Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are telling us repeatedly that seniors deserve better prescription drug options like those available to Members of Congress. I wholeheartedly agree, but it is difficult to see how a Republican plan that requires seniors to go outside of Medicare and purchase inferior HMO-like private drug insurance would deliver such coverage. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Republican plan is 40 percent less valuable than the coverage offered to Members of Congress. During last week's markup, I offered an amendment that would have replaced the standard coverage in the Republican bill with the same coverage under the Federal health benefits program that Members of Congress receive. But the night before our amendment was offered, Republicans adjourned early so they could attend a $30 million fund-raising dinner underwritten by America's drug companies. The CEO of GlaxoWellcome, a British pharmaceutical company, gave $200,000 to the GOP that night and chaired the event. When the markup resumed the next day, it came as no surprise when Republicans voted the amendment down, meaning this week Congress will be forced to vote on legislation that will give seniors less than Members of Congress have.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on the comments of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), about the prescription drug industry, the unwillingness of this Congress, which is so captured by corporate prescription drug company special interests and the Republican leadership ties to those large corporate drug company interests, and why this Congress will not move forward on providing a prescription drug benefit inside America for America's seniors and doing something about the outrageous price scheme that prescription drug companies inflict on this country. We are talking about an industry that has been one of the most profitable industries in America, return on investment, return on sales, return on equity, for almost every one of the last 20 years. We are also talking about an industry, the prescription drug industry, which has the lowest tax rate of any industry in America. We are also talking about an industry where half of the research and development that flows to new prescription drugs is given by taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health and foundations and others. Yet Americans are rewarded by paying more for their prescription drugs than people in any other country in the world. America's seniors pay two and three times what seniors in Canada and France and Germany and Israel and Japan and nations all over the globe pay. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is in large part because of the lobbying force, the lobbying strength, the prowess of the prescription drug industry. There are more than 600 lobbyists for the prescription drug industry that lobby this Congress, more than 600 people. There are very close ties between the prescription drug industry and the President of the United States. There are very close ties between the prescription drug industry and the Republican leadership in this Congress. All you had to do was watch last week in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, watch vote after vote after vote on the prescription drug legislation, where many of us were saying we want a Medicare prescription drug benefit, we wanted to do something about prices, we believe that senior citizens should have as good a benefit as Members of Congress. Every amendment we had to do that, Republicans down the line in every case voted no. I had an amendment to the legislation that said no senior should get a prescription drug benefit less than any Member of Congress. That was voted down on a party-line vote. Other Democrats had amendments to try to control prices, to try to bring prices down, to try to bring competition into the prescription drug business so we would see prices drop. Those were voted down on party-line votes. But when it came to subsidizing insurance companies for prescription drug benefit, that is what the Republicans supported. Let me compare the two pieces of legislation, the Democratic plan and the Republican plan; and you can see the influence that the prescription drug industry had over Republican leaders. The Democratic plan has a $25-a-month premium. The Republican plan has a premium that will be set by the insurance companies, somewhere between $35 and $85 a month. The Democratic plan had a $100 deductible. The Republican plan had a deductible, again set by the insurance industry, but probably upwards of $250. The Democratic plan had for the first $1,000 of costs, out-of-pocket costs for seniors, they would only pay 20 percent, the first $1,000; 20 percent of the second $1,000; and the government would pick up the cost beyond that. In the Republican plan, the seniors will reach into their pockets and pay thousands of dollars more than under the Democratic plan. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said earlier, the Republican plan does nothing to restrain prices so that Americans will continue to pay two and three and four times for their prescriptions what people in every other country in the world pay. Now, not coincidentally, last week we stopped our markup in the middle of the day one day so the Republican Members could go to a fundraiser underwritten by the prescription drug industry. The Chair of the fundraiser was the CEO of a British prescription drug company GlaxoWellcome. He and his company contributed $250,000 to get Republicans elected to Congress. Other drug companies gave $150,000 and $250,000 to this event. The next day after this event, which raised millions and millions of dollars for Republicans, millions of which, several hundred thousand, millions of which actually came from drug companies, the next day this committee voted down the line over and over again, with Republicans supporting the drug industry. It should come as no surprise as you watch this drug debate unfold this week, or maybe when we come back through the month of July, you will see Republicans continue to do the bidding of the prescription drug industry. That is one reason the Democratic plan should pass, which is written for and by seniors over the Republican plan, which is written for and by the drug companies.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I heard a Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means absolutely distort the truth about the Democrats' prescription drug plan, saying that it requires that seniors go into the Democrats' plan whether or not they choose to, whether or not they already have drug coverage. There is no place in this debate for those kinds of fabrications and those kind of lies, and I just want to set the record straight. Mr. Chairman, the prescription drug industry needs to clean up its act. You know it. I know it. American consumers know it. The brand name drug industry has no qualms about charging American consumers the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, even though American tax dollars and American contributions to private foundations fund nearly half their research, even though the prescription drug industry in this country is the most profitable industry in America, even though the prescription drug industry gets tax breaks so huge they have only half the tax liability of any other industry in this country, and even though more than 50 million Americans have no drug coverage, some of whom must choose between food and their medicine. Prescription drugs are not a luxury item. It is not okay that the drug industry overcharges U.S. consumers for products our own tax dollars helped to produce. The drug industry has tremendous influence over this Congress and especially this White House. Unfortunately, the situation may have to get worse before the Federal Government finally takes a stand against the outrageous pricing schemes of the drug industry. Until that happens, market competition is the only tool we have to bring down prices. When generics enter the market, the price typically drops as much as 90 percent. Market competition expands access to Americans who cannot afford the monopoly prices that are charged by the brand name companies. It spurs drug companies to earn their profits by developing new drugs, rather than by overcharging for existing products. It is much easier, obviously, to overcharge for existing products than to develop new ones. The brand name drug industry has taken to exploiting loopholes in the FDA drug approval process to block generic competition. So not only do drug companies charge Americans the highest price in the world while those drugs are under patent, these companies then try to charge Americans ridiculous prices after their patents expire by blocking generics from entering the market. You would think Congress would at least be interested in keeping drug companies from gaming the patent system as a means of cheating American consumers. Governors from both parties, major businesses like GM and Marriott and Verizon and unions and consumer groups and health insurers have demanded that Congress close these legal loopholes. Closing these loopholes would save American consumers literally hundreds of billions of dollars in the next 10 years. Yet, last week, Republican leadership blocked action on an amendment that would end drug industry abuses. This amendment simply would have prevented drug companies from artificially extending their patents, the drugs' protected patents and stop them from gaming the FDA patent system. Last week, Republican leadership blocked consideration of this amendment. They would not, in fact, even let the Committee on Energy and Commerce consider the amendment. It may not have been a coincidence that the same week that our committee was marking up the prescription drug bill, that same week that committee adjourned early one afternoon to go to a Republican fund raiser which was underwritten by the prescription drug industry. The chair of that Republican fund-raiser which netted $30 million was the CEO of a British drug company, GlaxoWellcome, donated $250,000 to the Republican cause. The CEO was joined by CEOs of other drug companies which contributed $50,000, $100,000, $200,000, $250,000 to this Republican fund-raiser. It should also come as no surprise that the next day after the fund- raiser Republicans returned to the committee and, in regular party line votes, voted against any kind of real reform, any kind of pro-senior prescription drug plan. The Democratic prescription drug plan written by and for seniors will bring drug costs down. That is what seniors want. The Republican prescription drug plan written by and for the prescription drug industry does nothing to bring prices down. That is what prescription drug companies want. I ask my colleagues to support the Democratic plan when it comes in front of the House and reject the drug-company-sponsored Republican plan.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey, who has been, as a member of the Subcommittee on Health has helped to lead the charge on all these issues in the last couple of years as Congress, some of us, have moved towards a real Medicare benefit. I want to sort of build on what my colleague has just said. Our plan, the Democratic plan, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, is administered by a program that Americans have learned to trust in the last 37 years, the Medicare program, while the Republican plan subsidizes the insurance companies to set up a Medicare prescription drug private insurance HMO plan. And we know how HMOs have treated seniors throughout this country over the last 5 years. Our plan, again, is a Medicare benefit. Their plan sets up drug company HMOs. Now, let us for a moment again compare the two plans. The Democratic plan has a $25 premium, the Republican plan, the premium is undefined. The premium will be set by insurance companies. And if what has happened in the States is any indication, the premium could be as high as $70 or $80 or $90 a month. The Democratic plan has a $100 deductible. The Republican plan, again set by the insurance companies, will have a deductible of at least $250. The Democratic plan, while there is a 20 percent copay for the first $2,000, the Republican plan has a 20 percent copay for the first $1,000 then a 50 percent out-of- pocket cost copay for seniors the next $1,000. Then, at $2,000, the Democratic plan will cover all drug costs from there on up. The Republican plan covers no drug costs for the next $1,800. So if a senior's drug bills are $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, they are out of pocket thousands and thousands of dollars in the Republican plan. But the ultimate comparison is look what has happened with this issue. The Republican plan is written by the drug companies. It is clear the drug companies are very happy with the Republican plan. In fact, in The Washington Post last week, and I quote, ``A senior House Republican leadership aide said the Republicans are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of the drug industry to make sure that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug companies. Republicans favor a private sector solution to lowering drug costs,'' and on and on. But I will say it again, a senior House Republican aide said the Republicans are working behind the scenes to make sure the plan, the drug plan for the elderly, suits the drug companies. The Democratic plan was written with input from the AARP, from consumer groups, from all kinds of senior citizen organizations that want to see seniors benefit from this plan. The Republican plan was written by the drug companies so that drug companies benefit. The logical question then is, why would the Republicans do that? Well, last week, as my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), saw as a member of our committee, right in the middle of the markup, right in the middle of hearing amendments and working on this legislation, the Republicans, on Wednesday evening at 5 p.m., and we usually work much later than that when we are doing important pieces of legislation, at 5 p.m. the Republicans adjourned the committee so they could go off to a fundraiser underwritten by Glaxo-Wellcome, a British pharmaceutical company, to the tune of $250,000 and supported by other drug companies. PhRMA, the trade association for the drug companies, committed another $250,000; other drug companies put in $50,000, $100,000, and $250,000. So that the drug industry was pumping literally well over $1 million into this fundraiser. And so we stopped working on the drug bill at 5 p.m. and the Republicans went to this fundraiser underwritten by America's drug companies, the world's drug companies, Glaxo- Wellcome, Bayer, and others from outside the United States. Then the next day the Republicans returned to the committee hearing and voted consistently in support of the Republican prescription drug plan programs and consistently in support of what corporate interests, what the drug companies wanted. As an example, I had an amendment that no Member of Congress should get a better benefit than senior citizens; seniors should have the same prescription drug benefit as Members of Congress. The drug companies did not want that, so the Republicans voted down the line against that amendment that says to the public senior citizens, sorry, your drug benefit is not as good as a Member of Congress. Other amendments, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), by several on the committee, by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), also were voted down by the Republican majority because the drug companies did not want them. Anyone sitting in that committee with a scorecard could have written a column that reflected senior position, drug company position, and every single time the Republicans went with the drug company position. Every amendment, on rural health, on how to control and bring down prices of prescription drugs, on closing what is called the donut hole, or the gap, where prescription drug benefits simply end in the Republican plan at $2,000, one issue after another the Republicans checked the box on whatever the drug companies wanted. The kind of money that the Republicans raised from the drug companies last week is scandalous. The kind of money Republicans raised from drug companies and then turned around and voted the Republican line is absolutely outrageous. Americans need to speak out, tell the Republicans in this body how ashamed they are that they would take that position and vote the drug company line after pocketing literally millions of dollars from drug company interests. Until the Republican leadership in this Congress gets its act together and realizes this drug bill should be for seniors, not for drug company interests, Americans are going to continue to see the kind of stalemate here that has happened. I just urge people in this country to understand where each party sits. The drug companies and the Republicans are on one side, seniors and Democrats are on the other side. And that is why this Thursday or Friday, when we vote for this, it is important that this House pass the Democratic substitute which gives a real benefit, which limits prices that drug companies charge so they cannot continue to charge Americans more than they charge the British and the Japanese and the Germans and the French and the Canadians and the Israelis and everybody else on Earth. The fact is it is an industry that is the most profitable industry in America. They pay the lowest tax rate of any industry in America, U.S. taxpayers help to fund research and development, and the drug companies turn around with their Republican friends in Congress and continue to stick it to the American public. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for the good work the gentleman has done on this legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want Medicare to take a right turn, and that right turn is to expand health maintenance organizations, to deliver the prescription drug benefit through a privatized HMO/insurance system. We want to see Medicare remain a public program and deliver the drug benefit the way it delivers hospital benefits and physician benefits. The Republicans want to put Medicare back into a private insurance scheme just like HMOs and put the prescription drug coverage into that same scheme to privatize the greatest government program in history, Medicare.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, early Friday morning, under cover of night, the Republican plan to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit was forced through the Committee on Energy and Commerce on strict party lines. The prescription drug proposal made by the Republican leadership in Congress is so farfetched and so inadequate that it is an insult to the seniors it alleges to help. This legislation calls for private insurance companies to deliver drug coverage, and the coverage is minimal. We sought to improve the bill, but our efforts were stymied by a coalition of the Republican leadership and their corporate sponsors, the brand name drug industry. Democrats insist that any prescription drug plan for seniors should be administered through Medicare, the program seniors know and trust. We have insisted the benefits be at least as generous as the coverage enjoyed by Members of Congress, and we sought to lower drug prices, ending drug industry patent abuses and enhancing competition in the prescription drug marketplace. The need for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare is undisputed. Twelve million American seniors lack any form of drug coverage. This situation is made worse by the fact that American seniors and others without drug coverage pay the highest prices in the world for their prescriptions. This is not the first time Republicans have attempted to capitalize on the need of America's seniors for a drug benefit but is the most blatant. Republican after Republican will come to the House floor in the next 3 days, saying seniors deserve a drug benefit as good as Members of Congress have. Unfortunately, though, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Republican plan is 40 percent less than the coverage offered to Members of Congress. During last week's markup, I offered an amendment that would replace the standard coverage in the Republican bill with the same coverage offered to Members of Congress. But the night before the amendment was offered, Republicans adjourned the committee markup early so that they could attend a $30 million fundraising dinner underwritten by Glaxo-Wellcome, a British pharmaceutical company which gave $250,000 that night to the Republican Party. When Republicans returned from that fundraiser in which the drug companies gave well over a million dollars in total, when they returned from that fundraiser the next day, it came as no surprise that Republican colleagues voted my amendment down, meaning that the House will be forced to vote this week on legislation that would provide seniors with a significantly less drug benefit than Members of the Congress. In other words, Republicans are going to give Members of Congress a much better drug benefit than seniors will enjoy. The Republican bill is not designed to ensure that seniors and disabled Americans gain access to drug coverage. It is designed to ensure that seniors and disabled Americans lose access to what they want to do, which is privatize Medicare. Unless the goal is to phase out Medicare and phase in an insurance voucher system, it makes no sense to maintain a public program for medical and surgical benefits but for seniors to purchase private coverage for prescription drug benefits. If this bill is not about privatizing Medicare, if it is actually meant to provide seniors real drug coverage, why is there a hole in the plan's coverage? Why do the benefits decline as an enrollee's drug costs go up? Insurance is supposed to protect individuals with high health care costs, not to desert them. So why this kind of Republican plan that serves the insurance interests and drug company interests but not seniors? On May 8 the United Seniors Association, a group funded by the prescription drug industry, announced it would begin a $3 million television ad campaign touting the GOP drug prescription drug plan. Guess who is paying for the media blitz? The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America are paying for the media blitz, a trade group representing major drug companies. In other words, the drug industry is using dollars they gouge from American consumers to advertise the Republican drug bill. What should that say? Would they advertise a bill they thought would be hard on the drug companies and drive a hard bargain with America's drug companies? Drug companies do not like the Democrats' bill because we harness the collective purchasing power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to demand discounts, volume discounts, to demand fair prices. Our bill gives seniors good coverage, real coverage, reliable coverage just like Medicare, plus we are tough on the drug companies. Glaxo-Wellcome, the company that sponsored the major Republican fundraiser last week, charges Americans the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Listen to that again. Glaxo-Wellcome, British- owned prescription drug company, charges seniors the highest prices of any country in the world. The Republican plan is written by and for the drug companies. The Democrats' plan supports seniors.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the House will soon consider a motion to go to conference on H.R. 3005, the fast track bill. Normally, the process for beginning a conference is a noncontroversial pro forma exercise, but attempts at passage of a special rule make clear that the current process is anything but normal. The presumptive chairman of the conference has made clear he does not trust the conferees. He has a vision of how he wants the conference to proceed, and he wants to eliminate any chance that things will not go his way. The Republicans are employing an arcane, rarely-used procedure that I do not believe I have seen in my 10 years in Congress, to stack the deck against Democrats on the conference committee and to deny any vote on a Democratic alternative on fast track trade legislation. The Republicans are attempting to abuse the House process by adding up to a dozen new items that the House has never had an opportunity vote on, has had no hearings to discuss, nor has even considered. These changes include gutting the other body's health care assistance for workers suffering from our trade policies, creates a weaker version of the other body's trade adjustment assistance, and it completely strikes the Dayton-Craig provisions that are designed to ensure that Congress has a role in protecting U.S. trade laws. The rule goes well beyond normal procedures, completely unnecessary to begin the fast track conference. The most offensive of the Republican leadership's provisions will gut the worker health protections added in the other body's bill. Under TAA health provisions, workers would have access to an advanceable and a refundable tax credit valued at 70 percent of their health insurance premium; 70 percent. This tax credit could be used for group coverage, continuation of COBRA coverage, State health insurance purchasing plans, and other ways. Group coverage offers several advantages to workers. It is cheaper, its availability is much wider, and health insurance cannot be denied due to preexisting conditions. Republicans, however, are expected to offer a tax credit that can only be applied toward private nongroup coverage. Under the Republican approach, there is no guarantee that workers will be able to even find health insurance, because it is in the private market, let alone to afford it. In the private individual market, there are no limits on premiums that can be charged for someone who is sick, and insurers often exclude coverage of important services and even exclude coverage sometimes of body parts. As a result, only relatively healthy workers are likely to find affordable coverage, which means other workers will be left without any coverage or will be forced to pay the entire cost of whatever group coverage might be available to them. Less healthy workers, who are unable to find affordable, meaningful individual coverage will be forced to go without coverage or pay the full COBRA premium. Because relatively healthy workers will therefore leave the COBRA pool, and relatively less healthy workers will remain in the COBRA pool, employers' COBRA costs go up. Accordingly, employers will be forced to either scale back benefits or drop coverage entirely. The Republican approach, as it usually does, will create a windfall for insurance companies and for HMOs. It will not protect workers, again as the Republicans plan usually does not. It will not protect workers or employers from huge health care costs. Under their proposed rule, Democrats would have no chance to debate or amend any of these provisions. Not surprisingly, the Republicans are proceeding without any consultation with Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means. While the majority may say that their TAA health benefit is the same as what the other body passed, no one should be fooled. This will only hurt American workers who have already been hurt by unfair trade policies. I urge my colleagues to oppose any rule that may be on the floor tomorrow and to oppose any rule that may jeopardize a bipartisan conference committee on fast track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Congress made a choice. Republicans in this body passed legislation giving literally hundreds of billions in tax breaks, hundreds of billions of dollars, to the richest one-half of one percent of Americans, to deca-millionaires and to billionaires. The choice that Congress made was between a tax cut for the richest, most privileged Americans, and an adequate, legitimate real prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. This week, unfortunately, America's seniors will begin to pay the price for that choice that Congress made, that choice that Republican leadership pushed through Congress of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over a prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. Now, Republicans will say, as we will find in the Committee on Energy and Commerce this week as we mark up the prescription drug bill, Republicans will say that they in fact have a prescription drug bill that they are offering in committee. What they will not say is that prescription drug bill is very inadequate for seniors' needs. Their bill serves three purposes. Number one, it is the launching pad for Medicare privatization. If their prescription drug plan becomes law, it will be the beginning of full scale, turn-it-over-to-the- insurance-companies privatization of Medicare, something clearly seniors in this country and the rest of us in this country do not want. The second purpose that their legislation will serve, their so-called prescription drug bill offered in committee this week, is it will shift Federal resources away from seniors and into tax cuts. We simply cannot give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the most privileged people in society and still afford to do an adequate prescription drug benefit for seniors. The third purpose that the Republican bill serves that will be offered in committee this week on prescription drugs is it is what the drug industry wants. The drug industry wrote their legislation. Congressional Republicans couched these three motives in choice rhetoric. They will argue that seniors should not be forced into a one- size-fits-all prescription drug program, that they deserve, quote- unquote, a ``choice'' of private plans. Think about that. What kind of choice is actually desirable when it comes to drug coverage? A drug plan either covers the prescription drugs, or it does not cover the prescription drugs. Disbursing seniors into multiple complicated private plans serves the best interests of the drug industry, to be sure, the best interests of the drug industry, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle are always intent on doing; but it would undercut seniors' collective purchasing power, enabling the drug industry to continue charging their outrageously high prices. The Republican prescription drug plan, unlike the Democratic plan, the Republican plan does nothing about bringing down drug prices. Why? Because the prescription drug industry wrote their plan. Their approach chips away at the value of traditional Medicare, setting the stage for Medicare privatization. Both the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have argued that adding a real prescription drug benefit to Medicare is too expensive. That is why their proposal would still leave seniors liable for up to $3,000 of prescription drug expenses. It is hardly a real prescription drug plan if the senior still could be on the hook for $3,000. Retirees contributed to Medicare during their working years; and our current prosperity reflects their hard work over the last 2, 3, 4, 5 decades. Adding real prescription drug coverage to Medicare is an unfulfilled responsibility that this institution, that this Congress, the Members of both parties, must fulfill. Seniors have earned, and they richly deserve, comprehensive health coverage, including modernizing Medicare by including a meaningful prescription drug benefit. The President and the Congress have a choice when it comes to drug coverage for seniors: we can stand up to the drug industry, devote the necessary resources to a drug benefit, bring prices down for prescription drugs and add a real drug benefit to Medicare; or, or we can cut taxes on the richest, most privileged 1 percent of the people in this country and pass a drug bill that only the prescription drug companies and their friends, their Republican friends in Congress, really want. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is pretty obvious.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an exciting new technology. Local television broadcasters across the country are undertaking their biggest advancement in years: the transition to digital television. These stations aim to provide new services to their viewers, our constituents. Digital TV opens the door to new possibilities like High Definition TV, interactive television, and expanded programming options. Two Cleveland stations already serve my district with digital signals: WEWS, a Scripps Howard Station and WKYC, a Gannett owned station, are leading the charge into the digital future. Across the country, local broadcasters have made substantial investments in new transmitting facilities, new production equipment, and in some cases, new broadcast towers. Collectively, the broadcast industry has invested over one billion dollars in this new technology. While local broadcasters are doing their part to propel the digital television transition forward, all the pieces of this transition have yet to fall into place. The transition will accelerate significantly once cable companies begin to carry local broadcasters' digital signals. 70% of U.S. television households receive their TV through cable. American consumers will begin to reap the full benefits of this revolution once digital television is available on cable. I hope that Congress can work with these different groups: broadcasters and cable operators, and other interested parties on remaining issues. Until then, however, I am confident the future of television is digital. And that future is bright.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. air traffic control system is the largest and most complex in the world, and it is the safest. President Bush issued an executive order last week stripping aircraft traffic control of its inherently governmental designation. This is the first step in his plan to privatize our air traffic control system. Privatization has failed in other countries. Canada's air traffic controllers face 6-day work weeks, mandatory overtime and a contract that expired in March. Air traffic controllers on September 11 landed 5,000 planes in the span of 2 hours without an operational error. Yet President Bush wants to privatize the air traffic control system. He wants to privatize Social Security; that will not work. He wants to privatize Medicare; that will not work. Now he wants to privatize our air traffic control system, and that will not work. Air traffic controllers should remain under the direct supervision of the FAA, which is doing a good job to maintain the necessary levels of training, of personnel, and of common experience.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would close on our side with a couple of comments. I support the resolution offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I would hope that this resolution and discussions like this on the floor, following up on the excellent comments of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), lead to an examination of practices of those in this society who, by their actions, really promote obesity; not so much the people that ultimately pay the price of worse health and earlier death, but the fast food chains whose marketing techniques of biggie- size this and biggie-size that encourage especially our young people to drink more high-caloried soda pop and eat more French fries and eat more, ingest more calories. Look at even the growing obesity of children in places like China, which had no obesity problems until we began to export the fast food industry to countries like that. I would hope that we would examine the practices of those who promote obesity, such as the marketers and the advertisers, who spend billions of dollars to encourage, again, especially children in bad eating habits, to eat unhealthy food. Imagine on television a marketer writing ads, a marketer who is maybe paid $500,000, using his or her skills to encourage a child to spend $3 at a fast food restaurant. That is not exactly an even match. Look at even our schools, Mr. Speaker, where now schools in this country, because we underfund schools, they go to the private sector, they go to soft drink companies; and those soft drink companies will pay a fee to those schools so they can bring their pop machines into the cafeteria. I think we have all been in schoolrooms where we have seen kids with a can of pop on their desk or walking down the hall with a soft drink. Some schools do not allow that, but too many do. When I was in school at Mansfield Senior High School, Mansfield, Ohio, 30 years ago, I remember the only vending machine in the cafeteria was an apple machine. Today we see soft drink machines in the cafeterias, in the halls, near the gyms. Because we underfund our public education, we have to give tax cuts in this institution to the richest people, so we underfund public education and then we force our schools to go out and make contracts with companies to bring pop machines in the schools, so leading those kids to more health problems in the future. That is really one of the reasons we have obesity in this country. It is all pretty tied together. I hope this resolution in the future, and I plan to support the resolution of my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I hope it leads to an examination of the real issues surrounding this issue.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my colleague's resolution highlights a public health issue that undoubtedly deserves more attention. Obesity is linked to a host of acute and chronic conditions and costs our health care system as much as $100 billion every year. It is the second leading cause of unnecessary deaths in this country. Obesity can cause reproductive problems, pulmonary problems, osteoarthritis, liver disease, and can dramatically increase a person's risk for cancer and for diabetes. I do not doubt my colleague's sincere concern and desire to provoke a more serious Federal response to the obesity problem. I look at H. Res. 438, at the title, Mr. Speaker, and it says ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that improving men's health through fitness and the reduction of obesity should be a priority.'' That is what we are voting on today. My question is, as it has been with each of the health care-oriented resolutions we have considered this year, how does all this rhetoric about wanting to address health care issues align with what we are actually doing to address health care issues? Again, this resolution, Mr. Speaker, says ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in improving men's health through fitness and the reduction of obesity should be a priority.'' Of course it should be; but, again, it is one more resolution begging the question: What is this House of Representatives doing when it comes to prescription drugs, when it comes to dealing with disparities between rich and poor in the health care that is delivered, when it comes to deal with any of the health care problems that we face? The President's budget cuts funding for chronic disease programs at CDC, yet we have this resolution on the House floor. It is the very program that pays attention to public health issues like obesity. The President ostensibly proposed cuts like this one to make room for the $665 billion price tag associated with making his tax cut permanent. Again, no money for an adequate prescription drug benefit; no real work on this issue, other than a resolution saying let us make it a priority. Is this body going to restore the CDC funding so that we can really address the problems of obesity, or are we too wed to this tax cut that goes overwhelmingly to the richest people in our society? Are we going to target any funding to reducing the rates of obesity in this country? Where are the dollars going to come from, or are we just going to again pass a resolution that sounds real good that could help my friend from Pennsylvania in his fight for reelection because it looks good and we can send a news release out, but what does it really do, Mr. Speaker? We have passed, largely along party lines, six pieces of legislation that dramatically reduce the Federal tax revenues available for existing public health initiatives, much less new ones like this. Six pieces of legislation, always overwhelmingly giving tax cuts to the richest people in this country. We have passed these six bills, yet we passed exactly one piece of legislation that would actually improve the public health, the bipartisan bioterrorism bill, approved last week to be signed by the President tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we are draining trillions of dollars from the Federal coffers and, at the same time, pledging to do more to combat a host of public health problems, including obesity. Talk, Mr. Speaker, is cheap. If Congress could address public health problems just by talking about them, which seems to be what my Republican friends that run this Chamber seem to be all about, then there would be no public health problems. Each time we pass one of these resolutions, as meritorious as the subject matter may, in fact, be, we get away with talking about a significant issue rather than actually doing something about a significant issue. Somehow, this body feels justified in acknowledging that we need to do more, but never saying how we are going to do that, while draining the budget through tax cuts for the richest Americans after tax cut for the richest Americans. I hope that every Member, Mr. Speaker, who votes for this resolution and pledges ``to take proactive steps to intensify our efforts to combat this health problem'' remembers that pledge and all of the other pledges when the next tax-cut-for-the-rich vote comes around. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a leader in this and other issues like this.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Americans are still paying two and three and four times more for their prescription drugs than consumers in any other nation in the world. Twelve million seniors lack any form of prescription drug coverage, and millions more have inadequate coverage. My Republican friends are poised to introduce prescription drug legislation that does not address either of these concerns. That is because the goal of their legislation is not to deliver meaningful prescription drug benefits to seniors or get a grip on unjustifiably high prices. Their goals are, one, to try to look responsive to the concerns of senior voters and their families, without actually investing enough to be responsive to their concerns; second, to do the bidding of the prescription drug industry, which is what my Republican friends always do; and, third, to privatize Medicare, the best health care system this country has ever seen. How do they win political points? By mimicking some of the features of a real drug benefit but investing only about one-third of the dollars needed to deliver real drug coverage. By starting with 80 percent coverage, which makes their plan look generous, then increasing the cost-sharing, the cost that seniors actually pay, dramatically as a senior's prescription drug price costs rise. Under the Republican plan, seniors who spend more than $2,000 lose their coverage altogether, no more coverage for the next $2,500 in expenses. Find me a single health insurance plan in the private sector that increases the cost-sharing burden as an enrollee's costs go up. The Republican plan is so skeletal that seniors would still need supplemental prescription drug coverage if they wanted protection against high drug prices. The majority may dress up their plan in appealing rhetoric, but it is still a cheap imitation of real prescription drug coverage. The Republicans' second goal is to do the bidding, no surprise here, of the prescription drug industry which, of course, favors the private plan approach. Remember the Flo ads from a couple years back, the ones where Flo said she did not want the government in her medicine cabinet? Those ads were funded by the drug industry. They were intended to demonize the idea of adding a drug benefit to the existing Medicare program. The drug industry favors bypassing Medicare and forcing seniors into private prescription drug plans. Be prepared for the majority to claim its plan cuts drug prices by 30 percent per prescription. The Republican plan does not cut drug prices by 30 percent, in spite of what they say. Their plan reduces drug spending, not prices, and they do that mostly by restricting seniors' access to higher priced necessary medicines. They are not doing seniors any favors with that strategy, and they certainly are not challenging their corporate sponsors, the drug industry's ugly habit of charging American consumers the highest prices in the world for drugs our tax dollars, our research, our NIH helped produce. I recently received a letter from a constituent who last year took a bus and purchased his medicines in Canada. He said the only side effect from those drugs was that he saved $2,000. Same medicines, same quality, $2,000 less. The savings is significantly more than most seniors would save by signing up for the Republican prescription drug plan. The second goal of my Republican colleagues is not to rock the boat when it comes to drug industry pricing. Never upset the prescription drug company, one of their biggest contributors. The third goal is to privatize Medicare. The Republican prescription drug plan not only bypasses Medicare by promoting private prescription drug plans, it would phase out Medicare as an entitlement and phase in a privatized, defined contribution program. Medicare beneficiaries would receive a voucher to cover part of the cost of the private insurance. Wealthier citizens would supplement that voucher to get better coverage. Lower income seniors will just have to take what they get. If the majority want to end the Medicare entitlement and abandon the principles that all Medicare beneficiaries, everyone in this country over the age of 65, are entitled to good health care coverage, they should not hide behind prescription drug coverage to do that. They should say, yes, we want to privatize Medicare. I am working with other interested Members on legislation that adds a real prescription drug benefit to Medicare, that harnesses the collective purchasing power of Medicare beneficiaries to drive drug prices down, which is what other countries, especially Canada, do to get lower drug prices and that does not use prescription drug coverage as their method to privatize Medicare. We are the richest country in the world. We owe our prosperity to the retirees who built this country. If we can afford trillion dollar tax cuts, which my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), will talk about in a moment, if we can afford trillion dollar tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the richest people in this country, we sure can afford a real drug benefit for our seniors. Let us not trivialize the concerns of Medicare beneficiaries and every American by sugarcoating paltry coverage plans. The American public hired us to address their concerns, not to co-opt them. Let us, for a change in this body, do our job.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. American lives depend on the strength and the reach and the cohesiveness of our public health system. For far too long, we have neglected our public health infrastructure, the men and women on the front lines, and the resources they need to do their job. This bill makes a new investment in the Nation's public health and vaccines and in food safety. I am particularly gratified by the strong language concerning antibiotic resistance and the very positive work we have done to improve the safety of imported food. I want to recognize the hard work of staff who has been laboring over this bill for several months, pulling some all-night sessions, long weekend sessions. On the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Edith Hollaman and John Ford and Bruce Guinn and Jonathan Cordone on the minority; and with the majority, Nandan Kenkeremath, Amit Sachdev, Tom DeLinge and Pat Morrisey; also with the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) office, Ann Witt; and especially three people in my office, Ellie Dghongy, Katie Porter and Earl Seeley, for their outstanding work on this very complicated and extraordinarily complex issue. This legislation authorizes PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. By increasing the resources available to FDA, PDUFA has enabled the agency to reduce the time needed to assess safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs. Expediting access to beneficial new medicines is good for consumers and good for public health. However, more rapid approval times, coupled with increasingly aggressive marketing by drug manufacturers, all too often have safety consequences. More new drugs in the marketplace, more Americans taking these drugs due to the barrage of direct-to-consumer advertising, if a lethal side effect surfaces once a new drug hits the market, millions of Americans are affected. That is why it is critical to bolster FDA's drug safety capabilities. One of the most important provisions in this bill enables FDA to devote a portion of the user fees it collects from the drug industry to enhance its pre- and post-market drug safety functions. We took steps to ensure that the focus on rapid approval time does not put pressure on FDA to drain resources from other important functions, like drug safety, like the review of drug advertising, and, importantly, the review of generic drugs. We also laid the groundwork for improving the process by which drug user fees are established. The public interest is never served when a regulatory body and the industry it regulates get too close. FDA depends on user fees from the industry it regulates, consumers depend on FDA to focus on public health and public safety, not on drug industry profits. FDA has established performance goals to demonstrate that it is applying the user fees in an effective manner. Historically, the drug industry and FDA have jointly established these goals behind closed doors. We have taken steps to make sure consumers are part of that process. Regardless of where the revenues come from, FDA's responsibility is the consumer, not the drug industry, something they need to always remember. Any and every goal it sets should reflect that fact. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly mention one disappointment in this process. Last year, we passed legislation giving the drug industry a patent extension if they conduct tests to make sure their drugs are safe in children. Some of us question why the Federal Government had to bribe drug companies in order to get them to do tests that should be mandatory. We know many new drugs are prescribed for kids now. We know doctors are forced to fly blind, making decisions about the right medicine, the right dose, without the benefit of clinical testing. We were told the patent extension incentive was important to get drug companies to conduct tests on drugs already on the market, but that the bill did not supplant FDA's authority to require the testing for new drugs. Well, it appears the drug industry and my Republican colleagues, who on this issue apparently are doing its bidding, have changed their mind. The administration has waffled on whether to maintain the regulations that affirm the testing requirement. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has introduced legislation to codify that requirement, in other words, to ensure that children receive the proper drugs in the proper dosage. If we could depend on the drug industry to make sure their drugs are safe, the drug industry would not be fighting regulations that require them to do so. Other than those small number of criticisms, Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the committee.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse who is on our committee.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is a leading force on the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)