Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the League of Conservation Voters circulated a letter urging Members to oppose the Presidential trade negotiating authority known as Fast Track, or trade promotion authority. League of Conservation Voters warned it would consider including the trade bill on its annual scorecard. The league has stated Fast Track would threaten hard-won environmental and public health laws and regulations. The bill would do nothing, nothing, to prevent countries from lowering their environmental standards to gain unfair economic and trade advantages over Western democracies. Environmental provisions must be included, Mr. Speaker, in the core text of these trade agreements. Though Fast Track supporters have repeatedly refused, these provisions must be enforced by sanctions. Simply look at how environmental and labor standards evolved in the United States. Creation of these standards did not come about because corporations wanted them. To the contrary. They arose because concerned citizens demanded change to prevent companies from abusing workers, from polluting our air and from dumping waste into our waters. Through free speech and the democratic process, the U.S. developed laws to protect workers and the environment. But many in the developing world do not have these privileges. In the developing world, decisions are typically made by three groups: government leaders, usually not elected; factory owners, who are often one of the same with government leaders; and Western companies. Would authoritarian government leaders be in favor of cleaning up the environment or expanding worker rights? I do not think so. Would local factory owners be in favor of tougher greenhouse gas emission standards? I do not think so. Would Western corporations be in favor of rules to reduce the dumping of toxic chemicals? I do not think so. How can the free trade lobby assume that labor and environmental standards will expand in the developing world when those who can improve the situation are the ones who profit from its abuse? Changes will only occur if there is an incentive to change, and the trend in corporate globalization, these trade agreements, provides very few incentives to do the right thing. If we fail to include these important provisions in trade agreements, multinational corporations will continue to see these improvements as an unnecessary expense. We cannot allow the administration to push forward on these trade agreements, such as NAFTA, that value foreign investment more than they value the American worker. We cannot give corporations the green light to disregard human rights, to disregard labor standards, to disregard environmental laws. We cannot reward nations for abusing the ideals and the values that we in this country hold dear. The greatest abuse of our principles is not really what is being left out but what has been put in these trade agreements: something called the investor-to-state relationship establishing chapter 11 of NAFTA. Through chapter 11, private corporations, for the first time ever, can sue a foreign government and overturn health and safety laws passed by a democracy. Now, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick has committed to including that same chapter 11 in Fast Track. Not only can laws be overturned, but taxpayers in that nation are also liable for damages if a NAFTA tribunal rules a law or regulation causes an unfair barrier to trade. Understand this point: corporate trade lawyers can effectively repeal a nation's public health or an environmental law that was enacted through a democratic process behind closed doors. Corporations have been quick to capitalize on chapter 11. We have seen it in Canada, we have seen it in the United States, we have seen it with Mexican, American and Canadian corporations. As power shifts from democratically elected governments to corporations, many more corporations will attempt to strike down environmental laws, to weaken food safety laws, to eliminate consumer-protection statutes. Chapter 11's provisions suggest that when one country's public health laws collide with a foreign corporation's profits, then public health usually loses, time after time after time. Every single time in the World Trade Organization and almost every single time under NAFTA. Americans need to know whether the Bush administration believes that corporations deserve to trample on laws that protect our health and protect our environment. Congress should not allow chapter 11 to be incorporated into Fast Track. We need to protect the laws that we in this democratic body, and State legislatures in their democratic bodies, and city councils in their democratic bodies have created. More and more Members of Congress are joining the ranks calling for trade agreements that are not rammed down the public's throats and that in fact respond to true social and economic ramifications across the globe. We need to press for U.S. trade policy with provisions that do, indeed, protect the environment, not weaken environment and public health laws. We need to press for provisions that promote the advancement of stronger environmental standards. We need to press for provisions that can be effectively enforced. Fast Track, Mr. Speaker, is not the answer.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, naming a Federal courthouse in Youngstown after Nathaniel Jones and Frank Battisti is an ideal way to mark the contributions these men have made to their profession and their communities. Judge Nathaniel Jones once said he ``saw law as a way to effect meaningful changes in society and shape the destiny of individuals locked into second class status.'' The son of a steelworker and World War II veteran, Judge Jones spent his career as an advocate for better, fairer schools and discrimination-free workplaces. He worked alongside some of the greatest legal minds of our time, including Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His accomplishments as the general counsel to the NAACP caught the attention of President Carter, who appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. President Carter recognized that Judge Jones's exceptional understanding of how the legal process could remedy some of society's shortcomings would serve the country well on the bench. Many of us who have known Judge Jones over his career believe that if President Carter would have been reelected in 1980, he would have chosen Judge Jones to be a member of the United States Supreme Court. We can say the same kinds of accolades about Judge Battisti, who had the same kind of passion for social justice. He was an outstanding public servant appointed by President Kennedy. Judge Battisti never shied away from controversy. As others mentioned, his career on the bench included rulings on the antiwar protest at Kent State University and ending school desegregation in Cleveland. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and others, for giving us an opportunity to pay tribute to these distinguished sons of Ohio.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in response to the emergent threats of bioterrorism, Congress will take concrete steps in the coming weeks to strengthen our Nation's public health infrastructure. To fully prepare for the potential bioterrorist attacks, we will have to deal with a wide variety of public health issues including vaccinations and food safety and government stockpiling of antibiotics. In doing so, we must not forget to address the issue of antibiotic resistance. The links between antibiotic resistance and bioterrorism are clear. Antibiotic resistant strains of anthrax or other bacterial agents would be extremely lethal biological weapons, and they are already a reality. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, during the Cold War, Russian scientists engineered an anthrax strain that was resistant to the tetracycline and penicillin classes of antibiotics. We can only assume that anthrax and other bacterial agents could also be engineered to resist antibiotics, including new valuable antibiotic therapies like Cipro. Antibiotic resistance is also relevant to the threat of bioterrorism in other significant ways. The overuse and the misuse of antibiotics by physicians, patients, and hospitals renders bacterial agents more resistant to the antibiotic drugs that they are exposed to and could leave the Nation poorly prepared for a biological attack. It is a vicious cycle because the threat of bioterrorism can lead to the overuse and the abuse of antibiotics, people taking Cipro when they do not need it, for example, which in turn could make these antibiotics less effective against the agents of bioterrorism. During the last couple of months, thousands of Americans have been prescribed the antibiotic Cipro because of a legitimate risk of exposure to anthrax. That use of antibiotics is appropriate. But the thousands more who have sought antibiotic prescriptions for Cipro without any indication of need or even a risk of infection can be a problem. The widespread use of Cipro will kill bacteria that are susceptible to the drug, but will leave behind bacteria that are not. Those bacteria that are not killed will then have the opportunity to thrive and develop an even greater resistance to Cipro, requiring an alternative antibiotic to kill them and diminishing the overall effectiveness of Cipro. Many pathogenic bacteria that cause severe human illnesses are already resistant to older antibiotics like penicillin, as we all know. That is one reason newer antibiotics like Cipro are used to treat dangerous infections. With diseases like anthrax, it is important to find an effective therapy quickly. Any delay can result in the death of a patient, or in the case of a larger exposure, in the deaths of thousands of individuals. If the U.S. and the rest of the world begin using Cipro haphazardly, that antibiotic could lose its effectiveness also. 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 and other lethal agents. And to ensure the continued efficacy of our antibiotic stockpile, we must isolate emerging antibiotic-resistant pathogens, track antibiotic overuse and misuse, and monitor the effectiveness of existing treatments over time. Surveillance also provides the data needed to prioritize the research and development of new antibiotic treatments. Drug-resistant pathogens are already a growing threat to every American. Examples of important microbes that are rapidly developing resistance to available antimicrobials include the bacteria that cause pneumonia, ear infections, meningitis, and skin, bone, lung or bloodstream infections. That list also includes food-borne infections like salmonella, and the Nation's food supply could be a future target of bioterrorism. Under last year's Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), Congress authorized a grant program that would equip State and local health departments to identify and to track antibiotic resistance. To build upon this already authorized program, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I have asked the Committee on Appropriations to include at least $50 million for this grant program in the Homeland Security Supplemental Appropriations bill. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support that request. Let our appropriators know that this funding is critical to the viability of our main weapons against bioterrorism and other infectious diseases now and in the future.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of H. Con. Resolution 262, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). As thousands of steelworkers have discovered, the United States has become the world's steel dumping ground. During the 1998 steel crisis, steel imports into the United States exceeded steel exports by a record 36 million tons. The trade deficit in steel was a record $11 billion dollars, accounting for nearly 7 percent of our overall trade and growing trade imbalance. The vast majority of these imports were subsidized by foreign governments and dumped at below-market prices in our country. The American steel industry relies on anti-dumping laws as their last line of defense against unfairly traded imports. Unfortunately, since the Uruguay Round agreements, the steel industry's ability to defend itself has been severely weakened. At the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial in Doha, Qatar, several nations that export steel to the United States have set the weakening of international rules on trade laws as a major priority to be negotiated. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, simply cannot be allowed to travel to Qatar and negotiate away the remaining safety measures the steel industry has. That is why I support this resolution. Many of us are concerned about this WTO ministerial. We are, first of all, concerned because of the place it is located. It is located in a country which does not allow free elections. It is located in a country which does not allow freedom of expression. It is located in a country where women are treated not much differently from the way women are treated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is held in a country where public worship by non- Muslims is banned. The message that that sends to people around the world, that the trade ministers are meeting in a city and country where public protests will not be allowed, where free speech is not allowed, where public expression is not allowed, where freedom of worship is not allowed, where free elections are not allowed, is troubling. It is troubling because all too often our own trade minister, in this case Mr. Zoellick, has used in the past language to suggest that those of us that do not support his free trade agenda, his agenda to weaken environmental and labor standards around the world, that do not support his agenda are in some way unpatriotic or somewhat indifferent to the counterterrorism efforts promoted by the administration. While all of us I believe in Congress support the President's efforts to combat terrorism, both domestically and abroad, we do not subscribe to the values that Mr. Zoellick and others, and in part of the U.S. Trade Representative's office journey to Qatar, tend to suggest. That means that we hope coming out of this ministerial, again, even though it is located in a place that sends a message not of freedom, but of much less than that, we hope that the message that comes out of this meeting in Qatar is sort of the opposite of what goes in in terms of the message that holding in Qatar means, that we care about labor standards, environmental standards, free elections, freedom of worship, all the values that we in this country fight for and we in this country hold dear. That is another reason I think it is important to join the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) in support of H. Con. Res. 262. I ask House support for the resolution.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks U.S. Trade Rep Bob Zoellick has attempted to link fast track legislation to antiterrorism efforts. Some say he has questioned the patriotism of those of us who opposed fast track by pointing out that we 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 around the world. Fast track does not embody, Mr. Speaker, those American values that our U.S. trade rep has indicated. Fast track so often means weaker environmental standards. It means dealing with countries without free elections. It means dealing with wealthy families who usurp worker rights, oppress people in developing countries, and ultimately take American jobs. 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 to increase new jobs for American workers. But our history of flawed trade agreements has led to a trade deficit with the rest of the world that has surged to a record $369 billion. The 2000 trade deficit is 39 percent higher than the previous record set in 1999. The Department of Labor has reported that the North American Free Trade Agreement alone has been responsible for the loss of 300,000 jobs in this country. While our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and protect property rights, these agreements rarely include enforceable provisions to protect workers or to protect the environment. CEOs of multinational corporations tell Members of Congress that globalization stimulates development and allows nations to improve their labor and environmental records. They say interaction with the developing world spreads democracy. The facts speak differently. Democratic nations such as India are losing out to more totalitarian nations, such as China. Democratic nations such as Taiwan are losing out to authoritarian regimes, such as Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing country exports and manufacturing came from developing democracies; 10 years later, only 35 percent of developing country exports and manufacturing came from developing democracies. It is clear that corporations are relocating their manufacturing bases to more totalitarian regimes, where even the most minimal labor and environmental standards are often ignored. The fact is, Western business investors want to go to China, they want to go to Indonesia; they want to go to countries which are dictatorships, which have docile work forces, authoritarian governments and they are very predictable for Western investors. They do not go to India, they do not go to Taiwan, not to South Korea; they do not want to stay in this country many times because we have strong environmental laws, because labor unions can organize and bargain collectively, because good wages are paid, and because we have free elections. Western corporations instead want to invest in countries that have weak environmental standards, unenforced labor law, below-poverty wages, and where workers have no opportunities to bargain collectively. Flawed trade policies cost American jobs, put downward pressure on U.S. wages and working conditions, and erode the ability of local, State, and Federal governments to protect public health and to protect the environment. If we fail to include important labor and environmental provisions in future trade agreements, multinational corporations will continue to dismiss labor and protection of the environment as discretionary and wholly unnecessary expenses. Global working conditions will continue to suffer. We need in this body to press for provisions that promote workers' rights in all countries and promote economic advancement in all countries. The U.S. must continue to be a leader in setting standards for worker rights, for fair wages, for worker safety, and for environmental protection. In the last year, in this country, we have lost, since President Bush took office, 1 million industrial jobs. We have experienced economic slowdown, and we have experienced a drop in the stock market that we have not seen in a decade. Fast track will not solve that problem; fast track will make that problem worse. Our Nation cannot afford to sell its principles to the highest bidder. The global race to the bottom must be stopped and turned around. In 1998, fast track was defeated in this Congress 243 to 180. Fast track should be defeated again in Congress this year.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, think back to the late afternoon, early evening of September 11 when several gas stations in northeastern Ohio and across the Midwest and across the country raised their prices of gas to $4, $5, $6 a gallon. Some people would call that war profiteering. But something else happened in this Chamber in the last 8 weeks, something perhaps not much different that some have called political profiteering. First, this Congress passed a bailout bill giving the airlines $15 billion, no strings attached, no sacrifices from airline executives, no assistance for the 100,000 laid-off workers, no dollars for nor push toward any airline safety measures. Then last week, all in the name of rebuilding the economy that has obviously suffered a blow from September 11, this Chamber voted tax cuts for the richest people in the country, and very little for health care for laid-off workers, very little tax relief for those who need it, most making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. Then this political profiteering reached new heights as this week the United States Trade Representative Bob Zoellick has begun to link fast track legislation, giving the President trade promotion authority, linking that legislation to antiterrorism activities, pointing out that most of us who oppose fast track are indifferent to terrorism, questioning a bit our patriotism, and saying that we really do not share American values if we do not support fast track because that is the way to combat terrorism around the world. Mr. Speaker, fast track, to be sure, does not embody those American values that our U.S. Trade Representative has indicated. Simply look at the upcoming WTO, World Trade Organization, ministerial in Doha, Qatar. The people in Qatar, where trade ministers from all around the world and prime ministers and leaders from all around the world are converging, the people in Qatar have no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of religion, as pointed out by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in a Dear Colleague she sent around this week; no freedom of association, and in Qatar there are no free elections. Yet, the World Trade Organization ignored these abuses of personal freedom in selecting Qatar as the host for the World Trade Organization ministerial. Qatar's human rights record is not in line with American values, but it is familiar territory for many of corporate America's trading partners. Supporters of fast track say interaction with the developing world spreads democracy. But watch as we engage developing countries in trade and investment, democratic developing countries are losing ground to dictatorships, to authoritarian developing countries. Democratic nations such as India are losing out to the authoritarian communist nations such as China. Democratic nations such as Taiwan are losing out to autocratic nations such as Indonesia. In 1989, 57 percent of developing-country exports in manufacturing came from democracies. Since then the share of developing country exports from democracies fell 22 percent. Now 65 percent of developing country exports come from authoritarian countries. The fact is Western business investors want to go to China, want to go to Indonesia, want to go to countries which are dictatorships because they have docile workforces, authoritarian governments, 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 they do not want to stay in this country many times because we have strong environmental laws, 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, 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, where they do not care about the workers and the environment and food safety and all the things that we in this institution have fought for, American working families lose out. Our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and property rights. But these agreements do not include enforceable provisions to protect workers, either in the United States or abroad. Ambassador Zoellick's call for a blanket trade authority in the name of patriotism must be recognized for what it is, pure and simple political profiteering. I have watched this country respond to the events of September 11. The right response for American values is to vote no on trade promotion authority.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, antibiotic resistance is a major health threat that does not receive the attention it deserves. When bioterrorism is a prevailing concern, we can no longer afford to ignore or downplay the threat of antibiotic resistance. Introduced in the 1940s, antibiotics gave us a tremendous advantage in our fight against tuberculosis, pneumonia, typhoid, cholera and salmonella and many other long-term killers, but some bacteria exposed to antibiotics are able to survive. These antibiotic-resistant strains then flourish and pose a dangerous threat to public health. We in Congress cannot go home to our districts and say we have taken the steps necessary to prepare for future bioterrorist attacks unless and until we confront the issue of antibiotic resistance. The links between resistance and bioterrorism are clear. Antibiotic- resistant strains of anthrax and other microbes are recognized to be some of the most lethal forms of biological weapons. These weapons exist today. We know, first, that Russian scientists have developed a strain of anthrax that is resistant to penicillin and tetracycline. We can only assume that anthrax and other lethal agents will be engineered to resist newer antibiotics like Cipro. Overuse of antibiotics, misuse of antibiotics will render more microbes resistant to our current stockpile of drugs, potentially leaving the Nation poorly prepared in the event of bioterrorist attacks. As we have seen with the recent anthrax attacks, the broad- scale use of antibiotics associated with bioterrorism compounds the resistance problems, which in turn can render our existing antibiotics ineffective against future attacks. It is an alarming cycle. To adequately prepare for a bioterrorist attack, surveillance capabilities at the State and local levels are crucial. State and local health departments must be equipped to rapidly identify and respond to antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax and other lethal agents. To protect our antibiotic stockpile, we must be able to isolate emerging antibiotic-resistant microbes, monitor the ongoing effectiveness of existing antibiotics, and carefully track and discourage overuse and misuse of current antibiotic treatments. Surveillance also provides the data needed to prioritize the research and the development of new antibiotic treatments. Drug-resistant pathogens are a growing threat to every American. We cannot, we must not continue to treat this threat as a long-term issue and a lesser priority. It is an immediate threat, and we must deal with it now. Under last year's Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), Congress authorized a grant program that can equip State and local health departments to identify and to track antibiotic resistance. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I are requesting that the Committee on Appropriations include at least $50 million for this grant program in the Homeland Security supplemental appropriations bill, which we will take up either late this week or early next week. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to weigh in on this issue. Let the appropriators know that funding of antibiotic resistance is critical. We must help State and local health agencies combat antibiotic resistance. Our success against bioterrorism absolutely depends on it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, many years ago I was attending church with my father in the early 1960s; and he pointed to a gentleman sitting in the back of the church whom he had gone to high school with, and my dad said during World War II, when my dad and most people in the community went off to war, my dad told me this gentleman stayed home, feigned some injury and made a lot of money during the war. My dad referred to him, the first time I heard that term, as a war profiteer. I remember the night of September 11, 2001, when service stations around my district in Ohio and other States in the Midwest, when gas station owners raised their price on that evening to $4, $5, $6 a gallon, also something you might call war profiteering. Then I have watched this Congress respond to the events of September 11; and while in many cases the Congress and the President have worked well together, bipartisanly, putting differences aside, I have seen that same kind of profiteering, let us call it political profiteering, in the way that many people in the majority party have acted in response to September 11. For instance, Congress spent $15 billion to bail out America's airlines. They required no shared sacrifice from the executives, no give-backs from executives in bonuses and salaries. They spent not a dollar on airport security in this $15 billion gift to the airlines, and they gave nothing to the 100,000 workers laid off as a result of September 11. Turn the clock up a little bit further and look at what happened last week when Congress considered the bill to stimulate our economy. Instead of taking care of workers through health insurance, instead of taking care of laid off workers with unemployment compensation, instead of taking care of workers who got no tax break, people making $20,000 to $40,000 a year, instead of taking care of them, this Congress again, in the name of answering the problems of September 11, this Congress again gave huge tax cuts to the richest people in our society. Eighty-nine percent of the tax relief in the Republican stimulus package went to tax breaks for corporations, including a $25 billion gift to the largest companies in the country. IBM got $1 billion, General Motors got between $800 million and $900 million in checks from the Federal Government, all in the name of let us take care of September 11 and what is happening with the economy. Now we are seeing some leaders in this Congress, particularly Republican leaders in the Committee on Ways and Means and the Speaker, have said that in order to counter terrorism, we need to pass Fast Track, we need to give Trade Promotion Authority to the President, we need to extend NAFTA to Latin America. So what we are saying is we are sending our young men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan; then when they come back to this country looking for jobs, some of those jobs will have been sent abroad because this Congress has passed failed trade agreements for those workers laid off. There is not unemployment compensation; there is no help with their health care. When you talk about the events of September 11, Mr. Speaker, most of us talk about shared sacrifice. When this Nation has been troubled in World War I and World War II, there was shared sacrifice. Wealthy people actually paid a higher proportion of taxes, working people got some breaks on their taxes, working people got some benefits. This is all different this year; and the response to September 11, we have seen that kind of political profiteering from the majority party. When Democrats have worked with the President bipartisanly, we have seen instead bailouts for the airlines with nothing for the airline workers; we have seen tax cuts for the richest people in our society, but no health care for laid-off workers; no tax breaks for middle- income and working-class workers. And now this week we are going to see an ideological battle where the most conservative members of this body, in opposition to bipartisan legislation in the Senate, with airline security, we are going to see Republicans in the House continuing to try to push forward a failed airline security bill. In fact, I know people who are making $6 and $7 an hour that work at airport security, and some of them actually have left to go work at McDonald's because it pays better. Instead, we should federalize airport workers and security workers at the airports. They should be paid a living wage, they should be paid health insurance, they should be paid other benefits, and they should be trained better so they are there for a long time and they will do their job. Why should we continue this failed system of airline security, of airport security, all in the name of a conservative ideology? Mr. Speaker, it is time we believe in shared sacrifice. It is time we federalize the airport security people, that we build a tax system fair to all people, and that we take care of workers laid off and victimized by the events of September 11.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress cannot go home to our districts and say we have taken the steps necessary to prepare for future bioterrorist attacks unless and until we confront the issue of antibiotic resistance. The links between antibiotic resistance and bioterrorism are clear. Antibiotic resistent strains of anthrax and other microbes are among the most lethal of biological weapons, and they are a reality. There are published reports of an anthrax strain engineered by Russian scientists to resist the penicillin and tetracycline classes of antibiotics. We can only assume that anthrax and other lethal agents will be engineered to resist new antibiotics like Cipro. Antibiotic resistance is significant in other important ways. Overuse and misuse of antibiotics will render most microbes resistent to our current stockpile of drugs, potentially leaving the Nation poorly prepared in the event of biological attacks. To some extent this is a vicious cycle. Bioterrorist threats can lead to overuse of current antibiotics, which in turn render these antibiotics less effective against the lethal agents used in bioterrorism. Look at Cipro, for example. Widespread use of Cipro, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, would kill bacteria that are susceptible to Cipro. The bacteria that are not killed will be those that evolve resistance to Cipro. Those Cipro resistant bacteria then flourish unchecked unless an even stronger antibiotic is available to kill them. Many bacteria that cause severe human illness are already resistant to older antibiotics like penicillin. That is one reason the drug of choice is often one of the newer antibiotics like Cipro. If the U.S. and the rest of the world begin using Cipro indiscriminately, then Cipro, that antibiotic, will lose its effectiveness also. To adequately prepare for a terrorist attack, State and local health departments must be equipped to rapidly identify and respond to antibiotic resistant strains of anthrax and other lethal agents. And to ensure the continued efficacy of our antibiotic stockpile, we must isolate emerging antibiotic resistant pathogens, track antibiotic overuse and misuse, and monitor the effectiveness of existing treatments over time. Surveillance provides the data needed to prioritize the research and the development of new antibiotic treatments. Drug resistant pathogens are a growing threat to each of us as Americans. Examples of important microbes that are rapidly developing resistance to available antimicrobials include the bacteria that cause ear infections, that cause pneumonia, that cause meningitis, and skin and bone and lung and blood stream infections. Importantly, this list also includes food borne infections like salmonella. The Nation's food supply has been identified as a potential vehicle for future bioterrorist attacks. Experts across the public health spectrum have testified to the seriousness of antibiotic resistance. Congress should respond appropriately and quickly to these warnings before the threat of what could be becomes what is. Under last year's Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act sponsored by my colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), Congress authorized a grant program that equips State and local health departments to identify and to track antibiotic resistance. My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and I are requesting that the Committee on Appropriations include at least $50 million for this grant program in the Homeland Security supplemental appropriations bill, which this body will take up later this week. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to weigh in on this issue. Let the appropriators know that funding this is absolutely critical to our Nation. We must help State and local health authorities and State and local health agencies combat antibiotic resistance. Our ability to fight bioterrorism absolutely depends on it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Republican-leaning USA Today writes about the so-called stimulus bill. They write, ``The House takes up today a special wartime stimulus bill that is little more than good old-fashioned special interest giveaway. The Republican House has decided to repay corporate patrons for their years of campaign support. The House lavishes tax benefits,'' USA Today says, ``on just about everyone with a lobbyist. Companies get 70 percent of the tax cuts in 2002, and some of these breaks are permanent. These are times,'' USA Today says, ``that require everyone to put aside petty self-interest and everyday horse trading for the country's good. Yet House Republican leaders showed an unwillingness to do that with the refusal to consider federalizing the Nation's airport security system. Now they are at it again with their brazen attempt to use the current crisis to please well-heeled special interests.'' Mr. Speaker, excessive partisanship at this difficult time in our Nation's history is bad enough, but this kind of political profiteering by House Republicans is down right shameful.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule. I would also comment that the speaker from Arizona just talked about class warfare, something that Republicans love to talk about; but in fact, it is Republicans who commit class warfare on this floor every day by giving tax cuts to the rich over and over and over again and give so little to workers. All we do as Democrats is point out the fact that Republicans are committing class warfare. If you are a major corporation, this legislation is for you. But if you are a laid-off worker, if you do not have health insurance, this bill is woefully inadequate. The GOP bill gives damn near everything to many of America's largest corporations, to the tune, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pointed out, of hundreds of millions of dollars to each of these many corporations and so little to those who actually need help. We all know and we all celebrated and honored the heroes of September 11, and celebrated and honored those victims of September 11, those people who gave their lives in the rescue efforts. However, this bill has forgotten the victims all over the country, the victims of this recession, the victims of all that has happened prior to September 11 and since September 11. The Republican bill has nothing for health insurance, for instance, for family members who are left behind after the September 11 tragedy. The Republican bill sends none of the money for health insurance directly to laid-off workers, to people who have lost their insurance. The money goes through the States. And who knows how much of it actually ends up for health insurance for those workers that were laid off. The Republicans know that only a little bit, only a few hundreds of millions of dollars labeled for health care, will really provide meaningful health insurance. It simply is woefully inadequate. It is one-eighth the amount of money we put into health insurance in the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill understands that sometimes COBRA is a cruel hoax. People lose their jobs and then simply cannot afford to pay the extra two and three times the amount for health insurance that they were paying before. The Democratic plan takes care of COBRA by giving a 75 percent subsidy, takes care of Medicaid to those workers that have lost their insurance. The Republican bill does not seem to care because they are preoccupied with paying off their corporate contributors.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2269, the Retirement Security Advice Act of 2001.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of the concurrent resolution, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like a brief explanation from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the victims and the families, especially the firefighters and the police officers who gave their lives. Mr. Speaker, no words can properly express the emotions we all feel regarding the attacks in New York and Washington. My deepest sympathies go to the families and friends of those Americans taken from us in this brutal, senseless manner. Thousands of military, law enforcement, and rescue personnel are currently assisting the victims and piecing together the clues that will lead to the capture and appropriate punishment of the perpetrators of these horrendous acts. At this time of crisis in our nation, I urge all Americans to exercise patience and caution and to search for ways to help fellow citizens. I also urge my fellow Americans not to allow these unprovoked acts to diminish our shared faith in the United States or to compromise the values that make ours the freest country in the world. The celebrated resolve of the American people to overcome adversity must and will prevail. With the memory of those lost, America will persevere.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) calls this amendment the access amendment. It is also disingenuous. This amendment would reduce access to health insurance, not increase it. The gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) knows that. He knows this amendment has nothing to do with access; it has everything to do with helping a few individuals in a few businesses at the expense of the rest of us. It has everything to do with campaign contributions, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) pointed out earlier. Association health plans and MSAs make health insurance less expensive for a few healthy individuals and a few employers, while costs rise for every other individual and every other employer. Association health plans skim low-risk businesses from the rest of the insurance pool. Every other bill carries a larger burden when more risk is spread over fewer groups. Medical savings accounts, they can be a great deal when you are 100 percent healthy. When you are sick, they turn into an expensive disappointment. The Congressional Research Service estimates that commercial insurance premiums will increase 2 percent or more if association plans are permitted. Iris Lav and Emmett Keeler, two highly respected health services researchers, say that premiums for conventional insurance could more than double if MSA use becomes widespread. Last night at midnight, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) sold this House a bill of goods, $27 billion in tax giveaways to the Nation's oil companies. I ask my colleagues, do not buy it again. A real patients' bill of rights is not going to blow the top off insurance premiums, but association health plans and medical savings accounts, sweetheart deals for the fortunate few, certainly will. I urge Members to vote against the ill-conceived Thomas amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, in case the President has forgotten, the House of Representatives is the people's House. The people's House. It is not the insurance industry's House. We do not report to Aetna or to Prudential or to Blue Cross/Blue Shield or to Golden Rule; we report to the people, our districts, and the people of this country. Our job is to do what is in the best interests of the individuals we serve. It is not to sustain the health insurance industry's privileged position above the law. For over 4 years, my friends, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), have been repeating the same simple message: if HMOs face no consequences when they put consumers through the wringer, then HMOs will continue to put consumers through the wringer. Making HMOs face the consequences is not going to lead to skyrocketing insurance rates. For example, in the 3 years Texas has allowed HMO enrollees to sue, there has been only a handful of lawsuits. The right has not led to a flood of lawsuits or to higher premiums; it has led to legitimate health insurance, insurance that actually covers what it says it will cover. The key to addressing the problems so many of our constituents face when dealing with their insurer is to hold HMOs accountable for their actions. There is only one bill on the floor today that does not emasculate the external review and right to sue provisions to the point of meaningless mess. The Ganske-Dingell bill is the only bill on the floor today that does what it says it will do. It changes the rules of the game so that HMOs will not cheat the public. Unfortunately, the Fletcher bill and the Norwood-Bush bill cheat the public to protect insurance company HMOs. For more than 4 years, the public has been asking us to do something about HMOs that treat enrollees like an unwanted liability, rather than a paying patient. Putting the shoe on the other foot, making HMOs liable for the harm they do, is the best way to change their behavior. This is our chance to do the people's bidding. Let us do it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, some health plans systematically obstruct, delay and deny care. That is a fact. Earlier this year, Republicans and Democrats negotiated a bill that contains the minimum protections necessary to get health insurance back on track. Ganske-Dingell reminds HMOs that they are being paid to provide coverage, not excuses. And it contains a right to sue with enough teeth in it to deter health plans from cheating their enrollees, and enough definition to preclude frivolous lawsuits. Recourse in the courts is essential. If we tell HMOs that they are accountable, we must hold them accountable. Unfortunately, the Fletcher bill compromises away the two most important patient protections, leaving HMOs thrilled and consumers no better off. It provides a right to sue that cannot actually be exercised and a right to an external appeals process that simply cannot be trusted. We need to enact legislation that does not just sound like it protects patients but actually does protect patients. Ganske-Dingell fits that bill. I ask for House support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, for yielding time to me. Let me preface my statement by saying that I support the Jordan-U.S. trade agreement and plan to vote for it. That said, this agreement illustrates why this Congress must not relinquish our right to amend future trade agreements and why we must vote down Fast Track. When we look closely at this, we see the fingerprints of the brand- name drug industry all over it. This agreement provides protections for the drug industry more stringent than those established by the World Trade Organization. Look at the fine print of section 20 of Article 4 on intellectual property. Not only does this agreement impose barriers to generic access in Jordan that are greater than those in place here, it prevents the United States from using a WTO sanction mechanism, compulsory licensing, to bring down grossly inflated drug prices. The Jordan trade pact blocks the U.S. from ever enacting compulsory licensing law, now or in the future, to combat excessive drug prices. While Congress waited for the trade agreement to be negotiated, our drug industry convinced the U.S. Trade Representative to tie our hands and to tie Jordan's hands. It is outrageous that the drug industry can have this kind of influence, particularly when their pricing practices are robbing Americans blind. But that is what happens when Congress has too little oversight in trade agreements. If Fast Track passes, what will the future hold once the drug industry and other special interests know that Congress cannot amend the trade agreement? How many poison pills will we have to swallow or will the American public have to swallow? It is provisions like these, slipped into trade agreements, which are the reason why Fast Track is such a threat to the best interests of our constituents. While trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and protect property rights, these agreements rarely include enforceable provisions to protect workers in the U.S. or abroad. Like the Jordan agreement, corporations will slip provisions into the text that will abuse the most vulnerable of society. Three years ago, Fast Track was defeated in Congress, 243 to 180. Vote for the Jordan trade agreement but defeat Fast Track, which allows bad provisions in good trade agreements.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we obviously know this issue. In 1942, a standard was set of 50 parts per billion. Science in those days recognized that arsenic was dangerous, they recognized it was a toxic substance. We all knew that. We have seen the play and the movie. In 1942, when arsenic was set at 50 parts per billion, we did not know so much about arsenic as a potent carcinogen that can cause bladder cancer and lung cancer and skin cancer. We did not know it had been linked to kidney and liver cancer. We did not know in 1942 that it can be linked to birth defects and reproductive problems. We know that today. The World Health Organization has recommended that that number be brought to 10 parts per billion. The National Academy of Sciences has said the 50 parts per billion is much, much too high. State after State after State in this country has brought the number way down to 10 or less. The State of Washington has recommended a standard of 3 parts per billion. My State of Ohio has recommended a standard of 10 parts per billion. Massachusetts has supported a standard of 5 parts per billion. Alabama supported a standard of 10 parts per billion. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) mentioned the number of people in Michigan than in New York. In Ohio, 137,000 residents in my home State may be drinking water with arsenic above the levels recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Also the World Health Organization, in State after State after State in this country. We can choose to stay with the 1942 level, the level that was determined 49 years ago, the level that we would continue to share with Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, Bolivia, and a host of other countries; or we can bring our standard to 10, still exceeded by some countries, some countries are still more strict than 10, but we can bring our levels to 10 and join most of the rest of the industrialized democratic world. You sit here and think why would this administration want to keep it at 50? Why would this administration, even if it says it wants to bring it down, why would it delay what the EPA, after years of study recommended to come to 10, and you keep asking yourself why would this administration do that? We have heard this song before, but the administration clearly does not want to bring the standard down. It has delayed the standard, will not come to 10, likely, because all you got to do is look at the kind of people that are influential in this White House. On energy issues, the energy companies seem to have a major role to play in White House decision making. On the Patients' Bill of Rights, it is the insurance companies that seem to have a major role in policy in this administration. On prescription drug coverage for seniors, this administration, this Congress has done nothing substantive on this issue, likely because of the influence of the prescription drug companies, the big, huge drug firms in this country, the influence they have on the White House. Look at this issue. When you look at why won't they bring the standard for arsenic down to 10 parts per billion, why are they delaying this. This Republican Party received $5.6 million from the mining companies, $9 million from the chemical companies. Mr. Chairman, listen to the scientists. Do not listen to the political contributors. Listen to the scientists. Support the Bonior amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NASA funding included in this legislation, particularly as it relates to NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. Glenn Research Center provides over $1 billion a year to Ohio's economy. Over 12,000 jobs exist in Ohio thanks to Glenn Research Center. Glenn Research Center grants over $10 million a year to Ohio's universities, and NASA has an important impact on our everyday lives. Glenn Research Center has given us advances in biotechnology, to improve our health care, led in the development of quiet aircraft technology to minimize the noise in communities surrounding airports, and spearheaded research that benefits space travel. Glenn Research Center also developed a lightweight battery that enables energy storage in space, in our own laptops and cell phones. This Congress's investment in Glenn Research Center benefits every American. I am pleased the subcommittee has recognized the importance of Glenn Research Center. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).