THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

However, there is still a great unmet need, especially in Asia. In H.R. 4444, which granted permanent normal trade relations to China, was legislation authorizing increased funds for international broadcasting services in China and neighboring countries. If this package should be signed into law before

[Page: H5151]  GPO's PDF

   H.R. 4444 provided for an additional authorization of $65 million for Broadcasting Capital Improvements and $34 million for International Broadcasting Operations. I realize there is a large amount of money in today's tight budgetary constraints. However, international broadcasting is in desperate need of new and stronger transmitters to counteract the increase of jamming practices by oppressive regimes of Asia. Expansion of Internet capability is also greatly needed as the Internet continues to become accessible to more people.

   Any increase in funding allowing for the expansion of these services would make a significant difference for the Broadcasting Board of Governors and be a beacon of light to billions of Asians living under repressive regimes.

   Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement and his long-standing efforts on behalf of International Broadcasting.

   Should H.R. 4444 become law, and additional funding be provided in our allocation, we will endeavor to fund Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, and Broadcasting Capital Improvements at a level which reflects the increasing needs in Asia.

   Mr. PORTER. I thank the chairman for his acknowledgment of my request and his support for International Broadcasting.

   Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. UPTON).

   Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

   Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and as a Member of Congress who has two Weed and Seed sites in his district in Michigan, one in Benton Harbor and one in Kalamazoo, I know very well how valuable the Weed and Seed is to the people who live there.

   I commend the chairman for recognizing the value of the Weed and Seed program and recognizing that the best solutions to crime problems are customized to neighborhood needs, which is at the very core of the Weed and Seed program.

   The bill before us tonight provides $33.5 million for Weed and Seed, which is the amount that was appropriated in the fiscal year 2000 bill. However, in previous years, the Department of Justice was permitted to reprogram other funds to the Weed and Seed program, increasing the level of funds available to the program. For instance, in fiscal year 2000, the program received $40 million.

   Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the gentleman from Kentucky might be able to give me an assurance that he will work to assure that the Weed and Seed program will receive at least as much funding in 2001 as we received in fiscal year 2000.

   Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his work on this issue.

   I will work to assure the program is funded in fiscal 2001 at least at the level of funds available in the current year.

   Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. BIGGERT).

   Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

   Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have concerns regarding the level of funding provided for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's scientific and technical research and services account, including the Global Standards Program.

   As the chairman knows, the Global Standards Program is intended to provide guidance to industries and to facilitate global harmonization of standards where possible. An issue has come to my attention that involves standards for anchor bolts that are post-installed in concrete.

   The Transatlantic Business Dialogue has recommended that NIST facilitate a transparent standards harmonization process for these products, which are sold in Europe and the United States. Is it the gentleman's opinion that this bill provides adequate funding for this effort?

   Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentlewoman that, yes, I do believe this is a function that would be adequately covered by the funding provided in the bill for NIST. It is my understanding that NIST has begun a technical analysis on this very issue.

   Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for clarifying this issue for me.

   AMENDMENT NO. 53 OFFERED BY MR. BROWN OF OHIO

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. BROWN of Ohio:

    At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (page 107, after line 21) the following new title:

    SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to seek the revocation or revision of the laws or regulations of another country that relate to intellectual property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals or other medical technologies and comply with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 23, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN).

   MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 53 OFFERED BY MR. BROWN OF OHIO

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment such that it explicitly applies only when the United States Trade Representative is engaged in a Special 301 process established under the 1974 Trade Act and that it applies only to developing countries.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Modification to amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. BROWN of Ohio:

   In lieu of the matter proposed to be:

   SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the United States Trade Representative to seek the revocation or revision of the laws or regulations of a developing country under the Special 301 process established under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended that relate to intellectual property rights with respect to pharmaceuticals or other medical technologies and comply with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN)?

   Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) for an explanation of his modification.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, malaria killed 1.1 million people last year; 2.2 million people, mostly children, died of diarrheal infections; 2.3 million died of AIDS ; 1.5 million of tuberculosis. Mr. Chairman, we know how to treat each of these diseases. We could have saved the lives of many of these people.

   Countries around the world are attempting to expand access to desperately needed prescription drugs by pursuing competitive strategies explicitly permitted under international trade agreements. The USTR, on behalf of the global prescription drug industry, has made a practice of pressuring these nations to forsake legitimate strategies that can achieve lower prices; strategies like parallel importing and compulsory licensing .

   Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation and object.

   The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Both of these practices, parallel importing and compulsory licensing , are explicitly permitted under a world trade agreement commonly referred to as TRIPS. The WTO TRIPS accord sets

[Page: H5152]  GPO's PDF

   It is a tough set of requirements. For example, it requires all WTO member countries, including the United States, to adopt 20-year patents on medicines, even though under our patent law our patent length was 17 years.

   The WTO TRIPS agreement requires many poor countries to adopts rules that actually raise the price of their medicines. The USTR, on behalf of the prescription drug industry, is pushing countries to abandon fully sanctioned actions, like parallel importing and compulsory licensing .

   It is difficult to believe the U.S. is participating in efforts to prevent developing countries from fighting back when drug companies ignore the dire consequences of their actions and abuse their monopoly power, for example, when they impose higher prices in developing countries than in industrialized nations, as in the case with AIDS drug Fluconazole.

[Time: 21:30]

   U.S. trade officials have pressured South Africa , Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and many other poor nations, threatening sanctions unless they forsake rights they have under the TRIPS agreement.

   In many of these countries, the average income is less than $1 a day.

   In December last year, President Clinton told the WTO it was time to change U.S. trade policy, to consider the issue of access to medicines.

   In May, the President issued an executive order prohibiting the USTR from pressuring sub-Saharan African nations into giving up legitimate competitive strategies aimed at expanding access to HIV/AIDS drugs.

   In justifying his decision to reign in the USTR, the President asserted ``it is in the interest of the United States to take all reasonable steps to prevent further spread of infectious disease, particularly HIV/AIDS . The TRIPS agreement recognizes the importance of promoting effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights and the right of countries to adopt measures necessary to protect public health.''

   Our amendment is grounded in that same logic.

   The United States should enforce the TRIPS agreement to ensure the proper protection of property rights to be sure, but it should not undercut the balance TRIPS strikes between protecting intellectual property and promoting the public health.

   The President's executive order applies only to AIDS drugs and only to sub-Sahara Africa . Our amendment says the United States should not interfere in legitimate efforts to expand access to essential medicines in developing countries in health crises.

   This amendment does not undercut in any way intellectual property protections. It permits the U.S. to insist on tough provisions of the WTO TRIPS agreement, but it prevents the U.S. Government from seeking to impose so-called ``TRIPS Plus'' protections on countries when these more onerous protections would have a negative impact on access to medicine.

   Not only is this policy appropriate from a public health point of view, it is also consistent with the WTO TRIPS agreement itself. Article I of the TRIPS agreement says ``Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement.'' The key phrase is ``not obliged to.''

   The United States should honor, in fact we should applaud, policies in other countries that place the health and well-being of people ahead of the profit goals of the prescription drug industry.

   Hindering efforts to combat debilitating and fatal diseases on behalf of the global prescription drug industry is an unjustifiable and counterproductive use of our Nation's power and influence. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, helps us to put a stop to it.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong on this bill. It is a subject for the Committee on Ways and Means. It is within their jurisdiction. And they are objecting. In addition, the administration is strongly opposing the amendment. It will bog down this bill.

   So, for all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. CRANE) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.

   Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Brown amendment. The Brown amendment compromises USTR's ability to protect U.S. intellectual property rights around the world for U.S. pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers.

   Section 315 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act clearly states that it is U.S. policy to seek enactment and implementation of foreign intellectual property laws that strengthen and supplement TRIPS. The Brown amendment directly contradicts this provision, conflicting with U.S. law.

   The pharmaceutical and medical technologies industry depend on consistent and fair trade rules, including those that protect intellectual property rights. Without such practices, companies and those who invest in them will be discouraged from providing the necessary capital to pursue the development of new medicines.

   A consistent theme in U.S. trade policy is encouraging an environment based on rule of law around the world that U.S. firms need to be able to compete. The Brown amendment sends countries conflicting messages that we would like them to provide the highest degree of intellectual property protection in every category except pharmaceuticals and medical technology.

   Ironically, the Brown amendment, which is intended to help poor countries, will actually hurt them by reducing their ability to attract foreign investment. Developing countries need the transfer of technology and know-how for their economic growth and stronger, not weaker, intellectual protection is the way to get it.

   In short, the Brown amendment is the wrong solution to increasing the access of developing countries to pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. Instead of stripping U.S. firms of their legal rights, we should seek to encourage partnerships between U.S. pharmaceutical firms and developing countries.

   For example, several U.S. firms are already involved in pilot programs to increase access to AIDS drugs in African countries. Encouraging growing economies, as we are doing in the recently enacted African Growth and Opportunity Act, also enables developing countries to have the resources to purchase drugs without discouraging further innovation.

   I urge my colleagues to oppose the Brown amendment.

   Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN), a hardworking member of our committee.

   (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, we have a system of patents for a reason, to protect intellectual property rights of the people who create new inventions and products, as well as protect the efficacy of the actual product. And the efficacy of drug products and medicines are important. It is all about safeguarding patients, patients around the world.

   Our U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, has been pursuing the enforcement of U.S. patent laws in virtually every international market and she has done so effectively. As the U.S. representative for the fair treatment of U.S. products anywhere and everywhere in the world, this is her charge.

   This amendment basically tells that representative to stop doing her job. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

   I know that the intent of the gentleman is to help those suffering from horrendous diseases, such as AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other places, by guaranteeing access to prescription medicine at the cheapest cost. But, with all due respect to the

[Page: H5153]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. BERMAN) the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary.

   Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about this amendment. A year ago, on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, we debated the Sanders amendment dealing very specifically with Asian and African countries applying specifically to pharmaceuticals.

   The amendment now that we have before us seems to me to apply far beyond pharmaceuticals to any medical technology. It could cover laser equipment used in cosmetic surgery, prohibit the executive branch from encouraging nations to provide TRIPS Plus protection to patents which cover such laser technologies.

   It also seems like the Sanders amendment last year was designed to make pharmaceuticals more affordable. It specifically was approaching trade representative activities which enforced patent laws that would make drugs more expensive. This does not have that kind of limitation.

   The Brown amendment would prohibit the executive branch from seeking to appeal a TRIPS compliant law covering IPR and pharmaceuticals that is intended to discriminate against U.S. pharmaceuticals.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents