Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, something terribly wrong has happened in the House of Representatives. I am not talking about, from a partisan standpoint, the Republican takeover in 1995, I am not even talking about the ascension of Newt Gingrich to the Speakership. What I am talking about is the ascension of a new kind of House leaders who have run this institution even as former Speaker Gingrich has said, not in the fairest possible way, basically in an unprecedented way. We have seen things in the House of Representatives in the last couple of years that we have literally never seen. I want to tell a story and spell out what I mean by this one example. Beginning a couple of years ago, at 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, the House of Representatives cut veterans' benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care benefits by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes. At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House passed the first round of the Medicare privatization bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote. After returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq. Always on a Thursday night, Friday morning, always in the middle of the night, always after the public has turned their TV sets off and gone to bed and after most of the media which sits up there has left. As I said, always on a Thursday night, because if it gets in the paper at all, it would appear then in the Saturday paper, the paper that is the least read paper of the week. That was just the beginning. Then came the Medicare vote. The final round of the Medicare vote took place in November. The debate began at midnight on a Friday night in November. The debate took 3 hours. The vote began at 3 a.m. Members of Congress are given this card, which we stick in a little black box on the House floor to vote. The votes as we all know are then recorded electronically. Almost all of us went down and cast our votes. Pretty soon after the vote was called at 3 o'clock in the morning, the privatization of Medicare, the most important piece of domestic legislation that probably anybody in this body had ever voted on, at 3 o'clock in the morning the vote began, as I said. We are normally given 15 minutes, an extra 5 minutes sometimes, to cast our votes. Normally not much more than that. At 3:30 the vote was still on. At 4 o'clock, an hour after the vote had begun, an hour after most of us voted, the vote was 216 ``yes'' and 218 ``no.'' At about 4:15, the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, the chairman of the committee that the gentleman from New Jersey and I are on that wrote the bill began to go around to recalcitrant Members of their party, Republican Members who had voted ``no,'' trying to get them to change their vote. It is now 4:30. They woke up the President of the United States who from his living quarters at the White House got on the phone and began to try to lobby the 26 or 27 Members of the Republican side who had voted ``no'' on Medicare. They all stood their ground. At about 4:45, the Republican leaders surrounded Nick Smith, a Republican from Michigan, who told his story on the radio the next day. He had already announced his retirement. His son was running for his seat. He was told that if he changed his vote, they would come up with $100,000 for his son's campaign. When he said no, they said, if you do not change your vote, we will come up with $100,000 for your son's opponent's campaign. Congressman Smith, under great duress with great courage, said, Nothing doing. Incidentally, his son later lost the primary. Finally, it is 5 o'clock. It is 216-218. It is 5:30. It is 216-218. It is 5:45 in the morning. It is still 216 ``yes,'' 218 ``no.'' Two hours and 55 minutes after the vote was called, two Republicans, one from Idaho and one from Arizona, came out of the cloakroom, walked down here, picked up one of these green cards, you cannot use the plastic electronic card that late in the voting, marked the card, changed their vote, sheepishly handed it to the House Clerk, the Speaker then gaveled the vote closed, and that is how Medicare privatization passed. We have seen in this body a new legacy of one-party rule, legislative strong-arming and abuses of power never before seen under leaders of either party in this House of Representatives, hiding votes from the American public under the cover of darkness. We spend plenty of time, Mr. Speaker, passing votes on naming post offices in the middle of the day and doing important controversial votes at night. Mr. Speaker, this abuse of power has to stop.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Millender-McDonald amendment and to express concern for the underlying bill. I am glad we are considering legislation that would address what should be done in the event of a large-scale incapacitation of Congress. It obviously makes sense to do that. It is more essential than ever in a time of national emergency that democracy be preserved. Our Constitution established the House of Representatives to provide directly elected representation in the event of a catastrophe that must be restored as quickly as possible. We have heard sort of grand, philosophical statements of our allegiance to democracy on the floor of this House; but at the same time, we need to be practical about what actually can work in a time of national crisis. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have glossed over the problems that especially military voters, the elderly, others who do not have access on an election day to the polls, the kind of problems that they would face. I was Secretary of State in the 1980s for 8 years in the State of Ohio, a large State with several million registered voters, a State that has always had a tradition of bipartisan elections conducted fairly. The year of 2004 may have been different where the election machinery frankly was not so well administered as it had been in the past by Secretaries of State of both parties. That aside, I have serious concerns as a former Secretary of State about the legislation we are considering today. Forty-nine days establishes an unrealistic time frame for holding legitimate, fair elections where people have access to the polling booth. In a national emergency, Congress must be able to provide immediate relief, and this legislation would allow the country to elect representation for those 6 or 7 weeks. You cannot, I believe, hold fair elections, accessible elections, in 49 days. The process simply takes longer than that. Again, military voters, people far away outside the country, in uniform serving our country, elderly voters who do not have access to the polls, the most vulnerable among us, in many ways, that cannot simply do that. There are alternatives, and I want to answer the concerns of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). There are alternatives that would create immediate representation while providing a framework for States to conduct elections. I supported legislation last year that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) said, was defeated, but could be considered in the light of understanding how elections actually work in that there needs to be a time line to get candidates on the ballots, to get the ballots printed, to get them sent to the Armed Forces around the world, and get those ballots back in time for an election. The Baird proposal would allow States to appoint temporary replacements for deceased or incapacitated Representatives. States could then conduct special elections to elect permanent Representatives according to State laws. I support the Millender-McDonald amendment because appointing the process, if we could do that down the line, and I understand that is not on the table today, but to do them in 45 or 49 days simply is not practical, and too many people will be denied the right to vote. We want to do this right. We want to refill, if you will, the House of Representatives as quickly as possible, but we want to do it in the most democratic way possible, and ultimately that means giving the election machinery time so that everyone, especially our servicemen and -women overseas, so that everyone has access to the ballots. I think the underlying bill does not do that. I think the Millender-McDonald amendment makes this bill work much better than it does otherwise. I ask support for the Millender-McDonald amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago I came to this house in January 1993 and during that year this Congress debated whether or not to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement. The promises made during NAFTA in 1993 from its supporters were it would create jobs in the U.S., it would raise living standards in Mexico by raising wages, it would encourage and enable Mexicans to buy more American products. It would increase our balance of trade with Canada and Mexico, positively. Those were the promises made by NAFTA. We have heard those same promises when we passed the PNTR with China. We have heard those same promises on trade agreement after trade agreement. But look what has happened to our trade deficit in that period. Starting in 1992, the year I first ran for Congress our trade deficit was $38 billion. You can see it passes $100 billion in the early 1990s. Almost $200 billion in the mid 1990s. President Bush took office. Goes up to 400 billion, 450 billion, 500 billion. This year our trade deficit was $617 billion. That means that we are buying $617 billion more in products than we are selling. So, what is the President's response? The President's response is the Central American Free Trade Agreement. More of the same, followed he hopes by something called free trade area of the Americas. CAFTA and FTAA will double the population of NAFTA, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada and quadruple the number of low income workers. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. We are hearing the same promises about CAFTA, that it will raise living standards and raise wages in Central America, that it will create jobs in the United States, that we will export more and more to Central America, that it will reduce our trade deficit. It is the same old song. It was the same song for NAFTA. It is the same song for NAFTA's dysfunctional cousin CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This President is going to come to Congress and again ask us to pass another free trade agreement that hemorrhages American jobs that costs us, especially manufacturing jobs. My State under President Bush has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs; this country has lost around 2 million manufacturing jobs in the 4 years that George Bush has been President; yet he continues to do the same thing, tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country, trade agreements that hemorrhage jobs overseas. Mr. Speaker, just look at the facts. Look at what has happened with our trade deficit. Again, it was $38 billion the year I ran for Congress in 1992. Today it is almost 20 times higher, $617 billion trade deficit. We had a trade surplus with Mexico in 1992. Today we have a $40 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Again, Mr. Speaker, the President looks at these numbers and he says, let us do more of the same. Clearly our trade policy is not working. Clearly the President is taking the country in the wrong direction on trade. Every trade agreement this Congress has passed from President Bush has been signed by the President and then passed within Congress by about 60 days. President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement on May 28. He has yet to try to push it through Congress because he knows the American people oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and he knows the United States Congress opposes this Central American Free Trade Agreement. Fully 90 percent of Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to vote against CAFTA because Democrats understand, and I hope enough of my Republican colleagues come along, understand that the Central American Free Trade Agreement is bad for our community. It is bad for our families. It is bad for our workers. It simply does not work for our country. It betrays American values of hard work, of being rewarded for hard work. It hurts the poor in both countries. It hurts working people in both countries. It clearly does not promote the right set of moral values for our Nation. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It is clear these trade agreements are not working for our country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that. I will close with those very appropriate comments. Thank the gentlewoman from Illinois. Thank our new freshman colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their leadership in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and for everyone here in pointing out what has happened to our trade policy and how clearly when you go from a $38 billion trade deficit to $617 billion in a dozen years that this is not working. We need to strike out in a new direction.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they said do not do this anymore; we will quit doing it. Nobody paid a fine. Nobody was penalized. Nobody lost a job. That is just amazing. It is like you break the law and do something untoward and just do not do it again, please, even though 700,000 American taxpayer dollars were flushed down the toilet. It is pretty amazing. It is not exactly law, and I yield to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who has been on this House floor night after night over the years in fighting not just for economic justice but against bad trade agreements and jobs and all that she cares so much about.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). The gentlewoman talks about the moral values behind, or the lack of moral values behind, our trade policy, or the wrong kind of moral values. I think about that we have this trade policy in this country now that it is sort of every man, and I say man, every-man-for- himself trade policy, what can the wealthiest corporations get out of these trade deals, forgetting the workers, forgetting our communities. Instead of this every-man-for-himself trade policy, we need to understand we are all in this together, and when we have this kind of job loss as those bishops in Central America understand what it means to their communities and where they are the losers, these trade agreements also have obviously caused great hardship in our country. When a factory closes in North Carolina, a textile plant or a steel mill closes in Ohio, or a chemical plant closes in New Jersey, what does that mean to those families and what does that mean to those schools and what does it mean to those children putting pressures on those families because their parents are unemployed and cannot find work and their schools are underfunded and all of that? When the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) talks about the moral values underpinning our trade policy, what it does to Mexican or Guatemalan workers who have no real labor standards for fair play in the workplace, what it does to our workers, what it does to sugar workers in Louisiana, it is pretty clear this policy really lacks the traditional moral values that I think built our country and still make us the great country that we are. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and thank him for his outstanding work on job creation and trade.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for her work on education and health care. This has become a pattern in the administration where they paid Armstrong Williams, a commentator, I think a couple of hundred thousand dollars to use his position as a media commentator, never disclosed it, but used his position as a media commentator to lobby on the President's behalf on education issues. They have done the same on health care issues. They set up all kinds of Social Security using taxpayer dollars lobbying for the President's radical privatization of Social Security, and now they actually gave a $700,000 grant, USAID, to business groups in Central America to lobby the government. Imagine that. If our friends want to come to the House floor to debate this tonight and any other time, we are very willing. We are in front of the American public. There are cameras if people want to watch this at home to have this debate in public, but to use taxpayer dollars to lobby foreign governments or our own government or to convince the American people to do something is just immoral, I think when we look at sort of the values of all of this and the moral questions involved in trade where the elite, the wealthiest people in the world do very well and nobody else much does, and how that is such a betrayal of our moral values as a Nation and then you use taxpayer dollars to undercut that even further, it is just reprehensible, and I would hope President Bush would speak out and say never again will this happen, anybody that ever does anything like this loses his job or her job, no questions asked. I hope the President would speak his own moral values and say this is the wrong thing to do. He has remained silent and continued to do this. We caught them again, if you will. Who knows how many more times they are going to try to use tax dollars to push this very unpopular agreement through this Congress.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for joining us tonight. When we look at the trade deficit, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) mentioned, from $38 billion, at least the first year I ran for Congress a dozen years or so ago, up to $617 billion and growing, it was only $500 in 2003. Last year it was over $600, $617 billion. When you look at that and you couple it with this profligate spending, tax cuts all that has happened to bring about a $400 billion budget deficit, our trade deficit and our budget deficit, $600-plus billion, $400-plus billion add up to over $1 trillion a year, and most of that money is borrowed from other Nations, whether it is South Korean banks or whether it is the government/Communist Party/interest groups in China or whether it is Japan, banks in Japan or corporations or individuals are borrowing so much, they are buying a piece of the United States every time. When we run up a trade deficit of $617 billion, we run up a budget deficit of $400 billion, we are selling off our country piece by piece. At the same time, the workers in these other countries are not benefiting, only investors are. When we come to the House floor and we criticize, if we come criticize CAFTA and NAFTA, we also need to offer something affirmative and positive, and this Congress 5 years ago passed something called the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, not a very large country in terms of distance in miles from here, and not a major economic player in the world, but it was a trade agreement that really lifted up standards. It lifted up workers and environmental standards and was a prototype for what we should be doing. If the Central American Free Trade Agreement had been written the way the Jordan Free Trade Agreement had, we would be on the floor supporting it, as we all supported the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, but instead, after the Clinton administration negotiated the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, we have gone back to this failed NAFTA model. It is all about investment. It is all about every man for himself trade policy where workers are hurt, communities are hurt, schools are hurt, families are hurt. Investors may make money, but they are the only ones that do, and if any of us who have gone to the border and seen the way that the trade works for families on both sides of the border, how it has worked in a way that environmentally has been a disaster. The American Medical Association said the most toxic place in the Western hemisphere is along the Mexican-U.S. border on both sides where babies are born with all kinds of defects, where children get sick, where old people cannot breathe well, if they have any kind of bronchial problems. These trade agreements, they are hurting our communities and our jobs and our companies. They are simply the wrong direction and simply no reason we could not pass something like the Jordan trade agreement instead of going in this direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight earlier by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who were here to talk in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Tonight I am also joined by a freshman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), who has already shown himself to be a leader on the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other trade issues, and we will hear from him in a moment. Twelve years ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood on this floor in opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. In those days, we heard promises from supporters of NAFTA, the trade agreement that included Mexico, Canada and the United States, we heard story after story of how this was going to lift up living standards in Mexico, knock down trade barriers between our country and Mexico and our country and Canada and Canada and Mexico, that it would create prosperity for Mexicans and increase jobs in the United States, creating a whole new integrated economy that would be good for all three countries. I would display a couple of charts that I brought with me tonight to frankly prove that the 12 years of the North American Free Trade Agreement have not served any of our countries well. I would start, Mr. Speaker, with showing just the overall trade deficit. In 1992, the first year I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in this Congress of $38 billion. That means we actually imported $38 billion more than we sold outside the United States; $38 billion. The last month of 2004, the last month of the year, the trade deficit was almost $60 billion. It was $38 billion for the year in 1992; it was almost twice that for a month in December. But you can see what has happened to our trade deficit. This is zero. If it were zero we would be buying and selling in equal amounts. We have gone from $38 billion. In 1994, the trade deficit exceeded $100 billion trade deficit; then $200 billion in 1999. Then when President Bush came to the White House, it got to $400 billion. Then it exceeded $425 billion, then $500 billion. In this past year, the trade deficit is $617 billion. President Bush had told us in those days back when NAFTA was negotiated in the late 1980s and early 1990s that every $1 billion of trade translated into 19,000 jobs. If you had a trade deficit of $1 billion, it would cost your country 19,000 generally good-paying industrial jobs. Now our trade deficit is $617 billion, and you can see what that means in job loss. If you want to break it down what happened to the trade deficit per country under NAFTA, you can see what happened to the trade deficit with Canada. Back in 1991, the trade deficit was about $7 or $8 billion with Canada. Now the trade deficit with Canada alone is about $62 billion. That is with Canada. You can look at the trade deficit with Mexico. In fact, we had a trade surplus with Mexico. The numbers above zero mean we actually sold more to Mexico than we bought. Prior to NAFTA, we had a trade surplus with Mexico of a few billion dollars. Then right here is where NAFTA passed. Look at what happened. It is almost $20 billion for several years in a row. Then it went to about $25 billion. Then President Bush came to the White House and it was $30 billion, then almost $40 billion, then over $40 billion, now coming up on $50 billion. So the trade deficit as a result of NAFTA just grew and grew and grew. I will show you one more, even though if is not part of the debate and discussion tonight, just because it is the most dramatic of all. This is our bilateral trade deficit as a Nation with China. A dozen years ago it was less than $20 billion with China. You can just see what happened, year after year after year after year. President Bush took office here, the trade deficit jumped from about $80 billion to over $100 billion. Then it was over $120 billion. Our trade deficit with China last year was over $160 billion. Now, would you not think, and I know that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) understands this and other Members on our side of the aisle at least, would you not think when you have this kind of trade deficit, when it looks like this, when the overall U.S. trade deficit has moved this dramatically from just a few billion just a dozen years ago all the way to $617 billion, would you not think you might want to sort of change ideas and do something different, that you might think this trade policy we have simply is not working? It is not working for American workers. Whether it is the sugar industry in Louisiana or the steel or auto industry in Ohio or textiles in Georgia and North Carolina, or a whole host of other manufacturers, or whether it is computer programmers in the Silicone Valley, clearly these trade policies are not working. You do not go from a few billion trade deficit to $617 billion in 12 years without something being wrong. So what is our answer? President Bush's answer is let us pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement. What the Central American Free Trade Agreement does is it adds Central American countries. And then if Congress passes that, President Bush is negotiating something called Free Trade Area of the Americas, and that will add the rest of Latin America. That will double the population of NAFTA and quadruple the number of low-income workers under NAFTA. So if you think NAFTA has not worked, where we had that trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, where we had almost a zero trade deficit when NAFTA passed, now Canada and Mexico's trade deficit with us is over $100 billion, so if we pass CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, then the FTAA, Free Trade Area of the Americas, with four times the number of low-income workers, we are going to see more job loss in our Nation, more problems with our economy, more problems in our communities, hollowed-out industrial towns that simply do not have good paying industrial jobs anymore. Today marks month number 9 since President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He signed it on May 28, 2004. You wonder why he has not brought the trade agreement to Congress to vote on it. With every other trade agreement President Bush has sent to Congress, the Morocco Trade Agreement, he signed it, 37 days later, Congress passed it. The Singapore Trade Agreement, he signed it, 79 days later it passed. The Chile Free Trade Agreement, he signed it, 48 days later it passed. The Australia Trade Agreement, he signed it, 57 days later it passed. Well, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement on May 28 last year. About 280 days ago have elapsed, because President Bush knows there is so much opposition among the American people and so much opposition in this Congress to these continued, failed trade policies. He would have brought it here if he thought he could pass it, but it is pretty clear that an awful lot of Members, including my freshman colleague from Louisiana that is here and so many others, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who is joining us in a moment, it is pretty clear these trade policies are not working. So today marks the end of the ninth month since the President signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We are hopeful in this body, many of us, that it never comes to a vote because it is clearly bad trade policy. Instead of passing CAFTA as the President wants, we should instead go back and look at NAFTA, go back and look at our trade policy with China, go back and look at our membership and what we are doing in the World Trade Organization. Instead, President Bush, says, let us move ahead with more trade policy. Even though it may be working for a few investors, it is not working for our families, it is not working for our schools, it is not working for our communities, it is not working for our workers, it is not working for our country. These kinds of trade deficits, these trade deficits represent lost jobs. They represent disappointment in families. They represent oftentimes divorce and alcoholism, in failed schools, in all the factory closings and lay-offs mean to families, to communities, to our country. And I would hope that President Bush would just decide not to submit the CAFTA to Congress, would instead go back and look at these trade policies and go back and look at these trade agreements, and then make a decision to move in a different direction. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), a freshman Member who has already done a terrific job in explaining trade issues to his colleagues. He brings a lot of expertise to the table in trade policy, on creating jobs and making our communities and our schools better.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Melancon) comments, especially what happens when these trade agreements get real close to the date of the vote. I remember during the China trade agreement that when that came to this Congress, a friend told me there were more corporate jets at National Airport than any other time they would have ever seen. There were corporate leaders that were walking the halls of this Congress telling people they wanted access, telling the Members of Congress they wanted access to 1 billion Chinese customers when, in fact, they really wanted access to 1 billion Chinese workers of all ages, of both genders, of all kinds of people that were going to work at a few cents an hour, in some cases, almost slave labor, too often child laborers, and always underpaid workers, and this is really what these trade agreements are all about. It is pretty clear. He talks about the immoral value of children in the sugar cane fields, and I have seen the same in coffee fields in Nicaragua, and I have seen the same on the Mexican border where workers are badly treated, underpaid, and as a result, we are not getting what the whole point of trade agreements is which is to lift workers up in other countries so they can then buy American products. We create a middle class in Mexico, we create a middle class in Honduras, and then they buy from our workers and our companies back and forth, and that simply does not happen in these trade agreements because it is all about low income workers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Janet Huggins died last September. She was 39 years old. She had a 9-year-old son. She had no personal or family history of heart problems, but she suffered a fatal heart attack just a month after she began taking a new medicine for her early-onset arthritis. That medicine she took was Merck's anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx. Cardiologist, Dr. Eric Topol, and other researchers at the Cleveland Clinic sounded the alarm in August of 2001. Their article in the Journal of the American Medical Association pointed to increased occurrence of heart problems in patients taking Vioxx and similar Cox-II anti-inflammatory drugs. Dr. Topol even called Merck's CEO and research director to talk about his concerns. His calls went unanswered. His warnings went unheeded. Instead, Merck continued to sell Vioxx, continued to spend $100 million a year on direct-to-consumer advertising, encouraging more and more Americans to buy Vioxx. That is what Ms. Huggins did. She was buried the same day that Merck finally took Vioxx off the market. Her husband Monty has filed suit against Merck. His suit will be captured, along with thousands of other Vioxx suits, under the mass actions provisions of S. 5. This bill is designed to make it more difficult for Monty Huggins and others to pursue their claims that companies like Merck will never be held accountable. S. 5 will make it more expensive for him and much harder for him to travel for court proceedings. It may even dead-end Monty Huggins' claim entirely. Federal Courts have repeatedly refused to certify multistate class actions because they found them too complex to choose one State law over the other. So Monty Huggins may arrive in Federal Court only to find that is the end of the line. The bitter irony here is that Vioxx claims are not really class actions at all. Here is a good example of the sort of things settled by class action lawsuits. This iPod portable music player is all the rage. There are some people out there who thought the batteries on these things run out too quickly. They have filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. If they win, everybody in the class probably gets a few bucks and the whole thing is done. That is what class action lawsuits are about. They do not generally involve personal injuries. They do not generally involve huge losses. There is a world of difference, Mr. Speaker, between a faulty battery in this, and the death of a 39-year-old wife and mother. Perhaps the worst aspect of this bill is that it treats these suits the same. We should strip out the whole class action, the mass action provision, but that is not realistic in this political environment. My motion to commit prevents harm so obvious it cannot be ignored by specifically exempting Vioxx lawsuits. Dr. Topol at the Cleveland Clinic, who I mentioned earlier wrote, ``Neither of the two major forces in this 5-and-a-half year affair, neither Merck nor the FDA, fulfilled its responsibilities to the public.'' This motion to commit offers an opportunity for someone at last to act responsibly. If we adopt this motion to commit, Monty Huggins will have a fighting chance for justice. If we do not, the U.S. House of Representatives will join the list of those who betrayed the public's trust. Mr. Speaker, I yield the reminder of my time to my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, under provisions of this bill, is it not the case that all future Vioxx cases are prohibited?

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush delivered to Congress his proposed Federal budget. In the coming months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress will debate budget proposals largely based on divergent cardinal moral values. We will debate budget cuts that represent more than just program scale-backs. The President's proposed cuts to vital government programs are reflective of differences in core philosophies on the role of our government in serving our people. Budgets are moral documents that reveal the fundamental priorities of a person, of a household, of a business, of a government. The President's ``every man for himself budget'' disregards millions of Americans and undercuts our Nation's values. There is no better example of where Democrat and Republican values diverge than in Medicaid. The President claims he only wants to cut programs that are not getting results or that duplicate current efforts or that do not fulfill essential priorities. Democrats could not agree more on the need for efficient government. That is how we balanced the budget in the 1990s. So we asked then, which of those three, Mr. President, is Medicaid? There is no question it is getting results. It operates at a lower cost than private health insurance. The fact is, private health insurance has grown historically at 12.6 percent a year. Medicare has grown at 7.1 percent a year. Medicaid has grown at 4.5 percent a year. The public sector does it more efficiently and delivers to more people fairly than does private insurance. And there is no duplication here. It is the only program of its kind. It fulfills an essential priority. Medicaid is the sole source of nursing home care for 5 million seniors living in poverty. The President knows Medicaid is already running on fumes, but he made a choice. He chose to give more tax cuts to the most privileged 1 percent of people in this country instead of providing for subsistence care for senior citizens in need, different priorities reflecting a different set of moral values. Medicaid provides health coverage to 52 million Americans, roughly in my State of Ohio 1.7 million people. It is the only source of coverage for one out of four children in our Nation, and it provides 70 percent of the nursing home funding in most States. The Bush proposal cuts $60 billion out of the Medicaid program over the next 10 years, again so that the President could deliver to his biggest contributors the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 or 2 or 5 percent. These cuts, in effect, will mean kicking some seniors out of nursing homes. The President's plan would shift tens of billions of costs to States like Ohio already facing severe financial shortfalls. The President cannot eliminate basic needs by ignoring them. He cannot eliminate the need for nursing home care by ignoring it or by shifting the responsibility to the States. In the short run, his budget cuts will create victims. In the long run, it will force the States to spend more. And how will the States cover these costs? The States will levy taxes on students through tuition, homeowners through higher property taxes, workers through higher income taxes, consumers through higher sales tax. That is what is happening in State after State, whether it is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, as we cut those programs. Nationally, the States pick them up so the wealthy get their tax breaks, the wealthiest 1 or 2 or 5 percent, and middle-income people get hit hardest by, again, students through higher tuition, consumers through sales tax, and property homeowners by the property tax, and workers through higher income taxes. Medicaid is a partnership between Federal and State governments. Cutting the Federal share hurts our families, hurts our communities, hurts our schools, hurts our country. We can give up many things in the name of shared sacrifice, but common sense should not be one of them. The President's ``every man for himself budget'' neglects our Nation's values, neglects our communities, and betrays our Nation's values.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week, President Bush delivered to Congress his proposed Federal budget. In the coming months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress will debate budget proposals largely based on divergent cardinal moral values. We will debate budget cuts that represent more than just program scale-backs. The President's proposed cuts to vital government programs are reflective of differences in core philosophies on the role of our government in serving our people. Budgets are moral documents that reveal the fundamental priorities of a person, of a household, of a government. The President's ``every man for himself'' budget disregards millions of Americans and undercuts our Nation's values. There is no better example of where Democratic and Republican values diverge than Medicaid. The President claims he only wants to cut programs that are not getting results or that duplicate current efforts or that do not fulfill essential priorities. So which of these is Medicaid? There is no question it is getting results. It operates at a lower cost than private health insurance, in spite of what my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say about Medicaid. In fact, private health insurance has grown historically at 12.6 percent a year; Medicare costs have grown at 7.1 percent a year; and Medicaid has grown at 4.5 percent a year. So government-delivered health care through Medicare and through Medicaid has been significantly more efficient than wasteful, profitable private insurance. There is no duplication here, because Medicaid is the only program of its kind. It fulfills an essential priority. It is the sole source of nursing home care for five million seniors living in poverty. The President knows that Medicaid is already running on fumes, but he made a choice. He chose more tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans instead of providing for subsistence care for America's seniors. He chose tax cuts for the most privileged Americans instead of subsistence care for America's seniors through Medicaid. Different priorities reflecting a different set of moral values. Medicaid provides health coverage to 52 million Americans, including roughly 1.7 million in the home State of myself and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). It is the only source of coverage for one in four of Ohio's children. It provides 70 percent of the nursing home funding in Ohio, as it does in most States. The Bush plan cuts $60 billion out of Medicaid over the next 10 years. Different priorities reflecting a different set of moral values. These cuts mean kicking seniors out of nursing homes. And the President's plan, in addition to doing that, shifts tens of billions of dollars in costs to States like Ohio. He gives a tax break to the wealthiest people in the country, then he shifts costs by cutting spending in Ohio and the other 49 States, all of which have to make up for that to take care of Medicaid. The President cannot eliminate basic needs by ignoring them. He cannot eliminate the need for nursing home care by ignoring it or by shifting responsibility to the States. In the short run, his budget cuts will create victims; in the long run, they will force the States to spend more. And who will have to cover these costs? Students will pay as a result of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and Medicaid cuts. Students in my State, and every State, will pay through higher tuition; homeowners will pay through higher property taxes; consumers will pay through higher sales taxes; workers will pay through higher income taxes, all to make up for the President's tax cuts for the wealthy in Washington and cuts in Medicaid to the States. Medicaid has always been a partnership between Federal and State governments. Cutting the Federal share hurts our families and our communities and our States and our country. We can give up many things, Mr. Speaker, in the name of shared sacrifice, but common sense should not be one of them. The President's ``every man for himself'' budget neglects our communities and betrays our values as a Nation.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the People's Republic of China is planning to enact an anti-secession law this March. This law will give China jurisdiction over Taiwan. It will give Chinese leaders the right to use force against Taiwan if China suspects secessionist activities in Taiwan. Predictably, Taiwan reacted to this proposed law with alarm. If Chinese leaders pass this law or persist in this effort, Taiwan will consider an anti-annexation law of its own as a proper response to China. This battle of laws is unfortunate since cross-strait relations have been improving recently. On January 15 of this year, China and Taiwan agreed to have direct charter flights during the Chinese New Year holidays. Both sides also agreed to continue to work toward restoring direct trade, transport and postal ties--the ``three links.'' Moreover, the economies of China and Taiwan have grown increasingly interdependent. Taiwanese businesses have invested $100 billion in China. As many as one million Taiwanese now live and work on the mainland. The latest controversy over China's proposed anti-secession law highlights once again the political division between China and Taiwan. China is seeking to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and force its own style of government on the 23 million people of Taiwan. China has ignored Taiwan's contributions to China's strong economy and Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's gestures of goodwill. China's latest move to enact the anti-secession law will not only destroy the goodwill between the peoples of Taiwan and China, it is also unnecessarily provocative and will escalate tension in the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese should not be expected to sit by and allow authoritarian Chinese government to mandate the annexation of democratic Taiwan. No freedom-loving people should be expected to do so. By unilaterally changing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, China is also challenging America's will to stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act, which says unequivocally that it is the policy of the United States ``to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.'' The Taiwan Relations Act also affirms one of the objectives of the United States as ``the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people in Taiwan.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my view that China's proposed anti-secession law is provocative and dangerous. It poses a grave threat to democracy, peace, and stability in the region.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush delivered to this Congress his proposed Federal budget. In the coming months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress will debate budget proposals largely based on divergent cardinal moral values. We will debate budget cuts that represent more than just program additions or scale-backs. The President's proposed cuts to vital government programs are reflective of differences in moral core philosophies on the role of our government in serving our people. Budgets are moral documents that reveal fundamental priorities of a person, of a household, of a community, of a business, of a government. There is no better example of where Democratic and Republican values diverge than on Medicaid. The President claims he only wants to cut programs that are either not getting results or that duplicate current efforts or that do not fulfill essential priorities. As Democrats, we could not agree more on the need for efficient government. That was how we balanced the budget in the 1990s. But which of those three criteria does the President mean when he talks about Medicaid? There is no question Medicaid gets results. In spite of what my friends on the other side of the aisle like to demagogue, it operates at a lower cost than private health insurance. Private health insurance has in the last few years grown at 12.7 percent; Medicare has grown at 7.1 percent. Medicaid costs have grown at only 4.5 percent a year. There is no duplication in Medicaid. It is the only program of its kind. It fullfills an essential priority. It is the sole source of nursing home care for 5 million senior citizens in our country who are living in poverty. The President knows Medicaid is already running on fumes, but he made a choice. He chose to give more tax cuts to the most affluent 1 percent of Americans rather than provide subsistence care for senior citizens. That is the choice he made, different priorities reflecting a different set of moral values. Medicaid provides health coverage to 52 million Americans, 1.7 million in my State of Ohio alone. It is the only source of coverage for one out of four Ohio children. It provides 70 percent of nursing home funding in my State of Ohio. Think about divergent moral values, what we stand for, in our government, in our homes and our families and in our communities. The Bush proposal cuts $60 billion, billion with a ``b'', $60 billion out of Medicaid over the next 10 years. Ask hospitals, ask health care experts, ask senior groups, these cuts will mean kicking seniors out of nursing homes. We have a moral obligation to prevent that from happening. The President's plan shifts tens of millions of dollars of costs to States, like Ohio, already facing severe financial shortfalls. The President cannot eliminate basic needs by ignoring them. He cannot eliminate the nursing home care for seniors by ignoring nursing home care or by shifting responsibility to the States which simply cannot afford it. In the short run, his budget cuts will create victims. In the long run, it will force the State to spend more. And how will that happen? How will the States be able to take care of this? Students will have to pay higher tuition. Homeowners will have to pay higher property tax. Consumers will have to pay higher sales tax. Workers will have to pay higher income tax to make up for the cuts in Medicaid and to make up for the President's huge tax cuts for the wealthiest, most privileged 1 percent. Medicaid is a partnership between the Federal and State government. Cutting the Federal share hurts our families, hurts our schools, hurts our communities, hurts our States. We can give up, Mr. Speaker, many things in the name of shared sacrifice, as we should, but common sense should not be one of those things we give up. The President's every-man-for-himself budget neglects our communities and betrays our moral values as a nation.

Ms. BROWN of Ohio

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