Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act. In particular, I support the authorization given to the Army Corps of Engineers to begin work on renovating the locks and dams on the Mississippi River and to restore the diverse ecosystem of the river. I will oppose amendments meant to stop this construction from moving forward. I believe the bill's well-balanced approach will meet the needs of those who depend on the river for commerce, restore and protect the diverse natural environment, and enhance recreational opportunities. Much of the American Midwest's economy is dependent on the Mississippi river. In 1999, more than 151 million tons of commodities moved on the river system with a combined value of nearly $24 billion. The State of Minnesota sent about $1.4 billion worth of grain down the river--most of it traveled to New Orleans and Baton Rouge for export to foreign markets. Approximately 70 percent of our nation's agricultural exports travel along the Mississippi. A 2002 study determined that, if congestion increases on the river, $562 million could be lost in farm income alone. The Upper Mississippi supports more than 400,000 jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, and shipping--all of which support local businesses. Unfortunately, the day-to-day wear and tear on the river has taken its toll. The locks on the Mississippi river were built in the 1930s with 1930's technology and standards and for 1930's needs. They were designed for a 50-year life-span and are now more than 70 years old. Today's barge traffic is significantly different than when the locks were designed. The barges today average 1,100 feet in length while the current locks were built for barges only 600 feet in length. Towboats have to drop off half their barges in order to pass through the locks, and then reconnect, and then repeat the procedure upon arriving at the next lock. Building 1,200-foot locks will cut dock time and costs--and those savings are passed on to farmers, manufacturers, and consumers, creating jobs for our economy. Not only will refurbishing and expanding the locks facilitate commerce, but it will reduce stress on our roadways. A typical tow of 15 barges down the river can carry as much as 870 semi-trucks with 60 percent fewer emissions. One 15-barge tow can carry the same amount of grain as a three mile long train or 35 miles of trucks lined end to end. Clearly, using the River for transportation is much more efficient and makes our air cleaner. This project will not just benefit the transportation sector. I have spent time on the river and have seen the amazing ecosystem restoration projects that are underway and are sure to be continued under this plan. The Upper Mississippi valley provides habitat for 305 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of amphibians and reptiles, and 134 species of fish. There are even bald eagles in the area, which can be seen year-round. In fact, the National Eagle Center is located along the Mississippi River, in Wabasha, Minnesota. The upper Mississippi is a haven for boating, fishing, hunting and other forms of recreation. Locals and tourists alike enjoy year-round fishing for walleye, northern pike, bass, perch, crappies, and catfish up and down the river. On summer days, thousands of private boaters enjoy the river, and hunters enjoy harvesting ducks in the fall. The river is a beautiful place. The proper balance between commerce, recreation, and the environment must be maintained. I ask for my colleagues to support the bill and reject amendments that prevent the modernization of the locks and dams from moving forward.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of First Lieutenant Michael Fasnacht, who served in the Third Infantry Division from Fort Benning, Georgia. Lieutenant Fasnacht died when a roadside bomb exploded near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle while he was on patrol near Adwar, Iraq on June 8. Lieutenant Fasnacht was a native of Janesville, Minnesota who served his country honorably. He lived in Mankato, Minnesota with his wife, Tresa. An Army Ranger, Michael had followed in the footsteps of his father, Raymond, who served in the Army during the Vietnam War. He graduated from Minnesota State University in Mankato, Minnesota. He developed his leadership skills as an outstanding member of the ROTC program. Lieutenant Fasnacht's mother, Marny, said, ``He believed strongly in what he was doing. He definitely believed the Iraqi people deserved freedom from tyranny.'' Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I honor the memory and service of this brave American. Michael Fasnacht made the ultimate sacrifice in the selfless defense of freedom and democracy. Today, the lamp of liberty burns brightly across the globe, thanks to young men like Lieutenant Fasnacht who are serving on the front lines. Indeed, these Americans in uniform are the new ``Boys of Pointe du Hoc.'' Like countless Americans before them, these men and women know firsthand what President Bush meant when he said that ``freedom isn't America's gift to the world; freedom is God's gift to mankind.'' Everywhere the embers of freedom burn hot, people like Michael Fasnacht are there to give the embers flame. I thank Lieutenant Fasnacht for his service, and I thank the Fasnacht family for giving their loved one to this service. I hope it brings them some comfort to know that the thoughts and prayers of thousands of Minnesotans are with them.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of our guest chaplain and my friend, Rabbi David Greene of Rochester, Minnesota. I often tell students when they come to visit the Capitol that the first official act of the United States Congress was to appoint a chaplain. The second thing that they did was they prayed, and it was not a perfunctory prayer. They prayed for 1\1/2\ hours. We have long understood the importance of faith in our society. Rabbi Greene was born and raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He attended the first Orthodox Jewish parochial school in Minnesota, received his ordination from the Rabbinical College of Canada in 1984, and completed post-graduate Judaic studies at Lubavitch Yeshiva in Brooklyn, New York. Since 1988 Rabbi Greene has served as the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Emissary to Rochester, more specifically, to the Mayo Clinic. In his service, he meets the spiritual needs of Jewish people who reside in or visit Rochester, Minnesota. I thank Rabbi Greene for his service as our guest chaplain to the United States House of Representatives today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone should be censored, but I think having no information can sometimes be better than having bad information. And what the Council of Economic Advisers did was they took lock, stock, and barrel failed research. Then it gets repeated and repeated and repeated, this $800 million figure. According to the pharmaceutical company themselves, that $800 million figure includes $400 million of opportunity costs. That means they could have taken that money and bought Microsoft shares and made more money. That is ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, just read this report that I will include for the Record by Dr. Donald Light. He is from New Jersey. He teaches at a little school called Princeton. He also teaches at the Princeton medical school. He is the one who went through this. More importantly, in this 2-page report there are almost a page of footnotes. They document what they do. The problem with the Council of Economic Advisers is they just took this number and they repeated it. They do not document it. They do not ask questions, and so now everyone is running around saying it cost $800 million to develop a new drug. That is not true, and it is worse than having no information at all. This is one way to send a message to the Council of Economic Advisers, that if they are going to put out information so policymakers at the White House or here on Capitol Hill make decisions based on that information, you better make sure you check the numbers and document them first because bad information is worse than no information at all. [From the American Journal of Bioethics, Jan. 2004] Will Lower Drug Prices Jeopardize Drug Research? A Policy Fact Sheet (By Donald Light and Joel Lexchin) This documented fact sheet provides evidence that all drug research by large firms, net of taxpayers' subsidies, is paid for out of domestic sales in each country, with profits to spare. Prices can be lower without jeopardizing basic research for new drugs. More exposure to global price competition would encourage more innovative research and less of the derivative me-too research that now dominates. In the U.S., the FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan, and the drug industry are responding to pressures for lower costs by mounting a large campaign to pressure all other affluent countries to raise their prices to U.S. levels. They claim that lower prices do not pay for drug research costs, but we provide evidence that this is untrue. Ultimately, however, such nationalistic arguments are based on regarding basic research and new discoveries, which can happen anywhere, and the cost of trials, which are carried out in the countries deemed most commercially advantageous, as part of national companies and national accounts, when in fact they are part of a global economy for pharmaceutical products. fda myths 1. FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan, holds that other affluent countries like Canada and the UK set their prices for patented drugs so low that they do not pay for research and development (R&D) (McClellan 2003). We can find no evidence to support that claim. On the contrary, audited financial reports of major drug firms in the UK, show that all research costs are paid, with substantial profits left over, based solely on domestic sales at British prices (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 2002). Likewise, 79 research drug companies in Canada submitted reports showing their R&D expenditures have risen more than 50% since 1995, all paid for by domestic sales at Canadian prices (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002). Sales to the U.S. and elsewhere are in addition to the positive, domestic balance sheets. 2. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that European or Canadian prices are ``slowing the process of drug development worldwide'' (McClellan 2003). There is no known verifiable evidence to support this claim. In fact, drug research has been increasing steadily in Europe as well as in the U.S., with some countries having a more rapid increase than the U.S. (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002). 3. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that ``price controls discourage the R&D needed to develop new products'' (McClellan 2003). But there is no known verifiable evidence to support this claim. R&D expenditures have been growing rapidly, though it is becoming more and more difficult to discover breakthrough drugs on targets not already hit (Harris 2003). The truth kept from Americans is that first-line treatment for 96% of all medical problems requires only 320 drugs (Laing et al. 2003). In wealthy countries, more drugs might be appropriate to treat people who do not respond to first-line agents. 4. FDA Commissioner McClellan charges that efforts to negotiate lower prices for patented drugs by other countries (and by major employers, unions and governors in the U.S.) are ``no different than violating the patent directly'' to make cheap copies (McClellan 2003). This charge echoes the drug industry and implies that large buyers seeking better value should be considered a criminal act. 5. FDA Commissioner McClellan paints a picture of other wealthy countries driving down their prices to marginal costs, but the widening gap between prices for patented drugs in the U.S. and other countries is due to drug companies raising U.S. prices, not other countries lowering theirs (Sager and Socolar 2003; Families USA 2003). 6. The ``free-rider'' problem that McClellan emphasizes can be solved by U.S. prices coming down to European levels, where they will cover all R&D costs, plus profits that are higher than those in most industries. 7. Drug company profits, after all R&D costs, have long been more than double the profits of Fortune 500 corporations. In recent years they have jumped to triple and even quadruple the profits of other major companies (National Institute for Health Care Management 2000). The global firms spend two and a half to three times more for marketing and administration than for research (Families USA 2001). 8. Americans pay for more R&D than any other country because the United States accounts for more sales than any other country. But while the U.S. accounts for 51% of world sales, it took 58% of global R&D expenditures invested in the US to discover only 43% of the more important new drugs (NCEs) (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations 2003). This means that other countries are helping to pay for the large, inefficient U.S. R&D enterprise, the opposite of what the editors of Business Week claimed (Business Week editors 2003). William Safire's claim of a ``foreign rip-off'' as Americans pay for the world's R&D is contradicted by the facts above (Safire 2003). research is misdirected by the industry, against patients' interests 9. Most drug innovation provides little or no therapeutic advantage over existing * * * Independent review panels plus a major industry review conclude that only 10-15% of ``new'' drugs provide a significant therapeutic breakthrough over existing drugs and involve a new chemical or molecule (Barral 1996; Prescrire International 2003; National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Education Foundation 2002). Other industry-sponsored figures are much higher but not reliable. 10. The FDA approves drugs that are better than nothing (placebo) but does not test them against the best existing drugs for the same problem. Most research is for ``new'' drugs to treat problems already treated by other drugs. 11. About 18% ofthe drug industry's research budget goes to basic research for breakthrough drugs. About 82% goes to derivative innovations on existing drugs and to testing. The long-standing survey of basic research by the National Science Foundation estimates that basic research has increased to 18% of the total research and development (R&D) budget for the pharmaceutical industry. It used to be less (National Science Foundation 2003). Industry-sponsored figures based on secret unverifiable data are much higher but not reliable (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski 2003). The 85-90% of ``new'' drugs that have little therapeutic gain reflects equal protection from competition for much less investment and risk. 12. Congress has repeatedly extended patent protection for drugs beyond what other industries enjoy, despite much higher profits year in and year out. Government protection from normal competition is now more than 50% greater for the drug industry than a decade ago (National Institute for Health Care Management 2000). These incentives reward research into derivative large markets, rather than to finding effective treatments for diseases that have none. 13. These facts constitute the Blockbuster Syndrome: the lure of monopoly pricing and windfall profits for years spurs the relentless pursuit for drugs that might sell more than $1 billion a year, regardless of therapeutic need or benefit. Research projects for the disorders of affluent nations proliferate, as do clinical trials. Doctors are paid like bounty hunters to recruit patients for thousands of dollars each. Most patients get the misimpression that the experimental drug will be better than existing ones (Wolpe 2003). The corruption of professional judgment, ethics and even medical science follow (Williams 2003; Wazana 2000; Barnett 2003; Lexchin, Bero, Djulbegovic et al. 2003; Bekelman, Mphil, and Gross 2003; Villanueva, Peiro, Librero et al. 2003; Fletcher 2003). Drug research costs much less than claimed 14. Drug companies claim to spend 17% of domestic sales on R&D, but more objective data reports they spend only 10% (National Science Foundation 2003). Thus, only 1.8% of sales goes to research for breakthrough new drugs (18% x 10%) (Love 2003). 15. Taxpayers pay for most research costs, and many clinical trials as well. In 2000, for example, industry spent 18% of its $13 billion for R&D on basic research, or $2.3 billion in gross costs (National Science Foundation 2003). All of that money was subsidized by taxpayers through deductions and tax credits. Taxpayers also paid for all $18 billion in NIH funds, as well as for R&D funds in the Department of Defense and other public budgets. Most of that money went for basic research to discover breakthrough drugs, and public money also supports more than 5000 clinical trials (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 2002). Taxpayer contributions are similar in more recent years, only larger. 16. The average amount of research funds the drug industry needs to recover appears to be much less than the industry's figure of $800 million per new drug approved (NDA). The $800 million figure is based on the small unrepresentative subsample of all new drugs. It excludes the majority of ``new'' drugs that are extensions or new administrations of existing drugs, as well as all drugs developed by NIH, universities, foundations, foreign teams, or others that have been licensed in or bought. Variations on existing drugs probably cost much less because so much of the work has already been done and trials are simpler. About half of the $800 million figure consists of ``opportunity costs'', the money that would have been made if the R&D funds had been invested in equities, in effect a presumed profit built in and compounded every year and then called a ``cost.'' Drug companies then expect to make a profit on this compounded profit, as well as on their actual costs. Minus the built-in profits, R&D costs would average about $108 million 93% of the time and $400 million 7% of the time. The $800 million estimate also does not include taxpayers' subsidies via deductions and credits and untaxed profits (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski 2003; DiMasi, Hansen, Grabowski et al. 1991). Net R&D costs are then still lower. Contrary to some press reports from the industry, screening for new compounds is becoming faster and more efficient and the time from initial testing to approval has shortened substantially (Kaitin and Healy 2000). The large size of trials seems more due to signing up specialists to lock in substantial market share. Advertising firms are now running clinical trials (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 2002; Peterson 2002; Moyers 2002). 17. Because clinical trials have become a high-profit sub- industry, trial ``costs'' appear to be much more than is necessary. An international team of experts estimates that clinical trials could be done for about $500 per patient rather than $10,000 per patient, a 95% reduction (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 2002). The most detailed empirical study of trial costs also concludes that costs can be much less than reported (The Global Alliance for TB Drug Development 2001). U.S. drug prices very high 18. Americans seem unaware how much more they are paying for drugs than other countries, in the name of the ``free market'' where prices are controlled by corporations. So- called ``price controls'' abroad are negotiated wholesale prices. Corporate price controls in the U.S. are un- negotiated monopoly prices, which then large buyers negotiate down. According to a detailed analysis, American employers and health plans pay at wholesale 2.5-3.5 times the prices in Australia and other countries with comparable prices for patented drugs (Productivity Commission of Australia 2001). There is no evidence that these prices do not cover research costs. U.S. generic prices shadow patent drug prices and are also 2.5-3.5 times more. 19. High American prices are essentially monopoly rents charged to employers in every other industry. They shift profits from other industries to the drug industry. 20. If American prices were cut in half, research budgets would not have to suffer unless executives decided to cut them in favor of marketing, luxurious managerial allowances or high profits. They probably would not, because R&D gets such favorable tax treatment compared to other expenses. Lower prices would save other Fortune 500 companies billions in drug benefit costs, and drug company profits could come into line with the profits of the companies who pay for their drugs. Realign incentives to reward true innovation 21. Current incentives strongly reward derivative innovation. We get what we reward. 22. Because the U.S. is by far the biggest spender, it has by far the most R&D and new drugs. Four other industrialized countries, however, devote more of their GDP to R&D for new drugs than the U.S. (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002). 23. Officials of drug companies commonly claim that nearly all new drugs are discovered in the U.S. However, the industry's own studies (and others) show that over the past quarter century, the U.S. has accounted for less than or about the same as its proportionate share of international new drugs, not more and certainly not nearly all (Barral 1996; European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations 2000). Until 2002, even the U.S. pharmaceutical industry was investing an increasing percent of its R&D budget in highly productive research teams abroad (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 2002). 24. Americans are getting less innovation and paying a lot more. Competing countries profit from these American self- delusions by covering their R&D and keeping their own drug prices reasonable, while leaving drug companies to make bonanza profits from the monopoly American market. 25. Price competition has been the greatest spur to innovation for over 200 years. Price protections reward derivative and me-too innovation as well as excessive costs and a focus on blockbuster marketing. If we want lower prices and more breakthrough innovations, we need to change the incentives to reward those goals (Baker and Chatani 2002).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to one point because I think a lot of people may not have been paying attention. This study that we are talking about where we got the $800 million figure originally started with a study that was funded by pharmaceutical companies. That number then gets repeated by the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and we all believe that it is true. We have an independent research that was not financed by PhRMA. That was done by a professor who was at Princeton from New Jersey. More importantly, he was an adviser to this President on health policy. Let me add one other thing: He is a Republican. Now, this is, I think, far more credible than that number that keeps getting bantered around and bantered around. Bad numbers are worse than no numbers at all. This is the one way to say to the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the United States they ought to be ashamed. Whether or not this amendment passes, the point, I think, is made: that if they are going to put information out to the President, out to the public, out to policymakers about important issues like this, they had better make sure that the facts are correct.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk tonight about the unfairness of what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to what consumers pay around the rest of the industrialized world. I have with me again this chart. Let me just read some of the numbers, the difference between the prices for these drugs at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany and at one of my pharmacies in Rochester, Minnesota: Nexium, for $60.25 in Germany; $145.33 in the United States. Norvasc, $19.31 in Germany, $54.83 in the United States. Zyrtec, $34.33 in Germany, $73.02. Prevacid, $35.22, $146.47. Zocor, $23.83 in Germany, $85.39 here. The list goes on. These are 10 of the most commonly prescribed name-brand drugs. The total in Germany, $455.57. The total here in the United States, more than double that, at $1,040.40. Americans pay 128 percent more for exactly the same drugs made in the same plants under the same FDA approval. But many Members ask me, well, how did you become so involved in this issue? What made you so passionate? I would like to share that story of how I got involved in this issue. A number of years ago I had a town hall meeting and there were some seniors who came to the meetings and they told me about going up to Canada to buy their prescription drugs. And to be honest, it was one of those events where I heard but I did not really listen. And then at a subsequent meeting one of the seniors asked me a very tough question. She said, why are we treated like common criminals for going to Canada to save some dollars on our prescription drugs? Well, I did not have a very good answer. And then a few months later something happened that had nothing to do with prescription drugs. The price of live hogs in the United States collapsed. The price of pigs dropped from about $37 per hundred weight down to about $7. It was one of the worst catastrophes for American pork producers since the Great Depression. And they did what many constituents do. They called their Congressman and said, can you not do something about this? And I said, well, I do not know what I can do. And they said, well, can you not somehow at least stop all these Canadian pigs from coming into our market, making our supply-demand situation even worse? Is not there something you can do about that, Congressman? So I called the Secretary of Agriculture, I called the Secretary of Commerce, and I got essentially the same answer. They both said, well, that is called NAFTA. That is called free trade. We have open markets. And finally, to the Secretary of Commerce I said, wait a second; you mean we have open borders when it comes to pork bellies but not when it comes to Prilosec? And he sort of laughed on the other end of the phone and said, well, I guess that is right. And I said, well, that does not sound right to me. And so this little pilgrimage started there with the price of pigs. And there is something wrong with a system that protects the large pharmaceutical companies, but does nothing to protect our pork producers. And so I began to do research and realized how much more Americans pay. Now, I do not want price controls. In fact, I do not want people buying their prescription drugs over the Internet. But I think it should be legal. What I really want is American pharmacists to have access to what pharmacists in Europe have. It is called parallel trade. Because that pharmacist in Frankfurt, Germany can go ahead and order his drugs from Sweden or Norway or France or Spain, wherever they can buy them cheapest. You see, there was a President by the name of Ronald Reagan who said that markets are more powerful than armies. And it really is time that we use market pressures and market forces to help control the runaway prices of prescription drugs. I believe American consumers have a right to that. I believe American consumers have a right to world-class drugs at world-market prices. So I hope Members will join me in this great effort to make certain that we open markets, that we create a competitive market so that Americans can buy Zocor for $30 rather than $85. We are not asking for a free lunch. We are just asking for a fair price.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again tonight to talk about prescription drugs, and more importantly about what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to consumers in other industrialized countries. I have this chart, and I know that on television it is a little hard for the Members who are watching their offices to see these numbers, but if you go to my Web site at gil.house.gov, you can see this chart and other comparisons that we have, not only with the United States and Germany, as this chart is, but with other countries, because we now have pharmacists literally around the world who regularly share with us what their prices are for prescription drugs. What you see here are 10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. You can buy those drugs in Frankfurt, Germany for $455.57. Those same 10 drugs here in the United States are $1,040.04. Americans pay 128 percent more for the same drugs made in the same plants under the same FDA approval. Let me give you one example we have talked about before: Zocor, an excellent drug. Many heart patients take Zocor. As a matter of fact, some of our colleagues here in Congress take Zocor. And depending on what Federal program you are under, you can be paying a copay of $30 for that drug. Federal Members of Congress may be paying $30 when consumers in Germany can walk into the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, and they can buy that drug for $23.80. The copay here in the United States, in many cases, is $30. The regular price in Rochester, Minnesota, for that drug, $85.39. And again, these are the same drugs, made in the same plants with the same FDA approval. What is wrong with this picture? Well, what is wrong with this picture is that American consumers are held hostage. In countries like Germany, they have what is called parallel trade. So a pharmacist in Frankfurt, for example, if they want to buy that Zocor, if they can buy that Zocor in Sweden cheaper than they can buy it from the distributors in Germany, they are allowed to do that. That creates a competitive marketplace. That is what we are trying to encourage with the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. Now, our Founders understood that the Federal Government is created by the States and not the other way around. But the States in many cases have been referred to as the laboratory of democracy. And the interesting thing is State governments, and more importantly the Governors of those States, are not standing by idly. What they are doing is they are creating their own programs. In Illinois, in Kansas, in my own State of Minnesota, Minnesotans now have access to buying drugs from Canada, and they recently added Great Britain. The I-SaveRx program, now in Illinois, includes Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. Now, many of the people here in Washington, our own FDA says that is not safe. Well, some of these States have now over a year of experience and they have demonstrated that this can be done safely. The list goes on. Missouri, Nevada, I think was just signed into law either yesterday or today, the law takes effect July 1st, so that people in Nevada will have access to drugs from foreign countries at much more competitive prices. New Hampshire, North Dakota has joined the list. We now have 11 States, and we do not know how many cities have joined this list. But it really is time for us at the Federal level to do our job to make sure that Americans have access to world-class drugs at world- market prices. Mr. Speaker, this is not a mystery. It can be done. What we know is that the Europeans are not intrinsically smarter than we are. If they figured out how to do this parallel trade, we can do it as well. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Americans to have access to these drugs at 128 percent cheaper than they can buy them in the United States.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk about an issue that altogether too many Americans know more about than perhaps some folks here in Washington, and that is the almost inexcusable high prices for prescription drugs here in the United States. The more we learn about this subject, the more frustrating it becomes, because what we have learned over the last 5 or 6 years is it is not just that Americans pay high prices for prescription drugs; it is that people in industrialized countries like Germany and France and Switzerland pay so much less than we do. What I have here is a chart, and I know these letters are almost too small to see on the television cameras, but let me point out a couple of the numbers. This is a chart of comparative prices that we got from a pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, called Metropolitan Pharmacy; and then we got prices from a local pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota, for exactly the same drugs made in the same plants under the same FDA approval. What we see are some amazing differences. Look at, for example, the drug Nexium, 30 tablets, 20 milligrams. In Germany, you can walk in with a prescription and buy that drug at the Metropolitan Pharmacy for $60.25. That exact same drug in Rochester, Minnesota, will cost you $145.33. Let me just say that prices do vary from pharmacy to pharmacy; but I would guarantee that here in Washington, D.C., the price would probably be at least $145.33. Let us take the drug Zocor, 30 tablets, 10 milligrams. In Germany you can buy that drug for $23.83, but here in the United States you would have to pay $85.39. Now, that is bad enough. But if you total all of these up, these are 10 of the more commonly prescribed drugs in the United States and Germany, the total for those drugs for a month's supply in Frankfurt, Germany, $455.57. Those same drugs here in the United States, $1,040.4. That is a 128 percent difference. Now, this chart actually gets more interesting, because we have pharmacists all over the world now who send us their prices on a regular basis so we can compare what is happening to drug prices. One year ago, when we compared a basket, now the drugs changed slightly, because some of these drugs went off patent, and so the basket of drugs changed slightly, but 1 year ago, the difference between the basket of 10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in Germany was $430, and here in the United States it was $866. It was exactly a 100 percent difference. The point I want to make here is during that period, during that 1- year time period, what happened was the value of the dollar relative to the euro actually came down. Now, I am not a monetarist, I do not quite understand these exchanges sometimes, but the people who do tell me that actually what should have happened is the price differential between the United States and Germany should have gotten less. It actually got worse. People ask, well, how could that happen? How could it be that the difference between what Americans pay and Germans pay actually got worse? Well, the reason is Americans are held hostage. The American market is a captive market, because not only do we give the pharmaceutical companies, which I believe we should give them the rights that they have in terms of their patent rights and so forth, I do not think that we should do anything to hurt people's patent rights; but what we have done in the United States is different than just giving them patent rights. Intellectual property deserves patent protection. For example, we know that when Intel comes out with a new computer chip, that first chip off the line can cost $500 million, but we do not tell Intel that you can also control that product after you make the first sale. In other words, if they sell that chip to a distributor in Japan for $25 and they want to sell it to American manufacturers for $75, they cannot control what that distributor in Japan does. We have open markets. That is what we want to create here in the Congress. We have a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate who believe that it is time to stop holding Americans captive. We understand that these drugs cost a lot of money to develop. We as Americans are willing to pay our share in terms of developing those drugs; but, unfortunately, Americans pay in three different ways for these drugs. First of all, we pay in the prices, and they are inflated. They are the highest prices in the world for these drugs. Secondly, we pay, in some respects, through our Tax Code, because when companies develop these drugs here in the United States, they get to write off all of the cost of those research and development dollars. But, third, and this is also important, Americans pay more than any other country through our tax dollars to help develop these drugs. This year, we will spend over $20 billion through various agencies, the National Science Foundation, the various groups at NIH, and even through the Defense Department, to help develop these miracle drugs. So in some respects, we pay for them in the prices we pay, we pay in the Tax Code, and we pay in the research that we pay for. It is time to give Americans access to world-class drugs at world- market prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a convicted felon. Earlier this month, with the revealing of Deep Throat, we were reminded of Watergate, a pivotal event in American history that also marked a major turning point in the life of then White House hatchet man Chuck Colson. Instead of returning to a career in the private sector after serving his prison sentence, Colson felt called to return to those still behind bars. In 1976 he founded Prison Fellowship, the world's largest prison outreach organization. In 2002, after nearly 30 years of leading Prison Fellowship, Colson named former Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley as the man who would take the organization into the next generation. Now, June 16, 2005, marks another crowning moment as they dedicate new headquarters in Landsdowne, Virginia. With over two million Americans behind bars in the United States, Prison Fellowship is working to change hearts and help return inmates to society as productive citizens. Today we may dedicate bricks and mortar, but we are truly giving thanks that Prison Fellowship is not just an organization; it is a movement of churches and volunteers in all 50 States and now 108 countries around the world Thank you, Chuck Colson, for saving lives by saving souls.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again tonight on the floor of the House to talk about the issue of prescription drugs and how much Americans pay relative to consumers in the rest of the industrialized world. What we have on this chart are the prices effective February 7, 2005, so they are relatively new. We have prices here from the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, and a local pharmacy in my hometown of Rochester, Minnesota. Over the last year, we expected the prices to narrow because of what has happened to the dollar relative to the euro, but, in fact, the price difference between what Americans pay and Germans pay has actually gotten worse. Let me give a couple of examples. A drug called Norvasc, 30 tablets, 5 milligrams, in Rochester, Minnesota, $54.83. In Germany, only $19.31. Drop down to another drug, and these are 10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States and in Europe. Zocor, $85.39 for a month's supply in the United States, and in Germany it is $23.83. Mr. Speaker, what is important about that particular drug is for many of the programs, including many of the Federal employees, the copay here in the United States for that drug is $30. You can walk in off the street and buy it at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, for less than the copay in the United States. Mr. Speaker, the chart speaks for itself. The total for the 10 most commonly prescribed drugs in Germany is $455.57. In the United States it is more than double that at $1,040.04. The question is how does this happen? The answer is Americans are held hostage because pharmaceutical companies get a special provision that nobody else gets. They deal with intellectual property, and the cost of that first product coming off the line is very expensive and that is why they have to have these high prices. I understand that. The cost of the research for a new drug is extremely high. That first new pill can cost 350, 400, maybe even $500 million. But it is the same thing for Intel when they develop a new chip, but Intel does not get the same protections. They cannot sell their chips to Germans for half the price they sell them to Americans because the suppliers would start selling them back in the United States. That is what is called parallel trade, and that is what they have had in Germany for a long time. Throughout the European Union, a pharmacist in Germany can buy their supplies from Spain or from Norway or wherever they can buy that Zocor cheaper. As a result, they have a competitive marketplace over there. If Members want to learn more about that, we have a videotape by Dr. Peter Rost, who is an M.D. and he is an executive with one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, and he has come out in favor of parallel trading. He is very strongly in favor of the bill I have introduced which is cosponsored by a wide range of Members of the House which would open up the pharmaceutical markets, much as we do with everything else. I also want to say a special tribute to Minnesota's governor, Governor Tim Pawlenty, because he was one of the first governors to recognize that Minnesotans should not be held hostage. And now he has opened up not just the drugs from Canada, but we have actually opened up to Great Britain as well. One of the things that he often says is the industry says this is unsafe. He says if it is really unsafe, show me the dead Canadians and the dead Europeans and the dead Germans. The truth of the matter is they do this every day and they are not genetically smarter than we are. We ought to have the same ability to use parallel trade to reduce these outrageous prices here in the United States. I also want to show a letter that I, and 220 of my colleagues, sent to the Speaker of the House recently. A majority of the Members of this House want to have a vote to allow Americans to have access to world- class drugs at world market prices, and we are going to continue to put pressure on the leadership, on the administration, on the FDA, whoever it takes to make certain Americans get fair prices. Mr. Speaker, ultimately we do not want something for nothing. We do not believe we ought to take advantage of somebody else, but we do not think we should be taken advantage of either, and it is time Americans get fair prices. It really is time that the world's best customers have access to the world's best drugs at world market prices. I hope more Members will join me in this effort because I believe the time has come to make that certain we open up these markets so we get fair prices for consumers. Whatever their particular condition, we want fair prices and we want them now.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise tonight to talk about what Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to what the rest of the industrialized world pays for those same prescription drugs. And for those who were watching on Sunday night the television show ``60 Minutes,'' there was a very interesting segment, and it featured Dr. Peter Rost, who is both an M.D. and a VP of a very large pharmaceutical company. And what Dr. Rost talked about last night on ``60 Minutes'' is the same subject that I and many Members of this House have been talking about for several years, and that is that Americans pay by far and away much more for prescription drugs than consumers in any other industrialized country. I do not know how well Members can see this, but this chart has five of the most commonly prescribed prescription drugs today; and it has prices from London, from Athens, and from the United States. And what we see on these charts is we really have three different price levels. We see the price, for example, of Lipitor in London is $40.88. That same Lipitor, which incidentally Dr. Rost talked about and is made in Ireland, all of it is imported somewhere because it is all made in Ireland; but in London, $40.88; in Athens, $55.65; but a month's supply in the United States is $76.41. You look at the entire list and then you total them up, the five most commonly prescribed drugs. In London, those five drugs are $195 U.S. In Athens, they are $231 in American dollars. Here in the United States, $507. Mr. Speaker, the chart can get worse, too. If you look at what we see, for example, in Germany, and these numbers again are from earlier this year, when you compare on this chart we have 10 of the most commonly-prescribed drugs brought at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfort, Germany, and this is essentially just coming in off the street, not expecting any special discount either in the United States or here, but those 10 in the United States total $1,040. In Germany, you can buy the same drugs for $455.57. Mr. Speaker, it really is time that we do what they do in Europe. It is called parallel trading. For Members, if we can work out the legalities, we are going to try to make available to Members a copy of that 60 Minutes segment so people can see for themselves and hear from somebody who is actually a pharmaceutical insider. As I say, he is now a VP of marketing of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. He formerly though worked in Europe for a big pharmaceutical company, and he was involved in what is called parallel trading. That creates a competitive marketplace. Because, at the end of the day, we Americans understand it does cost money to develop these new drugs, and we are willing to pay our fair share. We ought to be willing to subsidize the starving people in Sub- Saharan Africa. We should not be forced to subsidize the starving Swiss. Americans deserve world-class drugs at world market prices. The time has come to open up markets and allow Americans to have access to these drugs. When we do, you will see the prices balanced so that the prices in Europe are probably going to go up a little, but the prices here in the United States will go down dramatically. Please join me in this important effort.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a very, very special lady tonight. Dorothy ``Dottie'' Holmes served in the United States Air Force from 1949 to 1979. She is the first female Chief Master Sergeant and first woman to retire with 30 years of continuous service in the United States Air Force. She received 14 different awards and decorations during her career, the highest being the Legion of Merit Award. Dottie Holmes was recalled to active duty twice to serve on the Air Force Chief of Staff Advisory Council For Retiree Affairs. She currently serves as a trustee on the TREA Senior Citizens League Board, a position that she has held since 2001. She previously served as a trustee on TSCL from 1995 to 1996. Dottie Holmes is a life member of the Retired Enlisted Association. She served as the National President, the only woman to do so. She was a National first Vice President, and the National second Vice President of that organization as well. She actively served on the TREA Convention, Finance, Planning, Membership, Bylaws, and Rules Committees during the 1990s. She also served as president, Vice President, and Secretary of Chapter 1 Building Board Association. She has been active in community affairs. Dottie Holmes served as a Pikes Peak Regional USO council member. She served as a Colorado State Field Representative For Women in Military Service, a part of their Memorial Foundation. She served as a city and county election judge, a USAFA Special Olympics volunteer. She also served at Peterson Air Force Base as a staff judge advocate volunteer. She currently serves as President of the Women in the Air Force Association. She is considered an authority, and let me say a real authority, on the Air Force Academy. For many of the years that she served in the Air Force, she served as sort of the den mother to an awful lot of those cadets who went on to become officers in the United States Air Force. The management skills of Dottie that she acquired from service in the Air Force and in her community service were enhanced by her college studies and management. At TREA Senior Citizens League, she has served as Vice President of the Board of Trustees for the past several years. She has demonstrated outstanding leadership in helping to oversee the Board's rise to prominence as a really accredited and acclaimed seniors' group. In numerous meetings with Members of Congress, vice-chair Dottie Holmes demonstrated strength and determination in representing their position on important issues affecting seniors around the United States. She persuaded many legislators to send articles to her to appear in their newsletter, and she has just been an amazing and powerful force for issues that seniors care about. Dottie Holmes contributed greatly to the seniors of America with her work on that board. She has done the country and her Air Force service proud. From the very first day that I met Dottie Holmes, it was apparent that she was an exceptional lady. It has been a personal pleasure of mine to work with her during the past several years on behalf of seniors' issues, especially on behalf of her interest in making affordable drugs more available to seniors here in the United States. She championed the cause of safer and less expensive drugs when she spoke on a panel at a town hall meeting we held last year in Denver. Her convincing voice for seniors will be sorely missed here in Washington when she retires from the Board of Trustees. I want to say a very special and personal thank you to Dottie Holmes for the example that she has set and for her lifetime of service.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the price of prescription drugs here in the United States compared to what consumers pay in other industrialized countries in the world. I have some charts with me tonight because I want to point out some differences. There are several that I think are important. This is a chart, and some numbers are hard to read. These are 10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. We have Nexium and Norvasc and Zyrtec and Zocor. I want to point out Zocor, we have a price, and these were all done just in the last few months. We have a price from the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany and a local pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota. If we total all of these drugs for a month's supply, in Frankfurt, Germany, they would cost $455.57 in U.S. dollars. Also in U.S. dollars in the United States, the price of those same drugs, those same 10 best-selling prescription drugs would be $1,040.04. Over the last year, the value of the dollar has declined by about 20 percent. We thought the differences we pay in the United States and what our German friends pay would have gotten less. We were surprised to learn that the differences have gotten worse. For example, Zocor, a very commonly prescribed drug for people who have some heart problems or problems with their circulation, Zocor in the United States on average sells for $85 for a month's supply. In Germany you can buy that drug for $23.83. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this story is that one of my colleagues came up to me and he saw this chart. He said, I take Zocor. I said how much do you pay for it. He said a copay for a U.S. Congressman for that Zocor is $30 here in the United States. You can walk in off the street to the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany and pay $23.83, and the Germans think they are paying too much for prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I am holding in my hand two boxes of Celebrex. They are exactly the same. They come from the same plant. If you bought this box of Celebrex in the United States, you would pay more than double what you pay for the same drug in Germany. Now, I think Americans are willing to, and I speak on behalf of most Americans, we understand there is a cost to develop these drugs. There is a cost to market these drugs. Unfortunately, there is too much being spent on advertising, but I am not one who says they should not be able to advertise. But I believe Americans ought to have access to world- class drugs at world-market prices. I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting, and I have another chart that is easier to read, compare London to Athens to the United States. We now have pharmacists from around the world who regularly send us their prices for the drugs. In almost every case, it is less than half what we pay in the United States. These same five drugs, Lipitor, Nexium, Prevacid, Zoloft, and Zyrtec, those five drugs in London, $195.95. In Athens, $231.04; but here in the United States, $507.96. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to please join me in cosponsoring H.R. 328, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005. It is time to make clear that Americans have access to world-class drugs at world-market prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 281) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, for those Members who are going home and having town hall meetings and meeting with constituents, the one issue that comes up with almost every small business, big business, medium- sized businesses, and it comes up with families and school boards, as well as coming up with representatives of State legislatures, it is the cost of health care. One of the issues we talk a lot about in Minnesota, because we are so close to the Canadian border, is the difference between what we pay for prescription drugs and what people on the other side of the Canadian border pay for the same drugs. I have in my hands two boxes of Celebrex. We had a hearing last week in the Committee on Government Reform and I held these up and asked: Can anyone tell me which one of these drugs came from another country and which one came from the United States? Well, the answer is you cannot tell because they are exactly the same. Another question, though, about the Celebrex, is which one is safe? Well, according to the FDA, and now according to the company itself, depending upon the condition you may have with your heart and blood, neither one of them may actually be safe. What I want to talk a little bit about tonight is the differences between what we pay here in the United States and what they pay in Germany for the same drugs. I have a list here, and we have some pharmacies now around the world who, on a regular basis, will send us via e-mail what the pricing is right then for anyone who walks in off the street to buy the drugs. Here are a few examples. I am going to talk later about the drug Nexium. You can buy that at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, for $60.25. That same drug, same potency, same everything, made in the same plant, sells at a local pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota, for $145.33. Look at Prevacid. In Germany, it is $35.22, American. In the United States it is $146.47. Zocor. This is an interesting drug. You can walk in off the street with a prescription and you can buy it in Germany, 30 tablets, 10 milligrams, for $23.83. That same drug in Rochester, Minnesota, will be $85. But what I want to talk about is the Germans. Even if we add up 10 of the most commonly prescribed drugs, in Germany you can buy all of those for $455.57. Those same drugs in the United States would be more than double that at $1,040.04. That is bad enough, but what makes it even worse is the Germans are looking at cutting the cost that they paid for prescription drugs. Recently, the German health care system announced that they would not pay for Lipitor. Why not? Well, the ministry decided last year it could no longer cover the high prices of some of the branded drugs because they were deemed to have the same medical efficacy as available generics. The point is even though they are buying Lipitor considerably cheaper than we buy it here in the United States, they still think it is too much and the manufacturers cannot justify the price. The other story is from The Washington Post where even the Department of Defense is starting to get it right. They are saying they will not reimburse for Nexium except in rare circumstances. Nexium is the new purple pill, and it came out to replace Prilosec. That is why we have to pay so much for these drugs, because these are blockbuster drugs. The truth of the matter is by their only filings with the FDA, Nexium is not much more effective than Prilosec. As the Department of Defense says in the article, Nexium is not worth the money. It goes on to say it is pretty dubious to pay $4 a pill for Nexium when over-the-counter Prilosec is 67 cents. Mr. Speaker, I think Americans ought to have access to world-class drugs. I think we ought to pay our fair share. I think we ought to be willing to subsidize the starving people in sub-Saharan Africa, but I do not think Americans should have to subsidize the starving Swiss. I do not think Americans ought to be forced to pay the world's highest prices for these drugs. No one can tell the difference. These are the same drugs. They come from the same plants; and yet as Members can see, we are paying many times 50, 60, 70 percent more for the same drugs. I am asking Members to join in this effort by cosponsoring my Pharmaceutical Market Access bill. We have been working on this for several years. It has passed the House a couple of times. This time I think we can get it past the Senate as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, the Mississippi River is called the Father of Waters. I rise today to honor the work of Dr. Calvin R. Fremling of Winona, Minnesota. For nearly 50 years, Dr. Fremling has been a student of the Mississippi River. He has shared his passion as a teacher, researcher, historian, and photographer. He received his bachelor's degree in biology and physical science from St. Cloud State University in 1951 and his Ph.D. in zoology from Iowa State University in 1959. After brief service as a teacher in Motley High School and with the U.S. Army's Ecological Research Unit, he returned to SCSU to earn his master's degree in biology. Dr. Fremling then joined the faculty at Winona State University where he taught and conducted research for 32 years until his retirement in 1991. He just released his book, ``Immortal River: The Upper Mississippi River in Ancient and Modern Times.'' The book is a record of lifetime of work dedicated to protecting the ecology of the Mississippi River. I thank Dr. Fremling for his work with one of our national treasures and for his commitment to our young people.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our guest chaplain, Reverend Susan Peterson of St. Paul, Minnesota. I often tell students when they come to the Capitol that the first official act of the Continental Congress was to appoint a chaplain. The second thing they did was they prayed. They prayed for an hour and a half. We have long understood the importance of faith in our society. Reverend Peterson is the senior pastor of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in St. Paul. She was the first woman in the ELCA to be called as a senior pastor to a large Lutheran congregation. A proud Minnesota native, she attended Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota; Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois; the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia; and in 1985, she and her family moved to St. Paul where she was called to the position of associate pastor at Gloria Dei. Susan has served in a variety of leadership positions for the St. Paul Area Synod, as well as a number of other church-related institutions. I thank the Reverend Peterson for her service as guest Chaplain for the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I thank my colleague from the Seventh Congressional District for offering this resolution at this time to pay tribute and to offer our condolences to all of the people, not only of the victims but even of the people who committed these terrible acts up in Red Lake. Unfortunately, I think most of America, most Members of Congress will always think of Red Lake now in the terms of this great tragedy. But I would like to take a few minutes to think of a happier time, of a prouder time. And it is a story that most of the Members should know, and most of the Members do not, of what happened in 1997 in Red Lake. And that was the story of Gerald Kingbird and the story of the warriors who came down from Red Lake and brought a basketball team to the Minnesota State basketball tournament, and they offered something that had not been seen on many Indian reservations for many years, and that was a sense of pride, a sense of hope, and a sense of unity. It was perhaps one of the greatest basketball teams ever assembled. They lost in the semi-finals that year to the Wabasso Rabbits 117 to 113, and it was perhaps the greatest basketball game ever played in the history of the State of Minnesota. And I bring that to Members' attention because, yes, this high school has been the scene of a terrible tragedy, but it has also been the scene of enormous pride in Native American activities. And what they did in 1997 in that game and in that tournament, I think, should also stand as a tribute to the people of Red Lake. So, Mr. Speaker, I will insert an article into the Congressional Record, and I hope that my colleagues will read this article because I think it speaks of the kind of pride that we saw in 1997. Clearly, this is a terrible tragic time for the people in Red Lake. But I hope that they will reflect and that we will reflect that there have been better days before and there will be better days to come. I agree with my colleagues that we must do all that we can to make our schools safe. I agree with my colleagues when we say that schools should be places where kids want to go and feel comfortable. And we at the Federal level, and I am sure our colleagues at the State level, will do all that we can. But I do not think we should take from this a belief that this is going to be a common occurrence or that this is really what happens in too many schools today. This is a rare occurrence, and we hope that it will never happen again. But we also hope that Members will remember that there have been happy and proud days in the days of the Red Lake Reservation and there will be happy and proud days to come.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again tonight to talk about the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States relative to what the rest of the people in the industrialized world pay for the same drugs. Recently there was an article in The Wall Street Journal which talked about how much name-brand prescription drugs have gone up just in the last year; and I think in that article they said over the last 5 years prescription drugs have gone up more than twice the rate of inflation. In fact, I think it is more like three times the rate of inflation. These are drugs that have been on the market for a long period of time, and the research costs were paid for a long time ago. Recently, I got some research together from some pharmacies in three cities of five of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. First, Lipitor, which is a drug which is made in Ireland. Every single tablet is made in Ireland, and it is exported around the world. The price of a 30-day supply of Lipitor in London, England, was $40.88. That same drug in Athens, Greece, was $55.65; and in the United States, $76.41. The next drug here is Nexium, the new purple pill: 30 tablets, twenty milligrams, London, $42.23; Athens, $57.09; the United States, $138.06. We compared the prices of Previcet, Zoloft, and Zyrtec. If you add them up, the price of those five drugs in London, $195.95; in Athens, those same five drugs, $231.04; but here in the United States, $507.96. Why is this important? Well, this year, according to the head of pharmacology at the University of Minnesota, Dr. Steve Schondelmeyer, according to him, this year, Americans will spend $200 billion on prescription drugs. And if you compare what Americans pay for the same name-brand drugs compared to the industrialized countries around the rest of the world, we are paying at least 30 percent more. In fact, I think it may be more like 50 to 75 percent more, but let us take 30 percent. Thirty percent of $200 billion is $60 billion. I believe if we treated prescription drugs the way we treat every other product and allowed Americans to have access to those drugs and those products as we do with other products, you would see prices in the United States drop dramatically. That is why I have reintroduced a bill that has passed several times; in fact, we have improved it this year, made it even safer, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005. I hope Members will go to my Web site at gil.house.gov, get the facts, take a look at these charts, get a copy of the bill, and decide to become a cosponsor. It is important, because we need to send a message that Americans deserve to have world-class access to world-class drugs at world-market prices, and when we do, we will see the prices here in the United States reflect more what is the average among the industrialized world. So I hope my colleagues will join me. Go to my Web site at gil.house.gov; there is a lot of information there. We have about 70 sponsors right now; we would like to get that to 220. Please join me in the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and to honor the memory of Travis Bruce. Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps ironic that, as the family of Specialist Travis Bruce was learning the tragic news, I was at the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. We all ask ourselves the questions that have haunted leaders from Washington to Grant to this very day: Are we doing the right thing? Is it worth the sacrifice? I can think of no better place to ask those questions than at that hospital. So I asked those young heroes, and I can honestly report that they answered ``yes.'' A few said ``absolutely.'' For Specialist Bruce, the battle is now over. He now rests in the loving arms of the God of our fathers. He takes his place in that long line of patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice, that long line that has never failed us. It is now left for us to carry on. There are no words adequate to express our condolences. It is enough for us to say that on behalf of a grateful Nation, we will never forget. We will always be proud, so that we will always be free.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 148) supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, and for other purposes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 148.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to call up House Resolution 148 for consideration. This valuable resolution supports the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month, and its purpose is to increase awareness of the significance of well-planned personal financial management. I strongly support this goal, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, it can be overwhelming for Americans of any age to establish and manage income, savings, and credit. But learning simple financial principles can help protect against illness or disability, long-term losses of unemployment, and other aspects of life that most of us will experience at one time or another. Mr. Speaker, the resolution cites that over the last 20 years, personal savings have decreased from about 7.5 percent of personal income during the 1980s to only 1.1 percent in the last two quarters of 2004. This, I am afraid, shows the dangerous reality that unfortunately Americans are relying too much on credit and many are spending beyond their means. Most Americans and their families will experience lean financial times sometime during their lives. That is why the message of this resolution is so important and why we need to encourage schools to teach our young people the principles of personal finance at early ages. Life is uncertain, and jobs change. Family circumstances and macroeconomic instability can affect every one of us. But we as a Nation can be confident that we will ultimately enjoy big returns on our investments in financial literacy. Mr. Speaker, several important groups, including the National Center on Economic Education, the Jump$tart Coalition For Personal Financial Literacy and their partner organizations consider April to be Financial Literacy Month. Consistent with this designation, today I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), to sponsor this legislation in supporting financial literacy. I urge all Members to vote in favor of the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his support for this important resolution, and I thank him for his wit and wisdom. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the author of this resolution.