mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
i support this amendment , even though i can fully understand where the gentlewoman from connecticut and the gentleman from wisconsin are coming from . 
but part of the problem we are trying to address here goes back to the medicare prescription drug legislation which requires that the federal government pay the full retail cost of these drugs . 
a substantial part of the cost of these ed drugs is attributable to tv advertising . 
they are spending approximately a half a billion dollars a year on television advertising , saturating the airwaves during family viewing hours when they know the parents and the kids are sitting in front of the television ; and now the taxpayer is going to be paying for this cost of advertising . 
that is the difficulty . 
while i understand that we do not want to go down a slippery slope , bear in mind that when we start including these lifestyle drugs in medicare , that is money that could be spent against cancer and heart disease and alzheimer 's and all the higher priorities that we ought to be using medicare trust funds for . 
so i support the gentleman . 
i do not think that ed is a health care priority . 
but the larger issue is should the taxpayers be required to pay for tv advertising , much of which is inappropriate in its message . 
i did not have any problem , i have to say , when bob dole was the pitch man ; nobody would , except maybe elizabeth for sharing more than the world necessarily needed to know about their personal lives . 
but the point is , these ads on tv today are offensive , and we are spending half a billion dollars on them . 
the american public does not want them saturating the airwaves , and they certainly do not want to be paying for them ; and unless this amendment passes , they will be paying for them . 
