COMPULSORY LICENSING IS NOT AN ASSAULT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- HON. MARION BERRY (Extensions of Remarks - April 27, 1999)

[Page: E782]
---

HON. MARION BERRY OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that today, by an overwhelming majority of 422 to 1, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1554, the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1999, which I supported. This legislation ensures that many of my constituents will continue to receive television network programing. The bill extends for five years compulsory licenses, which require superstations and distant broadcast stations to allow their signal to be retransmitted by satellite carriers. In order to promote competition, the bill sets specific prices at which the intellectual property owners, or broadcasters, will be paid for having their signal rebroadcasted.

It is ironic that even as we vote to allow compulsory licensing today, we are interfering in another country's attempt to address a public health crisis through giving consumers access to international markets and through the use of compulsory licensing. It is estimated 3.2 million South Africans are HIV positive, including 45 percent of its military. One in five South African pregnant women test positive for HIV. Access to affordable medicine is also a critical issue for the elderly and others suffering from chronic diseases and medical conditions. Prescription drugs are not currently an option for many patients in South Africa, where the drugs often cost more than they do in the United States. The 1997 per capita income in South Africa was estimated to be only $6,200 annually.

To address the problem, President Mandela and the South African Government enacted a law in 1997 to reform the country's prescription drug marketplace. The law amends the South African Medicines Act to allow prescription drugs to be purchased in the international marketplace where prices are lower. It would also allow compulsory licensing in some cases. Regulations implementing the law have not been implemented while the law is being constitutionally challenged in South African courts by drug makers in their country.

However, the pharmaceutical industry has persuaded the United States government to work to have the South African law repealed. In February, the United States Department of State released a report titled, U.S. Government Efforts to Negotiate the Repeal, Termination or Withdrawal of Article 15(c) of the South African Medicines and Related Substances Act of 1965.

While special interest groups have tried to convince members of Congress and the administration that implementation of the South African Medicines Act would cause violations of international intellectual property rights agreements, I have seen no evidence that such violations are likely to occur. Compulsory licensing is not an assault on intellectual property rights. Instead, it is part of the copyright and patent systems which enable the interest of the public to be served. Compulsory licensing is permitted under Article 31 of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In fact, French law authorizes compulsory licensing when medicines are ``only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices.''