Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 21 years in this body. I know I look a lot younger, but I have been here 21 years. And I have never seen the kind of pressure exerted on Members of this body like I have seen on this bill.

They say it is about safety. It is not about safety; it is about money. They say it is about health, the health of the seniors who might be taken in by counterfeit drugs. It is not about that. It is about money, the money that the pharmaceutical companies are making on the backs of the American people.

Talk to a lady who has got a child who is suffering from some very serious disease and she finds out, to buy her pharmaceutical products here, it costs four or five times here than what it costs in Canada or Germany or France. What do we say to her? It is about money. What do we say to a woman who has breast cancer, who is going to die, who needs Tamoxifen to survive? Her life depends on it. How do we tell her it is going to cost six or seven times what it costs in Canada or Germany for the very same thing? Is her life worth that much less? Tell me, is her life worth that much less?

And if the profits are so great here and they are not as great elsewhere, then why not spread it around? Why should all these profits be loaded on the backs of the American people?

When the Members vote, I want them to think about this. Think about this. And I approach this from a personal standpoint. There is a woman who is dying of breast cancer. This is one example. How do we tell her when she goes to buy Tamoxifen and she cannot afford it that she could go right across the border to Canada and get it for one-sixth or one- seventh what it costs here? How do we tell her that? We cannot.

We need to pass this bill to send a message to the pharmaceutical companies that the American people deserve the same rights and privileges as anybody else in this world, especially those who really need it because of their health.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for working on this. He has been a real leader in showing concern for these mothers who have had their children kidnapped to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, never to be seen again or heard from again; and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He has been a fighter for human rights for a long, long time; and this is another manifestation of his dedication to making sure that human rights are realized.

Let me just tell my colleagues one story, and then I will yield back my time. We had a young lady from Terre Haute, Indiana. She had three children. She was married to a Saudi who had gone to college over here. They were divorced, and he went back to Saudi Arabia.

The mother was very concerned when he wanted to visit the children for the summer, have them visit him, that he would take them to Saudi Arabia and she would not see them anymore. So she went to the judge and she told the judge of her concern, and the judge said, well, we cannot very well keep the father from seeing his children. However, we will tell the Saudi embassy of the divorce decree and that you have custody of the children and that they are not to be taken out of the country, and we will tell the father that he is not to take the children out of the country.

They told the father when he got the children he was not to take the children out of the country. He could have them for a couple of weeks in the summer and return them to the mother. He said he would. His passport and the passports of the children were surrendered.

He got the children. He went to the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. They issued passports for the children, even though there was a court order against it, and the mother had custody. He took the children to Saudi Arabia, three children; and the mother has not seen the children or talked to them since. Maybe she talked to them one time on the telephone.

This is just one example of the tragedy that has been taking place regarding these children who are being kidnapped to Saudi Arabia and other countries throughout the world, and the gentleman from California's (Mr. Ose) amendment will be a giant step in the right direction to put pressure on the Saudi Government to assist in returning these children to their rightful parent, the parent who has custody of them.

There are other issues regarding this sort of thing, women who have been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia, who cannot get back because of the Saudi laws and because men, in effect, own the women over there and the children. So we are continuing to try to put pressure on them, and the gentleman from California's (Mr. Ose) amendment is a giant step in the right direction in dealing with this, and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all of the cosponsors of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Mr. Speaker, last month marked the nineteenth anniversary of the Indian government's attack on the Golden Temple in Amristar, the most sacred of Sikh shrines. The Indian government simultaneously attacked 38 other Sikh temples, known as Gurdwaras, around India. It is reported that more than 20,000 Sikhs were killed in these attacks, which went by the name of Operation Bluestar.

The Sikh Nation has never forgotten this atrocity against them. These attacks laid the foundation of a sovereign, independent Sikh homeland, Khalistan, which was declared independent on October 7, 1987. Last month, they once again observed Khalistan Martyrs Day on June 7, marking the anniversary of the brutal attacks on the Golden Temple and the other Sikh temples. Sikhs gathered in Washington, D.C. and protested outside the Indian Embassy. They chanted slogans and made speeches in support of freedom for the Sikh Nation.

Sikhs were equal partners in the transfer of power from the British and were supposed to have an independent state. Sikh leaders were promised that they would have ``the glow of freedom'' in India and no law would be passed affecting Sikhs without their consent. However, that is not the case. I would like to have the Council of Khalistan's press release on the Khalistan Martyrs Day events placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

International Sikh Organization,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2003.

Sikhs Observe Khalistan Martyrs Day

Washington, D.C., June 7, 2003.--It is a Sikh tradition and

Sikh history that Sikhs never forgive or forget the attack on

the Golden Temple, the Sikh Nation's holiest shrine. In that

spirit, Sikhs from all over the East Coast gathered in

Washington, D.C. today to observe Khalistan Martyrs Day. This

is the anniversary of the Indian government's brutal military

attack on the Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh temples

throughout Punjab, from June 3-6, 1984. More than 20,000

Sikhs were killed in those attacks, known as Operation

Bluestar. These martyrs laid down their lives to lay the

foundation for Khalistan. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation

declared its homeland, Khalistan, independent.

``We thank all the demonstrators who came to this important

protest,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the

Council of Khalistan. ``These martyrs gave their lives so

that the Sikh Nation could live in freedom,'' Dr. Aulakh

said. ``We salute them on Khalistan Martyrs' Day,'' he said.

``As Sant Bhindranwale said, the Golden Temple attack laid

the foundation of Khalistan.''

Sikhs ruled Punjab until 1849 when the British conquered

the subcontinent. Sikhs were equal partners during the

transfer of power from the British. The Muslim leader Jinnah

got Pakistan for his people, the Hindu leaders got India, but

the Sikh leadership was fooled by the Hindu leadership

promising that Sikhs would have ``the glow of freedom'' in

Northwest India and the Sikhs took their share with India on

that promise. No Sikh representative has ever signed the

Indian constitution.

Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Me.) said,

``The essence of democracy is the right to self-

determination.'' The minority nations of South Asia need

freedom. ``Without political power nations perish. We must

always remember these martyrs for their sacrifice,'' Dr.

Aulakh said. ``The best tribute to these martyrs would be the

liberation of the Sikh homeland, Punjab, Khalistan, from the

occupying Indian forces,'' he said. ``That must be the only

objective,'' he said. ``We should use the opportunity

presented by the situation in South Asia to liberate our

homeland.''

The Golden Temple attack launched a campaign of genocide

against the Sikhs that belies India's claims that it is a

democracy. The Golden Temple attack made it clear that there

is no place for Sikhs in India. Since 1984, India has engaged

in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in which tens of thousands

of Sikhs were murdered by the Indian police and security

forces and secretly cremated after declaring them

``unidentified.'' The Indian Supreme Court described this

campaign as ``worse than a genocide.'' General Narinder Singh

has said, ``Punjab is a police state.'' U.S. Congressman Dana

Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) has said that for Sikhs, Kashmiri

Muslims, and other minorities ``India might as well be Nazi

Germany.''

According to a report by the Movement Against State

Repression, India admitted that 52,268 Sikh political

prisoners are rotting in Indian jails without charge or

trial. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. In

February 2002, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress wrote to

President Bush to get these Sikh political prisoners

released. MASR report quotes the Punjab Civil Magistracy as

writing ``if we add up the figures of the last few years the

number of innocent persons killed would run into lakhs

[hundreds of thousands.]''

Indian security forces have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs

since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State

Magistracy and human-rights organizations. These figures were

published in The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh

Jaijee. India has also killed over 200,000 Christians in

Nagaland since 1947, over 80,000 Kashmiris since 1988, and

tens of thousands of Tamils, Bodos, Dalits (the aboriginal

people of the subcontinent labeled ``Untouchables'') as well

as indigenous tribal peoples in Manipur, Assam and elsewhere.

In March 2000, while former President Clinton was visiting

India, the Indian government murdered 35 Sikhs in the village

of Chithisinghpora, Kashmir and tried to blame the massacre

on alleged militants. The Indian media reported that the

police in Gujarat were ordered by the government to stand by

and not to interfere with the massacre of Muslims there.

``Guru gave sovereignty to the Sikh Nation,'' Dr. Aulakh

said. ``The Golden Temple massacre reminded us that if Sikhs

are going to live with honor and dignity, we must have a

free, sovereign, and independent Khalistan,'' he said.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress now for 21 years and I have seen some pretty cruddy things, but I have never seen anything as cruddy as this. This was put out by the Traditional Values Coalition. They asked me to be on their board of directors last year because they said I was such a nice guy. They are now sending out this circular to my district and many other congressional districts saying that I may be against protecting the sanctity of human life, inferring that I might be a pro-abortionist, when that has not been the way I feel for 40 years.

Members who are very pro-life, like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), are also on the reimportation bill to allow seniors to get pharmaceuticals at the lowest price possible in the world. The reason this is being done is because the pharmaceutical industry is afraid that they will have to lower their prices here in the United States as opposed to what they are charging people in other parts of the world.

In Germany, if you want to buy Tamoxifen, which helps women fight breast cancer, it costs $60 for a 30-day supply. Here it is $360 for a 30-day supply.

The pharmaceutical industry is underwriting these lies to try to scare American congressmen from supporting legislation that would put Americans in a competitive position. Americans should not pay any more for their pharmaceuticals than their counterparts in other parts of the word, and to use babies like this is a crime. I really criticize the Traditional Values Coalition and other religious groups for using this kind of trash to scare American Congressmen.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for agreeing to include in this bill an en bloc amendment that deals with a very important subject that I have been concerned with for some time.

As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform for the past 6 years, we held a number of hearings on the issue of child abductions by spouses of American women and men who have taken the children who are in the custody of their mother or father here in the United States to other countries never to be seen again or heard from again by their parents. The most egregious offender of this is Saudi Arabia. They have been complicitous in allowing fathers of children born here in the United States of American mothers to come over here, kidnap the children, take them to Saudi Arabia, and the mother never sees her children again, never talks to her children again, and it is a tragic, tragic situation.

In some cases, Mr. Chairman, there have been cases where a mother went over to Saudi Arabia to get her kidnapped children, took them to the American embassy and was turned away. She was turned away. She was actually put out on the street, she was arrested, her children went back to the father who had kidnapped them, and one of them was 12 years old and she was married off at 12 years old. These are tragic things that have occurred to American children who have been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia, and the mothers have had to live with that for years and years and years, maybe for the rest of their lives.

So I have talked to Secretary of State Colin Powell about this. He has agreed to take steps to remedy the situation, and now Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos have agreed to an en bloc amendment which will give the State Department the tools necessary to help fight this terrible, terrible tragedy that has been occurring mainly in Saudi Arabia in the Middle East but also in other countries throughout the world.

What the amendment does is it extends to the State Department powers to deny visas to the extended family of abductors, and that includes the spouse, the child, the parent, the grandparent, the aunt, the uncle, the brother, the sister, half-brother, half-sister, cousin, stepbrother, stepsister, nephew, and niece of the person who did the kidnapping. In other words, the extended family of the kidnapper would not be allowed to get visas if the State Department so chose to deny them visas.

I think that is a giant step in the right direction. It puts a lot of pressure on the kidnapper to bring those children back to American to their mother or to the rightful parent. It also requires the State Department to submit an annual report to Congress regarding the measures that they have taken on international child abduction on a country-by-country basis so Congress will be made aware of what is being done to bring these children home to their rightful parent.

It also requires the State Department to send notices regarding child abduction cases to countries where they are believed to be abducted to.

And, finally, this requires the Secretary of State to set forth guidelines on how our Department of State personnel treat abducted persons who seek sanctuary. As I said, there have been cases in the past where our State Department employees at our foreign embassies have not treated these people properly. I believe that is not going to happen in the future.

So I thank Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, for agreeing to work on this; and I especially thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos. They are doing the Lord's work.

Mr. Speaker, for 21 years I have been in the Congress, and for 21 years I have supported the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the people who were fighting for the lives of the unborn, the pro-life organizations. And for 21 years I received accolades from religious organizations all over this country. In fact, the Traditional Values Coalition last year asked me to be a member of their board of directors.

Well, I do not know if my colleagues can see this on television or not, but this was mailed out into my district this past week. It is a picture of a little baby sucking on a pacifier or something, and underneath it is a mother with a package of pills that are supposed to be the RU-486, the abortion pill that would cause an abortion 24 hours after conception, or after conception sometime. It says on the front of it next to this little baby, ``Will Congressman Dan Burton miss an opportunity to protect the sanctity of human life?''

I do not understand that, how a religious organization can be manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry to do this sort of thing. They are supposed to be moral people; and yet I am confident, in fact I am dead sure, that the Traditional Values Coalition did not have the money to mail this kind of trash out to congressional districts all across this country and also do television ads and radio ads going after Congressmen because they believe that seniors ought to be able to get reimported drugs from Canada or Germany or some place else that cost one-sixth or one-tenth of what they cost in the United States.

And the reason the pharmaceutical industry is dead on the reimportation is because they are loading all of their profits on the backs of the American people while they are giving these pharmaceuticals for a much lower price in other parts of the country. Why should Americans pay six times as much money for Tamoxifen as they do in Germany? That is a cancer-fighting drug that women use to save their lives. In Canada and in Germany it costs $60 for a 30- or 60-day supply. In the United States it costs $360. Why should Americans pay that much more than other countries?

It is because the pharmaceutical companies are making so much money; and because they are afraid we are going to pass a reimportation bill, they are going after the people in the Congress who believe that people ought to pay the same prices here as they do other places.

How are they going after us? They are going after us with a meat cleaver, and they are trying to do it under a facade, under a tent so that they do not look like they are the bad guys. I am telling you, the Traditional Values Coalition and the other religious organizations that are putting out this kind of garbage, when they know it is not true, are being funded by the pharmaceutical industries. Now, they might say, oh, no, we are not.

Well, I tell you, tonight on the floor of the U.S. House, I am challenging every one of the religious organizations in this country who have endorsed me year after year after year for reelection, I am challenging them tonight to let us see their financial records because I want to see what the pharmaceutical companies are giving them in order for them to put this kind of stuff out. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the leading advocate for pro-life in this Congress, is a co-sponsor with me and others for the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to make sure Americans pay a fair price for pharmaceuticals. But the pharmaceutical companies are scared to death of that, and so what they are doing is loading up all of these organizations to come after us and to make us look like we are people that we are not.

So I say once again, Traditional Values Coalition who wanted me to be on your board last year because I am such a great guy, I want to see your financial records. Please show me your financial records and let me know that the pharmaceutical companies are not paying for this trash because I believe they are. And I say the same thing to all the other organizations. Jerry Falwell put an editorial in the paper

not long ago about this very same issue, and I think it is a bogus issue, Mr. Falwell; and I would like to see your financial records and Mr. Robertson's and all other religious organizations' financial records who are criticizing us for wanting to reimport pharmaceuticals so Americans pay a fair price.

So please, all of you religious organizations who are concerned about this, as you say you are, let us see your financial records and let us know that you are not taking large amounts of money from the pharmaceutical companies to put out this kind of tripe.

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, a number of us have been coming to the floor of the House to talk about the high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States. We pay more for prescription drugs than any country on the face of the Earth, and many of our senior citizens and others have been going right across the border into Canada and buying pharmaceutical products for half or one- tenth the cost that they are here in the United States.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical companies are doing everything they can to stop Americans from buying pharmaceutical products from Canada by saying that there is a safety issue. The fact of the matter is, we checked, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and myself and others; and we have found no cases, none, where Canadian pharmaceutical products that were made here in the United States and reimported back into this country have caused anybody any harm. Absolutely zero.

Now, in my congressional district, the PhRMA companies have been mailing literature to senior citizens saying that there is a safety issue if you buy pharmaceutical products from Canada because they may be contaminated or counterfeit or something else. We have found no cases like that. But they are mailing them into my district trying to scare people trying to influence them to influence me to change my position. Americans should pay no more for pharmaceutical products than they do in other parts of the world; and yet we pay more, by far, than any country: France, Germany, Spain, Canada, anyplace.

Now, today I was watching television and there is a man I respect a great deal, Neal Cavuto; he has a great television show, and he is a very fair newsman. He had a gentleman on his program that said that there was a real problem with safety of these pharmaceutical products coming in from Canada, and the gentleman who was on was so vociferous and so adamant about this that I feel that he must have been paid by the pharmaceutical companies; and if he is not, he should be. Because he is trying to scare Americans into believing they should not buy these pharmaceutical products from Canada.

We have over a million people a year that buy their products from there because they cost so much less, and the attempt is being made to stop that by the Food and Drug Administration saying they are not safe when there is no evidence of that, and by the pharmaceutical companies who are saying they are following the edicts of the Food and Drug Administration.

Now, we are coming up with a prescription drug benefit before too long, and unless we get a handle on these prices and make sure that the American people are paying prices similar to the rest of the world, the taxpayer is going to be picking up the difference between what they pay in Canada and what they pay here in the United States. The senior citizens want the prescription drug benefit, and we want to give it to them; but we do not want the taxpayers of this country saddled with extremely high prices for the products they can buy right across the border for less money.

So it is extremely important, in my opinion, that we get this message out to the American people. And the pharmaceutical companies have $150 million they are dumping into an ad campaign to try to convince people that these products are not safe when that is just not the case.

So I would just like to say if Mr. Cavuto happens to be watching tonight or any other television commentator, please be fair. Be sure to have the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) or myself or somebody else who has been studying this issue for some time on the program as well to rebut those who are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies to make sure the American people are getting the story straight; not biased, but straight.

Mr. Speaker, normally when I come down here, I bring a litany of pictures, a poster, to show the children who have been damaged, their parents believe, by the mercury that has been used in children's vaccines.

Most Americans do not know this, but since the 1930s, many if not most of our vaccinations for children have contained a product called thimerosal, which is partially mercury, and Members know mercury is toxic to the human brain. As children started getting more and more vaccinations required by school boards across the country, the children got more and more mercury injected into their bodies. My grandson received nine shots in one day as an infant, and seven of those contained mercury. Within a matter of a couple of days he became autistic.

People do not know what autism is unless they have experienced it. He ran around flapping his arms. He was a normal child, would walk, talk, smile and laugh like other children, but he flapped his arms, ran around banging his head against the wall, lost his ability to communicate, and he would not look you in the eye anymore. He has had constant diarrhea or constipation, alternating between the two.

Parents across the country have experienced this. I have received thousands of letters from parents who have autistic children who are convinced that the mercury in these vaccines, which has a cumulative effect on the brain, was a contributing factor to their autism.

About 10 years ago, 1 in 10,000 children were adjudged to be autistic. Now it is 1 in 200. We have a 50-fold increase. It is the biggest epidemic that we can remember as far as children are concerned, and yet the American public is not aware of it. We really have to do something about it.

Back in the 1980s, in order to protect the pharmaceutical companies, we passed the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund Program, and it protected the pharmaceutical companies against lawsuits, but in exchange there was money being put into a fund from each vaccination to take care of those children or adults damaged by vaccinations. It now has $1.8 billion in it. It was supposed to be a nonadversarial program, but it has become very adversarial.

The parents of these children who have had to mortgage their homes and sell their property to help their children, are going bankrupt to take care of their children, have not been able to get a dime out of the fund. And many of those parents did not get in within the 3-year time limit the law required because they were not aware that we had vaccination injury compensation program, and many were not aware that their children were adjudged autistic.

Mr. Speaker, we have to open that program up so that every parent has access to the fund. If we can prove that mercury was the culprit in their children's autism, they ought to be able to get funds from that fund to take care of their family and all of the expenses that they are incurring.

We need to get more money for the IDEA program to help with remedial education for these children that can be helped. If we do not deal with it right now, in 10-15 years when these children become adults, we are going to have a terrible problem because they will not be productive citizens. Many will have to be institutionalized, becoming a burden on the taxpayers. The parents of these children do not want to face that.

Mr. Speaker, we really need to address this issue in both the House and the other body to make sure that every parent has access to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund and has a fair hearing, their fair day in court.

{time} 1930

Mr. Speaker, a number of us met today to review the Republican prescription drug benefit plan that is going to be presented before this House in the not-too-distant future. I have not seen the Democrat plan, but I am sure it has some of the same benefits and some of the same problems.

One of the problems that bothered me the most was that the pharmaceutical industry is going to continue to be able to charge exorbitant prices for many of the prescription drugs that are going to be covered under the prescription drug benefit bill, and that really bothers me.

For the last several weeks, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), myself, and many others on both sides of the aisle have been looking into and complaining about the exorbitant prices that are being charged to Americans as compared to the people in Canada and France and Germany and Spain and other parts of the world. We pay the highest prices for prescription drugs of any country on the face of the Earth; and when we start trying to, as Americans, to buy prescription drugs, the very same drugs that are sold here in America, from Canada, from pharmacies in Canada, where they charge maybe one-fifth or one- half or one-tenth the price of what they are here, the Food and Drug Administration starts saying, oh, my gosh, there is a question of safety; and they threaten to penalize, even prosecute, people who bring pharmaceuticals into this country.

My question has been why is it that the American people are paying two, three, four, five, 10 times as much for pharmaceutical products as they are paying in Canada right next door or in Spain or France or other parts of the world? Now we are going to pass a prescription drug bill that does not address this problem? The taxpayers are going to spend billions, probably trillions, of dollars for pharmaceutical products without any real control over these expenditures?

I am not for price controls. I believe in the free market system; but at the same time, I do not believe the American people should pay exorbitant prices for the same product that is being sold 50 miles away along the Canadian border to the Canadian people, and when Americans go up there to try to save money, because it costs so much for their pharmaceutical products, they are going to be penalized for it and the FDA says that they cannot be reimported into this country, the very same products, and they complain about safety.

We found that there has been absolutely no safety problem whatsoever; and so at this point, unless we make some changes in our prescription drug bill, I am not going to vote for it. I am not going to vote for a bill that is going to charge the American people, the American taxpayer, huge amounts of money for pharmaceutical products for seniors when they can get those same products next door for less money, and that is just something that cannot be tolerated.

In addition to that, what about the rest of us that will not be covered under the prescription drug bill? What about the rest of Americans that are paying these exorbitant prices? Will the additional profits that are going to be made be passed on to them so that they can lower the prices a little bit to benefit the seniors who are covered under the prescription drug benefits of this bill? It is something that we cannot tolerate.

We need to address the entire problem of exorbitant prescription drug prices, pharmaceutical prices here in the United States.

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has been working on this for a long time. I join in his army to try to do something about it. We are not for price controls but the pharmaceutical industry needs to realize we are not going to pay exorbitant prices when they are not charging the same prices in other parts of the world.

They are saying it is because we spend so much on research and development. If that is the case, spread it around, do not load it on the back of the American people.

In addition to that, many, many of these products have been subsidized by the American taxpayer through our health agencies, Health and Human Services. Last night the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) talked about one where $500 million had been spent on research and development, yet Glaxo had a $9 billion profit on this product and they only gave $35 million back in royalties to the United States Government through HHS. Those are things that we cannot tolerate. Something has to be done about it. We are going to continue to

pound on this issue until there are some positive changes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, let me say I want to look at the gentlewoman's approach to making the way we deal with veterans' pharmaceuticals maybe the way that we deal with things under this health bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I mentioned Glaxo that made the $9 billion, and I think they made money on other drugs that we will be discussing later, but the company in question was SmithKline Beecham that made $9 billion and returned only $35 million back in royalties to this government for the patents they had.

Let me just comment on that. If he earned $200 million, maybe he deserved it for ripping off the American people to the tune of $9 billion for their very small investment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) to join me in this small 5-minute Special Order. He just read part of an article in The Washington Post about pharmaceutical products that are manufactured in part with taxpayers money, where the pharmaceutical industry is making billions and billions of dollars while the taxpayer is getting virtually nothing back in return. The American people are paying exorbitant prices for these pharmaceutical products as compared to the rest of the world.

When these products are imported by Americans when they go up to Canada and buy these products, either through the Internet or go to Canada, when they bring them home to use them because they cost one- tenth, one-fifth, or one-half of what they would cost in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration, our regulatory body, says there is a question of safety; and they actually try to block or stop the reimportation of these pharmaceutical products, where the research is paid for in large part by the taxpayers of this country.

So I would like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), maybe he can enlighten me on this subject. Why is it that the Food and Drug Administration is not investigating why the pharmaceutical industry is manufacturing these products with taxpayers' money, or conducting the research with taxpayers' money, making these exorbitant profits, and the money that is given back to the taxpayer in royalties in this country is very nominal, almost nothing, compared to the $9 billion the gentleman cited? Why is it the FDA is not investigating this, instead of stopping the American people from getting these pharmaceutical products at a reasonable price?

Yes. And the question that comes up is why they are not doing that. They are supposed to protect the American consumer and they are supposed to make sure the American consumer gets a fair deal, and it is simply not happening.

I would like to just read from what the gentleman read, real quickly. Squid made $9 billion from Taxol, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and it has been used to treat 1 million cancer patients, but the National Institutes of Health got only $35 million back in royalties. Squibb made $9 million and they only gave $35 million back for the research money that was paid for by the taxpayer. And then down at the bottom it says the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said NIH spent another $484 million in research on Taxol through 2002. So the taxpayers paid for all of this research, but Squibb is making all the money and the taxpayer is getting nothing for it, except a shot in the jaw when they try to buy this product from another country where they can get it cheaper. It makes no sense to me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman and some of our other colleagues, a growing number of our colleagues, in demanding that the GAO do an entire study of this to find out why the American people are being ripped off by the pharmaceutical companies when, in large part, the taxpayer is paying for that research. It makes no sense to me. And why is the FDA, why is the FDA protecting the pharmaceutical industry? It is something that should not be tolerated.

Any other comments from my colleague?

In fact, we found zero on the importation from Canada, we found zero problems with the reimportation, and yet they say it is the safety they are concerned about. It does not make any sense.

I thank the gentleman for all of his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable conflict in my schedule, I was unable to be present during rollcall votes 236-247. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yea'' in rollcall votes 236-239, ``no'' on rollcall votes 240-241, and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 242- 247.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I am sure that the historical accomplishments of Birch Bayh have been covered well by my colleagues. All I want to say is, though he is in the other party, he is a heck of a nice guy.

You can tell a lot about people by their children. Evan Bayh, who is the United States Senator from Indiana and the son of Birch and Marvella Bayh, is in the other party, and we have our differences like all people do on a political basis, but Evan is a real credit to the institution of the United States Senate, and I think a lot of that is due to his mother and his father. Birch Bayh and Marvella Bayh did an outstanding job in raising Evan, and I think he is doing a good job in the United States Senate.

Let me just say that Birch Bayh, who was elected to the United States Senate, I think, when he was 34 years old, did a good job for the State of Indiana, and his wife Marvella was a real leader in Indiana as well.

One of the things that I most appreciate about Birch Bayh was a personal attachment that I received from him when my wife was suffering from breast cancer. His wife, Marvella, died of cancer, as my wife did, and he showed a great deal of concern for me and my family while we were going through that tragedy. And anybody like that, I think, deserves accolades from people regardless of their party affiliation.

Senator Bayh is a fine human being, and he was a fine United States Senator. His wife Marvella was a credit to the State of Indiana, and their son Evan is doing a fine job in the United States Senate and is a credit to both his mother and father. And I want to add my two cents to the applause for Birch Bayh, and I think it is a fine and fitting thing that we are doing here today by naming the Federal building after him.

Born in Terre Haute in 1928, it seemed that Birch Bayh was destined for success. He received an undergraduate degree in Agriculture with distinction from Purdue University, and divided his time after graduating between farming and politics.

In 1955, Birch Bayh became a member of the Indiana General Assembly, and in 1957, he enrolled in law school. While still a law student, he was elected Speaker of the Indian House.

Senator Bayh was a skilled politician and excellent student. He received the prestigious Edwards Scholarship, which is awarded for merit and he graduated with distinction in 1960. However, as we all know, the story doesn't end there!

In 1962, at the age of 34, he was elected to the U.S. Senate and Senator Bayh went on to serve three terms.

As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Bayh was considered one of the Senate's foremost experts in constitutional law. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, he wrote and sponsored two amendments to the Constitution: the twenty-fifth amendment (for Presidential succession in case of death or disability) and the twenty-sixth amendment (lowering the voting age to 18).

From 1977 to 1980, Senator Bayh was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. During his tenure as Chairman, he helped strengthen intelligence gathering while protecting American citizens from abuses of their rights.

Senator Bayh also served on the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on the Environment for 10 years.

In 1976, Senator Bayh entered the race for President of the United States. I have an Internet copy of a Birch Bayh for President 1976 Campaign Brochure. ``Senator Birch Bayh--The Democratic candidate for President with a plan for economic recovery . . .'' All one has to do is change the date and name and it could be used for the 2004 elections.

Senator Bayh's distinguished career goes beyond the Beltway. He was the founding partner in the Washington DC law firm of Bayh, Connaughton & Malone. He also served as the chairman of the Institute Against Prejudice and Violence from 1984 to 1994.

Senator Bayh is currently working for the Washington, DC law firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civilette as a member of the Government Division's Legislative.

Also, Senator Bayh was appointed to the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board by former President Clinton on July 20, 1995 and was reappointed in 1997 and 2000 for a term expiring September 22, 2003.

Senator Bayh's accomplishments are a source of pride for my home state of Indiana. I wish him congratulations on this designation.

[From a Birch Bayh for President 1976 Campaign Brochure]

Senator Birch Bayh--The Democratic Candidate for President With a Plan

for Economic Recovery . . .

``We need a President who is less concerned that too many

jobs will cause inflation, and more concerned that too few

jobs will cause human suffering.''

Two Republican Administrations following a deliberate

policy of planned unemployment, have led us through two

recessions and record inflation. Only a genius for ineptitude

could have produced recession and inflation together. Only a

totally insensitive Republican Administration could have

tolerated both.

Despite some evidence that the current recession has hit

bottom, the American economy is still a long way from

recovery. Economic recovery will not come naturally. Economic

recovery cannot be sustained by doing nothing. Only positive

government action now can produce and sustain an economic

recovery broad enough to put America back to work. That is

the number one priority for a President today . . . and

tomorrow . . .

With unemployment at 8.6 percent and American industry

operating at two thirds of capacity, the President's concern

that too strong a recovery will reignite an inflationary

spiral is misplaced. We need a President who is less

concerned that too many jobs will cause inflation, and more

concerned that too few jobs will cause human suffering.

Nearly 8 million Americans are still unemployed, while

millions more are either underemployed or have given up

looking for employment. We are losing $200 billion a year in

our gross national product--that's more than $3,000 for each

American family and yet inflation continues because

Republican economics is blind to the cost of oil monopolies

and grain deals.

Unemployment cannot cure our current inflation--not only is

it morally wrong, it is bad economics. Inflation is a serious

problem, but the record of the last 5 years is clear--

increasing unemployment does not reduce the monopolistic

price of energy; increasing unemployment does not drive down

the price of food. It only adds to the welfare rolls and

increases unemployment insurance costs.

jobs . . .

I believe that putting Americans back to work is the single

most important task facing the President. A President

committed to putting Americans back to work can do just that

by:

Proposing a major tax cut for low and middle income

families. We need to restore consumer confidence and

stimulate consumer spending. That is the surest way to expand

production and provide jobs. We need a tax cut plain and

simple, without any political gimmicks about budget-cutting.

The President's proposal to balance a tax cut with a budget

cut is unacceptable economic policy. It will not produce and

sustain economic recovery.

Pressuring the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply

substantially and hold interest rates down. We can't afford

to have the Federal Reserve working against an expansionary

fiscal policy. A restrictive monetary policy and higher

interest rates will short-circuit economic recovery before it

is even underway. In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of

monetary policy, we need to curb the independence of the

Federal Reserve. That requires a Federal Reserve Board

responsive to the public interest--shorter terms for members

and publicly arrived at targets for monetary expansion are

necessary ingredients in reforming the Fed.

Proposing a public service jobs program. We can find useful

employment for the innocent victims of Republican engineered

recessions. For example, I was successful in obtaining funds

for a railroad track rehabilitation program that will put

thousands of unemployed railroad workers back on the job--a

job that needs to be done.

Preventing a New York City default by developing a national

guarantee program that will enable state governments to

assist their hard pressed cities. We will never have economic

recovery if New York City defaults and the municipal bond

market collapses. Our recovery is much too fragile to absorb

the shock of default--to say nothing of the disastrous

consequences of the increased cost of borrowing for every

state and local jurisdiction in the nation.

Proposing an anti-recessionary revenue sharing program that

is triggered on and off by the unemployment rate. We need to

temporarily compensate state and local governments for the

increased costs of welfare and for the fall off in revenues

that both result from a failure of national economic policy.

inflation . . .

Despite a major recession, inflation is still a serious

problem? Why? Because of:

A failure in energy policy;

A failure in food policy; and

The monopoly market power of a few firms.

Energy--Oil and gas prices must be regulated. As long as

OPEC maintains its solidarity and the major domestic oil

companies are permitted to follow their non-competitive

practices, there will be no free market in energy. Decontrol

of oil and deregulation of natural gas prices will force all

prices upward, increasing the Consumer Price Index by four

percent. That is clearly inflationary.

Food--Food prices are subject to wide fluctuations in world

demand, and weather conditions that affect production. We

can't control world demand nor the weather, but we can

insulate food prices from these forces by establishing a

strategic grain reserve to achieve a better balance between

supply and demand. A strategic reserve would have to include

safeguards against dumping for political ends--but properly

administered it could mean adequate supplies with price

stability and that is in the long-term interests of family

farmers and consumers alike.

Monopoly Pricing--When 20 oil companies control more than

75 percent of all oil production, refining and marketing in

the U.S., and more than 90 percent of the oil pipeline

capacity, it is clear they have the ability to set prices

without regard to competition or market forces. And that is

exactly what the oil companies are doing. Instead of letting

the oil and other monopolistic forces repeal the law of

supply and demand, we must take decisive action. That is why

I have introduced and held hearings on legislation to break

up the major domestic oil companies. We have a serious

problem. We need a firm response.

Our economy is at a crucial turning point. The problems of

skyrocketing energy and food costs and the inability of the

free market to function effectively have led me to conclude

that recent policy failures are the result of an outdated

view of the American economy. Therefore, I am proposing the

establishment of a Temporary National Economic Committee--

similar to the Committee established by President Roosevelt

in 1938--to publicly investigate the concentration of

economic power in America today.

If economic power is too heavily concentrated in the hands

of a few, then we need stronger anti-trust action. I want the

free enterprise system to work.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and myself are going to be talking this hour about the problems that we have in this country with exorbitant pharmaceutical prices.

We all believe in the free enterprise system, and we believe that private industry ought to make a profit, but we also believe the American people ought to get the best bang for their buck. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has been taking advantage of Americans for a long, long time, and it is just now becoming evident.

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) made this chart up originally, and this chart, I know it is difficult for my colleagues to see, but it shows the disparity between pharmaceutical products purchased in the United States and those purchased in Canada. In some cases, products, pharmaceutical products manufactured here in the United States that are sold in other parts of the world, sell for one- tenth the price that they sell for here in the United States; and yet the American people, when they try to buy those products abroad through the

Internet, are being criticized for that, and the Food and Drug Administration, hiding behind the veil of protecting the public from products that might harm them, are saying that they are not going to allow these Internet sites to sell these products. The very same products sold here in the United States, they are not allowing them to be purchased from Canada or other countries so the American consumer can save as much as 50 percent of their pharmaceutical costs.

I have a constituent who was paying $1,300 a month or $1,200 a month for pharmaceutical products, and he bought the very same products on the Internet from Canada for less than half that amount, so he was saving $7,000 a year by purchasing them from Canada. And now the FDA, along with the pharmaceutical companies, are trying to stop him from doing that.

We have over a million people in this country, probably closer to 2 million, who are buying their pharmaceutical products from Canada over the Internet. But the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA are trying to stop the American people from saving money and getting the products at a fair market price.

Today, in the New York Times there is an article, and I do not quote from the New York Times very often, but there is an article talking about the exorbitant amount of money that the pharmaceutical industry is going to be spending over the next year to influence Congress, State legislators, government agencies and so forth to keep the prices of pharmaceutical products very high in the United States and prohibit the importation or reimportation of their products from other countries where they are selling them much cheaper.

In 1990, PhRMA spent $2.3 million in that cycle here in Washington and around the country. In 1992, it more than doubled to $4.9 million. In 1994, it went to $5.2 million; and in 1996 it went to $9.2 million. In the year 2000, it jumped up to almost $20 million, and it was over $20 million in the year 2002.

Let me read what was in the New York Times today. ``Lobbyists for the drug industry are stepping up spending to influence Congress, the States and even foreign governments as the debate intensifies over how to provide prescription drugs benefits to the elderly, industry executives say.''

The article goes on to say, ``The documents show that the trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, will spend at least $150 million this year. That represents an increase of their total budget of 23 percent over last year which was $121.7 million. Directors of the trade association approved the new budget, together with an increase in membership dues, to pay for an expanded lobbying campaign at a meeting last week. They have over 600 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.''

Here is what they say: ``Unless we achieve enactment this year of market-based Medicare drug coverage for seniors, the industry's vulnerability will increase in the remainder of 2003 and in the 2004 election year,'' and it will demonize the industry if they do not get this done.

Now, we are for market-based pricing. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has said that many, many times. But that should be across the spectrum, not just here in the United States of America. I mean, in Canada if you can buy a product for $70, why should it cost $122 here in the United States right across the border, just a mile apart? And the reason is they are charging an exorbitant amount of money to the Americans, and they are loading the research and development and everything else on the back of American consumers instead of spreading it across the world.

If they are talking about market-based drug coverage for seniors, then the burden should be spread equally across the spectrum, not just here in the United States but across Canada and Europe. If we did that, the price for all Americans would go down dramatically.

The drug trade group plans to spend $1 million for an intellectual echo chamber of economists, a standing network of economists and thought-leaders, to speak against Federal price control regulations through articles and testimony, and to serve as a rapid-response team. A rapid-response team, that sounds like a military action. Well, we want to make sure that we do not have to have price controls.

If we had fair pricing across the spectrum, around the world, then I think the Americans would get a fair price when they buy their products. But unfortunately, the products are a lot lower in other countries, in Europe, in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Canada, in Mexico; much, much less than they are here. Yet they want to keep those prices higher here in the United States so they can keep their profits high.

The trade association and its tactics have become an issue. In debate on the floor of the Senate last summer, Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said PhRMA, this lobby has a death grip on Congress. After seeing what I have seen over the past month, month and a half, I am not so sure he is wrong. The influence that the pharmaceutical industry has in the halls of Congress and in the executive branch mystifies me. We are supposed to be sent here to represent the people of this country, to make sure they get a fair shake across the board. Yet the pharmaceutical industry has been loading huge, huge profits on the backs of the American people while making much smaller profits right across the border in Canada by selling their products at a more competitive rate.

If Americans try to buy them up there now, now they are trying to stop them. The day after the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline said they were going to pull out of Canadian pharmacies that were selling across the border through the Internet, the FDA I think the next day or the day after said there may be a concern about the safety of these pharmaceutical products. And so they were marching in lockstep with the pharmaceutical industry to stop Americans from getting these lower- priced pharmaceutical products, the same products they can get here, from Canada.

Dues from the pharmaceutical industry will go to $144 million, an increase of 24 percent or $28.3 million over this year's dues. In its budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, the pharmaceutical lobby earmarks $72.7 million for advocacy at the Federal level directed mainly at, you guessed it, the Congress of the United States. $72.7 million to lobby us; $4.9 million to lobby the Food and Drug Administration. I do not know if they have to spend that much because I think the FDA is pretty much in their pocket already. And $48.7 million for advocacy at the State level. In addition, the budget sets aside $17.5 million to fight price controls and protect patent rights in foreign countries and in trade negotiations. The PhRMA budget allocates $1 million to change the Canadian health care system and $450,000 to stem the flow of low-priced prescription drugs from online pharmacies in Canada to customers through the Internet here in the United States. I think it is kind of funny. They are going to spend $73 million to lobby Congress and only a million to do it in Canada. I think that is because they feel like it is a lost cause up there.

In a memorandum for the PhRMA board, it says the industry is on the defensive, facing a perfect storm whipped up by several factors, expanding government price controls abroad, resulting in politically unstable crossborder pricing differences; increasing availability of medicines from abroad via Internet sales; State ballot initiatives to make drugs more affordable in the United States; increasing State demands for drug discounts in the Medicaid program; and false perceptions that drug prices are increasing by 20 percent a year. I do not know whether they are going up 20 percent a year, but they are a heck of a lot more here than they are in Mexico, in Canada, in Spain, in Germany, in France and elsewhere.

Let me go into this breakdown a little bit further, and then I will yield to my colleagues. At least $2 million, and perhaps $2.5 million, in payments to research and policy organizations to build intellectual capital and generate a higher volume of messages from credible sources sympathetic to the industry. They are going to hire a bunch of people to be their mouthpieces that are supposedly credible to convince us that we ought to let the American people be saddled with these huge prices while

these same products can be sold elsewhere for a lot less.

$9.4 million for public relations, including $1 million for inside- the-Beltway advertising. $555,000 for placement of op-eds. They are going to buy the op-ed pieces in the newspapers? $555,000 for placement of op-eds and articles by third parties. They are going to hire people to put these articles in and pay them $555,000. I suppose if I wanted to, I could write an op-ed on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, and they would pay me to do it.

$600,000 for polling; $1.3 million for local publicity in 15 States. I suppose that is congressional districts. For instance, in my district this last week, PhRMA went into Kokomo, Indiana, and talked to one of the writers; and they went to the Louisville Courier Journal, on both ends of my congressional district, to try to make the case that I did not know what I was talking about and that I was hurting the people of this country by trying to make sure they get a fair shake on these pharmaceutical prices, and they did that to try to discredit me and hurt me in my congressional district. I have to tell you something, PhRMA PR people, you are making a big mistake. A big mistake.

The Federal affairs staff at PhRMA has quadrupled since 1999. The organization plans to spend $5 million for outside lobbyists at the Federal level. In their campaign contributions, drug companies have favored Republican candidates, but PhRMA has retained a diverse group of lobbyists to ensure access to Democrats as well. I am sure of that. I will not go into who some of their lobbyists are, but my colleagues in the House know that we have a lot of our former colleagues out there that are on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies. Big, big bucks.

The State government affairs division of PhRMA will spend $3.1 million to retain more than 60 lobbyists in 50 States. The number of State legislative proposals dealing with prescription drugs has doubled since 1999. The drug industry says many of these bills are seriously negative, have a high probability of enactment, and require major attention on our part. They want to get it stopped.

They hire 600 lobbyists here in Washington, D.C. That is more lobbyists than we have in Members of the House and the Senate. That is overkill. They only need one for each one of us. What are they going to do with the other 65? I guess they will all go to lunch, have a triple martini lunch. I hope PhRMA is watching this. I really do.

PhRMA said it would spend $12.3 million to develop coalitions and strategic alliances with doctors, patients, universities, and influential members of minority groups. The organization has earmarked several million dollars to foster ties with groups like the National Black Caucus of State Legislators; the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators; and the National Medical Association, which represents the interests of African American doctors. The budget includes $500,000 for efforts to educate and activate Hispanic-Latino organizations at a State and Federal level.

In other words, my colleagues, and I think my colleagues who are here on the floor tonight already know this, they are pulling out all the stops to keep their profits very high here in the United States, to saddle the American people with huge prices while they are selling these pharmaceutical products for a lot lower elsewhere, and they are going to lobby us to death to try to make sure those profits remain high.

I am a free enterprise advocate. I believe in keeping our nose out of the private sector as much as possible; but when an industry starts beating American taxpayers to death and American consumers to death with exorbitantly high prices while at the same time they are selling these same products around the world for less and still making a profit and then they say, we cannot buy them abroad and they threaten the people who sell them to us from abroad with closing them down, then that is wrong. That is bullyism and that is something that cannot be tolerated.

The free enterprise system, God bless it, should not tolerate that kind of activity from any industry. I will say to the pharmaceutical industry right now and I believe the pharmaceutical products have given us the highest quality of health care in the history of mankind, and God bless you for that; but you have gone too far when you start raping the American people; and that is what is going on with these prices right now and it ain't going to work.

The Internet is here to stay. If you push in on one side of the balloon, it is going to pop out someplace else and you better get with the program. Make a profit, but make sure it is fair for everybody. Make sure it is fair for everybody. If you do that, I will be one of your biggest supporters as I have been in the past, and I am sure my colleagues will as well.

We have the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) here, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). Let me get this straight here. I want to make sure that everybody that is paying attention in their office understands this. Congressman Allen is a Democrat. I am a Republican. Congressman Sanders is an Independent. I am a Republican. Congressman Gutknecht, God bless him, is a Republican. I am a Republican. I like you a lot. And Congresswoman Watson is a Democrat from California. But we all see eye to eye on this. This is not a partisan issue. That is why I think the pharmaceutical industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars ain't going to win this battle because they cannot beat us when we are united.

With that, let me yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Before the gentleman departs, let me just say there are five of us here tonight, and I hope that we will all use our influence to educate the rest of our colleagues who are not as conversant with this problem as we might be. You, being one of the leaders on the Democrat side, I hope you will talk to your colleagues, along with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson.)

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague, who has been the leader on this issue for a long time, we all appreciate your hard work. And I understand your saying, shame on us. But the Food and Drug Administration, which we pay for with taxpayers' dollars, should not be protecting the pharmaceutical industry and making sure that these exorbitant profits are made year in and year out, and then coming to the rescue of the pharmaceutical industry when they are trying to stop the reimportation of pharmaceutical products from Canada by saying that there is a safety issue.

It is unconscionable what they are doing over there, and we need to keep the heat on them. So maybe not, shame on the pharmaceutical industry by itself, but shame on them and the FDA and us for not being more responsive.

I think that needs to be dealt with along with the prescription drugs benefits we are going to talk about. I do not want to pass a prescription drug benefit that is going to guarantee the taxpayer paying for these huge profits being realized by the pharmaceutical industry.

Let me go to my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, and then go to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been working on this for a long time as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and I would like to say to my colleagues that not this Thursday but next Thursday we are going to have a hearing in the Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights of the Committee on Government Reform.

I anticipate and hope we will all be there, because we are going to have some witnesses come in from the pharmaceutical industry, and more witnesses come in from areas that can show that these products will be safe coming into the United States. We are going to have people from HHS and FDA there. I think it will be a very illuminating meeting; plus, we have some surprise information that will be coming out of that meeting, as well.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) has been very patient. I thank her very much for being with us. She has been a leader in California on a number of issues involving health. I am happy to say she is my ranking member on our committee, and she does a great job. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, while the gentlewoman was talking, I talked to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and one of the things in the law that the gentlewoman cited was that the FDA had to show that the products coming in were safe.

Why do we not turn that around by amendment and say that the FDA has the burden of proof placed upon it to prove that pharmaceutical products coming into the country are not safe? And if we did that, that would open up the borders so people could buy these pharmaceutical products, and the FDA would have the burden of proof on its shoulders to prove they are not safe in order to stop them from coming in.

I will have a bill drafted; and if Members would be willing, I would like them to cosponsor this change.

I think maybe that would be a good idea. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a great idea to make the FDA respond by having a GAO study that does exactly what the gentleman is saying, to show how many people have suffered or died or worse because they could not get the prescription drug benefits. So that should be in our request to GAO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the gentlewoman from California.

We are just about out of time, but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) came down to the floor and requested a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming down and joining us. We hope that he, along with a lot of our colleagues on both sides, will join with us in this fight to get this job done.

We are just about out of time. If the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) needs time, I will yield to him.

Let me just say one more time to the PhRMA people, if they happen to be following this discussion tonight, the people in the pharmaceutical industry, we all agree that they have done a great deal for mankind and they have

given us the highest quality of health in the history of man; but at the same time, there is a limit to how much they can expect out of our veins as far as the price of pharmaceutical products, especially when we know those products are being sold for a lot less elsewhere. This fight is not going to end until we obtain victory.

I want to tell them there are a lot of people here, besides those tonight, who are committed to making sure that we get these prices of pharmaceutical products down to a level that is acceptable for the American people, as they are in other parts of the world. No matter how much money the pharmaceutical companies spend or PhRMA spends, they ain't going to win this battle.

So I think they need to get with the program instead of trying to stop Niagara Falls with a sieve. It is not going to work. I think Lincoln said it the best. He said, ``You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,'' and this is so transparent the American people are going to get it and they are going to get it very quickly.

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

One-sixth.

I thank my colleagues, and we will be taking special orders in the future. I hope they will join with me when we do that, and I look forward to even the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), if he has the time, to come to our hearing, which is a week from Thursday, because it is going to be a very important hearing on this entire subject.