Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Let me talk a little bit about this particular chart. A year ago right now I was in Munich, Germany, with one of my staffers. We were on our way home and stopped at the Munich airport pharmacy. As a matter of fact, the name of the pharmacy, if you want to check it out, is the Metropolitan Pharmacy at the Munich airport. Those of us that travel a lot know if you want to get a bargain, the last place you go to get that bargain is to buy at the airport, but we were on our way out of town. We bought then some of the most commonly prescribed drugs here in the United States, and these are the prices that we paid in April of 2003 in Munich, Germany. When we returned, we went and asked here in Washington, D.C., what the price for those same drugs in the same dosages with the same number of tablets would be here in the United States, and let me show you some of the examples. Coumadin is a drug that my father takes. Here in the United States, 100 tablets in the United States, about $92.66. In Germany, the price was $28.44. Glucophage, a very effective drug, been around for a long time for diabetes. Over in Germany, 30 tablets, 850 milligrams, back in April, $15.50 American. Here in the United States, $45, three times more expensive? Pravachol, I do not know much about that particular drug, but a commonly prescribed drug, $91 in Germany; $159 here in the United States, and the list goes on. One of them we have talked a lot about, and these numbers have changed in part because of the change in the value of the dollar, but Tamoxifen, those numbers now have changed, and I see we have the updated price on the Tamoxifen as of today. Tamoxifen has come down a lot in the United States, but it is still more than twice as expensive in the United States as it is in Germany. Part of the reason the price has come down in the U.S. is because there is now a new drug that is taking the place of Tamoxifen. Zestril, $39 in Germany; $75 in the United States. Zokor, $48 in Germany; $82 here, and I think is representative and we talk a lot about Canada, but what you will find is generally prices for prescription drugs in places like Germany are even cheaper, and hopefully we will talk about that as well because of parallel trading. And I would be happy to yield to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a few minutes, this is a chart which appeared last week in newspapers around the country with an Associated Press story talking about how various groups are trying to save money on prescription drugs, including a lot of the big insurance companies and health medical plans of differing kinds. I think this chart tells a rather shocking story; and I do say this and I am sincere when I say this, unfortunately I think as we looked at the problem of prescription drugs, particularly for the elderly, in my opinion, we misdefined the problem. I think if you misdefine the problem, the chances of getting the right solution are not very good. The problem is affordability, and I think this chart illustrates part of the problem. Since 1997 we have seen drug prices for name-brand prescription drugs in the United States according to the Segal Company, in a report that was published, an article that was published by the Associated Press last week, here is what drug prices have done just in the last 8 years. In 1997, average drug prices went up 12.9 percent; in 1998, 16.8 percent. They slowed down a little in 1999 to only 14.2. Then back up to 16.3, 16.9, 18.4; and the estimates for 2003 are 19.5 percent, and for this year, we are projecting that drug prices will go up 18.1 percent. If I could just finish this, that means that in the last 8 years, when the core rate of inflation has been less than 24 percent, prescription drugs in the United States have gone up 133 percent. I am not all that good in math, but that is about six times more than the inflation rate. I do not have an MBA. I am not the world's smartest guy, but I know this: this is unsustainable. No matter how you do this, if you have the taxpayers pay for it, if you have our grandchildren pay for it, this is unsustainable. It is eating the United States up and this is the problem. When people talked about the prescription drug problem, unfortunately too many people here in Washington talked about it as if it was a problem of coverage. Well, if you went to town hall meetings, and you and I have done a lot of town hall meetings with seniors, they will tell you the problem. The problem is not coverage, because they know that right now in any one of these years I believe they could have bought prescription drug coverage from any number of insurance carriers, including the AARP. So they could get coverage. The problem is affordability, and we really only have a couple of choices. One of them that we use with virtually every other product, including products that we normally think of as being intellectual-property-type products, we have open markets. I mean, it costs a whole lot of money to develop that first chip when Intel brings a chip off the line; but they cannot use this differential pricing for customers in Japan get one price; customers in Germany get another price; oh, and by the way, customers in the United States get stuck with prices that are 40 or 60 percent higher. I yield back to my friend from Illinois.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Five to six times.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments we always get, and I want to follow up with something the gentleman just said, because I think it is important. Some people say, well, I do not want my mother-in-law buying her prescription drugs on line. You know what? Neither do we. What we want is parallel trading. What we want is our local pharmacists to be able to buy these drugs at 30 to 300 percent less so that our seniors and others can buy them at their local pharmacy and get those kinds of prices. The gentleman talked about this, and I do not think most people understand it, I know a lot of our colleagues, still, this is like alchemy or something, but it happens every day in Europe. I wonder if the gentleman would not just share the story of how many drugs we actually import, like Lipitor. Perhaps the gentleman would share that story.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Every tablet.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I want to thank the gentleman for joining me tonight in this Special Order because I think this is an issue that is just simply not going to go away. I think a lot of folks here in Washington and some of the folks who represent the pharmaceutical industry thought, now that we have passed the prescription drug benefit, this issue about affordability and competition and open markets will just go away. We are here tonight to report that the issue is not going to go away and that Americans are still concerned. As I say, it is not a matter of right versus left. It is right versus wrong. It is simply wrong to hold American consumers captive so that we pay the highest prices in the industrialized world. As the gentleman just said, we subsidize the pharmaceutical industry and the research in three separate ways. First of all in the Tax Code. Not only do they write off every dollar that they spend on research; in some cases they actually get a research and development tax credit. So the costs to the company are very negligible. In addition to that, we subsidize them through the NIH, the CDC, and even through the VA and the Defense Department. So I think the real number that we spend on basic research that ultimately benefits the pharmaceutical companies actually is closer to 27 billion taxpayer dollars per year. Again, in some respects I am very proud of that. When we talk about some of these miracle drugs like Tamoxifen, that was developed by the NIH, the National Cancer Institute. It was taken through phase-2 trials. Then they licensed it to the pharmaceutical company and our reward, at least until just the last several months, is American consumers were paying six times more for that drug than consumers were paying in Germany and in England and in the industrialized West. And I agree with the gentleman. It is not so much shame on the pharmaceutical industry. Essentially they have been given a market opportunity here in the United States with a captive market, and they have taken advantage of it. I do not say shame on the pharmaceutical industry as much as I say shame on us. Because we create the rules, and the rules here are heavily stacked against American consumers. We are not asking them to give away their drugs. I would not say to Intel, and they deal in intellectual property, we understand that first chip off an Intel line may cost them $500 million. The next chip may cost 5 cents. We do not tell them what they should sell their chips for, but we do not stand idly by if they want to take advantage of American consumers or American users of their products while they sell them for much lower prices in other parts of the world. All we are really asking for is basic fairness. I think at the end of the day, the American people understand this. This is an issue the American people get. Part of the reason the gentleman and I have been traveling around the country and speaking to various groups and at least raising the attention and elevating the debate about this issue is because it is such an important issue to so many people. I was in Oklahoma City, and I had a lady come up to me at the end of the meeting there. I spoke at a senior expo down there. A lady came up, she was probably in her thirties. She said, I work for the local bank. I said, really. You could tell she had something more she wanted to tell me. She said, Congressman, what I do is reverse mortgages at the bank. You would not believe the number of seniors who come in and get a reverse mortgage on their house because they cannot afford their prescription drugs. I say, shame on us. That kind of thing, we could do something about. In fact, I am proud of the fact that we in the House have done something about it. When people call me and say, well, what can we do? What can we do, Congressman, to make certain that something like this happens this year? I always say, the House has done its work. If people would like more information about what they can do to make this a reality, to allow Americans to have access to world-class drugs at world market prices, they can leave me an e-mail, just go to my Web site at gil.house.gov and I can give them more information, we can give them more charts, we can show them what we have learned. We know, for example, in terms of the safety, and the gentleman alluded to it in his remarks, the CDC and others all keep records, we know that not a single American has died as a result of taking a drug from another country. We also know that, on average, 6,000 Americans die in hospitals in the United States from getting the wrong prescription drug, the wrong dosage, or they get a reaction to a prescription drug. That is happening now. We know, for example, you are much more likely to get sick and die from eating onions from Mexico. In Pittsburgh alone, we had 500 Americans who got seriously ill, three died, from onions from Mexico. Nobody has died from taking Coumadin from Germany.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me tonight. I think it would be fair to say we do not agree on every issue, but we agree on this, and that is Americans should not be held captive. The House has done its work, and I was never prouder than when this bill passed the House Chambers here against a withering attack by the pharmaceutical industry and sometimes by our own FDA. But this is the people's House, and that night the people finally ruled. I am not asking for the pharmaceutical companies to give away their companies. I am not asking them to change the way they do research. It may well be they have to adjust how much they spend on advertising and marketing, because there is growing evidence they are now spending more money on advertising than they are on research. I do not know if those numbers are true, but I think perhaps we can have some hearings here in the House and find out. But, at the end of the day, all we are asking for is basic fairness. It is not right versus left. It is simply right versus wrong. It is wrong to hold Americans captive. We are not going to go away. This issue is not going to go away. I believe that before this Congress adjourns the chances are very good that our friends on the other side of this Capitol will follow the lead of the U.S. House of Representatives. They will pass a bill that will allow Americans to have access to world-class drugs at world-market prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. And I want to especially thank all those who have been involved, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte), the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member, for all of their work on this legislation. And in addition, I think we should thank President Bush because of his leadership on this issue. Nearly half of the 190 million acres managed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior are at extreme risk to wildfire. Millions of acres across the South, the East, and in my home State of Minnesota are facing disease and insect epidemics. And yet Federal land managers will treat only about 2.5 million of those acres each year because of the extraordinarily lengthy procedural and documentation requirements. Time and again, we have seen the destruction that forest mismanagement and drought can cause to our landscape and to our families. This year alone 4.3 million acre of our Nation's forests have burned and 29 firefighters have lost their lives. Recently, more than 750,000 acres have been burned in southern California, and 22 Californians died trying to escape those fires. Many see the fires on TV and think this is only an issue for ``out West.'' Unfortunately, poor forest health is a national problem. The lack of forest management of our national forests in States across our country, including my home State of Minnesota, has placed private forests and communities at risk of fires, insects, and disease. Almost 3 million acres of the National Forest System lands in Minnesota are at high risk. Standing by and doing nothing to protect this precious resource is tantamount to criminal neglect. Congress has an obligation to ensure that we do not neglect our national forest lands and ensure that they are available for generations to come. Too often, excessive regulation and what I call ``paralysis by analysis'' has made even the simplest management project an ordeal of years instead of weeks. H.R. 1904 is critical to begin to solve the problems of proper management of our forests. I urge all Members to support this important legislation.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to something that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) just spoke about. He asked if there would be any chance for market competition or bringing access to markets into this bill. The truth of the matter is, and I think the gentleman from Indiana answered the question almost correctly, the answer is this bill actually makes the situation worse. Currently, under current law, and this is not part of my bill, but this is current law, Americans have access to drugs from 26 different countries subject to the approval of the Secretary of HHS. Under the present Republican and under the previous Democratic administrations, we have two administrations who have refused to allow Americans to really have that access. I would like to talk about this issue because I think Members need to know that some time later this week we are probably going to have a vote on this very important issue. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) also said the pharmaceutical companies might make tens of billions of dollars more in profits. I think that is probably being conservative. There is an estimate done by the University of Boston or Boston College as it used to be known, who has done a study who estimates that the pharmaceutical companies under this legislation stand to make an additional $139 billion in profit. Now, I am a Republican, I believe in profit. There is nothing wrong with the word ``profit,'' but there is something wrong with the word ``profiteer.'' I think it is a little like what the Supreme Court said a number of years ago about whether or not something was too graphic or whether or not it was pornography; we do not necessarily have to be able to define it to know it when you see it. I want to talk about the differences between what Americans actually pay for prescription drugs. People may argue about the source of this chart, but the more one looks at this chart, the more other people have actually done their own analysis, they have come to the same conclusion. These numbers are about a year and a half old and the numbers have changed slightly, but the percentages are still the same. Augmentin, the average price in the United States for a 30-day supply is $55.50. In Europe that drug can be bought for $8.75, and in Canada the price is $12. Cipro, a very effective antibiotic, and probably when we had the scare with the anthrax, one of the most effective antibiotics ever developed, developed by a German company called Bayer. They sell the drug here in the United States for about $88. They sell it in Canada for $53, but in Europe you can buy the same drug for $46. Glucophage, one of the most effective antidiabetic drugs, developed here in the United States. Somehow it is hard to explain to our constituents that here in the United States that drug will sell for $124.65. One can buy it in Canada for $26.47, but it is available in Europe for $22. Why is it so much cheaper in Canada and Europe and some people say they have price controls, and we do not believe in price controls. In some respects that is true, but in Europe they make the drugs less expensive because they allow parallel trading. So a pharmacist in Germany if he can buy that Glucophage cheaper in Spain or Norway, he can buy it in Spain or Norway. That is called parallel trading, and that is allowed in most of the European Union. Let me tell Members something about the Europeans. They are not intrinsically smarter than Americans, and they do not have all of these safety concerns that our FDA does. They do keep records, and they know that almost nobody dies in Europe or Canada. I can go through this list, and the numbers, as I say, they are slightly different, but the percentages are almost always the same. The bottom line is this: The world's best customers, the American consumers, pay the world's highest prices in virtually every single category, and not just a little bit more, we pay a lot more. In fact, in almost every category, it is almost 30 percent more, and in some categories it is almost 300 percent more. For example, Tamoxifen is probably the most effective antibreast cancer drug ever developed. It was developed here in the United States, and it was developed by the American taxpayer. It was developed with funds from taxpayers. Taxpayer money through the CDC, through the NIH, we took that drug all of the way through phase two trials. Once we had it almost ready for market, we licensed it to a pharmaceutical company. Our reward, the taxpayers' reward, was they sell it to American consumers for $360 a month on average. They sell it in Canada for $60. They sell in Europe for $50. I think we ought to pay our fair share for the research costs, and I think we ought to subsidize the people in sub-Saharan Africa, but we do not need to subsidize the starving Swiss. It is time to open the markets. We have open markets when it comes to oranges and raspberries and almost every other product except prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking that important question because we hear the FDA and the pharmaceutical reps and other people saying it is safety, and this Henny Penny the sky is falling, but we keep records on this. The CDC keeps amazing records on how many people have died from taking drugs from other countries. The CDC is the official recordkeeper of all health statistics here in the United States. They keep very good records. We have had them testify in front of the subcommittee of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and we have asked how many have died, and it is an easy, round number, and the number is zero. We also know if we go to the CDC files, we will find 264 Americans have become seriously ill from eating raspberries from Guatemala. So in effect, we are 264 times more likely to become seriously ill eating vegetables or fruits from other countries than from prescription drugs. Tomorrow night we are going to have another Special Order, and I invite people from the entire political spectrum, let us come down and talk about this because this is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democratic issue or right versus left, its right versus wrong. And what this House decided a few months ago on an overwhelming majority, it is wrong to hold American consumers captive. That is what is happening today. If this bill passes later this week, that is exactly what will continue to happen. I warn my colleagues that they will have to go home to their constituents and they are going to get asked a couple of very tough questions. And the first question is: Why is it Americans pay so much more for Tamoxifen or Glucophage or Coumadin or any of these other drugs, why is it we pay so much more? That is a tough question, but here is an even tougher question that they are going to have to answer: Congressman, what did you do about it? Ultimately, we are all going to have those kinds of questions. Republicans will have to answer them, and Democrats will have to answer them. That is why I think we ought to come together on a bipartisan basis and pass a bill that makes sense, that opens markets, allows competition. I am one who happens to believe in free markets and in competitive markets. I know this, when we have competitive markets, ultimately, the prices will level. The prices in Canada may go up a little bit, and the prices in Germany may go up a little bit, but the prices here in the United States will go down. I do not want American consumers going to Canada to buy their drugs. I do not want them to buy their drugs from Germany. I want to force the pharmaceutical companies to adjust their pricing strategies so we get fair prices here in the United States.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate all of the people who have worked so hard on this bill. America has waited far too long for a comprehensive, coordinated energy policy. There are a lot of good things I could say about this bill, but I want to talk just specifically about the renewable fuel standard and what it will mean to rural America, what it will mean to energy independence and, ultimately, what it will mean for a cleaner environment. Last week we in the House had a little hiatus and one of the things I did is I took a trip to the western part of my district. Out in the western part of my district we have what is called the Buffalo Ridge. Literally, from as far as the eye can see in one direction and the other direction, you see these wind farms going up, making clean, clean energy, using the wind. It is an amazing thing. I also stopped at a little town called Brewster where we are now building the largest, I think perhaps in the world, biodiesel plant in Brewster, Minnesota. It is going to be farmer owned. Let me just talk about some of the things this renewable fuel standard is going to do. With the requirements that are in here for 5 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel by 2012, let me just explain what it will mean to rural America. It will reduce our crude oil imports by 1.6 billion barrels. It will reduce the foreign trade deficit by $34 billion. It will create 214,000 good-paying jobs here in America. It will increase U.S. household income by $51.7 billion. It will create $5.3 billion in new investment, in renewable fuel production facilities; and it will increase the demand for grain, mostly corn, by an average of 1.4 billion bushels of corn and soybeans per year. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is overdue, it is timely, it is time that we have a coordinated energy policy. I think I speak on behalf of those who breathe our air, those who are concerned about energy independence and saying that one of the best parts about this bill is the renewable fuel standard and what it will mean for rural America and what it will mean for our environment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for yielding to me, and I want to thank him for claiming the time. I rise tonight to talk about an issue where we have had a lot of discussion so far tonight. We have had a lot of discussion during this entire legislative session. In fact, we have had a lot of discussion for a number of years, and that is the issue of the price that Americans pay for prescription drugs relative to the rest of the industrialized world; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) was good enough to join us in what really is an overwhelming majority of Members of the House who voted on this issue earlier this year. It all started several years ago for me when I went to a town hall meeting in Faribault, Minnesota, and there were a lot of seniors there; and they were talking about their trips up to Canada to save some money on prescription drugs. It was a little like a Nolan Ryan fastball. It just blew right by me, and I guess I decided if they wanted to go to Canada to buy their drugs, that is fine by me; and I never thought much about the issue. They continued to pester me about this, saying things like, why is it we as seniors are treated like common criminal, just because we are trying to save a few bucks on prescription drugs; and still I did not pay much attention to the issue until something totally unrelated happened. The price of pigs collapsed. Live hogs dropped from about $37 per hundred weight down to about $7, and we produce a lot of hogs in my part of the world. My pork producers kept calling me saying, Congressman, can you not do something about this; and so I called the Secretary of Commerce, and I called the Secretary of Agriculture. I got essentially the same answer. I should finish the story. What they really complained about was all of these Canadian hogs coming across our borders making our supply-and-demand situation even worse, and they said can you not do something at least about all these Canadian hogs. I called the Secretary of Agriculture, called the Secretary of Commerce, got essentially the same answer. They said, well, that is NAFTA. That is free trade. We cannot stop the Canadian hogs from coming in, and all of a sudden a lightbulb went on over my head, and I said, wait a minute, you mean we have free markets and free trades when it comes to pork bellies, but not when it comes to Prilosec? I think the Secretary of Commerce sort of chuckled and said, well, I guess that is right. That is when I began this little crusade of mine, and I began to study this issue even more, and Mr. Speaker, the more I have learned, the more I realized we in Congress need to do something about this because we created this environment. Unlike some of my friends on the left, I usually do not spend a whole lot of time saying shame on the pharmaceutical companies. I say shame on us because essentially we have created an environment that they are taking advantage of. We protect them like no other product from foreign competition, but let me talk first about the differences between what we pay in the United States versus what they pay in the rest of the industrialized world. Let me give my colleagues some examples. We were in Munich, Germany, earlier this year; and we purchased 10 of the most commonly prescribed prescription drugs off the shelf at the Munich airport pharmacy, and here are some of the prices we paid. We bought 10 tablets of Cipro, 250 milligrams for $35.12 American. That same product here in Washington, D.C., is $55. We bought Coumadin. That is a drug my father takes. It is a blood thinner that was developed at the University of Wisconsin. The generic version is called Warfarin. It actually is a rat poison. We bought it in Germany, 100 tablets, 5 milligrams for $21. That same package of drugs here in the United States, same product, made by the same company, under the same FDA approval, sells here in the United States not for $21 but for $89.95. Glucophage, a miracle drug for diabetes, a drug that we purchased in Germany, 30 tablets, 850 milligrams, $5 in Germany, $29.95. Pravachol, Prozac, Synthroid, all the same story. Come down here to this one, and this is the one that really gets to my gizzard, and that is the issue of the anticancer drugs, where we, American taxpayers, have paid so much to develop these drugs. Tamoxifen, we bought, in fact the actual number, we rounded it off here. It was $59.05 for 60 tablets, 20 milligrams of Tamoxifen. An amazing drug, a miracle drug in terms of the treatment of breast cancer. That same drug we checked here in Washington, D.C., local pharmacy, $360, six times more in the United States. Here is what really chaps my hide. American taxpayers paid to develop that drug. As a matter of fact, through the NIH we paid to take that drug all the way through phrase two trials. The American taxpayer paid to take that drug through phase two trials, and then we licensed it to one of the pharmaceutical companies, and they sell it back to us. Clearly, we ought to pay our fair share of the cost of research. I think we ought to subsidize the people in sub-Saharan Africa, but I do not think the American taxpayers and the American consumers should have to subsidize the starving Swiss or the starving Germans. It really is time for them to pay their fair share. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask is it really fair to make American consumers pay six times more for a drug that they paid to develop and take through phase two trials? This story goes on. If we look down here at Zoloft, $82.52 in Germany, $132.95 for American consumers and the story goes on; and some people say, well, that is because in some countries they fix the prices. They have price controls. In some respects that is true, but it is not always true. For example, in Great Britain, the pharmaceutical companies can sell their drugs for whatever they want. There are no price controls in Great Britain. That is according to a report that was done and paid for by the Pharmaceutical Association in Europe, done, we have a copy of it in my office; and if any Member would like a copy, they can just call and we will send them a copy. Essentially what they do in Great Britain is they can charge whatever they want, but the British medical plan will only reimburse so much for these drugs, and they found that consumers in Great Britain have a tremendous amount of resistance to paying huge co-pays. I have a drug here, Cipro, a marvelous drug. We bought this in Germany, $35 in Germany, $55 here in the United States, and my colleagues do not have to take my word for it. They do not have to just take my word for it now. More and more of the media are actually doing their own research, and here is another copy and Members can get a copy of this by going to my office, calling my office. I think we may even have this on our Web site. There is one done by USA Today. This was done by the Associated Press; and I will not bore my colleagues with all the numbers, but they are exactly the same, and they compare the prices. For example, Lipitor in the United States, the best price they could find online in the U.S., 10 milligrams, 90 tablets each, Lipitor, $207.99. One can buy that drug in Canada, the online price, $132.07. Paxil, $80.99 in the United States, $40.80 in Canada; and those stories go on and on. Vioxx, an amazing drug. I guess it is an antirheumatoid- type drug. Fortunately, I do not have to take it yet, but it is $85.99 in the United States. It is only $36.17 in Canada. But the real issue is, why is it that the world's best customers pay the world's highest prices? That is a fair question. It seems to me we as policymakers for the United States of America ought to ask that question, and we ought to demand better answers. I want to come back to something I mentioned earlier; and I had the Congressional Research Service do a little research for me, and I asked is there any other product class that you can think of where we provide so much protection from competition from the same product from abroad? They went through and they did some research, and in fact, I will just read from what the CRS says, and they are our official researcher. I will quote. It said: ``We have been unable to locate any statutory provisions similar in language and structure to the one in the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act.'' In other words, nobody enjoys that kind of protection. Matter of fact, they went even further. They said: ``As indicated above, our research has uncovered no other statute that contains language similar to that in section 381(d),'' and this is the interesting thing. Even heavily regulated industries such as chemicals, pollutants and munitions are not apparently subject to the statutory provisions limiting reimportation of the product to its original manufacturer. In other words, there is no other product class. Now, some people say, well, safety. It is all about safety. We want to protect the consumers. Members, understand this, we keep incredibly good records in terms of how many people have become seriously ill or died from taking drugs from other countries. The FDA keeps those records and the CDC keeps those records. As far as we can determine, and this is under testimony that was given in front of a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform, and it is an easy number to remember, it is zero. It is a nice round number. Now, you contrast that to how many people get very ill and die every year from food-borne pathogens. Now, it is the Food and Drug Administration, and yet for some unknown reason, some reason unknown to me, we have set, for things like Cipro, we have set the bar impossibly high. We have an absolutist standard. But when it comes to fruits and vegetables, we barely even look at them when they come into the country. The bottom line is you can get just as sick, as a matter of fact you can die, from food-borne pathogens. By their own studies, the FDA acknowledges that 2 percent of the fruits and vegetables that come into the United States every day, 2 percent of them, are contaminated with food-borne pathogens, including things like salmonella. My colleagues, if you get salmonella, and particularly if you have any other kind of medical problem going on in your system at that time, you can die. We know, for example, in the last 2 years, that 2,264 Americans have become seriously ill from eating raspberries from Guatemala. Do we stop raspberries from Guatemala from coming in today? I do not think so. Forty percent of the orange juice that Americans consume comes from other countries, and yet it comes right in. They say, well, gee whiz, somebody might get in there and contaminate the drug supply. What about contaminating the orange juice supply? It seems to me we have this ridiculous measure when it comes to safety for prescription drugs and virtually no measure when it comes to our food supply. Now, I am not saying we need to have a much stronger implementation of a security system for fruits and vegetables, but it seems to me if you are going to have one standard for fruits and vegetables and another standard for prescription drugs, at least we, as public policymakers, ought to demand some kind of a rationale from the Food and Drug Administration. Now, the bill we are going to probably consider here at the end of the week does nothing about allowing Americans to have access to world- class drugs at world-market prices, and I think that is a terrible mistake. Because I think, here in Washington, we have spent so much time talking about coverage, we have to find ways to get people coverage for prescription drug benefits, that we have missed the big picture. The issue is not so much about coverage. Every senior in America qualifies to buy prescription drug coverage. They can buy it through the AARP. Prescription drug coverage is available in lots of ways from lots of sources. The issue is not coverage, the issue is affordability. And that is the tragic problem with the bill that we will consider later this week, and that is that it does precious little to deal with affordability. Now, the sponsors are going to say, well, wait a second, Congressman Gutknecht, we are going to create these systems, sort of like the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and that is going to bring down and hold down the price of prescription drugs. Well, we have some evidence of just how well the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan does in terms of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Let me give some examples. For example, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan that services Federal employees, they do get a discount on Coumadin. I mentioned here that Coumadin, at the retail price in the United States, can be $90, or $89.95. Well, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan does not pay $89.95. They get a discount. They buy it for $55.31. The Mail Handlers Plan, however, does not get their drugs for $55, they pay $72.24. My colleagues, you can buy that same drug off the shelf in Munich, Germany, at the Munich Airport pharmacy, for $21. In other words, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan pays more than double what the Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Federal Employees Benefit Plan does. And it goes on. Take Glucophage. We talked about Glucophage. Well, this is in a different quantity. We are talking about a larger prescription. But the Glucophage they are buying using the Federal Employees Benefit Plan, they buy it for $90 for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. The Mail Handlers pay $118. The HMO plan, they get a heck of a deal, they buy it for $18.30. But you can buy it right off the shelf in Germany for $22 for that exact same drug. And the story goes on with all of the plans. And Members, do not take my word for it. This is information that was done by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and his subcommittee staff, where they did some comparisons about what we pay even through the Federal Employees Benefit Plan versus prices off the shelf in Canada, in Europe, and other industrialized countries. And the answer is that in every category we pay a lot more, even with the discounts that we get for the Federal employees. As I say, I think we ought to pay our fair share, and I believe research is important. I am vice president of the Committee on Science, and I am proud of the fact we Americans represent 6 percent of the world's population, but we represent over half of the basic research done in the world. That is important. And I think it is important that the pharmaceutical companies continue to do that kind of research. But I think Members have to understand that we subsidize that research here in the United States in three separate ways. First of all, we subsidize it through the Tax Code. Now, when these pharmaceutical companies say, well, we spend so much on research, well, you might just ask them how much are you able to write-off on your Federal tax forms? And if you do business in Puerto Rico, how much Federal income tax do you pay? And in addition to that, is it not true over the last 10 years you have taken over $28 billion in investment tax credits for the research that you do; for research and development tax credits? So you add it up, and the net real cost to the pharmaceutical industry is much less than they sometimes say. And, incidentally, more and more independent groups, bipartisan groups, nonpartisan groups are coming to the same conclusion, and that is that the pharmaceutical industry is now spending more money on marketing and advertising, in fact, in some cases some companies dramatically more on marketing and advertising than they are for research. So research is important, but we pay for it through the Tax Code. We subsidize it through the Tax Code. We subsidize it also in the amount that we spend on research. I mentioned that I am proud of the fact that we finance an awful lot of research with taxpayers' dollars here in Washington. This year we will spend upwards of $27 billion through the NIH, the CDC, even the Department of Defense on research projects which will directly or indirectly benefit the pharmaceutical industry. And then, finally, of course, the way we subsidize them is in the prices we pay. I think once is enough. I think once we help to develop Taxoxiphen, we ought to at least be able to buy it at world market prices for American consumers. This is a huge issue, my colleagues. And it is one that more and more seniors, and not only seniors but American consumers in general understand this issue. And I think there is a feeling here that if we just pass this prescription drug benefit plan that somehow this will go away. Well, Members, you need to understand a few things about, ultimately, the facts about this prescription drug benefit. And I am not here to criticize the Medicare reforms, I think most of the Medicare reforms we are talking about in this bill are very good, very necessary, and perhaps even overdue. But when you start talking about the prescription drug benefit, I hope you will understand, at least from my perspective, the facts: First of all, this bill, they purport, is going to cost $400 billion. I think it is going to be a lot more than $400 billion, because we do not have effective ways of dealing with the cost, we are going to pay in the affordability of these drugs. But let us say it is $400 billion. Well, the CBO tells us virtually every dollar of that is going to have to be borrowed. To pay for this new entitlement, we are literally going to have to borrow the money from our kids and grandkids. In some respects, I think that is a terrible tragedy. But as we look at the overall issue, what is going to happen is next year, by the time people begin to understand this, they are going to say, now, wait a second, and whether it is going to be 16 percent or 36 percent, no one really knows, but we do know this, there will be people who have prescription drug coverage today, through their former employers, who are going to be pushed off of the system and all of a sudden they are going to be thrown into this new government plan, and what they are going to find out is it is not as generous as the plan that they had through their former employer, for the most part. And they are not going to be happy. I think a lot of conservatives and taxpayers are not going to be happy when they see the cost of this. And I think as they look at the final issue, if next year they look at the system and say, wait a second, you mean even after this, we are still going to be spending $360, or some number, let us say we get a 15 percent discount or a 20 percent discount off $360, that is roughly a $72 discount, that gets the prices down to about $290. That still is a lot more than they are paying in Europe for the same drugs. No, I think Americans should pay their fair share. I think we are paying our fair share. But I think if we pass this bill later this week without dealing with the fundamental cause, or one of the fundamental drivers of this whole debate in affordability, it seems to me we are making a huge mistake. And it is one I think the voters will not be appreciative of once they begin to realize. Yes, we need to reform Medicare. We have 50 million baby boomers moving on their way towards retirement. And it is inevitable that as we go forward, we have to do something about reforming the Medicare system. We have to make it fairer. We have to give consumers and seniors more choices. But if we are going to add a prescription drug benefit to the package, this new $400 billion entitlement, and going up in my opinion, then it seems to me we have an obligation to make sure American consumers, American taxpayers are getting their monies worth. So I would hope that Members would at least pause and ask the question what are we going to do about opening up markets? What are we going to do to control the cost of these prescription drugs? What are we going to do to make them more affordable for American consumers? I think the answer ultimately to me is quite simple, and that is give the market access. Do what we do with those pig producers, require some competition across the border. Allow prescription drugs to work as virtually every other market does. When markets work, when competition works, prices will level. And the net result is that we will pay considerably less in the United States. And some of the people in other industrialized countries are going to probably have to pay a little more. But that is the way markets work. They tend to level. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for giving me the chance to present some of these things tonight. I know that not everyone agrees with me. I try to be respectful when I debate and discuss these, but it is such an important issue. And if I could just close with one other point, because some people say this cannot be done safely. Members, I would encourage you to take a look at the newest technology that exists today. This is not pie in the sky. I have the technology right here in this little vial literally about 100 computer clips. And within 2 years, most of the products being sold at Wal-Mart stores will have these on them. This is the new UPC codes. And these little computer chips in this vial, there are about 100 of them, they are so small you cannot see them, but they will be able to track that product literally so that you will know when it runs through the scanner that this Cipro was produced at the Munich, Germany, plant on September 3, 2001 at 1 p.m. in the afternoon and it is in fact Cipro. So the idea that we do not have the technology to do this today is really laughable. It exists. It is being used on other products. It will expand and be used even more. But, Mr. Speaker, and particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), I appreciate having the opportunity to present some of these things. If Members would like more information from my office or want to go to my Web site, simply go to gil.house.gov. We have some great charts which explain this. As John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' This is a stubborn thing. This chart is not going to go away. And under the bill we are considering this week, it will not change much. Ultimately, we have the power to change it. The FDA works for us, not the other way around. It is not shame on the pharmaceutical industry, it is shame on us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3157) to provide for the designation of a Department of Agriculture disaster liaison to assist State and local employees of the Department in coordination with other disaster agencies in response to a federally declared disaster area as a result of a disaster, as amended.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2304) to resolve boundary conflicts in the vicinity of the Mark Twain National Forest in Barry and Stone Counties, Missouri, that resulted from private landowner reliance on a subsequent Federal survey, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1367) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a loan repayment program regarding the provision of veterinary services in shortage situations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1367, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act. I commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for his leadership on this issue. H.R. 1367, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, subject to the availability of appropriations, to assist veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has determined a shortage of qualified veterinarians exists. In addition, at the request of the USDA, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations. Examples of when this may be important include California's recent experience with Exotic Newcastle Disease, or in a case closer to home, an outbreak of low pathogenic Avian influenza in Virginia here in 2002. In both of these examples, the Federal Government, acting through USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, mobilizes its resources in order to detect, control and eradicate disease. Having a pool of qualified veterinarians able to assist in a time of emergency simply bolsters our ability to rapidly contain diseases which can cost our economy millions or even billions of dollars. Once again, I commend the gentleman from Mississippi for his hard work on this important legislation and urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the author of the bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering). I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I think veterinarians in some respects are like tourniquets: we do not need one often; but when we do need one, we need one rapidly; and in underserved areas, it could become a very serious problem. So I think this is an important piece of legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) recognizing the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture for 50 years of outstanding service to the Nation through agricultural research.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 22 honors the Agricultural Research Service, the primary research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. On Wednesday, October 29, the House Committee on Agriculture reported out an identical resolution, House Joint Resolution 74. Although ARS can trace its heritage back to early 19th century seed collection activities in the U.S. Patent Office, it was originally organized on November 2, 1953, when the USDA consolidated most of its research functions into one newly-named Agricultural Research Service. I am very pleased to help ARS mark its 50th anniversary and to use this occasion to recognize the important contributions ARS has made to the agricultural community, as well as to our Nation. ARS is a public institution that conducts agricultural research exclusively for the public good. ARS scientists and other employees serve the Nation in their capacity of public servants and are accountable to the American people. The research is often long-term and costly and unlikely to be undertaken by the private sector. The ARS discoveries and innovations touch the lives of every American through the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the environment in which we all live. Those of us from rural districts see firsthand the impact of ARS research but we should all be mindful of the agency's unique contributions to the quality of life for people everywhere. This impact is far greater than anyone could have imagined 50 years ago. To mark its five decades of public service and to look forward to the next 50 years and beyond of even greater service to this Nation, ARS will be celebrating with various events throughout the next year. In fact, in recognition of the local and national partnerships that are the foundation of much of their research, ARS has declared this a year of outreach and will hold an open house or in some other way throw open their doors at each location over the next year. With over 100 locations across the country, I hope you will support these activities and provide special encouragement for continued ARS leadership in the agricultural, natural resources and technological arenas. I urge all Members to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very important resolution. The ARS has done some wonderful work for us. This is one small way that Congress can say thank you and recognize their efforts.

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

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a fair and equitable way to deal with this problem. All parties agree to it, and hopefully the Members of the House will join us in support of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.