Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, in the bipartisan spirit of the evening, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), who has helped write this bill with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I want to thank both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for their commitment to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), whose idea this bill was, and for the particularly good work she did, and to work with me on this modest but important legislation. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has particularly led the charge on an omnibus, more comprehensive bill to deal with the nursing shortage, and this is a very important step we hope we can address in more detail later. Special thanks to staff members Anne Esposito and Jeremy Sharp for their hard work on this legislation. Anne has been terrific to work with on this bill and many others. Jeremy's father I served with my first term in the legislature, and he was one of the most hard-working, decent people I have had the pleasure to know in my 9 years in this institution. There is, Madam Speaker, a nursing shortage in this country. It is jeopardizing health care access and quality, and it is getting worse. It is not a theoretical problem; it is a fact. We especially, as I said earlier, owe a debt of gratitude to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the top health care expert in Congress, a registered nurse, a valuable member of the Subcommittee on Health Care, for making sure that this body finally is doing something about it. The problem is easy to define: There are not enough nurses in the workforce to replace those expected to retire in the next 10 years. But the problem is difficult to address. A host of factors, ranging from working conditions to competing professional opportunities, have contributed to the current shortage. This bill is not intended to provide all the answers. Its modest but crucial purpose is to get the ball rolling. To alleviate the nursing shortage, we must jump-start recruitment and foster retention. Key provisions of the bill would establish a nursing degree scholarship program and a major public awareness and recruitment campaign. These strategies make sense. They can be deployed quickly and they will make a difference. I want to again thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) as well as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for raising the profile of the nursing shortage issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the author of this bill, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and I ask that she be permitted to yield time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who does outstanding work on the Subcommittee on Health on a variety of issues, say that opponents to this bill offered a Rube Goldberg collection of responses or fixes, if you will, to this problem that we believe exists, this problem of paying the drug companies in many cases tens, sometimes hundreds of millions, of dollars, and in one case over $1 billion to do a study that costs simply $4 million. Our proposals to fix this are not at all Rube Goldberg. One was to reduce the 6-month exclusivity to 3 months so a drug company, by investing $4 million, would then only make tens of millions of dollars, or $100 million instead of $200 million. That was a very simple, straightforward solution. Another was simply to reimburse the drug company for the study they did. If they paid $4 million for the study, then reimburse them $4 million; or we were generous enough to say reimburse them $8 million or $12 million. We said, give them 100 percent or 200 percent return on investment, but do not raise the price, as this legislation does, do not raise the price of Prilosec, Prozac, Zocor, and Neurontin $50 to $70 per prescription. Remember, Mr. Speaker, everyone that votes for this legislation is saying to her constituents or his constituents, yes, I am signing off on increasing for at least 6 months the price of Prilosec and Prozac and Zocor and Neurontin $50 to $70 per prescription. It is not the 2 percent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) talks about industry-wide. That may be true; I do not dispute his numbers. But for those four drugs and for some others, the cost of Prilosec will go up $50 to $70 for that 6-months for consumers, for our constituents. So will the cost of Prozac, Zocor, and Neurontin. In times of recession, when people are losing their jobs, when the economy seems to be going downward, is that what we want to do is say to our constituents it is okay, pay $50 or $60 or $70 per prescription, it is for the good of some other cause? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today, named the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, is not about children; it is about money. It is about the most influential industry on Capitol Hill co-opting an emotional issue to lock in another 5 years of unjustifiable, unearned revenues. It is about reauthorizing a program that pays drug companies literally tens of billions of dollars, straight out of the pockets of consumers who will pay higher prices, for tests that cost relatively only a few million dollars to conduct. Again, it is about reauthorizing a program that pays drug companies tens of billions of dollars in higher prices for consumers for tests that cost a few million dollars to conduct. No one disputes the need for pediatric drug testing. In a health care system as advanced as ours, it is unfathomable that our children are still being prescribed medicines on a hit-or-miss basis. But this bill does not ensure that medicines are first tested for use in children before they are sold for that purpose. It does not ensure that prescription drugs already on the market, already being used in children, are tested. If we pass this legislation, we are guaranteeing one thing and one thing only: we are guaranteeing consumers an additional 6 months of grossly inflated prices for some of the most widely used prescription drugs on the market. Five years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed legislation offering 6 months of market exclusivity to drug companies if they conduct pediatric tests. Five years later, we know that the cost to consumers of this 6-month provision is astronomical, while the cost of testing is minimal. We could pay drug companies twice the cost of testing, three times the cost of testing, even four times the cost of testing. We would still save a fortune on behalf of consumers. For drugs like Prilosec and Prozac and Zocor and Neurontin, the exclusivity provisions add $50 to $70 for every prescription that every American gets. Again, it is maybe 2 percent industry-wide, as the gentleman from Louisiana mentions, but these provisions, for those drugs, Prilosec, Prozac, Zocor, Neurontin, add $50 to $70 for each prescription. For those of us who have constituents that take Prilosec and Prozac and Zocor and Neurontin, a ``yes'' vote will mean they will pay, every time, $50 to $70 more for each prescription. The manufacturer of these drugs will take home an additional $500 million to $1.6 billion for conducting tests that cost about $4 million each. Quite a return on their investment, Mr. Speaker. I hoped committee deliberations on this legislation would have produced some legitimate arguments and reasonable justification for extending this 6-month exclusivity provision, but it did not happen. Proponents argue that we should sustain this program because, they say, 6 months exclusivity works. Giving the drug industry the keys to the Federal Treasury would also work. Does that mean it is a good idea? They say pediatric exclusivity is the most successful program ever when it comes to increasing the number of pediatric tests. It is also the only incentive program that Congress has ever tried. Previous attempts relied on subtle persuasion, not rewards, not mandates, not any kinds of big money incentives as this gets. Proponents say pediatric exclusivity uses marketplace incentives. It is a ``free market'' solution, they tell us. Pediatric exclusivity is not a free market solution, and it does not use marketplace incentives. In free markets, competition and demand drive behavior. When it comes to pediatric exclusivity, the prospect that the Federal Government will step in and block generic competition is what drives behavior. Monopolies are anathema to free markets. Proponents say that when we factor in lower children's health care costs, pediatric exclusivity actually saves money. I wonder if the authors of this research factored in the health care costs that accrue when seniors who cannot afford this $50 or $70 increase, as this bill allows, who cannot afford these prescriptions, I wonder what happens when they remain ill, when children whose parents cannot afford inflated drug prices remain ill. Why do I oppose this legislation? Simply because Congress did not give serious consideration to less costly alternatives. Because this bill, frankly, Mr. Speaker, uses children as bait to capture another windfall for the drug industry. It uses children as bait to capture another windfall for the drug industry. I oppose this bill because it promotes bad policy and consumers throughout the country will pay for it. Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a moment about a provision in this legislation that is in the public's best interests. It is the clarification amendments set forth in section 10, which is intended to make absolutely sure that an important incentive for generic competition is, in fact, preserved. This section clarifies that the grant of pediatric exclusivity does not diminish the generic exclusivity period awarded to the first genetic firm to file a paragraph IV certification. Obviously, this clarifying amendment applies to pediatric exclusivity periods that have already been granted as well as those that will be granted in the future. That good language in section 10 of the bill notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation. We should vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, a study from the Department of Health and Human Services in a January, 2001, ``Status Report to Congress,'' the Food and Drug Administration, within Health and Human Services, wrote that ``the impact of the lack of lower-cost generic drugs on some patients, especially those without health insurance and the elderly, may be significant.'' This government report from the Food and Drug Administration concluded that ``the greatest burden of this increase will fall on consumers with no private or public insurance support, which may disproportionately affect lower-income purchasers, and the pediatric exclusivity provision imposes substantial costs on consumers and on taxpayers.'' Mr. Speaker, I sit here amazed that this Congress today is about to pass legislation to increase the cost of drugs, of prescription drugs, to America's elderly and to consumers of these prescription drugs, when this Congress has done nothing for unemployed workers, has done nothing for health insurance for people that are unemployed, has done nothing in terms of an economic stimulus package. We will not pass a stimulus package, we will not do anything for 125,000 laid-off airline workers, we will not do anything for the millions of newly laid-off workers in this country, we will not do anything about 45 million uninsured Americans, one-fourth of whom are children. Yet in the name of a children's bill, which is very misnamed, in the name of that legislation, of that group, we are going to raise prescription drug prices. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that for certain drugs, like Prilosec and Prozac and Zocor and Neurontin, a vote for this bill is saying yes to the drug companies adding $50 to $70 per cost of prescriptions. So people watching this should understand, as we all go home and talk to our constituents, we just might get asked, Why did you vote for this pediatric exclusivity provision, which adds to the cost of my Prozac, Zocor, Neurontin, or Prilosec? Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a recession, this makes no sense to add to the cost of prescription drugs for America's elderly and for the consumers of these drugs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment on the comments of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) about mercury and to thank him for raising the call about mercury. It is a substance banned in almost every country in the world and I appreciate the work that he has done in raising the public knowledge of that toxic substance. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), a member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we remember following the horrific events of September 11, several gas stations around the country raised their prices to $4, $5 and $6 a gallon. Most called that war profiteering, but the overwhelming majority of Americans came together. They gave blood and put out their flags. Many went to New York and the Pentagon to help. Thousands volunteered in their communities. School children collected pennies, nickels and dimes to send to the victims and families. Something else happened in Washington, D.C., not war profiteering in the simple sense of raising gas prices, but a more sophisticated kind of political profiteering. This Congress, lobbied hard by the President and the Republican leadership, first of all gave a huge multi-billion dollar bailout to the airlines, requiring nothing from the airline executives, providing nothing for airline security, doing nothing for airline safety. When many tried to include help in this bill for the 100,000 airline workers who had lost their jobs, Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) told us now is not the time, that extending government assistance to laid off workers ``was not commensurate with the American spirit.'' Then President Bush and this Congress gave billions of dollars in tax cuts and subsidies and rebates to the largest corporations in the United States. A tax refund to IBM, for example, literally in the form of a check from the Federal Government for $1.4 billion, $1 billion to Ford, $900 million to General Motors, hundreds of millions of dollars to American and United Airlines, as if the bailout was not enough, and the list goes on and on and on. More recently, with unemployment creeping up to the highest 2-month increase we have seen in 21 years, with the anxiety that people have about their jobs, with LTV and Republic Technologies steelworkers and other steel industry workers facing company bankruptcies, with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, this Congress, at the behest of the Republican leadership, the President and America's largest corporations, this Congress passed something called Trade Promotion Authority, which simply will send more of our jobs to Latin America and more of our jobs to developing countries around the world. My dad used to talk about World War II and shared sacrifice, about war bonds and WAVES and WACs, about victory gardens and scrap metal drives. But this Republican Congress and this President do not know much about shared sacrifice. Instead, they demand tax cuts for IBM, General Electric and American Airlines, while doing absolutely nothing for 100,000 laid-off airline workers. Instead of shared sacrifice, this Republican Congress and this President demand of Congress that we pass Trade Promotion Authority while doing little to provide public investments for broken-down schools, while doing little to help starved public health infrastructure, while doing little to help our woefully inadequate rail system. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if the President and the Republican Congress called on us, like FDR did in World War II, called on the Congress and the American people for shared sacrifice. Imagine if the President called on young, patriotic Americans to enlist in the Army or the Peace Corps, to enlist in the Navy or AmeriCorps, to enlist in the Air Force, or teach for America. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President said to his friends in the drug industry, no more special favors. We are not going to allow drug companies to charge American consumers and America's elderly more for prescription drugs than anywhere else in the world. Imagine. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President called on America to volunteer for Meals on Wheels or clean up their neighborhoods or to tutor children who are having difficulty keeping up. Imagine. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President would say to his friends in the oil business, we are going to wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. We are going to find a way to help Americans conserve and get better gas mileage. Imagine. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Instead of this Republican President and Republican leadership in this House bestowing tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, imagine if we helped those who needed it the most, laid-off workers, people without health insurance, children sentenced to inferior schools. Instead of the Republican President and the leadership in this Congress bestowing tax cuts on the largest corporations in the world in this country, imagine instead if they appealed to the best in America. Imagine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), in offering this bipartisan bioterrorism preparedness bill. I want to thank the Committee on Energy and Commerce staff, who worked so hard on this bill, as mentioned by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), including Ann Esposito, John Ford, Dave Nelson, Edith Holleman, and Bruce Gwinn. Also, legislative counsel Pete Goodloe, who worked so very hard on all of this. The events of September 11 and the recent spate of anthrax attacks have significantly underscored the importance, to be sure, of our Nation's public health infrastructure. We need to pay far more attention to the first responders to a public health emergency, to the key health agencies charged with addressing and preventing these emergencies, and to the safeguards needed to minimize threats in the future. We must have sufficient antibiotic and vaccine stockpiles, we must have the ability to rapidly distribute medical supplies and deploy medical personnel, and we must cultivate the expertise and technology necessary to identify and eliminate threats before they become public health crises. This bill was written to provide new authority to Food and Drug Administration border inspectors in terms of food safety, to require the development of rapid testing techniques, and to authorize $100 million of new found for all of FDA's border inspection activities. These provisions will increase FDA's presence at the border and allow for the inspection of a greater percentage of our imported foods, making our food supplies safer from bioterrorists. Eight years ago, before budget cuts in this Congress, 8 percent of food was inspected at the border. Today, it is about one-tenth of that. It is less than 1 percent. The safety of imported foods and the need for greater enhanced inspection resources at the border have long been a concern of many of us on this side of the aisle, a fact highlighted by the imported food safety bills I have introduced with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and others during the past several sessions of Congress. The food safety provisions of this bill are a good downpayment on improving our food safety inspection system, but they do not obviate the need for passage of a more substantial food safety reform like the one we introduced in October. I am pleased that a provision to equip State and local health departments to rapidly identify antibiotic resistant strains of illness was in fact included in the bill. Because antibiotic resistant microbes can be difficult to treat, even under normal circumstances, they pose a significant threat to public health. We know that antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax and other agents can, in fact, have been engineered for the purposes of bioterrorism. A new or unexpected antibiotic- resistant strain of illness is a red flag. It could signal a bioterrorist attack. So the sooner we identify it, the sooner we can deploy the resources needed to treat it. The ability to monitor antibiotic resistance becomes even more critical over the longer term. Whether the goal is bioterrorism preparedness or simply maintaining our ability to combat everyday illnesses and infectious disease, a major, major function of the Centers for Disease Control, we simply cannot assess the adequacy of our antibiotic supply over time as long as antibiotic resistance remains a variable. This bill is not the last word on bioterrorism, but it is a solid first step; and I am proud to be one of its chief cosponsors.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago today, as we all know, was September 11. That afternoon, gas stations, some number of gas stations all over the country raised their prices to $4 and $5 and $6 a gallon. We all remember that. Most of us would call that war profiteering. However, others around the country, the great, great majority of people in this country, came together. They put out their flags, they gave blood, they volunteered, some went to New York to volunteer, went to the Pentagon to volunteer, and schoolchildren all over the country collected pennies, nickels, and dimes to send to the victims and their families. But something else emerged in Washington, not war profiteering in the simple sense of raising gas prices, but a more sophisticated kind of political profiteering: this Congress, pushed by the President and the Republican leadership in this Congress, first of all gave a huge multi- billion dollar bailout to the airlines, requiring nothing from the airline executives, requiring nothing for airport security, requiring nothing of airline safety. Then this Congress turned around and gave tax cuts for the largest corporations in the country: a check, a tax refund to IBM, a check from the Federal Government for $1.4 billion; $1 billion to Ford; $900 million to GM, and the list went on and on and on. Then, this Congress gave a huge bailout to insurance companies, insurance executives who usually preach ``We want government off our backs, we believe in free enterprise, except when we have our hand out and want money from the Federal Government.'' Then last week this Congress, with unemployment creeping upward to the highest 2-month increase we have seen in 21 years, with the anxiety that people have about their jobs, with LTV workers and other steel industry workers losing their jobs around the country, this Congress passed, at the behest of the Republican leadership and the largest corporations in the country, Trade Promotion Authority, which will send more of our jobs ultimately to Latin America and around the world. My dad used to talk about World War II and shared sacrifice, about war bonds and WAVES and WACs and victory gardens and scrap metal drives. But instead, this Republican Congress and this President demand tax cuts for IBM while ignoring 100,000 airline workers, doing zero for them. This President and this Congress demand a bailout for the insurance companies while ignoring workers who have lost their jobs and not trying to help them with any health insurance and any health care costs. Instead, instead of shared sacrifice, this Republican Congress and this President demand of Congress that we pass Trade Promotion Authority, instead of providing public investments for our broken-down schools and broken-down infrastructure and broken-down highway and rail system. Imagine though, Mr. Speaker, if the President and the Republican Congress called on us like in World War II for shared sacrifice. Imagine if the President called on young patriotic Americans to enlist in the Army or the Peace Corps, to enlist in the Navy or Americorp, to enlist in the Air Force or Teach for America. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President said to his friends, and the Republican leadership said to their friends in the drug industry, no more special favors; we are not going to allow them to charge American consumers and America's elderly more for prescription drugs than anywhere else in the world; we are not going to allow that anymore in this Congress. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President called on Americans to volunteer for Meals on Wheels or cleaning up the neighborhood or tutoring children that are having difficulty keeping up. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Imagine if the President would say to his friends in the oil business, imagine if he would say we are going to wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil, we are going to find a way to help Americans conserve and get better gas mileage and turn their thermostats down and all the things the President could do to appeal to Americans, to appeal to his friends in the corporate boardrooms and the oil companies, to wean ourselves off that Middle Eastern oil. That is what waving the American flag is all about. Instead of this Republican President and Republican leadership bestowing tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, imagine if we helped those who needed help the most, and imagine, instead of the President and the Republican leadership bestowing tax cuts on the largest corporations in the world in this country, imagine instead if they appealed to the best in America. Imagine.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. In the first year of the Bush Presidency, we have lost 1 million manufacturing jobs. We are officially in a recession. The stock market has dropped precipitously. This body has done little for the economy, and this body has done nothing for laid-off workers. They promised us during the airline bailout bill that they would help laid-off workers. They promised us during the stimulus package and the tax cuts for the richest Americans and the largest corporations in this country that they would help laid-off workers. They did not deliver. Now, during Trade Promotion Authority, they are promising again to help laid-off workers. Mr. Speaker, our history of flawed trade agreements has led to a trade deficit with the rest of the world that has surged to a record $435 billion. The Department of Labor reported that NAFTA alone is responsible, and these are conservative estimates, for the loss of approximately 300,000 U.S. jobs. Our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors. Our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect property rights. But these agreements never include enforceable provisions for public health, for the environment, and for laid-off workers. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised us if we voted for money for New York City, then they would help unemployed workers. They never did. Then Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised us if we bailed out the airlines, then they would help unemployed workers. But they never did. Then Republican leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) promised if we passed the stimulus package and gave huge tax cuts to the biggest corporations in America, then they would help unemployed workers. But they never did. Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and Republican leadership are promising us if we vote for Trade Promotion Authority, then they will help unemployed workers. Mr. Speaker, when will we ever learn?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, none of the three of us is a lawyer; and we are explaining, in a sense, a legal procedure here that really is pretty simple. It is a question of increasing corporate powers by turning over our sovereignty, turning over our ability to make democratic determinations, whether it is where a community puts its trash, whether it is a food safety law, whether it is a clean air regulation, whether it is a public health program. We are saying in these agreements that we will cede power from a democratic government to a private corporation. Mr. Speaker, when we come to this institution, we have seen this kind of corporate power in this institution. There is not much doubt that corporations wield huge amounts of power when we try to pass strong food safety laws, we try to pass good public health laws, clean air laws, bioterrorism laws, protections for our food supply, labor standards, minimum wage. Whenever we try to pass a bill like that, it is always met with huge resistance from the largest corporations in the country, the largest corporations in the world. So we, in many cases, overcome that resistance and do what is right for the public. I wear this lapel pin which symbolizes a lot of things to me. It is a canary in a birdcage. One hundred years ago the miners used to take a canary down in the mines in a birdcage, and if the canary died, the miners they had to get out of the mine. It was the only protection they had. The government did nothing to help them. In these 100 years, when 100 years ago the average child born in this country could live to be about 47 in terms of the average, in those 100 years this institution has passed minimum wage laws, safe drinking water, pure food laws, Medicare, Social Security, clean air laws, worker protections, mine safety. We have done all of those things against great resistance from the wealthiest, most privileged people in society. We have been able to do that in this institution. Now, even when we do that, we are going to see corporations in one country try to overturn the laws we have done. So we passed them with great difficulty against huge campaign contribution dollars and lobbying and all of the special interest groups that fight progressive, good government that helps the public, and then these groups turn around now, these big companies, and they sue democratic governments to stop, to overturn their environmental laws and weaken their food safety laws and hurt their labor laws and try to devastate so many of the protections that we have been able to accomplish as a society, with people pushing their Congress to do the right thing. Now some faceless bureaucrats on a trade panel, a NAFTA tribunal can, out of the public light, in a back room, simply wipe away those kinds of environmental laws.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), we are joined by three other Democrats, and they are the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). Let me yield to the gentleman from Ohio, and then the rest can join in.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before the gentlewoman from Texas answers, here is an additional question. Is anybody even going to know the names of the people that sit on that panel?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman of Houston, Texas, who always articulates so well her views on this and so many other things. When we talked about articulating our values and representing those values, I think about what the President's Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has been saying the last month or so. He has been really saying that those of us, whether it is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), any of us in this institution, Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose this trade agreement, he really has questioned our commitment to American values and whether we want to join the antiterrorism movement. In fact, when one supports the position we have taken against these trade agreements, we in fact are supporting American values, because American values are things like free elections and believing in the Constitution and supporting workers around the world, and building a better environment and more consumer safety and food safety, and all of that. That is why it is too bad that their campaign in support of this and their arm-twisting, especially in the last 72 hours, has taken on a tone of ``you are either with us or against us; you are either against terrorism or you are for terrorism, or you are against American values or for American values.'' We are joined by two other people. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is a freshman member who has devoted her entire career to fighting for social justice. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) raised some very important constitutional questions of sovereignty that we touched on and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) touched on earlier, all four of us. He has really attracted a lot of interest in his views of the Constitution and why this Trade Promotion Authority really does undercut our constitutional provisions and sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, one interesting thing that my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), said, people who are supporting these trade agreements said if we do these trade agreements, it is going to lift up living standards in Mexico and in China, and the Chinese will be freer and democracy will break out, and all of that. There is no evidence of that in China. In fact, it is every bit as oppressive and repressive a regime as it was 3 or 4 years ago, or 2 years ago when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I worked against giving China most favored nation trading privileges. I want to briefly tell a story in line of what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) told. About 4 years ago, when Fast Track was defeated in this body, and it has been defeated twice in the last 4 years, and will be again tomorrow, I went down to sort of look at how NAFTA worked. NAFTA had been in effect 4 or 5 years then. I wanted to get a picture of the future, and to put a human face on trade and on NAFTA, and on what we had to look forward to if we passed Fast Track. I went to a home of a husband and wife, and it was nothing; you could not describe it as anything else but a shack maybe 20 feet by 20 feet, with dirt floors, no running water, no electricity. The husband worked at General Electric, an American company, and the wife worked at General Electric. They each made 90 cents an hour. There were dirt floors, no running water, no electricity. When it rained, the floor turned to mud. This was just 3 miles from the United States of America. If they had been on our side of the border, they would be making $15, $17 an hour, perhaps, with good health care benefits, a retirement package, in all likelihood. But on the Mexican side of the border they were making 90 cents an hour. They were almost in the shadow of the factory where they worked. When one looks at one of these shacks or neighborhoods in these so-called colonias, we see ditches separating some of the shacks with some sort of effluent running through them. It could have been industrial waste, human waste, who knows. Children are playing nearby. The American Medical Association calls the border a pool of infectious diseases. They say it has the worst health conditions probably in the whole western hemisphere. These workers are working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week and cannot afford to have any kind of a decent lifestyle. They work in these wonderfully modern plants, in many cases; but they do not share in the wealth they create. They create this wealth for General Electric, and they do not share in the wealth they create. In Ohio, in New Jersey, in California, workers help to create wealth for their employer and share in that wealth. They get something for that. They get a decent living standard. They can send their kids to college, buy a car, or buy a house. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I joined a number of my colleagues from the House and leaders of the most influential environmental groups in the United States to express opposition to so- called Fast Track, granting the President Trade Promotion Authority. The presence of this coalition highlighted quite impressively the solidarity of the environmental community on this critical vote. Another thing that underscores the solidarity of the environmental community against the Thomas bill is the stern warning issued by the League of Conservation Voters that it will likely score this vote. The LCV takes its scoring seriously and to ensure balance in its ratings only scores environmental votes for which there is absolute unanimity in the environmental community. The League of Conservation Voters has never before scored a trade vote. That means the environmental community has never been so focused on and so unanimously supportive of and so involved in a trade vote in this country's history. Why is there such urgency in the environmental community in opposition to the Thomas Fast Track proposal? Because this bill would do nothing, would do nothing to prevent countries from lowering their environmental standards to gain unfair trade advantages. It would do nothing to require that the environmental provisions be included in the core text of our trade agreements, because it would do nothing to ensure that the environmental provisions in future trade agreements are enforceable by sanctions. Instead, it would transfer the burden to consumers and to regulators to prove that the science underlying domestic regulation is beyond dispute, resulting in a downwards harmonization of our environmental laws, a rollback of environmental laws, a weakening of environmental regulation. It would encourage Western companies to build manufacturing plants in countries with the least stringent environmental laws, and, as a result, cost skilled American workers good-paying jobs. It would allow future trade agreements to include provisions like NAFTA's chapter 11, encouraging so-called regulatory tax claims by foreign companies and threatening hard-won democratically enacted laws and regulations that protect our natural resources. This investor-state relationship cast by chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement exemplifies the greatest imaginable abuse of our democratic principles. It allows private corporations to sue a sovereign government and overturn domestic health and safety laws. Think about that for a minute. A country can pass a law that that country's democratically elected legislative body contends, believes, will in fact help the environment and promote public health. A company in another country, a privately owned large corporation in another country, can go to court and sue the government, the democratically elected government, even force that democratically elected government to repeal its environmental law to weaken its public health regulations. U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, a Bush appointee, is committed to including those same anti-consumer, anti-environmental, anti-public health, anti-combat-bioterrorism provisions in Fast Track. Under this provision, not only can laws be overturned, but taxpayers of the subject nation can be liable for damages if a NAFTA tribunal rules that a law or regulation causes an unfair barrier to free trade. That sounds pretty outrageous. It makes one incredulous. It sounds like it could not happen, but it actually happened. When Canada passed a law to promote clean air in automobile emissions, Canada's public health community said this is important to fight cancer in Canada. A U.S. company sued Canada in a NAFTA tribunal. The U.S. company won the case against Canada, which had passed a public law protecting the public health. Canada had to repeal its public health law. Canada had to pay this American company $13 million. Sometimes it will be against Canada and a democratic law there, sometimes it will be against the United States and a public law here, sometimes against Mexico, France, Germany or wherever. I am joined today by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). The three of us worked many years ago in opposition to NAFTA, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) in those days, as he has continued to, has led the opposition to these agreements. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As living standards continue to go down in Mexico, I would add.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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