Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, earlier today, nearly two dozen House and Senate Members, a large number of Members of both parties, held a news conference with about 175 to 200 people representing a whole host of organizations in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Those groups were as diverse as textile manufacturers, as sugar farmers, as environmentalists, labor organizations, religious groups, all kinds of groups, all kinds of organizations, all kinds of individuals in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Madam Speaker, sometime in the next 6 weeks, this legislation, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, will come to the House floor for a vote, according to Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas.)

The supporters of the Central American Free Trade Agreement have told Members of Congress, have told the public, have told newspapers that the Central American Free Trade Agreement will create jobs for Americans, it will create more opportunities to manufacture goods and export them to Central America, it will help farmers and small businesses and manufacturers and consumers and all kinds of groups and people in our country.

The problem is that is the exact same thing that supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement told us a dozen years ago. It is the exact same promise that sponsors of entry into the World Trade Organization told us about 10 years ago; it is the same promise that they told us when we considered the China PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations, most favored nation status for China; this is the same promise they made on a half dozen other trade agreements.

Yet, in every case, after every trade agreement, we lost more manufacturing jobs, we saw our environmental and food safety standards weakened, we saw less prosperity within those countries with whom we traded, whether it was Mexico, whether it was China, whether it was country after country after country.

Wages continued to stagnate in those countries, and wages continue to stagnant in our country. People actually earn less in real dollars today than they did a year ago before the last trade agreement. On issue after issue they continue to make these promises, and they generally failed to live up to these promises.

Madam Speaker, I would call your attention to this chart. The year I ran for Congress in 1992, the United States had a trade deficit of $38 billion, $38 billion in 1992, 13 years ago. You can see how this trade deficit got bigger and bigger and bigger.

Today our trade deficit, through the year 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. It went from $38 billion just about a dozen years later $618 approximately.

That means more Americans, more American jobs are exported, more American job losses, and that is bad news not just for manufacturing and the people that own those companies; it is bad news for American workers, it is bad news for our communities, it is bad news for our schools and our families.

And if we really want to talk about American values, then we ought to be talking about what these trade agreements do to our children, do to our families, what they do to the school systems, what they do to police and fire protection, school districts, police districts and fire districts; and cities lose more and more tax revenue.

The fact is the promises of the Central American Free Trade Agreement are again the same as they were under NAFTA, the same as they were under China trade, the same as they were under the legislation setting up the World Trade Organization. But what we see time and time again is more trade deficit, more hemorrhaging of American jobs.

Now, when they talk about CAFTA, the six countries in Central America that this trade agreement involves with the United States under that, the entire economies of these six countries are equal to the economy of Columbus, Ohio or the State of Kansas, or Orlando, Florida. Their buying power is such in those countries, those six countries, as poor as they are, and as small as they are, they simply do not have the buying power to buy American products. Guatemalans and Nicaraguans and the people in Honduras and Costa Rica and El Salvador simply do not have the money to buy cars manufactured in Ohio, or steel made in West Virginia. They do not have the purchasing power to buy textiles and apparel from Georgia, South Carolina, from North Carolina.

They do not have the money or the purchasing power or the income to buy software from Seattle or high-tech products from California. Madam Speaker, what this trade agreement is about is what all of these trade agreements are about: they are about cheap labor, no environmental regulation, weak worker safety laws. We need to vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. It does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

The way that proponents of the Central American Free Trade Agreement talk, one would think that Central America was one of the biggest economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations, in fact, are not only among the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies.

Think about this: This big trade agreement that President Bush wants, CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of CAFTA nations is almost identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio.

Tomorrow the House will hold a hearing on CAFTA. Since President Bush took office, Congress has voted within 55 days of the President's affixing his signature on a trade agreement. April 28, coming up, will mark the 11-month anniversary of when the President signed CAFTA. In other words, trade agreements are always sent to Congress quickly. Within a couple of months, we vote on them.

The President has delayed CAFTA for 11 months because this simply is not an agreement that the American people want or need. As I said, other trade agreements were all done within about 2 months, but because CAFTA is so unpopular, because trade policy in this country is so wrong-headed, the President still has not asked this Congress to vote on CAFTA.

Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks for good reason. CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and continues a legacy of failed trade policy.

Look at NAFTA's record; NAFTA is the United States, Mexico, and Canada: One million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Wages of Mexicans have stagnated. Environmental conditions, especially along the U.S.-Mexican border have worsened dramatically. And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same: more of the same job hemorrhaging, more of the same income-lowering trade agreements, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect environmental safety standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty, more trade agreements that undercut our food safety laws in our country. The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and over again and expecting a different result. On trade we hear the same promises over and over and over again, and

we see the same results: lost jobs, a weakened economy, lower standards of living in Mexico, bad environmental outcomes. But this Congress somehow barely in the middle of the night continues to pass these trade agreements, and we see the same bad results.

But do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170 times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62 billion combined. It is like comparing a bowling ball that weighs 170 times a slice of bread.

CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods. It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our jobs overseas. Workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not enabling them to raise their standard of living even a bit. U.S. corporations make more money. American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story time and time again.

Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about that of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida, or the entire State of Kansas. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries in the developing world, then import their products back into the United States under favorable tariff terms.

American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for workers in those countries. Yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and so many other companies continue to rise.

CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs except make it worse. It will do even less to create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods.

Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Our decades of economic success in this country show that employees share in the wealth they create for their employer. If one works at GM, they help GM create wealth; they help GM make a profit. They get some of that money back. These trade agreements in the developing world simply do not work, and when the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, then we will know our trade agreements finally are working.

Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement coming in front of Congress, fact number one: The economic output of the six Central American countries entering into this agreement with the United States is equal to the economic output of Columbus, Ohio; Orlando, Florida; or the entire State of Kansas.

What this trade agreement, CAFTA, is all about: It is not about selling American goods into six small, poor countries in Central America. It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about weakening our economy. It is about losing our manufacturing base. It is about hiring low-income workers in Guatemala and Honduras and Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

This agreement hurts American workers. It depresses American wages. It does nothing to lift up standards of living in Central America.

CAFTA is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It will continue to wreak havoc on the economy of Central America and Latin America and do nothing for American manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is when someone does the same thing over and over and over again, and then expects a different outcome.

Every time a trade agreement comes in front of this Congress, the American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, the trade agreements throughout the 1990s, trade with China, trade agreement after trade agreement, the support of those trade agreements promise the American people several things.

They promise more jobs for Americans, they promise more U.S. exports to those countries with whom the trade agreement is signed. They promise strengthening the middle class in the United States. They promise more manufacturing jobs for Americans. They promise a prosperity in the developing countries whom we are trading with. They promise strong environmental standards and food safety standards and worker standards and all of that.

Every time they make those promises, this Congress passes a trade agreement, usually in the middle of the night, usually by a handful of votes, and every time after this Congress passes these trade agreements, the promises just evaporate. We simply do not see the kind of results they promise.

One of the promises they make in every single trade agreement is that our trade deficit would come down. And let me point out our trade deficit, what has happened in this country.

Our trade deficit is a simple calculation: It is how much the United States exports versus how much it imports. If we export more than we import, we have a trade surplus. If we buy, import, more than we sell, export, we then have a trade deficit.

I ran for Congress in 1992. In 1992 the trade deficit in this country was $38 billion. Since 1992 we have seen a series of trade agreements passed, NAFTA, China, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile, several others.

Today, the trade deficit, $38 billion in 1992, the trade deficit last year 2004, was $620 billion. From 38 billion to 620 billion, yet the people that brought us NAFTA, the people that brought us China, Most Favored Nation status, are still saying, Vote for our trade agreements and we will bring deficits down.

But do not take my word for it when I say that they break these promises. Look at these trade deficit numbers, and then look at what President Bush wants to do today.

President Bush is saying, Please pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He says, If you pass CAFTA, we will have more exports; we will grow manufacturing in the United States; we will have a strengthened middle class; we will have strong environmental standards both in the United States and Central America; it will bring prosperity to the Central American countries.

What he does not tell you is that the six Central American countries that make up CAFTA, their combined economies figure at about $62 billion. Our economy generates $10.5 trillion in GDP, the six countries in Central America have a combined GDP, if you will, of $62 billion.

So CAFTA is not about robust markets for the exporting of American goods. They simply are not able to buy our products. $62 billion GDP in those six countries, that is about the combined purchasing power of the city of Orlando, Florida, or the city of Columbus, Ohio, or the entire State of Kansas. In other words, these six very small, very poor countries, have the economic input of Kansas or of Columbus or of Orlando.

So they are not buying American products. So they simply cannot buy agricultural produce from this country. They cannot buy the wines from California or the cars from Ohio or the steel production from West Virginia. They cannot buy computer goods. They simply cannot afford to buy these products from the United States.

So what are these trade agreements about? What was NAFTA about? What was the China trade agreement, MFN, about, what was CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement that the President wants us to pass, what is that about? It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about moving production from the United States where workers make $8 or $10 or $15 or $20 an hour producing things, to Guatemala, to Honduras, to Costa Rica, to Nicaragua, to El Salvador, to countries where the wages are maybe a dollar or two a day, or $3 or $4 a day in some cases.

It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about moving production to Central America. It is about loss of American jobs. It is about exploitation of workers in the developing countries. It is about worse environmental regulations. It is about weaker food safety standards. But it is also about profits, the profits for large American companies.

That is why in this hall you are seeing the largest CEOs of the largest companies walk the halls asking Members of Congress to vote for CAFTA. You are seeing the CEOs of America's largest companies contributing to elected officials, to Members of Congress. You are seeing them trying to buy their way into this institution, this corrupt institution, under the leadership of Republican leader Tom DeLay.

You are seeing in this institution an attempt to buy the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is about profits for American companies. It is about campaign contributions. But what CAFTA will not do is stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs in the United States, and what it will not do is create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods.

Our economic success in this country is that workers in our country share in the wealth we create. If you work for General Motors, you help that company produce profits, you help that company do well. As a result, you, as a worker, share in the profits that you create.

That is what has made our economy vibrant. It is that people who work hard and play by the rules do well. But throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. So what will make a trade agreement work is when the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them; then we will know that our trade policy finally will have succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day. It is opening day for the Washington Nationals. Baseball is back in Washington. But we ought to come up with a better name than the Washington Nationals, a name that really fits this city.

The new baseball team should be called the Washington Lobbyists. After all, who runs this town? The energy lobbyists that wrote the energy bill last night in committee, the bank lobbyists who wrote the bankruptcy bill today, the pharmaceutical lobbyists who write the medicare legislation, the Wall Street lobbyists who write the Social Security privacy legislation, and they and their Republican allies in Congress play under different rules. ``It ain't over 'til it's over,'' unless we are losing.

At home games, the Washington Lobbyists could hold the game open, adding extra innings if they are losing at the end of the arbitrary nine. Instead of the oh-so-boring ball day and bat day, we could have Halliburton Gasoline Night: a tank of gas for the first thousand fans at the Halliburton patriotic price of $8.95 a gallon. Or, we could have the Enron Double Header: fans get in early with promises of a big win, but then the team kicks you out and takes your pension away. Or, we could have Wal-Mart Kids Day: kids do not actually get to watch the game. Somebody has actually got to work the concession stand, after all.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to change how things work in Washington, we need a new pitching staff, and the Washington Lobbyists have to go.

Madam Speaker, from April 8, a Plain Dealer editorial from a Cleveland Republican-leaning newspapers writes: ``Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader, can fashion what to him is a reasonable explanation for each of the ethics questions increasingly being raised against him.

`` `It's a witch hunt by a Democrat out to destroy him,' '' DeLay responds. This is the Plain Dealer writing.

``To each of these and far too many more defensive responses, his faithful defenders, especially those who have bathed regularly under the campaign money spigot he controls, shout a loud ``amen'' and accuse the Times and Post of mounting a liberal smear campaign.

``But the ranks of DeLay's defenders shrink almost daily, as they should.''

The Republican-leaning Plain Dealer then asks: ``Is the Sugarland sugar daddy the best their party has to offer the Nation in this key leadership post? Can they not find a fellow Republican wise enough to avoid, in terms he might understand, the very appearance of evil? Can't someone open a window and let in a breath of integrity to blow the growing stench out of the people's Chamber?''

Words from a newspaper that endorsed George Bush in 2000, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 8.

Mr. Speaker, it is springtime, and Major League Baseball is coming to Washington. The thing is, though, I am not sure they got the name right. They are calling the team the Washington Nationals. Not a bad name, but I always thought the name should reflect the true character of a city. The right choice is obvious: the new team's name should be the Washington Lobbyists.

The Washington Lobbyists and their Republican allies would play under new rules of the game.

Rule number one: pay to play. You cannot step on the field unless you ante up. But in the land where cash is king, that is just the start. For a modest added contribution, a batter can shrink the strike zone, replace the traditional hardball with a more responsive tennis ball, or move the pitcher back 10 feet.

Rule number two: no errors. Missed the ball, say, by $800 billion on your Medicare cost estimate? No worries. With enough money, enough spin and enough citizen education, the Lobbyists can make those errors vanish overnight, or at least until election day.

Rule number three: it ain't over until its over, unless we are losing. Soccer ends after a set period of time. But do you know who plays soccer? Old Europe, that is who. Well, none of that in ``reformed'' baseball. At home games, the Lobbyists can hold the game open, adding extra innings if they are losing at the end of an arbitrary nine innings.

And the Washington Lobbyists would create a whole new fan experience too. Instead of the oh-so-boring Ball Day Or Bat Day, the Lobbyists and their corporate partners could offer U.S. Chamber of Commerce Blanket Day: Fans get blanket product-liability waivers.

Or the Washington Lobbyists baseball team could offer Golf Junket Getaway Giveaways: one lucky fan gets an all-expense sweet golf trip to Scotland, all expenses paid by the Indian gaming industry.

Or the Washington Lobbyists could give away at the ball park Timber Industry Bat Night: every bat is made from 100 percent old-growth forest.

Or Pressroom Sweepstakes: the winning fan gets White House press credentials for a day, but only if he is affiliated with an on-line escort service.

Or maybe Burger Night: free burgers for the first 5,000 fans, made with 100 percent caribou from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Maybe they could have Wal-Mart Kids Day, where kids would not get to actually watch the game, because somebody has got to work the concessions.

Or Mug Night: the lucky fan gets to keep his swank Republican leadership job, even if his mugshot is taped to his grand jury's dart board.

Or we could even have at the Washington Nationals baseball game starting Thursday night, we could have Halliburton Gasoline Night: a tank of gas for the first 1,000 fans at the patriotic Halliburton price of $8.95 a gallon.

Or the Enron Doubleheader: Fans get in early with promises of a big win, but then the team kicks you out and takes your pension away.

In the spirit of Republican Washington, the Washington Lobbyists will not care much about public opinion, making decisions in secret and ignoring criticism from the fans. And to avoid unpatriotic dissent, games will be played in the middle of the night, after sports writers have gone to bed.

If we want to change things and change how things really work in Washington, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to change pitchers. Until we do, the Washington lobbyists and their friends here in Congress will always win.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. And it does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free Trade Agreement: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

The way that CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, proponents talk, you would think Central America was one of the biggest economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies.

Think about this: this big trade agreement that President Bush wants, CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is almost identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio.

Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first congressional hearing on CAFTA. Congress typically has voted within 55 days of President Bush signing a trade agreement. May 28 will mark the 1-year anniversary of when the President signed CAFTA.

The other trade agreements were all done within only about 2 months. Because CAFTA is so unpopular and trade policy in this country is so wrong-headed, the President still has not sent CAFTA here for a vote. Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks, and for good reason.

CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing a legacy of failed trade policies.

Look at NAFTA's record: one million United States manufacturing jobs lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. One million. NAFTA did nothing. NAFTA: Mexico, Canada, the U.S. NAFTA did nothing for Mexican workers as promised. They continue to earn just about a dollar a day, while living in abject poverty. Not exactly a great market for U.S. products.

And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more of the same job hemorrhaging, income-lowering trade agreements, more trade agreements that ship U.S. jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty.

The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter. Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on every trade agreement. This Congress, somehow barely, in the middle of the night, passes them. We see the same bad results.

But do not just take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Numbers do not lie. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170 times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62 billion combined. It is like pairing a bowling ball with a slice of bread.

CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods. It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our jobs overseas. The workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not able to raise their living standard. U.S. corporations make more money, American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story.

Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about that of Orlando, Florida. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their products back to the U.S. under favorable terms.

American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for the workers in those countries, yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and those companies continue to rise.

CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs, except make it worse, will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and will do even less to create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods.

Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. If you work at GM in the United States, if you work at a hardware store in the United States, you create wealth for your employer and you share some of that wealth. That is how you get a middle-class existence.

But in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford to buy the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the toys for their children. Ford workers in Mexico cannot afford to buy the cars that they make. Motorola workers in Malaysia cannot afford to buy the cell phones they make.

The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and its enormous economic clout, we, in our country, are in a unique position to empower workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity at home.

When the world's poorest people can buy American products, rather than just make them, then we will know our trade policies finally are working. Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is the face of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

This photo was taken by Reuters news service last week in Guatemala as police forces used tear gas and water cannons to beat back demonstrators who had united to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Sadly, despite days of protests in organized worker strikes against CAFTA, the Guatemalan Congress ratified that trade agreement late last week.

It appears that politicians encouraged by multinational corporations fail to understand what their workers realize all too clearly: CAFTA is an empty promise that will keep workers in poverty while reaping huge profits for the corporate executives.

Throughout the developing world, Mr. Speaker, workers simply, unlike in this country in most cases, workers simply do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford the toys for their children. Motorola workers in Malaysia are unable to purchase the cell phone.

The North American Free Trade Agreement promised to create a thriving middle class in Mexico, promising higher wages, promising to lift people out of poverty. Eleven years later there is no newly created middle class realizing its dreams. Instead there is a fallen minimum wage and the ongoing nightmare of abject poverty, despite backbreaking work, despite deplorable working conditions.

Now President Bush wants to expand this failed trade policy with CAFTA, dysfunction cousin of NAFTA, involving five Central American countries: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries; they are among the smallest economies. With a $62 billion combined economic output, about that of Columbus, Ohio, these nations can hardly serve as a growth engine for the $10 trillion U.S. economy.

CAFTA is more about access to cheap labor and exporting American jobs than it is exporting U.S. goods and produce.

Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable countries to exploit cheap labor in other countries and then import their products back into the United States under favorable terms. As a result, America, especially my State of Ohio, bleeds manufacturing jobs and runs unprecedented trade deficits.

The first year I ran for Congress, our trade deficit was $38 billion. Today it is $617 billion for calendar year 2004. Gregory Mankiw, then President Bush's chief economist, portrayed the exporting of jobs as inevitable and desirable saying, ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than it does to provide it domestically.''

What really makes sense is a trade policy that lifts workers up in rich and poor countries alike, while respecting human rights and democratic principles. Proof that CAFTA is a legacy of failing trade policies is evidence in this Congress's own inaction. For the last 5 years, Congress has typically voted within about 2 months, within 60 days of President Bush signing a trade agreement.

Nearly 300 days have elapsed since President Bush signed the Central America Free Trade Agreement, still this Congress has not acted because the majority of this Congress understands our trade policies have failed.

Proof that CAFTA is a failure can be seen in this photo, Mr. Speaker. In Guatemala today, thousands of workers united in a nationwide strike voicing opposition to a trade policy they know will fail them, one that American workers also know will fail us.

This is the result of these demonstrations, where police turn on this country's workers, workers who are simply opposing in a democratic, open demonstration opposing its government trade policies. Yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental rules, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty.

Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and expecting a different result. The United States with our unrivaled purchasing power and our enormous economic clout is in a unique position to help empower poor workers in developing countries while promoting prosperity here at home.

When the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, we know then that our trade policies have finally succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, this is the face of CAFTA. This photo was taken by Reuters News Service yesterday in Guatemala as police forces used tear gas and water cannons to beat back hundreds of demonstrators who had united to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. This is the face of CAFTA.

More than 25,000 letters have been signed by workers in Guatemala begging their Congress not to rush through this bad trade agreement. Throughout the developing world, from Guatemala to every other developing country, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot buy the toys for their children. Motorola workers in Malaysia are unable to purchase the cell phones.

The North American Free Trade Agreement promised to create a thriving middle class in Mexico, to raise wages and lift people out of poverty. A dozen years later, there is no middle class realizing their dreams. Instead, there is a fallen minimum wage and the ongoing nightmare of abject poverty despite the backbreaking work and deplorable working conditions.

Now President Bush wants to expand this failed trade agreement with CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, involving five Central American countries: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries; they are also among its smallest economies. With a $62 billion combined economic output, about that of Columbus, Ohio, these countries can hardly serve as a growth engine for the $10 trillion U.S. economy. CAFTA is more about access to cheap labor and exporting American jobs than exporting American goods.

Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their products back to the U.S. under favorable terms. As a result, our country, especially my State of Ohio, bleed manufacturing jobs and run unprecedented trade deficits.

Gregory Mankiw, the President's former chief economist, portrays the exporting of jobs as inevitable and desirable, saying, ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to provide it domestically.''

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Mankiw that what really makes sense is a trade policy that lifts workers up in rich and poor countries alike while respecting human rights and democratic principles.

Proof that CAFTA is a legacy of failed trade policies is evidenced in Congress' own inaction. Since 2001, Congress typically votes within 8 weeks, about 60 days, of President Bush signing a trade agreement. Nearly 300 days have elapsed since President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That delay is proof that CAFTA is a failure and further proof of CAFTA's failure can be seen in this photo when police have turned on their own protesting public, people who are exercising their rights simply to petition their Congress and ask that they not pass this trade agreement.

And yet, the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty.

Madness, Mr. Speaker, is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result. The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and our enormous economic clout, we are in a unique position to help empower poor workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity at home. When the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, then we will know that our trade policies are finally working.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, we all support American manufacturers; every Member of Congress should. But feel-good resolutions such as the one we are voting on this week will do little to cure our manufacturing ills.

We are running record trade deficits each year. When I first ran for Congress in 1992, the U.S. trade deficit, as you can see on this chart, was $38 billion. The trade deficit last year, after 12 years of misplaced trade policy, 12 years of misplaced tax policy and 4 years of a Bush administration that has totally ignored manufacturing, we now see a trade deficit of $617 billion. From $38 billion to $617 billion in a space of only 13 years.

The U.S. has become the world's largest debtor nation, over $2.5 trillion in 2002. The dollar continues to lose value in world markets.

Last year, we had the opportunity to pass Crane/Rangel, a bipartisan bill to help the American manufacturing industry by encouraging them to produce goods in the United States. But instead, we passed an alternative that, as usual, gave handouts to multinational corporations and did little to nothing for our family-owned manufacturing facilities.

My State of Ohio has lost more than 170,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and the remaining small manufacturing businesses are struggling to keep the doors open. The manufacturing extension program, MEP, is an important resource that helps small manufacturers in Ohio and across the country to help improve efficiency, increase competitiveness and stay in business. Despite this success, the President is asking in his budget to eviscerate MEP.

In 2003, when MEP was funded at $111 million, Ohio, although only receiving

a small fraction of that funding, that modest investment produced impressive results. MEP helped more than 2,700 Ohio businesses to create or retain more than 1,100 jobs, increase sales by $20 million, cut costs by $47 million, increase investments by $58 million. That is exactly the sort of helping hand Ohio and the Nation's small manufacturers need.

Then the President proposed an MEP funding cut of 88 percent, ended up signing a law a couple of years ago that cut it almost that much. Not surprisingly, services to Ohio businesses dropped significantly. This year, the President's budget request asked for a funding cut of another 50 percent. Less than $1 million per State will be left for MEP. We should be supporting a funding level five times that amount because it would mean more tax revenue, more jobs, more success for U.S. manufacturers.

Ohio's Republican governors urge the President to change his position on MEP. Working men and women from my State and across the Nation understand that our economic future is at stake. We should pass a bill this week ensuring increased MEP funds over the President's request, but this body probably will not do it.

To support our Nation's manufacturing, we should pass a bill to stop China from manipulating its currency by artificially pegging it below the dollar. China starts outs with a 40 percent advantage over American manufacturers by this illegal act, not to mention having no minimum wage and forced labor camps and child labor and all the other advantages, artificial advantages if you will, in a free marketplace that China has. But I do not think that legislation to deal with currency manipulating will be on the House floor this week.

To support our Nation's manufacturers, we should pass such a bill making sure China plays fair and meets its World Trade Organization obligations, but I do not see a bill on the floor this week to do that.

To support our Nation's manufacturing, we should pass the bill of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Foreign Debt Ceiling Act of 2005, that would create an emergency trade review group at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to develop a plan of action if the trade deficit is above 5 percent of U.S. GDP or if foreign debt climbs above 25 percent of GDP. But that is not being considered this week either.

The manufacturing industry is the backbone of our country. This industry, these workers, these communities built America. And when these industries suffer, our communities suffer, our families suffer, our schools suffer, our Nation is hurt. Yet many in Congress continue to support measures that move these jobs overseas. Let us be clear about whom we should support.

Congratulate manufacturers, is what the resolution on the floor will do and nothing else this week, who have remained in the U.S. and refrained from sending manufacturing jobs overseas. But it is not just about keeping our middle class strong; we should be concerned about national security. Without a strong manufacturing base, there can be no strong reliable national security in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we, finally, in this Congress adopt a manufacturing policy.

Mr. Speaker, something terribly wrong has happened in the House of Representatives. I am not talking about, from a partisan standpoint, the Republican takeover in 1995, I am not even talking about the ascension of Newt Gingrich to the Speakership. What I am talking about is the ascension of a new kind of House leaders who have run this institution even as former Speaker Gingrich has said, not in the fairest possible way, basically in an unprecedented way. We have seen things in the House of Representatives in the last couple of years that we have literally never seen.

I want to tell a story and spell out what I mean by this one example. Beginning a couple of years ago, at 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, the House of Representatives cut veterans' benefits by three votes.

At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care benefits by five votes.

At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House passed the first round of the Medicare privatization bill by one vote.

At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote.

After returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq.

Always on a Thursday night, Friday morning, always in the middle of the night, always after the public has turned their TV sets off and gone to bed and after most of the media which sits up there has left. As I said, always on a Thursday night, because if it gets in the paper at all, it would appear then in the Saturday paper, the paper that is the least read paper of the week.

That was just the beginning. Then came the Medicare vote. The final round of the Medicare vote took place in November. The debate began at midnight on a Friday night in November. The debate took 3 hours. The vote began at 3 a.m. Members of Congress are given this card, which we stick in a little black box on the House floor to vote. The votes as we all know are then recorded electronically. Almost all of us went down and cast our votes. Pretty soon after the vote was called at 3 o'clock in the morning, the privatization of Medicare, the most important piece of domestic legislation that probably anybody in this body had ever voted on, at 3 o'clock in the morning the vote began, as I said. We are normally given 15 minutes, an extra 5 minutes sometimes, to cast our votes. Normally not much more than that.

At 3:30 the vote was still on. At 4 o'clock, an hour after the vote had begun, an hour after most of us voted, the vote was 216 ``yes'' and 218 ``no.'' At about 4:15, the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader, the chairman of the committee that the gentleman from New Jersey and I are on that wrote the bill began to go around to recalcitrant Members of their party, Republican Members who had voted ``no,'' trying to get them to change their vote. It is now 4:30. They woke up the President of the United States who from his living quarters at the White House got on the phone and began to try to lobby the 26 or 27 Members of the Republican side who had voted ``no'' on Medicare. They all stood their ground.

At about 4:45, the Republican leaders surrounded Nick Smith, a Republican from Michigan, who told his story on the radio the next day. He had already announced his retirement. His son was running for his seat. He was told that if he changed his vote, they would come up with $100,000 for his son's campaign. When he said no, they said, if you do not change your vote, we will come up with $100,000 for your son's opponent's campaign.

Congressman Smith, under great duress with great courage, said, Nothing doing. Incidentally, his son later lost the primary. Finally, it is 5 o'clock. It is 216-218. It is 5:30. It is 216-218. It is 5:45 in the morning. It is still 216 ``yes,'' 218 ``no.'' Two hours and 55 minutes after the vote was called, two Republicans, one from Idaho and one from Arizona, came out of the cloakroom, walked down here, picked up one of these green cards, you cannot use the plastic electronic card that late in the voting, marked the card, changed their vote, sheepishly handed it to the House Clerk, the Speaker then gaveled the vote closed, and that is how Medicare privatization passed.

We have seen in this body a new legacy of one-party rule, legislative strong-arming and abuses of power never before seen under leaders of either party in this House of Representatives, hiding votes from the American public under the cover of darkness. We spend plenty of time, Mr. Speaker, passing votes on naming post offices in the middle of the day and doing important controversial votes at night.

Mr. Speaker, this abuse of power has to stop.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of the Millender-McDonald amendment and to express concern for the underlying bill. I am glad we are considering legislation that would address what should be done in the event of a large-scale incapacitation of Congress. It obviously makes sense to do that. It is more essential than ever in a time of national emergency that democracy be preserved.

Our Constitution established the House of Representatives to provide directly elected representation in the event of a catastrophe that must be restored as quickly as possible. We have heard sort of grand, philosophical statements of our allegiance to democracy on the floor of this House; but at the same time, we need to be practical about what actually can work in a time of national crisis.

I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have glossed over the problems that especially military voters, the elderly, others who do not have access on an election day to the polls, the kind of problems that they would face.

I was Secretary of State in the 1980s for 8 years in the State of Ohio, a large State with several million registered voters, a State that has always had a tradition of bipartisan elections conducted fairly. The year of 2004 may have been different where the election machinery frankly was not so well administered as it had been in the past by Secretaries of State of both parties. That aside, I have serious concerns as a former Secretary of State about the legislation we are considering today. Forty-nine days establishes an unrealistic time frame for holding legitimate, fair elections where people have access to the polling booth.

In a national emergency, Congress must be able to provide immediate relief, and this legislation would allow the country to elect representation for those 6 or 7 weeks. You cannot, I believe, hold fair elections, accessible elections, in 49 days. The process simply takes longer than that. Again, military voters, people far away outside the country, in uniform serving our country, elderly voters who do not have access to the polls, the most vulnerable among us, in many ways, that cannot simply do that.

There are alternatives, and I want to answer the concerns of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). There are alternatives that would create immediate representation while providing a framework for States to conduct elections. I supported legislation last year that, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) said, was defeated, but could be considered in the light of understanding how elections actually work in that there needs to be a time line to get candidates on the ballots, to get the ballots printed, to get them sent to the Armed Forces around the world, and get those ballots back in time for an election.

The Baird proposal would allow States to appoint temporary replacements for deceased or incapacitated Representatives. States could then conduct special elections to elect permanent Representatives according to State laws.

I support the Millender-McDonald amendment because appointing the process, if we could do that down the line, and I understand that is not on the table today, but to do them in 45 or 49 days simply is not practical, and too many people will be denied the right to vote.

We want to do this right. We want to refill, if you will, the House of Representatives as quickly as possible, but we want to do it in the most democratic way possible, and ultimately that means giving the election machinery time so that everyone, especially our servicemen and -women overseas, so that everyone has access to the ballots. I think the underlying bill does not do that. I think the Millender-McDonald amendment makes this bill work much better than it does otherwise. I ask support for the Millender-McDonald amendment.