Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that more and more Americans are aware of, and that is, first of all, the high price that Americans pay for prescription drugs, but, more important even than that, the difference between what Americans pay and what the rest of the world pays for the same drugs. I have with me a chart that I have updated several times over the last several years, and it is one of those areas where the more you learn about this, the angrier you become at the system. Let me point out some of the prices, because I know these are hard to read here in the Chamber and on C-SPAN. But let me point out a few of these. Here we have Augmentin, a very commonly prescribed drug. The average price in the United States for a 30-day supply, $55.50. That same drug in Europe on average sells for $8.75. Let us take a drug like Claritin. Claritin is a drug going off of patent. It still sells in the United States when we made up this chart for about $89. In Europe, the same drug sells for $18.75 Another drug that many Americans are very familiar with is the drug Premarin. Many women take the drug Premarin, especially as they reach menopause. Mr. Speaker, $55.42 is the American price; $8.95 if you buy that drug in Europe. It goes on and on. Zoloft, a very commonly prescribed drug; in the United States a 30-day supply is $114; in Europe it is $52.50. Let me point out another very important drug that has done a lot of good in this country and around the world for people who suffer from diabetes, and something like 27 percent of all Medicare expenditures are diabetes related. Glucophage in the United States costs $124.65, and in Europe that drug is only $22. Now, what we are talking about here are the same drugs made in the same FDA-approved facilities that are sold in both places. It would be easy for us to come to the floor of the House and say, shame on the pharmaceutical industry. Well, I am not here to say shame on the pharmaceutical industry. They are only doing what any capitalist company would do, and that is that they are maximizing their market opportunities. Now, it is not shame on the pharmaceutical industry. It is shame on the FDA, and it is shame on us here in Congress for allowing this to happen. I want to point out something else, and then I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Why this gets very important is because last year, according to the National Institutes of Health Health Care Management, prescription drugs went up 19 percent here in the United States. The average Social Security cost of living adjustment was only 3.5 percent. One more chart I will show, because this is the most difficult one of all. Earlier, one of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), was talking about affordability; and affordability is the real issue. It is not about coverage; it is about affordability. He said that there was not enough coverage in the Republican plan that the members of the House Committee on Ways and means and the Committee on Commerce are putting together. Well, here is the number that the Congressional Budget Office tells us. Over the next 10 years, this is how much they estimate seniors will spend on prescription drugs. This is a 1 and then an 8, and then 000,000,000,000; that is $1.8 trillion. We cannot afford prescription drugs because the prices are too high. If we could do what some of us want to do, and that is at least open up the American markets to imports, we could save at least 35 percent. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, 35 percent of $1.8 trillion is $630 billion just for seniors, just over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, that is almost $1,000 a year.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, coming back to the cost of research, I think we in the United States ought to be willing to pay our fair share for research. When we look at these charts, clearly we should not be required to subsidize the starving Swiss.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think we have to attack this problem on many fronts. The more we learn about it, the more we realize there are an awful lot of problems. One of them is all of the money that the pharmaceutical companies are spending on marketing. I happen to believe in free speech, so they ought to be able to advertise; but we ought to at least know how much of that drug dollar is going to advertising. They ought to have to disclose that to people like us so that seniors know how much they are spending on marketing.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, in the era of the Internet, NAFTA and world trade, the FDA should not be allowed to stand between American consumers and lower drug prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I think if we are paying for most of the research, and something else most Americans do not know, and that is 44 percent of all of the money spent on basic research in the world is spent by Americans and American companies.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that the House is going to be addressing in the next several weeks. We are going to start having hearings, I understand, later this week or early next week on the issue of prescription drugs. What I want to talk about tonight is the difference between what Americans pay for prescription drugs and what consumers in the rest of the world pay. I have on my Website a chart which is absolutely eye-opening when one looks at the differences for the 15 most commonly prescribed drugs, what we pay in the United States versus what they pay in Europe, and let me give one example. My father is 83 years old. He takes a drug called Coumadin, which is a blood thinner, and one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. In the United States, the average price for a 30-day supply of Coumadin is $64.80. That exact same drug made in the same plant under the same FDA approval sells in Europe for $15.80. It is four times more expensive in the United States. That pattern repeats itself with drug after drug after drug. A few years ago when we first started doing this research, the price for a 30-day supply of Coumadin in the United States was not $68, it was $38. It has gone up by approximately $30 in a little over 2.5 years. That is being repeated. Last year the amount that Americans spent on prescription drugs went up almost 19 percent. That is at a time when the average Social Security recipient received an increase of only 3.5 percent. It is outrageous. And I am not here to blame the pharmaceutical industry. I am not here to say, shame on the pharmaceutical industry. They have really done some marvelous things, and we all enjoy better health today thanks to the pharmaceutical industry. I think we need to pay for the research, but what we are finding out more and more is not only do we pay for the research, we pay for the advertising, the marketing. We are paying for a tremendous amount of overhead, and they still are the most profitable industry listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Almost any way it is measured, they are the most profitable. The American consumer is subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry essentially in three ways: First of all, we subsidize them in the amount that we spend on basic research through the NIH, the Science Foundation, other groups that are doing research. We are subsidizing basic research in the United States by over $20 billion a year. That is through the taxpayers. Then we subsidize them in the Tax Code. When they talk about how much they spend on research, that is not exactly the whole story, because when they spend that money on research, at least they can write it off on the bottom line. Most of these companies are extremely profitable, in the 50 percent tax bracket. Half of their research costs, at least, are written off. In some cases they qualify for investment tax credits, and so they get dollar for dollar. In other words, they write off all of the expense on the Tax Code. The third way we subsidize the pharmaceutical industry is in the prices we pay. Conservatively, we could save American consumers 35 percent if we simply do what we do with virtually every other product, and that is open up the American market so Americans would have access to drugs at world market prices. My vision is that the average consumer should be able to go to their local pharmacy, deal with their local pharmacist, and have this option. If their drug has to come from the American inventory, then they would have to pay the American price, whatever that is, and we will let the pharmaceutical industry decide that. But if the pharmaceutical industry is willing to sell drugs like Cipro, for example, for half the price in Germany, and that is made by a German company, Bayer. Bayer makes it in Germany, and they will sell it in Germany for half the price that they sell it for here in the United States. If that is the case, at least allow that consumer to say to their pharmacist, is there a way we can place this order over the Internet and save some money? Then the pharmacist could say, I can order this out of a pharmaceutical supply operation out of Paris, France; Geneva, Switzerland, and you can save 50 percent, whatever the number is. The reason this becomes important is our own Congressional Budget Office is estimating that American seniors over the next 10 years will spend $1.8 trillion. Madam Speaker, if we are correct, by allowing open markets, free markets, we believe in NAFTA, GATT, free trade, except where American consumers could save the most, if we would just simply open our markets and allow that kind of competition, we could save American consumers $630 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that we in Congress and most Americans are becoming painfully aware of, and that is, the differential between what we pay for prescription drugs in the United States and what people around the rest of the world pay for the exact same drugs made in exactly the same plants, under the same FDA approval. What I have here tonight is a chart which shows what I think are 15 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States and a comparison which was done. These are not my numbers. These were done by the Life Extension Foundation, and they have been studying this issue for a number of years and probably have done a better job of assembling raw data about the differentials, and I would like to go through some of the numbers on these charts. Let me talk about, for example, Glucophage. Glucophage is an amazing drug, and let me first of all say, I am not here tonight to beat up on the pharmaceutical industry. They have done some wonderful things. We are all living longer and better quality lives because of the research that they have done, but Glucophage is a very important drug for diabetes. The average price for a 30-day supply of Glucophage in the United States is $124.65. That exact same drug in Europe, again made under the same FDA approval, sells for $22. That is six times as much for the same drug, and that is a very important drug for the millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes. Let us take another drug that is very common, commonly prescribed particularly for older women, women who are beyond menopause. Let us take Premarin. It is actually a fairly simple drug to make. In the United States, a 30-day supply sells for $55.42. That same drug in Europe sells for $8.95, and we do go down the list and we see it repeats itself. Let us take a very commonly prescribed drug, one that my 85-year-old father takes. It is Coumadin. It is a drug that is used as a blood thinner, and the interesting thing, when most people start on these, particularly seniors, they do not just take them for a week or a month. Most of them will be on those drugs for the rest of their lives. So we are talking about huge expenditures when people start down the path of having to take these drugs. They are important drugs, but let us take Coumadin. The price in the United States for a 30-day supply, $64.80 cents. That same drug in Switzerland sells for $15.80 on average. What a difference. We are going to have a big debate in the next several weeks about whether or not we should extend Medicare coverage and have a new prescription drug benefit, and I think clearly if we were reinventing Medicare today, as they did in 1965, we would include a Medicare benefit, but this is not so much shame on the pharmaceutical industry because they are doing what any company would do, and that is, they are maximizing profits. It is shame on the FDA for doing this to our seniors, and it is shame on us for letting it happen. Let me show you another chart. One of the things that disturbs me is how much the price of prescription drugs has gone up. In the last year we have numbers, the average Social Security recipient received a cost- of-living adjustment of 3\1/2\ percent. Prescription drugs went up 19 percent. We hear stories every day about these seniors who have to make difficult, painful choices that no American should have to make, and a big reason is because of the price. What does this mean ultimately for the budget? I have a plan to make it easier for Americans to import through their pharmacist or by themselves these prescription drugs from other countries. My vision is that people would be able to go to their local pharmacy, and if they wanted the prescription filled today, they could literally pay the American price but the pharmacist would be able to say, listen, I can fill it today and the price for that Coumadin would be $64.80, or I can have this prescription filled in Geneva, Switzerland, and the price will be $16.80 and it will take three days and we will ship it FedEx and then the person will have it. I think many Americans would choose that option. Let me talk about the numbers because this is a very big number. This is $1,800,000,000,000. That is $1.8 trillion. Even in Washington that is a huge number. What is $1.8 trillion? That is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us that senior citizens, people 65 and older, will spend on prescription drugs over the next 10 years. I am convinced that if we open up markets, if we allow people to buy drugs from other countries we can save at least 35 percent. If we multiply that out, it is $630 billion that we can save seniors. It is time to open up markets. It is time for Americans to pay their fair share of the cost of developing new drugs, but it is time to say that we will stop subsidizing the starving Swiss.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about an issue that unfortunately more and more Americans are becoming acutely aware of, that is, the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States, especially relative to the prices that people are paying in other parts of the world, other industrialized countries, where we see enormous differentials for the same drugs made in the same plants under the same FDA approval. I have a chart here, and it has a list. These are not my numbers; this is an independent group called the Life Extension Foundation. They have been doing research of this type for a number of years and have been very helpful in at least clarifying what is going on in terms of the way the drug companies set their prices. The more we learn about this issue, the angrier we will become when we see what they are doing to American consumers. For example, here are roughly 15 of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. Here is what we are paying on an average for a 30-day supply here in the United States, and on the other list we have what the average price in Europe is. Now, some people say, well, some countries have price controls, and it is hard to compare apples to oranges, and all that. Well, let us talk about some countries that do not have price controls, not as we know they are: Germany, Switzerland. Those are two good examples. Let us look at what we are paying here in the United States and what they are paying in places like Germany and Switzerland. Let us take a drug like Cipro. We all learned a lot about Cipro last November when we had the threats, and ultimately several postal workers lost their lives because of what happened last fall. We bought an awful lot of Cipro. To his credit, Secretary Tommy Thompson got a very good price on that Cipro that he bought. But let us look at what the average consumer would have to pay for Cipro. Cipro is a drug made by a pharmaceutical company called Bayer, or we say it Bayer, here in the United States, the same people that make the aspirin. In the United States, the average price for a 30-day supply of Cipro is $87.99. That same drug in Berlin sells for $40.75. As we look down this list, we see some even bigger disparities: Claritin, a drug that is going off-patent still sells in the United States on average, or at least when this chart was put together a few months ago, sold for an average of $89 for a 30-day supply. That exact same drug in Europe sells for $18.75. Again, the same drug, the same FDA approval, made in the same plants, selling for a fraction of what they sell for in Europe. Coumadin, a drug that I am very familiar with, my 85-year-old father takes Coumadin. It is a blood thinner very commonly prescribed for seniors. In fact, most of them, once they start on Coumadin, they stay on it for the rest of their lives. The price here in the United States on an average for a 30-day supply is $64.88; the same drug in Europe sells for $15.80. If we go down the list, it makes us angry when we see the differences. A relatively simple drug like Premarin, in the United States it sells for an average of $55.42; in Europe, the same drug, $8.95. The list goes on. If anybody would like the entire list, they can contact my office. We will send it to them. Again, I did not create this chart. I cannot defend this chart, and neither can anybody else. Here is another chart that cannot be explained or defended. Last year, the last year we have numbers for, what happened to prescription drug prices? In the United States, the average price for prescription drugs went up 19 percent. I mentioned that Coumadin that is now $64 for a 30-day supply in the United States. Two years ago, that same drug sold for $38 in the United States. That is how much it has gone up in just 2 years. At the same time, the Social Security cost-of-living adjustments that we gave to those seniors who have to buy those drugs only went up 3.5 percent. This is unsustainable. This is wrong, and Congress ought to do something about it: Let us get to the big numbers. Let us get to the big numbers. This is where it starts to really cost. This number on top is one, then an eight, then a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero and a zero, $1.8 trillion. That is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us that seniors, these are people 65 years and older, will spend for prescription drugs in just the next 10 years, $1.8 trillion. Now, Members, conservatively, if we just open up the market, if we just allow seniors to buy drugs from other countries, and I want them to go to their local pharmacist, I want them to be able to go down to the local pharmacist and the pharmacist can say to them, listen, I can fill that out of my supply that is American, and the price will be $64, or I can order it from Europe for you on the Web, and we can have it here in 3 days, and the price will be $18, or whatever the number is. Markets work. Markets are more powerful than armies. If we simply do this, I believe we can save at least 35 percent; 35 percent of $1.8 trillion is $630 billion. That would go a long way to helping to pay for a benefit for those seniors who currently fall through the cracks. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to open up the markets and allow Americans to have access to drugs at world market prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I know that the author and the supporters of this amendment are very sincere. They feel very strongly about the issues, but I want to clarify something here for the rest of the Members. We are really not talking about zebra mussels in this amendment, and we are not talking about purple loosestrife. What we are really talking about is whether or not we are going to take actions on the floor of the House of Representatives to limit the amount of research that can be done on biology and new plant species and things that are happening in biotechnology. What that says is we are not spending enough on that area now, and the truth of the matter is there is nothing in this authorization today that would limit the amount that the National Science Foundation could spend on these kinds of programs, but it is, in fact, a way of tinkering. So this is redundant. It is unneeded and, worse than that, it is politicizing what I think has been a very nonpolitical markup and as we have worked through this process. Historically, we in Congress, I think, have done a very good job of not trying to politicize or get our fingers into these kinds of decisions. We have had an awful lot of research about biology and new biotechnology, and all of it has come to this same conclusion, and that is, that the work that is being done in both the government-funded labs, as well as in private labs, is both safe and has no detrimental impact on the environment. We have had all kinds of scares. What the authors are trying to do really is they are once again introducing the idea that we can somehow disprove the negative. They know that that cannot happen, and this is a toe in the door for some of these researchers to say, well, the answer, of course, is we have to have more money, but understand that when those particular researchers, attempting to disprove a negative which cannot be disproved, when they take more money, it comes at the expense of other important research. I believe this research has to go forward. I think the USDA, the National Science Foundation, other groups that are doing this kind of research, they are doing it with very good scientists who understand that there are consequences, but more importantly, if we try to limit the work that is done in biotechnology, what we are working on today is developing plant species that can actually cure diseases. That is amazing. It is wonderful. We should not try to stymie that kind of research. We are developing new plant species which are much more resistant to pests and other problems they might encounter so we can use less in terms of pesticides on those plants. That again is a wonderful discovery. And also understand, most of the food that we eat today is a result of biotechnology. The Native Americans did a wonderful job in creating what we now know is corn. They actually developed that from what was formerly known as maize. The potato was something that was actually crossbred and developed by the American Indian. All that we enjoy, much of what we enjoy today in terms of things that we take for granted, were developed with biotechnology. This is a thinly veiled attempt to politicize what has been a very nonpolitical markup, and the way that the Congress has dealt with it, I think it is a bad idea. It sets a very bad precedent because if this amendment is adopted, I promise my colleagues we will see more and more amendments by Members attempting to advance a political cause they believe in. I think it is a very big mistake, and I hope the Members will join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill today. Let me say this about research and what we do in the United States, and I think it needs to be said. Research is a very important part of what we do here in the United States, and it is a very important part of our economic growth. About half of the economic growth in the United States today is as a result of research which has been funded in the past. We represent about 4 percent of the world's population, but we represent about 44 percent of the money that is spent on basic research. That is important, and there is a correlation. I was fortunate to go and visit some of our national labs. They truly are national treasures. What they do through the National Science Foundation, not only through our labs but our universities around the country, makes a big, big difference. A few years ago I was privileged to meet with a fellow by the name of Gene Fry. Now, Gene Fry is a researcher at a little company called 3M. Now, this probably was not original, but he said something very important that day. He said if we knew what we were doing, it would not be research. There is a lot of truth to that. A lot of the projects that we fund at the beginning it is hard to defend. But ultimately the reason that we live in the world we live in today is because brave legislatures in the past and brave business people in the past have been willing to invest in projects that may not have made a lot of sense at the time. I think we have to have the courage to stand up and say research is a very important responsibility to the Federal Government. We get a huge rate of return on the money that we invest in research, and we will determine today what kind of a world our children will live in. This is an important bill. I am happy to rise in support of it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about outrageously high drug prices and what we pay for drugs in the United States compared to what the rest of the world is paying. There is a group down in Florida, and they have been doing this research for a number of years, called the Life Extension Foundation or the Life Extension Network, and they have been doing research in terms of what Americans pay for prescription drugs and what the average European price for those same drugs, made in the same FDA-approved facilities, under the same FDA-approved methodology. These are the exact same drugs, and let us look at some of these. One that we became very familiar with in the last several months is a drug that is made in Germany. It is called Cipro. We bought an awful lot of Cipro when we started having anthrax mailed to places in Washington and New York. Cipro is a very effective antibiotic. The average United States price for a 30-day supply is $87.99. That same drug in Germany sells for $40.75. The story gets worse when we look at some of the more expensive drugs. Let us take the drug Claritin, for example, which is going off patent here in the United States, but it still sells for about an average of $89 for a 30-day supply in the United States. That exact same drug sells for $18.75 over in Europe. A drug that is technically off patent in the United States, the FDA has approved what they call a special extension of the patent, Glucophage, one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for diabetes sufferers, which is one of the most common diseases in the United States, but Glucophage, a 30-day supply in the United States sells for $124.65. That same drug in Geneva, Switzerland, sells for $22. Mr. Speaker, as we look down this list, it becomes almost embarrassing that we allow this situation to exist, and the real culprit is not so much the pharmaceutical industry. They are doing what any industry would do, and that is, taking advantage of market opportunities. No, the real problem is that our own FDA stands between Americans and lower drug prices. It is not so much shame on them. It is shame on us. Now we passed a very important amendment last year on a vote of 324 to 101 saying that as long as it is an FDA-approved drug made in an FDA-approved facility, that those drugs can be imported and reimported by both consumers and wholesalers and a local pharmacist. Let me show my colleagues one other drug that is fairly near and dear to my heart. It is a drug that my 85-year-old father takes. It is called Coumadin. When I first started putting these charts up a few years ago, the average price for a 30-day supply of Coumadin was about $38. In just a little over 2 years, that price is now over $64. Now, we asked the drug companies what has changed. I mean, do we have new doctoring regulations or new lawsuits that they have to settle? Have they had to spend more money getting approval? The answer is no, nothing has changed, except the price. It has gone from about $38 to about $64, almost $65 in the United States, but here is what really frosts me. The price over in Europe averages only $15.80 for the same drug. We are going to have some pitched debates over the next several weeks about prescription drugs, whether or not we should extend coverage, and I believe that we need to do something to help people who are currently falling through the cracks, but if we fail to deal with the critical issue of price, then it is shame on us. Let me explain how this gets important. Let me first of all show this chart. This is according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Institutes of Health Care Management, the last year we have full numbers for. The average Social Security recipient in the United States got a 3\1/2\ percent increase in their COLA on their Social Security. At the same time, prescription drug prices in the United States went up by 19 percent. Nineteen percent. That is unsustainable, and ultimately, we in Congress need to do something about it. My answer is let us open markets, let us allow some competition to exist, and we will see a real change. I think it is important that we do address the issue of prescription drugs, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, and they are our official scorekeepers, they are the ones who are bean counters, prognosticators, they tell us over the next 10 years their best estimate is that seniors, people over the age of 65, and look at all these numbers, this is how much they estimate seniors will pay for prescription drugs over the next 10 years. That is $1.8 trillion. There is not enough money in the Federal Treasury to come up with that and continue to fund the other legitimate needs of people here in the United States of America. The reason I put 35 percent under that, to give a point to why it is important that we do something on reimportation this year, is that I estimate we can save at least 35 percent. Here in Washington a billion dollars gets lost once in a while. In fact, the old expression, a billion here, billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money, but if we multiply the 35 percent minimum savings that I think we can get with reimportation times $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years, we can save American consumers $630 billion. That is real money, and that is real money out of the pockets of either our seniors or the taxpayers here in the United States. I believe that we as Americans ought to pay our fair share of the research cost for pharmaceuticals. I am not here to beat up on the pharmaceutical industry because they have done a lot of wonderful things. There are millions of American that are alive today and living better lives because of what they have done with their research. I think we should pay our fair share, but shame on us if they continue to force us to subsidize the starving Swiss.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day, I would ask that we pause and reflect on what some have called our greatest generation. Over 16 million Americans answered the call, and now we are losing over 1,000 World War II vets every day. We owe all our vets. Perhaps one of the greatest tributes was offered by President Ronald Reagan when he went to Normandy to observe the 50th Anniversary of that amazing invasion. He said, ``Those men of Normandy were men of great faith. They had faith that they fought for all humanity. They had faith that they fought for a just cause. They had faith in a loving God that would grant them His tender mercy on this beachhead, or the next. They somehow knew that word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. That in Georgia, they were filling the churches at 4 a.m. That in Kansas, they were kneeling and praying on their porches. And in Philadelphia, they were ringing the Liberty Bell.'' To all our vets, and especially the World War II vets, let us say a special thanks to them this Memorial Day.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a special tribute to some very special athletes and to an incredibly important entrepreneur. To paraphrase one of my favorite Presidents: ``Those who say that there are no more American heroes, well, they just don't know where to look.'' For too long, there have been too few women athletes for girls to look up to. A brave entrepreneur named Bill Kennedy decided to change all that. He created the U.S. Professional Volleyball League. This was their inaugural season. They assembled some of the finest women athletes and put together an exciting season. If you thought 30-inch vertical jumps were only for the NBA, you would be wrong. Fans responded by filling arenas and cheering to the top of their lungs. Now, I admit that we are especially proud of Coach Tore Aleksandersen, General Manager Kevin Rueten, and all the members of the Minnesota Chill. They won both the regular season and the playoff championship. Rochester is proud to call them our home team. Perhaps even better than seeing the Chill win the championship was to see the adoration in the eyes of young girls who came to cheer for their local heroes. We all need heroes and role models. We were blessed to find a new group in the Chill and in the entire league. We saw little of the bad behavior which has become so commonplace in modern day sports. We were treated to spirited competition that parents could be proud to take their children to. I have little doubt that the league will grow and prosper. Congratulations again to all the members of the Minnesota Chill for their championship in this inaugural season and thank you again to Bill Kennedy for giving us this new league and a wonderful group of new heroes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I cannot help but just think about how much we take for granted here in the United States, how spoiled we are. We take our farmers for granted every single day. We take for granted that we have the cheapest food in the world. When there is any kind of an emergency in the world, who does the world turn to first? The American farmer. In fact, literally, before we had troops on the ground in Afghanistan, we were putting together food supplies to make certain that the folks in Afghanistan did not starve to death. That is true in every hot spot in the world. American farmers are taken for granted. Mr. Speaker, there is something else we take for granted. Here is a chart. This is how much we pay for food in the United States as a percentage of the per capita income. It is only 10.9 percent here in the United States. We take that for granted every single day that we will have an abundance of cheap food on every supermarket counter all across the country. For example, in India, it is 51 percent. Even some of our close friends like the United Kingdom, it is 11.2; Sweden, 14.6; in France, it is 14.8. We take that for granted every single day. We take so much for granted. I hear this debate and people say, oh, my gosh, we are going to spend $73.5 billion over the next 10 years. Well, that is what we agreed to last year. That is what we formally agreed to this year in our budget resolution. It should not come as a surprise. The gentleman from Nebraska recently said we had 47 hearings on this. We went all over the country. We learned a lot about agriculture, whether one is in California or Pennsylvania or down South, in the upper Midwest, and this is a wonderful compromise. I want to congratulate the ranking member and the chairman. Frankly, I think when this thing is all over we ought to send them to the Middle East to try to bring these people together to come up with a compromise that people can live with, which is almost impossible. As I say, there are 2 things that we take for granted in this country every single day. One is cheap food and the other, I think, is even more important, and that is an unlimited supply of young farmers who are willing to go out there and take a chance at it. We take that for granted every day. I think part of the reason we ought to pass this bill today is because we need to send a message to younger farmers that when we do things here at the Federal level that make it difficult for farmers to compete in the world marketplace, we ought to be there to provide a shock absorber, and when we send that message, we are going to have those young farmers out there willing to take a chance at it. Let me show my colleagues the second chart. Some people say we are spending too much on farmers. Well, even with the passage of this bill, the old number was $49 per acre that we subsidize agriculture, and with the passage of this bill it will go to $54 an acre. Yes, that is a lot of money. But when we compare it to our trading competitors, the European Union is $309 per acre, and in Japan it is over $4,000 an acre. Now, we are asking our farmers to compete in that world marketplace. What about leveling the playing field? Finally, some people say we need payment limits, and I am in favor of payment limits. But understand that farming is changing. So when we look at these numbers, they look like big numbers, but if one is a full-time farmer, some people say, well, 80 percent of the benefit will go to 20 percent of the farmers. That is the farmers who produce the food for us and the rest of the world. I think we need to pass this today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's charter schools have been a great boon to America's education system. My great State of Minnesota enjoys being at the forefront of many movements. Charter schools are no exception. St. Paul Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Bluffview Montessori School in Winona, Minnesota, are America's first charter schools. These schools received their charters back in 1993. Charter schools provide an innovative curriculum. Students are able to explore specific interests in a unique environment. Charter schools address the special needs of students who may not otherwise prosper in traditional public education systems. Minnesota features charter schools that specifically address the needs of Hmong and Native American students. A new agricultural charter school just opened in the Twin Cities. This is an excellent opportunity for urban students to expand their knowledge. Too many adults do not know enough about how food is produced. Charter schools are providing the innovative solutions to that gap of understanding. As a component of public education, charter schools are a testing ground for education delivery systems, and they are proving very successful. With an enrollment of 175 students, Bluffview continues to prosper. Their students, with the guidance of 15 teachers, have consistently scored higher than national and State averages on standardized tests. Charter schools provide a creative answer to the question of parental involvement, flexibility and accountability in the public school system, higher standards, and oversight by a sponsoring public district maintain quality and continuity in each school. In the case of parental involvement, I want to tell Members about Sandy Bauer. Her children have already graduated from Bluffview. Her experience as a parent was so positive that she continues to be a volunteer. That is commitment. Her actions tell me that Bluffview is doing something right. Accountability is best demonstrated by the creation of a charter document. This document specifically outlines the goals for achievement. I firmly believe in planning your work and working your plan. Charter schools, by their very nature, must meet the goals of their charter or they lose that charter. I am proud to celebrate National Charter Schools Week. I wholeheartedly commend the charter schools, the movement, the charter school teachers, the parents, and the students for their ongoing contributions to education. They are leading our country to a brighter future for all students, and I am happy to cosponsor this important resolution.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for yielding me the time, and I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for bringing this resolution forward. I am a happy and proud co-sponsor of it. There are two sports that we take very seriously back in the State of Minnesota. One of them is hockey and the other is wrestling. Part of the reason I think we take them so seriously is because if one is going to excel in these two sports, they have to have enormous amounts of dedication to those spores. So on behalf of all of the people of the great State of Minnesota, I rise in support of this resolution to congratulate the young men and women who have earned this recognition. First of all, to win the national championship in hockey is something that is extremely difficult to do. We know that because in Minnesota, we have young people as old as 4 years old, parents are taking them down to the ice arenas. At 4 years old they are called mites, and they start skating and they start learning the sport of hockey, and to win a national championship is an honor that they can only dream of one day, and obviously it is with the leadership of the University of Minnesota and the Gophers, what they did today, that will give them even more impetus to work hard to try to achieve that dream. Also, on behalf of the people of the State of Minnesota, we want to thank and congratulate the young women at the University of Minnesota- Duluth for their amazing accomplishment to win back-to-back national championships. Finally, if there is any sport that requires more dedication than hockey it is wrestling, and for the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers to win that championship means an awful lot. So again congratulations to all of the Gophers and the Bulldogs for their amazing dedication in winning these national championships. I hope my colleagues will please excuse us if our buttons seem to be bursting today, but we are extremely proud of the accomplishments of these young athletes. They demonstrate the pursuit of excellence is alive and well. It is living in Minnesota.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share a story of faith, hope, love, and incredible generosity. Lynn Laufenberger works in our district office back in Minnesota. She is a young woman full of courage and hope. In 1995, Lynn's kidneys began to slow down. They no longer functioned well enough, and Lynn was placed on dialysis. For 6\1/2\ years she received dialysis every day, usually in her own home. Earlier this year, Lynn's kidney disease became worse. She felt an increased sense of urgency to obtain a kidney transplant. Lynn spoke publicly of this need at her church, Elim Baptist, in Rochester, Minnesota. A friend, Heidi Stensland, approached her after she spoke and told her that she had already been praying about giving one of her kidneys to Lynn. Heidi had only known Lynn for a couple of months. Heidi submitted herself for tests to determine if her kidney was healthy and a match for Lynn. The results showed that her kidney was indeed a match. This was no small feat, since Lynn's blood type is rare. Lynn had been on the active transplant waiting list for about 1 year. The transplant surgery was performed February 21 at Rochester Methodist Hospital. Heidi, a home day care provider, took her yearly vacation time to donate her kidney. She even postponed her own wedding to deliver this amazing gift of life to Lynn. The surgery was immediately successful. The transplanted kidney began to work in Lynn's body right in the operating room. Lynn's parents from Wisconsin were able to come to Minnesota for her surgery, and they stayed afterward to provide much needed support. Her only sister was also able to be there. The faith community of Elim Baptist Church was very supportive of both Lynn and Heidi. Church members provided transportation for their follow-up appointments. The church also brought much appreciated meals and assisted with some of the extra expenses. When Heidi resumed providing day care in her home, church members were there to help her until she was able to handle it by herself. Heidi continues to provide day care in her home. Lynn has returned to her staff assistant's job in my office. This is a beautiful story. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Heidi Stensland for her generosity and her faith. I thank the members of the Elim Baptist Church for their prayers and support for Lynn and Heidi. And to Lynn, I want to wish all of the best for a very bright future, now full of hope. I commend her for her faith that God would provide an answer to her prayers. To all those involved in this great story, I say, God bless.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will take up a bill called the Pension Protection Act of 2002; and as far as it is concerned, it is a pretty good bill. There is nothing really wrong with it. The problem is it is not strong enough. Most Americans do not know that right now employers have the right to change their pension plan at any moment, even vested employees. And, Mr. Speaker, when we look up in the dictionary the term ``vested,'' it says ``settled, fixed or absolute, being without contingency, as in a vested right.'' The problem is that employers now have the right to change their pension plan in mid-course. Mr. Speaker, right now there are over 48 million American workers who are over the age of 45. Forty percent of all workers are engaged in what we call ``defined benefit plans.'' Those can be changed and have tremendous cost to those employees. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment I would like to offer to that bill to make it clear that employers cannot raid the pension funds for their own benefit and deny people the benefits that they are vested in. Mr. Speaker, this may be a good bill; but it really is not pension protection. I hope the Committee on Rules will make in order the amendment that I am offering today, and I hope my colleagues will join in supporting it. Several years ago, thousands of IBM workers in my district came into work one morning to find that the defined pension plan they had been promised had been changed without warning. For years these employees had been able to calculate their future benefits with a pension calculator located on their computer, compliments of IBM. When the plan changed, the calculator disappeared. So did the employees' promised benefits. Right now, companies can, at any time and for any reason, change a vested employee's pension plan--this is wrong. Most often this change involves a company converting a traditional, defined benefit plan to a cash-balance plan, which usually results in anywhere from a 20-50% reduction in final benefits. These conversions disproportionately burden older, career-oriented employees. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate there are more than 48 million workers over the age of 45. More than 40 million workers or their spouses participate or receive benefits from defined benefit plans. This amendment would: (1) Provide 90 days notice of any pension plan conversion to all workers. (2) Give fully vested employees the choice of staying in their current plan or switching to the new, amended plan. This amendment exempts companies in financial distress from penalties (distress is to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, following guidelines set out in ERISA). This amendment will have no adverse effect on profitable companies that simply keep their promises to their employees. What Do Your Constituents Think ``Vested'' Means? Dear Colleague: In my dictionary, ``vested'' is defined as follows: vested, adj. 1. Settle, fixed, or absolute; being without contingency: a vested right. Despite this definition, being ``vested'' in a pension plan does not mean what most employees think it means. Did you know that companies can, at any time and for any reason, change a vested employee's pension plan? Most often, this change in plans involves a company changing from a traditional, defined benefit pension plan to a ``cash balance'' pension plan. This usually results in anywhere from a 20-50% reduction in final pension benefits, with long ``wear-away'' periods during which employees do not accrue any new benefits. Bureau of Labor statistics indicate there are more than 48 million American workers over the age of 45. The latest Bureau of Labor statistics also show that more than 40 million workers or their spouses participate or receive benefits from defined benefit plans! Many of these 40 million workers fall into the over-45 category. Pension plan conversions disproportionately burden these older, career- oriented employees--those employees who need the most protection. This is wrong! When companies change their retirement plans in a way that may reduce employee benefits, vested employees should be allowed to stay in the original pension plan that they were promised. Next week, I will introduce the Vested Worker Protection Act of 2002, and I'm looking for original cosponsors. This bill will require healthy companies to: (1) provide 90 days notice of any pension plan change to all workers; and (2) give fully vested employees the choice of staying in their current plan or switching to the new, amended plan. This bill exempts companies in financial distress from penalties, while otherwise healthy companies will be subject to an excise tax should they violate the provisions of this bill. This bill will have no adverse effect on profitable companies that simply keep their promises to their employees. Support employees in your district by signing on as an original co-sponsor of the Vested Worker Protection Act of 2002. To co-sponsor, please call James Beabout at extension 5-2472. Sincerely, Gil Gutknecht, Member of Congress.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I am proud that the House is considering the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act today. This bill is good for farmers, and it is good for the environment. Every year, farmers collectively lose more than $300 million in applied nitrogen due to erosion. Not only does this hurt the Mississippi River ecosystem--it hurts farmers' checkbooks. Soil erosion also causes sedimentation problems on the river. Dredging costs due to increased sedimentation run over $100 million each year, and removing the sediment is integral to keeping the river a viable transportation mechanism. Sediments also fill critical wetland areas in the Mississippi River basin, threatening the plants and wildlife. Currently there is insufficient data on the amounts and sources of sediments and nutrients in the upper Mississippi River basin. Local, state, and federal water quality monitoring and modeling efforts are not coordinated or standardized. This legislation will develop a coordinated public-private approach to reducing nutrient and sediment losses in the upper Mississippi River basin, and will establish a water quality monitoring network and an integral computer modeling program. This bill will provide the baseline data needed to make scientifically sound and cost-effective decisions that will benefit all who depend on the health of the upper Mississippi River basin for transportation, recreation, or whatever their needs may be.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate and watching back in my office, and I have to say it has not been a very proud day for our friends on the left. Here they are, they have got all kinds of complaints about our budget, but they have no budget of their own. The other thing that came through as I watched this debate in my office on television, and I think it probably came through to the American people as well, what this is is a classic debate between those people who believe in America and those who do not, those who believe our brightest days are yet to come and those who think our brightest days are behind us. It is a debate between optimists who believe in America, who believe that we can fight a war, that we can strengthen our economy, that we can meet the legitimate needs of the American people with this budget, and those who believe we cannot. I have not given up hope on the American people. I have not given up hope that we can have a brighter day. I believe that the economy is going to get stronger. I believe the tax cuts that we have passed were exactly the right medicine at exactly the right time, and I believe that there is better than a 50-50 chance that we not only will have a balanced budget next year, we are going to actually have a surplus. That is what the American people want. They want responsible government. They want a responsible budget, and they want people who step up and take that responsibility and pass this budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a resolution which I have had drafted and will be introducing very shortly, and I hope my colleagues will join in supporting. I would like to read it tonight. It is a resolution supporting the people of Iran: ``Concurrent resolution, expressing the sense of Congress in support of the people of Iran and their legitimate quest for freedom, economic opportunity, and friendship with the people of the United States. ``Whereas, the first day of spring, celebrated by millions worldwide as Nowruz, the Persian Iranian New Year, symbolizes renewal, birth and new beginnings; ``Whereas, the people of the United States respect the Iranian people and value the contribution that Iran's culture has made to the world civilization over three millennia; ``Whereas, the United States recognizes the legitimate aspiration of the Iranian people for democratic, civil, political and religious rights and the rule of law; ``Whereas there exists a broad-based movement and desire for political change in Iran that represents all sectors of Iranian society, including youth, women, students, military personnel and religious figures and that is pro-democratic, seeking freedom and economic opportunity; ``Whereas, the Iranian people have increasingly expressed their frustration at the slow pace of reform while still pursuing nonviolent change in their society; ``Whereas, in four consecutive elections the Iranian people have opted for nonviolent reform; ``Whereas, following the tragedies of September 11, 2001, thousands of Iranians filled the streets spontaneously and in solidarity with the United States and the victims of the terrorist attacks; and ``Whereas, the people of Iran deserve the support of the American people. ``Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Congress of the United States expresses its heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to the courageous people of Iran for their brave expressions of support following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States; ``Two, recognizes and supports the people of Iran in their daily struggle for democracy, reform, human rights, economic prosperity and the rule of law; ``Three, makes a clear distinction between the peace-loving people of Iran, endowed with a rich culture and history and the unelected officials of Iran; and ``Four, urges the President of the United States to: ``A, engage and support the people of Iran in their legitimate aspiration for freedom and democracy; ``B, to continue to pursue areas of common interest with the people of Iran while taking an uncompromising stance on terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and the human rights of Iranian citizens; and ``C, to use available diplomatic means to support the Iranian people's demand for an immediate release of all political prisoners and for the removal of the ban on the freedom of the press.'' Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important resolution. We need to send a clear message that we stand with the freedom-loving people of Iran.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say happy anniversary to the Girl Scouts. Ninety years ago this week, Julliette Gordon Low convened the first Girl Scout meeting of 18 members. Ms. Low's simple but focused principle that all girls should be encouraged to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually has strengthened 50 million alumni. Right now, 2.7 million of our Nation's girls are guided by Ms. Low's principles. In the First District of Minnesota, the Girl Scout troops are strong in number and strong in spirit. Sandy Maulkenbur of Northfield, Minnesota, has recently attended NASA training. She shared in courses on how better to teach girls science and math. Imagine, an entire generation of American girls who are excited and prepared for education and professional service in the sciences. Sandy and 200 other adults with training from NASA will mentor Girl Scouts in science to make this possible. The Girl Scouts have a simple promise. It is a promise all Americans can be proud to recite, and I am proud to recite it now: ``On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and to live by the Girl Scout law.'' Happy anniversary to the Girl Scouts.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to express my appreciation for President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ronald Reagan will forever be remembered for having won the Cold War without firing a shot. He rebuilt our defenses and strengthened our economy, but most important, he made us believe in ourselves, to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds. Demeaned as a B-grade actor, underestimated by his adversaries, both domestic and international, he shouldered on with incurable optimism. He preached and lived the basic American values. Things like faith, family, freedom, work and personal responsibility were more than words. Ronald Reagan had an enormous empathy for the American people. He had a magic smile that cheered us. His tears were real when tragedy came our way. The title of his autobiography, ``An American Life,'' was appropriate. He was the American President in the American century. As he turned and saluted, boarding Marine One for the last time, I remember turning to my wife and saying, ``He was a long time coming; he'll be a long time gone.'' Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful Nation, permit me to say thank you, happy birthday and may God bless you.