Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, he assured seniors he would honor the Nation's commitment to Medicare. He said Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. He did not say temporary commitment. He did not say faltering commitment. He said binding commitment.

By any standard, raising the Medicare premium by 17.4 percent, that is more than five times the projected increase in Social Security benefits for

seniors, raising the Medicare premium by 17.4 percent is a breach of that commitment, the largest increase in Medicare's 38 year history.

At the Republican convention on Thursday night, the President said, ``I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors.'' The next day, late in the afternoon, right before Labor Day, Friday afternoon, the Labor Day weekend, in spite of his comments the night before, the President quietly announced this 17.4 percent increase in premiums for senior citizens to have to pay into Medicare. Right before the Labor Day weekend. Is that what it means to honor seniors?

After President Bush signed the Medicare drug law a year ago, he launched a very expensive taxpayer-financed ad campaign featuring the slogan: ``Same Medicare, better benefits.'' Those ads failed to mention the 17 percent premium increase even though the administration planned it as far back as March 2003. They failed to mention the 10 percent increase in the deductible for doctors' services which was written into the new law. It failed to mention the fact that both the premium and the deductible will continue to increase year after year after year without any corresponding increase in coverage.

Those ads, those taxpayer-financed ads, trying to sell the American people on the new Medicare bill failed to mention that while seniors will be paying more for the same Medicare, HMOs will be, ``earning'' might not be the right word, but earning more for the same Medicare. $16 billion more, in fact.

This bill, this Medicare bill, clearly written for the drug industry and for the insurance industry, clearly has put seniors in the back seat. The drug industry, the insurance industries have contributed literally tens of millions of dollars to President Bush's campaign. The insurance industry gets a taxpayer subsidy of $16 billion. And then seniors see their premiums go up and see their deductibles go up. They have got to find the money somewhere.

Under the Bush plan, in order to pay the insurance companies those subsidies, they need to raise the premiums for seniors more than $100; they need to raise those premiums, a 17 percent increase. They need to raise those premiums for seniors to make up that money.

These benefits are being lavished on HMOs as a bonus and incentive for HMOs to accelerate their enrollment of Medicare enrollees. Now HMO profits last year without this increased by 50 percent, yet seniors are paying higher premiums so that HMO profits can soar even further. Senior and disabled Medicare enrollees on fixed incomes will pay more. HMOs will earn more and big drug companies will charge more.

The Bush administration in an amazing sleight of hand insisted on prohibiting Medicare from negotiating bulk discounts on behalf of 39 million Medicare beneficiaries on the prescription drugs the same way that large insurance plans do, the same way that the VA does in our government.

As a result, the drug industry, because of this protection of the drug industry by the Bush administration, the drug industry stands to earn an additional $160 billion in profits during the next 10 years. $160 billion in profits in the next 10 years.

Again, more campaign contributions to President Bush from the insurance industry, more tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the Republican leadership and to the President from the drug industry.

It is the same old story, the President says the right thing and then he does the wrong thing. It is the same old story, the President always responding to the best heeled, most organized, wealthiest corporate interests in this city.

Last week, the President again called himself a compassionate conservative, as if eroding senior's fixed incomes is compassionate, as if coercing them into fly-by-night HMOs, as the Medicare bill does, is compassionate, as if relegating seniors to a bargain-basement prescription drug plan is in any way compassionate.

After all, this President has proposed cutting $60 billion from Medicaid; he had to because the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest people in our society, he had to find the money someplace when it is the only source of nursing home care for 70 percent of people who need it. It is consistent, but it is not compassionate.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed in the last year of the Clinton administration represented a step forward in free trade policy, recent free trade agreements provide a template to purposely and purposefully circumvent labor and environmental laws.

To make matters worse, USTR and its pharmaceutical allies are now including language in each trade agreement in front of this body to ban reimportation in all agreements they negotiate. The Morocco Free Trade Agreement is the latest example of this trade, we call it, devolution.

Last week we voted on the U.S.-Australia FTA. While Australian workers, to be sure, enjoy the benefits of good labor laws and the enforcement of those laws, the precedent was the same. Labor and environmental protections were given short shrift in the core text of the agreement, while USTR focused on ensuring the gold standard for the pharmaceutical industry.

It is almost as if the U.S. Government dispatched the USTR again to protect the big drug companies in this country. It is no surprise, with the rest of the record in this body and in this administration in protecting the drug companies on every single issue possible.

But Morocco is not Australia, and I have significant concerns about labor and working conditions there. Like Singapore and Chile, the labor provisions in the Morocco FTA are intentionally unenforceable. Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. Again, the commercial part of the agreement is always better, if you will, than the labor part of the agreement, because of this body's and this administration's low regard for worker rights.

This violates the negotiating objective of Fast Track that equivalent remedies should exist for all parts of the agreement.

Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract investment and seems to be a magnet for corporate interests all over the world to lobby those legislatures and those congresses and parliaments to weaken their own labor law, because they are not international labor organization standards.

Today we will vote on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement containing the same flawed policies on labor and on the environment and on reimportation. The same provisions in Morocco are in the Central America Free Trade Agreement. This agreement does not look much different from CAFTA. So for those of you, and I think it is pretty clear a majority of the Bush administration would have brought that agreement up this summer, those of you voting ``no'' on CAFTA, you are really voting for a pretty similar agreement on Morocco.

Every free trade template brought before this House is, as Yogi Berra used to say, like deja vu all over again.

First, the Medicare bill passed this year specifically prohibited the U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug prices for America's seniors and consumers. That was one this Congress and this Bush administration gave to the drug industry. Then the pharmaceutical industry punished American consumers by restricting the volume of drug inventories in Canada to prevent importation to the U.S. Then the U.S. Trade Representative and the administration included language in the Australia Free Trade Agreement that enables pharmaceutical companies to prevent prescription drug reimportation to the detriment of American consumers. Again, another bouquet from this Congress and the Bush administration to the drug industry.

I do not think the connection is anything but obvious when you look at the amount of money the drug industry has given to the Republican Party, given to Republican leadership, and given to President Bush.

Now similar provisions contained in last year's Singapore FTA and in the upcoming CAFTA are in the Morocco FTA bill that will be voted on. Though Morocco is not on the list of countries today covered by pending drug legislation, the importation provisions in this FTA prove this is a precedent, it was in Australia, now it is in this, that the USTR plans to extends this to all future trade agreements.

There is broad support in this House, there is even broader support among seniors and among consumers, because they are not getting campaign contributions from the drug industry, for lowering drug prices and for allowing Americans to purchase safe, affordable drugs from other developed nations.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the administration's back-door effort again to close drug reimportation through trade negotiations. It is important to overcome attempts by free trade proponents to reduce this debate to a choice between free trade and no trade, and frame the discussion around priorities affected by irresponsible trade policy, labor protections, the environment, and affordable pharmaceutical access for all nations.

This is not a debate on whether one supports trade; this is a debate on whether one supports responsible trade. I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

I am a little puzzled by this debate. I heard my friend from Texas talk about all the great promises of free trade and how these trade agreements are going to mean so much to our farmers and to our workers and to our businesses. I have heard the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) say some of the same kinds of things, but I guess I am puzzled because I have heard that throughout my entire 12 years in Congress.

I have heard every trade agreement that comes to the floor, so many speakers say over and over and over again that if we pass these trade agreements, we are going to have more jobs, we are going to do more exports, we are going to have our balance in trade; and look what has happened in the last 12 years.

Our trade deficit when I came to this Congress was about one-fourth of what it is today. We import $1.5 billion more every day than we export. George Bush, Senior, said for every $1 billion of trade, either export or import, it was equivalent to somewhere in the vicinity of 14 or 15 or 16,000 jobs. Well, we have almost a $500 billion trade deficit. Do the math. That is an awful lot of lost jobs.

When we pass these trade agreements, we continue to hemorrhage jobs. We continue to have job loss. We continue to lose manufacturing jobs. One out of six manufacturing jobs in my State has been lost since George Bush took office. We have lost 165 jobs every day of the Bush administration.

So the answer to that is let us do more of what we have already been doing, let us do more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in society, hoping that maybe some of it will trickle down to more jobs, and let us do more trade agreements which ship jobs overseas? People in our communities say these trade agreements are not working.

China, entry of China in WTO; NAFTA; Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco, these trade agreements are not translating into more jobs, and people at home know that. In spite of what people in this institution say, in spite of how people in this institution vote, the fact is we continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. We have lost millions of jobs in this Bush administration, and then we turn around and do the same thing over and over and over. We make the same promises over and over and over and the results are the same. When we will ever learn?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in these debates on these trade issues is there is one common thread. There are many, but there is one really thick common thread that is woven through all these trade agreements, in not just these trade agreements but that is perhaps woven through much of what this Congress has done in the last 3 years, during the Bush years, and that is whatever the drug industry wants, whatever the pharmaceutical companies want.

We know the drug industry is the most profitable industry in America by a factor of three or four times in profitability over other Fortune 500 industries. We also know the drug industry has 600-plus lobbyists, more than one per Member. We also know the drug industry has given more money to President Bush, tens of millions of dollars, and to Republican leadership than any other industry. And we know they have gotten their way.

They wrote the Medicare bill, we know that, with the insurance industry. We know they have begun to try to dry up drug supplies in Canada, prescription drugs, so that Americans have more difficulty going to Canada to get drugs. We know that the FDA, once one of the best agencies in the Federal Government, has been co-opted by the drug industry so that on issue after issue they take the drug industry's side rather than the public safety or the consumers' side. And most importantly, I do not know that Members on the other side of the aisle are quite aware of this, but certainly the public is aware at how high drug prices, how much they have skyrocketed in the 3 years since President Bush has, I was going to say turned a blind eye to drug industry abuses but really actually fronted for and assisted in drug industry abuses.

One more example of that is all of these trade agreements, what happened with the Australia Free Trade Agreement, how it would for all intents and purposes block reimportation, that is, our ability, American consumers' ability to buy prescription drugs from another country, to get drugs at half or a third or a fourth of their price. We are now seeing the same in the Morocco bill.

But let us kind of scratch the surface a little and what you will find, Mr. Speaker, is in April, United States Trade Rep, Ambassador Zoellick, gave Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asian public affairs, Ralph Ives, additional responsibilities as the Assistant U.S. Trade Rep for pharmaceutical policy. He was the chief negotiator in the Australia FTA, which included these provisions we talked about which, of course, benefit the pharmaceutical industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we hear that this same Mr. Ives, who I said was the chief Australia FTA negotiator on pharmaceutical interests on behalf of the Bush administration, we find out next month he will leave USTR to become vice president of AdvaMed, a medical supply company. We have also learned that Claude Burke, another negotiator for U.S. taxpayers, paid by our government, a Bush appointee for intellectual property rights, has already left and now is working for another drug company, working for Abbott Labs.

So this revolving door of the drug industry where the drug industry gives money to President Bush, President Bush then helps the drug industry, then these people who are working for taxpayers negotiate a good deal for the drug company, then leave and come back and work for the drug industry. Is there no shame with this crowd, with my Republican friends who have fronted for this drug industry that is fleecing the American public and with the administration? That is one issue.

The other, Mr. Speaker, is why do we pass a trade agreement when we see the same story repeated over and over and over? We just turn the calendar back, rewind the clock, and we see it over and over again. We see speaker after speaker come to this floor and make all kinds of promises. We have a trade surplus in Morocco, so we ought to pass a trade agreement. Just like we had a trade surplus with Mexico, we passed NAFTA; and now we have a $25 billion a year, plus-plus-plus, trade deficit.

They promise more agricultural exports. They promise more American jobs. They promise more business for American companies. They promise more exports of American products. But look what happens. In my State in the last 3 years, we have lost one out of

six manufacturing jobs. Does that mean these trade agreements with Mexico, with WTO in China, with Morocco, with Australia, with Chile, with Singapore, does that mean these trade agreements are working? There is no evidence that they are working. We continue to hemorrhage jobs. We now have a $450 billion trade deficit, $1.5 billion trade deficit every day. So our answer is, boy, let's do more of the same because that must be working.

It is clearly not working. We have lost jobs during the Bush administration, the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs. So what are we going to do? We are going to keep pursuing the same economic policy we have had the last 3 years, more tax cuts for the most privileged people in society, maybe some of it will trickle down into economic growth. Clearly that has not worked. More trade agreements, like Morocco, like Australia, like NAFTA, like China, more trade agreements. That has not worked because we continue to hemorrhage jobs. We continue to ship jobs overseas.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Speaker, since none of that seems to have worked, maybe we ought to try something different. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement that does not sell out to the drug industry. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement with enforceable labor and environmental standards, international labor organization standards. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement that puts American workers first, that puts the environment first, that puts food safety first, that puts American consumers of prescription drugs first. Maybe, just maybe, we ought to put a hold on these trade agreements that continue to ship jobs overseas and, instead, pass something that works for American consumers, that works for American workers, that works for our communities, and that works for the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for yielding to me, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and earlier the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for joining us.

I got here late, but I heard the comments of each of my three colleagues about job loss, and Ohio has suffered

probably more than any other State. Maybe the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Hoekstra) State has been hit just about as hard. But we have lost one sixth of our manufacturing jobs in my State, the State of Ohio. We have lost over 200,000 jobs. In fact, if we look at it, we have literally lost 180 jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

They are saying that we are seeing job growth now, and we have seen a few jobs created; but there are a couple of issues there. One is we have not nearly come back to where we were. In fact, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) pointed out, George Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have lost a net loss of jobs. We have had a net loss of 215,000 jobs, and now we have just had a net loss this past month, heavily manufacturing jobs, 160, 165,000 manufacturing job loss.

And it is not just the people that lose their jobs. It is what it does to these communities. Cleveland laid off 800 school teachers because of job loss, and that means that the average schoolroom in Cleveland will have 30 students per teacher in an average schoolroom. The city of Lorain, my hometown, has been forced to cut its number of teachers to lay teachers off. It means worse police and fire protection for those people who live in these communities. So job loss does not just hit the families who lose their jobs, as bad as this is. It also can really devastate a community.

That is the first part of it. And even though we are now seeing some job growth, and that is a good thing, as we said, those jobs do not pay as much as the jobs, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said, that were lost. We lose a steel job, an auto job, and we create a job maybe, not as many as we lost, but we create a few jobs that pay $5 an hour less. Better than nothing, but certainly not what we need to build the kind of middle-class economy and middle-class communities that we would like.

But the other part of it, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said, is those who have jobs, and most people, of course, have not lost their jobs. Most people still have jobs. But those who have jobs are feeling that squeeze. Gas prices are up almost $2 a gallon. I guess I should not be surprised because the President and the Vice President both were oil company executives. Vice President Cheney is still receiving $3,000 a week from the Halliburton Company, the oil company that he used to work for that is now doing so much business in Iraq. Oil prices are up. Health care costs are way up. The cost of prescription drugs is through the roof.

Yet this Congress and the President have done absolutely nothing to bring drug prices down. The drug industry has given President Bush and the Republican Congress for their campaigns literally, literally, tens of millions of dollars. And it has been a good investment for the drug companies because their profits continue to be the best, the highest profits by a factor of three or four of any industry in America.

So gas prices are up. Health insurance prices are up. College tuition, if people want to send their kids to college, Ohio State is going up 13 percent next month, I believe, or in September, whenever school starts. Tuition at Akron University a year ago, in the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Ryan) and my district, for freshmen went up about 16 percent. So they are getting gas prices increasing, health care costs increasing, college tuition increasing. At the same time, wages are stagnant. There has been no wage increase.

And I think the best example of sort of the Bush economy, we can see it at the Timken Company.

Timken, for those who are not from Ohio that are listening and for those perhaps unfamiliar, Timken is one of the major success stories of American manufacturing, a fourth generation family running a steel company, ball bearings and steel supply company, in Canton, Ohio.

The Timken Company, the fourth generation owners of the company and managers of the company are very good friends of President Bush. The Bush family and the Timken family have gone back for years together.

The Timken Company a year ago was the site of a visit by President Bush celebrating the productivity of the workers and the success of the company. President Bush said, and we all applaud this, that Timken workers' productivity has increased 10 percent from 2 years ago to last year. A 10 percent productivity increase, almost unprecedented.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the rest of the story. That is exactly right. A 10 percent productivity increase a year ago. Then earlier this year, in April, Timken announced record sales, the highest sales of any quarter in its history, in its almost 100-year history, and Timken announced a 63 percent increase in earnings per share over the first quarter of 2003. So immensely more productive workers, 10 percent more. A year later, record sales, a year later highest earnings, a great increase in earnings per share.

Do you know what happened a week later? You know, obviously. Timken announced it was going to shut down its three remaining Canton, Ohio, plants; 1,300 workers would lose their jobs, good-paying jobs, industrial workers, and Timken was going to build another plant in China.

This is sort of the Bush economy. It is more productive workers, more corporate profits, higher pay for executives; squeeze the workers, squeeze their health care, make them pay more, squeeze wages; shut the plant down, more production in China. Then a whole other cycle: more profits, more sales, bigger executive pay, more squeeze on the workers.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it is interesting what the gentleman says about these companies moving to China, because I have heard executives say to me, some from my district, some from Ohio, some from around the country, ``The global economy forces us to have to move to China.''

But it is those same executives, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has been part of these debates in the past, a Republican friend from California opposed to these trade agreements, but these same executives come to this Congress and ask for trade agreements, ask for PNTR for China, as for the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Bush is wanting to double the size of NAFTA in population with the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas and quadruple the number of low-income workers. So the companies push for the trade agreements which serve to bring in more low-income workers, weak environmental

laws, no labor standards. Then the companies throw their hands up and say, ``We have to move because our competitors do.''

It is all part of the Bush economic plan, to do these trade agreements that lower wages, that force down wages, that weaken food safety standards, that weaken environmental laws; that really do pave the way, invite those companies, really invite those companies to go overseas, at forced slave labor wages for totalitarian governments.

These are not democratic governments. They are countries that suppress labor, that keep laborers from organizing, that keep workers docile. Then we are surprised they are ``outcompeting'' us. Of course they are.

If the gentleman will yield further, to encourage China to take our jobs, the best example, when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I came to this Congress in 1992, our trade deficit with China, meaning the number of dollars we bought from them more than we sold to them, was about $1 billion. In those days, 1992, we bought from China about $1 billion more than we sold to China. We had a trade deficit of about $1 billion.

A year-and-a-half ago, that trade deficit passed $100 billion. This year it will exceed $120 billion. So we are buying from China every day about $300 million more than we are selling to China. We have a daily trade deficit with China of between $300 and $400 million.

What does that translate to? According to the first President Bush, who really lost his job because he was out of touch with the workaday problems of American workers, but what President Bush I said is, $1 billion in trade deficit translates into 18,000 jobs.

If we have a trade deficit every day of $300 million, we are losing hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of that trade deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the bill.

The drug industry has had a pretty darn good year in this Congress. The drug industry and the Bush administration, which is kind of hard to tell them apart when you look at what the drug industry and the Bush administration fight for in this Congress, have had it their way on every single issue in front of this Congress. The drug industry comes to the Congress, goes to the administration. The administration comes to the Congress asking for whatever the drug industry asks the administration to do.

The Medicare bill, we all know by now, was, line and verse, written by the drug industry. That is why seniors are so generally unhappy with that prescription drug bill. That legislation, if you recall, had provisions to prohibit our government from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. That is what the drug industry wanted.

The Food and Drug Administration, once one of the best agencies of our Federal Government, has become almost an arm of the drug industry. It debates for the drug industry. It tries to educate the public on behalf of the drug industry. We see it over and over again.

Now the drug industry has its fingers in the U.S. Trade Rep's Office. You can look at what my Republican friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and Democratic friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), sent a letter out to Members of Congress saying 15 of the 25 panel members on the industry sector advisory committee for this trade agreement, appointed by the United States Trade Rep, are from the drug industry. Fifteen of the 25 panel members are from the drug industry. Not one senior group or reimportation advocate was included in the panel. The drug industry has its tentacles in the Medicare bill, in the FTA, and in the U.S. Trade Rep's office.

Now, the question is why.

First of all, I think the obvious answer is the tens of millions of dollars that the drug industry gives to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, especially the Republican leadership and to President Bush's reelection, the millions of dollars in campaign money. So we have really should not be surprised.

But I ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, do we trust President Bush and the Republican leadership to do the right thing ever on an issue that affects the drug industry?

What this legislation has, the Australian Free Trade Agreement has, is provisions written by the drug industry, for the drug industry, which ultimately could potentially handcuff the U.S. to get our drug prices down. That is what the drug industry wants. That is what President Bush wants. I do not think my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would want that.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. I know this Australia Free Trade Agreement is going to pass this Congress, but what is important is that we send a strong message that we do not like the drug industry influence in this Australia Free Trade Agreement bill. I am asking my friends who support reimportation, who support lower prescription drug prices, and there are many of them on both sides of the aisle, certainly not the Republican leadership, but many rank and file Republicans, almost all of the Democrats who support lower prescription drugs prices, it is important to vote no on this, to send that message that we will not allow the drug industry to infiltrate every part of our lawmaking process.

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

It has been a really good year for the drug industry. The pharmaceutical industry is at it again in this body, attempting to undermine U.S. efforts to secure cheaper prescription drugs for millions of Americans. First, the Medicare bill passed late last year specifically prohibited the U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug prices for America's seniors and consumers, the drug industry and the President and the Republican leadership all singing off the same page.

Then the pharmaceutical industry punishes American consumers by restricting the volume of prescription drug inventories in Canada to prevent importation to the U.S., the FDA, the President, Republican leadership and the drug industry again all singing off the same page.

Now the President, the United States Trade Rep together have included language in this U.S.-Australia trade agreement that would enable the drug companies to prevent prescription drug importation, again to the detriment of America's consumers. We can bet those provisions will be in all future trade agreements negotiated by this administration.

USTR and its drug industry allies, sometimes they are hard to tell apart, are doing all they can to drive up prices for Americans and the rest of the world. USTR and the drug industry were the only parties with a seat at the table for these FTA negotiations, no public interest groups, no senior groups, nobody advocating for reimportation.

My question is this: Do we trust the USTR and the President and the drug industry to negotiate lower drug prices? Connect the dots. The drug makers are using every tool at their disposal to put a stranglehold on America's seniors and America's consumers. The reimportation bill this House passed last year included Australia as a platform. The reimportation bill in the Senate includes Australia as a platform. Why would both these bills mention Australia if we were not going to at least attempt to reimport from there?

This FTA shuts the door on all possibilities now and in the future. Why would we do that, Mr. Speaker? The only way to maintain compliance if we pass this FTA is to remove Australia from that bill. Although Australia would likely not be a large reimportation platform, it is not currently impossible. This FTA slams the door on that possibility. It slams the door on any future agreement between Australia and us on the issue.

Now, I want to read for a moment a brief part of a fact sheet from the Australian embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of nonsubsidized drugs, both generics and brand names,'' in spite of what we heard from my friend here, ``but only by a person who has been given marketing approval to do so, usually the manufacturer or Australian licensee.''

From the Australia embassy: ``Australian law does allow the export of nonsubsidized drugs.'' The drug industry argues the trade agreement is not damaging, because Australian law already prohibits the export of subsidized drugs purchased under its pharmaceutical benefit scheme. However, that prohibition does not include all cost-saving importation from Australia.

The importers of drugs from Australia to the U.S. do not have to purchase from the PBS. The provisions of this free trade agreement set a precedent for another misguided trade policy. We can be sure that this provision, this precedent that Members are going to vote on today, this precedent will be in all future FTAs negotiated by this administration. That is why a ``no'' vote is so very important so we do not set this precedent in this encouragement for the administration to continue to negotiate bad trade law, especially bad trade law for American consumers.

The drug makers are making sure they close off any opportunity for American consumers to obtain affordable prescription drugs. This, Mr. Speaker, is another nail in that coffin. If one supports reimportation of affordable prescription drugs, think twice about the precedent your vote sets here today. A vote for the U.S. free trade agreement with Australia is a move against American consumers and a move against reimportation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years and heard these same arguments. I look at my State, and we have lost one out of six manufacturing jobs, 190 jobs every day during the Bush administration, and I do not see how it adds up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that I wish our trade policy were working as well for American manufacturing as my friends say it is.

Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell each of us how much time the three of us have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we each have?

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) use some more of his time, because I am down to 9 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is down to 15. But perhaps the gentleman from Illinois would be willing to yield 5 minutes of his time over here, since he has no one to speak and we have so many speakers on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a real leader on trade issues in the last few Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is voting ``no,'' also.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I thank her for her leadership on trade issues and fighting for American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

I am down to 4 minutes because of the passion on this side. I am the only opponent of the three, and it is pretty clear we are the biggest number of the House in the passion we share in opposition to this trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who perhaps knows more than anybody in this body about international trade.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time waiting, I believe, for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) to close if he would like.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my final 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk about a world of trade that never quite ends up the way that we promise in this institution.

For 3 years in this Congress with this President, we have turned our government over to special interest groups. The Medicare bill was written by the insurance industry, the drug industry. Social security privatization legislation was written by Wall Street. Energy legislation has been written by Enron and Halliburton. Environmental legislation has been drafted by the chemical companies. And now trade legislation again has been written, in these provisions that we have talked about, by the drug companies.

If you think that the prescription drug industry has too much influence in this Congress, if you think the prescription drug industry has too much influence on the Medicare bill, too much influence with FDA, too much influence on trade policy, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.- Australia FTA.

If you do not trust the Bush administration to stand up to the drug companies and you do not trust the Bush administration to work for lower prices, then vote ``no'' on this U.S.-Australia FTA. If you care about reimportation and close to 300 Members on both sides of the aisle, 300 Members of this body do care about reimportation, if you in fact do, then vote ``no'' on U.S.-Australia FTA.

And if you want to send a message to this Congress, if you want to send a message to the President and to the USTR that we should not allow the drug industry to write trade law in this country, then vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The United States, and the global community, can only benefit from the development of bioterrorism countermeasures.

By rendering biological attacks less lethal and, therefore, less attractive to would-be terrorists, new countermeasures serve a dual purpose. They are both an antidote and a deterrent to future attacks.

For the sake of national and international security, it makes sense to invest in both basic and advanced research aimed at producing new bioterrorism countermeasures. When an opportunity to produce one of these countermeasures presents itself, it makes sense to capitalize on that opportunity quickly.

That is the logic behind this legislation. It establishes an expedited process for Federal support of countermeasure research and a procurement process to encourage private sector investment.

But Project Bioshield is not a blank check. Congress has a responsibility to weigh competing priorities and set funding levels appropriately. In that context, Congress cannot rest easy once we have passed this bill.

Bioterrorism funding is certainly important, the legislation before us today is certainly important, but our investment in bioterrorism must not come at the expense of research on cancer and research on Alzheimer's and muscular dystrophy and AIDS and other significant health threats.

If investing in Bioshield means diverting from other promising medical research, TB, multiple sclerosis, all other kinds of medical research, we are not making progress. We are, in fact, making trade- offs; trade-offs that set back the clock on cures for deadly and disabling diseases; trade-offs the public did not bargain for and should not abide.

The last thing Congress or the President should do is assure the public that we are doing everything we can more than ever to find cures for major illnesses like cancer and Parkinson's when actually we are choking off funding for medical research.

During his 2000 election campaign, President Bush said, ``As President, I will fund and lead a medical moonshot to reach far beyond what seems possible today.'' Apparently it was a short trip.

According to a White House budget memo recently leaked to the press, if President Bush wins the election this fall, one of his first actions will be to propose a $587 million cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health.

Medical researchers tell us that just to sustain the pace of medical progress that NIH has fostered, the agency's budget must increase 10 percent annually, something I hope everyone here would agree with, even though the President does not. Compared to annual, double-digit increases in the NIH budget, a cut in funding is a major step backward that would undermine promising medical research.

Finding ways to prevent, to treat, and to cure disease is an enduring national priority. Interest in that should not wax and wane. That is why we do not double NIH funding, which we did bipartisanly between 1999 under President Clinton, into 2003 still supported by President Bush, but then reduced that increase and then proposed a cut in funding. Our investment must remain constant.

We have a responsibility to prepare the country for a possible bioterrorist attack, but we also have a responsibility to maintain strong support for other medical research priorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. In creating Project Bioshield, it gives America a promising weapon in the battle against terrorism.

But bioterrorism, as I have said, is just one enemy in a much broader war against disease and disability. If we fund Project Bioshield, as we should, at the expense of life-saving and life-improving NIH research, we risk winning the battle and losing the war.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, survival of the fittest has its downside. When an antibiotic is used on the bacteria in a person or animal, it may kill some of the bacteria, but it will not kill all of them. The survivors reproduce, propagating these heartier antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotic resistance, as we have discussed on this floor for several years, is a serious and growing threat; 38 Americans die every day. Thirty-eight Americans die every day from antibiotic-resistant infections according to the World Health Organization. Some estimates suggest that the number is twice that size.

Antibiotic resistance costs the American health care system an estimated $4 billion every year. The Centers for Disease Control has called antibiotic resistance one of its top concerns.

Human medicine is partly to blame. The CDC has launched a campaign to better educate doctors and patients about the dangers of antibiotic overuse. But animal agriculture is also to blame. Some 70 percent of antibiotic use in America is not for people but for cows, for pigs, for chickens and for other animals we eat. About 70 percent of those antibiotics are used not on sick animals but either to prevent illness prophylactically, or just to make healthy animals grow faster.

The overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has serious consequences. Fluoroquinolones, the class of antibiotics that includes Cipro, are a disturbing example. Cipro is used to treat food-borne infections from a bacterium called camplobacter. The FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in human medicine in 1986, and for use in chickens in 1995. During the 9 years between 1986 and 1995, Mr. Chairman, no more than 3 percent of cases in the U.S. involved resistant bacteria. But just 2 years after FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens, resistance in humans had jumped to 13 percent. From 3 percent to 13 percent after the FDA okayed its use in chickens.

By 2001, 19 percent of these infections in humans were Cipro- resistant. Private industry has recognized the problem and has begun to respond. McDonald's, Wendy's and others will no longer buy products made from chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. And leading chicken producers like Tyson, Gold Kist, Purdue have also committed to stop using fluoroquinolones.

The American Medical Association, Consumers Union and other public health and consumer advocates believe it is time for the government to catch up to industry and take action on antibiotic resistance. Mr. Chairman, the National School Lunch Program lags behind. The USDA still buys chickens raised with fluoroquinolones.

Last year, this Congress decided it was time to act. The conference report for the 2004 ag appropriations bill strongly encouraged USDA to buy chickens for the School Lunch Program only from companies that do not use fluoroquinolones. That language was approved by bipartisan majorities in each House. The bill accompanying it was signed by the President; but, unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture did nothing.

The amendment I have offered was worded to closely track the language we approved last year. The difference is under my amendment, we are not asking this time, we are telling. Unfortunately, that is also why my amendment is subject to a point of order and I must withdraw it. Before I do, I invite the chairman and all of my colleagues to work with me to address this issue as the USDA bill advances.

We asked USDA to do something last year in the strongest terms. It ignored us. Let us tell them we expect better this year. Let us tell the USDA we are serious about protecting the American people from a growing and serious problem, antibiotic resistance.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney came to my home State of Ohio last week to try to explain the Bush economic policy, visiting a State with high unemployment, a State that has lost 200,000 jobs since President Bush took office, a State that has lost one-sixth of its manufacturing jobs and a State that has lost about 190 jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

His answer to every economic problem is more tax cuts for the wealthiest people. Somebody making a million dollars gets a tax cut of $125,000, hoping it will trickle down to create jobs and more trade agreements like NAFTA, which instead have simply shifted jobs overseas.

We need to change direction on this economy. It is not working in Ohio. It is not working in the industrial Midwest. We need a better manufacturing policy that pays attention to American manufacturing but does not shift jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, while Congress is working to provide affordable pharmaceuticals to American citizens through reimportation legislation, the Bush administration is working to undermine those efforts. We will soon vote on the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Article 17.9.4 of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent imports of drugs to the United States. That means the Australian Free Trade Agreement is directly inconsistent with provisions in the bipartisan drug reimportation bill sponsored by Senators Dorgan, McCain, Snowe, Lott and Daschle. Under its comprehensive pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the Australian government negotiates today lower prices for its citizens through mass procurement. In other words, they use volume purchasing.

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has made sure that our government cannot use mass procurement to bring down drug prices for U.S. citizens, and that is not good enough.

Now they want to go a step further.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office, the President's person at the trade table, has included language in the Australian Trade Agreement that will forbid importation of cheap, affordable and safe Australian pharmaceuticals into our country. The clear winners as always in this Congress, as always in the White House, the clear winners are the large pharmaceutical companies; and the big losers, again, as far as prescription drugs and the Republican leadership, the big losers are American consumers, particularly millions of American retirees who lack drug coverage.

The Bush administration and its pharmaceutical allies argue the only way to ensure lower drug prices for Americans is by raising drug prices on every other nation, ostensibly because these nations are not helping to pay for research and development. That argument is not just specious; it is absurd.

Foreign drug prices already are high enough to cover research and development costs and still return a healthy profit to the drug industry. If you do not believe me, look at Pfizer's balance sheet, look at Pharmacea's balance sheets, look at Merck's balance, look at Schering's balance sheet.

Glaxo is headquartered in England. Aventis is headquartered in France. Bayer is headquartered in Germany. Would these companies set up shop in a country where they cannot do business and make a profit? What if other companies do increase their drug prices? Do we really think the drug industry is going to turn around and reduce their prices just because they can get higher prices in Europe? Not on your life.

Drug companies charge U.S. companies outrageous drug prices for one reason and one reason only, because they can. The Australian Trade Agreement simply helps them get away with it in that country too. Drug industry profits to $59 billion. Last year the drug industry has been virtually the only industry in America left unscathed by the

Bush recession. Year after year after year they earn higher profits than any other industry in America for 20 straight years. Meanwhile, drug spending is fueling double-digit increases in health insurance premiums, drug spending is draining tax dollars out of the Federal Treasury hand over fist, drug spending is undermining the financial security of millions of seniors who have to choose between a full prescription drug dosage and their food or their utility bills.

Meanwhile, other countries are fighting back all over the world, but our government is not. Instead, at the behest of the drug industry, the Bush administration is trying to undermine price negotiations in Australia and block lower price prescriptions from even reaching our country.

Catering to a major campaign contributor like the drug industry is nothing new to this administration, but is it not getting a little ridiculous. If trade agreements are about creating open markets for cheaper goods and better market access, why are we trying to do something the opposite of that? Why are we trying to raise the price of prescription drugs across the world? The answer is easy: the pharmaceutical industry wants to make more money and the Bush administration and Republican leadership want their campaign help.

Enough is enough. A vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement is a vote against U.S. consumers. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday was a bad day for democracy in the House of Representatives. Adding to their laundry list of legislative arm twisting, House Republicans once again bent democracy to fit their needs by holding a vote open for 38 minutes until they were able to change the outcome of the vote. Thursday was not an isolated incidence of arrogant disregard for the political process by Republican leadership in this Congress. It was an example of the modern-day Republican win-at-all-cost style of governance.

This shameful record speaks for itself. Never before, when the Democrats were in control, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker with the Republicans in control, never before until the last year or so has the House of Representatives operated in such secrecy.

At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March last year, the House cut veterans benefits by 3 votes.

At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April last year, the House slashed education and health care by 5 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 Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote.

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

And then after returning from summer recess at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq. Always in the middle of night, always after the press had passed their deadlines, and always after the American people had turned off the news and gone to bed.

What did the public see? At best, Americans read a small story with a brief explanation of the bill and the vote count in Saturday's papers, understanding that Saturday is the least-read paper of the week; no accident there. But what did the public miss? They did not see the House votes which normally take 17, 18, 19, 20 minutes dragging on for as long as an hour as Members of the Republican leadership trolled for enough votes to cobble together a majority.

They did not see GOP leaders stalking the floor for whoever was not in line. They did not see the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader; and the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) coerce enough Republican Members into switching their votes in the middle of the night to produce their desired results. In other words, the American people did not see the subversion of democracy.

In November, they did it again. The most sweeping change to Medicare in its 38-year history was forced through the House at 5:55 a.m. on a Saturday morning. The debate started at midnight, the rollcall began at 3. Most of us voted within the typical 20 minutes. Normally the Speaker would have gaveled the vote closed, but not this time because the Republican leadership Medicare privatization bill was losing. By 4 a.m., the bill had been defeated 216 to 218. Then the assault began. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Mr. Tauzin) all searched the floor, walked around the Chamber looking for House Republicans to bully, the 25 Republicans that had the integrity and the guts to vote against their leadership and to do the right thing.

I watched them surround the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot) trying first a carrot and then a stick; but he, with integrity intact, remained defiant. They then aimed at a retiring Member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) whose son is running to succeed him. They promised support if he changed his vote to ``yes.'' They promised retaliation if he did not change his vote to ``yes.'' He stood his ground.

Many of the two dozen Republicans who voted against the bill simply went home because they did not want to deal with the pressure. I found one Republican Member in the Democratic Cloak

Room in order to avoid Republican arm twisting. By 4:30, the browbeating had moved into the Republican Cloak Room in the back of the Chamber, out of sight of C-SPAN cameras and the insomniac public. Republican leaders woke up President Bush, and a White House aide passed a cell phone from one recalcitrant Member to another in the Cloak Room. At 5:55 a.m., 2 hours and 55 minutes after the rollcall began, twice as long ever as any rollcall had taken in the history of the House of Representatives, two western Republicans, one from Arizona and one from Idaho, emerged from that Cloak Room, walked down the aisle, picked up one of these cards, a green card, scrawled their name and their district number on it, and sheepishly surrendered it to the Clerk of the House. The Speaker gaveled the vote closed 2 hours and 55 minutes after it began. Medicare privatization had passed.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, I guess it is not over until the drug companies and the Republican leadership says it is over.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans can do a lot in the middle of the night under the cover of darkness. Last week, House Republican leadership demonstrated a new bravado, the same kind of thing they did last year, month after month, by holding this vote open in broad daylight.

What can the American people expect to see from the Republican leadership in the future?

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney was in Cleveland this week trying to explain the President's economic policy to a State which has lost one-sixth of its manufacturing jobs since President Bush and Vice President Cheney took office, a State that has lost almost 200,000 jobs overall, a State that has lost 195 jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

His answer to Ohio's economic problems is more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the State hoping those tax cuts will trickle-down and create jobs. That clearly has not worked. And his other answer is more trade agreements like NAFTA and other trade agreements which have hemorrhaged jobs and shipped jobs overseas.

Clearly we need a new direction. The Bush economic policies are not working in the industrial Midwest. They are not working in small-town Ohio; they are not working in the big cities. We need a different economic policy. The Bush program simply is not working.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the Special Order time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, it has been a bad week in Washington. Adding to their laundry list of legislative arm twisting, House Republicans yesterday once again bent democracy to fit their needs by holding a traditional 15-minute vote open for 38 minutes until they were able to change the outcome of the vote to their favor.

It was not an isolated incident of arrogant disregard for the political process by Republican leadership in this Congress. It was an example yesterday of the ``modern-day'' Republican and their win-at- all-cost style of governance. Never before when the Democrats were in control or when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, never before has this House of Representatives operated in such secrecy.

At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, 2003, the House cut veterans' benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the tax cut bill, weighted especially towards millionaires, by a handful of votes. At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House passed the Medicare privatization bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote. And then, after returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq. Always in the middle of the night, always after the press had passed their deadlines, always after the American people had turned off the news and gone to bed.

What did the public see? At best, Americans read a small story with a brief explanation of the bill and the vote count in the Saturday newspaper. And people here, the Republican leadership, knows that Saturday is the least read newspaper of the week.

What did the public miss? They did not see the House votes, which normally take 15, 17, sometimes 20 minutes, they did not see them dragging on for as long as one hour as members of the Republican leadership trolled for enough votes to cobble together a Republican victory. They did not see GOP leaders stalking the floor for whoever was not in line. They did not see the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); they did not see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; they did not see the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip coerce enough Republican Members, arm-twisting them, berating them sometimes, threatening them sometimes, offering them things sometimes. They did not see them switching their votes to produce the desired results. In other words, they did not see the subversion of democracy.

Then in November they did it again. The most sweeping changes in Medicare in its 38-year history were forced through the House at 5:55 on a Saturday morning. The debate started at midnight. The roll call began at 3 o'clock late Friday night/early Saturday morning. Most of us voted with this plastic card that we were given within the 20 minutes allotted. Normally the Speaker would have gaveled the vote. The vote would be completed. But not this time because the bill was losing.

By 4 a.m., the bill had been defeated, 216 to 218. Still the Speaker refused to gavel the vote closed. Then the assault began. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt); the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Committee on Ways and Means chairman; and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman, all searched the House floor for Republican Members to bully.

I watched them surround the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), trying first a carrot, then a stick. He believes what he does. He remained defiant. He showed his integrity. Next they aimed at the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), retiring congressman, and these are his words as I tell this story, whose son is running to succeed him. They promised support if he changed his vote to ``yes.'' They promised $100,000 for his son's campaign. They said if he refused, they threatened his son's future.

He stood his ground, again showing integrity and courage.

Many of the two dozen Republicans who voted against the bill had fled the floor. One Republican headed into the Democratic cloakroom. I saw her there about 5:30.

By 4:30, the browbeating had moved into the Republican cloakroom, out of sight of the C-SPAN cameras and out of sight of the insomniac public. Republican leaders woke President Bush, a White House aide passed a cell phone from one recalcitrant Republican Member to another.

At 5:55, two hours and 55 minutes after the roll call had begun, twice as long, twice as long, as any roll call had ever taken in this House of Representatives, two western Republicans emerged from the cloakroom. They walked down this aisle, ashen and cowed, to the front of the Chamber. They picked up cards on this table, they picked up a green card, they surrendered their card to the Clerk, the Speaker gaveled the vote closed, and Medicare privatization passed.

You can do a lot in the middle of the night, under the cover of darkness.

That is what the Republicans did again this week. You wonder how they are going to violate democracy in the weeks ahead as we preach democracy in Iraq and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell today the tale of two visits. President Bush last year visited Canton, Ohio, visited his friends at the Timken Company. John Kerry today visited Canton, Ohio.

I would like to tell you a little bit about each visit. When President Bush came to Canton, Ohio, he came to the Timken Company, a fourth generation manufacturing firm in Ohio, one of George Bush's largest contributors. The Timken family has given and raised for President Bush well over $1 million over last 2 years. He came to Mr. Timken's plant and celebrated his program, his economic program.

He stood at the Timken plant and bragged on Timken's workers, as he should have, saying that Timken employees were 10 percent more productive this year, he said that a year ago, this year, than the year before. Ten percent more productive.

Now, a few months later Timken announced, earlier this year, that they had their best, their highest sales, highest quarterly sales they had ever had. A week after that they announced they had a 60 percent increase in earnings per share over the same quarter a year ago. Ten percent more productive workers, highest sales ever, very good earnings per share.

A week later, the Timken management announced that it was closing its three plants in Canton, Ohio, shutting down its Ohio production, laying off 1,300 workers and moving the factories to China.

Now, the President has come to Ohio time after time trying to justify his economic program when Ohio has been a State that has lost one-sixth of its manufacturing jobs. Ohio has been a State that has lost 190 jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

President Bush would be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have lost jobs during his time in office. Yet he goes to Timken, he says that is the picture of the future.

Now, the President's answer to every single piece of bad economic news is two-fold. First of all, the President says more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in society. A person making $1 million on average last year got a $123,000 tax cut. More tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our society, the largest corporations in our society, hoping that those tax cuts trickle down and create jobs. That is one of the President's answers.

The other is more trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, Central American Free Trade Agreement, Free Trade Area of

the Americas, all of these trade agreements that continue to ship jobs, continue to hemorrhage jobs overseas. That has been the President's answer.

I will yield.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact is this quarter trillion dollars of trade we had a trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA that is now a turned into a trade deficit. We had a small trade deficit with China when the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) came to this body and when I came to this body that is now $120 billion trade deficit.

The fact is we continue to have lost jobs in our State, even with some economic growth that has taken place in the last few months. Ohio and the Nation still are 2 million jobs behind what President Bush had when he came into office. There were 22 million jobs created during the Clinton administration. There is a net loss of close to 2 million jobs during the Bush administration.

Now, today, Mr. Kerry came to Canton to talk about some of these same issues. Mr. Kerry's solutions are not more tax cuts for the richest people in society, the major contributors to the Republican party.

His solution is not more trade agreements that continue to hemorrhage jobs overseas. His solutions are several things.

First of all, extend unemployment benefits to the million people who have lost their jobs in this country, who have tried to find work and have not and had their benefits expire.

Second, expand rather than eliminate, like the President wants to do, the manufacturing extension program which helps small manufacturers figure out how to navigate the global economy.

Third, Mr. Kerry says Congress should put a hold on trade agreements and go back and re-examine and look at changing the trade agreements that are already in effect.

Fourth, all of us in this body say pass the Crane-Rangel bill, which gives incentives to those companies and rewards those companies which manufacture in this country, rather than the Bush tax breaks that give manufacturing all kinds of incentives to companies that shift jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush again was in Ohio this past week to try to justify his economic program to try to sell it to the residents of my State.

Since President Bush took office, one out of six manufacturing jobs has disappeared from my State. President Bush will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his time in office. Ohio has lost 190 jobs every single day of the Bush administration.

His answer is always the same: more tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthiest people in the country which might, he thinks, trickle down to create jobs, and more trade agreements like NAFTA which all serve only to ship jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, instead of this disastrous Bush economic policy, we need to change directions, extend unemployment benefits, and give tax incentives to those corporations that do business in the United States rather than using U.S. taxpayer subsidies to reward those companies that go overseas and ship jobs overseas and outsource our middle-class jobs.