Gil Gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on this issue but I do know a little bit about it; and if we look back at history, this all started back in the 1950s when the Federal Government made an agreement with the utilities industry and said they will build these nuclear power plants which we believe to be a peaceful way to use nuclear energy, we will take responsibility for the spent fuel. That was the 1950s, and that was the policy under which a lot of these plants were built. I do not know why we are here, to be honest. We passed back in 1982 a bill which said, yes, in fact, the Federal Government would take possession of spent nuclear fuel beginning on January 31, 1998. Why are we here? I think we have been clear all along, Federal policy has been that the Federal Government would take responsibility for spent nuclear fuel. In return for that, ratepayers have paid over $13 billion in additional fees that were supposed to go to help develop a nuclear spent fuel repository. That money has been collected. Ratepayers in my region have paid over a billion dollars, and yet we are still arguing here on the House Floor whether or not the Federal Government is going to be responsible for this spent fuel. There is no question the Federal Government is responsible. We should not have to even be here passing a bill. Now some Members have said this bill is not perfect. I agree, but we have to do something. This is the best chance we have. Madam Speaker, I hope Members will join with me in supporting this very important legislation. It is important not only to the ratepayers but to people who use energy all over the United States. We have an energy problem in the United States. Shutting down nuclear power plants is not the answer.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, especially Connecticut, all over the country, outside of the Beltway, that made perfect sense. But here in Washington, that was a revolutionary idea because Congress for many years had exempted itself. They put a line at the end of many of the bills that nothing in this statute will apply to the Congress and, in many cases, sometimes even the entire Federal Government. So I was thinking about what things were like when I came here in November of 1994 after that election and then as we were sworn in in January of 1995 and how much different things are today. I think to the average Member of Congress, and certainly to the average American, it is easy to forget where we were then and where we were going then. I remember that, shortly after we came, the Congressional Budget Office gave us a study and a report. They said, if Congress does not get serious about balancing this Federal budget, that by the time children being born today reach middle age, and I hate to say it, I am getting painfully close to that, where some people might call me middle age, but by the time the children today grow to middle age, the Congressional Budget Office told us that they will be paying a Federal income tax of over 80 percent just to pay the interest on the national debt. That was worse than disgraceful. I mean, there was something fundamentally immoral about this idea that we could continue to borrow and, in effect, tax the next generation. Many of us said in the original election in 1994, we had one priority. It was to balance the Federal budget, to put the Federal budget in order, and leave our kids with a legacy and a future that would not be saddled with enormous Federal taxes just to pay the debt. That is where we were in 1995. We laid out a plan. Thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and so many other courageous leaders in the Congress at that time, many people, and again we tend to forget a lot of people said, well, it cannot be done. You cannot balance the budget in 7 years. In fact, sometimes even some people down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue were out there saying, well, no one really believes you are going to balance the budget. But the interesting thing about the power of a thought, of an idea, of a belief is that, is how quickly it begins to take root, and other people start to come along. There was a small band originally. It started back with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) many years ago with this idea that, yes, we can balance the budget; yes, we can apply fiscal restraint to Federal spending. I was also reminded, though, the other day, and my kids are all grown, but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) was talking about his youngsters, and I remember reading to my kids when they were smaller. One of their favorite stories, one of my favorite stories was a story of the Little Red Hen. I just want to repeat just how that story works, because I think it is apropos for what we are doing today. First of all, the Little Red Hen asked all the other animals in the barn yard, who will help me grow the wheat? The dog said, I cannot. The cat said, I will not. The cow said, I cannot. The pig said, I will not. So she went ahead and grew the wheat herself. Then she asked, when the wheat was grown, who will help me grind the wheat? Of course the cat said, I will not. The dog said, I will not. The cow said, I will not. The pig said, I will not. Then it was time to bake the bread. She asked, who would help her bake the bread. Same thing. All the other animals said either they could not or they would not. But it was interesting, once they finally had the bread, once the Little Red Hen had the bread, then they all wanted to help eat the bread. Do my colleagues remember that story? I was thinking about that story the other day. Now, we are going to hear a lot of debate when this resolution hits the floor about what are we going to do with the budget surplus. A lot of the same people who were not very eager to help us create the budget surplus, in fact, I was thinking, parenthetically, about all those negative ads we saw particularly in 1996 about these draconian cuts to Medicare, and we were going to no longer have any student loans, and school lunches will be a thing of the past, and children will grow hungry, and old people will be thrown out in the street. What we really did, we did eliminate 600 Federal programs. That was an amazing accomplishment in and of itself. But some of the biggest complaints were that we actually slowed the rate of growth of Federal spending. I want to just share this with other Members of the House and anyone else who may be listening, because I think this is really an amazing accomplishment. In the budget, we are proposing for next fiscal year the rate of increase in Federal spending will slow to 2.2 percent. Let me put that in real numbers. Last year or the fiscal year we are in right now, we are spending $1,780 billion dollars. Now, that is a lot of money. What we are proposing to spend next year, total, is $1,820 billion dollars. That works out to a 2.2 percent increase in total Federal spending. Now, put that in context to where we were a few years ago when the Federal budget was growing up at a rate of 6, 8, 10, 12 percent per year. It was not that many years ago when Federal spending was going up double, triple, and even quadruple the rate of inflation. Today to take that 2.2 increase in Federal spending in next year and put it in real context, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average family budget this year will increase at 4.9 percent. So as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) was talking about, in terms of historical terms, next year, the Federal budget will grow at less than half the rate of the average family budget. What is the real benefit of that? Well, the biggest benefit, and my colleagues have talked about it, is that over the next 5 years we are going to pay down a trillion dollars' worth of debt held by the public. And what does that mean? It means lower interest rates. Now, Chairman Greenspan my continue to sort of tweak the interest rates a little to slow the economy, but the beauty is that interest rates are much lower than they would have been. And as we go forward, there is no driving force coming from the Federal Government because we are going to the treasury markets and borrowing an extra trillion or $2 or $3 trillion. And as long as that happens, real interest rates will be lower. And that means that more families can afford homes, more families can afford cars, more families can afford refrigerators, and it means that we are going to have a stronger economy, relatively speaking, than we would have had. Finally, let me say, at the end of the day, when we talk about the budget, and I know people's eyes start to glaze over when we talk about the budget, because we talk in terms of billions and percentages and it is numbers and it is all of that, but at the end of the day what it really is all about is generational fairness. In fact, coming from the Midwest, where most of my relatives were farmers and most of my friends and neighbors are no more than one or two generations removed from the farm, it has almost been historic. Everybody coming from a farm area understands this. This was really part and parcel of the American Dream. It was the American Dream to one day pay off the mortgage and leave the kids the farm. What we had been doing, or what previous Congresses had been doing is selling the farm and leaving the kids with the mortgage. That was just fundamentally immoral, and it really flew in the face of generational fairness. The great thing about this budget is that it guarantees that we are going to take care of my parents, who are both on Social Security and Medicare. We are going to make certain they can have the quality of life they are entitled to. And it is also going to be fair to people our age, people who are working, people who have kids in college. Because we are going to let them keep a little more of their money. And particularly in couples where there are husbands and wives both working. But, finally, by beginning to pay down some of that debt, we are going to leave our kids a much brighter economic future. So this is not about dollars and cents as much as it is about people, as much as it is about fundamental fairness and, I might even say, fundamental morality. So I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for all that they have done over the last several years to dramatically slow the rate of growth in spending, because it is going to mean a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is, again, the story of the little red hen. Here we have people who did not help bake that bread who are saying, well, we are entitled to over half of the loaf of bread. And again this is not just about tax policy, it is about fundamental morality. Clearly, we need tax revenue. We have legitimate things that are needed as a society, whether it is the common national defense, for highways, lots of other needed projects, but any time we see a tax rate that gets above 50 percent, and the gentleman is absolutely correct, very quickly the estate tax gets to 55 percent, that is confiscatory. That is wrong. That is part of the reason people started shooting up at Lexington and Concord. And Americans still have that basic feeling about fairness, and it really transcends things.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding to me. As the gentleman from Connecticut was speaking, I remember the first time that I spoke on the House floor in January of 1995. We were standing at these tables, and we had the very first bill in the Contract with America, the Shays Act. The gentleman from Connecticut humbly does not like to call it the Shays Act, but I remember what things were like when I came here. The first thing we did is we said Congress is going to have to live by the same laws as everybody else, now back in Minnesota, and I am certain even in Connecticut.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and going back to the luxury tax, I remember the argument at the time that somehow this would punish people who had made lots of money who were buying expensive boats. Well, it did not punish them at all. It punished the poor people working in the boat yards that built the boats.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The other analogy about the boats is the story President Kennedy used, that a rising tide lifts all boats. And if we have some fiscal responsibility, as we have seen in the last 5 years, that by properly managing the budget and by controlling the growth in Federal spending and by allowing families and investors to keep more of what they earned, we have had a much stronger economy. And we have been able to lift a lot of boats out there. And it is not just the people making a million dollars a year, it is an awful lot of those people making $30,000 and $35,000 and $40,000 a year. I see our chairman is back.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), first of all, and congratulate him. I appreciate the exceptional work that he and the committee has done on H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act. I also want to commend my colleagues, including the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith), who heads the Subcommittee on Basic Research and the rest of the Committee on Science, Democrats and Republicans, for unanimous support of this important piece of legislation. No single field of study or research is so vitally important to our future from academia to industry, from the CEO, to the high school student. Information technology is the cutting edge of American and global economies in the next century. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents over $5 billion of investment that will be made over the next 5-year period. Congress often talks about raising the standard of living for Americans. H.R. 2086 will bring about positive change and new high-tech jobs which now pay 50 percent more than the average wage. This bill would create jobs not just through the funding of research but also by creating whole new industries. Recently there has been concern about the demand and subsequent shortage of information technology workers in the United States. This bill provides funding for both improved education in the information technology fields and grants to partner colleges with companies to train today's students to be tomorrow's leaders. Most importantly, H.R. 2086 provides long-term basic information technology research that has largely been neglected by the private sector and other Federal programs and uses a peer review system to make sure that the money is spent where it will produce the best results. Mr. Speaker, this bill will create information technology research centers where multi-discipline research can be combined for the greatest results. It will allow the National Science Foundation to produce new state- of-the-art computer systems through a competitive bidding process that will help fight disease, track and predict weather and allow grant recipients access to the computer hardware they need to carry out their research at a new level of excellence. In the 20th century, Federal research money brought us the Internet, which has revolutionized computing and information technology for all of us. H.R. 2086 will help make the United States the leader for the next generation and the next century in the information revolution and will continue to lead the world in information technology far into the next century. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the rule and the bill.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a very serious issue confronting our Nation. In the last 4 years, the price of prescription drugs in the United States has increased by 56 percent. In the last year alone, prescription drug prices in the United States have increased by 15.6 percent. That is at a time when our inflation rate is running somewhere around 2 or 2\1/2\ percent. Madam Speaker, it is time for Congress to take some action to try and stem this ever increasing price for prescription drugs. All of us here in the House and all of us in Washington know who bears the burden of those tremendous increases in prices. It is principally the senior citizens here in the United States. Madam Speaker, I want to talk tonight about the differentials between the United States, what is happening here and what is happening in other countries. Many of us have recently read about seniors who are boarding buses in our States and going to Canada to buy their prescription drugs. It is happening in Minnesota, it is happening in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and all across and throughout the northeastern United States as well. Let me try to explain how much of a differential there is in the price of prescription drugs. Let us take a relatively common, one of the more commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. It is a drug called Prilosec. Prilosec is prescribed principally for ulcers or people who have an acid condition in their stomach. A 30-day supply, if one goes and gets a prescription in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at almost any pharmacy, and it is not the pharmacist, they only get about a 3 or $4 per-prescription fee on it, so it is not the pharmacist that is driving these prices. But a 30-day supply in Minnesota, Minneapolis, is $99.95. You buy that same prescription in Winnipeg, Manitoba for exactly the same drug manufactured by exactly the same company in exactly the same plant under the exact same FDA approval, you buy that drug, the Prilosec in Manitoba, and it is $50.88. But if you go down to Mexico, you can buy exactly the same drug manufactured in exactly the same plant under the exact same FDA approval for $17.50. Let me read for my colleagues what George Halvorson who is the chairman of one of our larger HMOs in Minneapolis had to say, and this is a direct quote: If we could only get half the price break that Canadians get, our plan alone could have saved our members nearly $35 million last year. Madam Speaker, I estimate that in Medicaid alone, the U.S. Government could save $1.8 billion if we could get half the break that Canadians are currently getting for exactly the same drugs. This is not to mention the fact that we currently have 68 million prescriptions filled each year by the VA. Madam Speaker, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars that we could save if we would simply allow free market principles to work. We currently have what is called the North American Free Trade Agreement. We allow goods and services to move freely across our borders. In some cases we lose. Sometimes our farmers, sometimes our hog producers, sometimes our ranchers are upset about the North American Free Trade Agreement. But it is interesting. The one thing that our own government blocks our own consumers from getting across the border is prescription drugs. In fact, when some of my constituents went up and actually used mail order to order prescription drugs from Canada, the FDA sent a letter to them. It is a very threatening letter. I would like to read just a couple of sentences from 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. Appear to be unapproved. These are the same drugs in the same boxes manufactured in the same plants. It is ridiculous. The problem is FDA interference. The story of Minnesota seniors is being repeated all across the country. The solution is a bill that I have introduced, H.R. 3240, the Drug Import Fairness Act, which is a bipartisan solution. We have literally Members from what some would say the far right and the far left who have joined together on this bill to put it clear to the FDA that they should not stand between our consumers and particularly senior citizens and lower drug prices. That effort has been joined now by a group out of Utah called the Life Extension Foundation. If Members have not received it yet, they will be receiving from our office or theirs a pamphlet which talks about the problem, explains the problem and then explains the solution. Madam Speaker, let me just close by saying this. In the age of NAFTA, our own FDA should not stand between our citizens and lower prescription drug prices. Particularly, we should not allow the FDA to stand between our senior citizens and lower drug prices. These are FDA approved drugs. We have the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is time for Congress to take action to bring American prices down to the competitive world market prices.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and especially for this special order and all that he has done over the last several years to call the public's attention to this. I was thinking, if one had been Rip Van Winkle and had fallen asleep 40 years ago and one woke up and one realized how much this government, the Federal Government the State government, the local government, how many different taxes they lay on people and have imposed over the last 40 years. We finally reached a point where the average family, according to the Tax Foundation, the average family in America now today spends more for taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined. I mean, who would have thought that 30 or 40 years ago? But more importantly, who would have even imagined that we would have found a way or Washington would have found a way to tax marriage. I mean, it really is almost preposterous on its surface to even think about a fact that married couples pay extra taxes just because they are married. I have to tell my colleagues a story. My wife, Mary, and I have been married 27 years. Okay. And she has been dealing with me for all of those years. We probably do not have all that complicated of taxes. But she is a much better accountant than I am, so she does our taxes. We have actually gone to tax preparers. We have had CPAs do our taxes in the past. The truth of the matter is I think my wife, Mary, does a more thorough job than anybody else. Well, this weekend, she did our taxes. She was not in a good mood. Because she also works part time as a teacher in a nursery school in Rochester, Minnesota, and she loves the job. In fact, she does not do it for the money because, after 12 years, I think she is up to about $10 an hour, something like that. She certainly does not do it for the money. She does it because she enjoys the kids, she enjoys the work, she enjoys the school. But after doing our taxes and realizing how little she gets to keep of her paycheck at the end of the day, she said, ``You know, it is time you guys eliminate this marriage penalty tax, because if I were taxed at the 15 percent level for what I do, it would be at least worth it.'' I think the illustration the gentleman from Illinois has of that attractive young couple there, I want to make a couple of points. The President, and I think many of us, have been talking about the importance of education and why we need to attract more good people into the field of teaching. But if we really look at this, we found out with some research in our district, for example, this marriage penalty affects 70,000 married couples in the First Congressional District of Minnesota. The interesting thing is, and we do not have the hard evidence yet, in the discussions that we have had and the phone calls we have had in our office, and extrapolating some things, we have come to the conclusion that one of the groups that is punished the most by this marriage penalty tax, the ones who have to pay the extra taxes more often than anybody are teachers. It is interesting how many teachers, if one gets into it and goes into a school system, one finds that the art teacher is married to the English teacher or vice versa, or the principal is married to an elementary teacher. Or in many cases one may have one of the spouses who works at a local plant and a teacher who works. But if one stops and thinks about it, one of the groups that is affected more than any other single group are teachers. If we want to attract people into the education profession, it seems to me the last thing we ought to do is punish them for getting married. So this is about fundamental fairness. I know that the President and some people say, well, what we need to do is just tinker around the edges, and we want to provide some relief to certain targeted groups. Well, in my opinion, if something is unfair, we ought to pull it out by the roots. So I am going to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and all the Members of the Committee on Ways and Means for the work they have done to try and eliminate this unfairness. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Now is a chance to, on a stand-alone bill, to allow the American people to understand what this means to them, their families, their future. In some respects, this is a debate about fairness. But at the end of the day, it is also a debate between the family budget and the Federal budget. Since the gentleman from Illinois and I came here in 1995, we have really had a battle on our hands to control Federal spending. There is a lot of good news. We have moved from a $220 billion deficit to now, for the first time in the last 2 years, we have had real surpluses here at the Federal level. That happened because we recognize that if we dramatically slow the rate of growth and Federal spending, it was not that long ago Federal spending was growing at 6, 8, 10, 12 percent per year. Well, the last several years, Federal spending has been growing at a slower rate than the average family budget. In fact, even this President, and we have to congratulate him on this, the budget he submitted the other day calls for an increase in total Federal spending of 2\1/2\ percent. Next year, we believe, and the economists we talked to believe that the Federal budget should grow at somewhere around 2\1/2\ percent. But the average family budget in America is growing at 3\1/2\ percent. Now, that is a tremendous success story. If we can keep that kind of momentum going and limiting the growth in the Federal budget to less than the growth in the average family budget, it means we are going to see real surpluses. Those surpluses can go to pay down debt. Those surpluses can go to make certain we protect Social Security and have generational fairness. But I think also some of that surplus ought to go to correct some of these unfair inequities in the tax code. One of the most glaring examples is this marriage penalty tax which married couples have been paying. I also want to say this, in this debate between the Federal budget and the family budget, I know the Federal Government, and I know the family, and I know the difference. I know who can spend that money smarter. If that young couple or some of the people that I have talked to in my district has an extra $1,400, $1,500, $1,600 a year, I believe that they can spend that money a whole lot smarter than the Washington bureaucrats can. I think they can get more value for it. I think in the end of the day, if we allow those people to keep, spend, or invest their own money, we are going to keep this economy growing and stronger as we go forward. So it is about generational fairness, it is about fundamental fairness, it is about the difference between the family budget and the Federal budget. And if we continue to control Federal spending, we can provide this kind of tax relief. We can do it this year. In fact, the only argument I might have against the bill that will be on the floor tomorrow is that it ought to be retroactive. I believe we have the money in the budget this year so that as people are doing their taxes this year, as they are beginning to fill out their tax forms, there ought to be a way we might be able to do something retroactively. Not just for next year but this year. Let us eliminate this marriage penalty now. Finally, let me say this is not a debate between the Republicans versus the Democrats. This is not even right versus left. This is a debate of right versus wrong. And it is simply wrong to make married couples pay extra taxes simply because they have a marriage certificate. The gentleman knows this, I know it, and the American people now know it. In fact, if anyone wants to visit our Web sites, my own Web site is gil.house.gov. That is www.gil.house.gov. And if people go to that Web site, Members or people who might be watching this, if they go to that Web site, there is actually a calculator there. It takes a few minutes, but they can see if they are a married couple, both working, how much they are currently paying in terms of a marriage penalty. The idea of saying, well, we are going to do this for people who do not itemize but we will not do it for people who itemize, in my opinion, that does not really solve the problem. In some respects it makes the unfairness even worse. So I congratulate the gentleman and the members of the Committee on Ways and Means. As I say, it is not a debate between Republicans versus Democrats; it is not even right versus left. It is right versus wrong. The system is wrong, we have a chance to correct it, the surplus is there, and part of that surplus ought to go to changing this glaring error in the Tax Code. So I congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today and was not present for rollcall vote No. 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman from Illinois will yield, it is interesting, we have had several of my staffers over the last couple of years who have gotten married. In fact, we had two people working on my staff who married each other. We did the calculation for them. It was $1,400, an extra $1,400 in taxes that they were going to have to pay that they would not have had to pay if they would have simply lived together. We look at this wonderful picture of these two young people here and we think principally about young people getting married. But I was at a meeting with some seniors and one of them came up to me with kind of a funny look on his face and he said, ``I hope you do something about this marriage penalty.'' I said, ``Really? Why?'' He said, ``Well, I'm facing kind of an ethical dilemma myself as to whether or not this woman I'm now seeing and I should get married, because we realized with our particular financial situations, we're going to pay a penalty of over a thousand dollars if we get married. It really puts us in sort of a moral dilemma because we know what the right thing to do is but the government shouldn't encourage you to do the wrong thing.'' As we look at the reforms that we have passed in the last 5 years, since the Republicans took control of this place, they really are about reversing what I think is one of the unwritten rules of Washington, and, that is, no good deed goes unpunished. That was the rule for many years in Washington. If you worked, you got punished. If you saved, you got punished. If you invested, you were punished. If you tried to create jobs and create wealth, you were punished, whether it was the EPA or the tax code or whatever. There was sort of this unwritten rule. In fact, it even applied to Medicare. Some of us know that live in more rural parts of the country that our hospitals get lower reimbursements because they have lower cost hospitals. No good deed goes unpunished. This is one more example where we can strike a blow and say that unwritten rule of Washington needs to end. It is not just about young people. It is about people of all ages. It is bad tax policy. We have a chance to eliminate it. I am delighted we are going to take this tax issue one slice at a time, starting with the marriage penalty. Let us put them on the President's desk and let him explain why if he thinks he should not sign this bill. Because I think the American people are way out in front of us on this.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, we are probably going to hear from some of our friends on the left that if we provide this tax relief, it is going to mean that there is going to be less money to spend on education and health care and some other important things. But to paraphrase one of our colleagues over in the Senate, the other body, he once observed that this is not a debate about how much is going to be spent on children or education or health care, it is a debate about who gets to do the spending. I know the family and I know the Federal Government, and I will bet on the family every single time, because that couple which represents those other millions and millions of couples around the country, I have every confidence that they know how to spend their money smarter than Washington does on their behalf. They are going to spend that money on children. They are going to spend that money on education. They are going to spend that money on health care. They are going to spend that money on making certain that their family's needs are met. As our colleague from Virginia indicated earlier, right now in America today, this is a shocking statistic, that the average family spends more on taxes, we are talking about State, Federal and local but in total taxes, that average family spends more for taxes than they do for food, clothing and shelter combined. There is something wrong in America today when the tax collector takes first interest on all the money that families earn. This is just one very small, well, not small, this is one major but very important step that we can strike on behalf of American families around the country. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois, I congratulate the leadership in this Congress. I do believe that it is going to pass overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote and then go to the Senate. I think some people are going to throw out the thing, well, it is going to blow a hole in the budget. That is not true. If we control Federal spending, there is more than enough money to balance the budget, make certain that every penny of Social Security taxes goes only for Social Security, there is more than enough money to begin to really pay down that debt, and there is more than enough money to make certain that American families are treated fairly. That is really what this is all about.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think the comment was that, if you go ahead with these reckless tax cuts, lowering capital gains tax rates, remember, we were going to lower the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. That represents a 30-percent cut. And some of our colleagues on the left said, well, you are going to blow a hole in the budget. I wonder how many times we heard that expression. Well, the interesting thing is we lowered the capital gains tax rate, and we have actually seen more revenue coming into the Federal Government. As more people convert assets that are not producing the way they want to into other assets, they recognize that gain, they pay the taxes. When you increase economic activity, you increase revenue to the Federal Government. When you allow people to keep more of their own money, revenue to the Federal Government goes up because they spend that money, and it gets recycled through the private economy. Here again is one classic example. This marriage penalty is the next big log that is going to fall. And this will be a tremendous victory. I was surprised to learn, 28 million American couples paying a penalty of an average of $1,400. We have made tremendous progress. There is still a lot to be done, but we are not going to give up with just this. This will be the next step. As we go forward, I think more and more Americans will see that this will benefit not only a lot of working families but it will benefit the economy as well.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Just in closing, Congressman Weller, I wanted to again thank you, because there are two issues that you have worked very hard to help reinforce that I think are sort of the mortar between the bricks that holds our whole culture and society together. First of all, strong marriages, because we know that societies that have strong families are societies that need less government, they need less police protection, they need less in terms of criminal apprehension, they need less in terms of other social safety nets, if you will. So strong families are important, and this is one very important step to reinforce those. The other area you have worked so hard on, and that is home ownership. The one thing we know is that societies that have strong families and a high level of home ownership are strong societies. So I want to congratulate the gentleman on both of those fronts. I hope the Committee on Ways and Means will report out a strong bill in the next several days that we can have on the floor and get at the President's desk by Valentine's Day. I think that is a fantastic gift to give those millions of American couples. Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and look forward to working as best we can to make certain that this one unfairness in the Tax Code is eliminated this year.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and I came together in the Class of '94, and there were a number of things that we learned when we first came here. First of all, we had this huge budget deficit that we were wrestling with, $240-plus billion. When we first came here, the Congressional Budget Office told us after the President submitted his first budget that we would see deficits of over $200 billion as far as the eye could see. There were a number of problems here in Washington. One of the first things we did is that we said we are going to make Washington live by the same laws as everybody else and so that Congress is no longer exempt when we pass new laws. We balanced that budget. We reformed the welfare system. And today over half of the people who were receiving welfare checks 5 years ago are now receiving payroll checks. We made a tremendous contribution, and I think we have moved the country in the right direction. This is just the next installment of the Republican agenda. I was surprised to learn how many people in America were paying extra taxes just because they were married. That is just not bad tax policy; that is not just bad family policy. At the end of the day there is something almost fundamentally immoral for us as a Federal Government to say they are going to pay extra taxes just because they have a marriage license. That is bad policy, and we are finally in a position where we can stop it. I want to remind my colleagues and others who may be watching this that if they would just like to check and see, if they have got a married couple where they are both working, both earning approximately the same income, and I think the example of my colleague is a good one, I was in several schools in the last couple of weeks in my district talking with teachers about education policy and other things, but it was interesting how many times the issue of the marriage penalty came up in my conversations with teachers. The reason is that there are an awful lot of teachers who are married to each other and they pay this marriage penalty. And so we have set up on our Web site and if people would go to ``gil.house.gov'' there is a calculator there and they can do a quick calculation. Now, it is not exactly IRS approved, but it will give them a very close calculation of what they are paying currently in terms of extra taxes just because they are married. So if any of my colleagues would like to check that, they can go to my Web site, I think some other Members have it on their Web sites as well, but ``gil.house.gov'' and they can actually find out how much of a penalty in extra taxes they may be paying simply because they have a wedding license. Bad tax policy. Bad family policy. And as far as I am concerned, fundamentally immoral. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his leadership. And I want to remind people that we are going to continue to do the hard work of balancing the budget, of saving Social Security, of paying down debt, and providing real tax relief for working families. They are not mutually exclusive. One of the other issues that I have been pushing and I know my colleague has as well is that we are going to take these things one thing at a time. Last year we had a very good tax bill. It was $692 billion. But unfortunately I think in the eyes of a lot of Americans, 692 billion is sort of an amorphous thing. And so, this year we are going to tackle these issues one at a time as the resources, as the surpluses actually develop. We are going to take the marriage penalty tax first. I would hope then very shortly afterwards as we develop more surpluses as the revenues come in that we would take a serious look at the death tax. And if we cannot eliminate it, let us at least simplify it and make the system fair. Because, again, I think it is fundamentally immoral to have a 55 percent tax rate, a tax rate that quickly escalates to 55 percent. That is confiscatory and, as I say, it is fundamentally immoral. So there are some other things we need to tackle in this year, and I think we are going to demonstrate early on that we are going to continue to do the hard work of balancing budgets, of saving Social Security, of actually paying down some of that national debt, and at the same time providing significant and important tax relief for those working families out there who work so hard every week. We know, at the end of the day, those families know how to spend this money a whole lot smarter than bureaucrats here in Washington. So I just wanted to rise and speak in strong support for this bill and do what we can to work through the process to get it through the House, get it through the Senate, and get it to the President's desk. Because I am convinced we are going to have overwhelming majorities on both sides of the political aisle here in the House and as well as the Senate; and I think that, at the end of the day, the President will sign this bill and very soon couples like this one will not have to pay extra taxes just because they are married.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a tribute to a very special person. President Reagan once observed that those who say there are no more American heroes, well, they just do not know where to look. Paul Simon asked a haunting question in his song many years ago, ``Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A Nation turns its lonely eyes to you.'' America has always wanted heroes, and too often in sports we have found counterheroes. I want to pay tribute tonight to a real American hero, a gentleman by the name of Kurt Warner. The Warner story has been documented in the last week or so by many sports scribes, and I do want to ultimately submit for the Record an article which was written by the sports editor of our local newspaper, Bob Brown in the Rochester Post Bulletin. I guess I have a special feeling for Kurt Warner for a lot of reasons. First of all, his grandparents are from Faribault, Minnesota, which is in my district. Second, he went to the same college that I did, the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Third, he worked for the Hy-Vee grocery store in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and so did I. Fourth, I guess I would have to say, his wife, Brenda, spent several of her formative years living in a home on West Ninth Street in Cedar Falls, Iowa, right next to my parents. So I guess I have had a fairly special relationship, even though Kurt Warner and I have never met. But I have followed his career from the time he was at UNI, and I have come to appreciate not only his talents on the field, but the kind of human being that he really is. We saw that yesterday, and we have seen it as his career has developed. He has kept his head on straight. He has kept his focus on the things that were important in his life. The story is just such a powerful story. It could not have happened to a nicer individual. The story of Kurt Warner is one that every American should be proud of. He went to college and was red-shirted his first year, spent 3 years on the bench, and finally got his chance to play at the University of Northern Iowa. He led his team to the midconference championship. He was not drafted by anybody in the NFL, but he was allowed to come to the Packers' training camp. He was cut. After he was cut by the Packers he returned to Cedar Falls and worked at that Hy-Vee grocery store I talked about earlier. The great thing about Kurt Warner is that he never lost his faith. Like the parable of the talents in the Bible, he understood that almighty God had given him special talents, and he was expected to make the most of them, so he stuck with those talents long after some of the experts would probably have encouraged him to give up. But the story of Kurt Warner goes on. Not only did he go on to lead the Rams this year to the NFL championship in the Super Bowl and to the MVP award, but I think the story is much more powerful. After the game was over, he gave tribute and paid honor to where the real honor belonged, and he gave all of the glory to his savior, Jesus Christ. I just want to say, it took a special kind of courage for him to do that. The story, as I say, goes on. Not only has Warner battled obstructions on the field to get where he is, but he has also had his share of off-the-field struggles, as well. His in-laws were killed in a tornado in Mountain View, Arkansas. Kurt and his wife Brenda's oldest son Zachary has been blind since suffering a head injury in an accident when he was a baby. Zachary is only able to see objects that are held very close to his face. He has been that way since he was an infant, when his father, Brenda's first husband, accidentally dropped the child during a bath. Zachary has head injuries, but Kurt went on to adopt the child. He says later in this interview, ``To go home and see how he struggles with everything he does helps keep things in perspective,'' Warner said. ``I have realized how special a child he must be to go through life with the excitement and the joy he has, even though he has to struggle doing everything he does.'' The story of Kurt Warner is a powerful story, and we in America I think owe him a big thank you, because for one brief, shining moment, we were all privileged to watch a real hero perform his art and perfect our lives. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I would like to say a special thank you to Kurt Warner. Good luck to he and his wife Brenda. We wish them only the best. As Paul Harvey would say, lead on. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article of January 29, 2000, from the Post-Bulletin. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Post-Bulletin, January 29, 2000] Warner Has Story To Tell: Quarterback's Tale is Memorable The story of this Super Bowl is Kurt Warner. What the St. Louis Rams' quarterback has gone through to become the National Football League's Most Valuable Player this season and to lead his team to the Super Bowl is amazing, utterly amazing. Here are some things about Warner you might want to keep in mind as you watch him play in Super Bowl XXXIV Sunday against the Tennessee Titans. He went to high school and college just down Highway 63 from us. Born in Burlington, Iowa, he attended Cedar Rapids Regis High School, lettering in football, basketball and baseball. He played college football at Northern Iowa University in Cedar Falls. He was redshirted his first year at Northern Iowa, sat the bench for the next three years and started only as a fifth- year senior. Warner wasn't even on full scholarship until his last year in college. He did pass for 2,747 yards and led Northern Iowa to a Gateway Conference championship in 1993. Warner wasn't drafted by any NFL teams. He went to the green Bay Packers' training camp in 1994. He was cut before camp was over, but he was there long enough for Packer quarterback Brett Favre to tag him with the nick-name ``Pop'' Warner. After he was cut by the Packers he returned to Cedar Falls and worked for six months stocking shelves at the Hy-Vee grocery store there. Warner went on to play with the Des Moines-based Iowa Barnstormers in the Arena Football League for the next three seasons. He holds virtually all the Barnstormers' passing records, including 79 touchdown passes in one season (1997). He passed for 10,164 yards and 183 touchdowns in three seasons in Iowa. Warner signed as a free agent with the Rams on Dec. 26, 1997 and then spent the summer of 1998 playing in NFL Europe for the Amsterdam Admirals and led the league in passing and touchdowns. Warner, a devout Christian, spent time in Amsterdam, a city known for its red light district, leading a bible study class. Warner rejoined the Rams for the 1998 NFL season, and spent the first 14 games on the inactive list. He saw his first NFL action of his career in the fourth quarter of Rams' final game against San Francisco and completed four of 11 passes for 39 yards. Warner was back with the Rams this season, only because the Cleveland Browns passed him over in the expansion draft. The line on Warner as he entered this season was: Has potential to develop into a solid quarterback in the league . . . raw talent with outstanding arm strength and accuracy. The Rams had signed Trent Green who played at Washington last season, to be their quarterback, but he suffered a knee injury in the preseason and was out for the year. In stepped Warner and the rest is history. He led the NFL in passing and with his 41 touchdown passes became only the second player in NFL history to throw for more than 40 touchdowns in a season. Not only has Warner battled obstacles on the field to get to where he is, but he has had his share of of-the-field hurdles, too. His in-laws were killed in a tornado in Mountain View, Ark., in 1996. Kurt and wife Brenda's oldest Zachary, has been blind since suffering a head injury in an accident when he was a baby. Zachary, is only able to see objects that are held close to his face. He's been that way since he was an infant, when his father, Brenda's first husband, accidentally dropped the child during a bath. Zachary's head hit the side of the tub, which damaged his brain and ruptured his retinas. The accident almost killed the child, and doctors warned Brenda that if Zachary lived he'd never be able to see or walk or talk. He survived, despite seizures in the hospital, and when the Warners got married, Kurt adopted the boy, and his sister, Jesse, 8. ``To go home and see how he struggles with everything he does helps me keep things in perspective,'' Warner said. ``I have realized how special a child he must be to go through life with the excitement and joy he has even though he has to struggle doing everything he does.'' So that is the Kurt Warner story. It's difficult not to pull for a guy like him.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. I reluctantly have to rise in opposition to this rule. I want to at least explain why. Early in the process we were told that there was not going to be an omnibus bill. We now know that that is not true. We were also told that very controversial issues would not be included in the final bill. We know that is not true, either. But part of the reason I have to rise in opposition to this rule is I remember several years ago when one of my favorite Presidents stood right there and he held up a bill that weighed about 45 pounds and he dropped it on the desk right here with a big thud, and he said, Congress should not send bills like this to my office, and he said, and if they do, I will veto them. He did not keep that promise. He probably should have. But in many respects, we all know, everybody in this body knows it is wrong to have these omnibus bills where we throw almost everything into it. If anybody here can say with an honest expression on their face that they know what everything is in that bill, well, God save you. We know that there is a lot of stuff in that. We are going to read over the next several months about issues that are in the bill, and we are going to be embarrassed by it. But I am most embarrassed about what is happening to the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. Every morning at 4:30 lights go on all over the upper Midwest, 3,000 in my district. Nobody works harder than dairy farmers, and this is a knife in the back to those people. For 62 years they have labored under the yoke of an unfair milk marketing order system, and this leadership has knifed them in the back in the 11th hour in a back-room deal. I can live with the outcome if we have regular order. I understand democracy. If we have an honest up or down vote and we lose in the House; we have an honest up or down vote and we lose in the Senate, I can live with that. That is called democracy. But when it is done at the 11th hour by a handful of leaders in a back-room deal, well, I cannot live with that, and I cannot vote for a rule that would support it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, every morning back in Minnesota, on about 8,300 farms, the lights go on between 4:30 and 5 o'clock in the morning. On those 8,300 dairy farms, people get up; the farmers get up to go out and milk their cows. Now, if there was a group of people in America that works harder than our dairy farmers, I do not know who they are. Ever since 1937, the dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest have labored under the yoke of the milk marketing order system. It is a convoluted, complicated, and unfair system whereby the price that the dairy farmers receive for their milk is priced based on how far they are away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. It makes absolutely no economic sense. Now, it may have made sense back in 1937 before the refrigeration we have today, before the interstate highway system that we have today; but it makes no sense today. In fact, Justice Scalia described the system as Byzantine. Ever since about 1938, those of us who represented the good dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest have been trying to get this system reformed. We have asked for just a modest amount of reform. Finally, in the last farm bill, we made an agreement that we would request that the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, would come back with a proposal to level the playing field at least a little bit in this milk marketing order system so that dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest would not be punished as much just because their dairy farms are located closer to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, than dairy farms in other parts of the country. Finally, the Secretary of Agriculture came back with a plan, a modest plan. It was not strong enough for many of us. We wanted more reform than the Secretary brought forward. But in the sense of compromise, we were willing to live with that. But, unfortunately, some of our colleagues from the rest of the parts of the country said no, no, no, we cannot even have that modest amount of reform. Well, Madam Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues some excerpts of an article that was written back in about 1985 about a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas who was a former economics professor. He is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). The title of the article is ``Moscow on the Mississippi; America's Soviet-style Farm Policy.'' Let me just read some excerpts from this article. He starts off by saying, ``Even as perestroika comes to the Communist world, our own Federal farm programs remain as American monuments to the folly of central planning. If we have reached the end of history with the vindication of free economy, the USDA has not yet heard the word. ``Fifty years ago, when the Roosevelt administration announced certain `temporary emergency measures,' farm programs were highly controversial.'' Even Henry Wallace, the Secretary of Agriculture ``who conceived the idea, remarked, `I hope we shall never have to resort to it again.' The USDA has been resorting to it ever since. ``Under the current farm law passed in 1985,'' and this was in 1986, I believe, the article was written, passed in 1985, ``the Department of Agriculture has paid dairy farmers to kill 1.6 million cows.'' I go on. He says, ``Under the dairy program, local dairy cooperatives are allowed to form government-protected monopolies. Because there is no competition, people have no choice but to buy the milk at higher prices, which is a good arrangement for the big cooperatives, but a bad arrangement for parents who buy milk for their children. The resulting dairy surpluses have been reduced by government's paying dairy farmers'' large amounts ``to slaughter or export their cows and leave dairy farming for'' at least ``5 years.'' ``Like any central planning effort, whether in the Soviet Union or the American Corn Belt, all supply-control policies are riddled with irrationalities and unintended consequences. Even though the USDA has one bureaucrat for every six full-time farmers, fine-tuning the farm economy is a difficult task.'' I go on and I quote from the end of this column where he says, ``Repeal all marketing orders. Current law prohibits the Office of Management and Budget from even studying them. Marketing orders should be repealed. ``Terminate the dairy program.'' Well, Madam Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), a wall of protectionism cannot stand against free markets. Milk marketing orders cannot be explained, let alone defended. Compacts are trade barriers. Trade barriers are walls. I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), if they mean what they say about perestroika and open markets, then come here to the well of this House and stop the milk marketing nonsense. Tear down this wall.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, words have meaning. Ideas matter. Actions have consequences. About the time the solidarity movement began to take root in Poland, the Roman Catholic Cardinals sort of shocked the world, and they elected a Roman Catholic Cardinal from Poland to become the new Pope. As the solidarity movement gained strength, there was fear that the Soviets would actually send military forces to bring down that movement in Poland. The new Pope sent word to the Soviets that, if the Soviets invaded his native Poland, he would be there to meet them. Words have meaning. Then later, our President Reagan went to Europe; and against the advice of some of his advisors, he used those very harsh words, he talked about that evil empire; and he talked about the ash heap of history. Words have meaning. Then later, when President Reagan went to Berlin and he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, if you mean what you say about Glasnost and Perestroika,'' he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, come to Berlin and tear down this Wall.'' Now, those words were barely reported here in the Western press, but they thundered across Eastern Europe. Those words alone began to build up the momentum in Eastern Europe. So we can celebrate today the 10-year anniversary and, in some respects, the anniversary of the real victory of all of those veterans we sent to Europe. But back in World War II, we sent 16\1/2\ million people to fight that war. They came back, and it was not really concluded because half of Europe was still enslaved. This is a great victory for all Americans. It is a great victory for the people of the world. I am delighted we are moving forward with this resolution.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House have until midnight tonight to file a conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues some information that they probably already know, but they need to be reminded of. Recently there have been a number of reports, this one happens to be from MSNBC, about what is happening in America relative to drug prices. The headline was ``High Drug Prices Burden Many Seniors.'' ``The cost of medicine for elderly people far outstrips inflation,'' according to the Associated Press. These stories are being repeated around the country. CNN and the New York Times did a story on this, and a number of publications have reinforced the point that Americans in general, seniors in particular, are paying far too much for prescription drugs. I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, excerpts from a letter to the community from George Halverson. George Halverson is the President and CEO of HealthPartners. It was printed in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune on 10/29/99. Let me just read from this: ``The cost of prescription drugs varies to an amazing degree between countries. If you have a stomach ulcer and your doctor says you need to be on Prilosec, you will probably pay about $99.95 for a 30-day supply in the Twin Cities. But, if you were vacationing in Canada and decided to fill your prescription there, you would pay only $50.88. Or even better, if you are looking for a little warmer weather south of the border in Mexico, the same 30-day supply would only cost you $17.50. That's for the same dose, made by the same manufacturer. If we could get only half the price break that Canadians get, our plan, referring to HealthPartners, ``our plan alone could have saved our members nearly $35 million last year.'' He goes on to say, ``When the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was passed by Congress to allow free trade between the United States and our neighboring countries, HealthPartners decided to follow the lead of Minnesota Senior Federation and buy our drugs in Canada at Canadians' prices. We were disappointed to learn of the rules and the practices which kept us from succeeding. There is no free trade in prescription drugs. We need to do something about this.'' Mr. Halverson, we agree. It is outrageous, when our seniors have learned now that they can go across the border and save 30, 40, 50, and even 60 percent on prescription drugs, the outrageous part is they are stopped from doing that by our own FDA. Mr. Speaker, here is what happens when seniors or any American consumer learns that they can get prescription drugs from across the border. Seniors in Minnesota have tried to set up relationships with their local pharmacists, and we need the local pharmacist to be involved in this. They have learned that they can, using the Internet, using the web, using a fax machine, they can set up corrrespondent relationships. Many of them are going to to the local pharmacy, having a prescription filled there by actually getting the drugs shipped in by parcel post from Canada. What has happened? The FDA intervenes and they inspect the packages. Then they send a very threatening letter to our seniors and other consumers who are practicing this method of trying to save some money on prescription drugs. Let me just read the first paragraph of this letter: ``This letter is to advise you that the Minneapolis District of the United States Food and Drug Administration has examined the package addressed to you containing drugs which appear to be unapproved for use in the United States.'' It goes on to threaten the senior, that if they try to do this again, they could be in big trouble. I would be threatened by that letter, but my parents would be far more threatened by this letter. Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I say it is outrageous because the law, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of legal scholars around the country is fairly clear, the law is section 381, imports and exports. It basically says they have got to give notice to the owner or consignee. Then such articles shall be refused admission. In other words, if it really is an illegal drug, it can be stopped. But if it is a drug that is otherwise approved in the United States, the FDA is on very thin ice. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in opinion in this between myself, between seniors, between consumers groups, and the FDA. Today I am going to introduce legislation which will remove all doubt. It will make it clear that the burden now will be on the FDA that this is an illegal practice, because I am committed and a growing number of Members of Congress are committed to making a very clear statement to the people at the FDA: We will not allow a Federal bureaucracy to stand between American consumers and lower prices. It is wrong, and if there is anything we can do to stop it, we will. I am introducing the legislation today. I am calling on my colleagues from both sides of the political aisles to join me in this debate. Prescription drugs are too expensive for American consumers in general, and seniors in particular. We can do something about it. We should do it now.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. GUTKNECHT

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about an issue that is becoming increasingly of concern to the American citizens, and that is the high prices that Americans in general and seniors in particular are being required to pay for prescription drugs. A number of stories have appeared recently. A number of national news publications, MSNBC, the New York Times, a number of stories, the Washington Post, a Minneapolis paper recently did stories about what is happening in America relative to the high cost of prescription drugs. Now, it has a tremendous impact on all Americans, but of particularly high impact on senior citizens where many of the people in my district, and I suspect this is not unusual to my district, it happens all over the country, seniors are paying two, three, four, in fact I talked to one couple that is paying over $1,000 a month for prescription drugs. It is a serious problem. It is here now. Every one has an opinion. But let me just talk about what I think is one part of the problem that we could do something very serious about solving very quickly. But before I do, I would like to read excerpts from a letter to the community from George Halvorson. George Halvorson is the president and CEO of HealthPartners in Minneapolis. Let me just read, ``The cost of prescription drugs varies to an amazing degree between countries. ``If you have a stomach ulcer and your doctor says, `you need to be on Prilosec,' you would probably pay about $99.95 for a 30-day supply in the Twin Cities. But if you were vacationing in Canada and decided to fill your prescription there, you would pay only $50.88. ``Or, even better, if you were looking for a little warmer weather south of the border in Mexico, the same 30-day supply would cost you only $17.50. ``That's for the same dose, made by the same manufacturer. ``If we could get only half the price break that Canadians get, our plan alone'', he is talking about one HMO in Minnesota, he says, ``our plan alone could have saved our members nearly $35 million last year.'' Imagine what we are talking about throughout the entire country. He goes on to say, ``When the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was passed by Congress to allow free trade between us and our neighboring countries, HealthPartners decided to follow the lead of in Minnesota Senior Federation and buy drugs in Canada at Canadian prices. We were disappointed to learn of the rules and processes that kept us from succeeding. There is no free trade in prescription drugs. We need to do something about this.'' Well, I tell Mr. Halvorson, we intend to do something about it. But before we do something, one has got to understand what the problem is. It all comes down to section 381 of U.S. Code, Title XXI, section 381. Let me just read for my colleagues what this section basically says. ``The Secretary of Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, upon his request, samples of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics which are being imported or offered for import into the United States.'' The operative expression is ``giving notice thereof to the owner or cosignee''. It goes on to basically say that people can bring drugs into the country as long as they are legal drugs and they have a prescription. But if there is a challenge to them, the burden of proof falls upon the FDA. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening. What is happening today is, when seniors try to bring drugs, and particularly if they do it through mail order, back into the United States, the FDA puts the burden of proof on the seniors to prove that they are legal drugs and were manufactured in an FDA-approved facility. What I am going to be doing here in the next day or two is introducing legislation to clarify that Americans will be able, going through their local pharmacy, to order drugs over the Internet or by web or through faxes with correspondent pharmacies in Canada or in Mexico as long as they are legal drugs produced in an FDA-approved facility to allow them to do that. We are talking about savings for some seniors of $300 or $400 per month. Now, that may not seem like much to some of the folks in this room, but let me tell my colleagues, if one is living on a fixed income of $10,000, we are beginning to talk real money. It is time for us to say loudly and clearly that we will not allow the FDA to stand between our consumers and our seniors in particular. We will not allow the FDA to stand between our consumers and lower drug prices. It is a simple bill. I would hope that my colleagues would contact my office because we want to make this a broad-based bipartisan coalition to support this bill. We hope to introduce it in the next day or two. Please take a look at this legislation. We would like to have my colleagues join us on it.