Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the use of funds to initiate proceedings in the World Trade Organization challenging policies in developing countries that promote access to HIV/AIDS. The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment would restore the ability of developing countries to pass laws for the purpose of making HIV/AIDS drugs available to their citizens. The amendment would prevent WTO challenges to HIV/AIDS drugs laws by the United States. Passage of the amendment would reduce a substantial obstacle imposed by the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, also known as the TRIPS Agreement. The threat of WTO sanctions against a country for its policies on HIV/AIDS drugs and the uncertainty of the scope of the WTO rules significantly reduces the flexibility of countries to address the HIV/ AIDS epidemic. Developing countries cannot afford the expensive, brand- name, anti-retroviral drugs that sell for over $10,000 per patient per year in industrialized countries. Zambia, for example, has an AIDS infection rate of almost 10 percent and a per capita income of only $330. Nevertheless, the WTO has been used to prevent developing countries from making HIV/AIDS drugs available to their populations at affordable prices. Brazil has developed an HIV/AIDS program that is a model for developing countries. The World Bank and the United Nations cite Brazil's program as one of the best in the world. In 1998, the government of Brazil began manufacturing and distributing generic anti-retroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS; and the prices of these drugs fell by an average of 79 percent. Brazil now distributes free anti-retroviral drugs to 90,000 Brazilians, ensuring that all citizens who need HIV/AIDS drugs have access to them. The Brazilian Health Ministry spent $444 million on AIDS drugs in 2000, a total of 4 percent of its budget. Yet Brazil's program most certainly pays for itself. The decline in hospitalizations from opportunistic infections between 1997 and 1999 saved the health ministry $422 million. The program has also increased the productivity of infected individuals who can now lead active lives and family members who no longer need to care for the sick. Despite the success of Brazil's program, the United States Trade Representative challenged Brazil for violating WTO intellectual property laws; and the WTO agreed to establish a panel to rule on the case. If the United States had won the case, the WTO would have authorized the United States to impose punitive economic sanctions on Brazil. Fortunately, the United States withdrew its case against Brazil on June 25, 2001, in response to tremendous public pressure. The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment would enable developing countries to provide cost-effective treatment for people with HIV/AIDS through the production and distribution of generic HIV/AIDS drugs. If this amendment had been long, the United States would not have initiated a WTO case against Brazil to overturn its award-winning and effective HIV/AIDS policies. The Waters-Kucinich-Crowley-Lee amendment has been endorsed by OXFAM America, the AFL-CIO, Jubilee USA Network, the Global AIDS Alliance, the Washington Alliance on Africa, Result and Health Gap. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues to examine the opposition to our ability to take up this important amendment. It is not driven by any conflict. It is not driven by any letter of the law that would not allow this amendment to be taken up. I know the tremendous pressures that are being presented, but I do not think that anybody on either side of the aisle can look the world in the face and support policies that would allow our United States Trade Representative to create a case in the WTO against countries that are literally dying, with its citizens dying in record numbers day in and day out. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia not to proceed with this parliamentary maneuver in order to stop this amendment. The world is watching.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.

Ms. WATERS. On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, again, I make the same appeal. I see this as a parliamentary maneuver to avoid taking a vote on this legislation that I think a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle would support. I do not think that the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle could stand up and cite that there are 40 million orphans and talk about the devastation without knowing that he has it within his power, as he stands here today, to allow this amendment to be before this House. One does not have that kind of power and not use it when one absolutely cares about something. The gentleman again, as with the gentlewoman, talked about their trips to Africa. What good does it do to keep going to Africa on these CODELs if one does not see the suffering of the people there, if one does not understand the dying that is going on in Africa? What good is it to go there if one cannot come back and put that into public policy that will save lives? Now is the time to demonstrate what one cares about with regard to Africa, and what we have seen in Africa. Again, this is not about an allocation of dollars, this is about allowing countries to take care of themselves. This is about saying to WTO, do not challenge these countries on their ability to produce generic drugs. Allow them to do what Brazil has done. They have done it and it has been cost-effective, and they are saving lives. If a Member cares about Africa, if one has internalized what they have seen when they have traveled there on these CODELs, watching people die, watching the orphans, watching these countries falling apart, then now is the time to use the gentleman's power to do something about it. If the power is in the hands of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle to remove his objection, his challenge to this amendment, then I would respectfully plead with him to please do that today, and demonstrate that he understands that devastation, he understands those 40 million children that he has identified, all without parents. Children are running around. They are going to die, too. There is nobody to care for them. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this attempt to challenge the legality of this amendment to be on the floor is without merit, and I would ask the gentleman to withdraw it.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we just saw the attempts to try and pass a very reasonable amendment. Both I and the gentleman from Ohio attempted to do that. We saw the parliamentary maneuver. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment does not face that challenge. However, I know that it is going to be opposed by the same forces. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) giving support to us on this issue. I know, too, how hard he has worked not only on this issue but other related issues. As the gentleman knows, I was attempting simply to deal with the HIV/ AIDS issue and not have this in a broader context. I know that the pharmaceuticals do not like this. But I also know that the world pressure that was brought on them in the case of Brazil backed them down. We do not want to have to continue to go that route. I would say to the gentleman that I would be happy to have a unanimous consent request to amend this amendment so that it would conform.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that we are being prevented from amending this bill in such a way that it will do what we started out to do, and relates specifically to HIV/AIDS. I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) made the case, and the case is one that we recognize. Modification of Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the bill to comply with keeping this in line with dealing with HIV/AIDS in the WTO.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have been through this debate and we have had objections from the opposite side of the aisle now on three occasions. Again, I thought we were able to make the case and to point out that it is within our power to move this amendment and to do something about the devastation of Africa, the dying that is going on. I ask my colleagues to disregard all of the comments they hear about the culture does not know how to accommodate using medications. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to disregard comments about the infrastructure is such that it is better that we do not try to do something about presenting the people of Africa with this opportunity. This is another parliamentary maneuver to block us from having an amendment that would deal directly with getting the WTO out of the business of making a case out of countries simply taking care of their AIDS patients who need medicine. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to talk a lot about the pharmaceuticals here this evening. We know how powerful they are, and we know that they are in opposition to this amendment. We know that the pharmaceuticals will hold out as long as we allow them to and watch people die, thousands of them by the day, to protect their intellectual property rights, to protect their patents, to protect their whatever. Again, public policymakers should not allow any special interest to have that much power. It is within the power of the Members of this House to do something about it. We can simply move this amendment this evening and not allow our trade representative to take this case to the World Trade Organization. The people of Africa are watching. We know that it works when a country decides to provide generic drugs to its people because we have seen it work already, not only in Brazil but in India also. We know that it works. The pharmaceuticals know that it works. But we are going to sit here and say somehow that this is improper, that this does not comport with the way that we do business. Those are simply flimsy obstacles that everybody can see through. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle who is leading the opposition to remove himself and to take the moral position of saving lives. It is within the gentleman's power by simply saying one or two words here this evening on the floor that he will support my amendment to amend this legislation so that it deals specifically with HIV/AIDS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I resent the gentleman lecturing me about how I ought to use my time. I was elected by the people of my district to make public policy. They did not necessarily elect me to go and do any of the things he is instructing me to do. They elected me to come here, to identify the issues, to debate the issues, to work on the issues. I know how to use my time. And I use it effectively. I would say to the gentleman, he should be more concerned about how he uses his time and his power rather than trying to instruct me on how I should use my time. I think that this amendment and the work that I am doing is the right thing to do. I think that it is the moral thing to do. I think that it is the spiritual thing to do. I think it is the religious thing to do. I do not know how anybody who has got the power in their hands, who work in this body, standing before the world, can oppose an amendment that would save the lives of millions of people. I do not know how anybody who can know intimately the devastation that is going on in Africa, who admits they have traveled there, who can talk eloquently about having gone to the Congo and other places, I do not know how they can take that information and somehow shape it into a result that says despite the fact I know all of this, I have seen all of this, I understand all of this and I am a faithful and upstanding person, but yet when it comes to the bottom line, I cannot do it. I cannot do it because of what? I cannot do it because the pharmaceuticals do not want me to do it? I cannot do it because my caucus does not want me to do it? I cannot do it because of what? I cannot do it because it is not important enough. It does not occupy priority on his agenda. He cannot do it because he does not have the will to do it. I have listened to Members come to the floor and commend him for being a generous man, for being a caring man, for being someone who has traveled to Africa, but there is a contradiction in all of this. The contradiction is quite clear. Mr. Chairman, you cannot know this story, you cannot have watched these babies die, you cannot watch these families where mother and father both are dead and children living without resources, in shacks and tents, you cannot say that you have seen all of that and somehow you cannot be moved to do whatever is necessary, to put your mark on making sure the people get the drugs that they need in order to live. Our United States Trade Representative was not elected by the people. It is an appointed position. We should be telling the United States Trade Representative what to do and how to represent us. We should be telling her, you are not to go to the World Trade Organization and take up this issue against the people. But since we are not willing to do that, we take an amendment like this and say, ``You can't use our resources to do it.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Obviously the debate has been held, and we know where people stand. Of course I am shattered by what is happening on this floor. It is inconceivable that we could have the opportunity here this evening in our public policymaking to literally direct our United States Trade Representative in the way that they handle this issue and not allow them to take it before the WTO to prevent countries from producing generic drugs to save lives. It is a contradiction because we are debating faith-based initiatives. We are debating whether or not we are going to allow the religious community and the church community to help save lives and to help poor people, all of that. It is a contradiction, Mr. Chairman. As I listen to this debate this evening, I am shattered because for even the best of us, we allow ourselves to be undermined and to be mismanaged by outside interests. May God have mercy on all of our souls. This is a tragedy.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we were just in a debate back here about how we license so many products and the power that we have, and we were just discussing that in relationship to this amendment and what tremendous accomplishments could be made with this simple step that we take here this evening. Mr. Chairman, let me say something: we sit back and we watch young people protest against the WTO. When they were up in Seattle, many people were just appalled at the fact that they staged the kind of protests that they did; and many people did not understand it, because they did not understand the WTO and the powers of the WTO. They did not understand that we have created this monstrous organization that is very much influenced by the multinational corporations of the world, many times overriding the will of elected bodies, legislatures, parliaments, and congresses. The young people get it. They understand something is not right. And that something is demonstrated here tonight. That something that they rally and they protest about is the fact that there is an organization that has the power to rule in favor of multinational corporations, to protect their patents, even when, even when these countries, who need the medicines, could produce their own. But the rules of this game say that, no, you cannot do it, because the multinational corporations do not like it. You are going to interfere with their ability to make a profit. They do not want to give the power to a country to be able to take care of its own with cheap drugs. The young people are demonstrating, because they know that these policies are influenced, developed, in the back room. We do not even know who is sitting on these panels at the WTO. Most of the Members of Congress do not pay a lot of attention to the World Trade Organization. Most of the Members of Congress are not in the business of directing our United States Trade Representative. But I want to say what we do here this evening helps to define all of that. It helps the world to understand where we stand when it gets down to the people versus the multinationals, and whether or not we are going to use our power on behalf of people, just little people, just poor people, just dying people, or whether, in the final analysis, we do not have the will or the guts to stand up to multinational corporations who say ``protect us.''

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. I do, Mr. Chairman. This is not about I am the only one who cares about this issue. I am the only one offering this amendment today. I am pleased that the gentleman has gone to the Congo and Rwanda. I am pleased that the gentleman knows something about Africa. Let me ask the gentleman if he knows that 36 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS and 95 percent of them are living in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, over 25 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 6,000 people die of AIDS-related diseases every day. This has nothing to do with whether or not I care or I am the only one that cares. It is time to put our public policy and our money where our mouths are. People are dying in unprecedented and shameful numbers. I would say to the gentleman, it is not about whether or not the gentleman challenges whether I care more than he. It is not about whether or not we have traveled to Africa. It is whether or not we saw what was happening in Africa, that we feel it in our hearts, and we are ready to do the right thing by people who need our help. This is simply about public policy. This is not even about money. This is about whether or not the gentleman is going to allow our United States Trade Representative to represent all of us and comply with rules that have been described by some on this floor as rules that are developed outside of government to protect the interests of the pharmaceuticals or other private companies who do not have it in their hearts to make sure that people are able to afford drugs that will save their lives. Are we going to sit here in the United States of America and watch people die day in and day out and not have it in our hearts to simply say, WTO, back off? That is what this is all about, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) not use this parliamentary maneuver and back off from trying to use this as a way to oppose what I think is excellent public policy that we can all be proud of.