Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), says, the biggest reason that wages have been stagnant in this country, understand for the 10 or 20 percent on top, salaries have gone up, but for most of the public, in the last 10 years, at a time of supposed economic growth, wages have not risen; and one of the major reasons for that is that company after company after company simply threatens to go to Mexico or threatens to go to Haiti or threatens to go to Honduras or threatens to go to China; and workers then are much less likely to demand wage increases, and in many times, many cases will give due wage give-backs so the company will stay there. York Manufacturing in O'Leary, Ohio, was faced with threat after threat after threat of moving production to Mexico. Their wages stagnated for several years. Even then finally the company closed, moved part of its production to another place in the United States and most of its production to Mexico. So those wages were stagnant for several years, then the factory was closed and the wages became zero.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In China, during the PNTR, remember, the Most Favored Nation Status that we talked about, they changed it to Permanent Normal Trade Relations to confuse as many people as possible, during that debate the administration promised, the supporters and the Republican leadership and others here promised, that American farmers would sell grain to China. They said China only had, if I recall, some 12 or 13 million metric tons of grain in their storage facilities in China; they would be importing grain. What happened? Well, they actually had 50-some million metric tons of grain stored in China, and China since PNTR passed is now known to be a grain exporter. So every time we have a trade agreement, the agriculture community, family farmers like the Snyder family in Richland County where I used to work as a kid on a family farm, family farmers like that are promised that they are going to be able to export more grain, they are going to be able to export more fruits and vegetables all over the world because these trade agreements create all kinds of new markets. The fact is, rarely, if ever, does American agriculture benefit. Some of the big American grain companies benefit, but almost never do family farmers benefit, whether they are corn farmers, whether they are tomato farmers, especially if they are tomato farmers, winter vegetable farmers, fruit and vegetable farmers in Florida where the price of tomatoes went up and Mexico has increased their tomato production exports to the United States and American farmers have gone out of business and Americans are paying more for tomatoes. So we get it three ways: we lose jobs, prices often go up, and small farmers, even in Mexico, are put out of business, also.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentlewoman say many years ago, before I made my first trip to Mexico to look at sort of what was happening in these industrial plants, that when one goes to Mexico and went to an auto plant where Mexican workers are making 90 cents an hour, roughly, that when one visited a Mexican auto plant it looked a lot like an American auto plant. I remember the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said this years ago, that for the first time, that its technology was up to date; the plant sometimes was even more modern than American plants, they are newer; the workers were productive, they were working hard and the floors were clean. Everything looked just like an American auto plant except for one thing: the Mexican auto plant did not have a parking lot because the workers could not afford to buy the cars. One can go all the way around the world to Malaysia and go to the Motorola plant, and the workers cannot afford to buy the cell phones. One can come back to the New World, to Haiti and go to a Disney plant and the workers cannot afford to buy the toys or one can go back to China into a Nike plant and the workers cannot afford to buy the shoes. The tragedy of these trade agreements is that workers are creating wealth for large corporations, and they are not sharing in the wealth they create. They are paid barely enough to live on. They will never be in the middle class, and as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, they will never be able to buy American products. That is why the arrow always goes one way. We send industrial components to Mexico. As a friend of ours, Harley Shaken, an economist in California, pointed out, they are industrial tourists. These components go from the United States to Mexico, almost like a San Diego teenager going to Tijuana for the weekend. The components go to Mexico for a couple of days; they are industrial tourists. They get assembled into cars and they come back into the United States. Everybody except for the large company loses. American workers lose their jobs; Mexican workers are paid subsistence wages and can never get off the bottom.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from Toledo. What she said about trading with democracies is so very important. Last year, during the debate on Most Favored Nation status with China, what was euphemistically relabeled PNTR, executives and CEOs who normally do not bother with workaday Members of Congress, they normally only go to the leaders in each party, the Speaker, the minority leader, whatever; but CEOs were roaming the halls of Congress and repeating the mantra, we want access to China's 1 billion consumers; we want to sell our products to China's 1 billion consumers. But what they really cared about was access to China's 1 billion workers, who could work and sew those Ohio State baseball caps and those T-shirts from the University of Toledo or from Oberlin College or wherever. They wanted access to those workers who would work, had no choice really, would work for a few cents an hour. In the last 10 years, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) mentioned buying products, trading with democracies, what has happened in the last 10 years is western investors, investors from France and England and Germany and the United States and Canada, they are not very interested anymore in investing in democratic developing countries, countries that are struggling but that are democratic and developing, still pretty poor but democratic; they are interested in trading and investing in developing authoritarian countries. In other words, they are not all that interested in Taiwan anymore, because Taiwan, again on Saturday, had a free election, perhaps the third free election in Chinese history. So Taiwan is clearly a working democracy. It is successful. They have done all kinds of great things. One of the great success stories in the world in the last two decades. They are not so interested in investing in Taiwan, but they are much more interested in investing in Singapore because they have a totalitarian government there. They are not much interested in investing in India, but they are very much interested in investing in China. Why? Because China's workforce is docile, it does not talk back, it is an authoritarian country with no democratic elections, with no ability to speak out, with no ability to change jobs, and with no ability to organize a trade union. And that is really why the World Trade Organization, which once met in Seattle in 1999 and had all kinds of demonstrations and all kinds of people speaking out in opposition to these policies, that is why they went to a city called Doha, the capital of a country called Qatar. The trade ministers decided enough of this openness, enough of this freedom, enough of this people assembling and protesting and speaking out and having elections. They went to a country where they like to practice their business. They went to a country with no free elections; a country without the freedom of religion, unless you are publicly a Muslim, you are not allowed to worship any other religion; with no freedom of assembly; with no freedom of speech; with no free elections; with no freedoms at all that we are used to. That is really what our trade policy has turned into. Our investors want to go to China where they have slave labor, where they have child labor, where there are no elections, where their workers are docile and do not talk back, rather than going to a free country where workers organize, where the environment might be protected, where worker rights are protected. That is why many of these countries leave the United States to go to China. In this country, they pay a Social Security tax. That money is gone when they go to China. They pay into Medicare. That money is gone when these jobs go to China. They have to keep the environment clean in their businesses here. Do not have to do that in China. They have to pay living wages in this country. They do not have to do that in China. They have to have worker protections in the workplace. They do not have to do that in China. Why are companies investing in China rather than staying in the United States? Why are they investing in China rather than India? Because India is a democracy, China is not. Why not in Taiwan? Because it is a democracy, Singapore is not. That is why it is so important that we in fact support trade. My colleague and I both support trade, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and myself, and so do all of us that are against Trade Promotion Authority. We promote trade, we support trade, we advocate trade, but we want to see trade with democratic countries where workers can share in the wealth they create. Not a place like China, where the workers at Nike cannot afford to buy shoes; not a place like Haiti where the workers at Disney cannot afford to buy the toys they make; not a place like Malaysia, where the workers for Motorola cannot afford to buy the cell phones they make. We want workers to share in the wealth they create. They will then join the middle class and buy American products, and we will see both countries raise their living standards. That is what trade is all about.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Right. Trade and economic activity did not bring freedom to Nazi Germany, to Fascist Italy. It has not brought freedom in any way, all the trade and supposed prosperity, to Communist China. And, as my colleague points out, it has not brought freedom to the Middle East, where we have all kinds of economic exchanges back and forth with Saudi Arabia.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield about autos for one second?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, one CEO of a major corporation said a couple of years ago, ``I wish I could locate my corporate headquarters on an island that is part of no country.'' He does not mind being an American when he comes to this institution for subsidies, for tax cuts personally or corporate tax cuts, but when it comes time to employing American workers or living under the sovereignty of this Nation, he seems a little bit less interested. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I, a moment ago, and for years, actually, but a moment ago were talking about food safety. And food safety is a particularly important issue. We have legislation with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and some others because we are concerned about country-of-origin labeling; we are concerned about inspections, as more and more fruits and vegetables come into the United States. Because of budget cuts, and because of increased imports, and because of poor trade laws, only seven- tenths of 1 percent of food coming into this country is inspected at the border, much less than that inspected anyplace else. That means one out of every 140 crates of broccoli, one out of every 140 crates of fruit, one out of every 140 boxes of any kind of food gets inspected at the border. It is a serious problem, and the gentleman from Michigan will tell us more about what all of this means with Fast Track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey very much for his very well thought-out remarks. We are joined also by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an old friend, who first established his trade predictions during the first fight against NAFTA when we almost defeated that trade agreement which has been shown to be dangerous to this country. We also have a new member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), an iron worker himself who understands trade from all aspects; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) from the other end of the State. They will be joining the discussion in a moment. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment before yielding to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned current trade policies and what happened in Doha and the steel industry. When we see that this Congress voted 410 to 4, as he said, to tell them, to instruct President Bush's trade representative in Qatar not to mess with U.S. dumping laws, he immediately put it on the table for negotiations. It is not difficult to understand why LTV, where many people in my district work, and the rest of the American steel industry, is in trouble when we pass these kinds of trade policies, and the President has not moved fast enough on section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. The President has refused to support and this Congress has not passed 808, the Steel Revitalization Act, which is absolutely necessary to save this industry, and now these same free traders are pushing more of the same, as if our trade policy has worked. It has not worked. Our trade deficit is almost $370 billion. So the President's answer and Trade Representative Zoellick's answer is let us do more of it. That simply makes no sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I will be joined today by several Members. I am so far joined by my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who in his several years in Congress has been a leader on trade issues and fighting for American jobs and American workers and raising labor standards and environmental standards, both in this country and throughout the developing world and in other nations around the world. Before we talk about fast track, and that is what this special order is about, as some of us just could not resist listening to the last speakers who, already in the space of 11 months of a Republican administration with a Republican House of Representatives and formerly a Republican Senate, have already, through their huge tax cuts for the rich, have already brought on to our government a deficit. We had several years of positive, good budget situations. We are now already spending back into deficit because of these huge tax cuts for the rich. Second, we are already in a recession. We have had a Republican President since January 20th. There are 1 million fewer jobs, industrial, manufacturing jobs in this country than there were a year ago. And when we talk like this, talk about tax cuts for the rich, my Republican friends love to say we are engaging in class warfare. But the fact is that every day in this chamber as Republicans try to cut spending on unemployment compensation, on health care, on Medicare cuts, on cuts that people in this country that need help would benefit from, that they make those cuts, at the same time they cut taxes on the rich, they commit class warfare in this society; when they are hurting working people and hurting the poor and helping their wealthiest contributors and wealthiest friends, whether they are the drug companies, or whether they are some of the wealthiest people like Rupert Murdoch and others that they seem to care so much about. So in other words, Mr. Speaker, they so often commit class warfare every day in this body. All we do is point out they are doing it, and they just seem to bristle from it. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 11, several gas stations in my district and around Northeast Ohio and other places around this country raised their prices to $4, $5, $6 a gallon. Many of us in this body simply called that as it was, war profiteering, that people would take advantage of the events of September 11 to put a little more money in their pocket. Unfortunately, over the last 8 or 9 weeks, something not much different has occurred on Capitol Hill. Many of us have called it political profiteering. First, Congress passed a bailout bill that gave the airlines $15 billion in cash and loan guarantees. No sacrifices were required of airline executives, few restrictions were placed on companies that received that money; nothing was provided for airline security; no assistance was given to the 140,000 industry workers who were laid off as a result of the September 11 attacks. Then, in the name of stimulating the economy, this chamber passed new tax cuts and accelerated others for the richest people and the largest corporations in this country. IBM will get a check from the Federal Government under the Republican plan for $1.4 billion. Ford will get a check from the Federal Government for $1 billion. GM will get a check for $900 million. United and American Airlines, as if they did not do all right with the airline bailout bill, will get several hundred million dollars more from the Republican tax cut for the rich, while they are ignoring unemployed workers. But now the political profiteering has reached new heights. In the past few months, Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration's Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, sought to link the trade negotiation authority known as fast track to our Nation's anti-terrorism efforts. He went further by claiming that people like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and me and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and many of the others that will be joining us tonight, that because we oppose fast track, we are indifferent to terrorism, and maybe a little bit less than patriotic. According to Mr. Zoellick, free trade is the way to combat terrorism around the world, and, if you do not support free trade, if you do not want to do it Mr. Bush's way and Mr. Zoellick's way, if you do not support free trade and do it their way, then you do not really support American values. Earlier today, Republican leadership took a similar route until support of fast track. They stated that trade is directly related to our battle against the enemies of the Unite States and the values we hold dear; that fast track is essential to our war effort. In Qatar are, where the World Trade Organization ministerial was recently held, a place chosen by the leaders, the trade ministers, the administration, the people who support free trade, in Qatar, the people do not have freedom of speech, they do not have freedom of assembly, they do not have freedom to publicly worship anything in any other religion but Islam, they do not have freedom of association, they do not have free elections. Yet the World Trade Organization ignored these abuses of personal freedom in selecting Qatar as the host of the ministerial. Qatar's human rights record is not in line with American values by any measurement, but it is familiar territory for many of America's corporate trading partners. Supporters of fast track say interaction with the developing world spreads democracy. But as we engage developing countries in trade and investment, democratic countries are losing grounds to dictatorships and authoritarian governments. Democratic India is less desirable for investors from the West than totalitarian China. Democratic Taiwan is losing out to autocratic oligarchic Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing country exports, of poor country exports to the United States, came from democracies. Since then, that number has fallen 22 percent. Today, 65 percent of developing countries exports come from authoritarian countries. The fact is, Western investors want to go to places like China and Indonesia, which are dictatorships, by and large, because they have pliable workforce, because they have authoritarian governments, because they have a docile workforce that cannot organize and bargain collectively, and they are very predictable for Western business. They do not want to go to India, they do not want to go to Taiwan, they do not want to go to South Korea, and, all too often, they do not want to stay in this country, because these countries have strong environmental laws, strong worker safety laws, labor unions that can organize and bargain collectively, and free elections. Instead, Western corporations, as they lobby this body, as the corporate jets pull into National Airport and Dulles and BWI, and they fan the halls of Congress going to office after office after office, begging us for fast track, begging us last year, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I worked hard against PNTR for China, these companies want to invest in countries that have nonexistent environmental standards, that have below poverty wages, that have no worker benefits, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively. Understand that. Western investors do not like to go to democracies where workers can organize, do not like to go to democracies where they have good environmental laws and worker safety laws. They like to go to China. They like to go to Indonesia. They like to invest in Burma. Countries where workers cannot talk back, countries where workers cannot vote in elections, countries where workers do not have any kinds of rights. That is the way they like it. That is why they want fast track. Our trade agreements, Mr. Speaker, go to great lengths to protect investors and property rights. These agreements do not include the same protection for workers or the environment. So in other words, fast track provides protections for property rights, protections for investors, but no protections for the environment, no protections for workers. The call for an absolute trade negotiation authority in the name of patriotism must be recognized for what it is. When Mr. Zoellick says he has to have trade negotiating authority, trade promotion authority to combat terrorism and to fight this war, recognize it is pure and simple political profiteering. We have all watched with pride the indomitable spirit of so many Americans in response to the events of September 11. The right response to defend the jobs of these Americans and especially the values of these Americans is a ``no'' vote on trade promotion authority. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Just give more information to people. In closing, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who is here on the other side of the aisle, who has always been a strong opponent of bad free trade laws. I would close by saying, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said, corporate CEOs, the President, cabinet officials will all be lobbying this institution big time in the next week. I hope that coming out of this Special Order tonight that people will understand better what our trade policy does to our values and our way of life, and that the American people will rise to the occasion and continue to push Members of Congress to do the right thing next week when we vote down Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize something the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said. As this debate winds down into next week when the Republican leadership has said it will be scheduled for a floor vote, we have seen the kind of strong-arm lobbying from the President, from the President personally, from administration officials, Cabinet members, up and down the administration, throughout the administration, promises, all kinds of promises, everything from highway projects to support of legislation, to jobs, to all kinds of things that some of these people promise. We have also seen strong-arm lobbying from America's largest corporations. Every time there is a trade vote here, people at National Airport used to tell me they saw more corporate jets at that airport than anytime during the year, as corporate executives know that these trade agreements mean they can move more jobs overseas, make more money as they hire low-wage workers with no environmental laws, with no food safety laws, with no kind of worker safety laws.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) points out something very important about democratic values. At the beginning of this Special Order we talked about political profiteering that some people, the President, the White House and the Bush administration, have said that we need to have Fast Track to wage this war against terrorism. Yet as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) so deftly pointed out, much about trade negotiations and much, not just writing these trade agreements, but actually some of the appeals in front of the tribunals and the three-judge panels at the World Trade Organization and the NAFTA tribunals and all are conducted in secret. We talk about American values. How can we talk about American values and then turn over our sovereignty on issues of public health and issues of water, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) in his district, which borders three of the Great Lakes, how can we turn over those decisions on environment, on food safety, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) said; on constitutional issues, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said. We are turning those issues over to panels who are people we do not elect, who are making decisions in secret, and then often do not have to publish their findings. And that runs exactly counter to our government, to our way of life, to our values, and to our beliefs as Americans. I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who many years ago during the NAFTA debate used to join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who could not be here tonight, used to join us on these Fast Track issues. I would add that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who is a candidate for Governor of Michigan, will be leaving this body at the end of 2002 and has been the real leader on trade issues. He said he could not be here tonight, but he is in there fighting against these bad trade agreements on behalf of Michigan workers and on behalf of all of us. So I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), from the other end of Ohio, from southern Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for his 9 years of leadership against bad trade issue and for fair trade and better working conditions and environmental safeguards for Americans and for people around the world. One thing that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said that was particularly important, and I will then yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), we should think about this. When he said, we in this Congress on behalf of American people, 410 votes in support for said to our negotiators in Qatar said that we wanted to stand strong on our steel antidumping laws. And we demanded that on behalf of the American people. Those demands were totally ignored by the administration. The administration now says, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said this, the administration said, give us Fast Track. You can count on us to protect American workers with Fast Track. You can count on us to be fair. You can count on us to protect the environment and workers and all that around the world. Well, the fact is can we count on them to do that when we saw already the kind of betrayal from our trade negotiators. Not to mention that this President does not seem very concerned domestically about environmental laws, does not seem concerned domestically about food safety, does not seem concerned domestically about labor standards. This is the same President that tried for 10 months tried to weaken arsenic laws, and tried to allow the mining and chemical companies to allow more arsenic in the drinking water, and we are going to trust them to protect the environment all over the world and in this country? I do not think so. And that is really the reason, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said, that Fast Track is really a betrayal of our values. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who already in his couple of months in Congress, he came here in early October, I believe, late September, and he has already jumped in the trade fight because he knows that is important to the people of Massachusetts and the people of our country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When the gentleman and I started this conversation 3 or 4 years ago, 2 percent of food was inspected. This Congress continues to cut the budget on food inspection. And understand it is not just the adulterated food coming in. The way the trade law works on food safety, there are certain pesticides in the United States that are banned for use. It is illegal to put them on fields. It is not illegal to make them. So in many cases, American manufacturers manufacture these pesticides, sell them to Guatemala to spray on the strawberries or on the raspberries. Those products then come back into the United States with pesticide residues, making the farmers sick that apply the pesticides, and then coming across the border. We do not spend the money at the border to detect either adulterated food, anything from fecal matter to other kinds of contaminants, nor do they detect any kinds of residues from pesticides. And that is one of the reasons that in this country, and it is not all foreign food, but in this country 5,000 people a year die from food-borne illnesses and 300,000 people go to the hospitals with food-borne illnesses. Not blaming it all on foreign food by a long shot. We should do a better inspection job with domestic food. But foreign food is a part of it, and food coming from abroad is a growing problem because we are importing more. That is why we get vegetables and fruits in the winter, because we are importing them. That is a good thing. It makes Americans healthier. But give Americans the confidence that our food will be safe by passing trade legislation that upgrades food safety standards everywhere, rather than pulling our standards down to the weaker standards of other countries. We have about 3 minutes, so I will yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Here is the issue. Partially preparing for a bioterrorist attack is about the same as not preparing at all. Bioterrorism preparedness is not preparedness without adequate funding. The majority and the administration have fallen far short of achieving this goal. For example, the demands on the Centers for Disease Control and its partners, State and local public health departments, have never been greater. This week, CDC released a plan to respond to a smallpox attack relying heavily, heavily on local and State health departments; but public health facilities, more often than not, do not have the capacity today to implement that plan. Current funding levels cannot guarantee or even partially guarantee preparedness for health departments. We can stockpile vaccines and antibiotics; but without people on the ground to quickly identify and quickly respond to threats, we simply are not prepared. I want to remind my colleagues that stockpiling and distributing antibiotics will only be a useful strategy against bioterrorism if the underlying strengths of these antibiotics is ensured and maintained. Monitoring antibiotic resistance must be part of our national strategy. During the last couple of months, thousands of Americans have been prescribed the antibiotic Cipro because of a legitimate risk of exposure to anthrax. Physicians tell us this use of antibiotics is appropriate, but thousands of other Americans have sought prescriptions for Cipro without any indication of need or risk of infection. If the U.S. and the rest of the world begin using antibiotics like Cipro, without any indication of need or even a risk of infections, if that happens, these drugs will lose their effectiveness. When facing lethal diseases like anthrax, it is important to find an effective therapy quickly. Any delay can result in the deaths, literally, of thousands of individuals. To adequately prepare for a bioterrorist attack, State and local health departments must be equipped to rapidly identify and respond to antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax. We must isolate emerging antibiotic-resistant pathogens, track antibiotic overuse and misuse, monitor the effectiveness of existing treatments over time; and that takes money, the money the administration and the majority have refused to allocate. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, ensuring the safety of imported foods was important before September 11, but more important now. Americans would be astounded to know that the FDA is able to inspect only seven-tenths of 1 percent of all the food that comes into this country. That is one out of 140 crates of broccoli; one out of 140 crates of fruit; one out of 140 boxes of any imported food. The FDA says to Congress it wants to ensure the safety of the food, but the money is not there without the Obey amendment. The events of September 11 require us to do more. Secretary Thompson a month ago said, ``Am I satisfied with the inspection we are doing? No, I am more fearful about this than anything else,'' he says. He wants to get to a level of 10 percent inspection on imports, which would cost $300 million. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey's) amendment allocates that $300 million. Vote for the Obey amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in support of this amendment. As thousands of American steelworkers have sadly discovered, the U.S. has become the world's steel dumping ground. During the 1998 steel crisis, steel imports into the United States exceeded steel exports by 36 million tons. The trade deficit in steel was $11.7 billion, accounting for about 7 percent of our continually growing overall trade imbalance. The vast majority of these imports were subsidized by foreign governments and dumped at below-market prices in the United States. Congress must respond. One immediate step we must take is protect the retirement benefits that these workers have earned. To encourage needed reorganization and consolidation of the domestic steel industry, a Steel Industry Legacy Relief Program should be created to provide assistance to steel producers in meeting retiree health care costs. This amendment establishes such a program, offering assistance equal to 80 percent of the total expenditures made to meet steel retiree health care liabilities. Our country's history of flawed trade agreements has propelled the steel industry towards the crisis it faces today. It only makes sense that current and future retirees, surviving spouses, and dependents who are eligible for retiree health insurance which they earned at the time a company ceases operation be eligible to receive assistance. We must protect the 700,000 hard-working families who rely on this industry for their salaries, pensions and health benefits, and for those communities in which they live. I urge all of my colleagues to support America's steelworkers and those communities in which these steelworkers live.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, many people in the Chamber know about the problems of LTV, one of the third-largest integrated steel-makers in the United States, and its announcement that it may in fact close operations in Cleveland and other places across the country. Despite the overwhelming passage of a sense of Congress urging the President to keep U.S. antidumping laws off of the negotiating table, the World Trade Organization in Qatar, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick did just the opposite. We needed help in this country from the USTR, the steel industry needed help from the USTR, LTV needed help from the USTR, but the United States Trade Representative, President Bush's man in Qatar, has remained open to further weakening the rules on trade dumping, further jeopardizing American steel, further threatening American jobs. Many of us have been concerned about Qatar long before these 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 have been treated by the Taliban, and it is a country where public worship by non-Muslims is banned. The message that that meeting of the World Trade Organization sends to people around the world, the trade ministers are meeting in a city and country where public protest is not allowed, where free speech is not allowed, public expression is not allowed, freedom of worship is not allowed, where free election is not allowed, and that message is quite troubling. It is troubling because all too often our own trade minister, President Bush's Bob Zoellick, has used language to suggest that those of us who do not support his free trade agenda, his agenda to weaken environmental and labor standards, and environmental and labor standards around the world, that those of us who do not support his trade agenda are simply not concerned about terrorism. He has questioned our patriotism by pointing out that most of us that oppose fast track are indifferent to terrorism, saying we do not share American values if we do not support fast track because that is the way, he says, to combat terrorism. Mr. Speaker, fast track, to be sure, does not embody those American values that our trade rep has indicated. In fact, his claims that the President needs fast track are also simply not true. President Bush already has the authority to negotiate trade deals on behalf of the United States. Instead of simply dealing with tariffs and quotas, modern trade agreements contemplate issues as wide-ranging as environmental law, food safety, worker safety, local banking and tax standards. Congress must not shirk its responsibility for trade agreements when so much is at stake. Supporters of fast track tell us the U.S. is being left behind. They tell us we need fast track to increase American exports and to bring new jobs to American workers. But our history of flawed trade agreements has led to a trade deficit with the rest of the world that surged to a record $370 billion. The deficit last year is 40 percent higher than the deficit, the record-setting deficit, of the year before. The Department of Labor reported that NAFTA alone has been responsible, and these are the pro- NAFTA government statistics, that NAFTA alone has been responsible for the loss of 300,000 U.S. jobs. While our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and protect property rights, these agreements do not include enforceable provisions to protect workers or to protect the environment. CEOs of America's biggest corporations tell us that globalization stimulates development and allows nations to improve labor and environmental standards. They say interaction with the developing world spreads democracy. But as we engage with the developing countries in trade and investment, democratic developing countries are losing ground to authoritarian developing countries; in other words, democratic nations such as India are losing out to more totalitarian nations such as China. Democratic nations such as Taiwan are losing out to more authoritarian regimes such as Indonesia. Why is that? Why are 65 percent of developing country exports coming from authoritarian countries? It is clear corporations locate their manufacturing bases in more authoritarian regimes where the most minimal standards are often ignored. Western investors want to go to China, want to go to Indonesia, want to go to countries which are dictatorships because they have docile workforces, because they do not allow trade unions to organize, because they have authoritarian governments, because they are predictable for western business, because they do not have environmental laws, because they do not have labor standards. They do not want to go to India, they do not want to go to Taiwan, to South Korea. They do not want to stay even in this country, many times, because we have strong environmental laws, because we have labor protections, because labor unions can organize and bargain collectively, because we have free elections. Western corporations want to invest in countries that have poor environmental standards and below-poverty wages, that have no worker benefits, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively. Mr. Speaker, that is why fast track is a very bad idea.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) the original author of the Waxman-Hatch Act, who understands the importance of generic drugs and generic competition.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who knows that Eli Lilly's $4 million investment in Prozac and $900 million increase in profits robs consumers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who believes that Astrazeneca's $4 million investment in Prilosec and $1.4 billion in higher prices to consumers is wrong.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who has worked hard on making this bill fairer for consumers and fairer for children and fairer for consumers of prescription drugs.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know of no Member of Congress who opposes testing drugs for use in children. I know of no Member of Congress who believes it is okay that drug safety and efficacy and dosage information is available for adults but not for children. The question is, how much must Americans pay the drug industry to secure this kind of testing? By keeping lower-priced generics off the market, the 6-month exclusivity provisions cost the Federal Government, employer-sponsored health plans, seniors, all of us, literally billions, billions of dollars in inflated drug prices. The Federal Government instead could pay the companies two, three, four, even five times the cost of doing these tests. It would still cost less than 6 months of exclusivity, but that would be direct government spending and we cannot have that. The drug industry and my friends in the majority have made it very clear, if the Nation wants prescription drugs to be tested for use in children, we have to help the drug industry choke off its competition. The most profitable industry in the world has convinced us it deserves another multi-billion dollar windfall for conducting $4 million tests. I thought committee deliberations on this legislation might produce some legitimate argument, but no such luck. The line of reasoning behind this bill goes something like this: 6-month exclusivity works, they tell us. So would handing the drug industry a blank check and asking them to rob us blind. Does that make it a good idea? Typically policy-makers weigh both the benefits and the costs when formulating public policy. Why are we only weighing the benefits here? They tell us pediatric exclusivity is the most successful program in our history when it comes to increasing the number of pediatric tests. It is also the only program attempted that offers any economic incentive for pediatric testing. Attempts in the past relied on subtle persuasion, not any kind of economic incentives. Third, they tell us the carrot works better than the stick. Yes, but how big does the carrot need to be? Do drug companies need to earn a 600 percent to 1,500 percent return on their investment or they will refuse to make sure that their drugs are safe for kids? They assert that pediatric exclusivity uses marketplace incentives, it is a free market solution. Pediatric exclusivity is not a free market solution. It does not use marketplace incentives. In free markets, competition and demand drive behavior. Monopolies, as this extends, are anathema to free markets. They tell us that FDA says pediatric exclusivity represents about only a half of 1 percent of the Nation's pharmaceutical bill. If the added costs of pediatric exclusivity were spread evenly over all drug purchases, then the impact would be minimal. The lost savings, however, are not spread over every purchase. They are imposed only on the consumers who use Prilosec or Vasotec or one of the drugs eligible for exclusivity. So a constituent calls one of us and says the price of a prescription suddenly doubled, I would make her feel better by saying that increase represents only one half of 1 percent of all prescription drug prices? I do not think so. They tell us when we factor in lower children's health care costs, pediatric exclusivity actually saves money. I wonder if the authors of this research actually factored in the higher health care costs that accrue when seniors, who cannot afford the inflated drug prices associated with 6-month exclusivity, when they remain ill, or when children who may remain ill, whose parents cannot afford inflated drug prices. Why do I oppose this legislation? It is costing my constituents too much. It is costing employer-sponsored health care plans too much. It costs the State and Federal Government too much. Generic competition, remember, typically cuts a drug's price in half initially; and over time, the price difference grows so that consumers are paying 80 percent, even 90 percent, less for a generic drug that this bill wants to keep off the market. For drugs like Prilosec, Prozac, and Zocor, exclusivity adds $70 to each prescription, and the manufacturer of these drugs will take home an additional, as committee testimony proved, an additional $500 million to $1.6 billion for drug tests that cost about $4 million each. That is why many of us on this side are opposed to this legislation. I am opposed to considering this bill as a suspension, not only because this Congress should have the opportunity to consider alternatives, but because the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) should have the opportunity to amend the labeling provisions in this bill. Drug companies are rewarded with more market exclusivity before the labels on the drugs are changed to reflect the pediatric information. Consumers are paying a huge bill, for which they receive a vague promise that labels will change eventually to reflect new information. That makes no sense. For the sake of children, for seniors, for every consumer, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) wants to improve this bill. We should revisit this bill. I urge a ``no'' vote with the best interests of children, their families, consumers, taxpayers, all of us. That means voting no. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of September 11, some gas stations in northeast Ohio and across the country raised the price of gas to $4, $5, even $6 a gallon. Many people called that war profiteering. Unfortunately over the last 9 weeks or so, something not much different has occurred here on Capitol Hill. You might call it political profiteering. First, Congress passed a bailout bill giving the airline industry $15 billion in cash and loan guarantees with virtually no strings attached: no sacrifices for the airline executives, no assistance for the 100,000 unemployed airline workers, no money for any kind of airline safety. Then 3 weeks ago, in the name of stimulating the economy, this Chamber passed new tax cuts and accelerated others for the richest people and companies in America. Again, very little was included in the plan for laid-off workers and those among us who needed assistance the most. Then a couple of weeks ago, political profiteering reached new heights. That week, the Bush administration's trade representative, Bob Zoellick, sought to link the trade negotiating authority known as Fast Track to our Nation's antiterrorism efforts. He went further by claiming that those of us who oppose Fast Track are a bit indifferent to terrorism and perhaps unpatriotic. According to Mr. Zoellick, free trade is the way to combat terrorism around the world; and if you do not support it, then you do not support real American values. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Fast Track and free trade do not embody American values as well as our trade representative has indicated. In Qatar, where this week's World Trade Organization ministerial is being held, the people do not have freedom of speech, they do not have freedom of assembly, they do not have freedom of religion, freedom of association, and they do not have free elections. Qatar's human rights record may not be in line with American values, but it is familiar territory to many of corporate America's trading partners. Supporters of Fast Track say interaction with the developing world spreads democracy, but as we engage developing countries in trade and investment, democratic countries are losing ground to dictatorships and to authoritarian developing countries. Democratic India is less desirable for Western investors than authoritarian China. Democratic Taiwan is losing out to autocratic Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing country exports in the manufacturing sector came from democracies. Since then, exports from democracies fell to 22 percent. Fully 65 percent of developing country exports come from totalitarian/ authoritarian nations. The fact is Western investors want to go to places like China and Indonesia, which are dictatorships, because they have pliable work forces, they have authoritarian governments, and they are very predictable for Western businesses. Western corporations want to invest in countries that have poor or nonexistent environmental standards, that have below poverty wages, that have no worker benefits, that have no opportunities to bargain collectively. As American investment moves to those dictatorships where they do not have the values that we have, American working families lose out. Our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and protect property rights; but they do nothing to protect workers in this country or in developing countries, and they do little to protect the environment. Mr. Zoellick's call for an absolute trade negotiating authority in the name of patriotism must be recognized for what it is, pure and simple political profiteering. We have all watched with pride the indomitable spirit of working Americans in response to the events of September 11. The right response for us to defend the jobs and values of these same Americans is a ``no'' vote on trade promotion authority.