[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10543-10544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FAST TRACK TRADE BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pence). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the House will soon consider a motion 
to go to conference on H.R. 3005, the fast track bill. Normally, the 
process for beginning a conference is a noncontroversial pro forma 
exercise, but attempts at passage of a special rule make clear that the 
current process is anything but normal.
  The presumptive chairman of the conference has made clear he does not 
trust the conferees. He has a vision of how he wants the conference to 
proceed, and he wants to eliminate any chance that things will not go 
his way. The Republicans are employing an arcane, rarely-used procedure 
that I do not believe I have seen in my 10 years in Congress, to stack 
the deck against Democrats on the conference committee and to deny any 
vote on a Democratic alternative on fast track trade legislation.
  The Republicans are attempting to abuse the House process by adding 
up to a dozen new items that the House has never had an opportunity 
vote on, has had no hearings to discuss, nor has even considered. These 
changes include gutting the other body's health care assistance for 
workers suffering from our trade policies, creates a weaker

[[Page 10544]]

version of the other body's trade adjustment assistance, and it 
completely strikes the Dayton-Craig provisions that are designed to 
ensure that Congress has a role in protecting U.S. trade laws.
  The rule goes well beyond normal procedures, completely unnecessary 
to begin the fast track conference. The most offensive of the 
Republican leadership's provisions will gut the worker health 
protections added in the other body's bill.
  Under TAA health provisions, workers would have access to an 
advanceable and a refundable tax credit valued at 70 percent of their 
health insurance premium; 70 percent. This tax credit could be used for 
group coverage, continuation of COBRA coverage, State health insurance 
purchasing plans, and other ways.
  Group coverage offers several advantages to workers. It is cheaper, 
its availability is much wider, and health insurance cannot be denied 
due to preexisting conditions. Republicans, however, are expected to 
offer a tax credit that can only be applied toward private nongroup 
coverage.
  Under the Republican approach, there is no guarantee that workers 
will be able to even find health insurance, because it is in the 
private market, let alone to afford it. In the private individual 
market, there are no limits on premiums that can be charged for someone 
who is sick, and insurers often exclude coverage of important services 
and even exclude coverage sometimes of body parts. As a result, only 
relatively healthy workers are likely to find affordable coverage, 
which means other workers will be left without any coverage or will be 
forced to pay the entire cost of whatever group coverage might be 
available to them. Less healthy workers, who are unable to find 
affordable, meaningful individual coverage will be forced to go without 
coverage or pay the full COBRA premium.
  Because relatively healthy workers will therefore leave the COBRA 
pool, and relatively less healthy workers will remain in the COBRA 
pool, employers' COBRA costs go up. Accordingly, employers will be 
forced to either scale back benefits or drop coverage entirely.
  The Republican approach, as it usually does, will create a windfall 
for insurance companies and for HMOs. It will not protect workers, 
again as the Republicans plan usually does not. It will not protect 
workers or employers from huge health care costs. Under their proposed 
rule, Democrats would have no chance to debate or amend any of these 
provisions.
  Not surprisingly, the Republicans are proceeding without any 
consultation with Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means. While 
the majority may say that their TAA health benefit is the same as what 
the other body passed, no one should be fooled. This will only hurt 
American workers who have already been hurt by unfair trade policies.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose any rule that may be on the floor 
tomorrow and to oppose any rule that may jeopardize a bipartisan 
conference committee on fast track.

                          ____________________