Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, understand that physician-owned companies are still companies that practice business the way other businessmen and women do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the full Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), who has stood up for patients and doctors alike.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we will have a motion to recommit, since the majority would not allow us any other amendments of the 31 requested. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who cares about patients and physicians.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want Members on both sides of the aisle to be aware of three unanswered questions about H.R. 5. First, if the authors of this bill are sure that it will reduce and stabilize medical malpractice premiums, why are insurers accountable for producing that result? During the medical malpractice debate in Ohio, insurers said they do not know whether premiums would come down. During a recent hearing in Pennsylvania, the actuary witness said he could not say whether premiums would come down. Even Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association said, ``We cannot tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.'' We are voting on a bill that overrides State law and undercuts compensation for victims of medical malpractice, yet we do not know whether medical malpractice premiums will come down. California passed tort reform in 1975. Medical malpractice premiums continued to go up. Not until California 13 years later demanded a reduction in premiums with insurance reform did the situation improve. Yet insurers have zero, no obligation under this bill. We are supposed to take it on faith and trust the insurance companies that they will pass along the savings. Apparently we cannot trust patients, cannot trust juries, cannot trust lawyers, but we can trust the insurance industry. My second question is: Why is there no single insurance reform in this bill? The authors of H.R. 5 refer again and again to MICRA. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) did, other Members will. MICRA is the California law that sets a quarter-million-dollar liability cap. Members know it was not MICRA that brought down premiums in California, it was insurance reforms 13 years later. Malpractice insurance premiums rose 450 percent after MICRA went into effect, and only when California established a prereview of rate increases and automatic rollback of excessive premiums did the doctors get any relief, yet this bill has no insurance reforms, no premium rollback. Why? The insurance industry does not like it. The third question is if H.R. 5 is a response to spiking medical malpractice insurance premiums, something we want to do something about and our substitute bill does, why does this bill shield HMOs, shield drug companies, shield medical device manufacturers, and shield insurance companies from liability? It might have something to do with the fact that those industries have given tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidates. The majority bristles at the notion that the curious omissions from this bill have something to do with helping their friends, the drug companies, the insurance industry, the HMOs and the medical device industry. Mr. Speaker, if the majority wants Democrats and the American public to stop accusing them of catering to their corporate friends, then maybe the majority should stop catering to their corporate friends. Then we could write a bill that will help doctors, then we could write a bill that will help patients. This bill simply is not it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We have two more speakers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 441, and I would like to thank my colleagues on the International Relations Committee and the Congressional Taiwan Caucus for their support as well. For the past few years, we have been pushing for Taiwan's observer status at the WHO. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm starting to experience deja-vu on this issue. Congress has addressed this several times, and I will continue to raise it until we have a resolution. The World Health Organization makes a major contribution to the international community each and every day. The WHO has programs to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, to support the development of basic health care services throughout the developing world, and to provide humanitarian aid to those in need. In this growing struggle, the WHO and its member countries should be looking for help wherever they can get it. Unfortunately, Taiwan's efforts to obtain observer status to the annual World Health Assembly meetings in Geneva have been blocked. While the Administration has indicated support for Taiwan's bid for WHO observer status, it is unwilling to match the rhetoric with action. The State Department argues that the majority of WHO members would never support observer status for Taiwan, and therefore the U.S. shouldn't make a concerted effort on Taiwan's behalf. Well I say, let's find out. The Administration must make a concerted effort to ensure Taiwan's participation in the WHO. The bid may fail, but Taiwan won't be allowed to participate if we do not make the case of its involvement. Taiwan is a strong, democratic ally. It has developmental and humanitarian resources that would make a substantial contribution to the WHO's mission. The people of Taiwan are volunteering these resources to fight global epidemics, and we are turning them away at the door. They have demonstrated this time after time--in Haiti; in El Salvador; and more recently by contributing a million dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The world needs all the help it can get. Taiwan is not asking to join the WHO as a state, but rather as an observer. The case for observer status at the WHO is clear, and the Bush Administration should make it happen. I strongly support H.R. 441, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to assert rightly that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but the administration fails to explain how a preemptive war is in the best interest of the American people. On February 25 I introduced House Joint Resolution 24 with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel.) The resolution requires the President to submit a new report to Congress that answers eight specific questions. It includes a sense of Congress clause that requests the President present the report before a public joint session of Congress. It is our duty in Congress on behalf of the American people to ensure that if the President authorizes military force against Iraq, that he first give Congress a full accounting of the potential cost and the potential consequences. The two reports submitted to Congress by the administration under requirements of the October resolution have failed to communicate the President's plans for Iraq. The administration in reports included no indication of the potential financial costs of the war and its aftermath, no indication of how weapons of mass destruction will be secured, and no discussion of blow-backs, the CIA term for terrorist actions against the United States. The second report clearly acknowledges the magnitude of the task of reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq, calling it a massive undertaking. Unfortunately, the report fails to explain how this challenge will be overcome, what level of financial, what level of political, what level of military commitment that the administration is willing to make in Iraq after the war. Before the U.S. initiates a preemptive strike, something we have never done before, without the consensus of the U.N. Security Council and in the absence of a clear, imminent threat to the United States of America, the administration must clearly explain to the American people the short- and long-term implications of attacking Iraq. H.R. 24 asks, and the administration should answer to the American public and to Congress: Have we exhausted every diplomatic means of disarming Iraq? Will America be safer from terrorism if we attack Iraq? How will we deal with the humanitarian crisis that inevitably will follow this war? How will the war with Iraq affect our already weak economy? What will reconstruction of Iraq and providing humanitarian assistance to that country cost? And how long will it take, how long will American troops and civilians be stationed there and at what cost? How will attacking Iraq prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, when Korea and Libya and other countries, and Iran, for instance, are much further along with nuclear development, we know, than Iraq is? What will preemptive war do to the stability of the Middle East? Are we ready to commit to a decade of military troops policing Iraq and the billions of dollars needed to rebuild and stabilize that country and make that country, in the words of the President, into a democracy? These important questions need to be answered to the American public before President Bush decides preemptively, without U.N. support, to attack another country. The Washington Post reported today: ``The greatest source of concern among senior army leaders is the uncertainty and complexity of the mission in postwar Iraq, which could require U.S. forces,'' and get this, ``to protect Iraq's borders, referee clashes between ethnic and religious groups, ensure civilian security, provide humanitarian relief, secure possible chemical and biological weapon sites, and govern hundreds of towns and villages.'' Simply put, we could be in the middle of a civil war. How has the administration responded to these concerns? With silence. There are no legitimate plans for reconstruction that anyone has seen. There are no cost estimates for the conflict or the post-conflict occupation. There are no casualty estimates. These are concerns we must address. Retired Army Major General William Nash commanded the first peacekeeping operation in the Balkans in 1995. After the Gulf War in 1991, he occupied the area around the Iraqi town of Safwan on the Kuwaiti border almost 2 years ago. He told The Post that during this time his troops dealt with recurring murders, attempted murders, ``ample opportunity,'' in his words, ``for civil disorder,'' and refugee flows they could never fully fathom. He went on to say that 200,000 U.S. and allied forces will be necessary to stabilize Iraq. Two hundred thousand. Note that he uses the term ``allied forces'' in that total. If we continue on the course we are on, there will be few allied forces. Maybe Great Britain, maybe a few Turks, if we pay them enough, maybe a few Spaniards, maybe a few Italians, but overwhelming almost all of those 200,000 will be Americans and we will be footing the bill alone. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense continually refuse to acknowledge the enormity of the challenge in post-conflict Iraq. They respond to inquires with delay tactics and uncertain estimates. I am certain of one thing, Mr. Speaker. Any action against Iraq will be difficult, costly, and dangerous if we do not go to the U.N. Security Council.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, from all appearances, seems poised to attack the country of Iraq sometime in the next 2 or 3 weeks according to news reports, according to reading a bit between the lines of statements coming from the Bush administration. The fundamental question about whether or not the United States should launch a preemptive strike without U.N. support against Iraq, the fundamental question is whether that attack against Iraq makes the United States a safer country and whether it makes American civilians traveling abroad, living abroad more importantly, perhaps, living in the United States, whether it makes all of us safer. The CIA says no. A CIA analysis said that the chances of what they call a blowback, meaning attacks against civilians from terrorists abroad or terrorists inside the United States, that attacks against civilians, the chances increase according to the CIA, so-called blowback, the term they used, the chances increase if we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq without U.N. support. Several four-star generals testified in the other body and said that an attack against Iraq without U.N. support, a preemptive attack will, in their words, supercharge al Qaeda recruiting. Common sense simply tells you that the U.S. will not be a safer place, will be a more dangerous place, that civilians in this country will in fact be in more danger if we unilaterally attack Iraq. Common sense says that, Mr. Speaker, because if Saddam Hussein is backed into a corner, Saddam Hussein, who has not attacked anyone in the last 10 years, if he is backed into a corner with whatever weapons he might have, the chances are he is much more likely to attack the United States if in fact that happens. Mr. Speaker, this country for the last five decades has followed a military doctrine of containment and deterrence and diplomacy. Dwight Eisenhower when urged by some advisers and some newspapers similar to the actions of the Washington Post, those kind of jingoist, expansion, let's-get-into-war newspapers that encouraged him, Dwight Eisenhower, to go to war against Stalin and the Soviets, Dwight Eisenhower said, ``That's not what we do in this country. We don't launch preemptive attacks against people. Instead we contain, we deter, we use diplomacy.'' Dwight Eisenhower and others contained and deterred and used diplomacy with Joseph Stalin and the Soviets to contain them. We used the same containment and deterrence and diplomacy with the People's Republic of China and Mao Zedong. John Kennedy used the same kind of deterrence and containment against Fidel Castro and the Cubans to keep them in check, to keep them from expanding. And the United States Government, George Bush, Sr., President Clinton, and the first couple of years of President Bush, we have done the same containment and deterrence to keep Saddam Hussein in check. Now if we launch a preemptive attack against Iraq, go against a country that has not attacked us, a country that we know has no ties to the terrorists who attacked our country, we know Saudi Arabia has ties. In fact the people who attacked our country, most of them were from Saudi Arabia. We also know that the Saudi royal family happens to be friends of the Bush family. Saudi Arabia is still our friend. We do not attack them even though they have ties to al Qaeda. We are not attacking North Korea, even though we know they have nuclear weapons. We are not attacking Iran, even though they are a part of the axis of evil. The President has decided that we are about to attack Iraq, a country where we have contained and deterred and kept Saddam Hussein in check. But, Mr. Speaker, if we decide to change our military doctrine of containment, deterrence and diplomacy, to change our military doctrine that we have followed for the last five or six decades, and preemptively strike a country that has not attacked us, the message around the world, the message to the Russians is going to be, it is okay to chase down Chechen terrorists and go into Georgia and attack them. The message to the Chinese will be, it is okay to clamp down harder on Tibet, it is okay maybe to invade Taiwan because the United States launched a preemptive attack, and maybe it is okay for the world powers to engage in that kind of lawlessness. And most problematically and most dangerously and most frighteningly, Mr. Speaker, it will say to India that maybe it is okay to launch a preemptive strike against Pakistan over Kashmir. It will say to Pakistan, maybe it is okay to launch a preemptive strike against India over Kashmir. Those happen to be, Mr. Speaker, two countries that have nuclear weapons. So if we go against the U.N. decision, if we go into Iraq without U.N. support preemptively, first of all it clearly makes our country more dangerous because you can count on as we attack Iraq, you can count on Al-Jazeera taping hostilities and taping casualties of Iraqi civilians and the message that that is going to send to the Arab world of destabilization, making the world a more dangerous place to be.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and I am reminded that Governor Davis has talked about the inflexibility and mandates of the Republican plan.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) have the right to close?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who establishes his health care credentials very well. (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, we should pass a welfare reform bill that is realistic about what people need to transition from welfare to good, paying, lasting jobs. It is in no one's best interest to see people transition from welfare to work and back onto welfare. If we underinvest in job training and child care and other support services, we are setting welfare reform up for failure and wasting money. The Democrat bill invests in permanent change. The Republican bill does not. From a public policy perspective, from a fiscal perspective, the Democratic bill makes sense. Transitional medical assistance is a program that provides health coverage for families leaving welfare. Individuals moving off welfare wind up in jobs that do not offer health coverage, or if it is offered, it is simply too expensive. Transitional medical assistance allows these families to keep Medicaid coverage so that getting a job does not mean giving up one's health insurance. The Republican bill only extends the TMA program for 1 year. There is no logic for that. It is temporary assistance, not a temporary program. The Democratic bill is up front about this and makes transitional Medicaid assistance permanent. Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of Medicaid in order to pay for this extension. It makes no sense to take coverage from some people so that others can keep it. It is illogical. The second provision extends title V abstinence-only sex education, but locks States into a inflexible curriculum. It is controversial and rightly so. The President and House Republicans' message on welfare for years has been loud and clear, States need greater flexibility. But when it comes to another critically important program, abstinence education, Republicans are unwilling to afford the States the same flexibility. Let me make that clear. The substitute bill we are offering today supports abstinence education. No one disputes the benefits of teaching abstinence. Under our substitute, if a State chooses to continue its abstinence-only education program, it can. But our substitute offers States the right, the States' rights, if you will, the right to develop an education program that teaches abstinence and comprehensive contraception. Our substitute requires any curriculum funded with Federal dollars to be scientifically and medically accurate. On that, again my Republican friends fall far short. The Democratic substitute requires Federal dollars fund only programs proven to be effective in delaying sex. It requires a report to Congress comparing abstinence-only education to programs that teach about abstinence and contraceptives. We should listen to the needs of parents and children; 80 percent of them support abstinence and contraceptive education for their children.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise in support of H.R. 397, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) on the Committee of Energy and Commerce. H.R. 397 extends the deadline for commencement of construction for up to 6 years. Not counting the years in which the license was surrendered, this potentially amounts to 9 years for the licensee to commence construction. The legislation provides for up to three consecutive 2- year extensions instead of a single 6-year extension to ensure that the licensee must continue to meet Federal Power Act section 13 requirements to prosecute construction in good faith and with due diligence before obtaining each 2-year extension. This requirement to move forward in good faith and due diligence is important because when someone holds a license, but fails to develop a project, that someone is potentially preventing others from developing the site for hydropower or other uses. Sometimes a licensee who is not developing a site may in fact be purposely using license extensions to prevent other potential applicants from developing it, a process known as ``site banking.'' While FERC is not aware of any other party that is interested in this particular case in developing this site, if FERC determines a licensee is not prosecuting construction in good faith and with due diligence, the agency can in fact refuse to grant a request for an additional 2-year extension, can terminate the license, and make the site available for other uses. This is appropriate public policy. The author deserves credit for crafting the legislation in this manner. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.