Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to myself. Mr. Chairman, in developing countries, tuberculosis kills more than 2 million people a year, 1 person every 15 seconds. In India alone, 1,100 people die from tuberculosis every day. Tuberculosis is the greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide. Forty percent of HIV-positive people die due to tuberculosis-related complications. These statistics are staggering not just because of the sheer number of people affected, but because most people think we have eradicated TB. I was a senior in high school when the tuberculosis sanatorium closed in my community. Foreign travel has brought tuberculosis back to the U.S., often in its most lethal, drug-resistant form. We need to launch a smarter, better-funded effort to protect ourselves from tuberculosis. We have the means with medications and vaccines to stop TB. We need the means to adequately deploy these resources domestically and internationally to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. Here in Congress, we have gone from zero to $60 million in 3 short years in terms of funding. Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago, the institution had no financial commitment to the battle against worldwide tuberculosis. Three years ago Congress gave $12 million to anti- tuberculosis efforts, 2 years $35 million; and last year, we reached a milestone when Congress appropriated $60 million to combat international tuberculosis. Our commitment to international tuberculosis control has stimulated the involvement of other industrialized nations. Earlier this year, Canada made an important contribution to the World Health Organization's new tuberculosis drug facility. This facility will help provide much-needed drugs to those developing nations implementing tuberculosis treatment programs. The statistics on access to TB treatment worldwide are pretty grim. Fewer than one in five of those with tuberculosis are receiving directly observed treatment short course. Based on World Bank estimates, DOTS treatment is one of the most cost-effective interventions available costing just $20 to $100 to save a life, and producing cure rates of up to 95 percent even in the poorest country. Mr. Chairman, we have a small window of opportunity during which stopping TB can be cost-effective. The failure to effectively treat tuberculosis, which comes from incorrect or interrupted treatment and inadequate drug supplies, creates stronger tuberculosis strains that are resistant to today's drugs. An epidemic of multi-drug resistant TB could cost billions to control with no guarantee of success. MDR tuberculosis has been identified everywhere. It threatens to return tuberculosis control to the pre- antibiotic era in this country and abroad when no cure for tuberculosis was available. In the U.S., treatment normally costing about $2,000 a patient soars to $250,000 with MDR tuberculosis, and oftentimes, half the time, at least, those infected with MDR TB do not survive. To control tuberculosis more effectively, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of tuberculosis-control programs worldwide. That is why a commitment to a global strategy is necessary. WHO and U.S. tuberculosis experts have estimated that an additional $1 billion is needed annually to control tuberculosis. This amendment, the Brown-Morella-Wilson-Andrews-Green amendment, will set the pace for other countries to continue the good work that this Congress has begun. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and others have been generous in their support of tuberculosis. Mr. Chairman, we need to do more to save lives by supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to whom will the Export-Import Bank be responsible in offering its findings?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, can we expect this bill to be addressed in the near future?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank my colleague from Nebraska for offering his time. I join him in recognizing the importance that the U.S. cannot afford to promote the interests of companies that choose to break the rules on trade. I especially appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for giving us this time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on December 19, 2000, the Export-Import Bank approved an $18 million loan guarantee to modernize and improve production at Benxi Iron and Steel, China. The Department of Commerce has found Benxi's dumping margin on hot rolled carbon steel products to be 67 percent. So if it costs $100 to make and sell steel in China, they are selling it in the U.S. for $59. The Ex-Im Bank was urged against making this loan by former Secretary of Commerce Minetta and a bipartisan congressional coalition, but the Export-Import Bank still offered the loan guarantee to the Chinese company. The bank's action will increase the production of more steel in a world market which already has an excess raw steel production capacity of 270 million metric tons excess. The last few years have been disastrous for the steel industry. Bankruptcy at, for instance, Ohio CSC, Republic Technologies and LTV were not caused by a crisis in the economy, but in fact demand for steel has been at record levels in recent years. These problems were caused primarily by unfairly traded imports that have led the Department of Commerce to approve a number of anti-dumping orders on a variety of steel products. The issue of dumping has also been acknowledged by the administration's actions regarding the 201 investigation on steel. Yet while we enforce laws against dumping, the Ex-Im Bank actually offers assistance to foreign manufacturers that threaten our companies. The ITC is also investigating cases concerning a wide range of industries from crude oil to textiles to agriculture. The U.S. Government should prevent foreign producers from sending their dumped, illegal products into this market. Organizations such as the Ex-Im Bank should refrain from providing financial support to foreign companies that break the rules. The Ex-Im Bank should not rush to offer U.S. funds to a foreign company that is cheating the U.S. economy. These companies that achieve assistance from the Nation's programs should not undermine the livelihood and future of our workers. Today I have the privilege to be joined by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I would ask the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), his bill, if I could engage in a colloquy, H.R. 2517, reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank. Does this legislation identify the concerns of the steel industry and address the issue of trade dumping?

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would again ask the House support of this amendment. The House has moved in the right direction in tuberculosis funding over the last 4 years. The House of Representatives and the Senate and the President by signing the legislation in the past have not just pushed the ball forward but have been the catalyst for other nations around the world, especially Canada, the Netherlands and philanthropists around the world to fully fund more antituberculosis efforts. It has made a difference and saved hundreds of thousands of lives around the world. We have the opportunity to do even more. I ask the House support for the Brown-Wilson-Morella-Andrews-Green amendment.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment to shift the $100 million from aid to Colombia's military to global health programs. Since Plan Colombia began last year, the human rights situation has worsened. There are reports of atrocities both by right-wing paramilitary groups and left-wing guerrillas. The AUC paramilitary group has gone on a bloody rampage across Colombia, massacring hundreds of civilians. In the Naya River Valley and other places throughout Colombia, the military has failed to take sufficient steps to prevent paramilitary massacres, despite ample public warnings about the attacks. Our own State Department has documented the ongoing links between the Colombia military and the paramilitaries. According to the State Department, impunity for military personnel who collaborate with members of paramilitary groups is all too common. Mr. Chairman, we have a great opportunity on the floor of the House. We have an opportunity to cut $100 million out of $2 billion, but $100 million which will, on the one hand, curb human rights abuses and, on the other hand, take that $100 million and spend it on maternal health and on polio and on tuberculosis control. When we look at what the world has done in the last 20 years when we have the resources, it is clear that $100 million can be spent very, very well. In one state in India a couple years ago because of government and public health authorities involvement in a tuberculosis pilot project, they reduced the death rate by 94 percent from tuberculosis in that one state in India. Polio was eradicated in the Western Hemisphere in 1991. The last case was in Peru because of government health authorities and NGOs and others making that commitment. Since then we have almost eradicated polio around the world and should have eradicated it by 2005. In one day in 1999, in the country of India, where NGOs from around the world and public health authorities from around the world and the government of India concentrated on vaccinations that day and immunized, in one day in India in December, 1999, 134 million children. The point, Mr. Chairman, is when we use these public health resources well, we can make a big difference. The McGovern amendment does that. It is a small but important step in our efforts to eradicate infectious disease, to curb human rights abuses and to make this world a more healthy place.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on June 13 of this year, a bill was introduced that would give President Bush fast track authority essentially to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, to all of Latin America. 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 create new jobs for American workers. Yet, our history of flawed trade agreements has led to a trade deficit with the rest of the world that has surged to $369 billion a year. The Department of Labor recently reported a very conservative estimate that NAFTA alone has been responsible for the loss of more than 300,000 jobs. Other estimates have shown NAFTA job losses at upwards of 1 million jobs. While our trade agreements go to great lengths to protect investors and to protect property rights, these agreements do not typically include enforceable provisions to protect workers, either in the United States or around the world. Yet, the Bush administration would employ the same corporatecentric process that has resulted in tried agreements like NAFTA. In the global marketplace, labor and environmental concerns in the developing world are never on the list of corporate priorities. CEOs of multinational corporations tell us that allowing globalization will stimulate development and allow nations to improve their labor and environmental records. They say interaction with the developing world will spread democracy. But as we engage with developing countries in trade and investment, democratic countries of the developing world are losing grounds to those with more authoritarian regimes. Democratic nations such as India are losing out to more totalitarian governments such as China. Democratic nations such as Taiwan lose out to authoritarian regimes such as Indonesia, where profits come before any kind of environmental regulations or human rights. In manufacturing goods, for example, developing democracies' share of developing country exports fell 22 percentage points, from 57 percent to 35 percent. Corporations relocate their manufacturing bases to countries with more authoritarian regimes where even the most minimal labor, environment, and human rights standards do not exist. Western corporations want to invest in countries that have poor environmental standards, have below-poverty wages, have no labor rights, and no opportunities to bargain collectively. As American investment moves abroad, American working families lose out. Now President Bush says he will be asking for fast track authority that puts corporate interests before working American families. Future trade deals with a take-it-or-leave-it approach would only add to the long line of ill-conceived trade policies. Flawed trade policies cost American jobs, put downward pressure on U.S. wages and U.S. working conditions, and erode the ability of governments to protect public health and protect the environment. In 1998, under the leadership of progressive Members of this body, fast track was defeated in Congress overwhelmingly, 243 to 180. Fast track should be defeated in Congress again this year. More and more Members of Congress are joining the ranks calling for trade agreements that respond to the social ramifications of a global economy. We need to press for a U.S. trade policy, Mr. Speaker, that is good for American families.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who believes we should not award China's human rights abuses with WTO membership and the Olympics. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who understands that the facts show that Western investors prefer totalitarian countries more than democratic countries because Western investors like the docile workforce that China provides.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, a year ago corporate CEOs flocked to the Hill to lobby for increased trade with China. They talked about access to 1.2 billion Chinese customers, but their real interest was in 1.2 billion Chinese workers. CEOs tell us that democracies will flourish with increased trade; but, as the last decade showed, democratic nations in the developing world, such as India, are losing out to totalitarian governments such as China, where people are not free and the workers do as they are told. In the post-Cold War decade, the developing democratic nations' share of developing country exports to the U.S. fell from 54 percent to 35 percent. Decisions about Chinese economy are made by three groups: the Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, and western investors. Which of these three groups wants to empower workers? Does the Chinese Communist party want the Chinese people to enjoy increased human rights? I do not think so. Does the People's Liberation Army want to close the labor camps? I do not think so. Do western investors want Chinese workers to bargain collectively and be empowered? I do not think so. None of these groups, the Chinese Communist party, the People's Liberation Army, or western investors, none of these groups has any interest in changing the status quo in China. All three profit too much from the situation the way it is to want to see human rights improve in China, to want to see labor rights improve on China. Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the Rohrabacher-Brown resolution. Send a message to the Communist party in China.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who believes we should not reward a nation that uses slave labor to sell products to the United States.