Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who worked so hard on this bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the bill, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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 yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He has done great work on all of these health care issues.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to point out as several of us have mentioned but discuss for another moment part of this bill. The only part of this bill that is a new authorization deals with research in heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in women. During a women's health seminar, a program that my office put on in Medina, Ohio some time ago, a cardiovascular surgeon, a female cardiovascular surgeon from Cleveland pointed out to us something that I think women across the country are too often unaware of. That is that while men more often have heart attacks than women do, women are more often, more likely to die of heart attacks than men because women do not really think of themselves as likely victims of heart disease because our society, for whatever reason, has led most of us to believe that men get heart attacks and women get other diseases. And so I think it is particularly important that more research is done on this. It is particularly important that we do better education, among women especially. Whether it is my mother in Mansfield, Ohio or whether it is women across this country, they need to obviously be aware to look for those symptoms, as men I think in society are conditioned to look at those symptoms that might be leading up to a heart attack. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose the martial-law rule. Almost every week for almost 10 months this Congress has come to Washington, held a few committee hearings, done a little bit of work, cast a few votes and then recessed for a long weekend. Now, the Republican majority with its work still unfinished wants to leave town as quickly as possible to go campaign. Mr. Speaker, we need to stay here and we need to do some work. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to strengthen Social Security. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to pass or even consider, hold hearings or even discuss the President's plan to modernize schools. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to reduce class size in America's schools. This do-nothing Republican Congress has failed to curb HMO or insurance company abuses. Mr. Speaker, to be fair, this Republican Congress has done a few things. This Congress has renamed National Airport. Give them credit for that. This Congress has allowed tobacco companies to kill tobacco legislation. Give them credit for that. This Republican Congress has allowed the big insurance companies to kill serious HMO reform. Give them credit for that. But, Mr. Speaker, this Republican do-nothing Congress has failed in the issues that matter to America, to strengthen Social Security, to pass the patients' bill of rights, to work on education reforms by reducing class size and modernizing schools. Mr. Speaker, we should stay here until we finish the people's business.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record. [From the Washington Post, July 8, 1998] Don't Taiwanese Children Count? (By Sherrod Brown) While President Clinton was visiting China, scores of Taiwanese children just across the straits were continuing to fight for their lives against a new, deadly virus. Unfortunately, the doctors treating this illness do not have access to the medical resources of the World Health Organization (WHO) because the regime in China will not permit Taiwan to gain membership. The fact that Taiwan is severely crippled in its effort to save children is a tragedy, with deadly implications for children the world over if this virus is not halted. Taiwan is in the grip of a fatal epidemic that's showing no sign of slowing down. Over the past month, more than 50 children have reportedly died due to the outbreak of a virulent strain of enterovirus type 71, which causes severe inflammation of muscles surrounding the brain, spinal cord and heart. Infants and children are most vulnerable to this highly contagious virus. Physicians treating the children unfortunately do not have access to the best medical information available because Taiwan is not allowed membership in the WHO, and cannot share in the organization's vital resources and expertise. This issue should not be about geopolitics; it should be about helping humanity. Over the past half-century, the WHO has become the foremost international organization working to control and eradicate disease and to improve health for people the world over. Through the WHO's highly effective immunization programs, millions of children live better, longer and healthier lives. The WHO has already helped protect some eight out of 10 children worldwide from major childhood diseases, including measles and tuberculosis, and has worked to reduce the global infant morality rate by 37 percent since 1970. The WHO was also instrumental in eradicating the smallpox epidemic, which spread to 31 countries in the late 1960s and claimed nearly two million lives. Children suffer from the effects of inadequate health care, whether they live in Los Angeles, Milan, Hong Kong, or Taipei. With the high frequency of international travel, the risk of transmitting infectious diseases such as AIDS, the Hong Kong bird flu and the enteovirus is greater than ever. In addition, increased international trade leads to a greater potential for the cross-border spread of such deadly viruses. I believe the denial of WHO membership to Taiwan is an unjustifiable violation of its people's fundamental human rights. Good health is a basic right for every citizen of the world, and Taiwan's admission to the WHO would greatly help foster that right for its people. China, of course, is not the only obstacle to Taiwan's admission to the WHO. The Clinton administration, as with the two previous administrations, does not support Taiwan's participation in international organizations. However, the U.S. State Department's 1994 Taiwan Policy Review clearly stated it would more actively support Taiwan's membership in international organizations when the U.S. government determines that ``it is clearly appropriate.'' I and more than 50 of my colleagues in the House believe U.S. support for Taiwan's admission to the WHO is and has long been ``clearly appropriate.'' Last February, I introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan and its people should be represented in the WHO and that it should be U.S. policy to support Taiwan's membership. As the WHO celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, the organization can proudly claim 191 nations as members. But for the past 25 years, Taiwan has been shut out of the WHO because of China's continued intransigence toward its small island neighbor. Every day, children and the elderly in Taiwan suffer needlessly because their doctors aren't able to have access to WHO medical protocols that save lives. The longer we wait, the more desperate the situation in Taiwan grows. We must act immediately to right a very serious wrong.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 334, a bill to support Taiwan's efforts to participate in the World Health Organization. I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his leadership and perseverance on this issue. Also the good work of the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work on this, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) as chairs of the subcommittee and committee, respectively, for their assistance and good work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, every individual, regardless of political or economic background, should have access to first-rate medical care. I am pleased that this Congress is finally considering this important legislation before we adjourn this year. Since 1972, the 21 million people of Taiwan have been blocked from participating in the World Health Organization. As a consequence, especially the children of Taiwan have needlessly suffered because their doctors are denied access to the latest WHO protocols. Unfortunately, with each passing year, administration after administration in this country have contributed to Taiwan's plight by supporting China's assertion that its neighbor is not a nation and, therefore, should not be represented in the international community. The fact of the matter is that participation for Taiwan in the World Health Organization poses no threat to Beijing's security but will actually enhance the quality of life for China 1.2 billion inhabitants in addition to Taiwan's 21 million citizens. The WHO is not a political organization, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) pointed out. Disregarding political parties, political philosophies, or political boundaries, the WHO works to eradicate and control disease and improve the health of people around the world. It has instituted highly effective immunization programs allowing hundreds of millions of children to live longer and better lives. The WHO has already helped protect eight out of ten children worldwide from major childhood diseases, including tuberculosis and measles and has worked to reduce the infant mortality rate 40 percent since 1970. Mr. Speaker, we should all be deeply upset by our country's refusal to help Taiwan conquer diseases which we ourselves have already exterminated. Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO has been tragic. While the President was visiting China this past July, scores of Taiwanese children were fighting for their lives against a new deadly flu-like virus which attacks the muscle sacs around the surrounding heart, brain, and upper spine. Over 70 infants died, and possibly 100,000 other children have become infected and face an uncertain future. This tragedy further illustrates the importance of Taiwan's membership in the WHO and the need to access the valuable expertise of this respected body. Young children and older citizens are particularly vulnerable to a host of emerging infectious diseases are without the knowledge and expertise shared among the member nations of the World Health Organization. With increased travel and trade among the members of our global village, disease obviously does not stop at national borders and national boundaries. When we learn of outbreaks of an enterovirus in Taiwan, Ebola in Central Africa, or the Asian Bird Flu in Hong Kong, it is vital that the WHO be allowed to combat our nation's vulnerability to spreading infectious diseases before it reaches our shores. Erecting boundaries to shared information which would help improve the health of every American is a foolish and a deadly policy. Twenty years ago, a mysterious and fatal virus from Africa first appeared in New York and San Francisco. Our national health care system, which is the finest in the world, was ill-prepared for the spread of what we now know to be the AIDS virus. Two decades later, AIDS has spread to all 50 States and killed over 100,000 Americans. It is not in our interest to limit membership in an organization which is dedicated to combating infectious disease. Denying Taiwan the knowledge and the expertise of the WHO is a fundamental violation of human rights. With just under 22 million people, Taiwan's population is larger than 70 percent of the 191 members of the WHO, whose charter clearly states that membership shall be open to all states. Good health is a basic right for every citizen of the world, and Taiwan's participation in the WHO would greatly help foster that right for its people. The people of Taiwan and their democratically elected government face many serious threats to their sovereignty. Chinese aggression and their continuing threat of force to settle their claim to Taiwan is a serious problem. Equally threatening is their efforts to continue to thwart Taiwan's efforts to help improve the health of its citizens. Mr. Speaker, we are the only country in the world which can stand up to China and the international community. We have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to support the Taiwanese people in their efforts to determine their own future. I call on all my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 334, and to help Taiwan participate in the World Health Organization.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 212. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) be allowed to control the time for our side.

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 rise in support of House Resolution 565. As we all know, breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among women in this country. By combining early detection of breast cancer with prompt treatment, we can reduce the number of deaths by as much as one- third. Although these facts are known, only half of all women over the age of 50 and one-third of women over the age of 40 have had a mammogram in the past year. We should actively push the benefits of mammography and increase its availability. I applaud the organizations that have already been active in promoting breast cancer awareness and the benefits of early detection. Mr. Speaker, a short time ago, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) mentioned, this Congress passed the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998. This bill assured the continuation of a program for ensuring mammography quality and making sure that all women are notified of those test results. H. Res. 565 complements this legislation by recognizing the need for greater awareness among women of the need to have regular mammograms. While I am pleased to support H. Res. 565, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not remark for the need of more substantive legislation in this area. The Patients' Bill of Rights would have improved women's access to, and quality of, health care. I lament the fact that this Congress will fail to pass meaningful managed care reforms to stop HMO abuses. Other legislation upon which I fear this Congress may fail to act this year would expand Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment. Reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control programs affecting women also unfortunately have languished in this Congress. In sum, however, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 565. I also urge my colleagues to begin work on all the remaining facets of women's health care as soon as possible next year, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his good work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 rise to express support for H.R. 8, the Border Smog Reduction Act. In July of this year, the House passed H.R. 8. At the end of September the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works passed the bill without amendment on a voice vote. Just days after the committee's action in the Senate, however, majority and minority members of the House Committee on Commerce and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works agreed to revise the bill in order to address concerns about how the bill might apply to States other than California. This week the Senate passed an amendment and improved H.R. 8, which we consider today. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for making several important improvements to this legislation. Unlike the version of H.R. 8 passed by the House in July, the Senate- passed bill applies to the California-Mexico border only. The Senate- passed bill retains important language which I offered in committee to study the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement on air quality in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border. The provision requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a study comparing the potential effect of this legislation on air quality in ozone nonattainment areas with air quality in these same areas caused by vehicles registered in or operating from Mexico as a result of implementation of NAFTA. It is difficult to imagine that the increased commercial truck traffic, much of it brought about by NAFTA, is not adding significantly to the nonattainment problems in Southern California. The environmental devastation brought on by NAFTA is a serious problem on both sides of the border, created by both sides of the border. I hope that this study will provide critical information on the effect this increased traffic under NAFTA is having on air quality in our border areas. Again, I would like to thank my colleague and chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for working together to resolve the concerns many of us have this with legislation. H.R. 8 has been significantly improved from the version originally introduced. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to say how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation gives the House an opportunity once again to confirm its support for the Federal Trade Commission's standard for making a claim that a product is made in the USA. Under this legislation, only those products that meet the FTC's standard are eligible for inclusion on the toll-free registry of products that are made in America. The FTC's standard for making an unqualified ``Made in USA'' claim requires that ``all'' or ``virtually all'' of a product's components be made in the United States and that ``all'' or ``virtually all'' of the labor be American labor. This has been the FTC's standard for more than 50 years. And after a 2-year review, the FTC concluded last year that its standards should not be changed. For the past several decades, consumers in the United States have relied on the ``Made in USA'' label to mean exactly what it says. American consumers want to buy genuine American products made by American workers. The ``Made in USA'' standard educates consumers, ensures truth-in-labeling, promotes U.S. companies, and preserves and creates American jobs. Last year, Mr. Speaker, the FTC proposed weakening the standard to allow products to be labeled ``Made in USA'' when as little as 75 percent of their content and labor originated in the United States. If these proposed regulations had been adopted, the FTC's mandate to fight deceptive practices would instead be used to sanction deception. People all over the country petitioned this Congress and the FTC opposing this new standard. In my district, 9,000 people, by mail, by phone, by petition, said ``no'' to this proposed change. I commend the FTC for its wisdom, ultimately, in returning to the time honored ``Made in USA'' standard. Any weakening of the Commission's standard would only mislead consumers and expose them to the kind of deceptive practices the FTC is supposed to prohibit. The Commission has recognized what many American consumers have known for a long time: Where a product is made is an important factor in making purchasing decisions. And consumers want the ability to support American workers and to invest in the Nation's economic growth through those purchasing decisions. I am happy to support legislation that will help consumers buy products that are ``all'' or ``virtually all'' made in this country. Mr. Speaker, I would note that except for certain technical and conforming changes, this legislation is the same as legislation that has passed the House in each of the last 2 Congresses. Unfortunately, the other body has never taken action on it and the bill has not been enacted. I sincerely hope that will not be the situation this year and that this bill can be enacted into law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his good work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a serious problem that affects the elderly and people without health insurance in my home State of Ohio and across the country. Older Americans are having an increasingly difficult time affording prescription drugs. By one estimate, one in eight senior citizens in America has been forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. In an effort to discover why this is the case, I unveiled a study last week conducted at my request by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that investigated prescription drug prices in my northeast Ohio district. What this study reveals is startling. Seniors and those who buy their own prescription drugs in northeast Ohio are charged more than double for their prescription drugs compared to what drug manufacturers charge most-favored customers. Those preferred customers are HMOs, insurance companies, and large institutions. To conduct this study, members of my staff obtained the prices of 10 brand name drugs with the highest sales to the elderly, including Ticlid for stroke victims and Zocor to treat high cholesterol. The results are based on a survey of retail prescription drug prices in chain and independently-owned drug stores across my district. These prices were compared to the prices paid by the drug companies' most- favored customers. For the 10 drugs cited above, the study found that the average difference between the price paid by a senior citizen and the price paid by an HMO was 98 percent, almost double the price for a senior citizen. Similar studies have recently been conducted by other Democratic Members in their districts, including the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. John Tierney), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tom Barrett), the gentleman from California (Mr. Henry Waxman), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jim Turner). The average price differential of these studies combined is 108 percent. With this in mind, I hasten to say that the high price of prescription drugs is not the fault of the pharmacist or the pharmacies. Pharmacies in fact have very small markups for prescription drugs, sometimes as low as 3 percent. The problem is with large drug companies who drive up prices. Drugmakers whose annual profits top $20 billion make six times more profit on prescription drugs than do retail pharmacists. It is no secret that greed is the driving force behind this problem. Because HMOs buy their drugs in bulk, manufacturers sell to HMOs at a discount, and then conveniently shift that cost to the drugmaker on the backs of our seniors. Pharmacies, as to our seniors, have no real choice in the matter. Unfortunately, seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, are obviously the ones who suffer. As we all know, the later years of life often bring reduced incomes and higher health care costs. Few elderly can escape this dilemma. We have a responsibility to take steps to make medicine more affordable for older Americans. I want to tell the story of one elderly woman who lives in Elyria, Ohio, in the county in which I live, and is a victim of this ongoing price discrimination. This woman, who asked to remain anonymous, is 67 years old. She suffers from poor eyesight, high blood pressure, and a number of other serious ailments. She takes 13 prescription medicines. Her only income is social security, which is roughly $800 per month. While she has some insurance coverage, this woman's drug costs amount to almost 40 percent of her income. She said after she pays for her medicine, she has about $20 to buy groceries for the whole month. More tragically, she has had to begin reducing some of the dosages to save money. She is supposed to take four pills a day. She will cut them into half and take four half pills a day, for instance. This situation is surely unacceptable. The bottom line is we need to take steps to protect the elderly, who should not suffer this indignity. Our Nation's seniors should not bear the burden of paying for pharmaceutical company profits. To address this issue head on, I signed on as an original cosponsor to a bill introduced by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen) to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for senior citizens. The Prescription Drugs Fairness for Seniors Act aims to protect senior citizens from drug price discrimination by making prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries at the reduced price. The bill achieves this by allowing pharmacies that serve seniors in Medicare to buy prescription drugs at the best market price available under the Federal supply schedule, which will reduce prescription drug prices for senior citizens by up to 50 percent. An elderly person's well-being and quality of life are often determined by access to medicine prescribed by their doctor. This legislation directly addresses a problem we can no longer ignore. I urge my colleagues to act on behalf of the elderly and support this important measure, H.R. 4627.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the message we send to the world today by voting no on fast track is crystal clear. The primary focus of the next generation of trade policies will be in support of worker rights, strong environmental laws and solid food safety regulations. Future trade agreements coming from this Congress will mean better wages in developing countries, and improved environment, better food safety and increased workers' rights. Existing trade agreements have all too often eroded our living standards, undermined clean air and water laws, and continued to depress wages from workers all over the world, from Nike workers in Indonesia, to GM workers in Mexico, to metal workers in Lorraine, Ohio. Vote no on fast track.