Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been very involved in health care issues, especially prescription drug and managed care issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has fought for low-cost prescription drugs for several years in this body.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 15 seconds. Within the next 5 years, patents on brand-name drugs with combined U.S. sales approaching $20 billion will expire. Given the tremendous cost savings with generic competition, it has never been more important to reduce unnecessary delays in FDA approval of generic drugs. The amendment I am offering today, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), would increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs by $2.5 million. Our amendment builds on the $1.5 million increase already allocated to this office under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I am pleased the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) supports this amendment. While I understand how difficult it is to allocate limited FDA resources, this amendment will pay for itself many times over. Additional dollars committed to the Office of Generic Drugs will generate enormous returns for American consumers, for Federal and State governments, and for employer-sponsored health plans. Prescription drug spending increased by 18.8 percent last year, accounting for half the increase in national health spending and a third of the increase in employer-sponsored health coverage. Generic drugs cost on average 40 to 80 percent less than their brand name counterparts. Sometimes they are 90 percent cheaper. To get a sense of the savings inherent in approving these drugs more rapidly: brand-name drug companies receive 6 additional months of market exclusivity when they conduct pediatric clinical trials. That 6 months, on the average, represents $695 million in lost consumer savings each year. It takes 6 to 12 months, on average, to review a new drug application. It takes 18 months, on average, to review a generic drug application. Multiply that $695 million, Mr. Chairman, times the full universe of generic drugs, and the 6-month difference means tens of billions of dollars in lost savings. There are 300 scientists on staff today to review generic drug applications. There are more than 2,100 scientists on staff to review new drug applications. By giving the Office of Generic Drugs the resources it needs, we can make a tangible difference in easing the prescription drug spending burden. Opportunities to reduce both public and private spending on prescription drugs without sacrificing access or quality are very hard to come by. Our amendment provides an additional $250,000 to fully fund a national campaign to raise public awareness about generic drugs. Generic drugs are as safe and as effective as brand-name drugs; they are just cheaper. But there is clearly an information gap when it comes to generics. Eighty-three percent of Americans report no bias against generic drugs, but only 54 percent fill prescriptions with the generics. There is a misperception that as conditions become more serious, the use of generic drugs becomes more risky. The greatest bias against generic drugs exists when cost savings, unfortunately when cost savings are potentially the greatest for serious conditions requiring expensive long-term treatment. If we can get generic drugs to market on a more timely basis and encourage more widespread use of these products, the public and private sector savings will quickly dwarf our investment. I ask the Members of this Congress to support the amendment.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and other colleagues from the Great Lakes region for consistently championing the preservation and protection of these precious lakes. I live on Lake Erie and appreciate the lake for its natural beauty. But Lake Erie is far more than a pretty backdrop. Ohioans rely on the lake for our region's economic well-being. We rely on Lake Erie to ship goods, to provide us with drinking water, to play host for recreational activities, and to attract tourists from all over the world. The Great Lakes contain 20 percent of all the fresh water in the world; and yet attempts are now being made to expand so-called directional drilling under the beds of the Great Lakes, jeopardizing the water, the shorelines, and the surrounding wetlands. These attempts are being made even though the existing oil and gas wells in operation under the Great Lakes have not produced enough oil and gas to fuel our domestic needs for even a single day. President Bush's solution for the country has been to drill early and drill often. Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, drill in the Gulf of Mexico, drill in the five Great Lakes. Instead of pursuing fossil fuels to the end of the Earth, Congress should author an energy policy that addresses both the immediate and long-term energy needs of our people. We should explore for additional courses of oil and gas, but we cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. Any strategy that calls for drilling in the Great Lakes, where there is more drinking water than any other place on Earth, fails even the most basic risk-reward analysis. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Instead of risking despoiling of every piece of ground or water under which fossil fuels may reside, we must focus instead on using energy resources more efficiently, increasing our use of renewable fuels and encouraging conservation. Last week, this body supported an amendment that afforded protection to the coast of Florida from the potential ravages of oil and gas exploration. Today I ask my colleagues to afford the Great Lakes the same protection.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let us get down to basics. Some health plans systematically obstruct, delay and deny care. Some health plans provide excuses instead of coverage. The bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights has enough teeth in it to deter health plans from cheating their enrollees and enough definition in it to protect health plans and employers from frivolous lawsuits. Yesterday, my Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), introduced legislation endorsed by President Bush and written by the largest insurance companies in the country. It does not give enrollees the right to sue. The language is drafted so that the right to sue cannot actually be exercised. The Republican bill is a sham. I ask President Bush to work with us to put insurance interests aside, to put campaign contributions from insurance interests aside, to work with us in the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. That is the bill that protects patients. That is the bill that restores the patient-physician relationship.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. President Bush's decision to open the border to Mexican trucks is wrong. A report released on May 8th from the Department of Transportation's inspector general showed the U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect 1 percent, 46,000 of the 4.5 million trucks that were crossing the border. Three years ago, at my expense, I went to Laredo, Nuevo Laredo. I went to the border and watched the truck inspections. One person was inspecting trucks that day. Two thousand five hundred trucks were going through the border at Laredo; one inspector working for Governor George W. Bush and the Department of Public Safety in Texas. I asked him how many trucks he inspected a day. He said 10 to 12. I said, how many trucks do you take out of service each day? He said, somewhere between about 9 to 11. He had told us, complained that the State of Texas had not fixed the scales which had been broken for 3 months, that the State of Texas and the Government of the United States simply were not very interested in truck safety. Whether these trucks, these 2,500 a day that were going from Nuevo Laredo to Laredo, Texas, the 4.5 million trucks a year, whether they have faulty brakes or tire failures or loads that exceed weight limits, Mexican trucks fail to meet American standards. Mexican trucks on average are 10 years older than U.S. trucks. A truck driver in the United States cannot get a license until 21. In Mexico, the age is 18. Mexico does not have a national commercial truck driver's license information system to detect driving violations. U.S. drivers can drive only 10 hours per shift, must keep a log of their hours worked, must pass a knowledge and skills test, and must have regular medical examinations. In Mexico there are none of those requirements. Madam Speaker, President Bush is wrong on truck safety. He is wrong to open the border to unsafe trucks. The Republican leadership is wrong on this issue. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding me time, and I especially thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the chair of the subcommittee, for his support on this and bipartisan support on many the other issues. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 819, which recognizes the many terrific achievements of former Congressman Don Pease and honors him by designating the Medina Federal Building as the Donald J. Pease Federal Building. A native of Oberlin, Ohio, Don Pease graduated, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) said, from Ohio University. He served as editor of the Oberlin News-Tribune, was elected to Oberlin City Council, the Ohio House of Representatives, and served in the Ohio Senate during my first term in the Ohio House in 1975-1976. In 1976, he was elected to represent Ohio's 13th Congressional District. In his first term, while on the Committee on International Relations, Don Pease spearheaded the fight for human rights protections. Later, as a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Don dedicated himself to a variety of tax fairness issues, and he was the first Member of this body to seriously pursue the enforcement of labor standards in developing countries and international trade agreements. His work has come to fruition in the last couple of Congresses as larger and larger numbers of Members of Congress have fought for those kind of labor protections in international trade agreements. His efforts, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) said, to work with both sides of the aisle include serving on the conference committee for the hotly debated Tax Reform Act of 1986, mediating between Congressional leaders in the first Bush administration on a variety of tax policy issues, and his work on China's Most Favored Nation status. After leaving Congress, Don returned home to Ohio. He has served on the board of Amtrak. He currently serves as a Visiting Distinguished Professor at Oberlin College's Department of Politics. Don Pease was, and still is, committed to Ohio's working families. His efforts to improve education, expand access to health care and support workers have made a profound difference in our lives. By renaming the Medina Federal Building at 143 West Liberty Street in Medina as the Donald Pease Federal Building, this bill honors his hard work, and is a testament also to the hard work and community commitment of his wife Jeanie and honors the work he did in the district he and Jeanie love so much. Don was held in high regards as both an ethical and able legislator. He devoted 16 years of service to our district, to the State of Ohio and our country. I am pleased to join my colleagues in Ohio, Democrats and Republicans alike, in recognizing Don Pease's dedication to improving people's lives. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 819.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his good work on this issue. On May 20 of last year, Chen Shui-bian was sworn in as President of Taiwan. This was an historic event, the first major transfer of power between rival political parties in that nation's history. Mature democracies like the United States take such political transitions for granted, but the peaceful exchange of power is a rare democratic legacy. Taiwan now shares this privilege. Taiwan has evolved into a stable, prosperous nation governed by the rule of law. Taiwan's 40-year journey toward democracy is a success story. We should acknowledge and reward that progress and celebrate it. Mr. Speaker, to this end, I introduced H.R. 428, which would authorize our U.S. Department of State to initiate a plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan in this year's World Health Assembly. Ninety-two of my colleagues have cosponsored this bill fostering Taiwan's participation in the World Health Assembly. This is a modest step, but a meaningful one. Observer status in the WHA does not require statehood, in fact the PLO, the Order of Malta, the Vatican, and Rotary International all have observer status in Geneva at the WHA, but passing this bill will be a significant victory for every Taiwanese citizen and for every American who cares about human rights. Children and families suffer from the effects of inadequate health care, whether they live in Washington, Geneva, Beijing, or Taipei. In 1998, Taiwan suffered an outbreak of enterovirus 71, a potentially fatal disease that causes severe inflammation of muscle surrounding the brain, spinal cord, and heart. Infants and children are particularly vulnerable to this highly contagious virus. Unfortunately, the Taiwanese doctors treating enterovirus 71 did not have access to the medical resources of the WHO. By the time the outbreak was under control, 70 Taiwanese children had died. Had Taiwan been permitted to draw on WHO expertise, these children could very well still be alive. But as Taiwan benefits from participation in the WHO, so does the rest of the world. Taiwan, with a highly developed health care system, has made great advances in science and technology. Inclusion in WHO would allow American health officials better access to Taiwanese information, as much as the other way around. Mr. Speaker, our government's tacit support for the status quo, our unwillingness to fight for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization, is not only short-sighted, it is unjustifiable. Infectious diseases do not respect politically driven distinctions or national borders. Infectious diseases travel. If there is TB in Taiwan, there will inevitably be TB in the U.S. If there is HIV/AIDS in South Africa, there will inevitably be HIV/AIDS in Brazil. Mr. Speaker, global illnesses are just that, global. No country is immune when one country faces a public health crisis. Recently, the administration decided to sell four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan, despite threats from the People's Republic of China. If our commitment as a Nation is strong enough to justify supporting Taiwan's military defense with arms sales, it certainly is strong enough to justify supporting access to global health resources for Taiwan's 23.5 million people. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the strong support H.R. 428 has received from Members on both sides of the aisle, and look forward to the bill's passage today. I call on President Bush to do the right thing, to go to Geneva and fight for observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 100th day of the Bush presidency, we have seen history made. President Bush just may have compiled the worst environmental record in the shortest time of any President ever. Let us run through the milestone of the Bush administration's environmental policy: Repealed the arsenic standard; unilaterally declared the Kyoto agreement on global warming dead; abandoned a campaign pledge seconded by his EPA administrator to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; supported drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the manner in which the Bush White House has executed its environmental policy makes matters even worse. The President, who repeatedly claimed during his campaign that the previous administration had failed to author a consistent principled energy policy, seems to be making environmental policy based on no principle at all, but rather on the basis of what he can get away with at the behest of the oil companies, at the behest of the mining companies, at the behest of the chemical companies. It is no secret that the Bush administration owes these big polluters for the President's election last year, and they are cashing in their chips fast. The White House even seems to be disregarding the advice of its own Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman. Earlier this year, Administrator Whitman publicly acknowledged the issue of global warming and said that President Bush would honor his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. She recommended by memo that he do so, only to be publicly rebuked. It seems Administrator Whitman was told, along with the rest of us, that President Bush was simply abandoning his campaign pledge. Then, earlier this week, Whitman was publicly rebuked again by her boss. Just 2 days ago, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to chide the EPA administrator for speaking in ``confusion'' Sunday when she announced that a White House energy task force would not recommend oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. He clarified that Vice President Cheney's task force would in fact recommend that oil drilling be allowed in the Refuge after all. When big oil talks, this administration listens. It is no big surprise, considering Vice President Cheney as an oil executive last year, in 1 year as an oil executive, made $36 million. Strangely, it now seems possible that Christine Todd Whitman, not necessarily a great friend of the environment when she was Governor of New Jersey, Whitman may become the lone administration official willing to occasionally, occasionally oppose the naked assault on the environment. As cochair of the Water Infrastructure Caucus in the House, the Bush administration decision that has irked me most is his weakening of the arsenic standard. Those of us who pushed for a stronger, safer new arsenic standard during a 5-year administrative process know that EPA's January decision ordering arsenic levels in America's drinking water be reduced, strengthened, if you will to 10 parts per billion, was quite simply the right thing to do. EPA took this action in response to a National Academy of Science report, not a partisan group, not an ideological group, a scientific group, which recommended that the 1942 standard of 50 parts per billion be reduced ``as promptly as possible.'' Arsenic's toxic properties have been common knowledge for a long time. Two hundred years ago, Napoleon's death was attributed by some to arsenic poisoning at the hands of the British. In 1942, there was sufficient concern about the dangers of arsenic in our country for a 50 parts per billion standard to be put into place. But during the last 5 years, in response to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA asked the National Academy of Science to specifically investigate the danger posed by smaller quantities of arsenic. The Academy produced reams of evidence that arsenic is not only a toxic, which we all knew, but is a potent carcinogen that causes bladder cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and has also been linked to kidney and liver cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems. Newborn babies and small children are at the greatest risk of health problems from the arsenic in water. By adopting an updated standard, the U.S. would not be leading the developing world, but joining it. Our allies in Europe and Great Britain and in Japan had already put into place arsenic standards to protect the public's health. In the face of all this evidence, the Bush administration still put the new drinking water standard on hold. Score another win for America's largest corporations. In my home State of Ohio, 137,000 residents may be drinking water with arsenic levels higher than the standard recommended by the World Health Organization. This standard puts the U.S. on the same levels as India, Bangladesh, Bolivia, and China. When you look at the President's campaign finance reports, you see the reason. In the last election, mining companies gave $5 million to Republicans, the chemical industry gave $10 million. We ask the President to reconsider.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for yielding me this time and for his leadership and assistance on this issue. On May 20 of last year, Chen Shui-bian was sworn in as the President of Taiwan. This was a historic event, the first major transfer of power from one political party to a rival political party in Chinese or Taiwanese history. Mature democracies like ours take such political shifts for granted, but the peaceful exchange of power in many regions of the world is a rare legacy. Taiwan now shares in it. Taiwan has evolved into a stable, prosperous nation governed by the rule of law. Taiwan's 40-year journey toward democracy is a success story, one which we should celebrate, one which we should acknowledge, and we should reward that process. Mr. Speaker, to that end I introduced H.R. 428 requiring the State Department to initiate a plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan in this year's World Health Assembly. Ninety-two colleagues have joined in cosponsoring this bill. Fostering Taiwan's participation in the World Health Assembly is a modest step, but a meaningful one. Observer status in the World Health Organization does not require statehood. As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) said, the Knights of Malta, the Palestinian Liberal Organization, the Vatican, and Rotary International all share observer status at the WHO. Mr. Speaker, passing this bill will be a significant victory for every Taiwanese citizen, and for every American who cares about human rights. Children and families suffer from the effects of inadequate health care, whether they live in Washington or Geneva or Taipei or Beijing. With the high frequency of international travel and the increase in international trade, the risk of transmitting infectious diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis and AIDS within and across national borders is greater than ever. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago Taiwan suffered an outbreak of enterovirus 71, a potentially fatal disease that causes severe inflammation of muscles surrounding the brain, heart and spinal cord. Infants and children are particularly vulnerable to this highly contagious virus. Unfortunately, the Taiwanese doctors treating this virus did not have access to the medical resources because they do not have observer status at WHO. By the time the outbreak was under control, 70 Taiwanese children had died. Mr. Speaker, had Taiwan been permitted to draw on WHO expertise, these children might still be alive. The fact that Taiwan remains handicapped in its effort to combat global illness is a tragedy. The fact that Taiwan remains handicapped in its efforts to save children is a crime, in some sense, in which we are all implicated. Our government's tacit support for the status quo, our unwillingness to fight for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization is not only shortsighted, it is unjustifiable. Infectious diseases do not respect politically driven distinctions or politically drawn national borders. Infectious diseases travel. If there is TB in Taiwan, there will more likely be TB in the United States. If there is AIDS in South Africa, there will be, inevitably be, AIDS in Western Europe. Global illnesses are just that: Global. No country is immune when one country faces a health crisis. This week, the administration decided to sell four KIDD Class destroyers to Taiwan, despite threats from China. If our commitment to Taiwan is strong enough to justify supporting its military defense, it is certainly strong enough to justify supporting access to global health resources for Taiwan's 23.5 million people. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is a country with a strong medical community. They have good scientific research, have a good public health community; and with their participation in WHO, they will contribute to the WHO as WHO information contributes to Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the strong support that H.R. 428 has received from both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to the bill's passage today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) who has fought for justice around the world.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who is a physician and has practiced medicine around the world.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the threat of tuberculosis is spreading rapidly throughout the developing world, and ultimately in this country. TB is the greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide. More than one-third of African AIDS victims actually end up, in the end, dying from tuberculosis. 1,100 people a day are dying from tuberculosis in India. It kills 2 million people worldwide per year, one person every 15 seconds. We have a very small window of opportunity, during which stopping TB would be very cost effective. In the developing world, the cost can be as little as $20; $20 can save generally a pretty young life. If we wait or go too slowly, more drug-resistant TB will emerge. It costs billions to control with no guarantee of success. Drug-resistant TB is at least 100 times more expensive in developing countries, and is 100 times more expensive in the United States to cure than nondrug-resistant TB. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to combat TB here and abroad. We have an opportunity to save millions of lives now and prevent millions of needless deaths, not just overseas, but ultimately in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider joining several dozen of us as cosponsors in our fight to eliminate tuberculosis.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the authors of this budget resolution owe my constituents and owe every American an explanation. How can they justify siphoning money out of the Medicare trust fund when Medicare solvency is already in jeopardy? Which of their budget priorities is more important than Medicare? In 1965, Republican Members of Congress overwhelmingly opposed establishing the Medicare program. In 1994, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House and the Republican leader of this House, stated that he would like to see Medicare, quote, ``wither on the vine,'' unquote. Now the Republicans control the White House and control the Congress. They want to accelerate Medicare insolvency, and they want to privatize the Medicare program. Medicare is not some throw-away program that one can experiment with, that one can starve, that one can walk away from, that one can ultimately abandon. To the Republicans, I say do America a favor. Put the best interests of Americans ahead of their top-heavy tax cuts and their indiscriminate disdain for public programs, especially those as overwhelmingly successful and popular as Medicare.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Tuberculosis is the greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide. Each year, 8 million people are diagnosed with tuberculosis and 2 million die from it, one person every 15 seconds. In India alone, 1,100 people die every day from tuberculosis. Not surprisingly, the statistics on access to TB treatment worldwide are pretty grim. Fewer than one in five of those with TB receive Directly Observed Treatment Short Course, or the so-called DOTS treatment. Based on World Bank estimates, DOTS treatment is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available, costing as little as $20, and no more than $100, in the developing world to save a life and producing cure rates of up to 95 percent, even in the poorest countries with the least developed health care infrastructure. But we have a small window of opportunity during which stopping tuberculosis can be cost effective. The failure to effectively treat TB, which comes from incorrect or interrupted treatment and inadequate drug supplies, creates stronger strains that can become resistant to today's drugs. An epidemic of multi-drug resistant TB, so-called MDR-TB, multi-drug resistant TB, would cost billions to control, with no guarantee of success. MDR-TB has been identified on every continent. According to the World Health Organization, MDR-TB ultimately threatens to return TB control to the pre-antibiotic era, the pre-1950s era, where no cure for TB was available. In the U.S., TB treatment, normally about $2,000 per patient, skyrockets to as much as a quarter million dollars per patient, what happened in New York City in the early 1990s, and an MDR-TB treatment may not even be successful. MDR-TB kills more than half of those infected in the United States and other industrialized nations. In the developing world, multi-drug resistant TB is an effective death sentence. As H. Res. 67 makes perfectly clear, more needs to be done. To control TB in the U.S. more effectively, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of TB control programs worldwide. It is not just the humanitarian and the right thing to do for us to work on TB in this country, it also makes a difference and work internationally on TB will make a difference in this country. This week I will be joined by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in introducing two pieces of legislation responding to the global TB threat. Our global TB legislation calls for U.S. investment in international TB control of $200 million for next year, with a focus on expanding proven, low-cost TB treatment in countries with high levels of TB. Our domestic bill calls for an annual investment of $528 million in Atlanta's Centers for Disease Controls in their efforts to eliminate TB and $240 million in the National Institutes of Health TB research activities. The Director General of the World Health Organization, Gro Bruntland, said that TB is not a medical problem, it is a political problem. Getting Americans engaged in an international and a domestic issue like TB, even when addressing that issue serves our best interests, is an uphill battle. Still, it is one worth fighting. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for their efforts on this issue. We have an opportunity to save millions of lives now and prevent millions of needless deaths in the future.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House voted for the President's signature proposal, a cut in income taxes heavily tilted towards millionaires and billionaires. Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Gilmore highlighted my no vote as evidence, he says, that I do not want to see lower taxes for my constituents. My district in Northeast Ohio is not heavily tilted towards the millionaires and billionaires whom President Bush and the Republican Party Chair Gilmore want to help. Most of the people I represent are middle-income people or lower-income working families working their way up. The right kind of tax cut would mean something to them. Unfortunately, that is not what the President delivered. Medicare means something to the people in my district. The President's plan uses an accounting trick to siphon funds for the Medicare trust fund. Medicare cannot afford that. The elderly people in my district cannot afford that. Mr. Speaker, tax cuts are not a partisan issue, but this tax cut is. If the President would work with us on a tax cut that would benefit all Americans, we could easily pass one in this body, but I could not support a bill which gives tax cuts to the wealthiest people, robs Medicare and fails to pay down the national debt.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill complements the resolution we just considered, and I would again like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for their work on this legislation. In 1999, nearly 75,000 people were on waiting lists for organ transplants; yet less than 22,000 of these 75,000 received transplants. Nearly 12 people die every day while waiting for a transplant. The question is how do we identify and how do we remove barriers to donation, narrowing the significant gap between transplant candidates and available organs? Public awareness is part of the problem. Providing assistance to living organ donors is another step. H.R. 624 would set both of these strategies in motion. The authors have been clear. This bill is not an exhaustive response to the donor organ shortfall. This bill, however, to its credit, is a starting point in implementing good ideas and in signaling congressional interest in an issue significant to all of us. Organ donation is such an amazing act of giving, one that delivers hope and health and life to thousands of patients a year. The fact that H.R. 624 represents the first step in a broader effort does not minimize its importance. I fully support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who has been a leader on this and other organ donation issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) who has a very interesting and wonderful story to tell.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution and the Organ Donation Improvement Act, which we will also take up today. I commend first and, most importantly, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for her good work on this, as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) highlighting the substantial unmet need for donated organs. This resolution highlights the need not only for organ donation, but for tissue, blood and bone marrow donations as well. There are 1,298 patients currently waiting for organs at northeast Ohio hospitals in my part of Ohio; 800 patients waiting for a kidney, 140 patients for a heart, 60 patients waiting for a lung. A single donor can provide organs and tissue to more than 50 people in need. March is Red Cross Month and the spotlight on this organization could not, Mr. Speaker, be more timely. Despite 6.3 million units of blood collected from 4 million generous donors in the year 2000, blood supplies are at a record low across our country. Awareness is the first critical step in addressing the country's life-saving donation needs. The resolution of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) makes Congress a leader in this awareness campaign. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.