Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this appropriations bill.

While there are some positive steps taken in this bill in the area of transportation and medical facilities, once again, the public trust is being turned over whole hog to special interests. Taxpayers are being asked to subsidize important special interests, just like we did in the prescription drug bill and as we did in the energy bill. Under those pieces of legislation, taxpayers are being overcharged 40 percent by the pharmaceutical industry when we could have competitive pricing. And in the energy bill, somewhere close to $20 billion, taxpayers are subsidizing the energy industry, the most profitable industry, and underwriting their business mission. They want to drill for oil, they should do it without taxpayers subsidizing their activities.

Today, this bill is cut from the same cloth as the prescription drug and the energy legislation. This measure contains $50 million to build an indoor rain forest, $725,000 for a ``Please Touch Museum,'' $90,000 for olive fruit fly research in Montpelier, France, $75,000 for a North Pole Transit System, all this while we refuse to increase college assistance and Pell Grants for middle-class families, while we refuse to increase funding for the Leave No Child Behind in the area of education.

Sadly, for middle-class families and taxpayers, the culture of dependency, the culture of welfare has dominated these three bills, whether they be the prescription drug bill, the energy bill, or this appropriation bill. We must end welfare as we know it. The culture of dependency that has been dominated by corporate and special interests, and have turned the government, whole cloth, into a subsidy and ATM machine for the special interests.

Mr. Speaker, this is another missed opportunity to end this new form of welfare that is being abused in government. For these reasons, I urge Members to vote against this appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, the 3-hour wheel of fortune that we witnessed the other day is reflective of the 3-week wheel of fortune, where the public interest and the public trust had been turned into a piggy bank for the special interests. There are 635 pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. If you walked down the hall, they were usually your shadow in this place. The reason we are talking about the process today is because the process was reflective of the policy and what happened and produced in this legislation, that is, the pharmaceutical industry when it came to dealing with the issue of price and affordability of prescription drugs, the will of the pharmaceutical industry was reflected but not the will of either our taxpayers or our senior citizens who are being forced into a system that requires that they pay 40 percent more than anybody in Canada and Europe.

What we can do for our veterans, we can do for our seniors and get them to use bulk negotiations, which is a free market. Everybody on this side always says, I wish the government would act more like a business. We try to get it to act like a business, and what do you do? You turn your back on it. We can use either way to affect the price here.

This is a debate that has now taken the public interest and the public trust and has turned it into a piggy bank for the special interests.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation to stop the unethical, and in certain cases, criminal conduct by some of our Nation's most respected accounting firms that market abusive tax shelters under the guise of ``non-audit services'' to the public companies whose books they audit--in effect auditing their own work. The Auditor Independence and Tax Shelters Act, cosponsored by Representatives Mark Foley, Bart Stupak, Dave Camp, and

Tom Lantos, will eliminate this irreconcilable conflict of interest that fuels the engine of an ever-expanding tax shelter industry.

Ongoing Senate hearings and the General Accounting Office investigations reveal that tax revenue lost from known shelters totaled $33 billion over the past decade, and that losses from undetected shelters could total another $52 billion. Last year, for example, an abusive tax shelter known as ``Slapshot'' was expected to produce tax breaks exceeding $120 million for Enron. It was based on a $1 billion loan and concealed by a highly intricate combination of loans and stock transactions occurring within minutes of each other that were designed to prevent tax regulators and authorities from discovering what really happened.

As William McDonough, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board recently said, major accounting firms have suffered a ``complete ethical collapse.'' Chairman McDonough added during recent testimony before Congress that the willingness to sell faulty tax shelters and hide them from the IRS is ``immensely and immorally repugnant.'' Moreover, David Clay Johnston of the New York Times and author of Perfectly Legal, reports that tax avoidance among corporations and upper-income individuals is far outrunning the audit capacity of the IRS. He estimates that a $113 billion gap exists between what corporations should be paying and what they actually pay. Clearly, the burden of this gap in tax receipts is being shouldered by middle-class families.

In response to this costly and unethical practice, our legislation prohibits auditors from providing those tax shelter services for which a significant purpose is the avoidance or evasion of federal income tax to the publicly traded corporations they audit. The bill also prohibits auditors from offering tax shelter services to the corporation's officers and directors. Additionally, guiding principles under this bill will clarify how audit committees decide whether the corporation's auditor may provide certain non-audit services to the corporation. If the audit committee finds that a proposed service would reasonably result in an impairment of the auditor's independence by violating one of these principles, the audit committee would be unable to approve the proposed service.

Under our legislation, auditors would still be able to market tax reduction strategies to other companies and individuals, but not to the companies that they are responsible for auditing. This is a common sense approach to protecting our investors and American middle-class families from the increasing cost and the expanding prevalence of tax shelters, which should be exposed for what they really are--unfair and unpatriotic corporate behavior, and which should be stopped once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 686, which strengthens poison prevention in America and guarantees funding for our nation's 74 poison control, information and treatment centers. Each year these centers save countless lives, and it is critical that we ensure the financial stability and public awareness they need to best serve the American people.

As our nation's primary line of defense against poison-related injuries and deaths, these centers provide physicians and the general public with direct access to life-saving information. Health care professionals rely on these centers for immediate, around-the-clock assessments and treatment recommendations for many types of poisonings, overdoses and drug interactions affecting people of all ages. Parents who find their child has consumed a toxic substance can receive immediate professional help with one phone call, any time, day or night.

Over 90 percent of all accidental poisonings take place in the home. More than 50 percent of these accidents involve children under the age of six, with more than one million young children exposed to toxins annually. When a child's life is potentially in danger, parents need to know immediately where to go for help. Too often parents are unaware of the services provided by poison control centers and turn to costly and time-consuming options such as rushing to emergency rooms at distant hospitals. In response to this situation, this bill provides for both a nationwide toll free number connected to local poison control centers, and a new media campaign to call the public's attention to services available through this number.

My home state of Illinois is served by the nation's oldest poison control, information and treatment center, the Illinois Poison Center. The IPC has expertly served the needs of metropolitan Chicago since 1953, and handles approximately 100,000 cases throughout the state of Illinois each year. In 1985, my state was served by five regional poison control centers, but only IPC remains after deep budget cuts over the years. We must ensure that our nation's remaining centers receive the support they need to continue serving the public.

Our nation's Poison Control and Information Centers also play a vital role in managing public health crises, environmental disasters, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. In July of 2000, the Illinois Poison Center was the first to respond to a nitric acid leak at a Chicago factory. In December of that same year, the IPC was again the first to respond, this time to an anthrax threat at the British- American Chamber of Commerce in Chicago. And, in August of 2001, the IPC responded to a toxic chemical spill on the Dan Ryan Expressway.

The Illinois Poison Center has developed protocols for response and notification of proper governmental agencies when these events occur, and it is also a participant in regional disaster drills throughout the metropolitan Chicago area. Poison control and information centers like the IPC are a critical part of our nation's emergency response and disaster preparedness systems.

Poison centers represent a cost effective investment that benefits the public health. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that every dollar spent on a poison center saves seven dollars in unnecessary medical costs.

Mr. Speaker, I commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation. This bill is good for the health, safety and security of the American people. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for S. 686.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in congratulating former Senator Paul Simon, who will be celebrating his 75th birthday on November 29. As one of Illinois' favorite sons, and a man who fought hard for the people of the United States in this building for twenty- two years, it is only appropriate that this body honor one of the most outstanding and respected leaders our country has ever known.

Born in Eugene, Oregon on November 29, 1928, Paul Simon moved to Troy, Illinois upon his graduation from college and worked as a newspaper editor and publisher, eventually building a chain of fourteen weekly papers. After serving in the United States Army from 1951-1953, Senator Simon first ran for elective office in 1955, winning a seat in the Illinois General Assembly. He served as a State Representative from 1955-1963 and as a State Senator from 1963-1968. From 1969-1973 he served our state as Lieutenant Governor. He was elected to the Ninety- fourth Congress, and served in the House from 1975 to 1985. In 1984 he won election to the Senate and served until 1997 when he chose not to run for reelection. Additionally, Senator Simon was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 1988, winning the Illinois Primary.

As a Member of Congress, Senator Simon championed many progressive issues, many of them long before they became fashionable, including campaign finance reform and the creation of new programs to make college more affordable and accessible for our children.

Since retiring from elected office, Senator Simon has continued to advance a lifetime passion of his: education. The founder and Director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, Senator Simon still teaches classes in journalism, political science and history. The author of over a dozen books, his 1998 autobiography P.S. remains a must-read for those interested in Illinois politics in the post-war period. Additionally, Senator Simon was one of the founders of the magazine Illinois Issues, which remains the definitive journal of Illinois' political landscape.

But despite winning elections in five different decades, serving his state and country in many different capacities, and being a leading educator, Senator Simon's character, integrity and intelligence are what have made him the most enduringly popular political figure in our state. The advice and support of Senator Simon remains cherished by those of us who have attempted to advance his ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to congratulate a true hero of mine and the entire State of Illinois, Senator Paul Simon, on the occasion of his 75th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle always talk about being the protectors of the free market system and believes if the free market would operate without government hindrance, business would be fine and society would be fine.

This week this House passed an energy bill that gave $20 billion of taxpayer money to companies to do drilling for oil, do their basic services, when they should be doing that on their own without taxpayer subsidies.

Now, we are about to pass a prescription drug bill that pays HMOs $80 billion to provide health insurance.

These are the bastions of capitalism? We used to have ``end welfare as we know it.'' This is a new form of welfare. These are businesses who have come to rely on the government subsidies as the only way to operate their businesses. I think that today, rather than being the culture of the protectors of capitalism and the principles of capitalism, the Republican Party has become the bastions of the culture of welfare and we need to end welfare as it is being abused in our society.

Lately, the way I have seen our government turn into literally a culture of welfare for corporate and special interests, I am beginning to think that we have been caught captive in the Never Never Land. It is not Michael Jackson, it is us who have been caught here in this culture of welfare that has come to dominate and be used by businesses that have come to rely on the government, and the taxpayers more importantly, to afford their basic bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle who worked in a bipartisan way to draft a good, strong bill with new identity theft protections and consumer protection. A special thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for cosponsoring the amendment ensuring that this conference report has landmark provisions preventing banks and insurance companies from accessing and using the most sensitive private information of a consumer, medical information.

This medical privacy bill gives consumers a safe harbor they deserve by blacking out the use of medical information and making it off limits to banks and insurance companies. They cannot access it, period. This agreement makes that the law.

These new protections should go a long way to addressing America's concerns that their medical, mental health, or DNA information could be shared or used against them by banks and credit bureaus, when they apply for a mortgage, rent an apartment, or join a club. No one applying for a home should have to worry about a bank using their past cancer treatments against them. When this becomes law, they will not have to. This is a win for consumers and for the financial services industry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.

The conferees have three opportunities in this bill to lower the price of prescription drugs. They could have opened the markets and allowed prescription drugs to compete and allowed competition and choices to bring prices down. They passed.

They could have allowed Tommy Thompson to lower prices and create a Medicare Sam's Club, a right enjoyed by private companies and businesses everywhere in this country. They took a pass.

They could have included meaningful provisions for generics to get to market to create competition. They took a pass.

This box of Zocor, a cholesterol drug, was purchased in Germany for $41. Here in the United States it cost $90. It went up 10 percent the last year. It is going up another 10 percent this year.

The only immediate benefit that comes out of this bill is the political benefit that its supporters are expecting in 2004. The elderly, on the other hand, will have to wait until 2006. Hopefully, they can survive 2 years while the politicians take their victory lap.

Mr. Speaker, as we address the issue of prescription drugs and as speaker after speaker is speaking about prescription drugs, there are three attempts to deal with out-of-control prices of prescription drugs that are going up on average 20 percent a year:

One is through the free market principle of reimportation, allowing Americans to buy drugs in either Europe or Canada. Second, bulk negotiation, creating a Sam's Club using the power of 40 million seniors to purchase drugs at reduced prices like they do in Europe and in Canada. And, third, through speedy introduction of generic medications to market to bring competition to price.

In all three areas, the pharmaceutical industry got what they want, and this Congress punted on getting the price reduction as it relates to pharmaceutical prices. We need to offer the taxpayers who are about to be asked to spend $400 billion of their money, $400 billion of taxpayer money, we owe them the common decency and courtesy to get them the best price, either through the free market principle, through creating negotiation bulk prices to get prices reduced, or generics. In each area, this Congress punted on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am proud to rise in strong support of this legislation. It is a remedy for the absence of a consistent, clear, and strong policy towards Syria today. And while we pass this bill today, we are sending a strong signal by passing this bill that Syria will be treated like other state sponsors of terrorist organizations.

Today, over in Iraq the Iraqi council, with the American administration support, buys electricity in a swap deal for energy and oil, inconsistent with both the principles and the values embedded in this policy. On the northern border of Iraq, we have opened up in dialogue with Syria a free trade zone, again inconsistent especially with the policy of this act and the values and the principles embedded here.

It is my hope here we not only send a signal to Syria when it comes to being a state sponsor of terrorism but to the administration that we must have a consistent policy, not one that says as a state sponsor of terrorism that you have penalties but on the other side we will continue to do trade as it relates to electricity, continue to do trade as it relates to opening up a trade zone between Iraq and Syria. If we want to buy electricity, there are sources like Turkey, Jordan, countries that are partners with America.

So it is my hope that we support this bill which is a good first step to sending a signal to Syria that its days of sponsoring terrorism are coming to an end and that the administration should announce a policy that sends a strong, consistent, unambiguous signal we will not do business with states that sponsor terrorism.

Once again, I want to associate myself with my colleagues who have worked so hard on this and for their great work. Again, it crosses both parties because it represents the values of all of those in the House and other democratic nations in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, this week we will be taking up the prescription drug bill, and what I find interesting, a number of us on both sides of the aisle have worked on the issue of bringing the cost of medications down to a level that our grandparents and parents could get the medications they need at the prices they can afford.

There are three ways to address the issue of price and affordability. One is through the issue of market mechanisms and free markets, allowing competition, people to buy their medications in Canada, Italy, France, Germany, having it brought into the United States at the prices where they are 40 to 50 percent cheaper and bringing that competition to bear on the price of medications. We have a closed market as it relates to pharmaceutical products. We are not allowed to have competition. Therefore, Americans pay the highest prices in the world. If we brought competition in, medications like Lipitor, Zocor, seeing what we see all over on our TV would be at the same prices that people in France, Germany, Canada, and England are paying at a 40 to 50 percent discount of what we see in our corner grocery store.

The second way we would bring prices down would be to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Republican former Governor Tommy Thompson, to negotiate and create a Sam's Club out of Medicare. Like all the Sam's Clubs throughout the country, using the power of 41 million seniors, we can negotiate lower prices and bring bulk and the purchasing power of our seniors down. That is what a Sam's Club does. That is what everybody does and the private insurance business does.

This legislation prohibits the free market from operating, prohibits Sam's Clubs from being created under Medicare and also does a very weak job of allowing generics in the market to compete at a generic price versus a name-brand price.

In these areas we could get competition, bring the prices down to an affordable level so our parents and grandparents could afford the medications they need whether that be blood thinner, cholesterol medication, medication for their heart. In each area, Members of the Republican Congress in this body and the other body chose to ignore the free market and chose to keep prices artificially high here in America.

This is not only unfair to the seniors. What is worse, it is unfair to the taxpayers. I think we owe the common courtesy and decency to the taxpayers to get them the best price rather than the most expensive and premium price that they are paying today. If we are going to borrow $400 billion in the largest expansion of an entitlement in over

40 years, do my colleagues not think we owe the common courtesy and decency to the taxpayers to get them the best price, not the premium price?

Today, Americans pay the most of any industrialized country for pharmaceutical products. Yet on each of the areas, market access and competition, bulk purchasing, or in generics, the conference took a punch. I understand why. I am not naive to politics. I understand who benefits.

There was an article in The Washington Post showing that the pharmaceutical industry would garner $132 billion in additional revenue from this legislation, and who do my colleagues think is going to give that $132 billion? Our parents, grandparents, and the taxpayers. That is the way the system works, but in each of these cases we could have done something to lower prices and make the needed medications more affordable and more accessible, and we chose not to.

That is why I am opposing this legislation. It does nothing to affect the price of prescription drugs that on average has gone up 15 to 20 percent a year as the cause of inflation. Prescription drugs are one of the single reasons for the rise of inflation in health care in general. We could do something to affect the prices of medications and we chose not to.

I think it is important to know, as somebody whose life was saved by types of medications, what the pharmaceutical industry does is very important. The research they do is very important. We Americans are the leaders in the world in new pharmaceutical research, and the reason is because the pharmaceutical industry here in the United States is the beneficiary of the generosity of the taxpayers. The research and development tax credit, all the research and development of new medications, life-saving medication is paid for by the taxpayers.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, AT&T Wireless announced that they are going to lay off nearly 10 percent of their workforce, 3,000 employees, and outsource hundreds of other jobs to India. These 3,000 employees will be added to the 9 million Americans who already cannot find work and the 2 million Americans who are defined as long-term unemployed Americans. This economy, although growing, is stalled. As Goldman Sachs recently described, it is not a jobless economy, it is a job-loss recovery. As we have reached record consumer debt and bankruptcy, long-term record unemployment, adding additional employees today by the announcement of AT&T Wireless to lay off 3,000 employees, this economy is not working for middle-class Americans.

There are some in this Chamber who like to spike the ball on the 40- yard line and declare the mission accomplished as it relates to the economy. This economy is not working for middle-class families who find health care costs skyrocketing out of control, college costs skyrocketing out of control, their job in a tenuous position, and their bankruptcy and consumer debt rising faster than they can meet the demands of their family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask that Members of this Chamber focus on the needs of middle-class families and get the economy moving by producing jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.

Section 202 of the manager's amendment requires the commission to issue rules that will protect mutual fund investors against conflicts of the interest created by the situation where the same individual serves as a portfolio manager of both a mutual fund and a hedge fund. This provision generally bans joint management of the two types of funds by the same individual. I note that the joint management of such funds by the same individual could create conflict whereby mutual fund investors effectively subsidize the hedge fund managed by the same individual.

Is it your understanding that the rules that the commission will be promulgating pursuant to the section will address those conflicts of interest?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I support H.R. 2420 for the simple reason that I think it is essential to replace and retain, but also reconstruct the Good Housekeeping seal that the mutual fund industry has had for so long. They have lost it in the last 6 months.

This legislation would restore that seal, that sense that people's money, the middle-class investors' money is safe with the mutual fund. How it would do that is it would reverse the culture and the practice that has been developed in the mutual fund industry where the manager's strategy, the manager's mentality is, heads I win; tails the investors lose.

That is what has been going on. This legislation is not only a good step in the right direction, it is a strong step in the right direction.

As we just were talking a second ago about the relationship between mutual funds and hedge funds, I know as the Senate takes this up, we have more work to do in this area. In my view for too long we have a culture that has been developed in the industry where it is self- serving to the management. It is essential now as the relationship between mutual funds and hedge funds exist in the same family, to go beyond the individual area, but to ensure that the mutual fund investor does not subsidize the well-to-do investors in the hedge fund.

We have made sure that if we are going to allow that to exist, that real walls exist between the mutual fund industry and the hedge funds inside those families; and that those walls that boast sharing of research, staffing, IPO's, that, in fact, there is a wall that exists so we get back that culture, get back that mentality, look for other conflicts of interest and deal with them in this legislation.

I am proud like we did in the Fair Credit Reporting Act which we will soon vote on, that again here in this step we have bipartisanship, taking the right type of steps to ensure that the democratic capitalism and culture of the most fluid markets that exist in the world and the most open markets continue to be encouraged; that mom-and-pop investors that save for college and save for retirement, that their funds are safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. Con. Res. 48, recognizing the goals of National Epilepsy Awareness Month.

Passing this resolution sends a strong signal of support to the 2.3 million Americans who suffer from this heart-breaking condition and life-threatening condition, and most importantly to their families.

Current treatments help for some, but not all. Twenty-five percent of all patients experience seizures which cannot be controlled, placing them in danger of irreversible damage. I applaud the continuing efforts of the researchers and medical professionals who improve the lives of those afflicted by epilepsy and who work towards its eventual cure. They deserve our unwavering support.

I want to also recognize one Chicago-based organization, which I am intimately and personally involved with. Through nationwide grass roots efforts, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, or CURE, seeks to find a cure for pediatric epilepsy and to raise public awareness of the disease, and they deserve our thanks.

Epilepsy is a cross-cultural condition that strikes people of all ages and income levels. In fact, 3 percent of all Americans will develop epilepsy by the time they reach age 75. Millions of people confront this tremendously challenging physical barrier to completing their education, working in the workplace, and supporting a family. Some must face this challenge without access to proper treatment.

We must support the effort of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control in their continued pursuit to improve these treatments. We must expand access to these treatments to all afflicted Americans regardless of income. And we must increase awareness among the American people of the severity and prevalence of this health crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues in the Senate for passing this important resolution, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support S. Con. Res. 48.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. Con. Res. 48, recognizing the goals of National Epilepsy Awareness Month. Passing this resolution sends a strong signal of support to the 2.3 million Americans who suffer from this debilitating condition and to their families. It signals our commitment to raising awareness of epilepsy and to providing the research funding needed to eradicate this heartbreaking and life-threatening condition.

Earlier this year, I circulated to my colleagues an article from the February 18th edition of the New York Times. It described mounting new evidence about seizures, its causes and effects, and the need for increasing research. There is growing awareness

among physicians and researchers that seizures can lead to brain damage, increased susceptibility to more frequent seizures, and even sudden death.

There has been a dramatic increase in epilepsy research over the last decade, but there is still much work to be done. Twenty-five percent of epileptic patients have uncontrollable seizures. Current treatment does not prevent some patients from suffering seizures and irreversible damage. That is why we have a responsibility to expand research to improve these treatments.

In my hometown of Chicago, one organization that is working to improve treatments for epilepsy is Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy, or CURE. CURE is a national organization founded by parents of children with epilepsy, which, through grassroots efforts, seeks to find a cure for pediatric epilepsy and to raise public awareness of the disease and its devastation.

Epilepsy is a cross cultural condition that strikes people of all ages and income levels. In fact, 3 percent of all Americans will develop epilepsy by the time they reach age 75. That's 3 percent who must confront a tremendously challenging physical barrier to completing their education, contributing in the workplace, and supporting a family life. While it is a formidable and daunting challenge, there is good news. Although existing treatments may not cure epilepsy, they can certainly help patients confront the challenge and lead normal, productive and happy lives. The bad news is that not all Americans have access to these services. Because they lack the resources for comprehensive treatment, they, their families, and their communities suffer needlessly.

We must support the efforts of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control in their continued efforts to improve these treatments. We must expand access to these treatments to all afflicted Americans regardless of income. And we must increase awareness among the American people of the severity and prevalence of this health crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues in the Senate for passing this important resolution, as well as the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown, for introducing a companion resolution in the House. I also applaud the continuing efforts of the researchers and medical professionals who improve the lives of those afflicted by epilepsy, and who work towards its eventual cure. They deserve our unwavering support. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for S. Con. Res. 48.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time.

People from around the world come to America for their medical care. Yet Americans are forced to go around the world for their medications. Why? Because we have the most expensive prices for prescription drugs anywhere in the world right here in the United States; and yet all the medications are developed with taxpayer-funded research. Now we are given the honor and distinction to pay the most expensive prices.

Now, there are two ways to address the issue of cost and affordability of prescription drugs. One was allowing Americans, like our European colleagues, to buy prescription drugs at 30, 40, 50 percent cheaper, same name-brands drugs in both Canada, Europe, France, Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Yet, twice the Republican Congress has denied the right to Americans to free trade, to competition and choice because through competition prices would reduce and come down for America. Americans would no longer subsidize the poor starving French and Germans. They pay competitive prices. We pay competitive prices. Prices will drop here at home.

Second is give the right to the Secretary of Health and Human Services what the Secretary of the Veterans Administration has and what the private insurers have, which is to negotiate bulk prices, that is, a Medicare Sam's Club. And rather than use the power of 41 million seniors, we take a powder here, twice denying the right to seniors to get cost-effective measures, to get the prescription drugs they need at the prices they can afford.

We deny that right. Why? Because we do not have faith in Tommy Thompson to negotiate good prices, but we have faith in him to deny the right of prescription drugs that come into this country at affordable prices. Our seniors are paying premium prices, and what are we about to do?

We are about to ask the taxpayers to pay $400 billion of their money for the most expensive drugs, prescription drugs, anywhere in the world. We owe the common decency and courtesy to the taxpayers to get the best price and not the most expensive price.

I support this motion so we would finally break the hammer lock the prescription drug companies have on this Congress and the Republican Congress and give the American people the type of relief they need so they can buy the drugs they need for their health at the prices they can afford.