Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is primarily a technical corrections bill to correct some provisions of the FDA reform bill that this House passed by voice on Sunday. This correction resolution does not change any of the underlying policies of the FDA legislation, nor does it make any new substantive policy changes. Mr. Speaker, I ask for House support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we have heard numerous stories of dozens of deals between President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich to ram fast-track legislation through this Congress. The killer deal was the very first deal the White House cut. Instead of working with Democrats on positive legislation that looked to the future, the White House cozied up to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] on a deal that betrays our values and our historic commitment to working American families and the environment. The Archer-Gingrich bill not surprisingly would make the Republican hostility to labor and environment the U.S. agenda in international trade negotiations, a global race to the bottom. The Archer-Gingrich bill is a fast-track to the past, not to the future. The vast majority of Democrats, 80 percent of them, oppose the Archer-Gingrich bill because we want sensible agreements that incorporate our values as Democrats, values such as clean air and clean water, values such as safe food, values such as worker rights and human rights. As Democrats, we can do better. Vote no on the Gingrich-Archer fast- track bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the conference report on the reform of the Food and Drug Administration. The debate on FDA reform progressed from irrational and unfounded accusations about FDA's regulation of medical products to much more rational discussions about how to modify this agency's regulatory policies and procedures in a way that will ease unnecessary regulation without reducing essential protections of public health. I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], chairman of the subcommittee, for their diligence in holding the House conferees together on issues that this body believed in. I want to commend the tireless work of our staffs, particularly Kay Holcombe and Howard Cohen. This was not an easy task, particularly in light of the tremendous differences of opinion about what constitutes ``unnecessary regulation.'' To make the system more accessible to consumers, it was necessary to draw a line between creating reasonable public processes and overburdening the FDA with administrative duties that take time away from the most important functions of getting safe and effective new products to market as quickly as possible. Many argue that FDA reform is essential, because new and improved products were not reaching American consumers quickly enough. The facts simply did not bear this out. The FDA's Center for Devices literally overhauled its operations and dramatically improved its review time for new products. We reached a compromise where critics of this process and the medical device industry can be comfortable. Perhaps the most important provision included in this legislation is the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee program. This program has provided the resources that FDA needed to make it the world leader in the review and approval of new drugs. If there were one single reason for Congress to pass this bill today, drug user fees is that reason. Some of us may not be completely satisfied with the reforms of FDA regulation of generic drugs. I believe, however, that the debate led to some very much needed improvements. While these products are not the so-called miracle drugs we read about in headlines, generic drugs are critically important, because they provide options for physicians and for patients that often are less expensive than brand name products. Generic drugs literally save billions of dollars in health care costs, much of those savings occurring to the Federal Government through Medicaid, Veterans and Department of Defense facilities. In addition, savings in drug costs are important especially for senior citizens who obviously purchase the largest percentage of prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I was especially pleased that a number of issues raised by Democratic members of the subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], were addressed in this legislation. I appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], to engage in these negotiations, and they were able to hold the House position during this conference. Mr. Speaker, FDA is a remarkably effective agency. I have never been persuaded that massive changes in law were needed to correct some dreadful problem lurking under the surface. I ask my colleagues to pass the conference report.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on fast track, expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement to dozens of other countries. NAFTA cost tens of thousands of American jobs. So does fast track. NAFTA threatens the safety of our food supply. So does fast track. NAFTA weakens our environmental laws. So does fast track. To get fast track through Congress, Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton are wheeling and dealing like we have never seen before: deals on the census, on family planning, on health care and campaign contributions. Let us reject the wheeling and dealing by Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton. Vote no on fast track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Veterans Day, I am proud to introduce legislation honoring the bravery and dedication of the sailors and marines who served with the U.S. Navy Asiatic Fleet. Formed in 1910, the Asiatic Fleet patrolled the waters of the Far East for 32 years, defending the interests of the United States and ensuring the safety of our citizens abroad during various regional conflicts and natural disasters. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the personnel of the Asiatic Fleet courageously opposed Japan's continued aggression in the South Pacific. Outnumbered and outgunned by a modern Japanese armada, the aging ships and submarines of the fleet fought valiantly, relying on wits, courage, and sheer determination. Despite incredible valor and the help of our Australian, British, and Dutch allies, the sailors and marines of the Asiatic Fleet ultimately succumbed to the Japanese on March 1, 1942, when the flagship U.S.S. Houston was sunk near Indonesia. The total losses suffered by the fleet were staggering: 22 ships sunk, 1,826 men killed or missing in action, and 518 men captured, many of whom did not survive their internment. Yet, the spirit displayed by those who served with the Asiatic Fleet was equally stunning. Charged with a near-impossible task from the very start, the Fleet ``fought like hell,'' as one survivor recently put it. That these particular veterans have received little commendation is especially disappointing, for their cunning and fortitude in the face of such overwhelming odds is one of the finer moments in defense of democracy. We can begin to rectify history's oversight with this resolution, and I encourage all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House for a few minutes this evening. I read earlier today a story on the AP wire about some of the deals that have been made between the White House and Members of Congress on the fast track legislation which we were going to consider today, but has been pushed back until Sunday, frankly because Speaker Gingrich and the President do not have enough votes with the deals they are making to jam this bill through the Congress of the United States. What troubled me today, and I would like to share for a moment one of those deals that was mentioned in the AP wire story. I will quote: A Member of Congress announced his support for a fast track trade bill Friday after the White House circulated a 7-point memo promising continued support for the tobacco price support program and immunity from health-related lawsuits for tobacco farmers. The paper also promised reform of import duty rules that farmers say encourages imports of foreign tobacco. Lobbyists said the moves were aimed at garnering the Congressmen's support. This deal is troubling for a whole bunch of reasons, Mr. Speaker. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment on the Committee on Commerce, the subcommittee that, under the leadership before of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and other Members of Congress brought forward many of the problems with tobacco, many of the issues with tobacco executives and some of the problems, particularly with teenaged smoking, and I am particularly concerned about this deal that the President has purportedly made, according to the AP wire story, with some Members of Congress in order to get their votes for the fast track legislation. Immediately, upon reading this story, I called the White House to ask for a copy of this 7-point memo that was about tobacco, about protecting tobacco, that would bring in the support from Members of Congress for the fast track bill. The White House has still refused to send this memo. For whatever reason, they have not felt obligated to send this memo, even though next week this Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the full Committee on Commerce will be holding a hearing on tobacco. So what troubles me, and I think what troubles people across this country, is that on a trade issue, an issue that has nothing to do with tobacco, we are seeing a deal cut by a President that has gone around the country and a Vice President that has gone around the country talking about the evils of teenaged smoking, something I agree with. On the one hand, the President and the Vice President have excoriated the tobacco companies, have talked about how the tobacco companies market to children, and on the other hand, on an unrelated trade deal, the administration seems to have cut a deal on tobacco in order to get the vote of one Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I called the White House and could not get a copy of this memo. So we placed calls to the American Cancer Society, the Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Heart Association, and several other public health groups to try to get a copy of this memo. Nobody has been able to, except supposedly this Congressman that has made this deal with the President. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when the American people find out about this, that on a trade deal, on an unrelated trade deal, the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States, both people who have led the charge against teenage smoking, and I admire them for that, I respect them for that, I applaud them for that, they have turned around and cut a deal in order to get an unrelated fast track trade bill through the Congress, I think that the American people will be outraged when they hear this, when they hear that this kind of deal has been cut simply to get a vote on the floor of Congress on an unrelated trade bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, the President and the Vice President have led this country admirably, have moved forward in a very positive way in exposing the evils of teenage smoking. They have, through our subcommittee and through other committees in Congress, helped to lead the charge in eradicating smoking among teenagers, and have played a very positive role in helping people stop smoking in this country. Yet, they turn around and do this. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will see a torrent of calls to the White House wanting to know more about this deal, wanting to know what exactly has happened. When does this kind of deal-making stop?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Legal Times this week reports how Bob Dole has gone to great lengths to avoid having to register as a lobbyist or file as a foreign agent. The fact is Senator Dole is clearly working on behalf of Chilean interests against United States salmon farmers in a trade dispute. He has visited salmon farmers in Chile, met with the President in Chile, and met with the Foreign Minister of Chile. At the same time, he is taking sides in the fast- track debate, writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times and speaking outside on the issue. Legal Times illustrates how former Senator Dole is taking great care not to cross the line into lobbying or working as a foreign agent. One possible reason is that if Mr. Dole were to cross that line, he would not be able to make his loan to bail out the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. If Dole were a lobbyist or a foreign agent, the loan to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] would be a violation of the gift ban. Mr. Speaker, Senator Dole should explain his involvement with Chile to the American people.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Gingrich has tried it again. Earlier this year, the Speaker attempted to insert the Caribbean Basin initiative into the budget bill. The Caribbean Basin initiative would have expanded NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, passed 4 years ago, would have expanded NAFTA to 26 Caribbean and Central American nations all buried in a budget bill that no one really would have understood or seen. Today Speaker Gingrich was trying it one more time. H.R. 2644, the United States-Caribbean trade partnership, again basically the same issue, there was an attempt today to put it on the Suspension Calendar and ram it through Congress with no amendments, with not very much discussion and put together with a whole lot of other issues and a whole lot of other pieces of legislation. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of people on both sides of the aisle that do not think we should expand NAFTA with only 20 or 30 minutes of debate, we should expand NAFTA to 26 more Caribbean and Central American nations, fortunately because there is so little support for that in this body, even though the support comes from the Republican leadership, that initiative was pulled off the calendar today. That means that this Congress will in fact have an opportunity to debate the Caribbean Basin initiative at some point, and I believe that Congress ultimately will defeat it because there simply is not the support in this body for expanding NAFTA for those kinds of trade agreements. That clearly speaks to the next step. The next step is within the next 2 weeks, Congress will likely vote on giving the President the authority, the fast track authority to negotiate other trade agreements with Latin American countries. There clearly is not a majority of Members' support in this Congress to give the President fast track authority to expand NAFTA. It is pretty clear that this body should think twice before we rush headlong into a series of trade agreements that cost us American jobs, in trade agreements that jeopardize American food safety, in trade agreements that question the viability of truck safety on America's highways, that we should think twice before rushing into another series of trade agreements that jeopardize health and safety and jobs in this country before we fix the North American Free Trade Agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed in 1993 in this country, has already cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. The North American Free Trade Agreement has jeopardized American food safety, stories of strawberries that have infected Michigan schoolchildren with hepatitis A, strawberries coming from Mexico, raspberries coming from Guatemala, all kinds of food products coming into this country, not well enough inspected at the Mexican border; food products grown under conditions not acceptable in this country, where pesticides that are banned in the United States in many cases are actually legal in Mexico and Central America and other Latin American countries, where the North American Free Trade Agreement, and if expanded by the President's and Speaker Gingrich's request, expanding those trade agreements to other countries in Latin America clearly will mean more problems at the border, more problems with food safety, more contaminated food in our country's food supply and our country's grocery stores, more problems with truck safety as trucks come across to the tune of thousands of trucks a day across the border now confined only to New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, but as those trucks move into the other 44 States of the mainland, we clearly will have even more problems with truck safety. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we should defeat fast track, not rush headlong into an agreement, into a new series of agreements that costs American jobs, jeopardizes American food safety and truck safety. We should defeat fast track today. I applaud the Speaker for pulling off the calendar the Caribbean Basin initiative. It was a bad idea. Fast track is a bad idea. We should defeat both those agreements when they come to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, about 90 years ago in the early 1900's, Upton Sinclair wrote a book called ``The Jungle.'' This book was about the American meat processing industry. It was about worker conditions in Chicago in the meatpacking industry. Equally importantly, it was about food quality and what Americans were eating and what went into the food that Americans ate. Over these 90 years since the publication of that book, Americans have come to take for granted the quality of their food, that fruits and vegetables were not contaminated, that food products, meat products, fish and dairy products were inspected. We can go into grocery stores through the first 80, 85, 90 years of this century understanding, taking for granted that what we put on our tables, what we buy in these grocery stores, what we prepare in our kitchens, what we eat in our restaurants can in fact, is in fact safe and reliable and will not in any way cause health problems for our people. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years, some things have begun to happen that make some of us not so much take our food safety for granted. This past Sunday, Parade Magazine ran a cover story called ``How To Prevent Food Poisoning.'' It cites everything from contaminated strawberries that were grown in Mexico, processed in San Diego, sold to schoolchildren and served to schoolchildren in Michigan, many of whom contracted hepatitis A. A handful of these children actually got very, very, very sick; a couple of them almost died. It talks about raspberries grown in Guatemala that were contaminated. It talks about how in this era of free trade, in this era of more and more food sold from one country, into another country into the United States that we simply are not preparing well enough at the border. We are not doing the right kind of inspections. One reporter called all these foods coming into the country passports for pathogens. As more and more food products come in, inspections at the border generally are not very good, and Americans are more at risk and take less for granted than ever before, at least any time in this century, concerning the products we buy in grocery stores. About a month ago, at my own expense, I went to the Mexican border, went to Laredo, TX, and went to McAllen, TX, went into Reynosa, Mexico, and looked across the border from Laredo into Nuevo Laredo. I saw the inspections at the border, I saw the number of trucks coming into the United States from Mexico, I saw the number of cars, the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cars coming streaming across the border, basically 24 hours a day. And it is clear that when the North American Free-Trade Agreement was passed by this Congress in 1993, that the President, the administration, the leadership in this Congress, simply have not prepared at the border for the huge amounts of materials coming into the country. There are too many drugs coming across the border undetected, there are too many trucks crossing the border that are not safe, and probably, most importantly, there is too much food coming across the border that is contaminated. There are pesticides that are illegal in the United States that are legal in some countries in Latin America. There are contaminants in the way that food is grown, contaminated by urine and feces and other kinds of human contaminants and other contaminants and wastes that end up on some of these fruits and vegetables that make their way uninspected into the United States, simply because we are overwhelmed at the border. The people at the border are doing their jobs very well. Neither the Governor of Texas, Governor Bush, nor the President of the United States, President Clinton, have done what they need to do, to do those protections and those inspections at the border. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have no business passing fast track. The President and Speaker Gingrich and leadership in the other body have asked us in this Congress to give the President fast track authority to extend all of these trade agreements to the rest of Latin America. My contention and the contention clearly of the majority of this House, that is why we have not voted on this issue yet, my contention is you do not rush headlong into new trade agreements, into more NAFTA's, until you fix the North American Free-Trade Agreement. You do not rush headlong into a trade agreement with Chile that costs American jobs until you fix NAFTA, so American jobs do not flee to Mexico. You do not extend fast track to Central and Latin America, which will jeopardize our food supply, until you take care of those problems at the border in Mexico where food contamination is becoming more and more common, where pathogens and other airborne and foodborne illnesses are coming into this country. Do not rush headlong into other trade agreements until we fix NAFTA. Vote no on fast track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I join my Democratic colleagues this evening in a series of special orders during Breast Cancer Awareness Month to discuss what we should do in this Congress and in communities across the country to prevent and to cure this dreadful disease of breast cancer. Recently, at a breast cancer awareness forum at the Elyria, Ohio WYCA, a woman recounted the story of holding her ailing mother's hand as she was wheeled down a sterile hospital hallway to a surgical room where she was to receive a lifesaving mastectomy. Another breast cancer survivor shared with us the emotional toll this deadly disease took on her and her loved ones. This type of meeting to promote awareness and education about this deadly disease is not an unfamiliar sight in the industrial communities I represent in northeast Ohio. A study conducted by the Ohio Department of Health estimates that one in three women in Ohio will develop some form of cancer in their lifetimes and one in nine women will develop breast cancer. Ohio unfortunately ranks 11th in the Nation in breast cancer deaths and 9th in total cancer deaths among women. Northeast Ohio has been particularly hard hit by this tragedy. There is no magic bullet in our fight against breast cancer. There is no vaccine. There is no guaranteed cure. However, early screening, detection and treatment of breast cancer offer women the best hope of beating breast cancer and leading long, healthy lives. In an effort to increase local awareness of the importance of early detection and treatment options, I helped found the Northeast Ohio Breast and Prostate Cancer Task Force in 1994. This dedicated group of volunteers includes cancer survivors, medical researchers, and health care professionals such as doctors and nurses. The mission of the task force is twofold: First, it works to support and supplement ongoing public education efforts in breast cancer in northeast Ohio. Last year, the members of the task force put together a comprehensive, easily readable pamphlet to provide information to women on how to prevent breast cancer and the importance of periodic screening. It was packed with information on counseling and whom to talk to about treatment options. Volunteers distributed these pamphlets to 273 hairdressers and beauty salons in northeast Ohio in a local campaign to eradicate breast cancer. We worked with the Women's Preventive Health Care Services program offered by the Cuyahoga County Board of Health, which provides information on early detection of breast and cervical cancer to medically underserved women, a group historically vulnerable to these killers. The task force's second mission is to seek out any environmental factors which may cause northeast Ohio's higher than average rates of breast cancer. To further this mission, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], and I were able to add language to last year's reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires the EPA to test whether certain chemicals found in drinking water cause breast or other forms of cancer. The stories of the women at the Elyria YWCA and the efforts of the task force are vital because they represent our most important and potent weapon in the battle against breast cancer. Through the tireless efforts of breast cancer survivors, the local health care community, and ordinary residents and business owners, one small community is taking a stand. As their elected officials in Washington, we must do more, however, to help win this battle. We must support legislation currently before us which would ensure that health insurance companies provide coverage for women who undergo mastectomies and the reconstructive surgery often required after this procedure. Furthermore, women must never be forced out of the hospital on the same day a mastectomy is performed unless the patient and the doctor, not the insurance company, the patient and the doctor agree that it is in the patient's best health interest. Lastly, we must continue to support increased funding for more biomedical research to improve treatment and to find a cure for breast cancer in other terminal and chronic diseases. Until we are able to find a cure for deadly diseases like breast and prostate cancer, early detection and screening represent the best hope for the millions of men and women who will be diagnosed with these diseases. We should join with the millions of Americans, like the women at the Elyria YWCA and members of the task force, who are on the front lines spreading this lifesaving message. As we listen to stories of hope and sadness by those individuals whose lives have been touched by breast cancer, let us work together in Washington to ensure that patients have access to affordable, quality health care and demonstrate our commitment to winning this battle by providing the research dollars necessary for improving treatment and finding a cure.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, they are your typical working family, husband, wife, two kids. Both parents work in an auto plant, but they are still having trouble making ends meet. They dream of moving into a little nicer home and providing an education for their children, but it is hard to get ahead when they only make $40 a week apiece, barely enough to put food on the table and keep their kids in clothes. Rafael and Felicia Espinoza work for a large multinational corporation in a maquiladora plant in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas. They make 90 cents an hour. For them, as for thousands of American workers with whom they compete for jobs, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is a series of broken promises. I sat with Rafael and Felicia last Thursday afternoon in their ramshackle home in one of the hundreds of colonias that have sprung up around Reynosa in Mexico. They have no electricity, no running water. They have a propane tank to fuel their cooking stove, and they have hooked up a cheap little television to a car battery. They told me their roof leaked. They said they suffer in the winter because the house is poorly constructed. As we talked, their children, happy as most children are when they have loving parents, ran barefoot on the dirt floor. Rafael is a proud man, but he worries about the future because a kilogram of chicken costs up to 30 pesos, about 10 percent of his weekly wage. NAFTA has failed Rafael and Felicia in part because the Mexican Government refuses to enforce its labor laws. Companies under Mexican law are required to distribute 10 percent of their profits to their workers. Needless to say the Espinosas and their coworkers have yet to see a peso of these profits. The American company claims that it has no profits from its Mexican operations, which they say operates as a cost center, not a profit center. The NAFTA side agreement on labor has been no help to the Espinoza family. Indeed, they have seen other workers lose their jobs by trying to form an independent union to replace the company controlled syndicate, leaders of which have been known to inform on the reformers. They are undaunted. ``I am going to continue going forward,'' Rafael said in Spanish, all the while looking straight at me. ``There is no law that says it is a crime to have a real union. Even if they fire us, we will continue fighting until we have a union that will wake up and defend our rights under the law. ``The company says it is losing money, but we know it is not. We need the maquiladoras because of our terrible necessity to be working, but they are taking advantage of us for their own interests. We know the company does not want bad publicity, so why is there such injustice? I am not afraid,'' he continued, ``on going forward for myself and my family for my children. We will not quit.'' A neighbor, Rita Gonzalez, earns about a dollar an hour. Out of her $40 weekly paycheck, her employer deducts $9 for a very small stove which she proudly showed off in her tiny home, one-quarter of her paycheck for the next 52 weeks for an appliance that would not cost $200 in the United States. While the Gonzalez family was lucky enough to have electricity, they have no running water and no indoor plumbing. Her brother-in-law, who is 25, suffered nerve damage to his face. They think it is because he worked around massive doses of lead at this American company doing business in Mexico, this American company, of course, which does not use lead in its operations in the United States. The NAFTA agreement has failed utterly to keep its promises to Rafael and Felicia and Rita and thousands of Mexican workers. They have no effective representation in their workplace. NAFTA has failed to keep its promises to thousands of working American families. They cannot be expected to compete for a dollar an hour. And it has failed to keep its promise of a cleaner environment. The border is a disaster area of polluted water and chemical poisons. A trip to the border exposes almost immediately NAFTA's broken promises. And those promises should be kept before we rush headlong into another trade agreement that punishes workers on both sides of the border.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. As the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] mentioned and said so passionately and eloquently, and as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] has talked about for years in this institution, in this body, we have seen these trade agreements, whether it is GATT, whether it is NAFTA, other trade agreements we have signed, have seen a diminishing of standards, of clean air and safe drinking water and pure food standards around the world. And that is what is particularly troubling about extending NAFTA to Chile, or any other country in Latin America, as a result of the fast track proposal by the President and by the Republican leadership. Fast track will accelerate the dismantling that we have worked so hard to build a consensus around, clean air, safe drinking water, pure, safe food. We simply should not give up on the consensus that we have built in this country. If you go back 90 years ago in the United States, we did not have the kind of protections of our food supply. There was a book written by a 28-year-old journalist by the name of Upton Sinclair called ``The Jungle,'' written about the Chicago packing yards in 1906. When that book was written, America did not really have safeguards in place for beef and poultry and fish and fruits and vegetables. And over time, with the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration, in part coming out of the book ``The Jungle'' and the scandal that Upton Sinclair pointed out, we as a nation have moved together and built a consensus around these clean air, safe drinking water laws, worker safety laws, pure food laws. And it is something that 95 percent, at least, of the people of this country I believe agree with that consensus. Yesterday, I think people spoke in this body, particularly loud and clear, when there was overwhelming support, almost literally every single Democrat in this party and a majority of the Republicans supported the Sanders amendment, which will send I believe U.S. trade negotiators a clear signal that Congress cares deeply about the fundamental precepts of American sovereignty in the new global economy. Let me outline on the time of the gentleman from Michigan, on what exactly that means and the kind of erosion that we have begun to see in some of the laws that have protected our way of life, clean air, safe drinking water, worker safety laws, all of these things, what some of the threats to that sovereignty and that body of laws that has kept our standard of living and protected our people the way that they have. The World Trade Organization was created by the GATT agreement that passed Congress about 3 years ago. The World Trade Organization is sort of an international United Nations of international commerce, if you will, except in a lot of ways it has more teeth. Let me run through a couple of examples of what has happened under the GATT, under the World Trade Organization. Venezuela, which was defending its state-owned monopoly, attacked the United States in the World Trade Organization over provisions of the Clean Air Act. The Venezuelans said America's environmental laws were too strong and kept out Venezuelan oil. Venezuela went to the World Trade Organization, they won, causing a weakening of American environmental laws. Second example, the Massachusetts State government passed a bill in the legislature that said it would no longer do business with the military government of Myanmar, what used to be called Burma, as a protest against human rights violations, some of the worst of any nation on Earth. The European Union, along with the military dictatorship in Myanmar, in Burma, challenged the right of the State of Massachusetts to make such a law and said it was a barrier to trade. That is now being considered by the World Trade Organization. The third is closer to home and more directly related to what Mr. Bonior and Mr. Gephardt were talking about. And that is a dispute we are in the middle of with the Government of Chile. Chile has, in the eyes of a lot of Americans, been dumping salmon. They are a major, major world exporter of salmon. They have been dumping salmon in the U.S. market. That means selling salmon at a price less than it cost to produce it, less than the market value, in fact less than the cost to produce it. American salmon farmers and salmon fishermen, mostly in Maine, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, have said this is not fair, that they can dump salmon at less than cost and undercut American salmon fishermen and salmon farmers and ultimately take the market away from these businesses and take jobs away from American workers. The Government of Chile, in bringing this lawsuit against the United States, is about to, if they lose, which they have lost first round, is about to go in front of the World Trade Organization and ask for it to be declared an unfair trade practice, what the United States is trying to do to even the playing field. The Chilean Government has hired former Senator and former Presidential candidate and former Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole to represent them. Only 10 months after he was asking the American people to vote for him for President, the Government of Chile has hired Bob Dole to represent them against the United States of America. I think it only begs the question. We wish Mr. Dole played on our team, on the home team, rather than playing on Chile's team, rather than playing on the visitor's team. What is important is Senator Dole is representing a foreign government against the United States, which ultimately will hurt American businesses and will cost American jobs if Senator Dole and the Chilean Government are successful. Those are the kinds of things, whether it is weakening environmental laws because of what Venezuela's Government has done, whether it is getting rid of laws that the State of Massachusetts legislature passed, or whether it is costing American jobs and hurting American businesses when Senator Dole represents Chile against the United States. Those are the kinds of things that are happening that will happen and continue to happen and happen in much greater frequency under these provisions in the fast track agreement. We cannot continue to lower American standards on the environment, on safe drinking water, on clean air. We cannot continued to allow other businesses in other countries and other governments to try to weaken America's food safety laws. We have seen, as the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, a colleague of Mr. Bonior's, and I earlier this week had a news conference, talking about the issues of food safety. A young woman from Michigan who had seen her daughter get sick from hepatitis A from strawberries brought in from Mexico in school lunches in Marshall, MI, southwest Michigan, came and spoke at our news conference. She reiterated what a problem it is we do not do the right kind of food inspection at the Mexican- American border, and how America is beginning, because of some of these trade agreements, to lower our standards of food safety. Few things are more important to this country than to continue to preserve and protect the world's safest, best, and least expensive food supply that we so proudly as a nation have built. We have no business allowing these trade agreements to override what we have done in our States and cities and what this Federal Government has done to protect our air, protect our water, and protect our food supply. So I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] for his involvement and what he has done in leading the charge on making sure that our trade laws are written fairly so that American workers have a fair shake, so it is not costing us jobs and hurting our quality of life. I asked the question, as many have asked over and over, why should we rush headlong into another trade agreement that endangers America's food supply and costs American jobs until we fix those trade agreements, like NAFTA, that we have not yet fixed. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act. This legislation would authorize a special first class stamp to be priced at up to 8 cents above the cost of normal first-class postage. The additional money from this voluntary purchase would be earmarked for prostate cancer research. Earlier this year, 422 Members of the House voted for similar legislation to increase funding for breast cancer research by allowing Americans to voluntarily purchase specially issued U.S. postal stamps. My legislation would extend this effort to helping the hundreds of thousands of men who suffer from prostate cancer. More than 334,000 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1997, making it the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer in the United States. More than 41,000 men will die from the disease this year. Despite these staggering statistics, prostate cancer has received a fraction of the resources dedicated to other forms of cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act would support research into the prevention, detection, and early diagnosis of this deadly disease. I hope you will join me in this effort.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We in the Congress have a serious responsibility to make sure that the principles of American Federalism are not trampled in the rush to approve new trade agreements under fast track. I support the Sanders amendment because we need to send U.S. trade negotiators a clear signal that Congress cares deeply about the fundamental precepts of American sovereignty. We have worked hard to build a consensus around clean air, safe drinking water, and a pure safe food supply. We should not give it up. Vote ``yes'' on the Sanders amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I got confirmation yesterday from the Embassy of Chile that former Presidential candidate Bob Dole is going to represent the Government of Chile against the United States in a trade dispute over salmon. The Embassy expressed the hope and expectation that former Senator Dole would advise the Chilean Government on its political strategy on the fast track debate currently underway in the United States Congress. I would urge Senator Dole to reconsider his decision. Unfortunately, this is business as usual, and it underscores how bad trade agreements make their way through Congress. Foreign governments have tremendous resources to hire American lobbyists and Washington DC law firms with powerful connections. Often these lobbyists are prominent ex-Members of Congress, former Senators, and ex-trade officials. But Bob Dole is different. He is not just another politician. I am not saying that Senator Dole has done anything wrong. He left the Senate in June 1996, so he is not bound by the 1-year revolving door laws. He is free to represent Chile if he wants. But I am saying that this is too much business as usual. Senator Dole is playing on the visitor's team, and we want him back on the home team. We want him on America's team, not Chile's team. Chile has threatened to take the United States to the World Trade Organization if we act to protect our American salmon farmers and salmon fishermen. What do the American people think when they see Bob Dole working as a lobbyist for a foreign government which is suing the U.S. Government? I believe there are many American working families, particularly in New England, especially in Maine and in the State of Washington and in the Pacific Northwest and in the State of Alaska, who will be astounded to learn that the same Bob Dole who asked for their support in a Presidential election just 10\1/2\ months ago is now trying to beat them and take their jobs in the international arena. Clearly, this sends the wrong signal to the American people. Clearly, that is why I am asking Senator Dole to reconsider his decision. We are going to have a tough and vigorous debate over fast track legislation in the House of Representatives. There are many of us, especially on the Democratic side, who are adamantly opposed to fast track without labor and environmental provisions and safeguards. We know we have a tough fight on our hands. We want to keep focused on the issues: jobs in America, environmental protection, food safety, worker and labor provisions, truck safety. We are going to take our case to the American people. Senator Dole has signed on to help Chile with its political strategy for fast track in the U.S. Congress. This is a perfect example of how things like fast track get approved, even when the American people are so adamantly against them.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, former Presidential candidate Bob Dole has been hired by the Government of Chile to sue the United States in a trade dispute over salmon. The Chilean Embassy expressed the hope and expectation that Senator Dole would advise the Chilean Government on its political strategy on the fast track debate now being conducted in Congress. I would urge Senator Dole to reconsider his decision. This is business as usual, and it underscores how bad trade agreements make their way through Congress. Foreign governments have tremendous resources to hire lobbyists with powerful connections. These lobbyists often are prominent ex-Senators, ex-trade officials, and ex- Members of Congress. However, Bob Dole is different; he is not just another politician. I am not saying Senator Dole has done anything wrong. He left the Senate in June 1996, so he is not bound by the 1-year revolving door laws. He is free to represent Chile if he wants. Former Presidential candidate Dole is free to sue the American Government on behalf of the Government of Chile if he wants, but it is simply not right. Senator Dole is playing on the visitor's team. He should play on the home team. We want him on America's team, not Chile's team.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what is the hurry? Before we rush headlong into another trade agreement that costs American jobs and endangers America's food supply, let us slow down. Before passing fast track, let us fix the North American Free Trade Agreement, some of its biggest problems. Twelve thousand trucks a week cross the border from Mexico into the United States, yet only 1 percent of those trucks are inspected and half of the trucks that are inspected fail the safety test. Since NAFTA was passed in 1993, there has been an increase of 45 percent in the amount of frozen and fresh fruits and vegetables that have crossed the border and passed into the United States, yet less than 1 percent of those foods are inspected at the border. Mr. Speaker, let us slow down on fast track. Let us protect our food supply, let us keep our highways safe. Vote ``no'' on fast track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield. We in this country for a long time, for a lot of years, have raised our living standards with pure food laws, with strong clean air laws, with good, solid safe drinking water laws, on fights that were conducted in this Chamber, where often groups of very conservative Members that had major backing from the largest corporations in the country would oppose clean water laws, would oppose safe drinking laws, would oppose pure food laws. Over a period of decades after decades after decades, beginning in the early part of this century when books were written about contaminated food and all the problems with our food supply, over those many, many years, we have built probably the best standards to protect all people in this country; not just the rich, not just the poor, not just white, not just black, not just men, not just women, everyone. We have protected people because they know when they go to the grocery store that meat is inspected. They know that there are clean air and clean water requirements. We know when we go shopping that the food we buy is generally, almost 100 percent of the time, good, clean, safe food. What we are doing is we are having our standards pulled down by a country that has not had those kinds of protections built into their laws, and has not had that kind of history. Rather than allow them to pull our standards down, we can negotiate trade agreements that would pull their standards up. And we are going in the exact opposite direction. That is why we need to pursue the kinds of efforts the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is pursuing with his work.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. One truck every 7 seconds across the border, they knew truck traffic was going to increase. They knew more than likely there would be drugs in some of those trucks smuggled in. They knew there would be huge loads of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables crossing the border coming north every day, and they knew a lot of these trucks would not be safe, and they knew there would be environmental problems because of the increased activity. Yet, there was no planning in NAFTA; there was no real appropriation to build the infrastructure at the border to take care of that, to accommodate that. It did not just mean hiring more inspectors, because there simply are not enough stations, way stations, and the actual infrastructure itself, gates coming across the border, to be able to manage all that. So they did not prepare, I think, purposely did not prepare this country for the problems at the border. There is no sign that they are doing it this time with fast track with Chile, with any other trade agreement. That is why we need to stop and say, wait a second, show us you can fix the infrastructure at the border, that you can clean up the environment at the maquiladora, that you can deal with the problems of truck safety and food safety and drug smuggling. Then we can talk about fast track, then we can talk about trade agreements that are actually in people's interests in the Western Hemisphere, American workers' interests, Chilean workers' interests, and not just the investors that benefit from these trade agreements that make the rich richer. That is really what these trade agreements have been all about.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's time and the work that he has done with food safety, a real leader in the House of Representatives on that issue in regards to NAFTA and fast track, and whether or not this Chamber allows the President to continue to negotiate these trade agreements in a way that unfortunately Presidents of both parties, President Bush, President Reagan, President Clinton, have been negotiating over the last many years. One of the statements that the gentleman was talking about, we do not know where food comes from. One of the things I thought of the other day, if one travels to Mexico, if an American citizen goes to Mexico, people will tell that visitor, that American, other Americans will say in certain parts of Mexico one should not eat the food, one should be careful about the water one drinks; one should just be careful, there are certain things one should not eat. Yet those same places in Mexico send food to this country and we do not really know where it comes from. Some irony. We should not eat that when we are in Mexico, but it is good enough for our kids when it comes here. That is why it is so important that before we move ahead and rush headlong into another series of trade agreements that cost American jobs and trade agreements that endanger our food supply and trade agreements that put unsafe trucks on the roads throughout the United States, that we stop and we fix the North American Free-Trade Agreement, that we do take care of food safety issues, that we do in the North American Free-Trade Agreement take care of truck safety, that we do deal with the problems of drugs at the border, that we do take care of especially the jobs issues with NAFTA. One of the real interesting aspects of this is that the administration loves to tell us and the Republican leadership of the House love to tell us that we are exporting more than ever to Mexico, we are sending all of these goods all over the world, that American exports are up and that is why our trade policy is working. Well, the fact is that while we do sell more goods to Mexico than we did 4 years ago, our balance of trade is worse because we import so much more. So we went from a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico 4 years ago to a $20 billion trade deficit today. Mr. Speaker, even the things that we sell to Mexico are not really exports. So often they are what somebody termed industrial tourism. We send parts to Mexico. They may be in Mexico only a day or two or three. Those parts are then made and assembled into a car or assembled into something else and then sent back to the United States. So those things that we are exporting to Mexico so often end up being just put together, assembled in Mexico and sent back to the United States. The other thing we are sending a lot of to Mexico, are so-called capital goods or various kinds of machine tools, where we are sending things to Mexico which they use to build high-technology plants and produce things and then send them back to the United States. So we really are not sending more goods to Mexico, that really are exports that stay in Mexico, than we were in 1993. The fact is that we are doing things that are only costing us jobs more and more. The people that are the losers in this trade deal that we have going on, whether it is NAFTA or whether it is fast track down the line, the people that are the losers are people in this country that lose their jobs, work with their hands, the people that there are not enough people in Congress caring about. That is why it is especially important that we slow down on fast track, we fix the things that are wrong with NAFTA, we fix things that are wrong such as the jobs issue, we fix the food safety issues, we fix the truck safety and the drug problems at the border. Because we owe it to the people whom we represent, we owe it to them that when they go to the store, that they do know, in fact, where this food comes from, whether it comes from Michigan or New Jersey or Ohio, or whether it comes from Mexico, or wherever it comes from. Just like the food labeling that is now on soup cans or anything we eat, it says how much sodium is in that can of soup. We want to know what is in it. We want to know the ingredients in foods and where those foods come from. That is what we are asking. That is one of the things we can do to fix NAFTA. We can do better inspections at the border, where, as the gentleman [Mr. Stupak] said, less than 1 percent of fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables are examined and inspected at the border. We have to do better than that. We are asking the President to simply slow down. Do not rush headlong into this new series of trade agreements. Let us fix what is wrong with NAFTA. Let us make those things better with food safety and truck safety, and all of the jobs issues. Let us make that better before we move on into another trade agreement that costs jobs and endangers our Nation's food supply.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. When NAFTA passed, obviously the three of us and our friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], voted no on it back in 1993, but the people that supported NAFTA never really prepared, they never really prepared the border area for what was going to happen. They really were disingenuous about it, because they knew that there would be more traffic coming across the border, they knew there would be more pollution, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] says, more pollution along the maquiladoras, along the area near the border, and they simply did not prepare for building any kind of an infrastructure to deal with what was going back and forth across the border. When truck traffic is such that I believe there are 12,000 trucks a week, something like that----

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If I may interrupt the gentleman, I think that is exactly the point that all of us support, all of us on both sides of this debate, those of us that oppose fast track and oppose these carte blanche free trade agreements, all of us support expanded trade between the United States and other countries as long as that trade is done right. But if we back up to the gentleman's illustration from 1993, when NAFTA passed in November of that year, we simply, as a legislative body and as a Nation, were not prepared, nor did the administration and the leaders in the pro-NAFTA movement really plan to be ready for the increased border traffic. There was no way that at the Mexican-United States border, in those days or since, that they could be ready, that we as a Nation, that our Customs officials could be ready to inspect the huge number of trucks, increased truck traffic coming into the United States. As the gentleman said, 1 percent of the thousands and thousands and thousands of trucks that cross that border every week, only 1 percent of them are inspected, and of those that are inspected, about half of them fail the safety inspection. On top of that is what those trucks are actually carrying when they come across the border. In many cases, they are carrying, as the gentleman said, fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen foods and meats and other kinds of products, and we simply have not been able to keep up with those inspections. I think it goes to the whole idea of free trade that as we in this country believe in a free enterprise system with certain regulations. We have clean air laws, we have safe drinking water laws, we have worker safety laws, we have pure food laws in these trade agreements. We encourage trade agreements, but they should have worker safety laws and environmental laws and clean air laws and safe drinking water laws and pure food safety laws. It is exactly the same thing we want for our own manufacturers and our own producers; we want food safety, we want good food quality inspection and good food quality safety laws. When we negotiate trade laws with other countries, we want those same kinds of protections built in for people in this country that are consuming those fruits and vegetables and meats from other countries. It is not asking much. That is why a lot of us in the institution will oppose giving the President fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements that do not have food safety as part of them. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we have no business moving ahead on NAFTA, moving to expand NAFTA until we really do protect the American public with better quality food, vegetables, fruits, meats, whatever.