Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), who has been very involved in this issue during his time in Congress.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Don Pease began his long and distinguished congressional career in 1976, a time when Gerald Ford was President of the United States and Ohio's 13th District was characterized by growing industrialization and rural communities. Upon his retirement in 1992, Don Pease could look back and see a fundamentally changed landscape he helped shape on both a local and national level. A native of Oberlin, Ohio, Pease is a graduate of Ohio University and served on the Oberlin City Council, in the Ohio House and Senate, and as editor of the Oberlin News-Tribune. In 1976, he won election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Pease spearheaded the fight for human rights protections with his standing on the International Relations Committee. Five years later, he secured a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee and further dedicated himself to tax policy. Don's numerous legislative victories were marked by an ability to reach consensus. His efforts to work with both sides of the aisle include service on the conference committee for the hotly debated tax reform bill of 1986, and mediation between congressional leaders and the Bush administration on tax policy and China's most-favored nation status. Since leaving Congress, Pease has returned to Ohio. He has served on the Board of Amtrak, and currently serves as Visiting Distinguished Professor in 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 difference in our lives. By renaming the Medina Federal Building at 143 West Liberty Street in Medina, Ohio, as the ``Donald J. Pease Federal Building,'' this bill honors his hard work in the district he loves so much. Don Pease was held in high regard as both an ethical and able legislator. He devoted 16 years of service to the 13th District, the state of Ohio, and the nation. I am pleased to join eleven bipartisan colleagues in Ohio in recognizing his dedication to improving people's lives. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal reported on some cozy deals between nonprofit medical research institutes and for-profit companies. It works this way: a nonprofit institute wins millions in research dollars from the National Institutes of Health. The director of the institute also happens to own a for-profit company that has exclusive rights to the institute's research. The for-profit company turns that research into a marketable product and makes millions. Everyone is flush, except for American taxpayers. Does this raise conflict-of-interest issues? You bet. Why is the Federal Government using our tax dollars to give for-profit companies a free ride? Good question. Why do Americans pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world, when billions of U.S. tax dollars go into the development of these drugs? Because Congress is not doing its job. The U.S. invests more than any other nation in medical research. The drug industry feeds off our tax dollars to develop outrageously profitable drugs, and then they ``thank'' American taxpayers by charging us the highest prices in the world. It is a racket, and it must stop. Drug companies must compensate taxpayers fairly through lower prices or royalty payments for our front-end investment in their products.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand up here to honor the man, Ronald Reagan, today. My father was born only 6 days after Ronald Reagan. He passed away early last year and shared, as a World War II veteran as Ronald Reagan was, my father shared the same values and the same patriotism that my friends talk about with Ronald Reagan. I hope that we learned something from the Reagan years. We all watched this country in 1981. This country went down the course of tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens, big increases in military spending, the beginning of Star Wars, and the beginning of the most persistent, obscene budget deficits that this country had ever seen, to the point that by 1992, when President Clinton was elected, we were running up the budget deficit; we were spending $1 billion a day more than we were bringing in. We ran a deficit which was $1 billion in 1981 when President Reagan took office, a debt of $1 trillion that went to $5 trillion in those 12 years. So while we do honor President Reagan today, and we have taken the last 8 years to clean up, if you will, that debt, those fiscal problems we were in, I hope that we can honor Ronald Reagan best by, while honoring the good things he did, but not repeating the mistakes he made, not repeating the way that some want to today with tax cuts for the rich, more increases in military spending, and Star Wars running up again these huge budget deficits. So I hope that we honor the man, and we certainly, on this side as, Democrats have no objection to this bill and support the measure. We honor the man and we learn from history's mistakes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by now, most Americans are aware that prescription drug prices are higher in the United States than any other industrialized country; 2, 3, even 4 times higher. It is difficult to believe that drug manufacturers manipulate prices even when a drug is used to treat a life-threatening illness like cancer. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the drug makers are doing. A study I released yesterday looks at the prices charged for drugs used to treat breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, 8,600 women in Ohio will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year; and 1,900 will die from this disease. In the counties I serve as a Congressman, women with breast cancer pay 2\1/2\ times more for the 5 most commonly used breast cancer drugs than women in Canada pay, in France pay, in England pay and in Italy pay. Tamoxifen, the most widely used cancer drug, has the highest-priced differential. A monthly supply of Tamoxifen costs an uninsured woman in my district $114. In Canada, it costs $12; in France, it costs $10.20. We are talking about price differentials in the 850 percent to 1,000 percent range. It is unbelievable and it is unconscionable. A woman diagnosed with breast cancer needs to devote all of her energy to fighting that cancer. The toughest battle should be surviving the cancer, not finding ways to pay for medications. Prescription drug prices are priced unreasonably, unjustifiably, and outrageously high in the United States. Drug prices are two and three and four times higher here than in other industrialized countries. Why? Because the prescription drug industry can get away with it. We do not negotiate prices because this Republican-led Congress will not do that. We do not demand that drug manufacturers reduce their prices to reflect the taxpayer-funded portion, almost half, the taxpayer-funded portion of the research and development. Why? Because this Congress will not do that. We do nothing to help the 44 million Americans under 65 and the 11 million over 65 who lack insurance for prescription drugs, again because this Congress has failed to enact Medicare coverage for prescription drugs. The U.S. is the wealthiest Nation in the world. Our tax dollars finance a significant portion, almost half, of the research and development underlying new prescription drugs. Why do we tolerate congressional inaction? The prescription drug industry has a huge stake in the status quo and spends lavishly to preserve it. They pour money into political campaigns, $11 million in this year alone, $9 million of it going to majority Republicans. They pour money into high-pressure lobbying, they pour money into front groups that pose as consumer organizations like Citizens for Better Medicare. They try to scare Americans into believing that if we do not let drug manufacturers charge obscenely high prices, then they will not do research and development anymore; yet drug companies could afford to spend $13 billion promoting their products last year. Drug companies' profits outpace those of any other industries by 5 percentage points at least. The drug industry consistently leads other industries in return on investment, return on assets, return on equity. Thanks to huge tax breaks, the drug industries' effective tax rate is 65 percent lower than the average in other U.S. industries. Why? Because this Congress will not do anything about it. It doesn't matter whether we could take steps to make prescription drugs more affordable in this country; the only thing that matters is this country has failed to take steps to do that. Drug industry lobbying convinced the Republican leadership to weaken a bill that would have allowed Americans to buy larger quantities of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries where drugs are priced lower. Whether we build on the progress of at least some legislation depends on which party controls the White House and which party controls Congress. Republicans and Democrats should be united, Mr. Speaker, in their determination to address the prescription drug issue. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Republican majority has consistently bucked every attempt to seriously address prescription drug coverage under Medicare and to seriously address prescription drug pricing. I urge my colleagues to check the record. It will bear me out. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to waste another minute, much less another session of Congress pretending to address the prescription drug industry with watered-down legislation and unworkable Medicare prescription drug proposals. The public should demand policymakers to deliver a strategy that prevents the drug industry from robbing us blind. We should not leave here before the election until this Congress passes prescription drug coverage under Medicare and does something about the outrageously high prices that prescription drug companies charge American citizens.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, December 31, 1998, Medicare managed care plans dropped 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries. December 31, 1999, Medicare managed care plans dropped 327,000 beneficiaries. On December 30 of this year, Medicare managed care plans will again unceremoniously drop 900,000 more senior citizens. Seniors in my district were dropped by United Health Care in 1998. Some switched to QualChoice, which dropped them in 1999. Some switched to Aetna, which will dump them at the end of this year. A Medicare HMO is not real insurance. It is a roll of the dice that calls itself insurance. Why is the plus choice program failing seniors? Ask the HMOs and they will say it is because the Federal Government is underpaying and overregulating them. Ask the Inspector General and ask the General Accounting Office, and they will say we are actually overpaying and underregulating Medicare HMOs. They choose to hoard the profits they make in some counties while dumping those in less profitable counties. This does not make them bad. It makes them businesses. It does, however, throw a wrench in it-is-all-the-government's-fault campaign that they are waging. If we are going to pay the managed care industry more, we owe it to beneficiaries and to taxpayers to demand that HMOs act responsibly towards those senior citizens who have enrolled in their plans. That means once HMOs enter a county, they should agree to stay put and they should agree to offer predictable benefits for at least 3 years. That way senior citizens will finally know exactly how long they can depend on their managed care plan. Before we hand over $10 billion, almost half of the new Medicare dollars this Congress is appropriating, before we hand over $10 billion of taxpayers' money to HMOs, before we hand over one dollar, we should do at least that much for beneficiaries. Support the Pallone motion.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has helped to lead the charge in support of the defibrillator part of this legislation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote a book called ``The Jungle,'' documenting problems in the unsafe working conditions and unsafe food production in the Chicago slaughterhouses. In the year 1906, when Upton Sinclair's book was published, which resulted later in the creation soon after of the Food and Drug Administration, which has guaranteed food safety in this country for 9 decades, in that year in 1906, a boy born that year had a life expectancy of 46 years. A girl born in 1906 had a life expectancy of 48 years. Nine-plus decades later, life expectancy in this country has been lengthened 30 years. Boys and girls born in this country have 30 years more life expectancy than they did just a century ago. That is not mostly from high-tech medicine. It is mostly from public health, everything from pure food to safe drinking water, from immunizations to antibiotics, from seat belts to a knowledge that alcohol and tobacco cause health problems, to issue after issue after issue of pure food laws and environmental laws and public health laws and worker safety laws and all the things that we in this body and in State legislatures across the country and in public health agencies across the country have done to together to enhance public health. That is why it is a pleasure, from my perspective, a pleasure to support this bill, to be a cosponsor of this bill, and support the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) in his efforts to promote public health, which does make such a difference in the lives of every American. This legislation includes the 21st Century Research Laboratories Act, a bill that I joined the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) in sponsoring. I also want to commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this bill. The U.S. invests generously in medical research through the National Institutes of Health, reflecting the public's strong interest in reducing the burden of disease here and abroad. But to secure the most benefit of that investment, it makes sense to couple dollars for research grants with funding to bolster the Nation's research infrastructure. The two go hand in hand. Our bill would put that principle into practice by enabling NIH to devote additional resources to state-of-the-art research laboratories and instrumentations. Like laboratory research, clinical research is invaluable. It is a bridge between the laboratory and new methods of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Despite the benefits of clinical research, the current level of training and support for health professionals in clinical research is too often inadequate to the task. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill that is now incorporated into this bill from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) that supports and expands NIH involvement in clinical research and increases resources available for the clinical research community. This package of bills also contains legislation put forward by Senators Frist and Kennedy and my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), on public health threats and emergencies. Our Nation faces grave new threats in the 21st century that imperil the extraordinary progress we have made on public health in the 20th century. New or resurgent infectious diseases, West Nile virus, lyme disease and others are on the upswing. Microbes that cause infectious diseases are evolving to become resistant, resisting antibiotics so that formerly treatable infections, such as TB, as I mentioned in an earlier talk tonight, may become incurable. We are also vulnerable to terrorist attacks using biological weapons that could spread deadly diseases, such as small pox or anthrax. This title authorizes steps that are widely agreed to be essential to prepare for emerging threats to public health. I am particularly pleased the bill authorizes perhaps its most important feature, funding to revitalize Centers for Disease Control facilities. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and I saw the absolute amazingly poor conditions under which employees of the CDC, some of the greatest scientists and public health experts in the country, the conditions under which they labor in Atlanta. We can do so much better than that. The provisions on combatting antimicrobial resistance are a good step towards addressing one of the most serious threats to public health that we face. They lay the groundwork for addressing the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, both in human medicine and in the agriculture sector. I would add that this Congress went on record a couple of months ago in support of an amendment I had to direct the FDA's veterinary medicine office to get more serious about antibiotic resistance in farm animals. Fifty percent of the antibiotics used in this country are used for nonmedicinal purposes in farm animals, something that we probably cannot afford to do as a Nation much longer. I am also pleased this package includes important public health initiatives that would help the Nation combat diseases that take a tremendous toll on patients and their families, including lupus, prostate cancer, and Alzheimer's, as well as measures promoting access to defibrillators, an issue the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has worked hard on, in Federal buildings and rural communities to aid victims of sudden heart attacks. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer, other than skin cancer, and second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer- related death among men. This bill recognizes the immense toll that prostate cancer has taken on our country. I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), for her endless dedication to raising awareness about lupus. Her tireless work has made a difference in this bill's efforts to treat lupus. The American Heart Association estimates that more than 50,000 American deaths a year could be prevented if defibrillators were available to designated responders. Nothing can be more frightening than watching someone suffer a heart attack. With proper use of a defibrillator and proper training, communities can respond quickly and effectively to a victim and improve that victim's chances of survival immensely. Like so many of these illnesses we have discussed today, Alzheimer's is a complicated disease afflicted by more questions than answers. Alzheimer's is characteristically more difficult for the family to bear; a person's slow deterioration in health begins with common forgetfulness and progresses slowly until the family is faced with no choice but to move their loved one to another facility. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for their leadership on this measure. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) because this bipartisan legislation covers a lot of important ground. It bolsters public health, something this body has not done nearly enough of in the past, an infrastructure that has been neglected for too many years, the public health infrastructure; it invests in the fight against lupus, Alzheimer's and other traumatic health care conditions; it brings attention to the life-saving potential of portable defibrillators and the invaluable gift of organ donation. This bill reflects the breadth and complexity of health and health care in the U.S., and it sets in motion practical steps to improve both. In my mind, this may be the most important health issue this Congress has passed. It does so much for so many in this country. I wish this body would get as serious about dealing with the prescription drug issue and dealing with the Patients' Bill of Rights as it has this issue, but I particularly extend my thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and all who have played a major role in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership and I thank the chairman for his leadership and I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership on this issue. In a Congress that has done so little on health care, has fallen so far short in passing prescription drug legislation, so far short on enacting a patients' bill of rights, which clearly overwhelming numbers of the public support, this Congress has done a good job in fighting international infectious diseases. The Committee on Appropriations has passed and sent to the President $60 million for tuberculosis control internationally, five times what this Congress spent only 3 years ago to combat a disease that is absolutely curable. This Congress also has played a major role in malaria control around the world. Gro Brundtland, who was quoted earlier by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). Gro Brundtland, the General Director of the World Health Organization, has said about tuberculosis, and she could also say it about malaria, that tuberculosis is a political problem, not a medical problem. We in this world know how to combat tuberculosis; we in this world know how to combat malaria. We can do better than we have done with the political will. This effort by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has actually made that major step in doing that. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the folks at Walter Reed. In part of the Defense budget, when we passed money for the Defense budget, some of that money, not nearly enough, only a few million dollars, goes to Walter Reed to do malaria research. Most of the best malaria research in history in this country has come out of Walter Reed, not out of private drug companies, not out of investor- owned corporations which do not have a real economic interest in combating malaria, but from tax dollars. That is what has brought us as far as we have come in malaria control, and that can take us even further. That is why it is so important to fund Walter Reed and do better with malaria control that way. To get an understanding, Mr. Speaker, to get a good understanding of what we can do, and Gro Brundtland said, these infectious diseases are political problems, not medical problems. To get an understanding of what we can do, look at what the government of India did in 1999. In one day, in the Republic of India, the government and public health organizations around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control, woefully underfunded in this country, but involved internationally in so many good things; NGOs, the Centers for Disease Control, public health authorities and the government of India worked together and in one day in December of 1999, vaccinated, immunized 134 million Indian children in one day. If we can do that, we can come up with a malarial vaccine through the Walter Reed research within the Department of Defense in Bethesda, Maryland, then we can come up with much better action in combating tuberculosis, combating malaria around the world, which stunts economic growth, which kills children, which breaks up families. These are diseases that are caused by poverty, they are bred in poverty, and these are diseases that cause additional poverty. We have an obligation for humanitarian reasons and for pragmatic reasons to do something about it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the power that the managed care industry wields over the leadership of this Congress is absolutely astounding. How else do you explain our inability, 4 years after legislation first took shape, to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights? How else do you explain this $30 billion Republican gift to the managed care industry as we short shrift hospitals and home health agencies and every other Medicare provider? How else do you explain Republicans giving almost half, 47 percent, of new Medicare money to an industry which has shortchanged millions of senior citizens? If this Republican Congress is not selling out to the insurance industry, how do you explain this remarkably skewed Medicare funding bill? The Republican majority took bipartisan legislation and proceeded to strip out additional funding for public hospitals, to strip out funding for low-income seniors, to strip out provisions for rural health facilities. But they left in plenty of money for HMOs. Mr. Speaker, HMOs serve between 15 and 16 percent of the Medicare population, but under this bill they will get close to 50 percent of available funding. Let me repeat that. HMOs serve one-sixth of Medicare beneficiaries. The Republican bill will give them 50 percent of the funding. To strike this remarkable imbalance, the Republican majority eliminated funding measures that would help public hospitals, that would help home health agencies, that would help other providers so they remain available to Medicare beneficiaries. Where does the welfare of Medicare beneficiaries fit into this equation? The answer is it simply does not. Seniors in Lorain County, Ohio, where I live, were dropped unceremoniously from United Health's plan on December 31, 1998. Some of them joined QualChoice. They were then dropped unceremoniously December 31, 1999. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of Congress to oppose this fatally flawed bill. It is unfair to Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Greenwood, for bringing Congressional attention to this issue. I'm pleased we are passing legislation that illustrates a sensitivity to and responsibility for chimpanzees after they are no longer needed for research. But I cannot understand how we are unable to demonstrate this level of responsiveness to Medicare beneficiaries or consumers of managed care plans who have asked us to address their concerns about health care. There is no excuse for adjourning Congress without a Medicare prescription drug benefit. There is no excuse for adjourning Congress without a Patients Bill of Rights. There is no excuse for adjourning without addressing the health care concerns that consume the daily lives of our constituents. This Congress is capable of doing more and I would urge us to pass this important bill as well as responsible health care legislation for the nation. Great work is being done in research with the use of animal subjects like Chimpanzees. Federal agencies including the NIH, CDC, FDA, and NASA rely on chimps for research. Chimps have proven to be an invaluable resource in the study of human diseases--breakthroughs in Hepatitis B and C can be attributed to research conducted with these primates. Ohio State University's Chimpanzee Center is expanding their 17-year-old program on cognitive and behavioral research and building a new facility. They are very supportive of the need for the sanctuaries outlined in this legislation. In the mid-to-late eighties, the Federal Government launched a vigorous chimpanzee breeding program aimed at finding answers to the cause of AIDS. While these animals served us well in research that led to breakthrough medical treatments for many diseases, researchers discovered chimps were not a good model for AIDS research. As a result, there is a surplus of Chimps living with HIV that deserve our attention in their post-research existence. Today, chimps no longer needed for research are being housed in warehouses in laboratories throughout the nation at a price of $7 million annually. It costs $20-$30 per day per animal to house chimpanzees in laboratory cages. Some are living at a facility charged with gross negligence in their treatment of chimps. The passage of this bill would establish a cost-effective, public- private partnership to create a sanctuary system to provide for the lifetime care of chimps. These sanctuaries would be staffed by trained professionals and overseen by a board of professionals with a thorough understanding of the medical needs of the chimps and the safety requirements of their caretakers. Not only will this provide a much higher quality of life for these animals, it will also serve taxpayers well, costing substantially less than the current laboratory facilities. This legislation has garnered overwhelming support from such diverse groups as the biomedical research community, zoological community, and the animal welfare groups. According to the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council study, there are hundreds of chimpanzees currently sitting in small cages that will never and can never be used for research. There is a moral responsibility for the long-term care of chimpanzees that are used for our benefit in scientific research and today that responsibility is ours. While I am pleased we are passing legislation that illustrates a sensitivity to and responsibility for chimpanzees after they are no longer needed for research, I cannot understand why we are unable to demonstrate this level of responsiveness to Medicare beneficiaries or consumers of managed care plans who have asked us to address their concerns about health care.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to support H. Con. Res. 271, a resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand). This resolution brings attention to a very particularly serious disease, multiple sclerosis, that hits one third of a million Americans, especially women. It is important that this body encourage more research from whether it is a Multiple Sclerosis Society or the National Institutes of Health. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress complete its work before it goes home, before it adjourns sine die, that it complete its work on prescription drug legislation and complete its work on a patients' bill of rights. Those two pieces of legislation will do more for patients suffering from multiple sclerosis than anything else we can do. It will do more for patients suffering from a whole host of very serious diseases. This Congress has passed resolutions addressing in the last month, but the Congress has failed to do the real work that we are here for, and that is to provide prescription drugs for, and under Medicare for, senior citizens to deal with the high costs of prescription drugs and to pass a patients' bill of rights, which will turn the authority of medical decisions to doctors and nurses and to patients and to take that authority and take the decision-making away from insurance company bureaucrats. While I ask Congress to pass H. Con. Res. 271, I also ask this body to pass a prescription drug bill and the patients' bill of rights. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who strongly supports the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription drug legislation and worked on this issue also.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), which focuses our attention on a serious chronic illness that currently affects as many as one- third of a million individuals in this country, mostly women. Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disorder that alters the lives of those afflicted by it in profound and tragically unpredictable ways. It is notoriously difficult to diagnose because its constellation of symptoms vary from patient to patient and often mimic other illnesses. Once it is diagnosed, it is impossible to predict the severity or the course of the illness. The range of symptoms patients may experience is broad: extreme fatigue, impaired vision, loss of balance and muscle coordination, slurred speech, tremors, stiffness, difficulty walking, short-term memory loss, mood swings, and, in severe cases, partial or complete paralysis. Again, Mr. Speaker, individuals have no way of knowing whether or when they may experience these symptoms. The uncertainty around MS obviously heightens the trauma for patients and their families, and it creates unique challenges for providers and researchers alike. There is no cure for MS, yet; but there have been significant advances in treating and understanding this illness. The Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which not only funds groundbreaking research into the causes and treatment of MS, but raises public awareness and advocates for more public sector involvement to combat this disease. The resolution offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) affirms that we are listening to the MS Society, to women and men with MS and their families, and to the researchers, including researchers at the National Institutes of Health funded by taxpayers working hard to beat this illness. While I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Weygand resolution is important, we should be doing so much more on health care in this Chamber. We should be passing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and do something about high prescription drug prices. That is the best thing we could do for people that are victims of multiple sclerosis. We should be passing a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is the second best thing we should do for people afflicted with multiple sclerosis. This resolution helps, but this Congress should get back to town, get back to work, pass the Patients' Bill of Rights, pass the prescription drug legislation, and pass this concurrent resolution, H.Con.Res. 271. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my friend, did in support of H.R. 2592. This legislation transfers responsibility for regulating low-speed electric bicycles to the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Currently, the National Highway Safety Administration, NHTSA, has jurisdiction over these bicycles, which are designed to operate at speeds of less than 20 miles per hour, approximately the same speed as human-powered bicycles. The CPSC, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and NHTSA support this common sense proposal. NHTSA has never attempted to issue a safety standard for these bikes and, I would say, for good reason. If NHTSA were to establish an electric bicycle standard, they would be subject to motor vehicle requirements that would significantly drive up the costs of these bicycles. Mr. Speaker, the CPSC, which currently regulates human-powered bicycles, is the appropriate agency to regulate electric bikes that operate at comparable speeds. These are bicycles not motor vehicles and, therefore, they should be regulated by the agency with responsibility for bicycles. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has bipartisan support. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who is on the Committee on Commerce, has worked hard for this bill. It is also cosponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), also on our committee; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey); the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2592. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for their hard work on behalf of women screened under the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program. H.R. 4386 has garnered tremendous support with some 318 cosponsors. In 1990, Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act. That bill authorized funding for a national breast and cervical cancer screening program focusing on uninsured and underinsured women. The program is federally-funded and locally operated. Simply put, it works. My home State of Ohio set up 12 local screening sites, providing coverage for all of Ohio's 88 counties. Since the Ohio program's inception, 16,000 women have been screened for breast and cervical cancer. Cancer has been detected in more than 200 women. Early detection alters the odds of successful treatment dramatically, restoring precious years otherwise lost to these devastating cancers. But, unfortunately, there is there is a catch. Early detection is a futile and ultimately cruel exercise if a cancer diagnosis does not trigger appropriate treatment. The two obviously go hand-in-hand. The 1990 bill authorized funding for screening, but not for treatment. Instead, it calls on States to secure treatment for women diagnosed with cancer under the Federal screening program. As it turns out, the onus of responsibility has fallen on the local screening programs. Staff at the screening programs and at the screening sites typically do two jobs. They arrange screenings. Then, when tragically necessary, they try to convince hospitals and doctors to provide free cancer care to patients, cobbling together any program, any services, any assistance, any help they can. This is a labor-intensive hit or miss effort that places an immense burden on the screening programs, with no guarantee that women will receive care on a timely or a consistent basis. In a health care system shaped all too often now by the managed care industry, providers inevitably have less flexibility to offer their time and their services for free. The Federal government invested $158 million to the breast and cervical cancer screening program in fiscal year 1999, yet we are only reaching 12 to 15 percent of the target population. When the women we have invested in are diagnosed with cancer, our commitment to them, unbelievably, ends. CDC cancer screening resources should be used to provide cancer screening. Health care resources should be used for health care. That is where Medicaid comes in. The title of the original authorization is the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act, but mortality prevention requires not just screening, but also treatment. H.R. 4386 fills that gap. It establishes a modest optional Medicaid benefit enabling the Federal government to contribute to the costs of providing proper care for these women. By freeing up screening program resources, by eliminating the uncertainty around treatment for women screened under the CDC program, H.R. 4386 permits our Nation to achieve the full health potential promised in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program. We need to fight breast and cervical cancer with every weapon available. Early detection, proper health care, are the strongest weapons we have. Because the Republicans changed a bad rule to a good rule, this bill will go straight to the President, not back to the Senate. On this side of the aisle, we enthusiastically support this bill, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) when she began the process did, and as all of us have joined her. I urge my colleagues to support this very good legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), who has been very, very involved in this issue in his 6 years in the House.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who played a role in 1990 in writing the original Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my colleagues for their recognition of an emerging threat to public health: antibiotic resistance. All over the world, a silent war is underway between people and infectious diseases. This is not a new struggle. Throughout human history, microbes have preyed on us, and we have fought back. As recently as the 19th century, the average lifespan in Europe and North America was 50 years, and the likelihood of dying prematurely from infectious diseases was as high as 40 percent. With the widespread introduction of penicillin and other antibiotics in the 1940s, we thought we had finally gained the upper hand. Finally, we could cure a whole raft of infectious diseases that routinely took human lives across the whole span of a human lifetime, from infancy, through the prime of life, to old age. But the struggle is not over. Earlier this year, the World Health Organization issued a warning against antibiotic resistance. Microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into new strains that fail to respond to drugs. We need to develop new antibiotics, but it is too soon to give up the ones we have. By using these precious medications more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down antibiotic resistance. We need to change the way drugs are given to people, but we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According to the World Heath Organization, about 50% of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both for animals and plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs to treat sick herds and flocks. They also feed a steady diet of antibiotics to healthy livestock so they will gain weight more quickly and be ready for market sooner. Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in people, including erythromycin and tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in farm animals provides a breeding ground for resistant strains of Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, and other bacteria harmful to humans. When transferred to people through food, they can cause dangerous infections. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine is to be commended for taking steps to address the contribution of animal drugs to the antibiotic resistance problem. In view of the importance of these activities to human health, I offered an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill with the goal of increasing CVM's budget for antibiotic resistance by $3 million. In accepting the amendment, the House for the first time tackled the public health threat from antibiotic resistant bacteria in our food supply. Today, the House voted to approve the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. I am pleased to note that the report includes an additional $3 million for work done within the Center for Veterinary Medicine on antimicrobial resistance. I wish to commend my colleagues on the agriculture appropriations committees for recognizing the importance of these activities to public health, with special thanks to the ranking member in the House, my colleague from Ohio. If we continue to work together, we can come up with solutions to prolong the efficacy of antibiotics used to treat human illnesses, while at the same time ensuring that Americans will continue to enjoy a safe, affordable, plentiful food supply.