Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 58 and in support of trade agreements that put people before corporate profits, trade agreements that act as if human beings mattered. Today we are debating whether to give the very same multinationals that last month succeed in gaining NAFTA for Africa and higher trade surpluses with China, whether to give those same multinationals more government-backed guarantees to protect their investments in another poor nation with a horrible human rights record, a nation with absolutely no worker rights or religious or political freedoms, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Think about that, because that is what the President's waiver does. It is a green light for businessmen and businesswomen to take advantage of another people's misfortune, of their inability to organize political change in the face of overwhelming government opposition. We are asking our constituents, the men and women who voted us into office, to back American corporations that want to do business with a Communist dictatorship that reviles the very form of government that lets us debate this measure. This is a government that for the last 20 years has arrested, tortured and put hundreds of thousands of people into prisons and reeducation camps for crimes like forming independent trade unions, for worshiping in churches, for, quote, using freedom and democracy to injure national unity. The Vietnamese people should have the opportunity to earn better wages, to live longer and healthier lives, to enter into better relationships with the United States and the rest of the world. However, rubber-stamping the President's waiver makes a mockery of our Constitution and the provisions in the 1974 Trade Act that uphold human rights, that uphold worker rights, that uphold religious rights. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would join us in affirming that human rights and those principles that our country stands for do count for something. We should not just waive them. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to support trade agreements that require nations to first enter the family of nations, agreements that support free trade between free people.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. We have heard a variety of arguments as to why we should abandon ties with India, and frankly none of them make sense. The fact is that India, the world's largest democracy, is becoming more closely aligned with the United States and is increasingly important to us as a trading partner and a strategic partner. Over a quarter of a million people are expected to vote in India's fall elections, free and fair elections open to every citizen of every religion of every region of every race. Think about that. A nation of 1 billion people with a free and open press practicing democracy. This amendment sends the wrong message to the billions of people around the world who yearn for a secular stable political system, a political system in this country that our Founding Fathers believed should be based on universal freedoms. It sends the wrong message to the best allies that the United States will ever have, the world's fledgling democracies, whether they are the people of India, the people of Taiwan, or the people of Mali. Mr. Chairman, I ask for opposition to the Burton amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask for my colleagues' support for this amendment which I introduced with my distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). I also especially want to thank both the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for their untiring devotion on this issue this evening and consistently over their careers to eradicating infectious diseases and alleviating global poverty. Mr. Chairman, even though tuberculosis is an easily preventable and curable disease, it is one of the leading infectious killers in the world. The World Health Organization estimates that if left unchecked, TB could kill more than 70 million people around the world in the next 2 decades, while simultaneously infecting nearly 1 billion more. Mr. Chairman, TB is already the leading killer of HIV positive individuals. It kills more women than any other cause of maternal mortality. TB remains a vicious killer, despite the fact that this disease is both preventable and curable. In fact, TB will kill more people this year than any other year in history. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would reduce fiscal year 2000 funding for the International Military Education and Training Program from $50 million to $45 million, and increase fiscal year 2000 Child Survival and Disease funding from $680 to $685 million. Mr. Chairman, it is our intent that this $5 million will be added to TB prevention and treatment programs, which are woefully underfunded at $30 million, $20 million less than the government plans to spend on training foreign military officials in the United States. The WHO has warned that poorly managed TB treatment programs, caused by a lack of sufficient funding, are causing drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis to emerge which, in all likelihood, would render TB incurable. Inadequate funding for TB programs in many countries, because the proper series of boosters are not administered, is creating a super strain of the virus that does not respond to treatment. Already 50 million people are estimated to be infected with multi- drug-resistant TB. It can be spread just by coughing, and with international travel, none of us is safe from it. Even in the U.S. and other industrialized nations, this super strain of tuberculosis kills half of the people infected. That is a national security concern. We can predict a coming plague, and are doing, for all intents and purposes, almost nothing to stop it. Internationally, TB is a huge economic and social drain on economies. It kills 2 to 3 million adults. It plunges families into poverty and orphans millions of children. Gro Brundtland, the Director General of the WHO, has said, ``Our greatest challenges in controlling tuberculosis are political rather than medical.'' The World Health Organization has further stated that we are at ``a crossroads in TB control.'' It can be a future of expanded use of effective treatment and the reversal of this epidemic, or it can be a future in which multi-drug-resistent TB increases, millions more die, and millions become ill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important step in our efforts to once and for all consign tuberculosis to the same trash heap as other eradicated diseases, like smallpox. While this bill contains $30 million to fight TB in the coming year, thanks in large part to the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), this amount is not enough to control one of our planet's greatest killers. The Brown-Morella amendment will boost tuberculosis prevention funding and treatment funding by nearly 17 percent, and sends a message to the most desperate people in the world that we hear their plight and we will come to their assistance. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the Communist Chinese government once again had its way with this Congress when this body voted trading privileges for perhaps the most repressive, corrupt regime in the world. American CEOs and Washington attorneys again had their way with Congress even though we have a trade deficit with China of $65 billion and growing annually. Beijing and its Communist Party leaders again had their way with this Congress this week even though this Communist Chinese government supports forced abortions, persecution of Christians and Muslims, sale of nuclear technology to Pakistan, child labor and slave labor. But there was good news, Mr. Speaker, in the vote this week. The vote was closer than it had been in many, many years. Members of this body are beginning to understand and beginning to show that they care about human rights, care about nuclear proliferation, and care about democracy in China. All of us need to demand that China enter the family of nations before they enter the World Trade Organization.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 57, to deny trading privileges to the People's Republic of China. Every year when we debate this issue, America's CEOs stream into Ronald Reagan Airport seeking special favors for the world's worst abuser of human rights. They are helped by former government officials that know how the machinery of government operates, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, and former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor. This fall, Mr. Speaker, ``Fortune'' magazine is sponsoring a 3-day business trip to China. This gala, which CEOs by invitation only of the largest companies in America will attend, will feature dinner with the world's leading Communist, Jiang Zemin, and will feature lunch with Henry Kissinger. It concludes just prior to the celebration on October 1 of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the 50th anniversary of the victory of communism, the 50th anniversary of the ``who-lost-China'' debate. These CEOs from America's largest companies, many of them will travel from Shanghai to Beijing on October 1 to watch a parade in Tiananmen Square. As this military hardware from the People's Republic of China goes by and is viewed by America's most prosperous and successful CEOs, most prosperous capitalists as they watch this Communist parade go by, as ludicrous as this all sounds, it is safe to say there probably will not be much discussion by these CEOs to each other or to Communist leaders about the forced abortions in China, probably not much discussion about nuclear weapons sales, technology sales to Pakistan, probably not much discussion about persecution of Christians, probably not much discussion among these capitalists and Communists about China's slave labor camps or its child labor or all of its human rights abuses. Mr. Speaker, we should vote ``yes'' on this Rohrabacher resolution. We should demand to see if China, for only 1 year, can stop its human rights abuses; we should demand to see if China, for only 1 year, can stop its use of slave labor and child labor; we should demand if China, for only 1 year, can stop threatening the democracy, the democracy next door, Taiwan; and we should demand, if only for 1 year, that China open up its markets so that instead of a $65 billion trade deficit, persistent trade deficit we have with that country, that maybe we could deal on an equal footing. Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on H.J. Res. 57 is an opportunity to send a message to the American business community and most importantly to the thugs that run the Communist Party in China. It is an opportunity to send a message that this kind of behavior that they have exhibited is no longer acceptable.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which would strike provisions of the energy and water appropriations bill to require closing the Chicago headquarters of the Great Lakes in the Ohio River division of the Army Corps of Engineers. The division has a headquarters in Cincinnati as well as in Chicago. Both offices are important to serving the needs of the region. This energy and water bill contains no funds for fiscal year 2000 for the Chicago headquarters. The office would have almost no notice before closing at the end of the current fiscal year. There would not be sufficient time for a smooth transition to the Cincinnati office. The result would be confusion and delays and loss of institutional memory for the programs that are currently run out of the Chicago headquarters. Closing the Chicago headquarters would significantly impair our relationships with Canada for the purposes of managing and preserving Great Lakes and other boundary waters. A mission of the Army Corps that is especially significant to the Great Lakes is the support that it provides for the International Joint Commission. The U.S. and Canada created the IJC to cooperatively manage the lake and river systems along the border to protect them for the benefit of today's citizens and future generations. The Army Corps has responsibilities under the Great Lakes water quality agreement which coordinates with the EPA's Great Lakes national program office and with the Great Lakes regional office of the IJC, both of which are in Chicago. Maintaining the Army Corps' involvement in these binational responsibilities will be especially critical in the coming year as the Great Lakes region prepares to address the issue of water diversion and international water sales. Even short disruption of the agency's regional leadership structure could have serious negative effects on its contribution to this important process. Last year, Mr. Chairman, a Canadian firm tried to implement a plan for balk sales of Great Lakes water to customers in Asia. The company has stepped back for the time being while our two governments study the issue of water diversions. But we know more attempts will be made to extract and sell our water. In Ohio, we rely on Lake Erie for much of our region's well being. It is important to safeguard the Great Lakes for the future, and the Army Corps office in Chicago we believe has a key role to play.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from California. As she has pointed out in the past, other years leading up to the vote on what was called before MFN, most-favored-nation status, the Chinese have done a few nice things. They might help us a little bit on foreign policy. They might release some prisoners, some political prisoners. But this year, interestingly, as time has approached for the most favored nation status, the Chinese Communists are so arrogantly confident that they are going to win this vote in this Congress, that they have not released any prisoners. They have actually arrested at least 10,000 religious people simply practicing their religion. They put more people in camps. They have gone the opposite direction. That is why it is so important, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) says, that our colleagues send messages to the Chinese Communists that we do not like what they are doing. Now, we know that we are not going to win this vote tomorrow. But if we lose this vote overwhelmingly, we know we are not going to get most favored nation status put aside, but we know if we lose overwhelmingly, it simply says to the Chinese, keep doing what you are doing because nobody in this country cares. That is why it is so important. One more point the gentlewoman from California made is she suggested so much of this whole policy with China is shrouded in myths. The gentlewoman had mentioned that the Chinese Government supposedly is helping us stabilize South Asia, and that is clearly a myth that she exploded. The gentlewoman has said that the opponents accuse us of wanting to isolate China from us and from the rest of the world. That clearly is not true. Another myth is that the Chinese have been there to help us in North Korea in a very destabilizing or unstable situation. The gentlewoman exploded that myth. The other myth that we hear over and over, and I have heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) talk about so many times, is how, if we engage with China, that democracy will come to that country, the more business development, the more economic interaction, the more trade between the two countries, that China will become a freer country. Yet, when we look at the last 10 years since Tiananmen Square, when we look at everything from the trade deficits to the forced abortions to the selling of weapons to Pakistan, nuclear ring technology to Pakistan, to smuggling AK-47s into the harbor in the city of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), to all the kinds of persecution of religious minorities, to what they have done in Tibet, all of those things beg that question, are things getting better? Is China getting more democratic because we are engaging with them? There is clearly no evidence that China has gotten more democratic as we engage with them. In fact, what we really are doing is strengthening the People's Liberation Army and strengthening the Communist party leaders in China. Why are we so naive when we look at history with Nazi Germany as they grew and got more developed and economically better off and got to be a stronger wealthier country. They used that economic power and that technology and that wealth to kill more Jews, to kill more gypsies, to declare war on more countries, to engage in the kind of militarist kind of expansionism that they were so well known for. The same issue goes on with the Chinese. Just simply looking at it in the simplest way, why should the Chinese change the way they do things when they get most favored nation station and they get these economic benefits from the United States? That is what the Chinese Communist leaders, they like the system this way. Clearly, they have benefited from this system. The PLA, the People's Liberation Army, they benefit from the system this way. They do not want democracy. The American corporate leaders, the investors in the major corporations, they benefit from Chinese policy this way. So the people that are really running this policy, the U.S. corporate executives, the People's Liberation Army, and the Chinese Communist leaders, they like the system the way it is. They do not want democracy. The People's Liberation Army does not want democracy. The corporate leaders in the United States that invest in China do not want labor unions to form in China. They do not want free movement of workers at their choice, moving around at the workers' choice. They do not want the kind of things that we believe in this country and the American values that we hold so dearly. So why should more prosperity for the leaders in China, the top government officials, the top leaders and the generals and the colonels in the People's Liberation Army and the U.S. company executives, why should more money there make them want democracy more? They like the system the way it works. I think the proof of that is, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and I have talked many times, is if one looks back in February of 1989, the U.S. State Department issues a report every year about human rights around the world. If one looks, I was leafing through this report, it is a pretty long report, it is country by country. It is called the Country Reports on Human Rights. The State Department uses language talking about Serbia and Kosovo, the treatment of the Kosovars by the Serbs, by the Yugoslav government. They also, if we flip a few pages forward, and we look at the language we describe, the Chinese Government's treatment of Tibetans, and the language is almost identical paragraph by paragraph. We declared and bombed Serbia because of their treatment of Kosovo and their treatment of people in Kosovo, yet we give trade advantages to China when they are treating their Tibetan minorities almost exactly the same way. What kind of coherent government policy is that when we bomb one country and we give trade advantages to another for almost the exact same behavior as interpreted by our government. This is not some whacko group. This is the U.S. Government State Department saying we are treating people, and that the Serbs treat people in Kosovo the same way that Beijing government treats people in Tibet. It is morally bankrupt and absolutely incredible. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago last month, China's Communist dictatorship sent its tanks and armored carriers crashing through the pro-democracy protest in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Hundreds of innocent protesters were crushed to death, hundreds more were mowed down by machine gun fire, hundreds more were arrested and executed. The men and women who gave their lives for freedom in Tiananmen Square in Beijing and those who are still languishing in Chinese prisons are in many ways the heirs to the legacy of our Founding Fathers. In the days leading up to their slaughter, they quoted Jefferson not Mao. Their source of inspiration was not Mao's Little Red Book, but our Statue of Liberty. We all witnessed the lone man blocking those oncoming tanks. For that individual at that time, freedom and democracy were ideals that were absolutely worth dying for. Tonight we stand here in remembrance of that man who stood in front of the tank and the countless other Chinese people who chose Thomas Jefferson over Mao Tse-Tung. We stand here in consolation with their bereaved mothers and fathers who still cannot find their daughters and sons, whether they disappeared in Tiananmen Square or whether they disappeared in Tibet. But most of all, we stand in defiance to those who would continue to sacrifice the freedom and democracy for the Chinese people on the alter of free trade. Wei Jingshang, a democracy activist that spent nearly two decades in Chinese prison for his political beliefs once told me that American corporate executives, not Chinese spies, not Mao Tse-Tung, not the thugs who run the slave labor camps, but that American corporate executives are the vanguard of the Chinese Communist Party revolution in the United States. He is right. There is no issue before Congress that has lobbied more heavily than giving the People's Republic of China continued trading privileges, and while virtually every Nation, other Nation in the world retains Washington lobbyists to do their bidding, China relies on the business community to do its heavy lifting in this city. Every year, when we debate most favored nation status for China, every year when we debate this issue, American CEO's stream into Ronald Reagan Airport seeking special favors for the world's worst abuser of human rights. They are helped by former government officials, high- ranking American former government officials that know how the machinery of our government operates including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, and former U.S. Commerce Secretary Mickey Cantor. For those who do not agree with my assessment, I recommend you contact the editors of Fortune Magazine who, this fall, are sponsoring a 3-day business trip to Shanghai. This trip including dinner with President Jiang Zemin and a luncheon with Henry Kissinger will outline and thank these American business corporations, these American corporate executives, for their work in China. After the conclusion of their gala in Shanghai, many of these corporate CEO's plan the next day, October 1 of this year, to go to Beijing and celebrate with Communist party leadership the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, the 50th anniversary of the victory of communism in China. Just think about that. American corporate leaders, some of the wealthiest, most successful, most well-paid corporate leaders in the United States will travel to Beijing and stand and sit at Tiananmen Square with leaders of the Communist Party revolution celebrating 50 years of communist rule in China and celebrating frankly, maybe implicitly, but frankly celebrating the deaths of those hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of demonstrators for democracy that were following Thomas Jefferson, not Mao Tse-Tung. But much of the equipment on display as they sit in Beijing and watch this parade in Tiananmen Square, that much of the equipment on display on October 1 of this year they know has been financed by China's enormous bilateral trade surplus and incorporated stolen U.S. technology. Apparently, that is of little concern to America's most prosperous and well-paid CEOs. After all, these CEOs and their Wall Street allies do not seem to care much if the shelves at the Lorain, Ohio, K-mart are lined with goods manufactured by Chinese prison labor. Their lawyers in Washington do not care much if Chinese workers are imprisoned for trying to form unions. And these well-paid CEO's do not seem to care much that some of these companies that they contract with in China are paying Chinese workers 12 cents an hour, those that are being paid at all, not to mention those that are in Chinese slave labor camps and working for these American companies. But it should bother all of us that after 10 years, that 10 years after the slaughter at Tiananmen Square, American citizens, some of our wealthiest corporate leaders that benefit from living in a free and open society, will be actively celebrating communism in China and, at the same time, actively celebrating the demise of democracy in China, the harsh realities at the ongoing genocide in Tibet, the continued arrest and torture of democracy activists, the proliferation of nuclear technology in North Korea, the forced abortions conducted by Chinese Communist leaders, the persecution of Christians and Buddhists and all religions in China; none of this seems much to matter to the leaders of our corporate community in this country. To this I say the most effective way to toughen our relationship with China is to deny it special trading privileges. Every year, many of us have prodded the Republican leadership in this body to force China to improve its behavior before giving it preferential trade status. China buys, we buy from China approximately $75 billion worth of goods from that country every year. China buys from us about $12 billion worth of goods. We sell more to Belgium with 1/120 of the population of China, we sell more to Belgium in a year than we sell to China. We have a $65 billion trade deficit. We sell $75 billion, we buy $75 billion worth of goods from them. They buy $12 billion worth of goods from us. These trade benefits give Chinese Communist dictators the billions of dollars. Last year, it was nearly 60 billion, the billions of dollars and the commercial technology needed to modernize the People's Liberation Army. Yet each year, many of the same Members of Congress who are the loudest in their criticism of the Clinton administration's China policy vote to give Beijing preferential trade status. Mark my words. After the vote on Tuesday on MFN, after this Congress will again support the morally bankrupt position of the Clinton administration and the Republican leaders in Congress, many of those Members on the other side of the aisle after voting to give preferential trade status to China will be yelling and screaming about the President's wrong position admittedly, but wrong position on his whole China policy. Yet when it comes time to step up to the plate tomorrow and vote on most favored nation status, I hope they would come over and join those of us on both sides of the aisle that realize how corrupt this whole process is. Mr. Speaker, what we need to do before granting China special trade privileges is condition their behavior on something other than a whole series of broken promises. I am weary of continued Chinese Communist promises that they will behave, that they will play fair, that they will stop the human rights abuses, that they will stop the forced abortions, that they will stop the child labor, that they will stop the slave labor. I would like to quote his mentor, Soviet leader Lenin when he said: ``Promises are like pie crust, they are made to be broken.'' Mr. Speaker, I asked the administration, I asked the Republican leadership in this body, I asked the American business community, so strongly supportive of MFN for China and so strongly supportive of World Trade Organization entry for China immediately, I asked them to step back and let us see if China can behave for 1 year, just only 1 year. We should demand to see if China can stop its human rights abuses for only 1 year. We should demand to see if China can stop using slave labor for only 1 year. We should demand to see if China can stop child labor if only for 1 year, and we should demand that China stop threatening Taiwan before receiving another dollar from U.S. consumers, for only 1 year. We must not give China special trading privileges until we see proof that its Communist rulers are capable of abiding by the rule of law. That is all we ask, Mr. Speaker. Let us wait a year. Let us not give China Most Favored Nation status. Let us not give China these trading privileges until they can prove to the American people and to their workers and to their citizens and their country that only for 1 year they can act like most of the rest of the world that is integrated into this world economy and the World Trade Organization and throughout the world economy. Just ask for 1 year, if China could behave itself, if China could join the League of Nations, to join the community of nations and act like the rest of us, who treat workers decently, who do not engage in human rights violations the way that China does. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) from the neighboring county, Cuyahoga County, who has been an active participant and leader in this fight against Most Favored Nation status for China.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to Congress's foremost leader on this issue, who has a greater understanding of U.S.-China policy than any other Member of this body, and who has led the charge against Most Favored Nation status in large part because of her belief in fair play and human rights, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I simply want to close with an exhortation to our Members to vote in support of the Rohrabacher resolution tomorrow which will deny Most Favored Nation status to China. The importance of a ``yes'' vote tomorrow in support of the Rohrabacher resolution is to send a message to the Chinese that the kind of behavior from persecution of people practicing their religion, to closing of their markets, to human rights violations, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the only way to get the message that this body is unhappy and does not tolerate that kind of behavior is a ``yes'' vote tomorrow on the Rohrabacher resolution.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if we think about what the gentlewoman from California just said, the message that this country and the NATO forces sent to Slobodan Milosevic was, do not do what you are doing in Kosovo. No ethnic cleansing, no waging war against your people, no throwing people into prison, no violence, no more of that kind of activity. The message that we are sending to Chinese Communist leaders for what they do to the Tibetans and what they do in slave labor camps is, it is okay. We do not care. In fact, we might even reward it by giving you trade advantages and letting you into the World of Nations. I ask the gentlewoman from California to tell us, she in the past has been so involved in this issue for her entire 13 years as a Member of this body, I think it is so important to send a message to our colleagues. But the gentlewoman has recounted in other years, prior to the vote, the Chinese Government has released a few prisoners here and there. This year, it is the exact opposite. I ask the gentlewoman from California to recount that if she would to our colleagues who need to understand how important it is to send that message that the Chinese Communist party behavior is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) very much for his leadership on this issue and recognize that several other Members will be joining us, and I thank my colleagues for their involvement. On one point that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) said that is especially noteworthy is that the rules we set for China are the same rules, if we give them Most Favored Nation status, as it unfortunately is always the case, the same rules we set for a tiny country. They are also the same rules we set for free countries, and if we look at what makes China so attractive to western investors, the subsidies given by the government, the slave labor that the Chinese use, the child labor that the Chinese use, their ban on the right to freely associate, that workers can bargain collectively, their restriction of movement of workers so that workers are unhappy and cannot move somewhere else; all of these features that are attractive for American western investment in China is what should disqualify them from Most Favored Nation status. The fact is, when China pays 12 cents an hour to workers, when they do not follow any environmental rules, when they do not treat their workers well, when they do all of the kinds of things that violate international labor standards, they are not competitive with the rest of the world; no one can compete when workers are treated that way. That is one reason that steel workers in the United States are at a disadvantage and auto workers and all the people that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I represent in northeast Ohio and so many others in this institution represent, when the Chinese do not play by the same rules as everyone else, whether it is slave labor or child labor or 12 cents an hour wages, not to mention forced abortions and religious persecution and all kinds of human rights violations, when they do not play by those rules, clearly, there is no reason we should give them trade advantages so that they can continue to take advantage of other countries around the world.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. What is so ironic during this process is that China wants to be a member of the World Trade Organization, to be accepted in the community of nations permanently. Yet during this last 3 or 4 or 5 years that they have been wooing the United States and other countries into admission or accession into the WTO, look at their behavior, everything from the nuclear ring technology to Pakistan, to slave labor, to child labor, to the closing of the markets, to the forced abortions, to the persecution of Christians, and the human rights violations. That is their behavior when they have been wooing us, when they want admission into this organization, when they want WTO accession. Once they are in, and I hope they are never in the World Trade Organization, then we will have no leverage with them. That is another debate for another day, but that is so important to understand, that their behavior has been so outrageous and so outside the mainstream of world values and world opinions and world behavior that it is just remarkable that this body wants to include them in any of these organizations.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to explain his unanimous consent request.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, further reserving my right to object, I wish to extend my thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together to reach agreement on the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. I concur with the joint statement of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) concerning S.88O. This bill places a one-year moratorium on distribution of worst case scenario information to the general public and requires the administration to promulgate regulations on the dissemination of worst- case scenarios to the public after performing two separate assessments: One on the risk of terrorist activity associated with the posting of the information on the Internet and another on the incentives created by public disclosure of worst-case scenarios for reduction in the risk of accidental releases. I expect the administration will find that the preparation in dissemination of these worst-case scenarios benefits the public in several ways. The public will be better prepared for accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances. The facilities that utilize these substances will manage them responsibly and the workers at these facilities will be able to engage in a productive dialogue with their employers about the use and management of these substances. I know a number of responsible companies already have convened public meetings to share this worst case scenario information with emergency responders and other citizens in the communities that may be affected by the release of these substances. To that end, I support the provisions of this bill that would require the facilities to submit worst-case scenarios to conduct an informational meeting in their communities during the moratorium period. As well, it is my expectation that the regulations developed by the administration in the coming year will recognize the importance of community right to know. A citizen should be able to obtain worst case scenario information for all facilities that could affect her community or his community. With accurate information about chemical facilities in hand, neighbors, workers, local leaders, researchers and emergency response personnel can work with the owners and the managers of chemical facilities to build safer communities for everyone.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the rule. H.R. 2489 is another trade bill that exploits the developing world for the benefit of multinational corporations and investors. Regardless of what this bill's supporters say, there is absolutely nothing in this bill to enforce worker protections and labor standards. We have been down this road before. When Congress passed NAFTA without putting labor and environmental protection standards at the core of the bill, we were told to put our faith in side agreements that would supposedly guarantee labor rights and environmental standards. Five years after its passage, Mexican workers are earning less than they did before NAFTA. American companies, and get this, American companies pay Mexican workers lower wages than Mexican companies pay Mexican workers, and yet here we are set to impose this same failed trade model on people of sub-Saharan Africa. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules rejected every single proposed amendment that would have actually given hope to the people of sub- Saharan Africa. Instead, we are set to give the world's largest corporations the freedom to exploit the world's poorest people without having to worry about labor laws, tough environmental standards or worrisome worker unions. Vote no on the bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the recent athletic achievements of Megan Montoni, who hails from Wadsworth, Ohio in my Congressional District. As a sophomore at Ashland University this past school year, Megan recently earned All-American honors for her performance in the shot put at the NCAA Division II National Championships in Emporia, Kansas. She also participated in the shot put and the discuss at the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, receiving silver and bronze medals, respectively. Being recognized as an All-America athlete is a prestigious accomplishment in college athletics and in all of sports. Dedication and a solid work ethic have launched Megan to the top of her game. Remarkably, she underwent knee surgery one year before the NCAA championships. Her discipline, resilience, and passion to succeed were clearly illustrated at the NCAA championships. Megan's work ethic and determination are an inspiration to us all. On behalf of the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District, I am honored to congratulate Megan for earning All-America honors.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today the President proposed a Medicare reform package that preserves what is fundamental about Medicare. It treats all seniors equally. Unlike the privatization/voucher proposal that has resurfaced, the President's plan does not jeopardize the core Medicare program so many seniors depend on and it does not create different classes of coverage for seniors at different income levels. It does not abdicate our responsibility to seniors by turning the Medicare program over to private managed care plans, the same plans that dropped 400,000 seniors last year and are poised to do the same this year. What the President's plan does do is provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare covers hospitalization, it covers doctors' visits, and, of course, it should cover prescription drugs. That is why we need to modernize Medicare. Prescription drugs are no longer supplemental to basic health care. They are integral to it. The President's proposal updates Medicare coverage to reflect modern medicine. The President's proposal is designed to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors by covering half the cost of prescription drugs up to a $2,000 cap. The value of this benefit depends on one key variable, the sticker price of prescription drugs. Obviously higher prescription drug costs will exhaust the benefit much more quickly than lower prescription drug costs. That is where the drug companies, Mr. Speaker, come in. Drug companies are overpricing their products. This remains true regardless of how much these companies spend on research and development. By the way, we do not know how much drug companies spend on R&D because they have refused to disclose this information to the public or to this Congress. How do we know that drug companies overprice their products? Just look at their profits. Remember, these dollars are the dollars left over after research and development. Last year drug company profits outpaced those of every other industry by over 5 percentage points. Drug company profits last year were $22 billion. Last year the CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb made a $1.2 million salary, a $1.9 million bonus and $30.4 million in stock options. Drug companies cannot continue to monopoly price their products and expect the American people to accommodate them. Prescription drug coverage for seniors is critically important, but it is not intended to address, nor does it address, the market failure in prescription drug pricing that is driving up health care costs and hindering access to needed medications here and around the world. Drug companies can voluntarily price their products to promote access, which they are not doing, or they can disclose their costs and try to justify their windfall prices, which they are not doing, or they can continue to exploit their monopoly advantage, which they are doing, until Congress is forced to regulate their prices like a utility. If drug companies continue to price irresponsibly to make the huge profits they are making to pay the huge marketing costs and executive salaries they pay, the third option; that is, government regulation of huge overblown prescription drug prices, the third option may be the only one left.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was created by Congress in 1977 to encourage federally insured financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities they serve. Fair and equal access to capital and credit should be a fundamental right, yet for too long it has been a privilege based on race or economic class. By any measure, the CRA has been a success in creating jobs, businesses, affordable housing and homeownership in minority and poor neighborhoods. In my home county of Lorain, OH, the FirstMerit Bank challenge under CRA garnered over a $20 million commitment from FirstMerit for mortgage lending in low and moderate income tracts. More importantly, the FirstMerit challenge started the Community Development initiative in earnest and led to a $33 million commitment from local public officials, banks and foundations on a community based development system for the county. Blatant discrimination in lending is declining and homeownership and small business opportunities are on the rise. We can attribute much of this progress to the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA has proven that working together with local leaders, advocacy organizations, and financial institutions, we can make local investment not only good for business, but good for improving the quality of life for low and moderate income residents in our communities. Let's continue to make the American dream a reality for more Americans.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis) for taking swift action on the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for taking up this bill, which will provide financial assistance for former foster care children between the ages of 18 and 21. As these young people age out of foster care without a permanent family or a structure of continued support, they can face problems with the social, emotional, and basic skills necessary for self-sufficiency. By increasing the availability of services designed to improve the transition into independent living, such as budgeting, career planning, and safe housing, these young people can face a brighter future. By increasing funding for the Independent Living Program, this bill would provide Ohio's and my State's foster care children with 10 percent more funding, increasing that funding from $2.8 million to $3.2 million. In addition to providing financial support for adolescents leaving foster care homes, this bill would give States the option of providing Medicaid benefits to these teenagers until they reach the age of 21. The security of comprehensive health insurance is critical, not only for their health, but to give them the freedom to concentrate on preparing for the future. Young people leaving the foster care system who are just starting out on their own need our assistance. This will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.