Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Absolutely. The counterfeit drugs that some of these people are talking, or adulterated drugs, first of all, I want to make it clear, my amendment does not make them legal. We are only talking about drugs that are otherwise legal in the United States, where people have a legitimate prescription from a doctor. Principally what we are talking about, where this really happens, is when people travel. For example, let me give you a story from one of the ladies at one of my town hall meetings. She has a skin condition, I think called eczema or psoriasis, but, anyway, she has a skin condition, and to deal with that and manage it, her doctor in Rochester, Minnesota, has prescribed a particular ointment only available with a prescription, and in Minnesota it sells for about $130 for one tube. She was traveling in Ireland a couple of years ago and began to run out of this cream. She went to a pharmacy in Ireland, she had her prescription with her, she went into the local pharmacy, took her prescription, they had exactly the same drug, in exactly the same tube, made by exactly the same company, and it was $30. Now, when she got back to the United States, she said to herself, because she needs about a tube of this ointment every month, so $130 times 12 versus $30 times 12 is a saving of $1,200 per year to this one individual. She looked at the tube, and on the tube or on the box that it came in, it had the name of the pharmacy, and it had the phone number. Now, she did what a lot of American consumers would do to save $1,200 a year. She picked up the phone, made a $2 phone call to Ireland and said, could I get that prescription refilled? The pharmacist over there said, absolutely. So he shipped her another supply.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. That is a correct statement based on all of the evidence and research that I have received from independent agencies. That is correct. In fact, we even have an independent study of Canada, where they do have price controls, but they are not as firm as some people think. But a study done by the Canadian Government suggests that they are saving Canadian consumers upwards of 50 percent.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I will later be adding some items to the Record. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that in some respects is a dirty little secret. Yet more and more of us in Washington and more and more seniors around the country know about this dirty little secret. It is about the outrageously high prices that Americans pay for prescription drugs. Now, I think most Americans are appreciative to the pharmaceutical industry for the miracles they have created over the last number of years. We are all delighted that we have drugs today to treat diseases which just a few years ago were untreatable. We are not unappreciative to what the pharmaceutical industry has done. But the dirty little secret is that the Americans are paying the lion's share, in fact, I might even argue that the Americans are paying the entire share of the research and development costs for these miracle drugs for all the other consumers around the rest of the world. Several years ago, I talked to some seniors back in Minnesota and they talked to me about going to Canada to buy prescription drugs. But they told me that when they came back after they had their little vials of whatever drug it was, whether it was Claritin or Coumadin or Glucophage or whatever the drug would be, when they would try to reorder that drug from the pharmacy up in Winnipeg or wherever they had bought the drugs in from Canada, when they tried to reorder the drugs and when the drugs came into the United States, they were stopped by the FDA. The FDA then sent a very threatening letter to those seniors saying that if they tried to do this again that, in effect, they could be prosecuted. Now, if one was a 78-year-old grandmother getting a letter from the Food and Drug Administration in effect saying that she could be prosecuted, that what she is doing is illegal and if she tries to do this again, there are serious consequences, that is a very threatening thing to happen to a senior. Now, they told me this story. They told me what was happening in their trips, their bus trips to Canada. I have to be very honest. It really did not register with me. In fact, it was not until almost 2 years later when a seemingly unrelated event occurred. What happened was hog prices to our hog producers, to our farmers in Minnesota, the prices collapsed. In fact, they reached Depression-era prices. Hogs dropped to $8 per hundred weight. Now, today hogs in Minnesota are selling for about $69 to $70 per hundred weight. So now hogs are profitable again. But we had a tremendous collapse in the price of hogs. Now, to make matters worse there was a packing plant up in Canada that was supposed to come online. There was some construction delays. For whatever reason the plant was delayed in being brought online. The net result was there were thousands of Canadian hogs, at perhaps the worst time in the history of hog production in the United States, thousands of hogs were coming across and making a disaster even worse. Not surprisingly many of our hog producers complained about all of these Canadian hogs coming into our markets. Those of us who represent those districts, we brought those complaints and concerns to some of the Federal officials in Washington. The answer we got was relatively short and simple. ``Well, that is NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. That is what free trade is all about. You support free trade, do you not, Congressman Gutknecht?'' I had to say, ``Yes, I do.'' It was then that the light bulb really went on. Because I said if we are going to have free trade in terms of pork bellies, we ought to have free trade in terms of Prilosec. I began to do some research. I feel sometimes like that little boy who came in and asked his mother a question. His mother was busy, and she said, ``Why do you not go ask your dad?'' And the little boy said, ``Well, I do not want to know that much about it.'' Well, I feel like that little boy sometimes because the more I have learned about this prescription drug issue, the more angry I become. There is really something wrong with a system that says that American consumers on average pay $69.99 for a month's supply of Allegra 120 while our friends over in Europe enjoy exactly the same drug made in exactly the same plant under the exact same FDA approval, our friends in Europe can buy that same drug for $20.88. If you look at this list, this is not a complete list, in fact, this is not even my list. These numbers were compiled by a group who have been studying this issue for more years certainly than I have, a group called the Life Extension Foundation, and just recently they sent us a listing. They had done a study between the United States and Europe, and here are some of the numbers. I hope people will look at this. Let us look at commonly prescribed drugs for senior seniors. I know it is commonly prescribed because my 82-year-old father takes Coumadin. He is fortunate. He worked for a union employer all of his life. He has a pretty generous prescription drug benefit as part of his insurance package; and as a result, he does not pay the full price. But if he did, and millions of American seniors do pay full price for Coumadin, the average price in the United States for a month's supply of Coumadin is $37.74. That exact same drug in Europe sells for an average of $8.22. Let us look at Glucophage. That is a drug that is taken principally by diabetics. If you are a diabetic in the United States and you are on Glucophage, you are probably going to be on it for the rest of your life. A 30-day supply here in the United States sells for an average of $30.12. That exact same drug made in the same FDA-approved facility in Europe sells for only $4.11. Let me say that again. The price in the United States, $30.12. The exact same drug in Europe sells for $4.11. As you look at some of the more expensive drugs, and this is where it becomes incredibly problematic, where you have seniors or you have other consumers that do not have prescription drug coverage, they are paying full bore for these drugs, and more and more we are seeing drugs coming on to the market like, for example, Zithromax 500, a 30-day supply in the United States sells for $486. That is the average retail price. But our friends over in Europe, and let us remember the European Union now has a gross domestic product almost equal to the United States, their standard of living is almost equal to the United States. At one time after World War II and we had the Marshall Plan, certainly it was important for Americans to help rebuild Europe and in effect to subsidize Europe; but today Zithromax 500 sells for $486 in the United States. The same drug in Europe sells for $176.19. Mr. Speaker, this is indefensible. This is unsupportable. There is no one in this body, there is no public policymaker in America, that can defend this chart. What is worse, the pharmaceutical industry cannot defend this chart. We have had representatives of what we call PHRMA into our office. We have showed them this chart and said please explain this chart. These are multinational companies. Many of them are based in Europe. Many of the big pharmaceutical companies now are based in Geneva or London or Paris. How is it that you are willing to sell these drugs so much cheaper in European Union countries than you are here in the United States? Now the interesting thing is they do most of the research here in the United States and we are happy for that. We want the research to remain here in the United States. But the dirty little secret is, we subsidize the starving Swiss. All I am saying with the simple amendment that I intend to offer tomorrow is that it is time to level the playing field. I do not believe in price controls. I do not believe in more government regulations. I think in the long run both price controls and government regulations are the wrong way to go. If you doubt that, just do a brief study of the former Soviet Union, because for over 70 years there is an experiment that failed. They tried to set prices. They tried to control markets. Mr. Speaker, markets are more powerful than armies. What the Soviet Union proved more than anything else is that you cannot hold back markets. We are in the Information Age, Mr. Speaker, and these kinds of numbers, these huge differences between what Americans pay and what Europeans pay for exactly the same drugs, that system could only survive before the Information Age. Now people can get on their computer, they can go online and they can get this information. And they can find out that in Switzerland they are able to buy Biaxin for half the price that we pay in the United States. Once Americans realize this, because information is power, once Americans realize the huge differences that they pay for the same drugs, they are not going to stand for it. They are going to start marching on this Congress and they are going to demand that we do something. In fact, how many times do we hear at some of our town hall meetings, Congress needs to do something? Well, I am going to go back to the point I made earlier. I do not support price controls, and the truth is some of the countries in the European Union have price controls. I think it is a bad idea, and I do not want to join them. But some of the countries in the European Union do not have price controls. Switzerland does not have price controls. Germany does not have price controls. A German can go in and buy drugs in Switzerland or a German can go in and buy drugs in France or in any other country. The European Union allows free markets within that area. It is interesting, because just a few years ago we passed the North American Free Trade Agreement and so pork bellies can go across the borders, and fruits and vegetables can go across the borders and lumber can go across the border. There is nothing to stop one of my constituents from going to Winnipeg, Manitoba and buying a Chevrolet. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is anything that would stop that consumer from going online and on the Web and ordering almost any product they want from Winnipeg, Manitoba; or Paris, France; or Rome; or Frankfurt, Germany; or anywhere else. There is only one product which we for some reason have singled out and said American consumers do not have access to world market prices, and those are pharmaceuticals. Now I am not here tonight to beat up on the pharmaceutical industry. As I said earlier in the discussion, I am appreciative to what the pharmaceutical industry has done. Almost every one of us has a relative, a neighbor, a parent, a child, that has benefited from the research that the pharmaceutical industry has done. Before I yield to my friend, the good doctor, the gentleman from Des Moines, Iowa (Mr. Ganske), I want to talk about the three ways that we as Americans subsidize the pharmaceutical industry, because this is not largely understood. The truth of the matter is, we subsidize the pharmaceutical industry in three different ways. First of all, we subsidize them through the Tax Code. What the pharmaceutical industry is saying today is well, we spend billions of dollars on research and most of it is done here in the United States. I said earlier in my discussion I am delighted that they do the research here in the United States. The numbers that we have, the latest numbers, is that the pharmaceutical industry in the last year that we have numbers for spent about $12 billion here in the United States on research, and that is good. What they do not say is that on the tax forms, most of these corporations are so profitable that they are at the 50 percent tax bracket, that at least half of that gets written off on their Federal income tax form. More of that gets written off on their State income tax form. Now what they are also eligible in some circumstances for is an investment tax credit. So we subsidize the pharmaceutical industry and the research that they do through the Tax Code. Secondly, this year we will spend close to $14 billion through the NIH and other various government agencies, including the Defense Department, on basic research, most of which is available to the pharmaceutical industry free of charge. In other words, we are putting all this money into NIH and through NIST and other science agencies, also through the Department of Defense, and most of that information, once a discovery is found, is made available to the public and to the pharmaceutical industry free of charge. So there is about $14 billion worth of public research that is paid for by the American taxpayers. That is the second way we subsidize the research that they do. The final way that we subsidize them is in the prices that we pay. These are outrageous. These are indefensible. Again, I am not here to really beat up on the pharmaceutical industry, because they are only doing what any industry, what any business, would do in terms of exploiting a market opportunity that we have given them. We give them a 17-year patent in which they can sell these drugs in the United States and really no one can compete against them. In other words, we give them a monopoly and on balance I think that is a good idea. They are exploiting this market opportunity. No, it is not ``shame on the pharmaceutical industry for creating this kind of an environment.'' It is shame on us. It is shame on our own FDA for allowing this system to develop whereby Americans are paying for all of the research and most of the profits of the large pharmaceutical companies, many of which are not even based here in the United States. I am delighted to have joining us today one of the physicians who serves here in the House, the gentleman from Des Moines, Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a former wrestler and Iowa Hawkeye, a good friend, and one who is not afraid to take on giants. I have to tell the gentleman, I reread the story from the Book of Samuel tonight of David and Goliath, and it was a powerful story. And sometimes when I think about the huge pharmaceutical industry and the simple little amendment, I feel like David, who went out on to that field, and he took from his sack a small stone, and he slung it at Goliath, and that is sort of where we are with this small amendment. But I want to welcome the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who is one, as I say, who we do not always agree, but, I will tell you, I have always admired and respected, and we are delighted to have the gentleman here tonight to talk a little bit about pharmaceuticals. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And the FDA refused to use it, and that is why we need this amendment this year, is to clarify what we said last year, stop chasing law-abiding citizens with legal drugs and legal prescriptions. Let me just suggest this: I do not know how many of our colleagues have gotten a package recently from UPS or Federal Express, I believe even the Post Office does it now, but they put a bar code on those packages. The truth of the matter is I believe that within a matter of months, if the FDA was serious about this and did not want to pursue law-abiding American citizens who are trying to save a few bucks on their prescription drugs, they could create a bar coding technology to know where that package came from, when it was shipped, and, frankly, they could even put what is in it. In fact, we now have the technology, and it is used in most hospitals, the software was developed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I can put them in touch with the people that developed it, in virtually every hospital now, when you go in the hospital, they put a bar-coded bracelet around your arm, and when they dispense prescription drugs in the hospital, when they bring them in, they take the wand across your bracelet and a wand across the bar code on the package so that they know, they can literally go back to their computer and know that at 3:10 p.m. this afternoon, you were given two tablets of Tylenol, or whatever the drug happened to be. That kind of technology is not science fiction. This is available today. And if the FDA is serious about this, we can help them solve the problem. The real issue is I do not think the FDA wants to solve this problem. They continue to commingle illegal drugs with legal drugs, and they continue to pursue the law-abiding citizens bringing in legal drugs, and yet there are literally millions of dollars of illegal drugs not only coming in from outside the United States, but, as the gentleman suggested, they are originating in the United States, and little or nothing is being done about that.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Some do, some do not. We do not want to get into a debate, because, in truth, I do not support price controls. I think the best way to break the backs of price controls is to have open markets, because once the pharmaceutical industry and European countries realize that American consumers are going to be buying from them at their prices, I think it is going to force the European Union and the pharmaceutical industry to come to a better agreement so we level the playing field. That is really what I am trying to say. Yes, some have price controls, some do not. Every country has a slightly different regimen in how they deal with monopolies.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. I think Members understand this issue, and it really is a choice between are you going to stand with your seniors who are having a difficult time affording their prescription drugs, or are you going to defend the FDA bureaucracy and the pharmaceutical industry. I think that really is the vote. At some point, if they vote, particularly if they change their vote this year, they are going to have to explain this chart to their constituents. They are going to have to explain why they should have to pay $30.12 for Glucophage in the United States when their European friends can buy it for $4.11. Let me just talk briefly, if I can, about the whole issue of safety because frankly, that is an area where our opponents have really focused in and there have been a lot of scare tactics, as the gentleman mentioned, running newspaper ads and radio ads and television ads. But the interesting thing is at least in my area, my seniors are a whole lot smarter than those ads, because most of the calls that are coming in are saying absolutely, this is the right way to go. They understand these price differences, they understand safety, they understand that they are willing to take a slight risk. The most important thing is when they go down to the local pharmacy, they might get the wrong medication. It might get in the wrong bottle. There is always some element of risk. Out there in New York Harbor, it is called the Statue of Liberty, it is not called the Statue of Security. We always take some risk. I cannot say that my amendment is risk-free, but as the gentleman indicated, the system today is not risk-free. But here is the interesting thing. In all of the advertising, they do not mention any people who have ever been injured by bringing legal drugs into the United States with a prescription. Not one. There is no known study that demonstrates that public health has been injured by patients importing legal medications with a prescription under the order of their doctor. What is more, millions of Americans have no prescription drug coverage. And as I said earlier, a drug that one cannot afford is neither safe nor effective. That is when people start cutting up their pills. That is when they start looking to back-street vendors or people who may be selling adulterated drugs. Let us just talk about safety, because when we mention the FDA, we talk about drugs and medical devices and so forth, but we forget that part of the reason this amendment is in order to the agriculture appropriations bill is because it is the Food and Drug Administration. They get their money through the agriculture appropriation bill. I asked my staff a few weeks ago, I said, now, wait a second. We import literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of raw meat every day. We import millions of pounds of fruits and vegetables. There must be some studies that people get sick, because I remember a couple of years ago, there were some kids who had gotten sick, about 200 kids who got sick from eating strawberries imported from Mexico. Maybe the gentleman remembers the story, that somehow, some pathogen had gotten on the strawberries and they got sick. Well, what did the FDA do about that? The truth is, almost nothing.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. We have made it clear to the FDA, as we did last year, you tell us what you need to do this job, and we will see that you get the funding. They asked for $23 million. We appropriated $23 million. Then after we had appropriated the $23 million and literally let them write the language, they reneged on the deal. So this year, in effect we are saying, and we really mean it. Now, in conference committee I am willing to work with them to get this done. Mr. Speaker, I do want to come back briefly, and I know the gentleman has to go; but I want to come back to the safety issue. There is another secret that the FDA does not want to talk about, and I started to mention how many tons of raw meat and fruits and vegetables come into the United States. There has been concern about pathogens and what they can do. The gentleman is a physician; and I might just ask him, if someone gets salmonella, what can happen?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. One can die. In fact, I had a friend who got salmonella. He was virtually blinded. He can still see, and I do not know what his vision level is, but he almost died, and he ended up with a severe loss of vision from salmonella. I did not know until this particular episode how serious it was, and that one of the consequences can be a loss of vision. This is a study done by the FDA in 1999. They analyzed 1,003 samples of produce items coming into the United States from other countries. I have the numbers here in terms of how much we import from different countries. From Canada, for example, the latest year we have, we imported 335,000 metric tons of beef into the United States. We imported 322,000 pounds of pork. We imported from Mexico a grand total of 3.1 million metric tons of fruits and vegetables from Mexico. We imported from South America over $742 million worth of fruits and vegetables from South America. Now, we import a lot of food into this country every single day. Here are the numbers. According to their study, the total percentage of food that was contaminated with either salmonella, shigella, and I am probably not saying that right, or E. Coli, the total percentage of that sample that they took was 4.4 percent. Now, we know people get sick every single day in the United States. I have had food poisoning twice in my life. We know there are thousands of people who get sick from food poisoning, from salmonella. We know that is serious. What is the FDA doing to inspect every single piece of produce, every pork belly, every carcass of beef that comes into the United States? Do Members know what they are doing? It would not be fair to say nothing, but it would be almost fair. Almost nothing is done. I just want to make one last point, and it is this. What the FDA is doing in terms of prescription drugs is they are going to build a wall about a mile high. Yet, when it comes to food that we eat every day, of which, by their own study, 4.4 percent is contaminated with salmonella and other dangerous pathogens, there is almost no inspection, almost none. It comes right across the border. If we are going to say we have to be absolutely certain of every single package of pharmaceuticals, then by golly, should we not say the same for fruits, for vegetables, for pork bellies? That is all I am saying. I am willing to work with them, and with new technology I think we can have a system that will be far safer than it is today, but they do not want to work with us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about an issue that is of great concern to all Americans, but is of particular concern to the 53 million Americans that have no health insurance and to the 14 million American seniors that do not have prescription drug coverage under their Medicare benefit. What I am talking about is the high cost of prescription drugs. I want to show a chart for the benefit of the Members that begins to illustrate just how serious this problem is. The first chart I want to show my colleagues begins to talk about the differentials or the difference between what we pay in the United States and what they pay in Europe for some of the most commonly prescribed drugs. We have heard a lot over the last several years about how much difference there is between Canada and the United States and how much difference there is between Mexico and the United States. But many Americans do not realize there are enormous differences between what we pay for exactly the same drugs made in the same plants here in the United States compared to what they pay in Europe. For example, the first drug on this list is a drug called Allegra, 120 milligrams. It is triple in the United States what they pay in Europe for the same drug. Some people will say, well, they have price controls in Europe. In some countries in Europe, that is true. But in Germany and Switzerland, it is not true. Take a look at the drug Coumadin, which is a drug that my father takes. In the United States, it is quadruple the $8.22, which they charge for the average price in Europe. Glucophage, which is a very commonly prescribed drug for people who have diabetes. In the United States, it sells for $30.12 on average for a 1-month supply. In Europe, it is only $4.11. That is seven times more than Americans are required to pay. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues need to understand that, once a person is diagnosed, it is likely that they will stay on that drug for the rest of their lives. So we are talking about an enormous difference over the life-span of a patient who needs that. Take a look at a drug Zithromax down here at the bottom. It is a new wonder drug in terms of being an antibiotic. It is a marvelous drug. But I wonder whether Americans should really have to pay triple what consumers in Europe have to pay. As my colleagues can see, it is $486 for a month's supply here in the United States on average. In Europe, it is only $176.19. The next chart I want to show is really one of the most troubling charts of all. Last year the average senior got in their cost of living adjustment in the United States a 3.5 percent increase in their Social Security. At the same time, prescription drugs went up 19 percent. My colleagues, this is unsustainable. Now, I intend to offer an amendment to the ag appropriations bill that will at least clarify that law-abiding citizens have a right, if they have a legal prescription, to buy drugs in Europe. And we are trying to work out the language right now. That is all I want to do. Some say that the FDA lacks the resources to inspect mail orders. The truth is the FDA is focusing its inspections in the wrong places. Instead of stopping illegal drugs reported by illicit traffickers, the FDA concentrates on approved drugs being brought in by law-abiding citizens. So far this year the FDA has detained 18 times more packages from Canada than they have from Mexico. This is outrageous. They are spending all of their resources chasing law-abiding citizens. One of the biggest arguments of the people who oppose my amendment is that they say, well, we are going to ultimately have a Medicare benefit, a prescription drug benefit, that will eliminate the need to open the markets so that we get competition in prescription drugs. Well, the truth is simply shifting the burden from those people who currently do not have insurance to the taxpayers will not solve this problem. The problem is there is no real competition. But the biggest concern that a lot of people raise is what will this do in terms of public safety. Let me say this. More people have been killed in the United States from unsafe tires being brought into the United States from other countries than by bringing legal drugs into the United States by law-abiding citizens. As a matter of fact, there is no known scientific study that demonstrates that there is a threat of injury to patients importing medications, legal medications, with a prescription, from an industrialized country. What is more, millions of Americans have no prescription drug coverage. Stopping importation of FDA-approved drugs only threatens their safety. Remember, Members, a drug that an individual cannot afford is neither safe nor effective, and too many Americans are put in the position where they simply cannot afford the drugs that they need. Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for the world. The amendment I intend to offer is very narrowly focused. It simply says that the FDA cannot stand between law-abiding citizens who have legal prescriptions and allowing them to bring into the country drugs which are otherwise approved by the FDA. In fact, we even go further. We say it cannot be a controlled substance. It cannot even be codeine. The drugs we are talking about are drugs that are commonly prescribed. I will appreciate my colleagues' support on that amendment. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record a few fact sheets regarding the Medicare drug benefit argument. Some say a Medicare drug benefit will eliminate the need for importation. The truth is--Simply shifting high drug prices to the government only transfers the burden to American taxpayers. Moreover, Medicare coverage won't help the millions of Americans without health insurance. Some say importation is merely an indirect way of enacting price controls. The truth is--``Importing prescription drugs to the United States will lower prices here and, in the long run, force Europe to pay more drug research and development costs. The best way to break down price controls is to open up markets.''--Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, Pharm.D., Ph.D., Professor and Director, PRIME Institute, Head, Dept. of Pharmaceutical Care & Health Systems, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota. Some say the FDA lacks the resources to inspect mail orders. The truth is--The FDA is focusing its inspection resources in the wrong places. Instead of stopping illegal drugs imported by illicit traffickers, the FDA concentrates on approved drugs imported by law-abiding citizens. So far this year, the FDA detained 18 times more packages coming from Canada than from Mexico. Last year, the FDA detained 90 times more packages from Canada than Mexico. Worse, last year Congress appropriated $23 million for border enforcement, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services refused to use the funds. Some say importation jeopardizes consumer safety. The truth is--No known scientific study demonstrates a threat of injury to patients importing medications with a prescription from industrial countries. What's more, millions of Americans have NO prescription drug coverage. Stopping importation of FDA- approved drug threatens their safety. A drug you can't afford is neither safe nor effective.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time; and really for the benefit of some of my colleagues who are not from farm country, I thought I would like to take a minute today to talk about what is happening to agriculture here in the United States and around the world. Because it is easy for some people to say the problem is the farm bill, the problem is freedom to farm. It may well be true that some of the problems we face in agriculture today were exacerbated by the last farm bill. But the truth of the matter is what we are into now is the 4th consecutive year of worldwide record production. Mr. Speaker, I think against that backdrop with any farm policy in the United States, our farmers would be facing a tough year as it relates to our commodities. The second thing we have to appreciate, in Europe we see huge subsidies for agriculture. Beyond that, we have permitted, we have allowed our trading competitors to subsidize their exports to the tune of $6 billion while we limit ourselves to $200 million. We have put ourselves and our farmers behind the eight ball relative to our trade policy and relative to our agriculture policy. Ultimately that is all coming together. There is a desperate need in agriculture today for some kind of help. We are here today, and the Committee on the Budget has responded appropriately. The bill in front of us today is the right answer. Ultimately there will be negotiations between the House and Senate and the White House, and hopefully this can be plussed up. There are serious problems in agriculture, most of which are not controllable by our farmers. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this legislation today.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an issue that is not a partisan issue, but it is a very important issue that we have not talked about much on the House floor in the last year. Last year, we passed an amendment to the House Ag appropriations bill, and ultimately was included in the omnibus bill that went to the President's desk, some language which clarified that Americans would have access to prescription drugs at world market prices. Unfortunately, Secretary Shalala said that her department would not enforce that legislation. Up until this point, Secretary Tommy Thompson has followed suit. So we are going to be forced to offer another amendment in the next several days. I would like to share with the Members tonight a chart talking about the outrageously high prices that Americans pay for prescription drugs. Now, unfortunately, this chart is outdated. We are having a new one made up. But even the worst news is that the differences between what we pay in the United States and what consumers around the rest of the world pay have not changed. For example, my 82-year-old father takes a drug called Coumadin. It is a blood thinner. It is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. A few years ago when we had this research done, the average price in the United States was $30.25. The average price in Europe was $2.85 for exactly the same drug in exactly the same dosage. Now, as I said, the numbers have changed, and I have a new chart that is available. We will have it in this form probably by tomorrow at noon. But Members who would like a copy of this chart can go to my Web site. It is simply gil.house.gov. One can see for oneself the differences that Americans pay. For example, let us take a commonly prescribed drug called Claritin that is prescribed for allergies. A lot of Americans take it. The average price for that drug in the United States is $63.06 for a 30-day supply. But that same drug, the average price in Europe, in the European Union, is only $16.05. Let us take another drug that is commonly prescribed here in the United States, Prozac. In the United States, the average price for a 30-day supply is $71.94, but that same drug in Europe sells for $44.10. Now, these are the same drugs, Mr. Speaker. They are made by the same companies in the same FDA approved facilities. Now the big pharmaceutical companies are arguing safety. They are saying we have got to worry about safety. That is a legitimate concern. I am concerned about safety as well. But remember this, a drug that consumers cannot afford is neither safe nor effective. Today in America, 14 million seniors have no prescription drug coverage. That speaks also to the some 53 million Americans who have no other health insurance. So we may be talking about as many as 57 million Americans who were forced to pay full retail price for these drugs. They get no help. Now, some people say, well they have price controls in other countries, and that is true. In some countries, they do have price controls. But it is also true there are countries in Europe that have no price controls. Yet, we pay in America sometimes three times more for exactly the same drug. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for bulk importation this year, although I believe an amendment will be offered, and I will certainly support it. All I am really asking for is a clarification so that American consumers that have a legal prescription for a legal drug in the United States from any G-8 country or any NAFTA signatory country ought to be able to get those drugs from those countries at world market prices. I believe that if we could simply have access to drugs at world market prices, because I am a free trader, I do not believe in price controls, but I do believe that ultimately markets are more powerful than armies. If Americans have access to those markets, we will see drug prices in the United States come down by at least 30 percent. And 30 percent last year or the last year that we have numbers for seniors, they spent something like $50 billion on prescription drugs. Thirty percent of $50 billion is real money even here in Washington. So I am not asking for the world. I am simply saying we need a clarification for our own FDA that law-abiding citizens with a legal prescription ought to be able to buy drugs at world market prices. If they want to use the Internet, that is up to them. Or if they want to go through their local pharmacy, I would certainly permit that as well. But we are not going to stand idly by. I ask my colleagues, if they could explain this chart and these differentials to their seniors in their districts or their consumers in their districts, then they have every right to vote against my amendment. But if they cannot explain this, I expect that they will be asked by seniors and others in their district why they voted against the amendment. It will be a simple amendment. We hope to offer it later this week. We appreciate our colleagues' support.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his contributions, not only to this discussion, but the whole debate about value-added agriculture and how ethanol and biodiesel can certainly be part of the solution. They are not part of the problem. We are also joined tonight by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson). He, like I, spent considerable time in the State legislature. He is a freshman Member of the Congress and a freshman member of the Committee on Agriculture. He represents the Champaign-Urbana area of the State of Illinois, which of course is the home of the University of Illinois, one of the great research institutions, particularly from a land grant institution perspective. If there is a bigger fan of the Illini, I have yet to meet them. So we welcome him, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and again, I thank him for his work on the Committee on Agriculture, not only in terms of ethanol and biodiesel, but in terms of value-added agriculture, because, as we said earlier in the discussion tonight, what most of our farmers want is not a bigger check from the Federal government. What they want is an opportunity and more markets so they can earn a decent living from the market itself. By opening up new markets like the ethanol market and making certain that it is available to American farm producers in the State of California, we really have opened a whole new chapter in terms of value-added agriculture, and again, it is a win-win situation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce tonight a new colleague of mine, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). The gentleman came to us from the private sector and had never served in public office before. He joined me on the Committee on Agriculture. I think the first meeting that I ever had with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) when he was a candidate, he said, what we have to do is find more markets. He came from a marketing background in business and understands that ultimately, if we are going to increase prices for farm commodities, we have to find additional markets. He quickly came to understand how important biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, were. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from the Second District of Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), a new Member of the Congress and a very important and valuable member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), because, as I say, very quickly the gentleman has picked up and made this one of his top issues. It is important to the gentleman's district. It is important to rural development. We talk about how can we create more jobs and economic possibilities in rural America? This clearly is one of them. Ethanol is not the only answer. We can do biodiesel. We can make plastics, as was mentioned. One of the great things about making ethanol from corn is that you can have so many other by-products from it. We are learning how to make plastics now. We are learning how to make other products out of this, as well as perhaps the best high-protein feed possible for our cattle and hogs. I am not an expert, but we are finding out that if you take this feed product just at the right time while there is still a little bit of alcohol left in the product, that it makes a terrific product to feed to dairy cows. We are finding that you can actually increase dairy production with just exactly the right blend of feed from these corn-processing plants. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention something else. And I hope the gentleman will stick around so we can have a little colloquy here that I think is important, and I talked about this chart. I want to come back to it again. According to the United States Department of Energy, in 2000, the United States imported more than 8.9 million barrels of crude oil every single day. And the problem is that is getting worse every single day. That represents over 60 percent of our domestic crude oil demand; what is worse, we are currently importing over 600,000 barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein every day. Now, if you multiply 600,000 times $25 a barrel, that gives him an enormous amount of cash that he can use for whatever purposes he really intends it for. Now, we believe, and we have said that that is, you know, for food and humanitarian concerns, but some of us wonder just how much of that actually goes to benefit the citizens of Iraq and how much is going to help him develop even more sinister methods of declaring war on his neighbors. Finally, the California waiver decision decreases our dependency on foreign oil and increases demand for clean-burning, domestically produced ethanol. Ethanol is not part of the problem. It is part of the solution. I want to talk, too, about corn itself and what a tremendous reprocessor corn is of CO2, carbon dioxide. We have heard a lot recently about global warming and global climate change. A couple of years ago, I had the head of NOAA, I serve also on the Committee on Science, and NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are our top weather people. I had the head of NOAA in my office a couple of years ago. He was sitting right there in the chair, and I had the chance to ask the question a lot of Americans would like to ask, I asked him this question: I said, is there any hard evidence that global warming really exists to the extent that some of the people are saying? After a very long pregnant pause, finally he said, no. Now, he said there is evidence that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going up. We believe that in the long-term if the level of CO2 goes up in the atmosphere that will begin to drive the overall temperature of the Earth up slightly. We do not know how much. We do not exactly what the cause effect. We need to study it more, and I think everyone agrees that we certainly need more study. Let me just share with you and anyone who happens to be watching tonight how corn plays an important role in this. An acre of growing corn consumes 5 times more CO2 than an acre of old growth forest. One of the great things about corn is it draws an enormous amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converts some of it into oxygen, which we can reprocess and make high oxygenated fuels, like ethanol. And so in many respects, cornfields are a great way to reprocess some of that CO2 in the atmosphere. They are better than an old growth forest. In fact, they are five times better. An acre of growing corn consumes five times more CO2 than an acre of old-growth forest. That is good news. The great thing that happened today is, as I think the President made it clear, that we are going to have a coordinated energy policy in this country. We are going to try and move away from this incredible dependency we currently have in OPEC. Part of the reason we have seen our energy prices spiking and going up so much in the last year or so is because now we are so dependent on OPEC, they literally can set the price for us. So this is another step that the President is taking today to say that we are not going to be dependent on OPEC. We are going to grow some of our own energy. We are going to solve some of the problems that we have in terms of energy. We are going to do it right here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), my colleague.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman very much. I think the gentleman said it exactly right. This is a person who says what he means, means what he says, and is doing exactly what he said he was going to do, on virtually every front, whether it was education policy, tax policy, the budget, right down the line, from the day that this President took the oath of office, when he put his hand on that Bible and he swore to uphold the Constitution. He went on to say that he wanted to restore dignity to that office, and part of it is doing what you said you were going to do. This decision today, I think while it surprises some people here in Washington, the cynics, the critics here in Washington, it really does not surprise me, because it was the right thing to do. It is right for the environment, it is right for energy policy, it ultimately is the right thing in terms of agriculture. I wanted to come back to a couple of quick points before I yield time to another new member of the Committee on Agriculture from the great State of Nebraska. I want to come back to this chart and just point out a couple things to my colleagues. This is how the increased demand for ethanol is really going to benefit our farmers. I want to talk a little bit about why corn is so important in this equation. First of all, ethanol demand as we begin to phase out MTBE and replace it with the oxygenate we call ethanol, ethanol demand in California is expected to top 580 million gallons annually. Now, that will utilize, if you produce all of that ethanol with corn, and, incidentally, you can produce ethanol with other agriculture products, I want to make that clear. But I am going to come back to why corn is so important. That would utilize 230 million bushels of corn each year, which ultimately would boost corn prices by anywhere from 10 to 15 cents per bushel. Let me tell you, representing a farm district, 10 to 15 cents per bushel is really the difference for many of our producers between profit and loss. That is a very, very significant number. But even more significant is that it could add as much as $1 billion annually to the value of American farmers' corn crops or other crops, because if we are using this corn crop to produce ethanol, it means that other row crops can be used for other purposes. So on a net-net basis, this ultimately will benefit all kinds of farmers. Let me come back to why corn. When we talk about the plants that are the very high-tech plants today producing ethanol, they do not just produce ethanol. One of the great what used to be a by-product but is now a very important product that comes out of the ethanol process is you end up with a very high-quality protein feed. So there are a lot of things about these processing plants. It is not just about producing ethanol. As my colleague from Iowa pointed out, it is about value added. We are adding value in several ways to this corn crop, and more and more of the production facilities are farmer-owned. This is a way that they can recover more of that downstream profit. I want to now recognize one of our new members of the Committee on Agriculture, who certainly needs no introduction to anybody in the State of Nebraska or anyone who has followed college football over the years. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) has quickly become a leader in the Committee on Agriculture, not only on the issue of ethanol, but on the whole issue of value-added agriculture and the importance of us at the Federal level doing all that we can to improve markets and find additional markets for those things which we can grow and produce here in abundance in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by some of my colleagues, and we are going to talk about what I think is a very happy thing that happened today. It is a happy coincidence where good policy comes together, when we are talking about energy policy, we are talking about environmental policy, and ultimately also talking about what is good for American agriculture. All three of those things came together today when the White House announced that they are not going to give California a waiver of the clean air standards in terms of oxygenated fuel. We have got a number of experts who are going to talk tonight. I know some of my colleagues have other things that they need to be at and so I want to first of all recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has been really one of the stalwart fighters in the battle for oxygenated fuels, for biofuels, for making certain that wherever possible we grow the energy that we need here in the United States. I want to welcome him to the special order tonight. I know he has got somewhere else that he needs to be tonight. I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his remarks. He has been afire on this issue in terms of biofuels, and we worked with the gentleman on not only this but ultimately moving forward with biodiesel, a product that can be made with a blend of diesel fuel and soybean oil or other oils. Soybeans seem to work the best. These are ways that we can help solve our energy problems by growing more of that energy supply. I want to just come back to one point that the gentleman made about MTBEs. Now, we know that MTBEs cause cancer. We also know that it leaches into the groundwater. The reason that ethanol is such a great product in terms of replacing it really is twofold. First of all, we know that ethanol is harmless to people. As a matter of fact, if one puts it in an oak barrel for 7 years, many people enjoy it in the form of bourbon, a modified version of whiskey. So it is something that actually can be consumed by human beings, and it is consumed by human beings. More importantly, it is actually cheaper than the MTBE. Let me just share some numbers that because ethanol contains twice as much oxygen as MTBE, one only needs to blend half as much; in other words, 5.7 percent ethanol by volume compared to 11 percent MTBE. If one weighs out the economics of it, this decision will allow California to replace 18 cents worth of MTBE with only 7 cents worth of ethanol. In other words, consumers in California will actually save 11 cents a gallon because of this decision. It is good for the environment. It is good for our energy independence. It is good for the farmer, but ultimately it is going to be good for the consumer as well. So I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his remarks. I appreciate him stopping by. I know he has a busy schedule. I also have another good friend and colleague from the State of Nebraska who has been working on this issue for a very long time as well, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I want to welcome him to this special order and yield to him.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. We are more than delighted to share the time. I would like to just come back to a chart here that my staff has put together that I think tells a very important story, and a lot of consumers just in the last several months have begun to wake up to the reality that we have not had a very coordinated energy policy in this country for the last 10 years. It really is time that we have one. As the gentleman indicated, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), according to the numbers we have from the United States Department of Energy, the U.S. imported more than 8.9 million barrels of crude oil per day in the year 2000. That represents over 60 percent of our domestic crude oil demand. Now that is a scary number, but it gets worse. We are currently importing in excess of 613,000 barrels a day from Iraq. Now in case it has been forgotten, Iraq is the place where Saddam Hussein calls home. We are importing over 600,000 barrels a day every day from Saddam Hussein. At $25 a barrel, that is a lot of money. Supposedly that money is now being used for food and medical supplies, humanitarian concerns, but the truth of the matter, of course, is we cannot know exactly how Saddam Hussein spends that money. The California waiver decision decreases our dependence on foreign oil and increases demand for clean-burning, domestically-produced ethanol. It is a great decision and, again, in the words of the old spiritual, oh, happy day. Now I am delighted to have with us as well tonight a good friend that came to the Congress the same year that I did. In fact, his district adjoins mine for a few miles on the southern border, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I agree. I think every American. This is not just about rural America. I think if every American would think through the arguments about this, I would think every American would thank the President today. He did the right thing. He did the right thing for the environment. As was said earlier, this is not a choice between clean air and clean water. He made the right choice for the environment. He made the right choice in terms of energy independence and he made the right choice in terms of rural America and helping us find new markets for things that we can grow and produce in abundance here in the United States. I would like to paraphrase President John Kennedy, he said, you know, we all inhabit this same small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And if I might parenthetically add, we are all environmentalists. We all want to leave this country and this world a better place. Ethanol is a big part of the solution. I know sometimes the critics, they say, well, yeah, they get the subsidy. We are sending these checks out to farmers for ethanol. We need to explain this. What happens is we give the blenders of ethanol. It actually goes to the refiners we give them a tax credit. If they will use this product, which we know is better for the environment, both the air and the water, we said a number of years ago, we will give you a small credit. And the interesting thing is that our farmers and the people who produce ethanol have found ways to produce it so much more efficiently today, that when corn is less than $2 a bushel and oil is over $25 a barrel, it is actually cheaper to put the ethanol in the gasoline. As a matter of fact, last year when we had this big debate in the United States, because the price of gasoline, particularly in the Chicago market, went up to over $2.20 for a gallon of gasoline, a lot of people were saying it is ethanol. Ethanol is the problem. But at that time, the rack price of ethanol delivered from Minnesota to Chicago was about $1.10 a gallon. The rack price of the gasoline that was being blended with was over $1.20 a gallon. In fact, it was something like $1.40 to $1.50. That is what the cost was at the refinery. I find it hard to believe that people would argue that somehow blending a 10 percent blend of a product that costs $1.10 a gallon with a 90 percent blend that costs $1.30 or $1.40 or $1.50 a gallon, how in the world the price of ethanol is driving the price of gasoline? The fact of the matter is that the price of ethanol was keeping the price of gasoline lower. It is better for the environment. It is better for the consumer. It is better for the energy dependence. The President did exactly the right thing today, and I think he understood what President Kennedy meant when he said that we all inhabit the same small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future, and ethanol and biofuels are going to be an important part of our energy future. Our time is almost expired, and I want to thank all of my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), as well the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our new freshman colleague, the gentleman from the State of Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). I think this has been an important special order. This is a very important day. And again as I started this special order, and the words of the old spiritual, oh, happy day. This is a happy day for America. It is a happy day for America's farmers. It is a happy day for American consumers, and whether they realize it today or not, this is a happy day for all of the people in the State of California. Because they are going to begin to phase out that cancer-causing product which is leaching into their groundwater even as we speak called MTBE, and we are going to begin to replace that with a wholesome product that can be grown right here in the United States called ethanol. As my colleague from Minnesota pointed out, ethanol is the kind of a product, it is so pure and so clean, and I would not say good for you necessarily, but it will do no more than inebriate you. It will not kill you. We are going to replace that cancer-causing MTBE with ethanol. So the President has done us all an enormous favor today. This is an important decision. I applaud the administration for making it. I think it is going to open new avenues for all of us. And, again, I thank my colleagues for joining us tonight.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, due to air delays, I was unavoidably detained and unable to vote on roll call vote 126, House Concurrent Resolution 56, the National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last two exchanges, I am reminded of what John Adams told us over two hundred years ago: Facts are stubborn things. I think the more the American families learn about the facts of this budget, I think the more they are going to like it. Let us look at what it really does. This is a budget that works for every family. The maximum debt elimination; we are going to pay off the redeemable publicly held debt over the next 10 years; tax relief for everybody who pays taxes; improved education for our children, an 11.5 percent increase. Some of us think maybe that is a little too much. A stronger national defense; health care reform that modernizes Medicare. Is it not about time? We set aside $300 billion to start a prescription drug plan for those people who fall through the cracks. Finally, we are going to save Social Security not only for today but for the future. Our friends on the left are going to say, well, this is irresponsible. Well, Mr. Speaker, this was said already today, that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average family budget will go up at a rate of about 4.2 percent. This budget increases the Federal budget by less than that number. I think that is great news for American families. Some people say we cannot afford this tax relief. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the economy today, we look at energy prices today, I say we cannot afford not to give tax cuts to the American people. Let me just share a couple of numbers. Last year, when the economy was growing at 5.5 percent during the first quarter, we generated a surplus of $40 billion. This year, with the economy slowing to about a 1 percent growth rate, we generated a surplus of $74 billion. Mr. Speaker, we cannot not afford to give tax cuts this year. I would also suggest that the numbers we are using are incredibly conservative. In fact, I asked Mr. Daniels of the Budget Office, and these are the words: ``So if revenue growth just equals the 40-year average, we will actually have revenues in excess of $2 trillion more than we are currently using in your budget projections, is that correct?'' His answer was, ``Yes, sir, that is correct.'' We can afford this budget. It makes common sense. It is good for American families. It is good for our future.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate the National Science Foundation on its 50th anniversary. What the NSF does is very important to all of us and to future generations of America. The National Science Foundation was created to promote the progress of science, for health, economic, and defense purposes through basic research. Now basic research is critical to the future of the country because it serves as the building block for other research that many times private industry will not or cannot afford to do. This base of innovation provided by the NSF can then be utilized and built upon by private industry and help develop new sectors for our economy. Research and discoveries made and supported by the NSF affect our daily lives, from Doppler radar systems to Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRIs, to all kind of innovations which we enjoy today in America. NSF supports research and development in science and engineering through various partnerships from the elementary to the university level, as well as small business and nonprofit organizations, by providing grants to help fund these projects. In the end, America depends on science. Science fuels our economic booms, medical successes, and national security. Over 50 percent of our future economic growth will come from developments resulting from scientific research. NSF has a strong connection to my home State of Minnesota. Last year, 301 new NSF awards went to Minnesota. So far this year, there are currently 482 active awards ongoing in Minnesota. Various universities and colleges, from the University of Minnesota down to the smaller schools such as Carleton and St. Olaf in my district, are contributing to important research in science, in areas like mathematics and engineering. NSF's crucial role and notable accomplishments include helping universities, because over 40 percent of the basic funding for basic research in the physical sciences and engineering comes from the NSF. NSF helps to fund projects at 2,000 colleges, universities, and elementary schools, as well as nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and other organizations each year. NSF grants 10,000 new awards each year and just under 20,000 awards per year. Members, a number of years ago there was a Member of the other body from a bordering State that every month gave out what he called the Golden Fleece Award, and many times he took advantage of some of the things being done at the NSF. The truth of the matter is some of the awards we grant here at the Federal level ultimately are wasted. The problem, of course, is that we never know which ones. One of the great researchers for an organization back in Minnesota, 3M, a fellow by the name of Arthur Fry, the person who invented the Post-It Note, once made a very brilliant observation. He said, ``If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.'' The truth of the matter is some of this basic research is high risk, and we do not know which of these projects will pay enormous dividends and which will not, but that research must go on nonetheless. NSF has supported 34,000 science, mathematics, and engineering students through its NSF graduate research fellowship program. Federally supported research has revolutionized many areas, including global communications, with accomplishments, as have been mentioned, as the Internet, early Web browsers, and fiberoptics. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the NSF. It is also important we recognize that we need to continue to show our commitment. I am hopeful that by the time the final appropriation bills go to the President's desk, we will be able to find additional funding so that the work of the NSF can go on.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I know that we all have a lot of other issues going on and a lot of people are not paying attention, but this is a very important point, because last year, about a year and a half ago, an awful lot of employees that worked for a great company that has been a great employer by the name of IBM, they woke up one morning and all of a sudden their pension benefits were cut by as much as 50 percent. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is exactly right. This is a good bill. The underlying bill, the benefits, everything we do here is good, with one glaring exception: we do not define what the term ``vested'' means. I want Members to all think about that, what does ``vested'' mean? It means it is ours, it cannot be taken away. That is not what the law in the United States says today. Those pension benefits can be taken away. We have an opportunity in this bill to resolve that issue. If we do not do it today, then shame on us. What happened to the IBMers we may not be able to change, but remember this, Mr. Speaker, if it could happen to good people working at IBM a year ago, it can happen to an awful lot of people working in our districts tomorrow. The time is now to make this change. Give those people that choice. Let us vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and it is especially unusual for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to yield to me because I rise in the uncomfortable position of opposing both the bill and the substitute, and I would like to explain why. I am not an expert on pension policy, but I did serve on the pension commission in the State of Minnesota, and I think I know a little bit about pension policy. Mr. Speaker, virtually everything in this bill is a good provision. Frankly, I think what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is talking about is something that deserves serious consideration as we talk about the future of Social Security. The fatal flaw of this bill is, it fails to deal with one of the most important issues, and that is a definition of the term ``vested.'' A few minutes ago, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said that she hoped this would mean more companies would be offering defined benefit programs. I hope that is true. The problem is, even if they offer those programs, the companies will have the chance to change those after the plan has started. This has happened to literally thousands of employees here in the United States. It happened to many of the people in my district who worked for a great company, IBM. After they had been vested, IBM changed their pension plan from a defined benefit plan to a new, convoluted program that they call a cash balance plan. None of those employees were given a choice to stay with the plan that they were vested in. The dictionary defines ``vested'' very clearly. It is law. It is settled. It is fixed. It is absolute, being without contingency, a vested right. If we asked every Member of Congress and every American if that is how they define ``vested,'' that is how we would define it. But that is not how the law defines it. That is a fundamental flaw of this legislation. It is a glaring mistake that this Congress has failed to address. And my colleagues, I promise, as sure as this is spring back in Minnesota, this is going to come raining down on this Congress or future Congresses. If we do not deal with this issue, sooner or later, America is going to have hundreds of thousands of employees who thought their programs were vested, and they are going to find out that they were not.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to welcome the Reverend Michael Cronin today as our guest chaplain. Father Cronin was born and raised in Rochester, Minnesota, and graduated in 1988 from St. John's University in Collegeville. After graduation, Father Cronin came to Washington, D.C. to work as a staff assistant to my predecessor, Congressman Tim Penny. In 1990, Father Cronin returned to Minnesota to begin his studies for the priesthood. Father Cronin was ordained in June of 1995 and went on to serve as assistant pastor at his home parish, the Church of St. Pius X in Rochester. During this time, he also served as a chaplain and instructor at Lourdes High School. In 1998, Father Cronin was assigned to the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Winona, Minnesota, where he also served as chaplain at the Newman Center of Winona State University. Last year, Father Cronin began full-time studies in the Department of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America here in Washington, D.C. Upon completion, he hopes to return to the Diocese of Winona. Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to thank Father Cronin for serving as our guest chaplain today and for his service to the young people of the First District of Minnesota.