```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6494-S6497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         GATT AND GENERIC DRUGS

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, when we in Congress voted on the GATT 
treaty recently, we all knew that we were breaking down trade barriers 
and leveling the playing field in international trade.
  Make no mistake, I believe that Americans will benefit from this 
agreement when it is implemented in June. But never, Mr. President, in 
our wildest dreams or imagination, would we have ever thought we were 
voting to give special treatment and a $6 billion windfall to the 
prescription drug industry on one hand and higher drug prices to 
American consumers on the other. Yet that is exactly what is happening.
  Mr. President, here is what has happened to bring us to this point 
today. Last year, the United States agreed under GATT to a new patent 
law, good for 20 years from filing. Our old patents were for 17 years, 
the effective date from their date of issue.
  We also agreed under GATT to give existing patents the longer of the 
two patent terms. This extension applies to all industries.
  At the same time, we knew that generic companies of all kinds all 
over America had already made significant investments based upon old 
patent expiration dates. These companies were prepared to introduce 
their competitively priced drug products just as the brand-name 
monopolies end.
  We did not want to jeopardize the jobs and the factories which were 
at stake. So we decided under GATT to adopt a formula under which these 
generic companies could proceed with the introduction of their products 
if they paid the patent holders ``equitable remuneration'' for the 
period of time left on their patents.
  Mr. President, here is where this story really begins. It just so 
happens that over 100 prescription drugs now protected by patents will 
be getting extra patent life under GATT.
  For example, Glaxo's patent for the world's best selling drug, 
Zantac, would have run out December 5, 1995, but will now last until 
1997. Generic drug companies have already spent millions of dollars to 
prepare to market lower cost, equivalent drugs on that date, giving 
consumers of America a tremendous price break.
  But a small handful of brand-name pharmaceutical companies have 
objected. They are saying, ``Thank you for the extra patent life. We 
really appreciate that part of GATT. But you should know there is an 
obscure provision in U.S. drug law which we think protects us from the 
rest of the GATT treaty. We are sorry our generic competitors have 
invested heavily in their business, but they do not deserve the 
protections that are rightfully theirs under GATT. So we guess we will 
not have any competition for quite some time.''
  [[Page S6495]] This is what they have told the Food and Drug 
Administration. The pharmaceutical manufacturers have even threatened 
litigation against the Food and Drug Administration.
  I am deeply concerned, Mr. President, because if they get their way 
at this time, they gain a multibillion dollar windfall--alone among the 
dozens of other industries and thousands of other companies complying 
rigidly with the GATT treaty.
  Even worse, consumers now are going to have to pay double for these 
drugs. They will have to pay twice, Mr. President, as consumers and as 
taxpayers. The Federal Government and the State governments are going 
to pay an extra $1.25 billion for prescription drugs for older 
Americans under Medicare, veterans, low-income families and children, 
as well as the active duty military.
  That will come out of our tax dollars. The American taxpayers will 
thus be paying more taxes so that a few brand-name drug companies can 
make more profits and block competition in the marketplace--
 forcing the American consumer to continue paying the highest drug 
prices in the world today.

  Most important, I think, will be the effect on older Americans, 
Americans on fixed incomes, and Americans without adequate health 
insurance. They will feel the hurt of these soaring drug prices even 
more.
  Mr. President, this chart is fascinating because it demonstrates very 
clearly that two of our best-selling drugs on the market are about to 
run out of patent protection, and should have generic competition by 
the end of this year.
  Zantac, for example, is the leading drug for ulcers. It is 
manufactured by Glaxo. For a typical 2-month supply, the brand-name is 
$180. For a generic supply of 2 months, the cost is about $90. What we 
are going to see is, under GATT, an unintended consequence. Glaxo is 
going to receive a 19-month extension on their patent. This drug's 
price is not going to go down. There will be no generic competition 
with Zantac. We will see Zantac continue to soar in price. In fact, 
Glaxo is anticipating over a $1 billion windfall, because of this 
unintended consequence in GATT.
  Do you think this brand-name drug, Zantac, is going to go down in 
price? Last year, Zantac's price grew 1\1/2\ times faster than 
inflation. The price for Zantac since 1989, only 6 short years ago, has 
increased 40 percent. What do you suppose is going to happen to that 
price if Zantac gains more than a year and a half of additional 
uncontested market exclusivity?
  Mr. President, the intent of GATT, of course, was not to harm 
American consumers. The goal was to improve their standing in the world 
economy. The prescription drug marketplace today is one area where the 
American consumer has been particularly exploited as we have 
historically paid the highest price for drugs while subsidizing lower 
drug prices for consumers around the world.
  This is why five of my colleagues and I have written to the Food and 
Drug Administration, asking the Food and Drug Administration to make 
the right decision--and that right decision is to allow generic drugs 
to come to the marketplace, offering competition to brand-named drugs 
which are about to receive an enormous unexpected and undeserved 
windfall.
  This is a textbook case of a loophole resulting in an unwarranted 
windfall. No single industry deserves special treatment under GATT and 
today the pharmaceutical manufacturers of brand-name products are 
getting that special treatment at the expense of the American consumer. 
Should the Food and Drug Administration fail to provide the proper 
solution to this problem, I will immediately proceed with legislation 
to remedy this economic and this moral wrong. And I am hopeful my 
colleagues will join me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in 
Business Week magazine dated May 15, 1995, be printed in the Record, as 
well as letters to Dr. David Kessler, Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration, from consumer, patient, health care, and trade groups 
supporting our concerns. These groups include the National Organization 
for Rare Disorders; Families USA and the Gray Panthers; AmeriNet, of 
St. Louis, MO, and Premier Health Alliance, of Westchester, IL; the 
National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the National 
Pharmaceutical Alliance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Business Week, May 15, 1995]

 A Patient Medicine Called GATT--For Makers of Branded Drugs, it Could 
                         Prove a Powerful Tonic

                            (By John Carey)

       It wouldn't be surprising if Robert J. Gunter took a dose 
     of his own medicine. President of generic drugmaker Novopharm 
     USA Inc., he has spent five years gearing up to produce a 
     generic version of Glaxo Holdings PLC's blockbuster ulcer 
     drug, Zantac. He even invested $40 million in a plant in 
     Wilson, NC., built to pump out the low-cost version as soon 
     as Glaxo's first patent expired in December.
       Now, Gunter finds himself in the middle of stomach-churning 
     patent battle. Glaxo and other brand name pharmaceutical 
     giants are claiming that the General Agreement on Tariffs & 
     Trade (GATT), signed by President Clinton in December, 
     extends many of their patents, Zantac's among them. More 
     important, they argue, the extended patent term gives them 
     extra months--even years--of protection from competing 
     generics.
       While the case relies on complicated legal arguments, it 
     boils down to whether provisions in GATT supersede a 1984 law 
     that prevents the Food & Drug Administration from approving 
     generics until the patent on a name brand expires. If the 
     arguments prevail, more than 100 brand-name products will win 
     an average of 12 months each of extra patent protection 
     (table). A new study from the University of Minnesota 
     estimates that the extra protection could give the drugmakers 
     a windfall of $6 billion over the next 20 years. ``That's 
     obscene,'' fumes Senator David H. Pryor (D-Ark.). ``American 
     consumers are going to pay the bill.''
                           ``eureka'' moment

       Pryor, a handful of other lawmakers, and the generics 
     companies are fighting back. On Apr. 27, Pryor and five other 
     senators asked the FDA to reject the brand-name companies' 
     interpretation of GATT. Vows Novopharm's Gunter: ``If the 
     pharmaceutical industry thinks generics will roll over and 
     play dead on this, they have another think coming.'' The 
     FDA's decision is expected within weeks, but the wrangling 
     won't end then. FDA officials and executives on both sides 
     predict that whatever the FDA decision, the loser will take 
     the issue to court.
       The high-stakes controversy wasn't anticipated when GATT 
     was approved late last year. The agreement harmonized U.S. 
     law with the rest of the world's by changing patent terms to 
     20 years from the initial filing instead of 17 years after 
     being granted. Most companies thought the change applied only 
     to new patents, but soon after passage, Glaxo's lawyers had a 
     ``eureka'' moment. Poring over the legislation, ``we realized 
     that for many of our existing products, patent life would be 
     extended,'' says associate general counsel Marc Shapiro.
       As a result, any patent that took under three years to win 
     approval would have longer protection. Since the U.S. Patent 
     Office took only 17 months to grant the first of two key 
     patents on Zantac, the change would give the company an 
     additional 19 months of protection for its top-selling drug.
       But even as GATT changed patent terms, Congress tried to 
     prevent harm to rivals that had been counting on the original 
     expiration dates. Lawmakers inserted a clause permitting a 
     company to introduce a competing product on the original 
     patent expiration date if the company had made significant 
     prior investments and if it paid the patent holder a royalty 
     or some other form of ``equitable remuneration.'' While 
     Jeremiah McIntyre, counsel for generic drugmaker Geneva 
     Pharmaceuticals Inc., calls that ``a fair balance,'' on the 
     theory that it's better to pay a royalty than not be allowed 
     into the market at all, the provision would squeeze generic 
     drugmakers' already thin profit margins.
                               oversight?

       Meanwhile, Glaxo, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and other 
     brand-name companies are arguing that this escape clause 
     shouldn't even apply to the drug industry. The reason, they 
     say, is that it clashes with provisions in a 1984 U.S. 
     generic-drug law that prevents the FDA from approving a 
     generic drug until the brand-name patent expires. Unlike 
     other instances where Congress amended existing laws to 
     conform with GATT, it failed to resolve this conflict--
     implying an intent to keep existing law intact, says Glaxo's 
     Shapiro. Pryor and others plead simple oversight. But the big 
     drugmakers insist on claiming what they see as theirs.
       In the coming fight, generic drugmakers face an uphill 
     struggle. ``We have to be better organized, and spend more 
     money to get our message across,'' says Bruce Downey, CEO of 
     Barr Laboratories Inc., a generic drugmaker in Pomona, N.Y. 
     As policymakers focus once again on rising health-care costs, 
     the generic companies do have one potent message: If the 
     brand-name companies win, Americans will pay billions more 
     for drugs. Faced with the prospect of dramatically higher 
     costs, ``I can't believe the [FDA] won't make the right 
     choice,'' says Lewis A. Engman, president of the Generic 
     Pharmaceutical Industry Assn. Robert Gunter can only hope 
     he's right.
                [[Page S6496]] a windfall in the making

       Pharmaceutical makers are seeking an average of 12 months' 
     extra protection from generic competitors for more than 100 
     drugs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Potential extra
                                            Months of   revenues because
             Drug Company/Use                 added        of lack of   
                                            protection       generic    
                                                           alternative  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZANTAC--Glaxo/ulcers.....................           19            $1,000
MEVACOR--Merck/cholesterol-lowering......           19               448
DIFLUCAN--Pfizer/antifungal agent........           20               410
PRILOSEC--Merck/ulcers...................           17               586
CAPOTEN--Bristol-Myers Squibb/                                          
 hypertension............................            6               101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data: Prime Institute, University of Minnesota.                         

                                         National Organization for

                                         Rare Disorders, Inc.,

                                New Fairfield, CT, April 13, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: The National Organization for Rare 
     Disorders, Inc. (NORD) is deeply concerned with the FDA's 
     pending interpretation of the General Agreements on Tariffs 
     and Trade (GATT) implementing legislation as it applies to 
     pharmaceutical drug patents.
       The branded pharmaceutical industry (represented by PhRMA) 
     is seeking an extension of patents solely based on their 
     desire to maximize profits. If these companies succeed in 
     their attempt to limit consumer access to more affordable 
     ``generic'' products, then millions of Americans will have no 
     choice but to pay more for already over-priced drugs. NORD 
     believes that Congress never intended to force American 
     consumers to pay even higher prices for their prescription 
     drugs.
       While such patent extensions would significantly increase 
     the cost of our Medicaid program, please consider the even 
     greater burden this would place upon the millions of 
     Americans who are refused health insurance--and in turn 
     prescription drug coverage--because they are afflicted with a 
     rare ``orphan'' disease.
       GATT was intended to improve the welfare of American 
     consumers through international trade--including the needs of 
     patients who desperately rely on access to more affordable 
     drugs. GATT was never intended to provide special treatment 
     to any segment of the pharmaceutical industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Abbey S. Meyers,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                      Families USA Foundation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 1995.
     Dear Senator/Representative:
       We understand that the FDA is currently reviewing its 
     position on GATT language as it applies to the extension 
     period on drug patents. If GATT rules are retrospectively 
     applied to previously filed or issued patents, the average 
     patent extension for currently marketed drugs would be more 
     than 12 months. The FDA is considering regulations that would 
     withhold approval of generic drugs covered by ``GATT-
     extended'' patents until the extension period has ended. This 
     would force the American public to pay higher prescription 
     drug prices.
       Families USA recently studied price increases in the top-
     selling drugs used by Americans. In our report, Worthless 
     Promises: Drug Companies Keep Boosting Price, we found that 
     the prices consumers pay for the most commonly purchased 
     drugs continue to increase faster than general inflation. 
     Drug price increases are particularly harmful to senior 
     citizens who have the greatest needs for drugs and are most 
     likely to pay for them out of pocket.
       Several of the brand-name drugs that could receive patent 
     extensions are among the top-selling drugs used by Americans. 
     Among the drugs whose patents would be extended are: Zantac, 
     the top-selling drug used by Americans, which increased in 
     price 38% from 1989 to 1994; Capoten, a blood pressure 
     medicine which increased in price 65.3% from 1989 to 1994 and 
     4.9% last year; Pepcid, an ulcer medicine that increased in 
     price 31.3% from 1989 to 1994; Mevacor, a cholesterol 
     medicine which increased in price 27.8% from 1989 to 1994; 
     and Prilosec, an ulcer medicine that increased in price 4.2% 
     last year, and increased in price 7.5% (2.4 times as fast as 
     inflation) in the year 1991 to 1992.
       Generic drug products typically enter the market at prices 
     25% less than patented brand, and their prices are even less 
     compared to the brand-name drug as generics further penetrate 
     the market. Consumers desperately need relief from high drug 
     prices.
       A recent study by PRIME institute found that the extension 
     would cost Medicaid about $1 billion. Federal and state 
     governments will face more than $1.25 billion in added costs 
     without generic drugs entering the marketplace.
       We ask you to examine this issue and encourage the FDA to 
     delay any ruling until the problem is fully investigated.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Judith G. Waxman,
     Director, Government Affairs.
                                                                    ____

                                   Gray Panthers Project Fund,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: I am writing to you because we understand 
     the FDA is reviewing its position on the language in GATT as 
     it applied to extension periods on prescription drug patents. 
     We understand that FDA is considering regulations that would 
     prohibit the entry of generic drugs in the marketplace during 
     this GATT extension period.
       It is our position that this action would force the 
     American public to pay higher prices for prescription drugs. 
     It also seems to us, that the primary purpose of GATT is to 
     create level playing fields and the best product at the 
     lowest price to consumers. This action is contrary to that 
     principle.
       Many of the brand-name drugs that could receive extended 
     patent protection are some of the most widely prescribed 
     drugs used by Americans--especially the senior population. 
     And these drugs continue to cost more and more each year. In 
     a recent study by PRIME Institute of the University of 
     Minnesota found that Medicare alone would incur about 1 
     billion added costs without the availability of generic 
     drugs.
       A generic prescription drug usually enters the marketplace 
     at up to 25 percent less than the branded drug. To those 
     individuals living on fixed incomes who already faced with 
     rising health costs, the option to choose generic is very 
     important.
       Dr. Kessler, I trust that you will further investigate this 
     issue and seriously consider the negative impact that 
     prohibiting the availability of generic drugs on the American 
     consumer.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dixie Horning,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                     AmeriVet,

                                    St. Louis, MO, April 25, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: The FDA is currently deliberating on an 
     important issue that could force the American public to pay 
     millions of dollars in higher prescription drug costs. The 
     debate is over the interpretation of GATT legislation 
     language as it pertains to patents on prescription drugs. 
     This language extends the life of patents on a number of the 
     country's most widely prescribed drugs, potentially 
     generating a windfall to pharmaceutical companies at the 
     expense of the American public.
       As a group purchasing organization, the economic impact of 
     the GATT patent extension and the projected cost to consumers 
     is of great concern to us. We strongly urge you to do all you 
     can to make available to consumers the generic drugs that may 
     be delayed in reaching the market if the patents on brand-
     name drugs are extended.
       As you realize, if a provider has a generic equivalent to 
     substitute, the patient receives a cost savings over the 
     brand-name drug. The cost to consumers for the currently 
     marketed brand-name drugs is substantial, projected to be as 
     high as $6,000,000, over potential generic equivalents. The 
     cost will be incurred by the American public as well as 
     Medicare, federal and state governments, employers, private 
     insurers, and managed care firms.
       We request that you seriously consider the enormous 
     financial burden to the American public that would result 
     from legislature preventing generic drugs from entering the 
     marketplace during the GATT extension. We fully support your 
     efforts in persuading the FDA to make lower-cost generic 
     drugs available to consumers upon existing brand patent 
     expiration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph W. Mulroy,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                Premier Health Alliance, Inc.,

                                  Westchester, IL, April 14, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
     Re GATT Extension Period and Drug Patents
       Dear Honorable Kessler: It has been brought to my attention 
     that certain language in the recently approved GATT 
     legislation may have a negative impact on the price Americans 
     will pay for prescription drugs in the near future. It is 
     also my understanding that the branded pharmaceutical 
     industry is currently pressuring FDA to make a ruling that 
     would prevent generic drugs from entering the marketplace 
     during this extension period--a decision that would place an 
     enormous financial burden on the American health care system 
     and public through higher priced drugs.
       It is my firm belief that Congress did not intend for brand 
     name pharmaceutical companies to be the recipient of a $6 
     billion financial windfall during this GATT extension period 
     to be subsidized by health care providers and the American 
     public.
       This ``unintended consequence'' of the GATT language should 
     not be passed on to hospitals and physicians that already are 
     aggressively seeking ways to reduce healthcare costs, as well 
     as private citizens.
       I am personally asking you to seriously consider the 
     negative implications that would result from legislation 
     preventing generic drugs from entering the marketplace during 
     the GATT extension. The access to generic drugs is vital to 
     those Americans who need them the most and I trust you will 
     [[Page S6497]] delay any ruling until further investigation 
     into this matter has been made.
           Yours truly,
                                                    Bill Magruder,
     Vice President, Pharmacy Program.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of

                                            Chain Drug Stores,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 26, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), I am writing to strongly urge that 
     the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognize pre-GATT 
     patent expiration dates for pharmaceuticals, and allow the 
     approval of ANDAs for generic prescription pharmaceutical 
     preparations where the sponsor of such application has made a 
     ``substantial investment'' in the product prior to June 8, 
     1995, the date of implementation of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT). We understand that the FDA is 
     currently considering whether GATT's implementing legislation 
     provides such statutory authority. NACDS believes that it 
     does.
       NACDS represents America's chain drug store industry, and 
     includes more than 160 chain companies in an industry that 
     operates 30,000 retail community pharmacies. Chain pharmacy 
     is the largest component of retail pharmacy practice, 
     providing practice settings for more than 66,000 pharmacists. 
     Our membership base fills over 60 percent of the more than 
     two billion prescriptions dispensed annually in the United 
     States.
       We understand and support the importance of having generic 
     prescription drugs available to consumers as soon as 
     possible. Everyday, the availability of generic drugs enables 
     the pharmacists who practice in our stores to help reduce 
     overall prescription medication costs for populations that do 
     not have prescription drug insurance. Among those who benefit 
     from access to generic drugs are millions of older Americans 
     and working poor, publicly-funded prescription drug programs 
     such as Medicaid, and other third party prescription drug 
     plans.
       The impact that a misapplication of the GATT implementing 
     legislation could have on the American public is significant. 
     A recent study by the PRIME Institute at the University of 
     Minnesota found that GATT provisions could result in an 
     additional $6 billion in prescription drug expenditures in 
     the United States because of the additional patent 
     protections granted to brand name products, and the relative 
     unavailability of lower-cost generic versions.
       In summary, NACDS believes that the GATT agreement should 
     not preclude the manufacturers of generic prescription drugs 
     from bringing their products to market during the period of 
     extended patent protection provided by GATT for brand name 
     prescription drug products.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ronald L. Ziegler,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____

                             National Pharmaceutical Alliance,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 26, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: The National Pharmaceutical Alliance 
     (NPA) is an association of over 165 manufacturers and 
     distributors of pharmaceutical preparations for human and 
     veterinary use. Our members are dedicated to providing safe 
     and affordable alternatives to the American public whenever 
     health needs dictate the use of pharmaceutical products.
       In December of last year, the congress ratified the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act [P.L. 103-465] (URAA) of the General 
     Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). This agreement created 
     some fundamental changes to be made in U.S. patent law. The 
     new law provides for patents to be in force 20 years from the 
     date of application as opposed to the historical law of the 
     United States which provided for patents to be in force for 
     17 years from date of approval. Congress, realizing that such 
     a change would cause a financial hardship on companies that 
     expected to enter the marketplace at the expiration of the 
     old patent date, provided a remedy to allow competing 
     products on the market.
       Under H.R. 5110, the implementing language of GATT, 
     companies that could show that a substantial investment had 
     been made in a product could enter the marketplace at the 
     pre-GATT expiry date. The respective companies then would 
     work out an ``equitable remuneration'' during the life of the 
     patent extension. This remedy will work for every industry 
     except the generic pharmaceutical industry due to its 
     regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. Since 
     approvals for Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) are 
     governed by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term 
     Restoration Act of 1984, known as Hatch/Waxman, failure to 
     change its provisions could prevent the FDA from granting 
     approvals until after the patent extension has expired. We do 
     not believe that Congress intended to treat the drug industry 
     differently that other industries.
       If the 109 generic pharmaceutical products inversely 
     affected by GATT are kept off the market, the result could be 
     an increased cost to the American consumer of over $6 billion 
     and a cost of over $1.2 billion to Federal and State 
     governments in higher Medicare and Medicaid costs. In 1995 
     alone, drugs such as alclometrasone dipr. (Alclovate), 
     captopril (Capoten), and ranitidine HC1 (Zantac) could be 
     unavailable to consumers in a generic version. Zantac alone 
     could represent an additional cost to the consumers in excess 
     of $1 billion during the time of the patent extension. At a 
     time when both healthcare costs and government budgets are 
     strained to the limit, it makes no sense for government to 
     take any action that would fuel the growth in these 
     expenditures.
       In the ten years since its passage, the Hatch/Waxman 
     legislation has done remarkably well at balancing the 
     interests of proprietary drug companies and the generic drug 
     industry. The public also has come to not only expect, but to 
     rely upon, timely access to high quality, low cost 
     alternatives to monopolistic priced name brand drugs.
       NPA is pleased to see that members of Congress, such as 
     yourself, are taking steps to correct this inequity in the 
     law. Your actions are to be applauded and your decision to 
     stand up for the American consumer is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               Christine Sizemore,
                                               Executive Director.
     

                          ____________________
```