Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about an issue that everyone should be aware of and I think more and more Americans are becoming concerned about and that is the rising cost of health care here in the United States. Some of the estimates this year, and we are talking to small businesspeople in my district, they are looking at increases in the cost of their health care of anywhere from 10 percent to 40 percent and some even more than that. One of the ideas that has been around for a number of years in terms of controlling the costs of health care in the United States is the concept of medical savings accounts. This is a plan that really goes back a long ways. As a matter of fact, in my district where we have an awful lot of farm families, they in effect have had medical savings accounts for a very long time. What they do is they essentially use their checking account as the medical savings account, but the principle is relatively simple and that is where people can put money away, either through their employer or individually, into a medical savings account to pay those ongoing medical bills. At the same time, they buy a catastrophic insurance policy that will pay those catastrophic expenses if they should come down with cancer, if they should need a major surgery, something like that. Catastrophic insurance is relatively inexpensive. And so in the last several years we have allowed more and more of the employers to do these medical savings accounts, to set up these programs on a pretax basis so that they get the advantages of the Tax Code. But there was one major, glaring error and omission from the legislation we passed in the past here in the Congress and that is that public employees could not participate in these. And so I have been talking to my public employees back in Minnesota. They would very much like to participate in medical savings accounts for a whole variety of reasons, one of which is it is a way that they can begin to save money for long-term care, because we are now beginning to

realize we are all getting older. I happen to be 52 years old. I was born in 1951. There were more babies born in 1951 than any other year, we are the peak of the baby boomers, and we are looking at this thing and saying, are there ways we can begin to put money away for long-term care. One of the ways you can do that is with medical savings accounts. But it is a glaring omission and it is terribly unfair to say that private employees in the private markets can go ahead and have access to these medical savings accounts but public employees cannot.

And so today I am introducing along with my colleagues the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) the Minnesota MSA Empowerment Act of 2003. Essentially what this bill will do is allow public employees on a pilot program basis to have access to the same kind of programs that private employees have access to. It is a very good bill. It is a way for us to actually find out just how well these MSAs will work, especially with public employees. I am confident that they will work if they are given a chance. This is a pilot program just for Minnesota to demonstrate that MSAs will work for the consumer, they will work to help reduce the cost of health care and ultimately make it possible so people can begin to set aside dollars long-term for long- term care.

This is a good piece of legislation. I hope the people of the appropriate policy committees will give it a fairing hearing and if they will I am confident that ultimately this will become law. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I came to the well of the House, and I said that the FDA had declared war on American consumers. Now the battle is joined.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a brochure, a little brochure that my staff and I have put together. On the cover it says, ``If we want to allow Americans to keep and spend over $600 billion during the next 10 years, here is a good place to start.'' Then at the bottom you have a picture of some pharmaceutical capsules.

Then if you open the brochure, the second page says, ``That is right. According to the CBO,'' that is congressional language for the Congressional Budget Office, they are our official bean counters, ``According to the CBO, American seniors will spend over $1.8 trillion.'' By ``seniors'' they mean only those people who are 65 years of age or older. So over the next 10 years, the CBO tells us that seniors alone will spend over $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs.

Now, a conservative estimate, not done by me, but by experts who are a whole lot smarter than I am, a conservative estimate would be that we can save 35 percent by allowing free markets to work. Again, I am not particularly good at math, but 35 percent times $1.8 trillion works out to $630 billion.

Here we have a chart. This is the latest chart. I have actually had in the last 4 years four different charts. I do not use my own numbers, although we have actually done our own research to confirm that these are very accurate in terms of the average prices that Americans pay, and these are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

Let us start right at the top, a drug called Augmentin. Here in the United States, according to the Life Extension Foundation that has been doing research on this for more than a decade, the average price for a 30-day supply in the United States is $55.50. That same drug sells in Canada for about $12, and it sells in Europe for an average price of only $8.75. There are differences in the value of currency, but the net effect is that Americans pay that much more for the same drug.

Look at another drug, a drug made by a German company called Bayer. We usually call it Bayer, Bayer Aspirin. Cipro became real popular last year when we had anthrax here in these buildings, because it is one of the most effective drugs for things like anthrax. But Cipro in the United States sells for an average of $87.99 for a month's supply. In Canada it sells for $55.53 cents, and in Europe, in Germany, where they make it, they sell it for $40.75.

The list goes on. Let me talk about a drug called Coumadin. My 85- year-old father takes Coumadin. Fortunately, because he worked for a union all of his life, worked as a union worker all of his life, under his contract he has prescription drug coverage, so it does not cost him $64.88, which is what it costs the average American consumer in the United States if they do not have prescription drug coverage; $64.88 in the United States, $24.94 in Canada, and only $15.80 in Europe.

The list goes on. This is reflective, and it goes on and on and on.

Down here, I put a famous quote by one of my favorite Presidents, President Ronald Reagan. He said, ``Markets are more powerful than armies.'' At the end of the day, you cannot hold markets back; but unfortunately, that is what is happening in the United States.

Now, I have no qualms with the big pharmaceutical industry in the sense that they ought to be able to sell their drugs for what they want to sell them for. But they should not be allowed to hide behind the FDA to do it. So I do not say shame on them as much as I say shame on us. It is we the Congress, we the policymakers here in the United States that have allowed these disparities to happen.

Finally, we are having a big debate right now about tax cuts, how much should we give in tax cuts. Is it going to be $625 billion or $535 billion or $375 billion?

Tax cuts are great, particularly at a time when the economy is soft. But if we really want to help seniors, if we want to lower prescription drug prices and allow Americans to keep and spend $630 billion of their money over the next 10 years, let us open markets now.

Finally, it just says simply Americans deserve world-class drugs at world-class prices. All we are asking for is open markets. All we want is what German pharmacists have the right to do, and that is buy drugs where they can get them the cheapest.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to one of my heroes. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) held a hearing last week, and it was one of the best hearings I have ever participated in.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely right. What is being done by some of the big pharmaceutical companies is nothing short of shameful. I also say shame on us.

I said the other day that Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave, the Republican President who believed in breaking up the trusts, in enforcing competition, because he understood, as President Reagan understood, that markets are more powerful than armies.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to live up to its responsibilities. It is time for Congress to allow Americans to have access to world-class drugs at world-market prices.

Mr. Speaker, a new drug war is starting. The first shots have been fired by the FDA. Those shots are being fired at American seniors. This is a dumb fight, dumbly fought.

The Bush administration, which claims to support open markets, must decide whether it will stand with American consumers or with the new elitist drug lords that run the multinational pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA has decided to use the iron fist of the Federal Government to defend the abusive monopolistic practices of those drug lords. This is a policy and political mistake of historic proportions.

Who is the FDA really trying to protect? Surely Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. This bipartisan bill is the result of efforts to bring farmers, sportsmen's groups, conservation organizations, and government agencies together to develop a strategy to monitor water quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. H.R. 961 provides a coordinated, public-private approach to reducing nutrient and sediment losses in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Relying on existing federal, state and local programs, the bill establishes a water quality monitoring network and an integrated computer-modeling program. These monitoring and modeling efforts will provide the data needed to make scientifically and economically sound conservation decisions that will benefit southern Minnesota and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct something that our colleague from Texas just said. He said that the only way to do this is to deal with it in this bill. This bill is simply a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning for another week. There will be plenty of time for this kind of debate. I think they will find plenty of support on this side of the aisle for the first responders. I do not think there is anybody over here who does not appreciate what the first responders do. But the fact of the matter is that the bill that is before us today is a continuing resolution to keep the government open. I think we all agree that that ought to happen. Nobody here, not on that side, not on this side, wants the government to shut down. So the idea that it has to be done on this bill or it will not get done is simply not true.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously there will be debate when the matter comes before the House on the bill coming back from the Senate. I suspect there will be additional debate when we take up the budget resolution and the appropriation bills for the next fiscal year. There will be adequate time both in that year and in this year to have that debate, but that is not the debate for this afternoon.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, well, the good news is this year the House and the Senate are under the same management. We do expect thorough debates on all of the appropriation bills this year; and more importantly, we expect for the first time in a year and a half they will actually have a budget resolution in the Senate that we can work with and that will make life easier for both of us.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit because it violates section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, Section 302(c) prohibits the consideration of any amendment that provides for new budget authority for a fiscal year until the Committee on Appropriations has made the suballocations required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.

This motion to recommit increases the amount of budget authority provided by the measure. The suballocations published by the Committee on Appropriations on October 10 of 2002 lapsed upon the adjournment of the 107th Congress, and no 302(b) suballocations have been made for the 108th Congress. Hence I make the point of order that this motion to recommit violates section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Chair rule.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.