Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is coauthored with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

The Economic Report of the President is supposed to be an educational

tool, not a drug industry PR piece. On page 167, it asserts: ``On average, a new drug takes 12 years to develop and costs $800 million to introduce to the market.''

That cost estimate, by drug industry-backed researcher Dr. Joseph DiMasi, is used widely by drug companies to justify the high and rapidly rising prices they charge American consumers. But the DiMasi estimate is based on a widely disputed methodology that dramatically inflates actual R&D costs. The most blatant shortcoming is that the DiMasi estimate generalizes from the cost of developing a breakthrough product to the cost of developing any new drug. Most new drugs on the market are me-too drugs, or second generation products. They are by their very nature far less expensive to develop than the original.

Even more troubling is the accounting gimmick unearthed by Professor Donald Light and Associate Professor Joel Lexchin. They write, ``About half of the $800 million figure consists of `opportunity costs,' the money that would have been made if R&D funds had been invested in equities.''

Treating opportunity costs as actual costs is a good way to inflate the R&D estimate, but a bad way to give the public honest data on actual R&D spending.

By such an accounting, the cost of producing a stick of bubble gum could include the box office revenue foregone by the manufacturer's decision to make gum instead of motion pictures.

As Light and Lexchin write: ``Minus the built-in profits, R&D costs would average about $108 million 93 percent of the time, and $400 million 7 percent of the time.''

By that reckoning, the industry estimate overstates the cost of developing a new drug by 740 percent. But in his economic report, President Bush uses the drug industry's estimate without question, without qualification, without even attribution.

Put simply the Brown-Gutknecht amendment would fix that. It prevents the Council of Economic Advisers, which works with the President to produce his economic report, from using that bogus estimate next year.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the cosponsor of the amendment.

(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I hear my friend from New Jersey, well, all of my friends from New Jersey. They are arguing on behalf of the drug industry. Here is what this is all about, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) said.

The drug industry funds a study. They do it through Tufts University. They find a professor at Tufts. This Dr. DiMasi has been doing these studies for the drug industry for several years. This is, I believe, his third study. After the study is done saying it costs $800 million, numbers just pulled from all over the place as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) proved in his comments, they get that study in a government report, and then that number gets all over the place to try to justify continued high drug prices, the kind of prices that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others on this floor have tried to do something about for several years.

So when the industry does a study, then you put it in a government report, it simply does not make sense to do that for the public interest.

There is a lot at stake here. The industry uses that fabricated cost estimate to justify charging our constituents the highest prices in the world. Two, three, four times Americans pay what Canadians or French or Germans or Israelis or Japanese pay; prices that force way too many American seniors to choose between their medicine and food; prices that drive up employer-sponsored health care costs, making American companies less competitive. Look at the problems at GM that my State faces. Prices that drive up tax bills by exploding the cost of Medicaid and Medicare and other public health programs.

With that much at stake, the very least we should do is make sure we get the numbers right. This will be the first step in debunking this $800 million myth. This will be the first step in getting the numbers right so that we can get on in dealing with real prescription drug legislation in the future.

I ask support for the Brown-Gutknecht amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, last week, finally, and mercifully, the national basketball season drew to a close. But the debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement goes on and on and on. Last year, during 2004, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican Member of the House, promised that we would vote by the end of the year, by December 31, 2004; promised we would vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They clearly did not have enough votes to pass it, so he did not bring it up.

The gentleman from Texas then promised a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. Again, the votes were not there. He did not bring it up. Now the gentleman from Texas promised there would be a vote on CAFTA by July 4. We leave town tomorrow or Friday. Clearly, it will not come up for a vote. Again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did not have the votes in order to pass it. The reason that the Central American Free Trade Agreement has not been voted on by this House is the majority of Members, dozens of Republicans and dozens of Democrats, workers in small businesses, farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and food safety advocates, the religious leaders in the United States, religious leaders in Latin America, person after person after person has said to this Congress: Renegotiate CAFTA. We do not want this agreement. And the reason that people say renegotiate CAFTA and do not vote on this CAFTA or defeat this CAFTA is because our trade policy simply is not working.

If you look at this chart, 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in this country of $38 billion. That means we exported $38 billion less than we imported. A dozen years later in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion. Clearly, our trade policy in this country is not working. Now maybe these are just numbers. These are just trade deficit numbers.

But Mr. Speaker, if you really look at what that means, that kind of trade deficit, it means we are outsourcing, we are losing all kinds of manufacturing jobs in our country. This chart of the 50 States shows the States, the States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing. Those in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing. Ohio, my home State has lost 216,000 manufacturing jobs in only 5 years. Pennsylvania, 200,000; New York 222,000; Michigan, 210,000; Illinois, 214,000. Then you look at Mississippi and Alabama, have lost 130,000. The Carolinas, over 300,000. California, 353,000; Texas, 2001,000. These are manufacturing jobs that have simply disappeared, in large part jobs that have been shipped overseas because of failed U.S. trade policies, yet President Bush wants to continue this same sort of trade policy that our country has followed.

And when you look at 216,600 jobs in Ohio, that is just a number, too. But think what that means to a community. York Manufacturing in Elyria, Ohio, about 5 miles from where I live in Lorain, Ohio, York manufacturing shut down, moved a lot of their production to Mexico; 700 people lost their jobs. That is 700 bread winners did not have jobs. If they had jobs at all, they had jobs that paid much less than they were making. It hurt the school system in Elyria. It hurt the city, police and fire protection in Elyria because the city lost money, lost revenue, lost tax dollars. That is what it does to families, what it does to communities, what it does to our schools, what it does to our States. It clearly is not in the national interest to continue this kind of trade policy where we have huge trade deficits getting worse every year, and then we have this kind of manufacturing job loss.

Mr. Speaker, every year, every time there is a trade agreement, the President says and he promises that we will have more jobs, more manufacturing that will export products overseas and bring up the standard of living in those countries. Every time the President promises that, every time we pass a trade agreement, the opposite happens.

Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Yet the President wants to continue this kind

of trade policy, as does the gentleman from Texas, Majority Leader DeLay, the most powerful Republican in this House, and we have the same kind of impact.

The opposition to CAFTA is broad. We have seen small manufacturers and farmers and ranchers. We have seen workers. We have seen religious leaders and environmentalists, people in Latin America, people in the United States that simply say no to this CAFTA, renegotiate a CAFTA. Renegotiate a Central American Free Trade Agreement that works for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, last year, Tom DeLay, the most powerful Republican in the Congress, promised this House that we would vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, so-called CAFTA, before the end of last calendar year, before December 31 of 2004. Then earlier this year he promised we would vote on CAFTA sometime before Memorial Day. Then he promised that we would vote on CAFTA sometime before July 4. The simple question is why has Congress not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement? The simple answer is that dozens of Republicans and Democrats, small businesses and manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, workers, environmentalists and food safety advocates all across the board oppose this agreement. There simply are not enough votes in this Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

During this whole period, supporters of CAFTA continued to make the same old, tired promises about trade. They promised that passage of CAFTA would reduce our trade deficit, but it continues the failed trade policy of the last dozen years. In 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had in this country a $38 billion trade deficit. Last year, a dozen years later, our trade deficit had mushroomed to $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion and the CAFTA supporters say that CAFTA will reduce our trade deficit.

CAFTA supporters say it will increase manufacturing jobs. Again, another broken promise from these trade agreements. The facts are that in the last 5 years, the U.S. has lost more than 2 million manufacturing jobs, more than 200,000 of them in my State of Ohio, another 200,000 in Michigan and Pennsylvania and New York, hundreds of thousands in Texas and California, in the southeast North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, those regions of the country.

Because no one believed these promises that it would cut the trade deficit, that it would increase our exports, the promise that it would raise the standard of living in Central America, they now are bringing out a whole nother round of promises. One promise they have made, CAFTA will stop illegal immigration from Central America. The facts are that based on a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a quarter million undocumented Mexican-born workers entered the U.S. from 1990 to 1994, prior to NAFTA. Then NAFTA passed, the number of illegals entering the U.S. sharply increased to almost a half million from 2000 to 2004. Free trade agreements are not a solution for illegal immigration.

Another promise they made, another wild, unsubstantiated promise, is that CAFTA will stop illegal drugs from entering the U.S. However, all you have got to do is look at what happened with NAFTA. Despite the passage of NAFTA, the State Department says Mexico is the principal transit country for South American cocaine entering the U.S. The report says that Mexican drug traffickers have steadily increased operations in all illicit drug sectors in the U.S. during the period after NAFTA.

Another wild, unsubstantiated claim is that CAFTA will stop al Qaeda from utilizing our southern border to enter the U.S. Geography 101, Mr. Speaker, shows that our southern border is with Mexico, not Central America, and despite claims made about NAFTA, border security remains low. CAFTA supporters fail to argue how passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement will fix the Mexico border problem.

Another wild, unsubstantiated claim is that Central American presidents support labor unions. The facts are very different from that. In every one of these CAFTA countries, Dominican Republic and the five countries in Central America, these nations are not compliant with internationally recognized labor standards today as defined by the International Labor Organization. Most CAFTA nations have inadequate protection for workers who try to join unions in violation of ILO Convention 98's right to organize and bargain collectively. They maintain onerous strike requirements in violation of the right to associate under ILO Convention 87. In Honduras, not a single one of the 8,000 workers in the Porvenir Export Processing Zone has the right of freedom of association. One worker in that zone said, ``Look, there's a whole mountain of workers who have been fired over the last few years for trying to organize in the industrial park. They simply don't allow it.'' In other words, these nations, one after another, continue to violate International Labor Organization standards.

CAFTA would lock in those lower wage standards, lower worker safety standards, right to organize, bargain collectively, prohibition on child labor, all of those things that we hold dear as our moral values in this country, human rights issues, protecting workers, protecting children, protecting against forced labor.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is, defeat this CAFTA. It has been promised that it would come to the floor week after week, month after month. Defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a Central American Free Trade Agreement that workers and small businesses and farmers and manufacturers and environmentalists and food safety advocates and businesses can support.

Mr. Speaker, at a White House news conference earlier this month, President Bush called on Congress to pass CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Also earlier this month, the most powerful Republican in Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Actually, it is the third time the gentleman has promised a vote on CAFTA. The first time in 2004 he said there would be a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the end of the year, December of 2004. Then earlier this year he promised a vote on CAFTA

by Memorial Day, and now he is promising a vote by July 4.

Where I come from, 3 strikes means you are out. As a result, Congress is waiting and waiting and waiting for the CAFTA vote count down to begin. While we wait, the many of us who have been speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement have a message for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and for the President, and that is renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

President Bush signed CAFTA more than a year ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Morocco, every trade agreement negotiated by this administration was voted on by this Congress within 60 days of the President signing the agreement. CAFTA has languished in Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrongheaded trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats alike.

It offends small manufacturers. It offends labor unions. It offends environmentalists and ranchers and small farmers and food safety advocates. It offends religious leaders in Central America and many religious leaders in this country.

Most importantly, just look what has happened with trade policy in this country in the last 12 years. In 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means we imported $38 billion more than we exported. Today, a dozen years later, in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion in only a dozen years. It is hard to argue that our trade policy is working.

Some people say, well, those are only just numbers, that is the trade deficit; who really cares? What that means is it means a significant loss in manufacturing jobs.

The States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing. The State of Ohio, 216,000 just in the last 5 years; Michigan, 210,000 manufacturing jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Mississippi and Alabama combined, 130,000. In the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Lewis) home State, they have lost between 15 and 20 percent.

These are the States in blue, 107,000. In the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Watson) and the gentleman from California's (Mr. Berman) State, 354,000 jobs lost.

In State after State after State we have seen hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 5 years, not entirely because of but in large part because of failed trade policies. Each one of these jobs translates into the loss of a bread winner, translates into less money for education in the community, less money for police and fire as the tax base shrinks with more and more industrial concerns shutting down.

These are faces of real people, what these numbers represent, and it is hurting an awful lot of families in every one of these States and our country.

As we see, the Central American Free Trade Agreement was negotiated by a select few for a select few. It was negotiated by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to help the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. It was negotiated by big energy companies in the United States to help big energy companies in the United States. It was negotiated by insurance and financial institutions to help insurance and financial institutions. But it is not helping workers. It is not helping the environment. It is not helping small manufacturers. It is not helping small farmers and small ranchers in our country.

It is the same old story, Mr. Speaker. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President makes three promises. He promises there will be more jobs in the U.S., more manufacturing products that are exported to other countries, and it means better wages and a higher standard of living for workers in the developing country. Yet, with every single trade agreement, their promises fall by the wayside.

Benjamin Franklin said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. The President makes the same promises about NAFTA, about PNTR with China, about CAFTA, about every trade agreement over and over and over, and the results are the same: more manufacturing job loss; more stagnation of wages in the developing world where their standard of living does not go up; more plant shutdowns in community after community in our country.

In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, the administration and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA is a bad idea. Overwhelming opposition to this agreement says we should renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment does not require much explanation. The Bush administration created a Medicaid Commission and invited Members of Congress to participate. Then they informed us that Members of Congress would not get a vote. It is not the Bush administration's responsibility to reform Medicaid. That is our job. Yet, the Bush administration did not give Members of Congress a vote.

What does this administration have to do before we draw the line, take over the appropriations process, sign bills before we pass them? It is our job, Mr. Chairman, to refine government programs under our jurisdiction. It is the administration's job to provide input. Theirs is a nonvoting position. The onus of responsibility is on us. We should not shirk it.

Vote for this amendment because you are not paid as Members of Congress to blame Medicaid for health care costs it does not generate. Medicaid is the insurer, not the patient. Vote for this amendment because you are not paid to blame impoverished children, the disabled, and the elderly for needing care or your constituents for feeling compassion towards them. Vote for this amendment because you know you cannot bring health care costs down by making it more difficult for poor people to receive it through normal channels. If a poor mother's child has an alarmingly high fever and she has no access to a primary care doc, she will take her to the emergency room. Who can blame her for that?

If you want to do something about the increase in Medicaid spending, do something about rising health care costs, do something about inflated prescription drug costs, do something about health care infomercials and glossy drug advertising, do something about medical errors, come up with a responsible medical malpractice reform plan. Do something that responds to the actual issue, not a symptom of it.

If a commission would be useful, let us make it a health care commission, and let us ask its members to recommend measures to stabilize health care spending, and let us give the Bush administration a vote on that commission. But do not allow the Bush White House to put Medicaid on trial as if it is some two-bit criminal when Medicaid is actually a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out there. Medicaid is a lower-cost health insurer than any private insurer out there. Do not let the Bush administration take health care away from the poor so it can give tax cuts to the rich.

Our government has three branches. Let us make sure the executive branch does not do our jobs for us. It may be

more difficult to confront health care costs directly than to make a scapegoat of the Medicaid program, but we are not in office to take the easy path. We are in office to take the right path.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse and one of this body's best advocates for public health.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have, as he certainly knows, great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), whose district and mine touch each other, are contiguous.

And I just would reiterate though on this amendment that this is a Medicaid commission that the White House is not even giving Members of Congress a vote on reforming the whole system. So they are going to come here with the commission recommendation from the White House to Congress about cutting $10 billion, but are not even going to give any real congressional input because we will not even be able to vote on these recommendations.

So in that vein, I ask Members of this body to support the Brown amendment on Medicaid.

Mr. Chairman, I watched this, and I understand how the roll call vote is going to come out. But I watched this with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller's) amendment. It was the same issue.

Mr. Chairman, there were 10 or 12 of us over here saying yes, and 3 or 4 or 5 over there saying no.

Mr. Chairman, many Americans seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance program, more commonly know as SSDI, face intolerable delays in the processing of their claims.

SSDI is a true insurance program. All American workers pay into the program, and any working American who becomes disabled is eligible for assistance.

The Social Security disability system has a backlog of more than a half-million cases on appeal. Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart testified last year that, on average, it took more than 3 years to complete processing of a disability claim on appeal, from the day it's filed to the day it's finally adjudicated.

These delays come with a high cost for the men and women forced to wait. For some, it means exhausting their life savings. Others lose their health insurance coverage, the family car, and even their homes. And as once-proud workers unable to pay their bills are reduced to borrowing from friends and family, some Americans lose even their dignity.

These delays have hit home in my Ohio district. One constituent, Bobbi from Sheffield, Ohio--a single mom injured in an auto accident in 2001--exhausted her life savings and was forced onto welfare while she waited. She finally received the support she had earned just last month, after waiting 4 years.

Another constituent, Ronald from Elyria, Ohio has a heart condition that left him disabled in 2001, but he had to wait 3 years for benefits.

The appropriations bill before us today offers a chance to improve the system, for these Ohioans and every American. This bill provides a badly-needed increase in administrative funding for the Social Security Administration.

A lot of these resources will go to funding administration of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. But significant funding will be used to help SSA improve disability processing and reduce the claims backlog--with new technology and staffing.

I support the SSA administrative funding provision in this bill. But we can do better. The bill falls more than $100 million short of President Bush's request for Social Security administrative funding. Advocates for disabled Americans agree with the President that SSA needs every dollar of the President's request to attack the disability backlog.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SSA administrative funding level in this bill.

But I urge you then to work with me as this bill advances, to seek full funding of President Bush's SSA administrative budget request.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the future of Social Security. But our first obligation should be to make Social Security work as well as it can right now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Before doing that, I would just like to make a couple of comments about what was said by my friend from Florida, who was joined by other members of the Republican Party to talk about their privatization plan, their plan to privatize Social Security. I applaud them for coming up with a plan. President Bush has for the last 4 months

gone around at town hall meetings, invitation only, where there is never any disagreement in these meetings, preaching Social Security change, never specifically saying what that change will be. The President, other than saying it is privatization, has not offered a specific Social Security plan. But what concerns me both about President Bush's comments and about the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle is they really are engaging in what we used to call, when they privatized Medicare, ``Mediscare'' tactics. They are doing the same kind of Social Security scare tactics by saying people are paying taxes into Social Security but may never see this money that they have put in.

And I cannot imagine a more secure system than Social Security. It is a system that has been around for 70 years. It has never missed a payment month after month after month for 70 years. It is reliable. It is predictable. It is always going to be there.

And when people who are Members of Congress stand up and say that we cannot count on this money being there, the Supreme Court made a decision here and Congress could make a decision there that Social Security might not be available, it simply scares people. And I do not think there is any room for that in our political system to scare people of any age, whether they are retirees or whether they are soon to be retirees or whether they are my age or younger than I and simply are not so sure about Social Security, to scare them and say that it will not be there, when it has been there every month for 70 years. It is reprehensible, frankly.

In terms of solutions, the first thing we should do with the Social Security, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) said earlier tonight, is quit stealing from it. Quit using money from the Social Security fund and spending $1 billion a week on the Iraq war. Quit spending money from the Social Security fund and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. That is how we start to change, to reform, to make even stronger the Social Security system.

Mr. Speaker, I turn my attention to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. In a White House news conference in May, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Last year the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, the most powerful Republican in the House, promised that we would vote on CAFTA during the year 2004. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promised a vote on CAFTA prior to Memorial Day. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is promising a vote again, and this time I think he means it, that we are going to vote on this by July 4.

Mr. Speaker, many of us, the dozen of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement have one message about CAFTA: Defeat CAFTA and renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement, one that business and labor, manufacturers, small business, ranchers, farmers, environmentalists, religious people, religious figures, leaders in the six CAFTA, Central American, Latin American countries and the United States, one we can agree on. But as it is, religious leaders in each of our seven countries, the U.S. and the Dominican Republic and the five countries in Central America, labor union members, workers, small business people, farmers, ranchers in all seven countries think this CAFTA is wrong and we should renegotiate a better CAFTA.

The President commented that workers can excel anytime, anywhere, if the rules are fair. I agree with President Bush that workers in our country can always compete if the rules are fair. That is why it is too bad this administration negotiated a Central American Free Trade Agreement that fails so miserably to do that.

Today the President grossly generalized the opposition to CAFTA, lobbying the tired accusation of economic isolationism. Name-calling does not have a place in this debate. For the President to say we are backward looking, economic isolationists, protectionists, none of those terms means anything, and all of those terms lower the debate to the lowest common denominator.

Just to clarify for the President, those he calls economic isolationists, the fact is a majority of Members of this Congress oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. At least 23 business organizations represented at a rally just yesterday in Washington oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Farmers and ranchers and small business people and workers all over these seven countries oppose this agreement and call for a renegotiation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

We want a trade agreement with CAFTA countries, but we want one that benefits the many, not the select few. CAFTA was a negotiated agreement, negotiated by the select few, including the drug industry, including the largest corporations in America, an agreement negotiated by the select few, for the select few, for the drug industry, for the largest corporations of America. That is what the White House is trying to force through this Congress, a failed trade agreement that was dead on arrival.

Just look at its history. Thirteen months ago President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Every other free trade agreement President Bush has signed, one with Morocco, one with Australia, one with Chile, one with Singapore, four agreements, each of these four agreements that the President signed was voted within 60 days by this Congress. The President signed it; within 2 months Congress voted on it and passed it.

This trade agreement is very different. He signed it 13 months ago, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, the most powerful Republican House Member, has not brought it before this body or the Senate simply because it does not have the votes, because it has languished in Congress for more than a year, because this wrong-headed trade agreement is a continuation of failed trade policy in this country and Republicans and Democrats alike understand it.

Just look at what has happened with our trade policy in the last dozen years, Mr. Speaker. If we look at this chart, we will see that in 1992, the year I happened to be elected to Congress, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means we imported $38 billion more worth of goods than we exported; $38 billion. That number grew and grew and grew until last year, in 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion.

In a dozen years, our trade deficit went from $38 billion to $618 billion. What does that mean? That is just a bunch of numbers. Well, it is not just a bunch of numbers. When we have a trade deficit grow like that, what it means is a lot of lost jobs. President Bush the first said that every $1 billion in trade deficit, every billion dollars, and we had $618 billion last year, over $500 billion the year before, over $400 billion the year before, and over $300 billion the year before that, that every $1 billion of trade deficit translates into, according to President Bush the first, 12,000 lost jobs. So if our trade deficit is $1 billion, it is a net loss of 12,000 jobs. If we multiply that times 618, we have a lot of jobs lost in this country as a result of our failed trade policy.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at this next chart, we will see what those numbers mean. The States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the last 5 years: Ohio, 216,000, where I live; Michigan, 210,000 jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Virginia and West Virginia, 95,000; North and South Carolina, 315,000; Alabama and Mississippi combined, 130,000.

The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing: Texas, 201,000; Florida, 72,000; Georgia, 107,000; Tennessee, 93,000; California, 353,000.

Those are manufacturing jobs lost in the last 5 years in large part because of our trade policy. Yet President Bush wants us to pass another trade agreement called CAFTA, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, an agreement that will cause the same downward spiral in our manufacturing situation in this country.

It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President promises three things: He says it will mean more jobs for Americans; it will mean more manufacturing done in the U.S.; it will mean better wages for

workers in developing countries. Yet with every trade agreement, their promises fall by the wayside. We lose jobs. The standard of living in the developing world continues to stagnate. Our own wages stagnate.

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Mr. Speaker, we are doing the same thing on our trade policy over and over and over again, and for some reason, although not a majority of Congress buys this, but for some reason the President and the largest corporations in the country and some Members of Congress, Republican leadership, believe that the outcome will be better, will be different this time, will actually produce much better results.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this job loss, again, these are just numbers, but think what 216,000 jobs lost in Ohio or in Akron or in Columbus or in Dayton or in Toledo or in Cleveland or in Lorain or in Youngstown, when a factory closes down and moves to Mexico, which happened to a plant in Elyria just in the last couple of years in my district, when a plant closes down, 800 jobs were lost. The schools suffer because there are fewer tax dollars for the schools. Police and fire are often laid off because there are not enough tax dollars. But it is what it does to those families, those 800 families, who generally cannot find jobs. The bread winners in those families simply cannot find jobs that pay nearly at the rate of those manufacturing jobs. So these families suffer. The kids suffer. The school district is hurt. All kinds of people lose when these trade agreements pass this Congress and we see this kind of manufacturing job loss.

The administration and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass this Central American Free Trade Agreement. This year the administration is linking CAFTA to helping democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick have said CAFTA will help us in the war on terror, but 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve border security between Mexico and the U.S.; so that argument does not sell.

Then in May, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce flew the six Presidents from Central America and the Dominican Republic around the Nation, hoping they might be able to sell CAFTA to the Nation's newspapers, to the public, to the Congress.

They flew to Albuquerque and Los Angeles, to New York and Miami, to Cincinnati in my home State. Again, they failed. In fact, the Costa Rican President announced, after the junket paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, that his country would not ratify CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine it would not hurt working families in his country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the administration, finding that nothing else works to convince enough Members of Congress to vote for CAFTA, now the administration has opened the bank. Desperate after failing to gain support for the agreement, CAFTA supporters now are attempting to buy votes with fantastic promises.

I would hold this up, Mr. Speaker, This is called ``Trade Wars, Revenge of the Myth, Deals For Trade Votes Gone Bad.'' It refers to a study of 92 documented promises made during trade agreements and how many of those promises by the administration to Members of Congress were actually honored. Fewer than 20 percent; 16 of these 90-some promises were actually honored by the administration.

Members are not going to fall for this kind of disingenuous, these kinds of disingenuous actions from the administration. Again, the President can open the bank, the President can promise bridges and highways, the President can promise campaign fund-raisers in districts, the President can make all kinds of promises, sugar deals and textile deals to Members of Congress; but this year, they are not buying it, Mr. Speaker.

Instead of wasting time with toothless side deals, our U.S. trade ambassador should renegotiate a CAFTA that will pass Congress. Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups, farmers, ranchers, faith-based groups, religious leaders, environmental, human rights organizations in all seven countries, the Latin American Consulate of Churches, for instance, have opposed CAFTA. All kinds of labor organizations and small businesses, manufacturers in this country have opposed CAFTA. They all say they want a trade agreement, but they want to renegotiate this CAFTA so that we will have one which actually works for American businesses, for American small businesses, for American workers, and for workers in these developing countries.

This CAFTA will not enable Central American workers to buy cars made in Ohio or software developed in Seattle or prime beef in Nebraska. They make these promises. The CAFTA supporters have said, Mr. Speaker, they said that if the United States passes CAFTA, we will increase our exports to these six Latin American countries, they will buy our things. But if we look at this, Mr. Speaker, the United States average wage is $38,000; Guatemala is $4,000; Honduras, $2,600; and Nicaragua, $2,300. A Nicaraguan worker cannot buy a car made in Ohio, cannot buy produce from Mr. Farr's district in California. A Guatemalan worker cannot afford to buy software from Seattle. An El Salvadoran worker cannot buy prime beef from Nebraska or textiles or apparel from North Carolina. This is about CAFTA companies moving jobs to Honduras, exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, our goal should be to lift up workers in those countries so that they can buy American goods. When the world's poorest people, Mr. Speaker, can buy American products and not just make them, then we will know that our trade policies are working.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we must renegotiate CAFTA.

I am joined this evening by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a friend of mine, a Member of Congress, who came the same year I did, in 1993, from Northern California; and I would like to yield some time to him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the gentleman from California was a Peace Corps volunteer himself in Latin America and is a fluent Spanish speaker; and I think the perspective he brings shows that even though the wages are so much higher in these countries, it is not a question of we just want to shut them off and keep them away and not let them compete and all of that in the world economy. It is a question of development and bringing up their standard of living. These trade agreements in the past have not done that.

Talk to us, if the gentleman will, about from your perspective what development means. The gentleman talked about water systems and all of that. Instead of a CAFTA that does not lift standards up, what kinds of things work the most and, in particular, the poorest of these countries in Nicaragua and Honduras and Guatemala whose income is about, in some cases, less than one-tenth of ours, one-fifteenth of ours, if the gentleman would.

No labor standards.

I think there were a couple of things that you said tonight that were very good. There is nothing in this agreement that will raise living standards when you look at the six countries here, and their incomes, especially Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, all make no more than about one-tenth of what Americans make.

There is nothing in this agreement to bring worker standards up, to bring environmental or food safety standards up. In fact, this agreement protects prescription drugs and the prescription drug companies; the agreement does that, but does not protect workers standards.

It protects Hollywood films, but does not protect the environment and food safety. And when you talk about the size of these economies not buying very much from the United States, the size of these five Central American countries, the economic output is about the equivalent of Columbus, Ohio or Memphis, Tennessee or Orlando, Florida. It is simply not a place that is going to buy from the United States.

But what we should be doing is a trade agreement, a renegotiation of CAFTA, in a trade agreement that will lift worker standards up so that these incomes begin to rise, so that over time they can in fact buy American products, they can send their kids to school.

You talk about children, particularly girls, not having any chance to go to school and get out of this situation. In this agreement, we found this in other places, this agreement just locks in that sort of exploitive sort of economic situation where people simply do not have the opportunity that they should have.

You said something very perceptive about California, and whether it is the Silicon Valley or whether it is the Central Valley or whether it is Cleveland, Ohio, what our country has been successful in doing is workers in our country share in the wealth they create.

If you work for someone and you help that employer make a decent living and make a good profit, you as an employee share in the wealth you create. That company also pays taxes in that community, so that the community has safe drinking water and the community has decent road structure and other kinds of infrastructure.

But, as you know, whether you go to Nicaragua or whether you go to the Mexican border or any number of countries in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create.

I have been to an auto plant in Mexico 3 miles from the United States. The workers work just as hard as workers in our country. It is a clean, productive plant, with the latest technology.

The difference between a Ford plant in my district and the city I live in, and a Ford plant in Mexico, is the Ford plant in Mexico does not have a parking lot, because the workers are not sharing in the wealth they create.

You can go around the world to Vietnam, and go to a Nike plant, and the workers cannot afford to buy the shoes they make. Or go to Costa Rica, the workers at a Disney plant, the workers cannot afford to buy the toys for their kids often.

So the workers are not sharing the wealth they create, and the companies are generally taxed very little, if at all, so they are not putting any money into those communities.

So if we would renegotiate CAFTA and put a program together like you talk about, with safe drinking water and infrastructure and schools so that boys and girls could go to school, and the workers were making enough that they could begin to buy some things, you would see their standard of living going up, and everybody would be better off, instead of just the largest corporations in the world.

And the interesting thing about all of that is even though the leaders of those countries, as you have said, most of them except Costa Rica like the idea of CAFTA, the workers in those countries, the citizens of those countries simply do not.

I would like to show you this here. Several months ago there was a demonstration in one of the Central American countries, I believe this is Guatemala. There have been 45 demonstrations against CAFTA in each of the six countries, and our country too, but 45 demonstrations where literally tens of thousands of citizens have shown up at the Parliament asking these countries not to ratify the agreement.

This is a case where the police attacked workers who were protesting peacefully. Two workers were killed. In place after place, it is clear that, like you understand, of course, they understand better than we possibly could why this agreement does not work. They know it will not raise their standard of living. They know they will not share in the wealth they create in a factory for their employer.

They know that these companies that come in will not pay taxes in their local communities so they can have safe drinking water and a better environment and better food safety standards and all that comes with an industry coming to town.

I know when an industry comes to Ohio, it means a lot for the community. It is good jobs. They pay property taxes for the schools. They build good roads because of their tax dollars. All that comes when these factories come, they mean continued misery.

History has taught us otherwise; that it does not.

We have been joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) from Los Angeles who has been a real leader on all kinds of economic justice issues, especially trade issues.

The gentlewoman is exactly right when she talked about small businesses, those manufacturers that we all have in our districts. The gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has joined us. We all have seen these companies of 50 and 100 workers, often nonunion, usually family owned, usually Republican business, mostly men, some women. We had 23 business groups represented yesterday in this news conference; but more importantly, these small manufacturers understand when a big company outsources their jobs, these small companies simply have to close. This may be 50 jobs in Lorraine, Ohio or Akron, Ohio. There may be no article in the newspaper that this plant has closed, and nobody knows much about it except these 50 families whom it is just devastating to.

I thank both of our friends from California for joining us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the stalwart in fighting for economic justice and fair trade, not these free trade deals that do not work, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Lucas County, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). We share the same county, Lorraine County, in our districts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues. Our time is about up. Thank you very much for your passionate remarks in closing.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

This Congress will likely vote on this agreement soon. It is pretty clear that the most powerful people in all seven countries, the Dominican Republic, the Central American countries and the United States, support this agreement but overwhelming opposition among the public, small business owners and family farmers and ranchers and workers and people who care about the environment.

If this Congress does its job, it is clear we will defeat this CAFTA and then renegotiate one that lifts up workers in all seven countries. I thank all of my colleagues for joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago the President of the United States signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The trade agreement is an agreement between the United States and six Latin American countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic. It has been 13 months, as I said, since the President signed this agreement.

The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, promised a vote in 2004. He promised a vote by Memorial Day. Now he promised a vote, I think he means it this time, by July 4.

It is simple, the reason we have not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and that is because of the broad opposition in this House and among the American people. Republicans and Democrats by the dozens in this House oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Business organizations, labor unions, both in the United States and in the six Latin American countries, oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The Latin American Council of Churches, as do many religious leaders and churches and organizations in the United States, oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Environmentalists, active environmentalists, food safety advocates, all kinds of very broad-based organizations oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and I did a news conference at the Capitol with 23 business leaders speaking out, business leaders representing 23 businesses speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The reason is simply that our policy is not working. Our trade policy in this country has failed us for 12 years.

Just look at this chart. Since 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, the trade deficit, number of dollars' worth of exports versus imports, our trade deficit internationally was $38 billion. Today after NAFTA, PNTR, TPA, all these trade agreements, our trade deficit last year was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion.

Now, maybe those are just numbers, but those numbers translate into something much more important than economist data. These numbers translate into manufacturing job losses. The States in red have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the last 5 years. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent. Ohio, my State, 217,000 jobs lost; Michigan 210,000; Illinois 224,000. These are just manufacturing job losses. People who make a decent wage, a middle-class wage, who have health benefits, who have earned pensions, thousands, hundreds of thousands of them, have lost their jobs; 228,000 in North Carolina; 130,000 in Mississippi and Alabama; 353,000 in California; 201,000 in the State of Texas; 200,000 in the State of Pennsylvania; 72,000 in the State of Florida. In State after State after State, we are losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

Our the trade policy is not working. CAFTA is more of the same. CAFTA is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was an agreement that was negotiated by the select few, benefiting the select few.

Now, supporters of CAFTA tell us, as they always do in trade agreements, that as a result of this agreement U.S. companies will export more products to the developing world. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this chart, that is simply not the case.

The U.S. typical average wage is $38,000. The average wage in El Salvador is 4,800; Honduras 2,600; Nicaragua 2,300. To say that people in those countries are going to buy products made in this country simply does not pass the credibility test. Hondurans are not going to be able to buy cars made in Ohio. Nicaraguans making $2,300 a year are not going to be able to buy prime beef raised in Nebraska. Guatemalans making $4,100 a year are not going to be able to buy steel from Pennsylvania or apparel from North and South Carolina, or be able to buy software from Seattle.

Mr. Speaker, those 23 business organizations that spoke out against CAFTA today, labor unions in all seven countries, environmentalists, food safety advocates, small businesses, farmers and ranchers in all seven countries, in Latin America and in this country, are simply saying renegotiate CAFTA; come up with a different Central American Free Trade Agreement that will help all of us.

If we are going to protect prescription drugs, we should protect workers. If we are going to protect Hollywood films, as CAFTA does, we should protect the environment and food safety.

Mr. Speaker, we should pass a trade agreement that works for all of us in this country, not just a select few.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, we can look on the other side of the world on what our trade agreements and trade policies have wrought.

USA Today has an editorial today I will read from for a moment: ``Part of the Internet's magic is the freedom it bestows to travel as far as your mind can take you. But not if you're in China.

``Software giant Microsoft has agreed to block certain words: democracy, freedom, and human rights among them,'' on the Internet as part of its new Chinese Internet portal. They have been joined by Yahoo and by Google.

So, Mr. Speaker, write in the words ``democracy'' or ``freedom'' or the phrase ``human rights,'' and what comes up on your screen as those words are blocked? It says, ``This item should not contain forbidden speech, such as profanity.'' Human rights, freedom, democracy? That is profanity?

Mr. Speaker, these trade agreements we have signed, coupled with our striving for freedom around the world and what our businesses say about their wanting to promote freedom and democracy, sound a bit hollow.

Mr. Speaker, at the White House news conference early this month, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Earlier this month, the most powerful Republican in Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Well, actually last year he promised a vote during 2004. Then he promised by Memorial Day that we would vote on CAFTA. Now, I think he means it this time, now he is saying we are going to vote on CAFTA by July 4.

As Congress waits for the next CAFTA vote countdown to begin, while we wait and wait and wait, many of us who have been speaking out, on both sides of the aisle, dozens of Republicans and dozens of Democrats have a message to the President and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

President Bush signed CAFTA almost 13 months ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Morocco, Chile, Singapore, Australia, has been voted on within 60 days of the President's signing the agreement. But CAFTA has been 13 months. It has languished in Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats.

It offends small business people and farmers and ranchers. It offends Central American workers and American workers. It offends advocates for food safety and the environment. Just look at what has happened with our trade policy, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the President want more of the same.

Look at what has happened to our trade policy in the last dozen years. The year that I came to Congress, the same year that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) came to Congress, we were elected in 1992, that year the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit, meaning we imported $38 billion more than we exported. 12 years later, a dozen years later, last year, our trade deficit went from $38 billion 12 years later to $618 billion.

It is hard to argue that our trade policy is working when the deficit goes from $38 billion and balloons to $618 billion in just a dozen years.

But, it is more than just some numbers, Mr. Speaker, on a trade deficit, it is also job loss. In the last 6 years, manufacturing jobs alone, the States in red have lost 20 percent or more of their manufacturing base. Michigan has lost 210,000 manufacturing jobs, Illinois, 224, Ohio 216, Pennsylvania 199, New Jersey over 100,000 Alabama and Mississippi together, 130,000 jobs.

The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000. California 354,000. It is pretty clear our trade policy is not working, Mr. Speaker. Opponents to CAFTA know that it is an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, for all intents and purposes.

It did not work then, it is not working now. It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement in front of Congress, the President says it will mean more jobs for Americans. The President promises, we will manufacture more products and export them abroad. The President promises it will raise the standard of living in the countries of our trading partners, and the developing countries.

Yet, with every trade agreement their promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests, not small business interests, big business interests that sends U.S. jobs overseas and exploit cheap labor abroad.

Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on the same kind of trade agreements, and we get the same negative results. In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, Republican leadership and the administration have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA and they failed.

Now, they have opened the bank. Desperate after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on its merits, CAFTA supporters are now attempting to buy votes with their fantastic promises. If history is an example, Members should beware of these promises. Fewer than 20 percent, 14 out of 92 trade promises from the administration in the last dozens years, 14 out of 92 trade promises, less than 20 percent, were ever realized.

The White House will make all kinds of promises to Members on both sides of the aisle, but do not be suckers, it is going to happen again and again and again. Instead of wasting with toothless side deals, Ambassador Portman should renegotiate a trade deal, a CAFTA that will pass Congress.

Republicans and Democrats, labor and business, farmers and ranchers, religious leaders in Central America, religious leaders in the United States, environmental and human rights organizations in all seven countries are speaking with one voice: Defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a CAFTA that lifts up workers in both countries.

Mr. Speaker, a worker in the United States averages about $38,000 a year in wages. The Dominican Republic about $6,000, Honduras about $2,600, Nicaragua 2,300. A Nicaraguan worker who earns $2,300 a year cannot buy cars made in Ohio, cannot buy prescription drugs manufactured in New Jersey, cannot buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina, cannot buy software from Seattle, cannot buy prime cut beef from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is about outsourcing jobs to El Salvador, exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala. When the world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, then you know our trade policy will finally have succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, quoting from Roll Call, Lawmakers who are seeking to trade their votes on CAFTA should be forewarned: Such deals don't pan out.

A Public Citizen report catalogs promises made to lawmakers by the Clinton and Bush administrations on

trade votes from NAFTA to the 2002 TPA vote. Democratic and Republican administrations delivered on only 16 out of 92 promises; 16 out of 92 promises.

On textiles, the report highlights a promise made during consideration of the 2002 TPA vote to Representatives Hayes and Myrick to hire 72 additional Customs inspectors, which was never fulfilled. Hayes is leaning against CAFTA, but Myrick this week announced her support.

Quoting further from Roll Call:

That support is partly based on a pledge from Rob Portman to seek an amendment to CAFTA to help producers of pockets and linings, proving that textile Members like Myrick seem to have learned nothing from the record of broken deals.

Quoting further from Roll Call:

Myrick said she has been assured by Homeland Security

Secretary Chertoff that those positions would be filled by

2006.

Mr. Speaker, do not believe the deals when they try to buy votes on

Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a trade agreement among six Latin American countries with the United States. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican Member of the House, said last year when the agreement was signed in May of 2004 that Congress would soon vote on it. We did not. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said we would vote on it before Memorial Day. We did not. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says we are going to vote on it before July 4. I think he means it this time.

But the reason we have not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement is pretty simple: A majority of Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats, large numbers of Members of this House simply do not think our trade policy is working.

Every single trade agreement that has come before this Congress that President Bush has signed has been voted on within 60 days: Morocco, Chile, Australia and Singapore. The Central American Free Trade Agreement has not been voted on in almost 13 months because Americans, represented by their Members of Congress, have said we do not like the way our trade policy is working.

Just take a look. In 1992, the year I was elected to Congress for the first time, our trade deficit, imports versus exports, was $38 billion. Last year, 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years.

Now, that is just numbers, that is just economics maybe. But look what that means. What that really means is a huge loss in manufacturing jobs. In the last 6 years, for example, the States in red are States which have lost 20 percent, at least one out of five, of their manufacturing jobs: New York, 222,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Ohio, my State, 217,000; Michigan, 210,000 lost manufacturing jobs alone; Illinois, 224,000; Mississippi and Alabama together, 132,000; North Carolina, 228,000. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent, between one out of six and one out of five, of their manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000; California, 354,000 manufacturing jobs.

Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not working. The Central American Free Trade Agreement is going to be more of the same. It is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which helped to begin this trend of a huge burgeoning trade deficit and the continuing loss of more manufacturing jobs.

The President has said he wants us to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement and he makes some promises. The President said the Central American Free Trade Agreement will mean more jobs for Americans, it will mean more manufacturing in the U.S. and more exports to the developing world, and it will mean an increase in the standard of living for all seven countries, not just us, but the six countries in the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Unfortunately, that is the same promise that presidents have made for a decade and a half. They promise more jobs for Americans, they promise more manufacturing exports, they promise a higher standard of living in the developing world. And we end up with this: We end up with wages stagnant in the developing world, continued poverty in Mexico or China or wherever these trade agreements are, whichever countries these trade agreements affect, and more lost jobs in the U.S.

The people that have supported CAFTA like to tell us we will start selling more products to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua. What they do not tell us is that people in those countries simply cannot afford to buy American products.

The average wage in the United States is $38,000. The average wage in El Salvador is $4,800. The average wage in Honduras is $2,600. The average wage in Nicaragua is $2,300. People in El Salvador cannot buy cars made in Ohio. People in the Dominican Republic cannot buy software from Seattle. People in Nicaragua cannot buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina. People in Honduras cannot buy steel from West Virginia or Pennsylvania.

The fact is, these trade agreements are about one thing: These trade agreements are about exporting more U.S. jobs, outsourcing more U.S. work. That is why the largest companies in this country support CAFTA, because they want to move more production to these countries and continue to pay these very low wages instead of these higher wages.

When you see who lines up for this agreement, the people who support CAFTA are the largest companies in the United States. The people who oppose CAFTA are religious leaders in Central America, religious leaders in the United States. The people who support CAFTA, again, are the largest banks and the largest financial institutions in the United States. The people who oppose CAFTA are people representing workers, the environment, people who advocate for food safety. The people who support CAFTA are the most powerful people in our country. The people who oppose CAFTA are Central American trade unions and people who represent the poorest of the poor in Latin America.

This trade agreement simply will not work for Americans. It will mean more lost jobs for the United States. It will mean more manufacturing going offshore. It will mean a higher trade deficit with the United States, already going from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen years. It will mean more stagnant wages in Central America. It will mean a pulling down of wages in the United States.

The fact is, we can pass a different CAFTA. We should defeat the Central American Free Trade Agreement and we should negotiate a CAFTA with labor standards, with protections for the environment, with protections for food safety.

Why do we have protections for the drug companies, and not workers in CAFTA? Why do we have protections for Hollywood films, but not for the environment or food safety?

Mr. Speaker, when workers in the developing world can buy American products, not just make them, then we will know finally that our trade policy is working.

Mr. Speaker, a quote from Congress Daily: ``Lawmakers seeking to trade their votes on CAFTA should be forewarned. Such deals do not pan out.''

A Public Citizen report catalogues promises made to lawmakers by the Clinton and Bush administrations on trade votes from NAFTA to PNTR to TPA. Democratic and Republican administrations delivered on 16 out of 92 deals.

Examples of broken promises, a pledge from the Clinton administration to put in place expedited safeguard procedures for tomatoes. The Bush administration did nothing to utilize those procedures. Tomato imports have grown 137 percent.

On textiles and apparel, a promise made during 2002 TPA to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and then-Representative Ballenger to hire 72 additional customs inspectors, which was never fulfilled.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is leaning against CAFTA. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) this week announced her support. That support is based on a pledge from Trade Representative Portman to seek an amendment to CAFTA to help North Carolina producers of pockets and linings proving that textile members like the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) seem to have learned nothing from the record of broken deals, the report states.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) said she has been assured by Secretary Chertoff that those positions would be filled by 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at a recent White House news conference President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. A couple of weeks ago in this Chamber the most powerful Republican in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Well, actually, last year the gentleman promised a vote on CAFTA during 2004, then a couple of months ago he promised there would be a vote by Memorial Day. Now, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) really means it, that there will actually be a vote on CAFTA by July 4.

The many of us who have spoken out against CAFTA, and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats, people on both sides of the aisle have a message. Our message is dump this Central American Free Trade Agreement. Renegotiate a CAFTA that large numbers of Members of both parties can support.

Now, President Bush signed CAFTA more than a year ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, every single trade agreement negotiated by this administration has passed Congress within 2 months.

CAFTA, on the other hand, was signed in May of 2004. It has been almost 13 months since CAFTA was signed by the President, but it has languished in Congress for more than a year, six times longer than any other trade agreement. It has languished in Congress for more than a year because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats in large numbers.

Just look at what happened with our trade policy in the last decade. I was elected to Congress in 1992. In those days for that year, the trade deficit, meaning the amount of goods exported from the United States versus imported into the United States, the trade deficit was $38 billion. Twelve years later, in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion, and the President and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the Congress, says that our trade policies are working.

If you think it is working look at this. In addition to the trade deficit going from $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years, look at what is happening to the American manufacturing in the last 5 or 6 years.

The States in red are States which have lost 20 percent or more, at least 20

percent, of their manufacturing: Michigan, 210,000 jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000 jobs lost; Pennsylvania, 199,000; New York, 222,000; Mississippi and Alabama, 138,000; South Carolina and North Carolina, 207,000; the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Kucinich) and my State, 217,000 manufacturing jobs lost, more than one out of five manufacturing jobs in our State.

The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. More than 200,000 in Texas; Florida and Georgia, 178,000. State after State after State. Our trade policy simply is not working, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what the administration's doing, though, what CAFTA supporters in this Congress have done is they have crafted a one-sided plan to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American and Central American workers, at the expense of American and Central American small business, at the expense of American and Central American farmers.

It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President says three things: It will be mean jobs for Americans, it will mean more manufacturing done in the U.S. and more exports, and it will mean better wages for workers in developing countries.

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin said 200 or so years ago, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different outcome. Every time the President says it is going to mean more jobs for Americans it is going to mean more manufacturing and more export, and it is going to raise living standards in the developing countries. Mr. Speaker, it never, ever does. These promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests that send U.S. jobs overseas.

Again, look at this chart. Look at the millions, 200,000, 200 plus, 200, 200, 200,000, 350,000 in California. Millions of jobs sent overseas. The standard of living in the developing world is stagnant, not going up. We are continuing to outsource jobs and the administration says let us pass the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA. It is pass CAFTA. There is a reason CAFTA and NAFTA rhyme. It is because it is the same old story, the same dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA.

Now, the administration is doing something different. They are linking CAFTA to helping democracy, and helping democracy develop in the developing world. That argument does not sell.

In May, the Chamber of Commerce brought the six Central American and Dominican Republic presidents to the United States on a junket, to Cincinnati, to Albuquerque, to New York, to Los Angeles, to Washington, trying to convince the American people and the American media that this is not working.

The Costa Rican president said they will not ratify CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine the agreement will not hurt the working families in his country.

Now, the administration has opened the bank in time to cut deals.

Mr. Speaker, when the world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, we will know our trade policies are finally working.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year and 1 month ago, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which would extend the same NAFTA- type trade provisions to six countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic.

Unlike every other trade agreement which President Bush has signed, Morocco, Chile, Singapore and Australia, which were signed and voted on by Congress within 60 days, the Central American Free Trade Agreement has simply languished in the halls of Congress. The President has not brought it forward to vote on, in large part because the people of this body, a majority of the Members of Congress, will not vote for it. And here is why.

It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker that our trade policy is not working. In 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a $38 billion trade deficit, meaning we sold $38 billion less than we imported, exported less than we imported. $38 billion. Today, or 2004, that number had increased to $618 billion, from $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years.

Mr. Speaker, maybe that is just numbers, but when you look at the trade deficit, and you know what it means, it has meant in large part a huge loss of manufacturing jobs. Just in the last 6 years these States in red have all lost at least 20 percent of their manufacturing. Michigan, 210,000; Ohio, 216-; Illinois, 224-; Pennsylvania, 200-; Mississippi and Alabama 130,000; North Carolina, 228,000. States in the purple here, dark blue, purple, have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that our trade policy is not working. Now, because of that and because the President cannot get nearly enough votes to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, they have begun to negotiate side deals, and they have promised bridges and highways as they did in 2001 on the last big trade vote in this Congress, something called trade promotion authority. They have promised to change CAFTA and do something down the road. Trust us, vote for it, and then we will make some provisions later down to help sugar, help textile, to help the steel industry, to protect jobs, to perhaps bring up living standards in Central America.

The latest promise that they have made is to offer $20 million for enforcement of labor standards. This is the same administration that has cut labor standards in the United States and has dropped the funding for the Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs from $148 million 4 years ago down to 12 million. They want to put $20 million back.

We can play with numbers, but the fact is the enforcement of labor standards in Central America is basically nonexistent under CAFTA and under the President's plans.

At the same time, the International Labor Organization sets standards agreed on by all countries around the world to lift up labor standards so that workers can make a decent wage, that workers can bargain and organize collectively. The ILO standards prohibit child labor, prohibit forced labor, all the kinds of values that we in this country share with our colleagues and our workers in our families. With all of that, the administration is one of only two countries out of 80 in the world that is not fully supporting the ILO and what it wants to do in Geneva with its funding, with its programs, with all that.

So it is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that the $20 million offer to support labor standards is just a fig leaf to try to convince a few Members of Congress to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

While all those deals have been going on, Mr. Speaker, a group of us had a rally today at the Cannon building in Washington, a group of legislators from the United States and a group of legislators from Central America. They rallied against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, not to kill it but to defeat this Central American Free Trade Agreement and come back with a better Central American Free Trade Agreement that protects the environment, that helps working people in both countries. All of us together have called on Congress to pass a better Central American Free Trade Agreement.

These legislators from our country and from seven countries in Central America and Latin America understand that this CAFTA protects drug companies while harming the sick and the poor. They understand this CAFTA protects the world's largest corporations while hurting small businesses and working families. They understand this trade agreement protects huge industries while undermining the environment.

They understand that they want and have called for a CAFTA that lifts workers up and raises living standards, a CAFTA that protects people the same way it protects property rights and the drug industry, a CAFTA that allows HIV patients access to affordable, life-saving drugs.

They understand, most importantly, that CAFTA was negotiated by a select few to benefit only a select few, not the masses of people in our country and the other six CAFTA countries.

It is past time to renegotiate a trade agreement that works for all citizen of all seven CAFTA Nations.