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
[Page: H6027] GPO's PDF---
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. BURR of North Carolina). Pursuant to House Resolution 247 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2415.
[Time: 10:50]
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. KOLBE in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 20, 1999, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 106-235 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in Part B of House report 106-235.
AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. SANDERS:
Page 35, after line 9, insert the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 211. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW RELATING TO PHARMACEUTICALS OF CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
No employee of the Department of State shall take any action to deter or to otherwise interfere with any intellectual property law or policy of any country in Africa or Asia (including Israel) that is designed to make pharmaceuticals more affordable if such law or policy, as the case may be, complies with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 247, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GEJDENSON) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 1/4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. JACKSON), the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK), the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. HILLIARD), the gentleman from California (Mr. MILLER), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BERRY) deals with one of the great moral challenges of this century.
Millions of people in Africa and Asia are suffering from the horrible AIDS epidemic decimating their countries. Because of poverty, they are unable to afford the very expensive prescription drugs needed to combat this killer disease.
Sadly, the major pharmaceutical companies are using their enormous wealth and influence to fight legislation passed in South Africa , Israel, and Thailand which allows those countries to purchase and manufacture anti-AIDS drugs at far lower prices than those charged by the major drug companies.
These laws are consistent with international trade and copyright law. Once again, these laws are consistent with international trade and copyright laws.
Tragically, the U.S. State Department is currently working with the drug companies to punish South Africa because their government has committed the terrible crime of trying to get affordable drugs to treat their AIDS patients.
What South Africa is doing is legal under international law. And it is morally right.
Please support this amendment. Get the U.S. Government on the right side of this issue and help save millions of lives.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the case of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) frankly is completely flawed. And though while his motives may be noble, the final result of his action will be reduction in new drugs that will save lives.
[Page: H6028] GPO's PDF
We have tested the theory here in this Chamber and elsewhere to see if governments will come up with the research dollars to invent new medicines. Frankly, we cannot get our Government to provide medicine for its own citizens let alone citizens of other countries.
Fully 45 percent of all new drugs are developed in the United States; and the next closest country, the U.K., develops but 14 percent. American taxpayers, through its Congress, will not provide the research dollars to find the cures for cancer and AIDS like the new $4 pill that will be able to protect the children of mothers with AIDS by one pill given one time at the cost of $4 instead of AZT at the cost of hundreds of dollars.
What the bill does, it will give the opportunity for wealthier nations to try to evade our intellectual property laws. The United States already loses one out of three dollars when it comes to the opportunity of sales overseas for intellectual property. But we are not talking about corporate profits here. We are talking about countries being able to avoid intellectual property laws, and we are talking about denying the resources from wealthier countries, not from the poorest countries, they already have the ability to control prices.
The poorest countries in this world make agreements with pharmaceutical companies that limit the price of those products in those countries. Frankly, the only country in the world that does not limit prices is the United States.
What the amendment of the gentleman will do is allow wealthy countries like Israel, frankly, that has a per capita income of almost $16,000, to avoid our intellectual property laws. He will thereby undermine the basic flow of funds to research and may reverse what we see here today.
Forty-five percent of all the new drugs come from the United States. Accept the Sanders amendment and we will not be helping the poor, we will be hurting every one of us in this process as we do not develop the new drugs for AIDS and breast cancer and other illnesses around the world.
The poorest countries already get a lower price for those products. The legislation of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) would prevent the U.S. Government from protecting intellectual property that is made here in the United States and give wealthier countries the ability to purchase these products through poorer countries. We are not helping poor African countries. We are not helping Bangladesh. These countries can already control prices in agreements with these pharmaceutical companies.
What his legislation would allow is American countries can see their intellectual property transferred to other countries. This is simple theft. It seems to me, if we stand by the Sanders amendment, we will only have ourselves to blame in injuring what has been one of the most productive sectors in the American economy in creating new drugs for all our citizens.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY).
Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, have my colleagues ever seen a bully on the playground and they knew it was not right? Well, that is exactly what our own State Department is doing right now to South Africa .
We can tell a lot about a country the way they act when they think no one is watching. The State Department of the world's indispensable Nation has decided that poor Africans dying of preventable and treatable diseases is okay.
In South Africa , thousands of people are dying every week because they cannot afford to treat deadly but preventable and treatable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and typhoid.
In South Africa , it costs more to get a prescription filled than to go to the doctor's office. Therefore, they can go to the doctor to find out what is wrong, but they cannot treat it; they cannot treat the illness.
Accordingly, South Africa decided to fight back. South Africa went to the free market to buy its prescription drugs rather than to the pharmaceutical cartel and the State Department objects to that. Once again, seems to prefer corporate profits over healthy people.
It looks to me like the State Department is the bully on the playground and they think no one is watching. Well, let them see that the Congress is watching by supporting the Sanders amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. EMERSON). The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GEJDENSON) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) has 2-3/4 minutes remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
[Time: 11:00]
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Vermont.
I share the concerns of the gentleman from Vermont and all those who want to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa and I very much welcome Monday's announcement that the administration is joining our House Republicans in calling for a $127 million spending program to meet this growing health crisis. I will note the Republicans have ensured funding for this for some time. I have also held the only hearings on this subject last year. I intend to work to ensure that this program continues to receive strong support.
The White House AIDS policy director, Sandra Thurman, has reported that the disease is turning millions of children into orphans, reducing life expectancy by more than 20 years and undermining economic development in large parts of Africa . More than 12 million people have died of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa over the past decade.
However, I believe that the amendment before us is not the way to address this important issue. It threatens patent protection rights and will create new impediments to future AIDS research efforts. Furthermore, its implementation would put the U.S. in violation of our obligations under the Uruguay Round Implementation Act to seek the strengthening of intellectual property laws.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. EMERSON). The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) has expired.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be extended for 2 minutes equally divided and controlled by me and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN).
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this additional time.
This amendment would use policies such as compulsory licensing and parallel trade to make pharmaceuticals more affordable. Compulsory licensing would allow generic manufacturers to produce and sell a patented pharmaceutical product before the patent expires, without protecting the rights of the patentholder in the importing country. This approach will discourage research efforts and will not address the underlying problems confronting AIDS patients.
Parallel trade involves purchasing a product at a low price in one market and reselling it in another market at a higher price, outside of normal distribution channels. This proposal has been tried and found wanting in Kenya where it resulted in a flood of counterfeit medicine imports.
Accordingly, I join the gentleman from Connecticut in urging the defeat of the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BERRY), a former pharmacist.
Mr. BERRY. Madam Chairman, I rise this morning to support this amendment. I commend the gentleman from
[Page: H6029] GPO's PDF
It is critical that our State Department allow countries the tools they need to fight health epidemics such as AIDS as long as they play by the international rules. WTO agreements and fairness should be the driving force behind U.S. policy relating to this issue, not a few very profitable international pharmaceutical companies. We do not have to do things that inappropriately protect their markets like we do in this country and allow them to take advantage of other people.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I believe this amendment is a good amendment. This amendment will prevent the State Department from punishing countries that use legal means to procure low-cost lifesaving drugs for their citizens. This practice, called parallel importing, is allowed by the World Trade Organization. Many of the poorest nations on earth are experiencing some of the highest death rates because there is not enough money to pay for the high cost of lifesaving drugs. Some countries are even experiencing a return of age-old illnesses such as tuberculosis.
The AIDS epidemic is causing a health care crisis worldwide. What good are lifesaving drugs if they are not affordable for people who need them? We should not punish countries for trying to save their citizens' lives. We should not punish countries for being concerned about their own citizens. We should not punish countries for using perfectly legal means to procure low-cost pharmaceuticals.
Help to save millions of lives by ending a counterproductive State Department practice. Put human life above profit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment deals with one of the great moral challenges of our time. While the pharmaceutical industry, which makes wide campaign contributions, spends more money on lobbying and campaign contributions than any other industry in this country, while they are enjoying record-breaking profits, millions of people, poor people throughout the world, are dying of AIDS . Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies are down in South Africa trying to do away with legislation in the courts, trying to do away with legislation passed by the South African government because the South African government is trying to get inexpensive drugs to deal with the epidemic of AIDS .
What this legislation says very clearly is get the State Department off the backs of South Africa when South Africa is operating legally, legally under international law. If the pharmaceutical companies think they are operating illegally, if the U.S. State Department thinks they are operating illegally, go to the World Trade Organization. But the State Department does not want to go to the World Trade Organization. They want to put unilateral action against South Africa . The drug companies want to use their muscle against South Africa . What South Africa is doing is legal. The State Department does not want to challenge them in the World Trade Organization because they will lose.
It is a shame and an embarrassment that the government of the United States of America is working with the multi-billion dollar drug companies to push around South Africa because that country is trying to do the right thing for its people with AIDS .
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MENENDEZ).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 1 minute.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman from Vermont's concerns, but I think this amendment is the wrong way to go about it. We do not seek to hurt South Africa , but we also do not seek to hurt American companies and their international intellectual property rights. When you go down the road of saying to American companies, forget about all of the research, all of the intellectual property rights that you possess, you go down a road that is going to hurt South Africa and Africa ultimately, because you want investment to take place and that investment is going to take place if people believe that their intellectual property rights are going to be observed.
This amendment would restrict the ability of the administration to protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are violated by foreign governments. In fact, the law says we should defend intellectual property rights.
Now, in the context of AIDS , we share that concern. That is why the U.S. Global Strategy on AIDS , released in March of 1999, cites health care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, clinics and laboratories. That is our biggest obstacle. That is what we should be doing with the Vice President, $100 million more, but not violating the intellectual property rights of our companies.
IMPACT OF AMENDMENT
The amendment would restrict the ability of the Administration to protect the intellectual property rights of American pharmaceutical companies in foreign countries. The State Department plays a crucial role in assisting U.S. companies whose intellectual property rights are violated by foreign governments. The State Department has been successful in negotiating acceptable resolutions to these international trade conflicts, protecting both American interests and jobs.
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