Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, both the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) have pointed out how these agreements are not fair. They are written by a select few for a select few, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) writes about how especially working people in Central America and the Dominican Republic simply cannot figure out how to get their voices heard. They ride their horses from the far end of the capital and try to tell their legislators this agreement is not working for them. But what we are seeing this week is there are a handful of Central American legislators that have come here to say this is a bad idea for our country and various different countries in Central America. We are seeing a Central American Roman Catholic cardinal join with American Catholic leaders and Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders in our country saying this is bad for the poor in all seven countries. It is bad for the poor in the United States. It is bad for the poor in Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, in El Salvador and Guatemala, in Honduras and Nicaragua. This agreement, if we want to talk about economic justice and social justice, as all of us, and I know faith is important to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) as it is to me, if we want to talk about what faith is all about, any religious faith to which one ascribes, it is clear that faith is about social and economic justice. That is why the cardinal is here talking to Members of Congress about how this hurts his flock in Central America. That is why Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders and activists in our country are here talking to their Members of Congress, saying this is not fair to our communities, it does not work for our families, it does not work for our workers, it does not work for the environment, it does not work for anybody but those large companies that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) talked about, the large oil companies, the banks, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the big multinationals, that will use this agreement to not lift standards up in any country but to outsource jobs, to ship jobs overseas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). As we wrap up in the last 60 or 90 seconds, what I again point out, what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, working conditions and the standard of living in all of these CAFTA countries. Nicaragua, people are making $2,300 a year; Honduras, $2,600 a year. This agreement does nothing to lift up living standards in those countries. It means, one, they cannot buy American products as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has said, but it also means they continue to live in abject poverty. And this agreement does nothing to lift them up. That is why the opposition to CAFTA is so broad. That is why the cardinal is here this week. That is why Central American legislators have come up here and paid their own way to get here, I believe. That is why religious leaders in our country who see this issue, this agreement, as a moral question, what we do to the least among us, and so many people, religious leaders, advocates for the poor, advocates for working people, unions, small businesses that care about their communities, Republicans and Democrats alike, have joined against this agreement. That is why if this vote on CAFTA were held tonight, if it were held right now, this agreement would go down by 20 or 25 votes. I will make a prediction, and I have heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) say the same sort of thing, we know that in the next 2 weeks, if this comes up to a vote, that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most prominent and most powerful Member of this body, will put immense pressure on Republican Members to change their votes, to vote against what they were going to do, to change their vote and vote for this agreement. And the prediction I would make is if this comes to a vote, if in fact they think it is close enough for a vote, they will bring it up in the middle of the night; the roll call will stay open not the regular 15 minutes, but for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours, as they have done before; and if it in fact passes, it will pass by no more than two or three votes. That is the way business is all too often done here. And when this agreement so clearly runs counter to what most Americans want, it runs counter to what most Central Americans and Latin Americans want, it runs counter to what is good for business and what is good for workers in our country, the only way that they can possibly pass it is to twist arms, exert all kinds of pressures, open up the taxpayer bank and give out all kinds of pork projects to Members so they can get this agreement through. If it passes, it will pass by no more than two or three votes, we can count on that. But if this Congress, this House of Representatives, follows what the word ``representative'' means and really represents the people whom we are supposed to represent, this agreement will be defeated and Members of this body will look for a new, renegotiated CAFTA that will lift living standards up in the six Latin Americans countries and in the United States and will actually be a win for everyone involved. Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been so stalwart in this for so many years, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who speaks so eloquently about our constitutional rights and sovereignty and where we should go as a Nation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader and the most powerful Republican Member of Congress, promised last year that we would vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement. December 31 came and went. He promised we would vote on it by Memorial Day; we did not. He promised we would vote on it by July 4; we did not. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promises that CAFTA will come before us by the end of the month. The reason we have not voted on the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the reason it has been 13 months since the President signed it, six times longer than any trade agreement in years, is that Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, food safety advocates, environmentalists, and religious leaders think the Central America Free Trade Agreement is a bad idea. Defeat this CAFTA. Let us renegotiate a CAFTA that works for small farmers and ranchers and small business and workers and environmentalists and religious leaders in all seven CAFTA countries including ours.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the cosponsor of the amendment. (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is coauthored with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). The Economic Report of the President is supposed to be an educational tool, not a drug industry PR piece. On page 167, it asserts: ``On average, a new drug takes 12 years to develop and costs $800 million to introduce to the market.'' That cost estimate, by drug industry-backed researcher Dr. Joseph DiMasi, is used widely by drug companies to justify the high and rapidly rising prices they charge American consumers. But the DiMasi estimate is based on a widely disputed methodology that dramatically inflates actual R&D costs. The most blatant shortcoming is that the DiMasi estimate generalizes from the cost of developing a breakthrough product to the cost of developing any new drug. Most new drugs on the market are me-too drugs, or second generation products. They are by their very nature far less expensive to develop than the original. Even more troubling is the accounting gimmick unearthed by Professor Donald Light and Associate Professor Joel Lexchin. They write, ``About half of the $800 million figure consists of `opportunity costs,' the money that would have been made if R&D funds had been invested in equities.'' Treating opportunity costs as actual costs is a good way to inflate the R&D estimate, but a bad way to give the public honest data on actual R&D spending. By such an accounting, the cost of producing a stick of bubble gum could include the box office revenue foregone by the manufacturer's decision to make gum instead of motion pictures. As Light and Lexchin write: ``Minus the built-in profits, R&D costs would average about $108 million 93 percent of the time, and $400 million 7 percent of the time.'' By that reckoning, the industry estimate overstates the cost of developing a new drug by 740 percent. But in his economic report, President Bush uses the drug industry's estimate without question, without qualification, without even attribution. Put simply the Brown-Gutknecht amendment would fix that. It prevents the Council of Economic Advisers, which works with the President to produce his economic report, from using that bogus estimate next year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I hear my friend from New Jersey, well, all of my friends from New Jersey. They are arguing on behalf of the drug industry. Here is what this is all about, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) said. The drug industry funds a study. They do it through Tufts University. They find a professor at Tufts. This Dr. DiMasi has been doing these studies for the drug industry for several years. This is, I believe, his third study. After the study is done saying it costs $800 million, numbers just pulled from all over the place as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) proved in his comments, they get that study in a government report, and then that number gets all over the place to try to justify continued high drug prices, the kind of prices that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others on this floor have tried to do something about for several years. So when the industry does a study, then you put it in a government report, it simply does not make sense to do that for the public interest. There is a lot at stake here. The industry uses that fabricated cost estimate to justify charging our constituents the highest prices in the world. Two, three, four times Americans pay what Canadians or French or Germans or Israelis or Japanese pay; prices that force way too many American seniors to choose between their medicine and food; prices that drive up employer-sponsored health care costs, making American companies less competitive. Look at the problems at GM that my State faces. Prices that drive up tax bills by exploding the cost of Medicaid and Medicare and other public health programs. With that much at stake, the very least we should do is make sure we get the numbers right. This will be the first step in debunking this $800 million myth. This will be the first step in getting the numbers right so that we can get on in dealing with real prescription drug legislation in the future. I ask support for the Brown-Gutknecht amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week, finally, and mercifully, the national basketball season drew to a close. But the debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement goes on and on and on. Last year, during 2004, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican Member of the House, promised that we would vote by the end of the year, by December 31, 2004; promised we would vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They clearly did not have enough votes to pass it, so he did not bring it up. The gentleman from Texas then promised a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. Again, the votes were not there. He did not bring it up. Now the gentleman from Texas promised there would be a vote on CAFTA by July 4. We leave town tomorrow or Friday. Clearly, it will not come up for a vote. Again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did not have the votes in order to pass it. The reason that the Central American Free Trade Agreement has not been voted on by this House is the majority of Members, dozens of Republicans and dozens of Democrats, workers in small businesses, farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and food safety advocates, the religious leaders in the United States, religious leaders in Latin America, person after person after person has said to this Congress: Renegotiate CAFTA. We do not want this agreement. And the reason that people say renegotiate CAFTA and do not vote on this CAFTA or defeat this CAFTA is because our trade policy simply is not working. If you look at this chart, 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in this country of $38 billion. That means we exported $38 billion less than we imported. A dozen years later in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion. Clearly, our trade policy in this country is not working. Now maybe these are just numbers. These are just trade deficit numbers. But Mr. Speaker, if you really look at what that means, that kind of trade deficit, it means we are outsourcing, we are losing all kinds of manufacturing jobs in our country. This chart of the 50 States shows the States, the States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing. Those in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing. Ohio, my home State has lost 216,000 manufacturing jobs in only 5 years. Pennsylvania, 200,000; New York 222,000; Michigan, 210,000; Illinois, 214,000. Then you look at Mississippi and Alabama, have lost 130,000. The Carolinas, over 300,000. California, 353,000; Texas, 2001,000. These are manufacturing jobs that have simply disappeared, in large part jobs that have been shipped overseas because of failed U.S. trade policies, yet President Bush wants to continue this same sort of trade policy that our country has followed. And when you look at 216,600 jobs in Ohio, that is just a number, too. But think what that means to a community. York Manufacturing in Elyria, Ohio, about 5 miles from where I live in Lorain, Ohio, York manufacturing shut down, moved a lot of their production to Mexico; 700 people lost their jobs. That is 700 bread winners did not have jobs. If they had jobs at all, they had jobs that paid much less than they were making. It hurt the school system in Elyria. It hurt the city, police and fire protection in Elyria because the city lost money, lost revenue, lost tax dollars. That is what it does to families, what it does to communities, what it does to our schools, what it does to our States. It clearly is not in the national interest to continue this kind of trade policy where we have huge trade deficits getting worse every year, and then we have this kind of manufacturing job loss. Mr. Speaker, every year, every time there is a trade agreement, the President says and he promises that we will have more jobs, more manufacturing that will export products overseas and bring up the standard of living in those countries. Every time the President promises that, every time we pass a trade agreement, the opposite happens. Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Yet the President wants to continue this kind of trade policy, as does the gentleman from Texas, Majority Leader DeLay, the most powerful Republican in this House, and we have the same kind of impact. The opposition to CAFTA is broad. We have seen small manufacturers and farmers and ranchers. We have seen workers. We have seen religious leaders and environmentalists, people in Latin America, people in the United States that simply say no to this CAFTA, renegotiate a CAFTA. Renegotiate a Central American Free Trade Agreement that works for everyone.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year, Tom DeLay, the most powerful Republican in the Congress, promised this House that we would vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, so-called CAFTA, before the end of last calendar year, before December 31 of 2004. Then earlier this year he promised we would vote on CAFTA sometime before Memorial Day. Then he promised that we would vote on CAFTA sometime before July 4. The simple question is why has Congress not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement? The simple answer is that dozens of Republicans and Democrats, small businesses and manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, workers, environmentalists and food safety advocates all across the board oppose this agreement. There simply are not enough votes in this Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement. During this whole period, supporters of CAFTA continued to make the same old, tired promises about trade. They promised that passage of CAFTA would reduce our trade deficit, but it continues the failed trade policy of the last dozen years. In 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had in this country a $38 billion trade deficit. Last year, a dozen years later, our trade deficit had mushroomed to $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion and the CAFTA supporters say that CAFTA will reduce our trade deficit. CAFTA supporters say it will increase manufacturing jobs. Again, another broken promise from these trade agreements. The facts are that in the last 5 years, the U.S. has lost more than 2 million manufacturing jobs, more than 200,000 of them in my State of Ohio, another 200,000 in Michigan and Pennsylvania and New York, hundreds of thousands in Texas and California, in the southeast North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, those regions of the country. Because no one believed these promises that it would cut the trade deficit, that it would increase our exports, the promise that it would raise the standard of living in Central America, they now are bringing out a whole nother round of promises. One promise they have made, CAFTA will stop illegal immigration from Central America. The facts are that based on a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a quarter million undocumented Mexican-born workers entered the U.S. from 1990 to 1994, prior to NAFTA. Then NAFTA passed, the number of illegals entering the U.S. sharply increased to almost a half million from 2000 to 2004. Free trade agreements are not a solution for illegal immigration. Another promise they made, another wild, unsubstantiated promise, is that CAFTA will stop illegal drugs from entering the U.S. However, all you have got to do is look at what happened with NAFTA. Despite the passage of NAFTA, the State Department says Mexico is the principal transit country for South American cocaine entering the U.S. The report says that Mexican drug traffickers have steadily increased operations in all illicit drug sectors in the U.S. during the period after NAFTA. Another wild, unsubstantiated claim is that CAFTA will stop al Qaeda from utilizing our southern border to enter the U.S. Geography 101, Mr. Speaker, shows that our southern border is with Mexico, not Central America, and despite claims made about NAFTA, border security remains low. CAFTA supporters fail to argue how passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement will fix the Mexico border problem. Another wild, unsubstantiated claim is that Central American presidents support labor unions. The facts are very different from that. In every one of these CAFTA countries, Dominican Republic and the five countries in Central America, these nations are not compliant with internationally recognized labor standards today as defined by the International Labor Organization. Most CAFTA nations have inadequate protection for workers who try to join unions in violation of ILO Convention 98's right to organize and bargain collectively. They maintain onerous strike requirements in violation of the right to associate under ILO Convention 87. In Honduras, not a single one of the 8,000 workers in the Porvenir Export Processing Zone has the right of freedom of association. One worker in that zone said, ``Look, there's a whole mountain of workers who have been fired over the last few years for trying to organize in the industrial park. They simply don't allow it.'' In other words, these nations, one after another, continue to violate International Labor Organization standards. CAFTA would lock in those lower wage standards, lower worker safety standards, right to organize, bargain collectively, prohibition on child labor, all of those things that we hold dear as our moral values in this country, human rights issues, protecting workers, protecting children, protecting against forced labor. Mr. Speaker, the answer is, defeat this CAFTA. It has been promised that it would come to the floor week after week, month after month. Defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a Central American Free Trade Agreement that workers and small businesses and farmers and manufacturers and environmentalists and food safety advocates and businesses can support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a White House news conference earlier this month, President Bush called on Congress to pass CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Also earlier this month, the most powerful Republican in Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Actually, it is the third time the gentleman has promised a vote on CAFTA. The first time in 2004 he said there would be a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the end of the year, December of 2004. Then earlier this year he promised a vote on CAFTA by Memorial Day, and now he is promising a vote by July 4. Where I come from, 3 strikes means you are out. As a result, Congress is waiting and waiting and waiting for the CAFTA vote count down to begin. While we wait, the many of us who have been speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement have a message for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and for the President, and that is renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement. President Bush signed CAFTA more than a year ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Morocco, every trade agreement negotiated by this administration was voted on by this Congress within 60 days of the President signing the agreement. CAFTA has languished in Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrongheaded trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats alike. It offends small manufacturers. It offends labor unions. It offends environmentalists and ranchers and small farmers and food safety advocates. It offends religious leaders in Central America and many religious leaders in this country. Most importantly, just look what has happened with trade policy in this country in the last 12 years. In 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means we imported $38 billion more than we exported. Today, a dozen years later, in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion in only a dozen years. It is hard to argue that our trade policy is working. Some people say, well, those are only just numbers, that is the trade deficit; who really cares? What that means is it means a significant loss in manufacturing jobs. The States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing. The State of Ohio, 216,000 just in the last 5 years; Michigan, 210,000 manufacturing jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Mississippi and Alabama combined, 130,000. In the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Lewis) home State, they have lost between 15 and 20 percent. These are the States in blue, 107,000. In the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Watson) and the gentleman from California's (Mr. Berman) State, 354,000 jobs lost. In State after State after State we have seen hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 5 years, not entirely because of but in large part because of failed trade policies. Each one of these jobs translates into the loss of a bread winner, translates into less money for education in the community, less money for police and fire as the tax base shrinks with more and more industrial concerns shutting down. These are faces of real people, what these numbers represent, and it is hurting an awful lot of families in every one of these States and our country. As we see, the Central American Free Trade Agreement was negotiated by a select few for a select few. It was negotiated by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to help the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. It was negotiated by big energy companies in the United States to help big energy companies in the United States. It was negotiated by insurance and financial institutions to help insurance and financial institutions. But it is not helping workers. It is not helping the environment. It is not helping small manufacturers. It is not helping small farmers and small ranchers in our country. It is the same old story, Mr. Speaker. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President makes three promises. He promises there will be more jobs in the U.S., more manufacturing products that are exported to other countries, and it means better wages and a higher standard of living for workers in the developing country. Yet, with every single trade agreement, their promises fall by the wayside. Benjamin Franklin said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. The President makes the same promises about NAFTA, about PNTR with China, about CAFTA, about every trade agreement over and over and over, and the results are the same: more manufacturing job loss; more stagnation of wages in the developing world where their standard of living does not go up; more plant shutdowns in community after community in our country. In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, the administration and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA is a bad idea. Overwhelming opposition to this agreement says we should renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have, as he certainly knows, great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), whose district and mine touch each other, are contiguous. And I just would reiterate though on this amendment that this is a Medicaid commission that the White House is not even giving Members of Congress a vote on reforming the whole system. So they are going to come here with the commission recommendation from the White House to Congress about cutting $10 billion, but are not even going to give any real congressional input because we will not even be able to vote on these recommendations. So in that vein, I ask Members of this body to support the Brown amendment on Medicaid.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I watched this, and I understand how the roll call vote is going to come out. But I watched this with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller's) amendment. It was the same issue. Mr. Chairman, there were 10 or 12 of us over here saying yes, and 3 or 4 or 5 over there saying no.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment does not require much explanation. The Bush administration created a Medicaid Commission and invited Members of Congress to participate. Then they informed us that Members of Congress would not get a vote. It is not the Bush administration's responsibility to reform Medicaid. That is our job. Yet, the Bush administration did not give Members of Congress a vote. What does this administration have to do before we draw the line, take over the appropriations process, sign bills before we pass them? It is our job, Mr. Chairman, to refine government programs under our jurisdiction. It is the administration's job to provide input. Theirs is a nonvoting position. The onus of responsibility is on us. We should not shirk it. Vote for this amendment because you are not paid as Members of Congress to blame Medicaid for health care costs it does not generate. Medicaid is the insurer, not the patient. Vote for this amendment because you are not paid to blame impoverished children, the disabled, and the elderly for needing care or your constituents for feeling compassion towards them. Vote for this amendment because you know you cannot bring health care costs down by making it more difficult for poor people to receive it through normal channels. If a poor mother's child has an alarmingly high fever and she has no access to a primary care doc, she will take her to the emergency room. Who can blame her for that? If you want to do something about the increase in Medicaid spending, do something about rising health care costs, do something about inflated prescription drug costs, do something about health care infomercials and glossy drug advertising, do something about medical errors, come up with a responsible medical malpractice reform plan. Do something that responds to the actual issue, not a symptom of it. If a commission would be useful, let us make it a health care commission, and let us ask its members to recommend measures to stabilize health care spending, and let us give the Bush administration a vote on that commission. But do not allow the Bush White House to put Medicaid on trial as if it is some two-bit criminal when Medicaid is actually a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out there. Medicaid is a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out there. Do not let the Bush administration take health care away from the poor so it can give tax cuts to the rich. Our government has three branches. Let us make sure the executive branch does not do our jobs for us. It may be more difficult to confront health care costs directly than to make a scapegoat of the Medicaid program, but we are not in office to take the easy path. We are in office to take the right path. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, many Americans seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance program, more commonly know as SSDI, face intolerable delays in the processing of their claims. SSDI is a true insurance program. All American workers pay into the program, and any working American who becomes disabled is eligible for assistance. The Social Security disability system has a backlog of more than a half-million cases on appeal. Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart testified last year that, on average, it took more than 3 years to complete processing of a disability claim on appeal, from the day it's filed to the day it's finally adjudicated. These delays come with a high cost for the men and women forced to wait. For some, it means exhausting their life savings. Others lose their health insurance coverage, the family car, and even their homes. And as once-proud workers unable to pay their bills are reduced to borrowing from friends and family, some Americans lose even their dignity. These delays have hit home in my Ohio district. One constituent, Bobbi from Sheffield, Ohio--a single mom injured in an auto accident in 2001--exhausted her life savings and was forced onto welfare while she waited. She finally received the support she had earned just last month, after waiting 4 years. Another constituent, Ronald from Elyria, Ohio has a heart condition that left him disabled in 2001, but he had to wait 3 years for benefits. The appropriations bill before us today offers a chance to improve the system, for these Ohioans and every American. This bill provides a badly-needed increase in administrative funding for the Social Security Administration. A lot of these resources will go to funding administration of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. But significant funding will be used to help SSA improve disability processing and reduce the claims backlog--with new technology and staffing. I support the SSA administrative funding provision in this bill. But we can do better. The bill falls more than $100 million short of President Bush's request for Social Security administrative funding. Advocates for disabled Americans agree with the President that SSA needs every dollar of the President's request to attack the disability backlog. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SSA administrative funding level in this bill. But I urge you then to work with me as this bill advances, to seek full funding of President Bush's SSA administrative budget request. There has been a lot of talk lately about the future of Social Security. But our first obligation should be to make Social Security work as well as it can right now.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse and one of this body's best advocates for public health.