Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Excuse me, but that is just seniors.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, may I say the gentleman has brought back his chart on the cost of drugs, and that is an astronomical figure, $1.8 trillion. In fact, there is a book that was written in Georgia several years ago that is called The Coming Economic Earthquake. You may have read it, a Georgia author, so I have to brag on him. He is saying the difference between 1 million and 1 trillion is that if you took $1,000 bills, to stack them up to get to $1 million, stack one $1,000 bill on top of another $1,000 bill, it would be about 4 inches high. That would become $1 million at 4 inches. To get to $1 trillion, it would be 33 miles high. People do not understand that.

Mr. KINGSTON. $1 million, 4 inches.

Mr. KINGSTON. I did support the Tauzin bill, the Thomas bill, the one the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and so many others on the Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), have championed. The way I understand that bill, it is basically for a premium of about $35 a month, seniors on a voluntary basis would enroll in a program where they would take a $250 deductible, and from $250 to $1,000 Medicare would pick up 80 percent of the cost of drugs; then from $1,000 to $2,000, Medicare would pick up 50 percent; and then there is a gap, and there is a reason for that. Most of the people are going to fall under $2,000, but from $2,000 to about $3,800, the senior would pay for 100 percent. Beyond that, Medicare picks up the tab. So you have catastrophic coverage. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people these days having to pay $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $10,000, $20,000 a year on drugs. But so many people are in a lifestyle now where they have to take three, four, five, six pills a day. I talked to a man over the weekend or over last week at one of my 11 town meetings, and he is actually having to take 2 pills a day, $17 each. So he is having to spend each and every day $34 on just two pills. He is only 51 years old. I hope he lives 50 more years at least, but the reality is, can you imagine at age 51 having to pay $34 each and every single day? These miracle drugs are important. They have done a lot. They reduce our pain, they give us a better quality of life, they keep us out of the hospital, so there is no argument about you are going to take your medicine. But the cost of it is phenomenal. I do think that the Republican Party took a very significant first step on a bipartisan basis the week before last with the prescription drug plan. I hope that the other body will act on theirs and maybe we can get together. But the point is, we have taken a very significant step. But I certainly agree with the gentleman that the next logical step is drug reimportation.

Mr. KINGSTON. Thirty-three miles.

Mr. KINGSTON. And seniors who have to choose between drugs and food, in many cases they are going without medicine. Prozac went off patent last August; is that correct?

Mr. KINGSTON. So a patent, if it is gamed properly, it can be a government-sanctioned monopoly for drug companies.

Mr. KINGSTON. I think we should look at that with a very large magnifying glass because with what we are seeing with corporate greed, and there are a lot of great corporate citizens and CEOs, but the accounting games which seem to have been pulled by the Global Crossings of the world, and the Enrons and the Arthur Andersens, it seems like big corporations are just in it for themselves and are not worrying about the good of humanity. One of the things that we in the Republican Party did April 24, we passed an accounting accountability act to separate accountants from consultants and put things at arm's length. I am glad to hear that the Senate is waking up to this. I am glad to hear that Mr. Daschle and the other body has discovered there is an issue out there. We did ours on April 24. The Democratic leadership voted against it. It is time for the Senate to act on it. Let us get a bill into conference and hammer out the differences. I think right now it is time for corporate goodwill to be exhibited. It is not time to game the accounting procedures and patent procedures. Maybe we as a Congress should look at an issue of patents and when are they legitimate and when are they not legitimate. I know one thing that we have also done, switching back to the prescription drug issue, is shortened the drug approval time for FDA. FDA under the Clinton administration was taking about 8 years to approve a new drug. Today that is down to 2 to 3 years, and a lot of that progress was actually made under the Clinton administration as well, so I want to give them a compliment where compliments are due. Mr. Speaker, 3 years is probably as short a time as we are going to get. I believe 2 years and 1 month on an average, and generics sometimes can take a little longer. But one of the things that our constituents complain about is a drug for cancer or epilepsy that is being used in France or another country, it has a track record and has been on the market for 15 or 20 years but it is not approved in America. I think for that reason we have to keep the heat on the FDA to get drugs approved faster.

Mr. KINGSTON. In terms of tort reform, what the drug companies are also telling us is in the two examples the gentleman gave us, if a woman is taking a hormone-enhancing drug and because of research down the road, for whatever reason, that drug develops or accelerates the development of breast cancer, the drug company, of course, is going to get sued. What kind of protection should the drug company have, if any, in terms of tort reform or liability? Remember, when you go to court and you sue, you can get compensatory damages for the money you have lost. Then there is noncompensatory damages, and that is for pain and suffering. And that is harder to calculate, but still possible, it is an agreed-upon figure. A third kind of damage is a punitive damage where the State holds up the tortfeasor, in this case the drug company, as an example to others who would exhibit negligence, and punitive damages really was more for intentional or gross negligence, but lately it has not been. It would appear to me that limiting punitive damages at some point is sensible because the victim is already going to get compensatory and noncompensatory damages. We have not had much success with tort reform. Is that going to be part of the solution?

Mr. KINGSTON. Now, there is a statistic, though, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services gave to the gentleman and myself recently that 98,000 people a year actually do die from misapplication of prescription drugs, not taking their medicine properly or timely. And I know that the University of Minnesota, which I think is not in the gentleman's district, has done a study to find something like 40 percent of prescription drugs are used incorrectly. Is that the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. KINGSTON. Zero people.

Mr. KINGSTON. So for $38 billion more in expenses a year, it appears that there was no real difference in public health.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, and I wanted to say that I did not catch all of the gentleman's remarks on the way over here, so some of this may certainly be repetitive; but first of all, I think we need to say a word of thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and also to the House Republican leadership for scheduling some hearings on the drug reimportation issue. I am very excited about the hearings. Because when people around America see some of the differences in the costs, and I see the gentleman has his latest chart up there, for instance with Premarin, and if I am reading it correctly, it is $55.42 in America compared to $8.95 in Europe. A statistic that our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has brought up is that the Boston University School of Public Health, a particular professor there, says that America could save $38 billion a year if American consumers could buy medications at Canadian prices. Of course, the gentleman has European prices on there, but we have also other charts with Canadian prices, and they are just as attractive as the European prices. What is odd, and I just want to enter into a dialogue with the gentleman, does the gentleman know how many people it is that have died because of drug reimportation? Surely it must be thousands upon thousands, given the great resistance some Members of Congress have to this.

Mr. KINGSTON. I believe the last vote we had on this was July 10, 2000, which was, well, 2 years ago today, but at that point out of 435 Members, 363 voted in favor of drug reimportation. And, again, that was July 10, 2000. To make sure folks understand, we are talking about drugs that have strict FDA oversight, proof of FDA approval of imported medicine. There must be a paper chain of custody so people know that they are not counterfeit drugs. We are also stating that only licensed pharmacists and wholesalers can import medicines for resale, not just somebody who decides to open up a shop somewhere. Importers would have to meet requirements for handling as strict as those already in place for existing manufacturers, and a registration of Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers who would be selling or exporting to America would need to be registered with Health and Human Services. And we would need to have lab testing to screen out counterfeits. And counterfeit drugs can happen under the current market. This does not change the threat of counterfeit drugs.

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that is important to point out, because people often bring up this counterfeit drug situation, and it is something that certainly scares us. My mother had breast cancer this year and has to take Tamoxifen, and I certainly want to know that the pill she is taking is as represented. I do not want any counterfeit pill for any American. But it is a red herring to mix that with the reimportation question, because counterfeiting is taking place today without reimportation. But another issue that I wanted to mention to the gentleman is one about the patent bill that our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), have been pushing. Now, as I understand it, and I do not know if the gentleman has covered this already, but most drugs have a 17-year patent. When that patent expires, in order for a generic company to get to make that name-brand drug, they have to file, I guess with the FDA. If the gentleman has a definition for generic drug, maybe he could share that with us.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). First of all, I wanted to thank the gentleman and the ranking member and all the committee members for what they have done and for the gentleman's leadership on this important legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill so I certainly support the gentleman's efforts. Our airline pilots are already entrusted with every passenger on their aircraft, so it stands to reason that they be entrusted to serve as responsible Federal flight deck officers. All we have to do is ensure they receive the proper training, and with that in mind, I would like to request that we clarify the training aspect of the bill. As the chairman knows, the bill states ``the Under Secretary shall base requirements for training on the standards applicable to Federal air marshals.'' The Federal air marshals conduct their training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. However, this bill simply states that the pilots' training should be conducted at ``a facility approved by the Under Secretary.'' Since FLETC is already the approved Federal training facility for the Federal air marshals, I am sure the gentleman would agree that this is appropriate to designate FLETC as an approved training facility for the Federal flight deck officer program. I request that the record reflect our intent to designate the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as an approved training facility for both the Federal air marshal program and the Federal flight deck officer program.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between stealing from shareholders or stealing from people's retirement accounts and stealing a purse on the subway? It is no different. Lawbreakers ought to be punished by going to jail. That is why the Republican Party, against the leadership of the Democrat Party, passed in April the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act. This bill, which was passed in April, opposed by the Democrats who are now crying for reform, included auditor independence, a new oversight body called the Public Regulatory Organization. It would have to certify any accounting wishes to audit the financial statements required from public issuers of stock. It also states that officials cannot interfere with audits. It would be unlawful for company officials to interfere with the auditing process. Finally, it has no executive training during blackout periods in order to protect 401(k)s. This reform is now being held up by the Democrat leadership in the other body. Let it pass. Let us go to conference and do what is best for the American people and put partisan politics aside.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I find the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Pledge of Allegiance an outrage. Labeling the Pledge unconstitutional and banning it from Public Schools is an uninformed and narrow-minded decision by a notoriously irresponsible and radical court. Mr. Speaker, I denounce this decision, and for the record, I want to include the following remarks, which include quotations from some of our founding fathers as respects their view on religion and the law: Any high school student with a basic knowledge of history and with a minimal interest in politics understands that there exists a strong separation of church and state in the United States today. This idea of separation is bitterly enforced by some politicians and always emerges as a hot topic in political debate. But ask these same high school students about the religious beliefs of our founding fathers and the place of religion in the early history of our government, and you will probably find that their knowledge of these subjects is vague and incomplete. In fact, many Americans today would be surprised to find out that the creators of our nation were profoundly religious, that many of them had no reservations about the role of God in our Government. Yet, it is amazing to me that our understanding of the founding fathers and the creation of our country has been forgotten or ignored. For in one of our most cherished documents, The Declaration of Independence, which holds our most basic statement of our rights as Americans, we are told that it is ``self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' It goes on, ``That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . .'' It is as simple as that--our morality, the basis for our laws, comes from our Creator. Our government, or any democratic government for that matter, is based on our divinely inspired sense of night and wrong. This was an undisputed understanding amongst our founding fathers, which, somehow, escapes the modem imagination. The Declaration of Independence presents the idea of Divine authority in vague terms, a wise and conscious choice by the authors who understood the importance of religious freedom. But the use of that language should not forsake our founding fathers as believers in a vague and indeterminable God. On the contrary, most of these men believed in a personable and loving God. They followed the teachings of Christianity; they were public in their faith and unreserved about their convictions. Yet, on the whole the lives of these men--signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution--on the whole their lives and contributions to the founding of the United States are unknown to us. The details of their lives are surprising to many and certainly are relevant to today's debate and are instructive on the topic in general: Reverend John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg--A pastor of two churches in Woodstock, Virginia and a member of the Virginia legislature. On January 21, 1776, Reverend Muhlenberg preached his Sunday sermon on Ecclesiastes 3, ``to everything there is time and a season.'' At verse 8--A time for war; A time for peace--he declared to his congregation that for Virginia and the other colonies, it was a time of war. He then removed his clerical robes, revealing to the congregation the full military uniform he was wearing underneath. After the service, Muhlenberg recruited 300 men for the war; they eventually were known as the Eighth Virginia Regiment. He served throughout the Revolutionary War, achieving the rank of Major General. There is a statue of him in the Capitol depicting the moment when he disrobed in front of the congregation. John Witherspoon--signed the Declaration. He was an ordained minister and wrote the introduction to one of the first American editions of the Bible in 1791. Dr. Ben Rush--signed the Declaration. A leading educator, has been called the ``Father of American Medicine,'' personally trained 3,000 students for medical degrees, founder of America's first abolition society as well as America's first Bible society: The Bible Society of Philadelphia. One of the objectives of Dr. Rush's society was to mass- produce and distribute Bibles to American citizens. In order to do so, the society had to purchase and import special stereo printing plates. Under president James Madison, congress passed an act that cancelled all importation duties for the society; it was entitled the ``Act for the Relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia,'' passed February 2, 1813. John Hancock--signed the Declaration. After the revolution became Governor of Massachusetts; during his tenure he issued several proclamations for days of prayer and thanksgiving. Typical of his proclamations was the one issued October 15, 1791, which ended with a call for the citizens of Massachusetts to pray ``that universal happiness may be established in the world; [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth filled with His Glory.'' Sam Adams--signed the Declaration. He served as Governor of Massachusetts after John Hancock. Like his predecesor, he issued a number of proclamations for State wide days of prayer and thanksgiving. In an example from 1795, he asked that citizens pray ``that the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be know and enjoyed throughout the family of mankind.'' John Quincy Adams--sixth president of the U.S. elected to the House after his presidency. Read the Bible in its entirety once a year. On February 21st, 1848, Adams collapsed from his chair on the House floor; he was placed on a sofa and carried to the nearby Speaker's Apartment (just off of the House Chamber). It was there that Adams uttered his last words before dying, ``This is the end of earth. . . . I am composed.'' His words are an indication of his faith; he went out of life with the expectation of eternal reward. George Washington--After the Revolution, Washington sent a circular letter to the 13 Governors and State legislatures declaring his resignation as Commander of the Continental army. The letter closed with a prayer: I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His holy protection,--that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government,--to entertain a brotherly affection and a love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field--and finally, that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation. Alexander Hamilton--signed the Constitution and was one of the authors of the Federalist papers, a document that heavily influenced the creation of the Constitution. Hamilton was a devout Christian whose faith remained strong even on his deathbed. He reluctantly entered into a duel with Aaron Burr, recording in his Journal: I have resolved, if . . . it pleases God to give me the opportunity, to reserve and throw away my firs [shot]; and I have thoughts even of reserving my second [shot]--and thus giving a double opportunity to Col. Burr. Hamilton's decision cost him his life. On July 11th, 1804, Hamilton was mortally wounded by Burr and died 24 hours later. On his deathbed, the Rev. Benjamin Moore asked of him, ``Do you sincerely repent of your sins past? Have you a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ? And are you disposed to live in love and charity with all men?'' Hamilton replied, ``With the utmost sincerity of heart I can answer those questions in the affirmative--I have no ill will against Col. Burr. I met him with a fixed resolution to do him no harm--I forgive all that happened.'' The Reverend went on to report that Hamilton, ``Expired without a struggle, and almost without a groan.'' Hamilton's death inspired the Reverend to write: By reflecting on this melancholy event. . . . let the infidel be persuaded to abandon his opposition to that Gospel which the strong, inquisitive, and comprehensive mind of Hamilton embraced. At the time of his death, Hamilton was in the process of creating a religious society with the suggested name of the ``Christian Constitutional Society.'' Its goals were to support the Christian Religion and to support the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state, which could meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the Christian Constitutional Society. James McHenry--signed the Constitution; officer in the American Revolution and Secretary of War under George Washington and John Adams. Founded the Baltimore Bible society and explained the importance of the Bible in American society: Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach--the obligation they impose--the punishment they threaten--the rewards they promise--the stamp and image of divinity they bear which produces a conviction of their truths--[these] can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. The Baltimore Bible Society still exists today (now known as the Maryland Bible Society) and functions much as it did when it was first founded. Its mission is ``to encourage the circulation, distribution and printing of the Bible in all languages without note or comment.'' In 1999, the society distributed over 4 million copies. The Early Supreme Court: its justices and opinions. Justice James Wilson--one of the original justices, signed the Constitution and the Declaration, also credited with starting the first organized legal training in America for law students. Here is an example of what he taught his students about the relationship between law and religion: It should always be remembered that this law, . . . made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . We now see the deep and the solid foundations of human law. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth--third Chief Justice of the supreme court, member of the Continental Congress during the Revolution and Constitutional Convention; believed religion was necessary in public life and declared in the Connecticut Courant of June 7, 1802: The primary objects of government, are the peace, order and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are, therefore, objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . The legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions--institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion. Justice Joseph Story--U.S. Congressman during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison. He founded Harvard Law School; he wrote 286 opinions while serving as a justice as well as several legal essays published under the title, ``Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.'' In this work, Story argues that the first amendment was not intended to separate religion from civil government: The First Amendment is ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'' . . . We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution. . . . Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. . . . At the adoption of the Constitution and the [first] amendment to it . . . the general, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State. . . . An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. Vidal v. Girard's Executors--This was a case that came before the Supreme Court in 1844. Stephen Girard in his will left $7 million dollars to the city of Philadelphia and asked that a school be started for the benefit of orphans and needy children but stipulated that ministers be prohibited from serving on the faculty. The court ruled that ministers could be excluded but that did not necessarily exclude the teaching of religion from public schools. In the opinion, written by Justice Story, the court asked: Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament . . . be read and taught as a divine revelation in the [school]--its general precepts expounded, its evidence explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be teamed so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety and industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the Sacred Volume? In our Nation today, at the first hint of a mixing of church and state, at the mere suggestion of a correlation between religion and civil law, there erupts from certain factions outrage and indignation, followed by claims of an impending right-wing conspiracy. These people have made sacred the quest to keep religion out of public schools and out of our Government. They believe any attempt to do otherwise is in direct conflict with the intentions of our founding fathers. But as I have shown you, these founding fathers were absorbed with religion, namely Christianity, and understood its fundamental role in government and society. Even Thomas Jefferson, who intentionally kept his religious beliefs obscure to the public, never once admitting to an acceptance of Christianity, nor altogether denying its truth, even Jefferson wrote that in the pure and untainted teachings of Christ can be found the ``most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.'' Why have we conceded to the ridiculous idea that religion has no place in government, that the creators wanted strict separation of church and state? These are not ideas founded upon reason but on the ignorance of atheism, ideas promoted by those who would like to see an end to religion. As our government is founded on self-evident and unalienable rights, so to is it founded upon divine Law--these are one in the same. For a discussion of morality without God ultimately becomes absurd. Indeed, there is no government without religion.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for yielding some time to me, and I just wanted to discuss something with the chairman and enter into a colloquy about the aviation support facility at Fort Stewart/Hunter in Savannah, Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) as well; and I also appreciate the visit that the gentleman made to that very facility a little over a year ago. As my colleague knows from the visit, the facility is very dilapidated and soldiers need a little more elbow room, and they do not certainly need to be operating out of a building that is falling apart. Just recently, in fact, they have moved into a temporary tent facility; but unfortunately, that even leaks when it rains and in Savannah, Georgia, we get some heavy rains from time to time. Recently, one of my staffers was down there to visit with them, and they actually had to leave the tent because the leak was so bad. I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, and certainly the distinguished chairman who has also visited some of the facilities in Georgia, know the importance of providing our troops with the best facility possible and that these funds will go a long way to helping our servicemen and women. So I thank the gentleman again for everything that he has done in support of Fort Stewart/Hunter and all the other bases and posts in Georgia.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, after looking at this issue from many different angles and for many different weeks, I am going to support this rule. There is a lot more left to do that I am going to be a part of, and I am proud to see that a number of our Members of our leadership have agreed to in terms of addressing and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. But as I listen to this rhetoric tonight, and so much of it is totally uncalled for, one has to believe the statement made in the New Republic in June that the Democrats want this issue on the table because it is an election year, they do not want the bill, they want the issue. I am listening to this, and I know there are a lot of Democrats who want the policy, but I cannot help but think tonight that the Democrats want the politics. You have to ask yourself, where is your plan? Where is your plan? We know that Mr. Daschle and some of the folks across the hall have one, but it is a trillion-dollar plan which will bankrupt Medicare. As you say, you do not like our plan. Well, our plan does not bankrupt Medicare. If you want to protect Medicare, why do you want to bankrupt it? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to, I guess, me-too-it as much as possible on this. I think it is incredible that at a time when our Nation is at war, when we have suffered one of the greatest domestic tragedies in our history, that a court would be so out of touch with America that they would say this is what we need at this point in time, reversing all the other court decisions. I certainly stand in strong support of this resolution. I just want to say when I was in Afghanistan back in January, one of the proudest things I saw were all the young men and women on the USS Theodore Roosevelt saluting the flag which Rudy Giuliani had flown over the rubble of the World Trade Center. I am glad that they also said the Pledge and that they know that we are one Nation under God.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address the House tonight on the question of prescription drug benefits and prescription drug costs for our seniors. I have worked very closely on this issue, and while the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce are busy marking up prescription drug benefits for our seniors, which incidentally would include a no-cost benefit to people under a certain income bracket, there are other things that we should be doing to help lower the cost of prescription drugs. So I applaud the committee for their work on it, but with the number in mind of $1.8 trillion, which is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates seniors will be paying for prescription drugs over the next 10 years, we realize the size of the task in front of us, so we cannot just say, let us do a prescription drug benefit and be done with it. There are other things we should do. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, we should allow is drug reimportation. Drug reimportation is very important, because while we can buy clothes, food, cars, and, in fact, we can buy practically anything from our neighbor north of the border from us in Canada, the FDA does not allow American citizens to buy their drugs over there. Even though they are FDA-approved, the same dosage, the same bottle, the same brand, the same prescription, we cannot drive from Detroit over to Windsor and buy our drugs, according to the FDA. Now, that is too bad, because there are a lot of seniors who already are doing this and saving thousands of dollars a year, which is an important and significant savings for anybody, but particularly for people on a fixed income. I have a constituent who actually is buying Lipitor from another country. The prescription of Lipitor in Texas is about $90, but if she buys it over the border, it is $29. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gutknecht) has submitted for the Record time and time again a list of the costs of drugs for America versus Europe and America versus Canada. We need to allow seniors to buy their drugs from any country they want if they are FDA-approved drugs, and we should let their pharmacists do it locally, on a wholesale basis. The second thing we should do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the patent issue. Drugs right now get a 17-year patent. I ask Members, is that long enough, or is that too short? One of my concerns is we pay for a lot of the basic research as American taxpayers. We pay to the National Institutes of Health and other government research agencies, and then we allow the pharmaceutical companies to get a big research and development write- off on their taxes, so we do subsidize drug research. That being the case, should we allow a 17-year patent on drugs? When the patent on Prozac went off last August, the price of Prozac fell 70 percent. We have to ask ourselves, this government-sanctioned monopoly, is this a good idea? I bring up the question, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the answer to it, but I think we should look at it. Thirdly, we should look at drug approval time. The FDA right now takes 3 to 8 years to approve a new drug. We need to narrow that window. We need to put safety first, but if we can get the drug to market faster in a safe way, we need to do it. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a study from the University of Minnesota, which the gentleman may be familiar with, which actually says as much as 40 percent of the prescription drugs that are taken are either unnecessary or are taken incorrectly. We need to help people take the prescription drugs in a safe and in a correct manner, because the cost, if we can imagine 40 percent of the drugs being used incorrectly, that is a tremendous amount of savings and a huge health hazard. So these are some of the things we should continue to do along with the prescription drug benefit, which the Republican Party is offering next week on the House floor. I want to say these things, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time and the work the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has put into this himself, and look forward to following this process down. As my mother would say to me, it is the cost, stupid. Bring down the cost of my prescription drugs. We need to do it now.