Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it is interesting what the gentleman says about these companies moving to China, because I have heard executives say to me, some from my district, some from Ohio, some from around the country, ``The global economy forces us to have to move to China.'' But it is those same executives, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has been part of these debates in the past, a Republican friend from California opposed to these trade agreements, but these same executives come to this Congress and ask for trade agreements, ask for PNTR for China, as for the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bush is wanting to double the size of NAFTA in population with the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas and quadruple the number of low-income workers. So the companies push for the trade agreements which serve to bring in more low-income workers, weak environmental laws, no labor standards. Then the companies throw their hands up and say, ``We have to move because our competitors do.'' It is all part of the Bush economic plan, to do these trade agreements that lower wages, that force down wages, that weaken food safety standards, that weaken environmental laws; that really do pave the way, invite those companies, really invite those companies to go overseas, at forced slave labor wages for totalitarian governments. These are not democratic governments. They are countries that suppress labor, that keep laborers from organizing, that keep workers docile. Then we are surprised they are ``outcompeting'' us. Of course they are.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years and heard these same arguments. I look at my State, and we have lost one out of six manufacturing jobs, 190 jobs every day during the Bush administration, and I do not see how it adds up. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my final 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk about a world of trade that never quite ends up the way that we promise in this institution. For 3 years in this Congress with this President, we have turned our government over to special interest groups. The Medicare bill was written by the insurance industry, the drug industry. Social security privatization legislation was written by Wall Street. Energy legislation has been written by Enron and Halliburton. Environmental legislation has been drafted by the chemical companies. And now trade legislation again has been written, in these provisions that we have talked about, by the drug companies. If you think that the prescription drug industry has too much influence in this Congress, if you think the prescription drug industry has too much influence on the Medicare bill, too much influence with FDA, too much influence on trade policy, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.- Australia FTA. If you do not trust the Bush administration to stand up to the drug companies and you do not trust the Bush administration to work for lower prices, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.-Australia FTA. If you care about reimportation and close to 300 Members on both sides of the aisle, 300 Members of this body do care about reimportation, if you in fact do, then vote ``no'' on U.S.-Australia FTA. And if you want to send a message to this Congress, if you want to send a message to the President and to the USTR that we should not allow the drug industry to write trade law in this country, then vote ``no.''

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time waiting, I believe, for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to close if he would like.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who perhaps knows more than anybody in this body about international trade.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am down to 4 minutes because of the passion on this side. I am the only opponent of the three, and it is pretty clear we are the biggest number of the House in the passion we share in opposition to this trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is voting ``no,'' also. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I thank her for her leadership on trade issues and fighting for American jobs.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a real leader on trade issues in the last few Congresses.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) use some more of his time, because I am down to 9 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is down to 15. But perhaps the gentleman from Illinois would be willing to yield 5 minutes of his time over here, since he has no one to speak and we have so many speakers on this side.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we each have?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I wish our trade policy were working as well for American manufacturing as my friends say it is. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell each of us how much time the three of us have remaining?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been a really good year for the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry is at it again in this body, attempting to undermine U.S. efforts to secure cheaper prescription drugs for millions of Americans. First, the Medicare bill passed late last year specifically prohibited the U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug prices for America's seniors and consumers, the drug industry and the President and the Republican leadership all singing off the same page. Then the pharmaceutical industry punishes American consumers by restricting the volume of prescription drug inventories in Canada to prevent importation to the U.S., the FDA, the President, Republican leadership and the drug industry again all singing off the same page. Now the President, the United States Trade Rep together have included language in this U.S.-Australia trade agreement that would enable the drug companies to prevent prescription drug importation, again to the detriment of America's consumers. We can bet those provisions will be in all future trade agreements negotiated by this administration. USTR and its drug industry allies, sometimes they are hard to tell apart, are doing all they can to drive up prices for Americans and the rest of the world. USTR and the drug industry were the only parties with a seat at the table for these FTA negotiations, no public interest groups, no senior groups, nobody advocating for reimportation. My question is this: Do we trust the USTR and the President and the drug industry to negotiate lower drug prices? Connect the dots. The drug makers are using every tool at their disposal to put a stranglehold on America's seniors and America's consumers. The reimportation bill this House passed last year included Australia as a platform. The reimportation bill in the Senate includes Australia as a platform. Why would both these bills mention Australia if we were not going to at least attempt to reimport from there? This FTA shuts the door on all possibilities now and in the future. Why would we do that, Mr. Speaker? The only way to maintain compliance if we pass this FTA is to remove Australia from that bill. Although Australia would likely not be a large reimportation platform, it is not currently impossible. This FTA slams the door on that possibility. It slams the door on any future agreement between Australia and us on the issue. Now, I want to read for a moment a brief part of a fact sheet from the Australian embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of nonsubsidized drugs, both generics and brand names,'' in spite of what we heard from my friend here, ``but only by a person who has been given marketing approval to do so, usually the manufacturer or Australian licensee.'' From the Australia embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of nonsubsidized drugs.'' The drug industry argues the trade agreement is not damaging, because Australian law already prohibits the export of subsidized drugs purchased under its pharmaceutical benefit scheme. However, that prohibition does not include all cost-saving importation from Australia. The importers of drugs from Australia to the U.S. do not have to purchase from the PBS. The provisions of this free trade agreement set a precedent for another misguided trade policy. We can be sure that this provision, this precedent that Members are going to vote on today, this precedent will be in all future FTAs negotiated by this administration. That is why a ``no'' vote is so very important so we do not set this precedent in this encouragement for the administration to continue to negotiate bad trade law, especially bad trade law for American consumers. The drug makers are making sure they close off any opportunity for American consumers to obtain affordable prescription drugs. This, Mr. Speaker, is another nail in that coffin. If one supports reimportation of affordable prescription drugs, think twice about the precedent your vote sets here today. A vote for the U.S. free trade agreement with Australia is a move against American consumers and a move against reimportation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The United States, and the global community, can only benefit from the development of bioterrorism countermeasures. By rendering biological attacks less lethal and, therefore, less attractive to would-be terrorists, new countermeasures serve a dual purpose. They are both an antidote and a deterrent to future attacks. For the sake of national and international security, it makes sense to invest in both basic and advanced research aimed at producing new bioterrorism countermeasures. When an opportunity to produce one of these countermeasures presents itself, it makes sense to capitalize on that opportunity quickly. That is the logic behind this legislation. It establishes an expedited process for Federal support of countermeasure research and a procurement process to encourage private sector investment. But Project Bioshield is not a blank check. Congress has a responsibility to weigh competing priorities and set funding levels appropriately. In that context, Congress cannot rest easy once we have passed this bill. Bioterrorism funding is certainly important, the legislation before us today is certainly important, but our investment in bioterrorism must not come at the expense of research on cancer and research on Alzheimer's and muscular dystrophy and AIDS and other significant health threats. If investing in Bioshield means diverting from other promising medical research, TB, multiple sclerosis, all other kinds of medical research, we are not making progress. We are, in fact, making trade- offs; trade-offs that set back the clock on cures for deadly and disabling diseases; trade-offs the public did not bargain for and should not abide. The last thing Congress or the President should do is assure the public that we are doing everything we can more than ever to find cures for major illnesses like cancer and Parkinson's when actually we are choking off funding for medical research. During his 2000 election campaign, President Bush said, ``As President, I will fund and lead a medical moonshot to reach far beyond what seems possible today.'' Apparently it was a short trip. According to a White House budget memo recently leaked to the press, if President Bush wins the election this fall, one of his first actions will be to propose a $587 million cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health. Medical researchers tell us that just to sustain the pace of medical progress that NIH has fostered, the agency's budget must increase 10 percent annually, something I hope everyone here would agree with, even though the President does not. Compared to annual, double-digit increases in the NIH budget, a cut in funding is a major step backward that would undermine promising medical research. Finding ways to prevent, to treat, and to cure disease is an enduring national priority. Interest in that should not wax and wane. That is why we do not double NIH funding, which we did bipartisanly between 1999 under President Clinton, into 2003 still supported by President Bush, but then reduced that increase and then proposed a cut in funding. Our investment must remain constant. We have a responsibility to prepare the country for a possible bioterrorist attack, but we also have a responsibility to maintain strong support for other medical research priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. In creating Project Bioshield, it gives America a promising weapon in the battle against terrorism. But bioterrorism, as I have said, is just one enemy in a much broader war against disease and disability. If we fund Project Bioshield, as we should, at the expense of life-saving and life-improving NIH research, we risk winning the battle and losing the war. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill. The drug industry has had a pretty darn good year in this Congress. The drug industry and the Bush administration, which is kind of hard to tell them apart when you look at what the drug industry and the Bush administration fight for in this Congress, have had it their way on every single issue in front of this Congress. The drug industry comes to the Congress, goes to the administration. The administration comes to the Congress asking for whatever the drug industry asks the administration to do. The Medicare bill, we all know by now, was, line and verse, written by the drug industry. That is why seniors are so generally unhappy with that prescription drug bill. That legislation, if you recall, had provisions to prohibit our government from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. That is what the drug industry wanted. The Food and Drug Administration, once one of the best agencies of our Federal Government, has become almost an arm of the drug industry. It debates for the drug industry. It tries to educate the public on behalf of the drug industry. We see it over and over again. Now the drug industry has its fingers in the U.S. Trade Rep's Office. You can look at what my Republican friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and Democratic friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), sent a letter out to Members of Congress saying 15 of the 25 panel members on the industry sector advisory committee for this trade agreement, appointed by the United States Trade Rep, are from the drug industry. Fifteen of the 25 panel members are from the drug industry. Not one senior group or reimportation advocate was included in the panel. The drug industry has its tentacles in the Medicare bill, in the FTA, and in the U.S. Trade Rep's office. Now, the question is why. First of all, I think the obvious answer is the tens of millions of dollars that the drug industry gives to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, especially the Republican leadership and to President Bush's reelection, the millions of dollars in campaign money. So we have really should not be surprised. But I ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, do we trust President Bush and the Republican leadership to do the right thing ever on an issue that affects the drug industry? What this legislation has, the Australian Free Trade Agreement has, is provisions written by the drug industry, for the drug industry, which ultimately could potentially handcuff the U.S. to get our drug prices down. That is what the drug industry wants. That is what President Bush wants. I do not think my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would want that. Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. I know this Australia Free Trade Agreement is going to pass this Congress, but what is important is that we send a strong message that we do not like the drug industry influence in this Australia Free Trade Agreement bill. I am asking my friends who support reimportation, who support lower prescription drug prices, and there are many of them on both sides of the aisle, certainly not the Republican leadership, but many rank and file Republicans, almost all of the Democrats who support lower prescription drugs prices, it is important to vote no on this, to send that message that we will not allow the drug industry to infiltrate every part of our lawmaking process.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney came to my home State of Ohio last week to try to explain the Bush economic policy, visiting a State with high unemployment, a State that has lost 200,000 jobs since President Bush took office, a State that has lost one-sixth of its manufacturing jobs and a State that has lost about 190 jobs every single day of the Bush administration. His answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Somebody making a million dollars gets a tax cut of $125,000, hoping it will trickle down to create jobs and more trade agreements like NAFTA, which instead have simply shifted jobs overseas. We need to change direction on this economy. It is not working in Ohio. It is not working in the industrial Midwest. We need a better manufacturing policy that pays attention to American manufacturing but does not shift jobs overseas.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, while Congress is working to provide affordable pharmaceuticals to American citizens through reimportation legislation, the Bush administration is working to undermine those efforts. We will soon vote on the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Article 17.9.4 of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the United States. That means the Australian Free Trade Agreement is directly inconsistent with provisions in the bipartisan drug reimportation bill sponsored by Senators Dorgan, McCain, Snowe, Lott and Daschle. Under its comprehensive pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the Australian government negotiates today lower prices for its citizens through mass procurement. In other words, they use volume purchasing. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has made sure that our government cannot use mass procurement to bring down drug prices for U.S. citizens, and that is not good enough. Now they want to go a step further. The U.S. Trade Representative's office, the President's person at the trade table, has included language in the Australian Trade Agreement that will forbid importation of cheap, affordable and safe Australian pharmaceuticals into our country. The clear winners as always in this Congress, as always in the White House, the clear winners are the large pharmaceutical companies; and the big losers, again, as far as prescription drugs and the Republican leadership, the big losers are American consumers, particularly millions of American retirees who lack drug coverage. The Bush administration and its pharmaceutical allies argue the only way to ensure lower drug prices for Americans is by raising drug prices on every other nation, ostensibly because these nations are not helping to pay for research and development. That argument is not just specious; it is absurd. Foreign drug prices already are high enough to cover research and development costs and still return a healthy profit to the drug industry. If you do not believe me, look at Pfizer's balance sheet, look at Pharmacea's balance sheets, look at Merck's balance, look at Schering's balance sheet. Glaxo is headquartered in England. Aventis is headquartered in France. Bayer is headquartered in Germany. Would these companies set up shop in a country where they cannot do business and make a profit? What if other companies do increase their drug prices? Do we really think the drug industry is going to turn around and reduce their prices just because they can get higher prices in Europe? Not on your life. Drug companies charge U.S. companies outrageous drug prices for one reason and one reason only, because they can. The Australian Trade Agreement simply helps them get away with it in that country too. Drug industry profits to $59 billion. Last year the drug industry has been virtually the only industry in America left unscathed by the Bush recession. Year after year after year they earn higher profits than any other industry in America for 20 straight years. Meanwhile, drug spending is fueling double-digit increases in health insurance premiums, drug spending is draining tax dollars out of the Federal Treasury hand over fist, drug spending is undermining the financial security of millions of seniors who have to choose between a full prescription drug dosage and their food or their utility bills. Meanwhile, other countries are fighting back all over the world, but our government is not. Instead, at the behest of the drug industry, the Bush administration is trying to undermine price negotiations in Australia and block lower price prescriptions from even reaching our country. Catering to a major campaign contributor like the drug industry is nothing new to this administration, but is it not getting a little ridiculous. If trade agreements are about creating open markets for cheaper goods and better market access, why are we trying to do something the opposite of that? Why are we trying to raise the price of prescription drugs across the world? The answer is easy: the pharmaceutical industry wants to make more money and the Bush administration and Republican leadership want their campaign help. Enough is enough. A vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement is a vote against U.S. consumers. It is as simple as that.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, survival of the fittest has its downside. When an antibiotic is used on the bacteria in a person or animal, it may kill some of the bacteria, but it will not kill all of them. The survivors reproduce, propagating these heartier antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistance, as we have discussed on this floor for several years, is a serious and growing threat; 38 Americans die every day. Thirty-eight Americans die every day from antibiotic-resistant infections according to the World Health Organization. Some estimates suggest that the number is twice that size. Antibiotic resistance costs the American health care system an estimated $4 billion every year. The Centers for Disease Control has called antibiotic resistance one of its top concerns. Human medicine is partly to blame. The CDC has launched a campaign to better educate doctors and patients about the dangers of antibiotic overuse. But animal agriculture is also to blame. Some 70 percent of antibiotic use in America is not for people but for cows, for pigs, for chickens and for other animals we eat. About 70 percent of those antibiotics are used not on sick animals but either to prevent illness prophylactically, or just to make healthy animals grow faster. The overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has serious consequences. Fluoroquinolones, the class of antibiotics that includes Cipro, are a disturbing example. Cipro is used to treat food-borne infections from a bacterium called camplobacter. The FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in human medicine in 1986, and for use in chickens in 1995. During the 9 years between 1986 and 1995, Mr. Chairman, no more than 3 percent of cases in the U.S. involved resistant bacteria. But just 2 years after FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens, resistance in humans had jumped to 13 percent. From 3 percent to 13 percent after the FDA okayed its use in chickens. By 2001, 19 percent of these infections in humans were Cipro- resistant. Private industry has recognized the problem and has begun to respond. McDonald's, Wendy's and others will no longer buy products made from chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. And leading chicken producers like Tyson, Gold Kist, Purdue have also committed to stop using fluoroquinolones. The American Medical Association, Consumers Union and other public health and consumer advocates believe it is time for the government to catch up to industry and take action on antibiotic resistance. Mr. Chairman, the National School Lunch Program lags behind. The USDA still buys chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. Last year, this Congress decided it was time to act. The conference report for the 2004 ag appropriations bill strongly encouraged USDA to buy chickens for the School Lunch Program only from companies that do not use fluoroquinolones. That language was approved by bipartisan majorities in each House. The bill accompanying it was signed by the President; but, unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture did nothing. The amendment I have offered was worded to closely track the language we approved last year. The difference is under my amendment, we are not asking this time, we are telling. Unfortunately, that is also why my amendment is subject to a point of order and I must withdraw it. Before I do, I invite the chairman and all of my colleagues to work with me to address this issue as the USDA bill advances. We asked USDA to do something last year in the strongest terms. It ignored us. Let us tell them we expect better this year. Let us tell the USDA we are serious about protecting the American people from a growing and serious problem, antibiotic resistance.

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