting for it. They would be getting calls saying go back to Washington and pass a drug bill that actually helps seniors, that actually helps consumers, that does not help the drug industry continue to be the most profitable industry in America, continue to be in a situation where they pay the lowest tax rate of any industry in America. And I think people in this country have had enough and we are going to find a little more about that come November. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the committee.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would add that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) mentioned this House passed a drug bill in June, one written by the drug companies and advertised by the drug companies and does not serve consumers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who had an amendment he wanted to offer to this bill that the partisan majority would not allow him to offer yesterday in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are spending a few hours today debating the abortion non-discrimination bill. Despite this bill's troubling implications for women and despite the strong concerns many of my colleagues and I have about the bill, Republican leadership bypassed the committee and brought it straight to the floor. While we debate this bill today, a number of issues continue to languish. When my colleagues and I have asked Republican leadership to hold a hearing on legislation that promotes greater competition in the prescription drug marketplace and brings down the cost of prescription drugs, they did nothing. When we asked them to bring the competition bill to the floor, they did nothing. The Senate has passed similar legislation. If we were to debate it on the floor today, we would pass it, and we would be one step closer to bringing down the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, this Republican leadership is going to send us home before our work is done without passing a bill to cover prescription drugs, without passing a bill to try to get the price of prescription drugs down. Now, today's House Republicans are proposing legislation that curtails health care information and curtails services available to women, again, before they bring something as important as prescription drug pricing to the floor. The public has every right to question the priorities of Republican leadership. While the partisan proponents of this bill, H.R. 4691, while the partisan proponents of this bill say it is a simple clarification of existing law, experts agree it is a broad, sweeping change to existing law. Federal law now allows doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion services because of their religious beliefs. That is Federal law. That is the way it should be. That is what we all agree on. This bill, however, allows insurance plans and HMOs, not religious organizations, insurance plans and HMOs to refuse to provide or to make a referral for abortion services regardless of religious background, regardless of a woman's medical needs. Under this bill, insurance companies could deny coverage of family planning services just because the time spent with the patient doing nondirective counseling just might eat away at the HMO's bottom line. Under this bill, Medicaid patients would no longer be guaranteed access to abortion counseling, to abortion counseling in cases of rape and incest, or where the pregnancy endangers the woman's life. Under this bill, State law expanding health insurance requirements to include coverage of nondirective family planning counseling would become irrelevant. The current conscience clause allows doctors and hospitals to refuse to provide services they are opposed to for religious reasons. That is the way it should be. This bill, however, gags doctors, gags hospitals, regardless of their religious belief. It denies women access to medically necessary services, again regardless of religious beliefs. Existing law protects a woman's right to medically accurate information. It protects a State's right to govern by its constitution and its laws, and my friends on the other side of the aisle always talk about States rights, unless they do not like the State law. It protects the medical institution's right to refuse to provide services they are religiously opposed to. Mr. Speaker, we should have passed the prescription drug bill. We are obviously not doing that today. We should be promoting women's health. We are sure not doing that today. What we are doing is compromising women's health. I urge my colleagues to oppose this expansive, broad-ranging infringement on women's rights and infringement on women's health. It is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a motion to recommit in the purest sense of the word and in the most deserving sense of the term, and that is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was never discussed in the Committee on Commerce to begin with. Normally, on motions to recommit after a bill goes through the process, it comes out of committee, goes to the floor, and people want to make a change or oppose it and they say, let us send it back to committee, let us recommit it so we can make some changes. But since this legislation was never there, it is even more deserving of a recommital, an affirmative vote on a recommittal motion. The legislation we are considering today goes far beyond a so-called clarification of existing law, which permits hospitals and doctors to deny women abortion services based on that provider's religious belief. We believe that, too. Current law allows doctors and hospitals to refuse to provide services they are religiously opposed to, as they should, as the law should. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, goes much further than that. It is not about the religious beliefs of providers, it is about denying health care information and services to women, including counseling services. This bill gags doctors, it gags hospitals from referring women to family planning clinics, even those women who have been raped, even those women who are the victims of incest, and even those women whose lives and health are in danger. Under H.R. 4691, the legislation we are discussing, insurance companies could deny coverage of family planning services, even when medically necessary, regardless of their religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with religion; it has a lot to do with an HMO's bottom line. Relevant State laws would be trumped, even though these laws are designed to protect women. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the State of California, the State of Ohio, the State of Nebraska, the State of Florida might have passed legislation to protect women; this legislation overrides what those State laws wanted to do to provide these counseling services, or to provide these referral services at the hospital or by a physician. This bill gags doctors, it gags hospitals, regardless of religious belief. It denies women access to medically necessary services regardless of their religious beliefs. Bottom line: it compromises women's health. That is why this bill should not have been on the floor and that is why we should support the motion to recommit. I am offering the motion to recommit to safeguard against these efforts. The motion provides that H.R. 4691 not authorize any institution to prevent its providers from providing medically appropriate information or services. It does not authorize any institution to withhold medically appropriate information or services from its patients; it does not preempt State laws from enforcing that State's Constitution or that State's laws. This motion makes no change to current law that allows doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to provide abortion services if those services conflict with the doctor's or the hospital's religious beliefs. It does not affect current prohibition against providing abortion services with Federal funds, it simply limits the harm that H.R. 4691 will do. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, as we discussed before, a woman has been raped or a woman has been a victim of incest. Her life might be in danger, she comes into a hospital. Under this legislation, that hospital simply may not provide her any information, no counseling, no referral; there is a gag on that hospital's ability to do that. Where I come from, reasonable people have differences, honest differences between when abortion should be legal. Should it be legal, should it not be legal, and in what cases should it be legal. But it is only the extreme far right, the leadership of the Republican Party that wants to pass legislation like this where there are no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the woman. The great, great majority of people in this country think a woman who has been raped, who has been a victim of incest, whose life might be in danger comes into a hospital, she should be given information; she should be given counseling if she so chooses; she should be given a referral if she so chooses. This bill, this very rigid bill, inflexible bill, does not allow that. The motion to recommit is important to protect women like that. This motion to recommit is important to preserve the medical standard that guarantees women access to necessary health care. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, rather than acting on bills that actually help the American people in some way, Republican leadership is focusing on meaningless resolutions that chastise the other body for not taking action on measures the House has passed. If we had sent the other body decent legislation, rather than bad ideas, the situation might be different. I am thinking of the Republican crown jewel, a Medicare drug coverage bill so grossly inadequate, written by the drug companies, that it is an insult to Medicare beneficiaries and to their families. But that is another story. Fair is fair, Mr. Speaker. Before Republican leadership demonizes the other body, they might want to rid the skeletons from their own closet. The other body, for instance, passed legislation that finally does something about out-of-control prescription drug prices, and did so in a responsible, bipartisan manner. But Republican leadership in this House has blocked even a vote on that legislation, which will save American consumers, mostly the elderly, $60 billion. Brand and generic drug companies alike exploit loopholes in the laws to block competition in the marketplace. The Federal Trade Commission has acknowledged it, the Patent and Trademark Office has acknowledged it, the President has acknowledged it. But House leadership and the prescription drug industry are virtually the only ones who have not acknowledged it. Why is that? Could it be the millions of dollars the drug industry gives to Republican Members of Congress? Could it be that the drug industry, using drug industry money through phony ads run through a group called 60-Plus and run through a group called USA Seniors, that they are running ads in support of the drug plan that they wrote, the drug industry wrote on behalf of Republican Members of Congress? Could it be, in the most cynical move I have seen in my 10 years in this body, the drug industry wrote a bill, a prescription drug bill that really was not worth very much, pushed it through Congress, gave money to Republican Members of Congress, then ran ads, in the most cynical move imaginable, thanking those Republican Members of Congress for voting for it and saying that it was an ad written by United Seniors Association, but it is actually funded by the drug industry, which they will not tell you? The Senate-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, closes the loopholes the FTC has identified and would deliver more competitive prescription drug prices to the American people. There are 3 companion measures in the House, any of which would restore competition in the prescription drug marketplace, saving consumers $60 billion. Some of those are sponsored by Republicans, but Republican leadership will not let those bills come to a vote. Instead, we are passing meaningless resolutions today. If the House squanders this opportunity, we will likely go home without providing any kind of prescription drug relief to seniors and others who desperately need that help. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to permit consideration. I urge Republican leadership to allow us to vote and to take House action now on legislation to stop the brand name and generic drug industry from blocking this legislation and stop their shenanigans, to bring prescription drug prices down, something we could do today in this body. The other body passed this legislation. If it dies in the House, the Republican leadership can congratulate themselves for successfully catering to the drug industry again and again and again at the expense of the American public.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has introduced legislation inspired by the tragic death of the 10-year-old that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) referred to as a result of what is commonly known as rebirthing therapy. This resolution expresses congressional opposition to this dangerous and deadly practice. This radical therapy has been used by some therapists to treat attachment disorder, most commonly seen in adopted children. The American Psychological Association and the National Council for Adoption and other organizations condemn this practice as fraudulent and as dangerous. In addition to the risk of death by asphyxiation, psychologists say it can further damage already-troubled children. Our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, supported this important resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same today. Mr. Speaker, this body brings a variety of resolutions to the floor coming out of the Subcommittee on Health, almost all of which I support, almost all of which are positive. I wish, however, Mr. Speaker, that we would do a little bit more in terms of trying to rein in prescription drug prices. I look at legislation like this, which is important; but we should be using this time on the floor also to pass legislation like that which the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a Republican, and I, a Democrat, have introduced, which is the GAAP bill, H.R. 1862. I have introduced similar legislation with the gentleman from California, H.R. 5272, to deal with the problem of drug pricing. It is a bill the other body has passed. It would stop the gaming of the patent system by the drug companies whereby they have been able to extend their patents by cutting deals with generics, by in some cases using private lawsuits, using the court system. Our legislation would save $60 million to consumers over the next 10 years. It is something that our committee should do and that this body should do. While the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), has always been so helpful in bipartisanly working on a lot of these issues, the Republican leadership has not been so helpful. I would hope that as we work on these resolutions, as on the resolution of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), which I support, House Concurrent Resolution 435, that we would also work on legislation like H.R. 5272, which has bipartisan sponsors, but on which, because of the opposition of the drug industry, Republican leadership, who are much too close to the drug industry, much too aligned to the drug industry with drug industry contributions and political support, has failed to step forward. I would hope as we pass this bill today that perhaps tomorrow we can work on such legislation, on which we are going to do a discharge petition, I would add parenthetically, this week, Mr. Speaker, and pass legislation to stop the gaming of the patent system, as we pass legislation like we are today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to say that I feel the same way, to be sure.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for his support and interest in this legislation. I am pleased we are considering the Women's Health Office Act passed out of our subcommittee and then passed the full committee also. I applaud the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their involvement in this issue. Certain diseases and conditions, as we know, as we finally address, exclusively affect women, are more prevalent in women, or affect women differently. While research in women's health has traditionally been far too limited, development of a number of women's health offices in the past few years has begun to shrink that disparity. The Women's Health Office Act would statutorily create offices of women's health in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Health Resource and Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, and the Food and Drug Administration. These offices have committed themselves to promoting women's health. This bill will help ensure that the needs and gaps in research, policy programs, education, and training in women's health will continue to be addressed in a concerted way. I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, according to industry experts, health insurance premiums will jump 13 to 24 percent next year. What is driving this increase? Mostly the cost of prescription drugs. To deflect attention from these remarkably high prices, the drug industry argues that prescription medicines actually save money by reducing health care costs. If they were more reasonably priced, that might be true. There is no doubt that medicine helps alleviate the need for other health care services. But prescription drugs are priced so outrageously high that their inflationary impact far outstrips any savings. Skyrocket insurance premiums simply do not lie. There is no excuse for the drug industry's pricing practices. There is no excuse for the tactics drug makers use to block lower-priced generic drugs from the market. There is no excuse for the drug makers' lobbying tactics to try to kill our legislation. This body must act on H.R. 5272, legislation that will stop the gaming and deliver lower drug prices to the American people, an estimated $60 billion in savings. I urge House Republican leadership, all too often too close to the drug industry, to bring this consumer savings bill up for a vote before Columbus Day.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today to talk about the high cost of prescription drugs, which I will, but I am moved to respond for a moment to my friend from Michigan. He should visit some of the Northeast Ohio steel mills that have run into incredible problems because of unfair foreign competition and what it has meant to jobs in communities like Lorraine and Cleveland and Warren, Ohio, and other places because of dumped foreign, illegally dumped steel. And while some applauded the President's actions back several months ago, we certainly do not applaud the President selling out the steel industry after making sort of a head-fake in a political way that he is supporting the industry, and now has gone around the world promising other countries and reducing and in many cases revoking some of the tariffs that clearly have made the steel industry put in a more competitive position and in a more level playing field. Mr. Speaker, industry experts predict that premiums for employer- sponsored health insurance will jump 13 to 24 percent next year, the third straight year of double-digit increases. What is driving the increased premiums? Mostly it is spiraling prescription drug costs. In response to the public's outrage at astronomical drug prices, the brand name drug industry says, Not to worry, prescription drugs actually save money by reducing health care costs. If they were more reasonably priced, that would be the case. There is no doubt that prescription medicines can reduce disability, prevent illness, and help alleviate the need for other health care services. Unfortunately, drugs are priced so outrageously high that costs associated with their increased use far outstrip any offsetting savings that might accrue. They are priced so high that millions of seniors cannot afford them, and other Americans, too. Even a miracle cure is worthless if people cannot have access to it. Skyrocketing drug prices are jeopardizing employer-sponsored health insurance, undercutting the financial security of seniors, and absorbing an enormous share of the Federal and State taxes devoted to health care. Something has to give. The first step is the most obvious. Brand name drug industries exploiting loopholes in the law to block lower-priced generic drugs from even getting into the market, we can stop that. Generic drugs are identical to their brand name counterparts except for price. Generics are typically 70 to 80 percent less expensive than their brand name equivalent. In some cases the price differential is even greater. The anti- anxiety drug Vasotec sells for $180 per prescription. The generic costs $55, a savings of $125. Consumers lose millions in potential savings when brand name companies block their competitors from entering the market. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates consumers would save $60 billion in the next 10 years if Congress would close the legal loopholes that drug companies use to scam the patent system. Under current law, for instance, FDA suspends generic drug approvals for 2\1/2\ years the moment a brand name drug company sues for patent infringement. By attaching new and often unrelated patents to an existing drug right before its original patent expires, brand name companies have been able to repeatedly get a 30-month addition lengthening of their patent. The drug industry ties up generic drug approvals in the courts by repeatedly challenging the methods the FDA uses to ensure that the generic and the brand product are equivalent. The CBO estimates that consumers will lose $60 billion, as I said, due to these delaying tactics. That is how much consumers will save if Congress and the President do the right thing. The Federal Trade Commission, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the President have acknowledged the need to address inappropriate delays in access to lower-priced generic products. The other body passed by an overwhelming margin legislation to close the loopholes and deliver long overdue relief to American consumers. The House of Representatives should pass it, too. There are three pieces of legislation, each of which would close the loopholes. They are not partisan. They are not radical. And, realistically, they are not a panacea. But any one of them, if passed by this Congress and signed by the President, will force the drug industry to clean up its act, will get generic competition into the marketplace, will save consumers tens of billions of dollars. I urge Republican leadership, which has stood in the way of this because of their closeness to the drug industry, I urge Republican leadership to give Members the opportunity to debate and vote on one of these bills in time to get a product to the President's desk. Members of both sides of the aisle recognize that it is time to do something about runaway prescription drug costs. Removing unjustifiable barriers to lower-priced medicines is a logical step. Given the havoc that runaway drug prices are wreaking on this Nation, on all people, but especially on America's seniors, it should be an imperative.