Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Even people that support Trade Promotion Authority acknowledge that that is what that provision does. When it was put into NAFTA in 1993, when this Congress in a very narrow vote passed NAFTA in November of that year, people did not quite understand that provision. That provision was sold to the Congress and to the American public. Even though the three of us all voted against NAFTA that are talking this evening, this afternoon, that provision was sold to protect American investors in Mexico where the government might expropriate or take their properties. But in fact it is clear that the way that has worked is time after time after time corporations have sued foreign governments, in this case Canada, Mexico, the United States, a corporation in one of the three countries has sued a government in one of the other two, and each time, in almost every case, the government has lost, the government which passed these laws to protect in most cases the public health, sometimes the environment, sometimes consumer protection law, but laws that were passed by those governments were repealed. It is almost so unbelievable that you cannot believe that this Congress would do it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In Ohio, we are threatened right now with losing 3,000 jobs at LTV Steel. People say, well, the economy will change. If they lose their jobs, they will find another job. They clearly will not find another job close to what they are making. Before closing, I thank very much my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), for joining me, and also earlier the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). Let me sum up with this: we in this country believe in the free market system. We believe in free enterprise, but we also believe in rules. The rules are that we have environmental protections, we have minimum wage laws, we have worker safety protections. We should believe in the same kinds of rules in free trade. We believe in trade, but we think we should have similar kinds of rules. We should have environmental standards to govern the rules of trade. We should have worker safety standards and labor standards. It has worked in this country to raise our standard of living so we have a huge middle class. Those same kinds of rules could work internationally, in the global economy, if this body tomorrow defeats trade promotion authority and begins to write trade law that lifts people up all over the world. I thank my colleagues for joining me tonight.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, during the NAFTA debate in 1993, we stood in this hall, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I, for much of the summer doing discussions like this and into the fall and into November. And when the vote was held, one of the things the other side always said was NAFTA will create jobs. It will be an economic stimulus, if you will. It will right our trade imbalance. Our trade imbalance in 1994 when NAFTA took effect in January of that year was $182 billion. That meant that we imported $182 billion more worth of goods than we exported. The NAFTA promoters and the free traders and the hot-shot Harvard economists and the President and the former secretaries of state and the newspaper editors, CEOs, all said this will get fixed. Do my colleagues know what the trade deficit that was just announced is? $439 billion. That is billion with a B, and that is a $250 billion growth in trade deficit. What that means, according to President Bush, Sr., Papa Bush, he said, every billion dollars of trade, either deficit or surplus, represented between 19,000 and 20,000 jobs. So if you have a billion dollar trade deficit, that means you lost 20,000 jobs to overseas. If you have a billion dollar trade surplus, then you gained 19, 20,000 jobs. Well, a $250 billion trade deficit, it went from $250 billion worse than it was, means 5 million jobs. Those are generally industrial jobs. They are well-paying jobs. They are jobs that pay benefits. They are jobs where people pay into Social Security, a fund that, because of Republican tax cuts, is now more in jeopardy than ever before. They pay into Medicare, a fund that is in jeopardy because of Republicans bailing out insurance companies. And look where we are when we pass these kinds of trade policies. It is simply not working when we have those kinds of trade deficits to get worse and worse.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. At the same time, we have the ability to raise standards around the world. We have a choice tomorrow when we vote for or against Trade Promotion Authority, so-called Fast Track, we can continue to dismantle our standards, to weaken our truck safety laws, to weaken our food safety laws, to lower our environmental standards, to dismantle our safety in the workplace standards. We can vote that way or we can cast a vote against Trade Promotion Authority and begin to lift up food safety standards for ourselves and for the rest of the world and begin to lift up truck safety standards, to begin to lift up environmental standards. Whether it is pesticides, whether it is environmental laws, we can do better. Why should we say to an American corporation that goes to the Mexican border on the Mexican side, if you are going to produce cars in that country you are going to follow the same laws. In terms of what you dump into the sewers, what you put into the air, whether you pollute the environment, you are going to follow the same laws that you do in the United States. How about when you go into Mexico and build cars? Then you are going to follow the same worker safety protection laws that you do in this country. It is outrageous that these American companies go there. They brag about how green they are in the United States and how well they treat their workers. They go to a developing country. They do not treat them well at all. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Let me shift for a moment to an issue that we have all talked about before, and I would like the last 10 minutes or so to discuss for a moment and that is the issue of food safety. We see in this country 5,000 people a year die from food-borne illness, not nearly all of them from imported fruits and vegetables, but certainly there is a problem in our food inspection in this country, too, but some significant amount comes from that. We see about 800,000 Americans get sick a year. About 1/10th that many get hospitalized from food- borne illnesses. Yesterday, Dr. Mohammad Akhter, the top public health official in this country, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association, was talking about Fast Track. And he said that Trade Promotion Authority on which we will vote tomorrow, he said that we can count on the fact that if we pass Trade Promotion Authority and more trade agreements like this we will see more food come across the border and into this country by truck and plane and train and all, more food come into this country that is not inspected. He said we will see more infectious disease outbreaks. We will see more illness, food-borne illness. We will see more deaths. We will see more hospitalizations. When we consider that when NAFTA passed, 8 percent of fruits and vegetables in this country that we, 8 percent of the imported fruits and vegetables in this country were inspected. Today, it is 1/10th that number. It is .7 percent, 7/10s of 1 percent. That means for every 140 crates of broccoli that come across the border into this country, one crate is inspected. For every 140 crates of peaches, one crate is inspected. I have stood at the border in Laredo, Nuevo Laredo in the Texas- Mexican border; and I have seen the FDA, the way that they examine broccoli when it comes in. They do not have high-tech equipment there. They cannot get immediate reads on antimicrobial contaminants, on pesticide residues, on anything like that. They simply take two bunches of broccoli, slam them down in a steel crate and look for any insects that might come out, dead or alive. If live insects come out they spray the truckload. Other than that, the products move on. We have not put the kind of equipment at the border to detect antimicrobial contaminants. We have not put at the border facilities and equipment to be able to detect pesticide residues, and we know that there are pesticide residues on there because pesticides that are illegal to use in the United States are still manufactured here and sold to developing countries, put on fields and sent back into the United States. We are not protecting the American people. We pass Trade Promotion Authority, according to Dr. Akhter, the top public health official in the United States, we are asking for more food-borne illnesses, more deaths and more hospitalizations. And we owe it to this country, to people that go to grocery stores, to all of us that eat at our kitchen table and go to restaurants and eat fresh produce coming in from other countries in the world, we owe it to them to do a much better job on this.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The correct interpretation in this case, it is very possible that a steel company in Mexico or Canada might sue the U.S. Government for passing a provision like that, saying that is an unfair trade practice, and might be able to get the NAFTA tribunal, the three-judge panel, to overturn U.S. law. One of the reasons they do that and one of the reasons these three- judge panels have decided against public health laws, against environmental protections passed by a majority of this House and Senate and signed by the President, or consumer protection or any of those laws, is because of the nature of those three-judge tribunals, those panels. They are made up of trade lawyers, not public health experts, not consumer protection experts, not environmental experts. They are made up of trade lawyers. They meet behind closed doors. They do not accept petitions or testimony from third parties, and they then can turn around and repeal a sovereign nation, as we are, as Mexico is, as Canada is. They can repeal a sovereign nation's public health and environmental laws. So when we have these panels made up of trade lawyers who typically sit in downtown offices and rule on trade issues and decide the arcane minutia of trade issues but do not have any real expertise or any real interest in environment or public health issues and policy and laws, we lose time after time after time. We have lost public health laws and environmental laws repeatedly in the World Trade Organization with those same secret panels making those decisions. We do not know anything about the proceedings and, all of a sudden, it is in the paper. We get a notice. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of this job, serving as one of 435 Members of this body that we call the House of Representatives, is that we are at an interesting time in our history. We are clearly the wealthiest Nation on Earth, the most powerful militarily. We clearly are a country that has the most opportunity to do good in the world. One of the ways we do that is using our economic prowess in trade agreements; we could do this, to lift up standards around the world. Mr. Speaker, that means when we trade with Mexico, for instance, and I think we should trade with Mexico and do a lot of trading with Mexico, rather than pulling our truck safety standards down to Mexico's level or pulling our food safety standards down to Mexico's level, or pulling our safe drinking water and clean air and anti-pollution standards down to Mexico's level, that we can instead pull their standards up. We have the ability to do that. We can write trade agreements that say when an American company invests in Mexico, they have to dispose of their waste in the same way there that the Environmental Protection Agency makes them do in this country. These companies, the chemical companies, the steel companies, the automobile companies, they do not do the right things in the environment in the United States because they are being kind, they are doing the right things because it is Federal and State law, and local public health department regulation that they dispose of their wastes in a certain way that keeps the environment cleaner and healthier. We could say to American companies in Mexico that they have to follow the same environmental standards. Pesticides that we banned here are not made and sold to other countries by American companies. We could say in China, sure, we will trade with you in China. We will be glad to buy and sell and trade with the People's Republic of China; but in return no more slave labor, no more child labor, no more selling nuclear technology to Pakistan, no more shooting missiles at Taiwan because they are holding a free election. We are a wealthy enough country to say if you want access to us, you cannot behave certain ways. If China wants to sell their products into the United States, and clearly they do because the U.S. buys 40 percent of China's export, and they cannot say we will sell it somewhere else, because they are already trying to sell as much as they can everywhere else. If we say we are not going to buy your goods anymore if you keep using child labor and if you exploit 15- and 16- and 17-year-old girls and break their spirits and bodies and souls, and throw them out on the streets when they are 22 and make them work in the sex trade and give them no other choice, we could do that; and that is why it is so disappointing that we pass trade agreements that do exactly the opposite. Instead of lifting up environmental standards around the world, lifting up wages around the world and lifting up food and drug safety and auto safety, instead of doing that we are bringing our own standards down. As wages stagnate in this country because of threats to move abroad, as jobs are lost, as we weaken public health laws in this country closer to what they are in other countries, we are giving away so much that we fought for in this country for 100 years. I have a pin that I wear that is a depiction of a canary in a bird cage. One hundred years ago mine workers used to take a canary down into the mines and if the canary died, workers got out of the mines. In those days, a baby boy born in the United States could live to be about 46; a girl could live to be about 48, the average life expectancy. Those workers had no protection from the government. Their only protection was the canary they took down in the mines. But because of progressive government fighting against the gold mining companies, the coal companies, against other wealthy, rich advantaged interests in this country, we were able to pass minimum wages laws, worker safety laws, pure food laws, automobile safety laws, and all of the things that enabled people to live 30 years longer, enabled people to live better, longer lives through Medicare, through Social Security, all of the things that we in this body and in State legislatures and public groups and citizens' organizations have done to make the standard of living better in this country. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give that up as a Nation. That is why we need to defeat Trade Promotion Authority and write trade agreements that lift people up, not pull people down. That is the American way. When U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, appointed by the President, when he says those of us like the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), when we oppose these trade promotion authorities, we are not helping them in the war against terrorism, implying that people like myself and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are soft on terrorism, implying that people like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are a little less patriotic because we are not supporting the administration on these agreements. The fact is the right side of American values is to lift people up around the world, not pull people down. Mr. Speaker, it is important, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I discussed, that Members vote against trade promotion authority.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed a moment ago when my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), spoke on this floor in support of the Trade Promotion Authority. We all, including viewers of these proceedings, Members of Congress in their offices, Members of Congress that stop by and watch these proceedings, and others that tune into C-SPAN, see often Members of Congress simply talking about issues. They tell their side for an hour or 30 minutes, and the other side tells the other side, sometimes by party, sometimes by issue. It is too bad that we did not get a chance today, as I would have liked to, to engage in a discussion as my colleague from Virginia began on his side a discussion of NAFTA and what the North American Free Trade Agreement has meant to this country. There is so much to talk about with the North American Free Trade Agreement. While that passed back in November of 1993, my first year in this institution, and took effect in January of 1994, a couple of months later, what has happened with the North American Free Trade Agreement is very, very significant in this body today. That is because on Thursday the issue my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, was just talking about, the Trade Promotion Authority, which used to be called Fast Track until Fast Track became so singularly unpopular a term, after this body had defeated Fast Track not once but twice, in fact, in the late nineties, nonetheless, President Bush is bringing back Fast Track in a new cloak, only a new name, not much different, called Trade Promotion Authority. Trade Promotion Authority mostly is simply about taking NAFTA and all of its pluses and minuses and extending NAFTA to the rest of Latin America. I think that most people in this country, if NAFTA came to a vote, would say, I do not think we really want to expand NAFTA to the rest of Latin America, the President's flowery words notwithstanding and the flowery words of my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), notwithstanding. Mr. Speaker, the issue of NAFTA can be encapsulated in a story that I would like to tell. Back when Congress in the late nineties considered expanding NAFTA to the rest of Latin America, considered what was then called Fast Track, now granting Trade Promotion Authority to this President, I, at my own expense, flew to McAllen, Texas, rented a car with a couple of friends, and went to Reynosa, Mexico, to see what the face of the free trade future looked like; how was NAFTA working, since it had been 5 years or so; and how were people in Mexico doing under NAFTA. I went to the home of two people who worked at General Electric, one of America's and one of the world's largest corporations. They were a husband and wife, and lived in a shack not much bigger than 20 feet by 20 feet. This shack had no running water, no electricity, a dirt floor. When it rained hard, this floor turned to mud. Now, these were two people who worked at General Electric at 90 cents an hour, they each made, 3 miles from the United States of America. Behind their shack was a ditch about 3 feet wide. Across that ditch was a 2-by-4 people could walk across to get to shacks on sort of the next block, if you will. This ditch, flowing through this ditch was some kind of effluent. It could have been human waste, it could have been industrial waste, and likely it was both. Children were playing in this ditch. The American Medical Association, the Nation's doctors, called the border along the United States-Mexican border a cesspool of infectious diseases. They claimed that this area is perhaps probably the worst place for infectious diseases in the western hemisphere. Now, when you visit the colonias where these Mexican workers, almost all of whom work for major American corporations, where in this country those workers are paid $15, $10, often $20 an hour working under generally safe working conditions protected by government regulation that keeps these workplaces safe, generally those companies dispose of their industrial waste into the air or into the water properly, so it does not pollute in the neighborhood very much. All of those companies in Mexico tend not to follow these rules. They tend not to install worker safety regulations and worker safety protections in the workplace. They tend not to dispose of their waste properly for the healthy well-being of their employees and the neighbors. Of course, the wages are one-tenth, one-fifteenth, one-twentieth as much, 3 miles from the United States. As you walk through these neighborhoods, these colonias, you usually can tell where the worker works because their homes are constructed, the roofs and walls, the homes are constructed of packing materials that come from the companies where they work. They unload equipment. They unload supplies. They unload components from a supplier and they take those boxes home. They might take boxes from General Electric or General Motors, wherever these companies are, wherever these employees work, they might take those boxes home. They might be wood crates, whatever, and they construct their homes with these crates and boxes and packing material. As you walk through the colonias in these neighborhoods where the husband and wife are both working 10 hours a day, 6 six days a week for big American corporations, making 90 cents an hour, they live in shacks with dirt floors, no electricity, with no running water, shacks made of packing materials coming from the company where they work. This is the picture of the free trade. This is the picture of the future under NAFTA and a picture of the future under extension or expansion of NAFTA to Latin America through the Trade Promotion Authority proposal. Food Safety Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about food safety tonight, because one of the things I learned as Congress has passed NAFTA in 1993, I think not a good reflection on this body, but nonetheless Congress passed NAFTA in 1993, what I found interesting about food safety is under NAFTA one of the things that has happened with food safety and with trade law is that pesticides that we have banned in this country, a chemical company might make something like DDT; it is still legal to make the pesticide in our country, it is simply illegal to apply those pesticides to fields in our country or to gardens or to lawns or anything. Certain pesticides that are banned are banned for use in this country, but American companies still make pesticides and they export some of them to Mexico. So when we buy strawberries and raspberries from Mexico, in many cases those strawberries and raspberries would have had applied to them pesticides that are illegal in this country to use, but were made in this country and exported to those countries for their farmers to use. Many of those farms are owned by large companies where there is not high regard for the workers' health, where there is not high regard, frankly, for the end product in terms of its safety for consumers' dining room, breakfast room tables. So what happens, Mr. Speaker, is so often a pesticide will end up sold to Mexico, made by an American company, applied by dirt-poor, underpaid farmers, barely making a living, jeopardizing their health, because putting these pesticides on the land is every bit as dangerous, if not more so, because of the amounts they use, the volume they use, perhaps more dangerous than the ultimate consumption of those fruits and vegetables. Mr. Speaker, after the pesticides are produced in the United States, sold to Mexico, applied on food, to strawberries and raspberries in Mexico, those fruits and vegetables are then sold back into the United States. And, frankly, it is pretty certain that pesticide residues are still on those vegetables or strawberries and raspberries and other fruits. So rest assured, in some cases as these fruit and vegetables come across the border, generally dismantled by the Gingrich years in this congressional body, our food safety and food inspection measures at the border are so weakened or so unsubstantial, if you will, that this creates some danger for American consumers. In fact, it is three times more likely that fruits and vegetables in the United States, imported fruits and vegetables are contaminated, three times more likely contaminated than those grown in the United States. Instead of our passing trade laws that say we do not allow these pesticides in our country, we will buy your fruits and vegetables but you are not going to allow those pesticides to be used either, we do not do that. We simply say come on in, bring them in. Let me talk about food safety and what is happening. In 1993, 8 percent of fruits and vegetables coming into the United States were inspected at the border. Today that figure has dropped to one-tenth that amount. Seven-tenths of 1 percent of fruits and vegetables coming into the United States are inspected at the border. That means, if my math is right, that means for every 140 truckloads of broccoli, one truckload is inspected. For every 140 crates of broccoli, 1 crate is inspected. For every 140 bunches of broccoli, 1 bunch is inspected. That does not bring a lot of confidence to the American public, the consuming public, the eating public, if you will, as we eat the fruits and vegetables coming from these countries. When I went to the border, and I am joined by my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who is one of the premier experts in this Congress and in this country in agriculture. She is the ranking Democrat on the agriculture Committee on Appropriations. She knows food safety in and out. Before I yield to her, I want to tell another story about that same visit to Mexico where I stood at the border and watched the inspection of broccoli. I mentioned broccoli earlier because it is so in my mind from watching this inspection. The FDA inspector who was doing his job, doing his best, he in those days was inspecting 2 percent of vegetables coming in. Since then, because of budget cuts that this Congress continues to do on public health issues and public safety issues, and nothing is more important to public health and public safety than a clean food supply, he was inspecting 2 percent then, it is one-third that amount now, about .7 percent. He took a crate of broccoli off a truck, put it down next to him, took broccoli in his hand, took a bunch in each hand and slammed it down on a steel grate and was looking for pests, for insects to fall out of that broccoli, presumably dead or alive insects. If there had been insects that were alive that fell out, he would have put the whole truckload into a machine that would have sprayed the broccoli to make sure any of the pests were dead. If the pests were already dead, I am not sure what he would have done. The FDA has only 750 inspectors, spends $260 million to scrutinize 60,000 food plants, inspect 4\1/2\ million imported food items each year. As I said, in 1993 when NAFTA was passed, 8 percent of fruits and vegetables were inspected. Today that number is down to .7 percent, seven-tenths of 1 percent of fruits and vegetables are inspected. We do not have the equipment on the border to check for E. coli. We do not have the equipment on the border to check for microbial contaminants. We do not have the equipment on the border to check for pesticide residues. You cannot hold broccoli and you cannot hold strawberries at the border for 2 weeks until the lab tests come back. So basically our food inspections at the border simply do not work right. Now, Mr. Speaker, today we had a news conference to discuss this, and I want to mention one more thing before I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The executive director, Mohammed Akhter, a physician, is the executive director of the American Public Health Association. He said in no uncertain words that fast track Trade Promotion Authority will undoubtedly mean more fruits and vegetables into the United States and a smaller and smaller and smaller percentage of those fruits and vegetables inspected. There is no doubt, because we have passed NAFTA on the cheap. We did nothing for truck safety, nothing for food safety, nothing for drug interdiction when we passed NAFTA. As traffic and congested increased 4 times, 400 percent along the border, we did nothing to prepare. There is nothing to prepare in the Trade Promotion Authority that the President is asking for to prepare for food safety inspections. We still are not doing our job. Especially the director of the American Public Health Association, the highest-ranking public health official in the country is saying that passage of Trade Promotion Authority, in his words, will mean more unsafe food in the United States, more outbreaks of disease, more infectious disease in the American people. Last year 5,000 Americans died from food-borne illnesses, not all of them from imports to be sure, but it is three times more likely imports cause disease than locally grown produce. Not that we do not need to do better in both; 5,000 people died of food-borne illnesses, 80,000 people went to the hospital from food-borne illnesses; 300,000 people were sick from food-borne illnesses. That is something we should not be proud of. Those numbers are going up more every single year. Those numbers will keep going up. In the words of the executive director of American Public Health Association, those numbers will just sky rocket if we pass Trade Promotion Authority, simply because we are not prepared at the border to do what we need to do to preserve food safety for the American public. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been to Mexico, who has seen all of these food safety issues. She, I believe, will talk about some other things with Fast Track also. I yield to my friend from Lucas County, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, it is interesting that they have done that, because even though almost every newspaper editor, most of the large newspapers have supported all of these free trade agreements, because they are very conservative and very close to many corporations, and all the reasons newspaper editors do. And even with all of that and the President being for it and the business leaders being for this trade agreement, even with all of that, the American public clearly oppose NAFTA, clearly oppose Most Favored Nation status with China, clearly oppose what we do in the World Trade Organization, clearly oppose Fast Track. Each one of these issues the public opposes. So as the public builds its understanding of these issues, they always, as my friend from Toledo points out, they always change the name. So Most Favored Nation status became PNTR. What is that? Fast Track Authority became Trade Promotion Authority. What is that? So they continue to try to confuse the public, and the public always catches up and understands it. You can bet 3 years from now when they are trying this again after we defeat it on Thursday, they will try it next year and the year after. They will come up with a new name because Trade Promotion Authority will not be a very acceptable name to the public. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, despite the overwhelming passage of a sense of Congress resolution urging the President to keep U.S. anti- dumping laws off of Qatar's negotiating table, the U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, did just the opposite after a 410 to 4 vote. U.S. officials have signaled that they are willing to negotiate on trade dumping laws that provide safeguards against countries selling products in the U.S. marketplace at below cost. The American steel industry, like so many others, relies on anti-dumping laws as their last line of defense against unfairly traded imports. Unfortunately, since the WTO Uruguay Round, the steel industry's ability to defend itself against dumping has been severely weakened. Now, in Qatar, a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Trade Representative has remained open to further weakening the rules on trade dumping, further jeopardizing American steel, further threatening American jobs. Many of us were concerned about Qatar long before the negotiations began. It is a country that does not allow free elections. It is a country that does not allow freedom of expression. It is a country where women are treated not much differently from the way women are treated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is a country where public worship by non-Muslims is banned. The message that sends to people around the world that the trade ministers of all of the nations in the world are meeting in a city, in a country, where public protest will not be allowed, where free speech is not allowed, where public expression is not allowed, where freedom of worship is not allowed, and where free elections are not allowed, the message that sends is troubling. It is troubling because all too often our own trade minister, Robert Zoellick, has used in the past language to suggest that those of us who do not support his free trade agenda, his agenda to weaken environmental standards, to weaken labor standards around the world, those of us who do not support this free trade agenda, he implies, are indifferent to terrorism. He has questioned our patriotism saying, we do not really share American values if we do not support Fast Track, if we do not support his trade legislation because, he tells us, that is the way to combat terrorism around the world: You are either with us or you are against us. Many of us resent the U.S. Trade Representative questioning our patriotism, claiming we are indifferent to terrorism because we believe his Fast Track proposal is not coincident with American values and does not do the right things for our country. Supporters of Fast Track argue that the U.S. is being left behind. They tell us we need Fast Track to increase American exports and provide new jobs for American workers. But this country's history of flawed trade agreements has led to a trade deficit with the rest of the world that surges well above $350 billion. The 2000 trade deficit is 40 percent higher than the previous record set in 1999. The Department of Labor has reported that NAFTA, and these are very conservative government figures, that NAFTA has caused the loss of 300,000 jobs. The American steel industry is no stranger to trade-induced adversity. Thousands of steel workers have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, 25 companies have filed for bankruptcy, 16 in the last year. We import 39 million tons of steel, double the 16 million tons we imported only 10 years ago, and steel prices, because of that, are below 1998 levels. In my home district, steel workers from LTV are learning firsthand that our trade policies put American workers in jeopardy. LTV terminated negotiations with its major union and went to bankruptcy court seeking permission to shut down its steel-making operations in anticipation of its sale. Now 11,000 jobs and the pensions and health benefits of more than 65,000 retirees and surviving spouses hang in the balance. LTV and the rest of the steel industry need Congress' assistance in solving this problem. Fast Track is not the answer. While our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and protect property rights, these agreements do not include enforceable protections for workers or for the environment. CEOs of multinational corporations tell us that globalization stimulates development and allows nations to improve their environmental and labor record. The truth is, flawed trade agreements cost American jobs, put downward pressure on U.S. wages and working conditions, and erode the ability of government to protect public health and to protect the environment. If we fail to include these important provisions and trade agreements, multinational corporations will continue to dismiss labor and environmental protection as discretionary and wholly unnecessary. Global working conditions, global living conditions will continued to suffer. We need to press for U.S. trade policy with provisions that protect American workers. We need to press for a U.S. trade policy with provisions that protect the American environment. We have experienced an economic slowdown, a drop in the stock market. Fast Track will not solve that problem, it will only make it worse.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for her dedication to the issue of tuberous sclerosis. H. Con. Res. 25 expresses our support in the fight against tuberous sclerosis, a rare genetic disorder that affects the central nervous system. Tuberous sclerosis affects one in 6,000 babies in our country and does not discriminate by race or by gender. At least two babies born today will be touched in this country by this disorder. It can cause kidney problems, brain tumors, skin abnormalities, seizures, and various degrees of mental disability. Tuberous sclerosis is frequently unrecognized and frequently misdiagnosed. There is no cure for this disease, yet. The NINDS, one of the institutes of health, is studying this disorder, trying to find new treatments, trying to find new methods of prevention, and trying ultimately, of course, to find a cure. Congress must continue to improve access to quality health care services for detecting and treating tuberous sclerosis. This resolution encourages the director of NIH to take a leadership role in the fight to eradicate tuberous sclerosis. As Members of Ohio are in unique positions to raise awareness about disorders that simply do not garner the attention that they deserve, the bill of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) will help bring focus to the fight against tuberous sclerosis. I urge Congress to pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The National Hansen's Disease Programs in Baton Rouge, Louisiana is the only institution in the U.S. exclusively devoted to the complex infectious disease known as Hansen's disease. Hansen's disease can cause nerve damage, resulting in the loss of muscle control and the crippling of the hands and feet. Fortunately, considerable progress has been made over the last 40 years to treat successfully the majority of Hansen's disease cases. There are roughly 6,500 cases of this disease in the United States. In the 105th Congress, the National Hansen's Disease Programs, located in the Gillis Long Disease Center in Carville, Louisiana was relocated to Baton Rouge. Although the programs moved from Carville to Baton Rouge, they still bear the name Gillis Long Hansen's Disease Center. Likewise, the Louisiana National Guard in Carville is named the Gillis Long Center. As a result of these two facilities sharing a name, the National Hansen's Disease Program has suffered from unnecessary postal delays. This bill clears up confusion and reinforces the unique function of the Baton Rouge facility by renaming it the National Hansen's Disease Programs Center. H.R. 2441 is straightforward legislation. It is located in the State of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his work on this resolution, H.J. Res. 60, recognizing Maureen Reagan as one of the country's most effective advocates on behalf of Alzheimer's disease and expresses the House condolences to her family. Maureen Reagan is the daughter of former President Ronald Reagan and his first wife, actress Jane Wyman. She died in August of this year after a courageous 5-year battle with malignant melanoma. She was 60 at the time. Since her father's diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 1994, Maureen Reagan was committed to raising awareness about Alzheimer's and the importance of family caregivers. She was elected a member of the Alzheimer's Association's national board 3 years ago. She testified on numerous occasions before this Congress and State legislatures in support of more funding for Alzheimer's research and caregivers' support. A year ago she received the Alzheimer's Association Distinguished Service Award for outstanding service to the national board and for helping to advance the mission of this organization. She was also active in raising awareness about melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In 1998, she received the president's Gold Triangle Award from the American Academy of Dermatology for her work in raising awareness of melanoma and for promoting the importance of skin examination. For that we recognize her. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleagues both on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce in support of H.R. 3391. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for taking on this daunting task. In a resource-limited environment, they were determined to identify reforms in Medicare operations that serve the best interests of beneficiaries and respond to a host of legitimate issues raised by providers, while making sure to in no way compromise the program's efforts to fight fraud, waste and abuse. It is a tall order and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Nevada did an excellent job. This bipartisan legislation was a collective effort, to say the least. It was written and rewritten and rewritten with the input of the health care community, consumer advocates, the committees of jurisdiction, and the administration. It took months, it took difficult compromises, but the final product will make a tangible, positive difference for beneficiaries and providers alike. Key provisions of the bill bolster communications between and among the Medicare program and its beneficiaries and providers, improve the Medicare appeals process, and establish new performance standards for Medicare contractors. No one is well served when providers either cannot get the information they need or coverage policies are unclear, or anti-fraud and abuse measures elicit such mistrust that providers second-guess every treatment decision. This legislation takes those issues seriously and does something about them. Importantly, the bill also provides and improves Medicare responsiveness to its 39 million beneficiaries. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) especially, and staff members Bridgett Taylor, Karen Folk, Amy Hall, and on my staff, Katie Porter and Ellie Dehoney for fighting tooth and nail to ensure this legislation, in effect, keeps our eye on the ball. They made sure the bill contains provisions that relate directly to Medicare's fundamental mission, to make sure seniors and disabled individuals receive the care that they need. Thanks largely to their resolve and hard work, this legislation ensures that seniors know definitively and up front whether Medicare covers the health care their doctor recommends. Especially for low- income seniors, that is a crucial and overdue change in Medicare rules, and I appreciate the negotiated work that we all could do on that issue. The Medicare fee-for-service program is the largest insurance program in the United States, serving 36 million Americans, contracting with almost 1 million providers. Recent surveys document what most of us know from speaking with our constituents; that is, an overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries trust in and are very satisfied with their coverage under fee-for-service Medicare. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Republican efforts to privatize this system, Americans overwhelmingly reject Republican efforts to allow more insurance company intrusion into fee-for-service Medicare, and Americans overwhelmingly want prescription drug coverage, an area where this Congress and the Bush administration have so far failed miserably to achieve. But since that level of trust and satisfaction the people in this country have for Medicare is a fundamental measure of this program's success, changing the Medicare rules was a high-stakes exercise that we, bipartisanly, were able to achieve. I am confident that the changes encompassed in this bill are in the best interest of beneficiaries, most importantly; also to providers and taxpayers, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that was here and presided over this House when Medicare was passed in 1965. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) be permitted to control 10 minutes of the time on this side.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Summit and Portage Counties, Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Congress passed landmark legislation, and most of us know it as Kennedy/Kassebaum or HIPAA, that answered several difficult questions: How do we minimize coverage disruptions and barriers in the private health insurance market? How do we improve the efficiency of health care financing and delivery in the United States? The gentlemen from my home State of Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) and (Mr. Hobson) took on the second question. They championed commonsense provisions in HIPAA that ensure the transition to fully electronic transfers between health plans and providers. Electronic claiming is far superior to the old-fashioned paper version. It saves money, it saves trees, and it typically saves patients from paying out-of-pocket for services ultimately covered by insurance. The deadline for implementing phase 1 of this transition is October 2002, but the reality is some sectors of the health industry and State governments need extra time to make the technical and the procedural changes necessary to achieve compliance. Delaying the compliance deadlines for administrative simplification is not an action any Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, should take lightly. CMS has estimated that the electronic claims processing can save $30 billion over 10 years. Any delay in implementation reduces, obviously, those associated savings. Health plans and providers throughout the country have invested time and money to gear up for this transition. To the extent that their new operations sit idle, they are losing money too. That said, it would be inappropriate to fault both public and private sector entities that work in good faith against a deadline they did not create and found they simply could not meet. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3323 accommodates the concerns of those on both sides of this issue. Under this legislation, health plans and providers must either meet the current compliance deadline or demonstrate their plans for achieving compliance by October 2003. This one-time 1-year extension creates a cushion for organizations bumping up against the current deadline without permitting an undue or indefinite delay. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this reasonable compromise. I again thank the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) and (Mr. Hobson) for their good work.

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