Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I would only close by saying that financial literacy clearly is an idea whose time has come. I thank the authors for bringing it forward. I urge all Members to support the adoption of House Resolution 148.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this worthwhile resolution that honors our Nation's incredible firefighters. This resolution extends the most sincere gratitude of the House of Representatives to the more than 1 million men and women who stand ready to put their lives on the line each time that fire station alarm bell rings. Madam speaker, American firefighters respond to nearly 25 million calls each year from citizens across the country. Their dependability and service during countless kinds of urgent events are traits that Americans have come to count on. From their unequal bravery at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, to their responsiveness during the 2003 California wildfires, to their aid provided time and time again following the series of hurricanes in Florida last fall, firefighters have been on the front lines of many headlining emergencies in recent years. Through these events, I believe Americans have gained an even greater level of admiration for firefighters because of their courage and selflessness. Madam Speaker, on behalf of all Members, I want to thank firefighters for their service to this country. I highly commend the distinguished ranking member of the homeland security select subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for introducing this measure. I urge the adoption of House Resolution 188. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has been, in my time in Congress, the leader of the Fire Caucus and the go-to guy on fire issues.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side, I do not believe, on this resolution.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I thank all the other speakers on this important resolution. I think it is important that we, as a Congress, periodically recognize the contributions and the sacrifices that our firefighters make on our behalf every single day. So I hope all Members will join me in supporting the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam 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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 188) recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many contributions throughout the history of the Nation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Abraham Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson. Johnson was impeached by his fellow Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt became so frustrated with his successor, he came back to run against him. Great Presidents and great Popes are seldom succeeded by great Presidents and great Popes, which is why so many of us mourn the loss of Pope John Paul II so much. I never saw him in person. As a third-generation Lutheran boy marrying a Catholic girl, I take a more ecumenical view of the papacy. Until John Paul II, I saw the Pope as generally irrelevant to matters of personal faith and world events. Karol Wojtyla changed all that. He began his papacy with those simple words, ``Be not afraid.'' He lived those words until his dying breath. History always finds a special place for the fearless. He understood something that many Western sophisticates do not. There is enormous persuasive power in communicating deeply held moral truths. President Victor Yushchenko reminded us today of something the Pope said. He said, ``The path of truth is often difficult, but never impossible.'' He literally took up his cross daily and led charismatically his massive flock. He spoke with clarity to them and to the world. He led by example, and in the process, like St. Peter before him, he changed the world. He stared down the Soviets when they threatened to put down the Solidarity movement in his native Poland. He traveled more and touched the lives of more people than any Pontiff in history. I thank God for giving us Karol Wojtyla. He will be succeeded. He will be hard to replace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the first legislation introduced to protect the life of Terri Schiavo, I am pleased Members of Congress from both bodies and from both sides of the aisle were able to come together to pass legislation that gives Terri Schiavo a chance at life. S. 868 will allow members of Terri's family to file a claim in the U.S. District Court in Florida for an alleged violation of her Constitutional rights. Our Constitution states that no state shall ``deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' Yet Terri has never had her own attorney exclusively representing her interests in court. This action will finally give her that opportunity. Convicted criminals on death row are granted this right; should not an individual who has never been convicted of a crime? I understand issues involving long-term family illness are areas in which Congress should tread softly, if at all. This is an extremely sensitive area. But the facts of this case show that Terri's parents and siblings are willing to care for her and bear her medical expenses. This is not someone in a coma or with a terminal illness. Terri is awake and is able to see and hear and is often alert and interacts with her environment. We have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us. Though we sometimes are led astray, every man, woman and child is precious in God's eyes. Terri's family must be given the opportunity to give her the treatment and care she deserves. It was vitally important that Congress pass this legislation; not just to protect Terri's life, but also to avoid setting the disturbing precedent of ending human life against the wishes of someone's family and those willing to give her care. What kind of statement would we have been making to other incapacitated or disabled individuals who aren't able to survive without the assistance of medical technology or the care of others? As many have stated, when it comes to life and death decisions we must always err on the side of life. I regret I was not available to vote for S. 868. Had my vote been needed for passage, I would have returned immediately.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again tonight to talk about an issue that most Americans, particularly seniors, are more than aware of, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs, but, more importantly, the difference between what we pay in the United States and what people around the rest of the industrialized world pay for the same drugs. And what I have here with me tonight is a chart which shows prices of five of the most commonly prescribed prescription drugs, and what consumers pay for those drugs in London, and in Athens, and in the United States. And let us look at the first drug, Lipitor, 30 tablets, 10 milligrams, and more importantly every single tablet of Lipitor is made in Ireland. Okay. So it is all imported somewhere. Lipitor in London, for 30 tablets, effectively a month's supply, is $40.88. In Athens it is $55.65. In the United States it is $76.41. And let me add that over the last year, we would have expected the prices, the differentials, to be diminished, because what we have seen is the decline in the American dollar of over 20 percent. But that is not really what has been happening. Let us look at some of the others. Nexium, $42.23 in London, $57 in Athens, but $138 in the United States. Prevacid, $32 in London, $39 in Athens, $139.15 in the United States. If you take these drugs, Zoloft, Zyrtec, Prevacid, all of them, you add them up for a month's supply of those five drugs in London, $195.95 American; in Athens, $231.04 in American dollars. But here in United States, those five drugs total $507.96. Now, we have heard a lot of debate, and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), just recently talked about Social Security, what we should or should not do about Social Security. Frankly I think we need to get serious about reforming Social Security, because I think the system is unfair to our kids. But the system that we have with Medicare and with prescription drugs is unfair to everybody. And while we have a problem coming out at us relative to the cost of Social Security and the generational unfairness that particularly our kids are going to face, the problem with Medicare is much larger. And unfortunately, in my view, a year ago we passed a bill. We were told that it would cost no more than $400 billion, which is still an enormous amount of money, to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Now we are told that the cost of that could be over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. And that is only part of the bad news. I think even worse news is that every single penny of that new entitlement cost will have to be paid by our kids, because it will have to be borrowed. What we really need to do, one of my favorite Presidents was President Ronald Reagan, and he said it best: Markets are more powerful than armies. We need to use the magic of the marketplace to help bring down the cost of prescription drugs in the United States. The reason we see these big differences essentially is this: Americans are held captive. And if you have a captive market, there is no question that any free market company is going to use monopolistic practices. The net result is Americans are paying two to three times more for many of the drugs that they have to take to save their lives. This is wrong, and we can do something about it. Many of my colleagues say, well, shame on the pharmaceutical industry. Well, they did not really make the rules. Now, they are certainly doing all they can to defend these rules that hold Americans captive, but this year Americans will spend over $200 billion on prescription drugs. Shame on us if we do not change the rules so that Americans have access to world-class drugs at world market prices. I am asking all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005. We have over 70 sponsors now in the House; we have a growing list of sponsors in the Senate. You can get information on my Website at gil.house.gov. But really we should be willing to subsidize people in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of the cost of prescription drugs. We should not be required to subsidize the starving Swiss. Please join me in sponsoring the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2005.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to talk about the issue of prescription drugs and the price that Americans pay relative to the rest of the industrialized world. Now, I understand that we are a blessed country, and I understand that in many respects we as Americans should shoulder more of the burden than, for example, the people in Sub-Saharan Africa. But I do not think Americans ought to have to subsidize the starving Swiss. Let me just show this chart, Mr. Speaker. These numbers are very recent in terms of the comparisons of what we pay in the United States for name-brand prescription drugs and what the people in Germany pay for the same drugs. Let me cite some of these examples: Nexium. The next purple pill. It is advertised at every level in the United States. A 30-day supply in Rochester, Minnesota, is $145.33. That same drug at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany, is $60.25. Exactly the same drug. Look at this list. These are the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. Dropping down to Zocor, Zocor is a commonly prescribed drug that reduces cholesterol, particularly for people who have had heart problems. In fact, we have a number of our colleagues here in Congress who take Zocor. The interesting thing is if you buy that drug at the pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota, it is $85.39 for a 30-day supply. If you buy that drug in Frankfurt, Germany, it is $23.83. What makes that even more interesting is that if you are a Federal employee, if you are a Member of Congress, there is now a $30 copay on that drug. So in other words, even a Member of Congress pays $30, when any German consumer can walk into a local pharmacy and buy it for $23.80. The interesting thing is if you total up these commonly prescribed drugs, in Germany those drugs will cost you $455.57 American. If you buy them here in the United States it is $1,040.04. That is a 128 percent difference. What makes this even worse, Members, is that the differences between what we pay in the United States and what they pay in Germany has actually gotten worse over the last year, and that is at a time when the value of the dollar has declined by more than 20 percent. The differentials should have gotten less. I also want to call Members' attention to an article that appeared today in the Chicago Tribune, and it will be on my Web site as soon as my people can get it on the Web site. It tells what the FDA is now doing. They are, apparently, targeting a program started by the Illinois legislature and their Governor, Governor Rod Blagojevich, a former colleague of ours, that allows Illinois seniors and others to buy prescription drugs from preapproved Web sites in Canada. The savings there average over 50 percent. Apparently, the FDA is now intercepting these packages. They are literally saying that those drugs are illegal simply because they came from Canada. Well, in my view, that is an extension of what the law actually says, and I do not think the FDA has that power. Worse yet, they may have opened a door here now to a class action lawsuit that this administration is going to rue the day that this door was opened. This is a very high-risk strategy for this administration. First, they are clearly putting the health of many Americans at risk by seizing prescription drugs en route to patients. Second, it underscores the hypocrisy between agencies. The FDA on one hand is demanding absolute safety for prescription drugs from Canada, notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence of any danger to the public health. Meanwhile, another agency is fighting to reopen the border for Canadian beef when worldwide 150 people, including one American, have died from Mad Cow Disease. Apparently, the U.S. cattlemen do not enjoy the same political clout as the pharmaceutical industry. Finally, they have opened the door, as I said, to a class action suit. Several top lawyers have told me they are drooling at the prospect of getting a case into Federal Court. By using discovery powers, they could uncover documents and information terribly damaging to the administration and the pharmaceutical industry. It is altogether likely that the courts will stop the FDA from treating law-abiding citizens in the United States like common criminals. The law is vague, but congressional intent is clear: the FDA is wrong in the law, it is wrong on safety, and the courts and Congress can now make that crystal clear. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the article from the Chicago Tribune to which I earlier referred: U.S. Blocks Drugs Sent From Canada (By John Chase and Christi Parsons) The Bush administration has begun selectively seizing prescription drugs imported under a program created by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, ratcheting up pressure to stop a practice that the governor says will save money for consumers but regulators contend is unsafe and illegal. The Canadian firm that manages Blagojevich's I-SaveRx initiative says the federal Food and Drug Administration in the first two weeks of February blocked more than one-fourth of the foreign drug shipments it mailed to consumers in Illinois and four other states that participate in the governor's plan. ``I won't say the FDA has targeted I-SaveRx, but that's an unbelievable coincidence,'' said G. Anthony Howard, president and CEO of Ontario based CanaRx Services Inc. Operators of other Canadian pharmacies that ship drugs to U.S. consumers also said they have noticed an upsurge in seizures in recent weeks. The FDA has long opposed drug imports yet has done little to stop them. But the reports could signal an aggressive new phase by regulators in their battle to stop Americans from getting their prescriptions from abroad. Officials involved with Blagojevich's program also fear the sporadic seizures may be designed to deter customers for I-SaveRx by creating uncertainty over whether ordered drugs will actually arrive. In the past, ``the FDA has said, `If it is for personal use, we'll allow them to go into the country,''' said Howard. ``Now they're seizing their medication and not allowing it to go through.'' The FDA and Blagojevich have been battling since 2003 over his push to end restrictions on drug imports from Canada and Europe, where prescriptions cost less because of price controls. The Bush administration opposes importation because it says it cannot guarantee the safety of medicine from other nations, but Blagojevich and others argue that much of the medicine is manufactured overseas and the only difference is the price. Pushing the importation issue, they argue, will force drug companies to lower the cost of drugs in the U.S. William Hubbard, the FDA's associate commissioner of policy and planning, denied the agency was targeting the program. Though he said the agency considers all of I-SaveRx's shipments illegal, the FDA is focused on seizing drugs from overseas that can easily be counterfeited, such as the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor. ``The inspectors' instructions are to open and inspect these foreign shipments when they have the time and capacity to do it,'' he said. Failed flu vaccine purchase Blagojevich's run-ins with the FDA have extended beyond I- SaveRx. Last fall, shortly before the November election, he announced that he had purchased millions of dollars in European-made flu vaccine to help ease shortages expected because of the sudden closure of a plant that was to have produced half the U.S. supply. His maneuver backfired, however, because the FDA dragged its feet on approving the imports. The flu season remained mild and vaccine shortages never got as bad as feared. Blagojevich launched I-SaveRx in October and sold it as a way for all 12 million Illinois residents to save money on their medicine. Since then, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri and Vermont have also joined, potentially opening the door to millions more consumers. But the drug seizure controversy has highlighted how few people have opted to use the program despite its promise of great savings. Howard said the total number of shipments seized for customers in the I-SaveRx states in the first two weeks of February was 54, and that represented 26 percent of all shipments sent to customers of the program during that time frame. Since the October start, consumers in the five states have ordered just 4,700 prescriptions. Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff downplayed the number of seizures by the FDA, describing them as ``minuscule'' when viewed in the context of the number of shipments made since the program started. ``This is not extraordinary that this would happen at some level,'' she said. ``The program has overwhelmingly been working smoothly. In a few instances where shipments weren't received, they were re-sent at no cost to the consumer.'' They had my medicine One of those seniors who missed a shipment was Robert Wuerth, a 79-year-old retiree from Arlington Heights. Wuerth had been expecting a three-month supply of Lipitor to arrive in the mail, but instead he got a letter from the FDA informing him that it had sent the medicine back to Canada. ``I couldn't believe it,'' said Wuerth, who is recovering from three heart procedures. ``I just got this letter telling me they had my medicine.'' Wuerth said he was lucky he still had medicine left when he learned of the seizure and had time to call CanaRx and ask for a new shipment, which he said is $80 less than U.S. prices. Not only did the FDA let that one through, but when it came it bore two labels. One read that it had been rejected for delivery. On top of that was another that said it had been released for delivery. Officials with CanaRx fear the FDA might be picking on I- SaveRx to embarrass Blagojevich. But officials with other Canadian pharmacies said they too have noticed a considerable upsurge in the number of seizures of their imports, mostly at airports in Los Angeles and Chicago. Randy Stephanchew, vice president of standards for the Canadian International Pharmacy Association, which is unaffiliated with the I-SaveRx program, said more than 50 shipments from his Winnipeg pharmacy in recent weeks have been detained from customers in California because they were considered an ``unapproved, misbranded drug. `` A former official with Health Canada, the Canadian government's equivalent to the FDA, Stephanchew said the FDA has long held a policy permitting individual American citizens to import drugs from foreign countries.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that is not new to this Congress and certainly is not new to the American people, and that is the price that Americans pay for prescription drugs relative to the rest of the industrialized world. I started this pilgrimage about 5 or 6 years ago. Many Members do not know how I got involved in this, but the issue that got me involved was the price of pigs. Because about 5\1/2\ years ago, the price of live hogs in the United States collapsed. It dropped from about $37 per hundred-weight down to about $7 per hundred-weight. So these farmers started to call me and say, Can't you do something about this, Congressman? And I said, Well, I don't know what we can do. They said, At least can you stop all these Canadian pigs from coming across our border making our market even more difficult? So I did what any good Congressman would do, I called the Secretary of Agriculture, I called the Secretary of Commerce, and essentially I got the same answer. And the answer was: Well, that's called NAFTA. That's called free trade. We have open borders. I said, You mean we have open borders when it comes to pork bellies but not open borders when it comes to Prilosec? And the Secretary of Commerce literally said to me, Well, I guess that's right. I said, Well, that doesn't sound right to me. So I got some charts and started comparing what Americans pay for drugs compared to Canada and Europe, and I started bringing these charts down to the floor of the House and talking about those differences and saying essentially that if we are going to have open markets that our farmers have to compete with, then the big pharmaceutical companies ought to have to compete as well. Last year, I had a chart from Germany, and we have some relationships now with some of the pharmacies around the world, and they give us regular prices in terms of what they are charging for the drugs. Last year, the difference between Germany and the United States, depending on how you look at it, about a 40 percent difference. Over the last year, the price of the American dollar has declined by over 20 percent relative to the Euro. So when we got these charts, I was afraid the differences would have all but evaporated. Lo and behold, the prices are even more exaggerated today than they were a year ago. In other words, prices here in the United States, the differential is even greater today than it was a year ago, even though the value of the dollar has declined by 20 percent. Let me give a couple of examples of drugs people might recognize. One is the drug Nexium, the new purple pill. At the local pharmacy in Rochester, Minnesota, a 30-day supply of Nexium, 20 milligrams, is $145. You can buy that same package of Nexium at the Metropolitan Pharmacy in Frankfurt, Germany for $60.25. Norvasc, 30 tablets, $54.83 in the United States, $19.31 over in Germany. But here is one that really got our attention: Zocor. In the United States, $85.39; in Germany, $23.83. What is interesting there is we negotiate and get good deals for Federal employees. The Federal copay right now for Zocor is $30. In other words, you can buy it walking in off the street with a prescription in Frankfurt, Germany, cheaper than you can the copay for Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I just want to serve notice tonight that this issue is not going to go away, I am not going to go away, and the people of not only my State but people all over the country are only demanding we get fair prices. We as Americans subsidize the pharmaceutical industry in three separate ways. First of all, we pay for a big share of the research. This year we will spend about 27 billion taxpayer dollars to fund basic research and research in drugs and chemicals and so forth to determine what might work. And many of those things are given to the pharmaceutical industry, essentially, and then they patent those drugs. So we do subsidize a big part of their research. Second, we subsidize them through the Tax Code. Literally, they write off all the costs they have for research. In fact, in some cases they get tax credits, research and development tax credits. Finally, we subsidize them through the prices we pay. Now, I believe in patents, and I do not believe anybody should be stealing other people's patents. And I do not believe that we as Americans should escape paying our fair share for the cost of these drugs. I think it is fair we pay our fair share. I think we should subsidize the people in sub-Saharan Africa, for example. But I do not think Americans should be forced to continue to subsidize the starving Swiss and the starving Germans and the people in the industrialized world. It is time Americans have access to world-class drugs at world market prices. I hope my colleagues will go to my Web site at gil.house.gov. We have a site there with great charts and a lot of information. If people will just study this, be objective, I think they will come to the same conclusion, that it is time to open up markets for the pharmaceutical companies the way our farmers have to compete in a world marketplace.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I extend my best wishes and congratulations to Taiwan Ambassador David Lee, President Chen Shui- bian, and the 23 million people of the Republic of China on the occasion of their National Day, October 10th. The United States is Taiwan's largest trading partner. In 2000, total U.S.-Taiwan trade was approximately $65 billion, with a Taiwan surplus of approximately $16 billion. Taiwan's chief exports to the United States include clothing and footwear, toys, and various electronic products. In recent years, Taiwanese government officials have attempted to accommodate increased U.S. pressure on trade issues by meeting many U.S. demands for greater market access for U.S. goods and services, and responded to U.S. complaints by taking stronger measures to protect U.S. copyrights and other intellectual property rights. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a genuine democracy and its people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. As one of our largest trading partners and friends in the Far East, it is my opinion that the Republic of China on Taiwan deserves much greater international recognition. I will continue to press for more favorable U.S. treatment of Taiwan and for Taiwan's inclusion in some capacity in international organizations like the World Health Organization. Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization is vital to the interests of the people of Taiwan, and will open Taiwan's access to the latest information on epidemics and diseases. I have joined the House Taiwan Caucus to express my support of this important ally. I hope that we will continue to strengthen U.S.-Taiwan relations and raise the level of strategic cooperation between the United States and Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for having this Special Order, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. I wonder if he would step back to podium, because I am not sure if my colleagues who have been listening in their offices really understand what we are talking about tonight. The gentleman is talking about getting rid of the income tax system as we have it in America today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. So the gentleman thinks that the Federal Government should not know at least as much as my spouse how much I give to charity. That is none of the government's business.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And the gentleman thinks that what I do for a living and how I make my money is none of the government's business.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman thinks that I ought to be taxed based on how I spend my money rather than whether I want to save it, invest it or spend it on different things.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. This is really remarkable. In fact, I think that if the Founders knew that we had this tax system here in America today, Mr. Speaker, I think the Founders would be rolling in their graves. The idea that we have a Federal agency who keeps track of how we spend our money, who wants to know more; every year, they want to know more about how we spend our money, where the money comes from, where it goes. In some respects, it is almost un-American, the system we have today. I want to talk just a few minutes tonight about all of the regulations, about all of the rules. I understand there are 90,000 pages of the IRS regulations that every American one way or another has to comply with. That is just outrageous. And, more importantly, I think the other issue we want to talk about tonight is how every American knows somehow, down in their bones, that there is something almost immoral about a system where we have this enormous amount of regulation, this enormous amount of bureaucracy, all of these rules and regulations just to pay our taxes. And I wonder if the gentleman would talk a little bit about how long it takes the average American just to fill out their tax forms and then, more importantly, what it means to business in terms of all of the regulations, the accountants, the lawyers, the rules and all that goes with it, just so that the average small businessperson can just simply pay their Federal taxes. Those are issues that we need to talk about, and ultimately, those are issues that affect how we live in America and ultimately whether or not we can compete in a world marketplace. I wonder if the gentleman would just talk a little bit about all of those pages of rules and regulations in the IRS codes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, the Senate has just informed the House that we have reformed the IRS code. Now, is that not wonderful? Now, we have reformed or amended the IRS code 6,000 times.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Since 1986, and now we are going to do it again. And every time we talk about reforming the Tax Code, what, in effect, we do is we make it more complicated. Now, in some respects, I do have a vested interest, because my daughter and my son-in-law are both CPAs. So, in some respects, if I want full employment for my daughter and son-in-law, we want to make this Tax Code even more complicated. But the interesting thing is when I talk to them, they say, make the Tax Code simpler. And the truth of the matter is, the best thing we could do is eliminate the income tax system all together and make it a consumption tax. Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage that if you want more of something, you should subsidize it. If you want less of something, you should tax it. And what do we do in America? We tax income. We tax investment. We tax savings. We tax productivity. We tax all the things we want more of, and yet we subsidize consumption, indirectly. What we are really talking about is something very revolutionary. It is about a whole new concept. It is about changing the whole paradigm in the way the Federal Government raises revenue, and saying, wait a second, why do we want to tax the things we want more of? We ought to tax the things that may, in fact, drag down our economy. So this is so important. I want to compliment the gentleman on one very important thing he said earlier. When the gentleman talks about manufacturing, and we have all heard, we have heard from our friends on the left, and we have heard from the media, and we have heard from all kinds of people that America is not doing as well as it should do relative to creating more manufacturing jobs here in the United States. Well, one of the things we have to do is change the Tax Code. I think the gentleman made the point, and we need to talk about that a lot, in terms of changing the Tax Code to make it more productive or more profitable for people to create manufacturing jobs in the United States. The gentleman talked about, one of the things he mentioned, and I think a lot of people may have missed this point, and that is that in every product that we produce here in the United States there is embedded in that product anywhere from 22 to 30 percent taxes. And one of the things the gentleman wants to change is to say, that ought to be taken out. And all of a sudden, everything we produce here in the United States would be anywhere from 22 to 30 percent less expensive on the world market. If we did that, it seems to me, if everything we made in the United States was 22 to 30 percent less expensive on the world market, it would seem to me we would be very competitive and all of a sudden, a lot of companies would want to produce those products right here in the United States. I wonder if the gentleman could talk about that just for a minute.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, let me just come back to that number. The gentleman said $6 trillion. Now, around this place, we throw around big numbers, but $6 trillion is a huge number. Can the gentleman put that in some kind of perspective?