Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Let me, first of all, say I thank the gentleman, and second I do not have that quote; but I do have it in my office now, and I will be sharing it from time to time. He quoted Winston Churchill, though; and I think the point was well taken. Let me give you a simplier quote from Winston Churchill, it is one actually my wife needlepointed for me on my office wall, and it is simple, it says, ``Success is never permanent. Failure is never fatal. The only thing that really counts is courage.'' And what we saw today in Minnesota, and I cannot thank the gentleman enough, I left that meeting so excited about the future of education, not just in Minnesota, but around the country, because it renewed my belief that Americans do care. They care about their kids, and they want to make certain that every child, and this was what really came through with virtually all of the testimony today, that every child, whether they come from a family of privilege or a family of poverty, every child deserves a first-rate education in this country today. The truth of the matter is, and we all know this, people on all sides of the political aisles of every spectrum philosophically, we all know that too many kids today are being cheated by the system, and we in Washington cannot completely change everything, but I think we can make some reforms. And the gentleman is making reforms, and I want to thank the gentleman for that and we see it happening. I was so impressed, and I have worked for many years with Governor Ernie Carlson, now former Governor Carlson; but his testimony today was powerful. I think the only regret I have is that more Americans did not get a chance to actually see and hear that testimony today because it was from the heart. He grew up in a tough section of New York. He told us about PS36. He told us about what it was like when he was growing up, but the great thing was he told us what is happening today with the right leadership, with the right flexibility, allowing that new principal there to control his school, to motivate his teachers, to motivate those students; and, guess what, the results are there.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak again about an issue, that, as Members go back to their districts and have town hall meetings, I am certain they are going to hear about. The issue I want to talk about this afternoon is the issue of outrageously high drug prices that we pay in the United States, especially when we compare what Americans pay to what consumers around the rest of the world pay. What I have here is a chart, and our source is the Life Extension Network. They did research recently and compared the average prices for commonly prescribed drugs in the United States to what the average prices are in Europe. And it really is sobering. For example, Premarin is a commonly prescribed drug, the same drug made in the same plant under the same FDA approval, incidentally. In the United States, the average price is $14.98. For that exact same drug in the same quantity in Europe they pay $4.25. Coumadin is a drug that my dad takes; it is a blood thinner. In the United States, the average price is $30.25, but in Europe they pay only $2.85. And the list goes on. Prilosec, another commonly prescribed drug in the United States, the average price here in the United States is over $100; in Europe they are paying $39.25. Claritin, very commonly prescribed drug, particularly this time of year for hayfever and allergies, the United States is $44 an average; over in Europe, they are paying $8.75. The list goes on and on and on. And I think the story is altogether too familiar. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves this simple question: Can any of us think of another product of any kind where the world's best customers pay the world's highest prices? This is particularly troubling because just yesterday we had a vote on expanding trade opportunities in opening markets between the United States and China. We have had for several years now the North American Free Trade Agreement. Goods and services are supposed to flow across our borders with Canada and Mexico freely. Recent studies suggest, and this is a study done by the Canadian government, says that Americans are paying 56 percent more for the same prescription drugs made in the same facilities under the same FDA approval than our Canadian friends are paying for those same drugs. In other words, we are paying 56 percent more than Canadians, and the story gets worse. Prices in Mexico are even lower. Consumers have been learning about this, and particularly seniors. In Minnesota and all across the country, particularly where we are closer to the borders, seniors especially are getting on buses, and they are going to Canada to buy their prescription drugs. We have this wide disparity between what we pay and what the rest of the world pays. The question has to be asked, the people who are supposed to protect us are our own FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. So one might ask, what are they doing to help consumers get lower prices? Well, here is the answer. This is an edited version, but I want to point out a couple of sentences. We do not have the whole letter here, but it is available. Anyone who would like a copy can call my office. What the FDA is doing to help consumers is they are threatening them. If someone tries to order drugs through a mail order house from the United States, what they get with the order that has been opened is a threatening letter. Let me just read it. It says, ``Dear consumer: This letter is to advise you that the Minneapolis District of the United States Food and Drug Administration has examined a package addressed to you containing drugs which appear to be unapproved for use in the United States.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The vast majority of drugs that are coming via this method are legal drugs in the United States. They are approved by the FDA. They are made in exactly the same plants. Later it says, ``Because you are taking this medication under the care of a physician and we do not want to cause your medical treatment to be unduly affected, we are releasing this shipment. However,'' and this is the important line, ``future shipments of these or similar drugs may be refused admission.'' Now, if one were a 75-year-old grandmother and they get a threatening letter from the FDA, it is very disconcerting. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for Congress to take a serious look at this problem. If we could just simply recover part of the costs, the differentials that we are paying for prescription drugs, we could go a long way to solving the problem of those people who fall through the cracks. Do not just take my word for it. We just received in our offices a little pamphlet from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Let me just read from it. It says, ``Spending on prescription drugs rose 84 percent between 1993 and 1998.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to say that the FDA should not stand between our consumers and lower drug prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special agronomist from the University of Minnesota, Dr. Jean Lambert. Jean Lambert was truly a great man who made a substantial impact on the world of agriculture. He was the man who helped make Minnesota one of the Nation's top soybean exporters. Over his career, done on a government salary, Lambert's efforts in variety development and soybean research boosted Minnesota farm income by more than $200 million. Jean Lambert came to the University of Minnesota Department of Agronomy as a plant genetics professor in January of 1946. He retired after 36\1/2\ years of service in 1982. During his career, Lambert developed 18 soybean varieties adapted to various climatic conditions for Minnesota. During his career, Dr. Lambert worked with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and advised soybean researchers in Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. He became a world-renowned soybean breeder, but never forgot his goals at the University of Minnesota. He wanted to educate and train undergraduate and graduate students and help the farmers of Minnesota through his research and variety development. He remained a quiet, unassuming man, who loved and respected the people around him, and enjoyed the respect of his colleagues. He was truly a great man.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This really is the second great day in a row for American farmers. Yesterday we passed PNTR, which will give us, our farmers better access to markets in China. Today we have a conference committee report that was signed by all 18 conferees. That does not happen very often here in Washington. And so in 2 consecutive days, we are seeing a tremendous display of bipartisanship on behalf of American farmers. Crop insurance reform is a very important issue. For too long it has been neglected by this Congress here in Washington, and so I am very happy to rise in support not only of the rule but of the bill. This is a great day for American agriculture. It follows on another great day yesterday. Hopefully, we can get those commodity prices up where they belong.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding. I want to congratulate the gentleman for having this special order. I have been somewhat disappointed, I have to say, at the way this issue has been framed, both by the opponents and by the administration. This is a very, very important vote, and unfortunately there is a misunderstanding among an awful lot of Americans that somehow we are giving up an enormous amount to the Communist Chinese under this agreement. Really, the exact opposite is true. Under this agreement, what happens is the Chinese lower their tariffs from somewhere in the neighborhood of about an average of about 27 percent down to a level more like the rest of the world deals with, for us to get into their markets. The Chinese already have almost unlimited access to American markets, and that is part of the reason we do have a very large trade deficit with the Chinese. That is true. It is also true, there are human rights problems with China. The way they deal with Tibet, the way they deal with religious leaders in China, all of those things, there is at least a strong degree of truth to it. I really do have to fault the President and the Vice President for not doing a better job of explaining to the American people why this is important and what is at stake. Recently I had a chance to visit with some people from the administration, some of the highest ranking people down at the White House, and I suggested that the President give an Oval Office speech to the American people, and in that speech I really think he needs to reframe what this debate is about. I really believe it comes down to this: This is really a debate between those who believe that America can compete in a world marketplace and those who believe that we cannot. And I for one am not willing to give up on American farmers, American workers, American businesspeople, American entrepreneurs, and most importantly, I am not willing to give up on American ingenuity. Someone that we admire greatly, jointly, Winston Churchill, said at the beginning of the last century, when he first entered the stage, how important trade was, and he said that the countries that master trade and develop the newest technologies and are willing to compete in the world marketplace, those are the countries to bet on. He was absolutely right then, and it is true today. So this is a debate between people who believe at the end of the day America cannot compete in a world marketplace and those who believe that we can.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having this special order. I hope the people at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue would realize this is a very important vote. If it is left to some other people to define the terms and conditions of this debate, we could lose. I do not mean just we who support PNTR. I think the American people could lose. If this vote goes down, I think this is a loss that will take literally generations to recover from. Let me just say in closing, I think virtually every economist worth their salt has come to the conclusion that free markets, free people, ultimately lead to a much higher standard of living, and that is true literally from the days of Venice. If we look at all of the great city states and countries that have shown great economic prosperity for their times, the one thing they all had in common is that they were trading nations. We must be a trading Nation. We must be engaged in the world market. We cannot ignore China. To try and wall it off now, as we enter the next century, it seems to me would be a mistake of historic proportions. Winston Churchill was correct: Free markets, free people, free trade, lower tariffs, ultimately raises the standard of living of all people.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding to me, and I rise in support of H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), for his work to include a land transfer of the former Army Reserve Center in Winona, Minnesota, to the Winona State University Foundation. Winona State University is in desperate need of student housing, and the City of Winona has a family home shortage as well and a severe parking problem. The former Reserve Center property can help solve these problems by development into student housing and parking. Also, the University's foundation is developing an agreement to transfer the former Reserve Center's building to the American Legion Post 9 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1287, showing a tremendous amount of cooperation between these fine organizations. This project enjoys enormous support from the community. Resolutions were passed by the city and county, and letters of support have been sent to me by State and local officials and members of the community. This land conveyance to the Winona State University Foundation is the best possible use for these facilities.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and applaud the committee for including funding for a new National Guard Training and Community Center in Mankato, MN, in this year's military construction bill. For the information of Members, the Mankato Training and Community Center was included in the 2001 Future Years Defense Plan and is one of the highest priorities of the Minnesota National Guard. The United States has called on its military for major deployments three times as much in the last 10 years as in the previous 40. If we continue to call on our military with an ever-increasing frequency we must also commit to updating the facilities and equipment which are essential to its mission. We must not simply pour money into our military, without first ensuring that this money is being spent well. Training and community centers are a win-win solution, that gives value-added benefit to the local community and much greater benefit from the Government dollar. These facilities traditionally have been used only by the Guard unit and remain unused during the week when no training is conducted. By allowing the community to share in the use and cost of the new facility the community receives a state-of-the-art community center and the Guard benefits from a better facility than without the local community's contribution. The 2d battalion 135th Infantry in Mankato, MN is certainly in need of a new facility. The current facility is outdated and prohibits the Guard from carrying out its mission. The building was built in 1922 to hold Army horse cavalry which is needless to say, far different from the modern mechanized infantry which attempts to use the same facility today. It lacks adequate classrooms, administration facilities, training space and equipment storage areas. The unit can't even park its military vehicles on location, most are parked at the nearest National Guard facility 60 miles away. This project is a win-win-win for the Minnesota National Guard, the local community, and our Nation's defense infrastructure. I thank the members who supported this bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today and was not present for rollcall vote No. 184. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a Rodney Dangerfield line where he comes home one night and his wife is packing and he says, ``What is the matter, dear?'' She says, ``I am leaving.'' And he asked her, ``Is there another man?'' She looked at him and said, ``There must be.'' When I look at this system that we have today, the way we put a budget together, the way we are going to spend $1.83 billion this year, I look at that and I say, there must be a better way. Because, essentially, what we have now is we have no rules. I mean, the House has one set of rules, the Senate has a different set of rules, and the President of the United States has no rules. What is the President's target this year? If we do not have the same target, if we do not have the same rules, how will we ever get there, how will we know where we are? This is just simply a reform package that says we are all going to have the same set of rules. I submit that not a single Member of this body can defend the system that we have today, let alone explain it. There must be a better way. This, I think, is one better way. If my colleagues have a better idea, we are willing to listen.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada, just indicated, today is National Teacher Day. Every day of every week in the school year our children are influenced by their teachers. In my district back in Minnesota, we have a number of excellent professional teachers who every day give their all to the students that they work with. I want to especially call attention to two teachers. I have had the opportunity to visit a number of the schools in my district. Recently I visited Missy Nelson's second grade class at Kasson-Mantorville Elementary School in Kasson, Minnesota. Teaching second grade is a challenge. She does a fabulous job of keeping those kids excited and motivated about learning. I also want to say a special congratulations to another teacher who is sort of at the other end of her teaching career. That is Eunice Swenson, a Business Ed teacher at John Marshall High School. She is all-world when it comes to business education. She has influenced so many students over the years, including my oldest daughter. I want to say a special thank you and congratulations to teachers like Missy Nelson and Eunice Swenson, because every day they are having a powerful influence on the students that they work with. Today is National Teacher Day, but every day is a good day to thank and congratulate the people who work with our children every day.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I want to talk tonight about prescription drugs and, most importantly, about prescription drug prices. We have had some discussion. The good news is, I think here in Washington, that there is a growing bipartisan feeling that we need to do something particularly for senior citizens about prescription drugs this year. The bad news is, it appears to me that we are going to continue just to throw good money after bad. I have a chart here that describes, I think, what is a big part of the problem we have with prescription drugs. These are some comparison prices for one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. It is a drug called Prilosec. They are currently running a pretty aggressive advertising campaign. It is the purple pill. If someone buys those purple pills in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and again these are not my numbers, these are from an HMO in my State called Health Partners, but they did some research and found if an individual buys a 30-day supply of Prilosec in Minneapolis, Minnesota, they pay $99.95. But if someone happens to be vacationing in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and they take the same prescription into a pharmaceutical drugstore, they will pay $50.88. And, if someone happened to be vacationing in Guadalajara, Mexico, for exactly the same drug, made in exactly the same plant, under the exact same FDA approval, they would pay only $17.50. As a matter of fact, Health Partners claims that if they could recover just half of the savings between the United States and Canada, they could save their subscribers $30 million a year. When we start applying numbers like that to how much the Federal Government spends on prescription drugs every year, last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office we, the Federal Government, spent over $15 billion on prescription drugs. Now, if we are paying 40 percent more than the folks on the north side and the south side of our borders, just imagine how much the Federal Government could save through Medicare and Medicaid, the VA, and other benefits. Let me just run through some of the differences between what we pay in the United States for commonly prescribed brand name drugs and what they pay in Europe for exactly the same drugs. Premarin, $14.98 here, they pay $4.25 in Europe; Synthroid, $13.84 versus $2.95; Coumadin, and this is a drug my dad takes, and a lot of senior citizens take this, it is a blood thinner, we pay, the average price is $30.25, they pay $2.85; Prozac, $36.12, $18.50 over in Europe. Here we get a pretty good price, in Minneapolis. They say the average price for Prilosec, for a 30-day supply, is $109, in Europe it is $39.25. Madam Speaker, the answer to our prescription drug problem in some respects does not require a whole new Federal agency. A big part of the problem, and I would like to share with Members and anyone who would like a copy, we can get a copy of a newsletter that was done by the Life Extension Foundation. It is available by calling my office at the Capitol or just sending an e-mail. We are easy to get ahold of. But this is an interesting little brochure and it talks about the differentiation and it really gets down to what the real problem is. The real problem is our own FDA. Our own Food and Drug Administration is keeping American citizens from bringing prescription drugs across the border. I think the best comparison that I can give, let us say, for example, that there are three drugstores, one downtown, one on the north side of town and one on the south side of town, but our own FDA says you can only shop at the one downtown. Even though they are charging, according to the Federal Government in the United States, the drug companies are charging 56 percent more than the prices in Canada, but our own FDA says we cannot shop at a store in Canada. Now, the reason this is important is because we have what is called the North American Free Trade Agreement. That means the goods and services are supposed to go across the border freely. And just about all goods and services do, except prescription drugs. Madam Speaker, we need to make it easier for seniors and all Americans to get the prescriptions that they need and we need to get competitive prices. One way we can do that is open up our borders. The FDA has overstepped its actual authority. In fact, if Members would like a copy, this is the actual language, which basically says it is the FDA's responsibility to prove that the drugs that are being brought into the United States are not safe. Unfortunately, the way they have interpreted this law is they have said, no, it is the responsibility of the consumer. We want to put that responsibility back on the FDA, where it belongs. We should not allow our own FDA to stand between our consumers and lower drug prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also thank him not only for what he has done for this budget but what he has done over the years to bring some fiscal sanity to this city. I can remember when I was back in the State legislature and we would marvel at how much the Federal budget would go up every year. It seemed like back in the 1980s that we were talking about budgets going up double, triple, and sometimes almost quadruple the inflation rate. It was no wonder they were piling deficits upon deficits. Now, we have heard a lot of interesting arguments this morning, but John Adams said something pretty powerful about 200 years ago. He said facts are stubborn things. And if people forget everything else that has been said today, I hope they will remember this: in the fiscal year that we are in today we are going to spend $1,780 billion. In my opinion, that is too much. Under this budget, we are going to spend $1,830 billion. I still believe that is too much. But more importantly, that means that total spending will only increase this year by 2.8 percent. That is less than the inflation rate, and it is almost half the rate the average family budget will go up. That is a giant step in the right direction. This is a good budget, and I hope the Members will join me in supporting it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for yielding and for this special order and I thank our colleagues earlier for talking about this problem, because it is a major problem. And, unfortunately, for both the administration and some of the leadership here in Congress, what we are talking about is solving what some people say is the problem, and that is that seniors are not getting the prescription drugs or a benefit that some people feel they should, when the real problem is runaway prices, and as the gentleman indicated earlier, a tendency to overprescribe. Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what we can do in terms of influencing the medical professionals as it relates to overprescribing, but I think we need to take an honest and sober look at how much Americans pay for prescription drugs relative to the rest of the world. Now, I do not believe in price controls. I believe in markets. I believe at the end of the day that markets are more powerful than armies. Last Saturday night, I was privileged to attend a dinner and the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, spoke to us; and it was interesting, because as he talked for an hour and 12 minutes, he went through sort of his metamorphosis and where he finally came to the acknowledgment that they could not compete with the United States, that a market economy was much more efficient than a controlled government- run economy. He finally reached the point where he realized that both militarily, economically, and, perhaps, even socially and culturally, that the West had won, and they had to do something else. I believe in markets. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the idea of having a big government bureaucracy trying to control prices and make certain that everybody gets the right drugs, I think that is ridiculous; and frankly, if anything, here in Washington, we ought to be restricting the power of the Health Care Finance Agency and of the FDA. Let me just run through this. There is a group, I believe they are out of Utah. I owe them a big debt of gratitude William Faloon has put out a brochure, and this is available to any Member or anyone else who wants to call my office, we will send them out a copy of this. They have done an interesting study on the differences between prescription drug prices here and in Europe. We have a tendency to still think of Europe as being sort of our adolescent child. After World War II, the United States basically made certain that the European economy was rebuilt, but today the European Union has a bigger economy, in terms of gross domestic product, than we do. It is interesting in respects, we continue to subsidize what is happening in Europe, whether it is militarily and even in drugs. Let me just run through a few of these drugs. And frankly the gentleman probably knows better than I do what these drugs are prescribed for, but these are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world. One the gentleman mentioned earlier is Premarin. The average price in the United States, according to a study done by the Life Extension Foundation, Mr. Faloon's organization, the average price in the United States last year was $14.98 for a 28-day supply. The average price in Europe is $4.25.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Less than a third of the price.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The same drug made by the same company in the same plant under the same FDA approval. Mr. Speaker, let me run through a few more. Synthroid, now that is a drug that my wife takes. In the United States, the average price for a 50-tablet supply of 100 milligrams, the average price in the United States $13.84. In Europe, it is $2.95. Cumadin, that is a drug that my dad takes. He has a heart condition. It is a blood thinner I understand. Cumadin, 25 capsules, 10 milligrams, the average price in the United States $30.25; the average price in Europe $2.85. Let us take Claritin, which is a commonly prescribed drug in America today, and they advertise quite heavily, as the gentleman indicated earlier, the average price in the United States for a 20-tablet supply of 10 milligrams is $44. In Europe that same drug made in the same plant by the same company, same dose everything is $8.75. Augmentin, and I do not know what Augmentin is for perhaps the gentleman does.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I would only say that I think what the gentleman is really saying is, and this is really an interesting debate, that at the end of the day it is about fundamental fairness. It is, from a generational perspective, wrong for us to borrow from the next generation. But it is also wrong for the drug companies to require Americans to pay the lion's share of all the research and development cost as well as footing most of the cost for their profit. And the dirty little secret is that that is what is happening in the world today. We have a world market, but the drug companies have realized that they can get most of their profit, most of their research and development money, from the American market. Now, I think Americans should pay their fair share of research cost. I think that is important. I agree with the gentleman that I am not certain Americans should have to pay advertising costs. Ultimately, it really should be the decision of the doctor more than being market driven and having almost a pulling effect through the marketplace by advertising, by broadcasting on television, radio, and so forth. I am sure that that is an issue that we need to address. But I want to come back to just how much more we pay. It is not just us saying this. This is a study done by the Canadian Government. If people forget everything that I have said tonight, remember a couple of numbers. One of the most important numbers is 56. By their own study, the Canadian government says that Americans pay 56 percent more for their prescription drugs than Canadians do. Now, 56 is important, too, because over the last 4 years prescription drugs in the United States have gone up 56 percent, 16 percent just in the last year. One of the biggest driving costs in terms of the cost of insurance over the last several years has been the increasing cost of prescription drugs. Now, again, that is important. We need prescription drugs. We need to make certain that we are doing what we can so that the next generation of drugs can come online. I believe in research, and I believe part of the reason we enjoy the high standard of living that we do in America today is because of the research that has been done in the past. So we do not want to cut that. We do not want to create a new bureaucracy. But we also do not want to steal from our kids, and we do not want to ``solve this problem'' by creating a whole new entitlement. Here is another fact. Last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we, the American people, we the taxpayers, the Federal Government, spent over $15 billion on prescription drugs. Now, that is through Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and other Federal agencies.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Just Federal payments. Now, there is a match with Medicaid, there is a match with some of the other programs, and of course in some of those cases the individuals themselves had some kind of a copayment. But that is what the Federal Government spent for prescription drugs last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Now, virtually every study I have seen, independent studies, say that Americans are paying at least 40 percent more than the world market price for those drugs. Now, I am not good at math, and I demonstrated that this morning; But let us say 30 percent. Let us say we are already getting some discounts. And I suspect we are. I do not think we are paying full retail at the Federal level for our prescription drugs. So let us say we are getting some discounts. But let us just say we could bring our prices somewhere near the world average price for these same drugs. If we could save 30 percent times $15 billion, that is over $4 billion. That would go a long ways to solving our problem, to making certain that people on Medicare all have the opportunity to get the drugs that they need and, again, that they do not have to make the choice that the gentleman talked about earlier. They do not have to choose between eating supper on Friday or taking the drugs they need, not only to preserve their health but to preserve their quality of life. Because drugs are important in that regard. It is not just about extending our life, it is about improving the quality of our life. And drugs are wonderful things. And I certainly do not want to take anything away from the pharmaceutical companies. But as I say, I do not think we should be required to pay more than our fair share of the cost of developing those drugs, of making those drugs, of getting those drugs approved, and then plowing more money back into the next generation. So I think we are on the same page. I just want to finally say this. This is a matter of basic fairness. As I said earlier, I do not think we should allow our own FDA to stand between American consumers and more reasonable drug prices, because that is what is happening today. Finally, not hearing most of the discussion from our friends that spoke before us, this is not a debate between the right versus the left. It is not even a debate between Republicans versus Democrats. This is really a debate about right versus wrong. And it is simply wrong for us to shovel billions of more dollars into an industry who right now is charging Americans billions of dollars more than they would normally pay in terms of a world market price. The answer is not to steal more from our kids to give more money to the big pharmaceutical companies. The answer is coming up with a market-based system that allows some kind of competitive forces to control the price of the drugs and therein creating the kinds of savings which will make it much easier for us and for those seniors to get the drugs that they need. And so, my colleague is absolutely right, this is not an unsolvable problem. If we will work together, if we will listen to each other, if we will be willing to tackle some of those tough problems, and if we are willing to take on some of the entrenched bureaucracies, whether it is at the FDA or the large pharmaceutical company, the Department of Justice, and even some of our friends in the medical practice, if we are willing to ask the tough questions, force them to have to work with us to find those answers, this is a very solvable problem. I just hope we do not make the mistake of creating a new expensive bureaucracy, a new expensive entitlement and, at the very time we ought to be doing more to control the prices of prescription drugs, have the net practical effects of driving them even higher. That would be a terrible mistake not just for this generation but for the next, as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Apparently it is commonly prescribed; 850 milligram capsules, quantity of 50. The average price in the United States is $54.49. The average price in Europe is $4.50. And this is a group in Minnesota that has done this study. Another commonly prescribed drug, Prilosec, the average price here in the United States is around $100 for a 30-day supply. That same 30-day supply, if a person happened to be vacationing in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and they take their prescription into a drugstore there, they will pay $50.80 for the drug that sells in the United States for roughly a hundred dollars. But here is what is even more troubling. I will use that term. What is more troubling is that if we were to buy that same drug, same company, same FDA approval, but we purchase it in Guadalajara, Mexico, that same drug sells for $17.50. Now, I do not believe in price controls. I do not believe we should have a new agency to try to control drug prices. I believe that markets are more powerful than armies. But let me just say this. A few years ago this Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement; and we allow corn, we allow beans, we allow lumber, we allow cars, we allow steel, and we allow all kinds of goods to go back and forth across the border between the United States and Canada and between the United States and Mexico. That is what free trade is all about. But there is one exception. We do not allow prescription drugs to go across those borders. And, really, to give an analogy, and it is the best analogy that I have come up with, let us just say that there are three drugstores. One is on the north side of town, one is on the south side of town, and one is downtown. Now, there is over a 50 percent difference in the prices that those three stores charge, but our own FDA, our own Federal Government, the Food and Drug Administration, says, Oh, you American consumers can only buy your drugs from the most expensive store. Now, I asked a businessperson this morning. I said, Suppose you are in a business, and you find out that you are the largest customer of a particular supplier, and yet you also find out that they are selling exactly the same thing to some of your friends that are in the business cheaper than they are selling to you, even though you are their biggest customer. How long do my colleagues think that would last? But that is exactly what is happening in the drug industry. The FDA, and I believe really without any legislative approval, has decided that they will unilaterally stop the importation of drugs into the United States which are otherwise approved in the United States. And to me that is outrageous. We should not stand idly by as a Congress and allow our own FDA to stand between American consumers in general and American seniors in particular. We should not allow our own FDA to stand between them and lower drug prices. And the one great thing about markets, whether we are talking about oil or we are talking cotton or we are talking about prescription drugs, I do not care what it is, the great thing about markets is they have a way of leveling themselves. In southeastern Oklahoma, I will bet that if the gentleman goes to any of the elevators in his district, he will find that the elevator in Enid--well, Enid is not in the gentleman's district. I am trying to think of one of the towns. I have been to virtually every town in the gentleman's district. But if the gentleman were to go to one town in southern Oklahoma, the wheat price might be X amount today. And if the gentleman called over to another elevator, it might be a different price. The chances are the prices would be different. But over time, what would happen? Those prices would tend to self- regulate. Because the farmers start figuring out that if the elevator in Enid, Oklahoma, is paying a higher price than the one in Muskogee, they will all start going to Muskogee. And what happens is the prices start to level. That is the way markets work. The unfortunate thing is that our Federal Government has been standing in the way of allowing those markets to work. And so, again, I would say that Members who would like a copy of this brochure, and I must say that I had nothing to do with writing this, but this brochure, put out by the Life Extension Foundation, is a reprint of their February Year 2000 brochure, which tells the whole story. It gives an excellent chart of how much more American consumers are paying. Now, again, I do not want price controls. But this is what I say to my seniors: we should not have ``stupid'' tattooed across our foreheads. It is outrageous that Americans are paying upwards of 40 percent more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs, and it seems to me that we have a moral obligation, particularly now that we are having this discussion about opening up, in effect, perhaps a new entitlement, if we do that without dealing with the real problem, which is runaway prices, then I say, shame on us. I yield back to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. For Augmentin, a 12-tablet supply of 500 milligram here in the United States we pay an average of $49.50. In Europe, for exactly the same drug, the price is $8.75. Glucophage. Perhaps the gentleman can share with us what this is.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an important issue that more and more Americans are concerned about, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States. I want to show a chart that reflects just how severe this problem is. This chart talks about one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, called Prilosec. It is a drug that deals with a gastrointestinal problem of too much acid. If you buy that drug, a 30- day supply in Minneapolis, Minnesota, it will sell for about $99.95. Now, if you happen to be vacationing in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, you take exactly that same prescription into a prescription supply of some kind, a drugstore, you will be able to buy that drug for $50.88, exactly the same drug, made in exactly the same plant, same dosage, everything. But, interestingly enough, if you take that same prescription into a drugstore in Guadalajara, Mexico, you can buy that drug for $17.50. Mr. Speaker, this is the day and age of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Goods and services are supposed to be able to go across our borders freely. That is true of almost every other product, except drugs. We are not alone in saying that prescription drugs have gone up a lot. Our own estimates by our own government say that over the last 4 years, prescription drugs here in the United States have gone up 56 percent. Last year alone they went up 16 percent. Talking about these differences, just between Minnesota and Canada, one of the HMOs in Minneapolis estimates if they could simply buy their drugs for their HMO Members, subscribers, in Manitoba, they could save over $30 million a year for their subscribers. We are talking about real money. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to do something. The Canadian government itself has done its own study, and this is the latest study comparing drug prices in the United States to drug prices in Canada. Again, this is for exactly the same drugs. They estimate the last year that they had the figures that the differences are over 50 percent, the difference between the drug prices in Canada and Mexico. There is another group out of Utah, the Life Extension Foundation; and every Member, if they will contact my office, we will send them one of these brochures. They have done a beautiful job of differentiating the price differences between us and Europe, for example. Let me read some differences in drug prices. A very commonly prescribed drug, Premarin, in the United States two capsules will sell for $14.98 on average. In Europe, they pay only $4.25. Synthroid, another commonly prescribed drug, the United States price, $13.84. In Europe they can buy it for $2.95 equivalent. Coumadin, this is a drug that my dad takes, a blood thinner, in the United States that drug sells for $30.25. In the European market it sells for $2.85. Mr. Speaker, this goes on and on and on. Now, I believe the drug companies have to be allowed to make a reasonable profit. We understand that they have to have reasonable profits if they are going to plow it back into research. But the unvarnished truth is that American consumers are paying most of the freight for the research being done; and worse than that, we are paying for most of the profit. There is an answer. I have a bill, H.R. 3240, which would allow importation of drugs that are approved by the FDA. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we should do more to make prescription drugs available to seniors who cannot afford them. But we should not be foolish enough to do nothing to make those drugs more affordable for all Americans. We should not allow our own FDA to stand between Americans and lower drug prices. I hope all Members will join me in supporting and cosponsoring H.R. 3240. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I remind Members if they would like a copy of this brochure, they simply have to call my office. We will send it out to them. It explains better than I can why it is important that we allow markets and competition to bring drug prices into line here in the United States.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard all throughout the day and actually for several years now this recurring theme from the people on the other side about reckless, exploding, risky tax cuts for the rich. Well, let us talk about the tax relief that is in our bill and let us let the American people decide just how risky or reckless and how much this really is for the rich. We are talking about ending the marriage penalty tax. We believe fundamentally it is wrong to say they ought to pay extra taxes just because they have a marriage license. We think that is wrong. We think it is wrong that Social Security recipients have this earnings limit and have to pay among the highest tax rates of any working people in America. We think it is wrong that families have to visit the IRS and the undertaker in the same week. We think it is wrong that we have a confiscatory tax of 55 percent on estates we have been paying taxes every year. We think it is wrong that we are not making it easier for expanded education savings accounts. We want to increase the health care deductibility for self-employed for farmers, small business people. We want to provide tax relief and breaks for poor communities. And we want to strengthen private pension plans. Now, if those are tax cuts for the rich, if those are risky schemes, well, then let us have more of it. Let us compare our plan to the Clinton-Gore plan. In the first year, the Clinton-Gore plan actually increases net taxes by $10 billion. We provide $10 billion of tax relief. If we look at over 5 years, we are talking at least $200 billion in tax relief. We hope to increase that as additional surpluses go up. The President provides $5 billion in tax relief for the first 5 years. This is not a risky plan. This is a common sense plan. But it is really a debate between those who believe in tax relief for working families; and ultimately, at the end of the day, it is a debate between two world views. It is a debate between those who believe that we know best and can spend the people's money smarter than they can and those of us who believe that they know best and they can spend their own money smarter than we can. This is a common sense budget. The tax relief that is contained in this budget is really common sense. I think once the American people understand it is not just about numbers, it is about basic fairness. I would ask my colleagues on the other side which of these tax relief provisions do they want to take away, the marriage penalty tax, the death tax, education savings accounts, health care deductibility, community renewal, or pension reform? Which of those is so unfair? How do they benefit the rich? They are going to have to answer those questions if they vote against this budget. Because it is a common sense budget and the tax relief that is contained in here is common sense. I think once the American people understand what we have put into this bill, they will demand the Republican budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Progressive budget and in favor of the common sense Republican budget. I do want to at least congratulate the progressives for their intellectual honesty. I may disagree with their conclusions, but at least I think they have been intellectually honest in bringing this budget forward. In fairness, what this budget does that they are proposing would cut $30 billion from defense. That is at a time when we have 265,000 troops in 132 different countries. Some of us do not believe that is the right thing to do. They increase spending by $38 billion in fiscal year 2001, and they raise taxes by about $9 billion this year and $151 billion over 5 years. That is their conclusion. That is the plan that they are offering. We respect that. But let me talk a little bit about where we are. I told the story earlier about the little red hen. That was that little red hen that had the chicks and she found some wheat, she planted the wheat, she asked how many of her barnyard friends would help her grow the wheat. Not I, said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, said the cat. No one wanted to help her grow the wheat. Then when it was time to harvest the wheat she asked for help. Not I, said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, said the cat. When it was time to bake the bread, nobody wanted to help. Not I, said the cow; not I, said the pig; not I, said the cat. But when it was time to eat the bread, everybody wanted to be there. Over the last several years, we have built up a surplus. We have done it by making some of those tough decisions. Now everybody wants to get in on the act and decide how we will divide that surplus. This is a common sense budget, but let us look at where we have been. If we would have stuck just to the spending levels that we were left when we came here as a majority in 1995, we would have spent an additional $625 billion. That is not my numbers, that is the Congressional Budget Office. Let us compare where we are compared to what the President proposed. What the President proposed this year in additional discretionary spending was a 6.6 percent increase. We are proposing only 1.8 percent. You can see the inflation line. We are making tremendous progress. But I think this is the most important chart of all. For the first time in my adult lifetime, the Federal budget is going to grow at a slower rate than the average family budget over the next 5 years. The average family budget according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going to grow by 4.6 percent annually and our total Federal budget is going to increase by 2.9 percent. What will happen? We will create enormous surpluses and we are saying, $1 trillion over the next 5 years ought to go to pay down debt, debt held by the public, about another third of it ought to go to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and yes, make room for a prescription drug benefit. But the final third ought to go back to the people who pay the taxes. Here is one other area where we differ. We do not believe that married couples just because they are married are rich. We do not think businesspeople and farmers just because they are farmers are rich. We believe this is a fair budget. We hope that you will support us in the common sense Republican budget and oppose the so-called Progressive budget.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate but it almost is as if there is an echo in here. This debate certainly sounds like debates we have had around this House. Every year when the budget comes up, many of the same expressions, we are hearing terms like exploding tax cuts, risky tax cuts. Somehow I am not really certain what a risky tax cut is and especially when we look at what we are doing with this budget. All we are really doing is making room to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Now, nobody wants to debate that because we all know that it is incredibly unfair to say to married couples that they have to pay extra taxes just because they are married. I do not think it is risky for us to say we are going to make room in our budget to eliminate that unfairness over the next 5 years. That is not risky. Then we hear always, and this is a common refrain, that this is a tax cut for the rich. Well, I think the only tax cut that they can be talking about, because certainly what is being said is not that married people, just because they are married they are rich. Perhaps what is being talked about is reducing or eliminating the estate tax. Now, currently, as we all know, it does not take very long for a small business person or a farmer to reach that threshold where their estate is going to pay 55 percent, 55 percent. That is confiscatory. How can it be risky to say it is wrong to say to a farmer or a small business person, to their families, that we are going to take away 55 percent of their estate after they reach a certain level? If the tax relief that we have put into this bill is looked at, it is absolutely fair. I am reminded of the story and I said it the other day, of the little red hen. Nobody wanted to help bake the bread. No one wanted to help create the surpluses, but it is amazing how people argue about who is going to get the biggest slice. This budget, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely fair, and for the first time in my adult lifetime we are actually allowing the Federal budget to grow at a slower rate, in fact about half the rate of the average family budget. If we do that over the next 5 years, if we control Federal spending, we are going to create big surpluses. Some of that surplus ought to go back to the people who pay the taxes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, later today we are going to have a heated debate about the next Federal budget. We have already heard that some of our friends on the left are saying there are tax cuts for the rich. I guess if one is married, one is considered rich because we do make room to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. I guess if one owns a small business or if one is a farmer, I guess they consider one rich because we do make it easier in terms of estate taxes. But the really good news about this Federal budget, and I hope Members are paying attention, is that this year, in this fiscal year, we will spend in the Federal budget $1,780 billion. Under the budget we are proposing, we are talking about spending $1,820 billion. That is a 2.2 percent increase. That is the smallest increase in my adult life. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that this year the average family budget will grow at 4.9 percent. Now, when is the last time we have had a Federal budget that grew at half the rate of the average family budget? This is a good budget. It is fair. It has been evenly crafted. I hope Members will join me in supporting it.