Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In summary, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan joining me tonight on this special order. We have seen the results of NAFTA since 1993. We have seen job loss, we have seen huge trade deficits with Mexico, we have seen problems with truck safety, we have seen problems with food safety, we have seen more illegal drugs going across the Mexican border into the United States. With all of that, I think it is particularly important that we stop and get NAFTA right before expanding it into ever increasing numbers of countries. There are too many problems that too many newspapers, too many radio stations, too many citizens, magazines, Members of Congress, elected officials all over the country, too many problems that all of us have pointed out with the North American Free Trade Agreement to just in a halfhearted sort of way to continue to expand NAFTA into countries like Chile, Argentina and all over. Madam Speaker, I would add in closing that we again are asking for three changes in NAFTA so that we can get it right before we continue this discussion of expanding NAFTA. One, that we renegotiate the provisions in NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety and ensure that any future requests for fast track authority includes strong food safety provisions, that we increase funding for border inspections or limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure the safety of our food supply in this country which has come a long way in the last 50, 75, 100 years in ensuring a good quality food supply for all of our Nation's citizens; and, third, that we begin an aggressive campaign to label all foodstuffs, fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables and meats with their country of origin so that American consumers know where in fact these fruits and vegetables and meats, where they came from, where they were grown, where they were processed, where they were produced. All of us I think should pledge ourselves to these three changes in NAFTA so once we can fix NAFTA, once we can make NAFTA work better, at least in the area of food safety, then we can have this discussion on fast track.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I would add, before getting into perhaps a more serious subject than the Baseball Hall of Fame, my daughters and I drove to Cooperstown this summer. My younger daughter thought there were too many New York Yankee memorabilia in the Hall of Fame. I think she was raised right, that she thinks that. Nonetheless, it was a great trip to your district, to Cooperstown. I had been in the Hall of Fame when I was my daughter's age, when I was 13 or 14. I had not been back in 30 some years. It was a great chance to be in your district and see Cooperstown again. Tomorrow the President will announce fast track to his legislation he will present to Congress tomorrow to expand the North American Free- Trade Agreement; ultimately, he hopes, to the rest of Latin America. Before he does that, before we talk about fast track, I am joined tonight by my friend from Michigan, who has been a real leader in the effort, everything from food safety to jobs to the environment to clean water, all of these trade issues, before we get into fast track, let us back up a moment and look at what this expansion of NAFTA means and what NAFTA itself has meant and other trade agreements in the last few years in this institution. First of all, bad trade deals hurt America's working families. They threaten to move American jobs to low wage countries, as we have already seen under NAFTA, with jobs fleeing to Mexico. We are importing under NAFTA 10 times as many cars from Mexico as we are exporting. But it is not just auto workers that have lost jobs. We have lost jobs in the electronic industry and in other high-wage sectors. Where I come from, as in most places in this country, NAFTA, simply put, is a bad deal. These bad trade deals threaten America's economic future. The same people that brought us NAFTA want to use something called fast track to expand NAFTA, to expand NAFTA to countries, other countries in Latin America, beginning with Chile and moving up and down the South and Central American continent and into Central America. I think all of us want equal trade and want fair trade, but we do not want this kind of free trade that fast track will bring us. After 44 months, NAFTA simply has not panned out. It has meant job losses in the auto and electronic sectors to Mexico. It has meant record amounts of illegal drugs. Now it means threats to food safety and truck safety. Everybody wants open markets for American goods. Exports create jobs, no doubt about that. But imports claim jobs. If only exports counted, we would not have the kind of massive trade deficit we have. This institution, in the last couple, really in the last 5 or 6 years, since the initial Clinton budget in 1993, has dealt with one of the twin deficits. We have dealt with the budget deficit. At the same time we have let the trade deficit get larger and larger and larger. Sure, we have exported more goods to countries around the world, but the number of dollar's worth of imported goods to this country has mushroomed, causing huge trade deficits. We need to get tough with these countries that keep out American goods. Japan still is not playing fair with the United States. The Japanese Government drags its feet on the framework agreement of autos and auto parts. Even the administration is concerned about this problem. Our trade deficit with China, brought on in part by most favored nation status that we continue for reasons beyond my understanding to give to China, even our trade deficit with China has become larger now than our trade deficit with Japan, because the Chinese have a perverse concept of fair trade. With equal trade and fair trade, we can open foreign markets without dropping our defenses. We need to call a time-out on free trade. And fast track, especially, is an abdication of the responsibility that all of us have in this institution to negotiate fair trade agreements, to negotiate democratic trade agreements, to negotiate trade agreements that protect the environment, protect food safety, ensure truck safety and ensure that Americans have an equal footing in the global marketplace and the global work force. Perhaps one of the most unknown but most important problems with NAFTA is that specific issue of food safety. In an effort to increase trade with Mexico, NAFTA has limited border inspections of food, both for vegetables and fruits, frozen and fresh, and allowed Mexican trucks to enter the United States with limited inspection. As a result, NAFTA is directly responsible for a significant increase in the imports of contaminated food into the United States from Mexico. These lax inspection practices contributed to a sharp increase in food imports from Mexico. Imports of Mexican fruit have increased 45 percent. Imports of Mexican vegetables have increased 31 percent. More than 70 percent of these imports are carried into the United States on trucks. Yet we inspect only 1 out of 100 trucks and 1 out of 100 truckloads that come into this country. That means huge numbers of unsafe Mexican trucks are driving on American highways; it means large amounts of Mexican fruits and vegetables are consumed by the American people, especially American children, that have come across the border. And many of those foodstuffs simply are not healthy. We are proposing, several of us are proposing to prevent similar kinds of incidents that my friend from Michigan will talk about with Michigan schoolchildren that contracted hepatitis by eating tainted Mexican strawberries. We are suggesting three things: that we renegotiate the provisions in NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety and ensure that any future requests for fast track authority include strong food safety provisions; Second, we should increase the funding for border inspections or limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure the safety of our food supply; and Third, we should begin an aggressive program to label all foodstuffs, including fresh and frozen vegetables, fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables and meats with their country of origin so American consumers, when they go to the grocery store, will know where these foods were grown, where these foods were processed, to give additional information similar to the food labels that we are used to seeing on our cans of soup and other products in this country. I think we must work with President Clinton to address these serious deficiencies in our trade policy. We should not move so quickly on fast track. We need to back up, look at NAFTA, examine the problems with NAFTA, paying special notice and special attention to food safety. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I begin my 60 minutes by yielding to the gentleman from Cooperstown, NY [Mr. Boehlert]. A Tribute to Richie ``Whitey'' Ashburn.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton amendment. Even as the State Department reports again this year that India has made further progress in the area of human rights, the gentleman from Indiana continues to live in the past. His amendment may be appropriate for some countries around the globe, but not for today's India. An India that is the world's largest democracy, an India that has embarked upon a far-reaching and energetic set of reforms to unleash its economic potential, an India whose diplomatic and commercial ties with the United States continue to grow, an India who is a force for regional stability, and an India whose support of free and fair elections and minority rights is a leading light in that area of the world. As America's most recent ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, said, this is a crucial time for the United States and India. India is ready for a closer relationship with America. She just needs the right signals. Ambassador Wisner is right. The United States and India are on the verge of a deeper and a more beneficial relationship. The signals we send matter greatly. That is why the Burton amendment is so very wrong. India has made tremendous strides in the last 6 years, yet we would slap this great Nation in the face by cutting aid. Such a move makes no sense and is precisely the wrong signal to send. It boggles my mind in fact, Mr. Chairman, that India is not fast becoming one of our most important allies. As India celebrates its 50th anniversary of independence, the world has long recognized that her commitment to democracy is vibrant and irreversible. Following Indiana's general election of last year, one American commentator called it the most breathtaking example of government by the people in the history of the world. It is a democracy that is open to all, as evidenced by the recent elections in Punjab, which brought to power an opposition Sikh Party who chose the ballot over the bullet to bring about change in this region. Respect and dignity for all Indians is further guaranteed by the country's increasing emphasis on human rights. In just a few short years the National Human Rights Commission has made its mark on all facets of Indian society. Following the commission's prosecution of more than 200 violations in 1996, the U.S. State Department commended the panel for carving out an important role in improving accountability for human rights abuses throughout the country. Moreover, several versions of the commission have been set up by state governments, including one in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the international community the Red Cross has conducted seminars and training with paramilitary police and army personnel to further increase understanding and observance of human rights within India's military and law enforcement communities. With each passing day, India becomes a more strategic United States partner in this crucial part of the world. Pursuing the Gujral doctrine and similar initiatives, India continues to be a force for stability and a force for growth in South Asia. Prime Minister Gujral has already reached various trade, water, and other agreements with Bangladesh, with Nepal and with Sri Lanka. Most importantly, Mr. Gujral and Mr. Sharif are taking concrete steps to lessen tensions between Pakistan and India and have established a formal framework for discussion of the disagreements which have plagued these two great countries for so long. Now with the Burton amendment, we are thinking of punishing India for this progress. We could go on and on about India's accomplishments and her potential. It is clear that closer bilateral ties are in the best interest of India, the best interest of America and the best interest of that region as a whole. It is also clear that in this year of India's 50th anniversary of independence the world's oldest democracy should be congratulating the world's largest democracy for its achievements. Instead we are debating this very bad idea. One can trot out the same old dated information only so many times. The people of India have moved on to a brighter future and have demonstrated their desire for better United States- India relations. The U.S. Congress should do the same. We should defeat the Burton amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, as the President prepares to ask Congress for fast track negotiating authority, heated debate continues on the economic effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement. There is no debate, however, on the serious threat that NAFTA poses to food safety in the United States. In an effort to increase trade with Mexico, NAFTA limits border inspections of food, it allows Mexican trucks to enter the United States with limited inspection. As a result, NAFTA is directly responsible for a significant increase in imports of contaminated foods into the United States. These lax inspection procedures contributed to a sharp increase in food imports from Mexico. Imports of Mexican fruit have increased 45 percent, and vegetable imports have increased 31 percent. More than 70 percent of these imports are carried into the United States by truck. As the General Accounting Office recently documented, these trucks, many of which have been identified as dangerous themselves, pass through the border uninspected, bringing increasing amounts of food tainted with diseases and unhealthy pesticides. In fact, the GAO found that over 99 percent of Mexican trucks coming into the United States were never inspected, and of those that were inspected, almost half of them were found to be unsafe. We were alarmed earlier this year when 179 Michigan schoolchildren contracted hepatitis after eating tainted Mexican strawberries. In order to prevent similar incidents in the future, the United States should, first, renegotiate the provisions in NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety and ensure that any future requests for fast track authority include strong food safety protections; second, increase the funding for border inspections or, alternatively, limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure the safety of our food supply in this country so what happened in Michigan does not happen in other States across the country; and third, begin an aggressive program to label all foodstuffs, including fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables, and meats with their country of origin. We must work with the President to address these serious deficiencies in our trade policy and to ensure that these same mistakes are not made in the future. Let us get off the fast track for unsafe foods. The health of our families is too important to go fast. Let us slow down on negotiating fast track. Let us slow down and craft trade agreements that contain meaningful food safety protections. Again, remember these numbers: More than 99 percent of trucks that come into the United States from Mexico have never been inspected. Of those that are inspected, almost half of them have been found to be unsafe, and only about 1 percent of food that is coming into the United States, fruits and vegetables, frozen and fresh, are inspected. That is what is so important as we debate fast track authority in September for the coming year. It is important that we include those food safety elements in the fast track agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. We await the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

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. Speaker, is the language to which the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] are referring the State optional program on the----

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Republican children's health care expansion proposal in the Budget Reconciliation Act before us today will not ensure real health insurance coverage for the maximum number of children in the most cost-effective manner. I am deeply concerned because the Republican plan does not offer a real guarantee of health care coverage for children or a real benefits package. The Republican block grant contains a so-called direct services loophole which could mean that not a single taxpayer penny is used to provide health insurance for our Nation's 10 million uninsured children. States would be free to divert Federal children's health care expansion funds from directly providing health care coverage for uninsured children to instead providing direct payments to hospitals who will suffer under the disproportionate share cuts in this bill. Just as many States misused the DSH program in the early 1990s to pay for highway repairs and other related programs, I fear that States will use these Federal funds to plug holes in shrinking State budgets. We surely should have learn our lesson. I believe there are several superior programs to help extend coverage for uninsured children. Bipartisan legislation introduced by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], me, and others would provide children with a guaranteed, real health care benefits package which includes preventive care, hearing and vision services, and routine doctor visits. The Democratic Caucus proposal, another plan which is part of this motion to recommit, would promote more effective outreach for Medicaid- eligible children who are not enrolled, allow for voluntary expansion of Medicaid coverage, establish a State grant program to fund innovative kids' health initiatives and require the issuance of affordable kids-only health insurance policies. The Republican plan, Mr. Speaker, will cost too much, waste too many tax dollars, and fail to insure America's 10 million uninsured children. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. In its current form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate too, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] said, the work the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has done on children's health. I am concerned in what has happened with Republican efforts to, quote unquote, cover some of these 10 million children that do not now have health insurance. Pretty clearly, the Democratic idea of using Medicaid, a program that is in place where administrative costs are low, a program that has a couple of decades of working effectively and efficiently to insure poor and near-poor children; it is in place, it works, it makes sense to do that. I am concerned with the Republican plan for a bunch of reasons: First, there was talk earlier of using all kinds of tax schemes. I am concerned about the tax schemes that the Republicans tried. Now I am concerned about this whole block grant effort that the Republicans want to use to just turn money over to the States, when it is clear from all kinds of analyses, whether it is the legislative budget office or other analyses, that show that in fact this money likely will not be there to insure children. It is more likely to be frittered away by Governors, and this is sort of something the Governors want because they want to play with this money. We should have learned this in the last 5 years of what happened to something called disproportionate share, where all kinds of money went to the States that was not used for health care. Some cases it was used for things like highways, and we want to make sure this money, $16 billion goes to insure millions, not a few hundred thousand, but millions of children that now do not have health insurance directly through a Medicaid program, not frittered away so the Governors have some kind of slush fund to plug holes in their budgets. It simply does not make sense that way.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am, more so than when the Chair asked the last time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the Committee on Commerce, I, with my Democratic colleagues, offered several amendments to improve the Medicare-Medicaid and children's health care expansion provisions in the Budget Reconciliation Act. Most important, perhaps, of these would have reduced the number of Medicare MSA policies which could be issued from 500,000 to 100,000, thus saving approximately $1 billion over 5 years. These savings would be used to cover the copay for beneficiaries who will be covered for annual mammographies, bone mass testing, colorectal and prostate cancer screening, and a portion of the cost of test strips for diabetes under Medicare. Last week a similar bipartisan amendment was offered and passed bipartisanly in the Senate Finance Committee which would scale back the demonstration project to 100,000 policies. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules neglected to allow us to offer this amendment, even though we only lost it in committee by one vote. It was part of the budget agreement originally. It makes sense, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule when it comes before the House.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, every year China promises to open its market to American products. Every year Congress grants most-favored- nation status to China. Yet nothing seems to change and we are about to do it again. MFN is a job killer for America. MFN is a job killer for America because China refuses to open its markets to us. MFN is a job killer for America because China uses slave labor in prison labor camps. MFN is a job killer for America because it uses child labor to make things like these Spalding golf balls or this Mattel Barbie doll. Twelve-year- old Tibetan boys and girls in slave labor camps in China make these soft balls for 12-year-old kids to play with on America's playgrounds. Chinese children make these Barbie dolls in sweatshops--12-year-old Chinese children make these Barbie dolls in sweatshops--so America's 12-year-olds can play with these Barbie dolls in their bedrooms. Mr. Speaker, repression in China today is much more than an isolated mock trial here, a closed newspaper there. Instead it encompasses the arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution of thousands of prisoners of conscience. It is systematic. It is wholesale. It is thorough, it is complete. When I hear the State Department say that no dissidents are known to be active in the People's Republic of China, as it did in its 1996 human rights report, I am reminded of a line from Star Wars which is chillingly applicable to China. It is as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was detained on official business and unfortunately was unable to cast my vote on House Resolution 93. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this resolution, which expresses the sense of the House that if any adjustment is made to the consumer price index that it should be made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have been here before. Last year Speaker Gingrich attempted to give tax breaks to the richest citizens of this country and pay for them by cutting Medicare at $250 billion. The American people stopped that. This year, as April 15 approaches and Americans are rushing to pay their taxes, Speaker Gingrich, who himself still owes the Federal Government $300,000 in fines, Speaker Gingrich is back. He wants more tax breaks for the wealthiest people and more cuts for Medicare. Yesterday Speaker Gingrich, appealing to his wealthiest contributors in the Republican Party, advocated a huge tax break for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. At the same time, the Republican chairman of the Committee on the Budget yesterday said he wants more Medicare cuts. The Gingrich team is doing it again: Tax cuts for the richest 1 percent, Medicare cuts for 37 million senior citizens. That is wrong.