Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the gentleman from California was a Peace Corps volunteer himself in Latin America and is a fluent Spanish speaker; and I think the perspective he brings shows that even though the wages are so much higher in these countries, it is not a question of we just want to shut them off and keep them away and not let them compete and all of that in the world economy. It is a question of development and bringing up their standard of living. These trade agreements in the past have not done that. Talk to us, if the gentleman will, about from your perspective what development means. The gentleman talked about water systems and all of that. Instead of a CAFTA that does not lift standards up, what kinds of things work the most and, in particular, the poorest of these countries in Nicaragua and Honduras and Guatemala whose income is about, in some cases, less than one-tenth of ours, one-fifteenth of ours, if the gentleman would.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues. Our time is about up. Thank you very much for your passionate remarks in closing. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). This Congress will likely vote on this agreement soon. It is pretty clear that the most powerful people in all seven countries, the Dominican Republic, the Central American countries and the United States, support this agreement but overwhelming opposition among the public, small business owners and family farmers and ranchers and workers and people who care about the environment. If this Congress does its job, it is clear we will defeat this CAFTA and then renegotiate one that lifts up workers in all seven countries. I thank all of my colleagues for joining us this evening.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think there were a couple of things that you said tonight that were very good. There is nothing in this agreement that will raise living standards when you look at the six countries here, and their incomes, especially Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, all make no more than about one-tenth of what Americans make. There is nothing in this agreement to bring worker standards up, to bring environmental or food safety standards up. In fact, this agreement protects prescription drugs and the prescription drug companies; the agreement does that, but does not protect workers standards. It protects Hollywood films, but does not protect the environment and food safety. And when you talk about the size of these economies not buying very much from the United States, the size of these five Central American countries, the economic output is about the equivalent of Columbus, Ohio or Memphis, Tennessee or Orlando, Florida. It is simply not a place that is going to buy from the United States. But what we should be doing is a trade agreement, a renegotiation of CAFTA, in a trade agreement that will lift worker standards up so that these incomes begin to rise, so that over time they can in fact buy American products, they can send their kids to school. You talk about children, particularly girls, not having any chance to go to school and get out of this situation. In this agreement, we found this in other places, this agreement just locks in that sort of exploitive sort of economic situation where people simply do not have the opportunity that they should have.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Before doing that, I would just like to make a couple of comments about what was said by my friend from Florida, who was joined by other members of the Republican Party to talk about their privatization plan, their plan to privatize Social Security. I applaud them for coming up with a plan. President Bush has for the last 4 months gone around at town hall meetings, invitation only, where there is never any disagreement in these meetings, preaching Social Security change, never specifically saying what that change will be. The President, other than saying it is privatization, has not offered a specific Social Security plan. But what concerns me both about President Bush's comments and about the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle is they really are engaging in what we used to call, when they privatized Medicare, ``Mediscare'' tactics. They are doing the same kind of Social Security scare tactics by saying people are paying taxes into Social Security but may never see this money that they have put in. And I cannot imagine a more secure system than Social Security. It is a system that has been around for 70 years. It has never missed a payment month after month after month for 70 years. It is reliable. It is predictable. It is always going to be there. And when people who are Members of Congress stand up and say that we cannot count on this money being there, the Supreme Court made a decision here and Congress could make a decision there that Social Security might not be available, it simply scares people. And I do not think there is any room for that in our political system to scare people of any age, whether they are retirees or whether they are soon to be retirees or whether they are my age or younger than I and simply are not so sure about Social Security, to scare them and say that it will not be there, when it has been there every month for 70 years. It is reprehensible, frankly. In terms of solutions, the first thing we should do with the Social Security, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) said earlier tonight, is quit stealing from it. Quit using money from the Social Security fund and spending $1 billion a week on the Iraq war. Quit spending money from the Social Security fund and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country. That is how we start to change, to reform, to make even stronger the Social Security system. Mr. Speaker, I turn my attention to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. In a White House news conference in May, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Last year the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, the most powerful Republican in the House, promised that we would vote on CAFTA during the year 2004. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promised a vote on CAFTA prior to Memorial Day. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is promising a vote again, and this time I think he means it, that we are going to vote on this by July 4. Mr. Speaker, many of us, the dozen of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement have one message about CAFTA: Defeat CAFTA and renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement, one that business and labor, manufacturers, small business, ranchers, farmers, environmentalists, religious people, religious figures, leaders in the six CAFTA, Central American, Latin American countries and the United States, one we can agree on. But as it is, religious leaders in each of our seven countries, the U.S. and the Dominican Republic and the five countries in Central America, labor union members, workers, small business people, farmers, ranchers in all seven countries think this CAFTA is wrong and we should renegotiate a better CAFTA. The President commented that workers can excel anytime, anywhere, if the rules are fair. I agree with President Bush that workers in our country can always compete if the rules are fair. That is why it is too bad this administration negotiated a Central American Free Trade Agreement that fails so miserably to do that. Today the President grossly generalized the opposition to CAFTA, lobbying the tired accusation of economic isolationism. Name-calling does not have a place in this debate. For the President to say we are backward looking, economic isolationists, protectionists, none of those terms means anything, and all of those terms lower the debate to the lowest common denominator. Just to clarify for the President, those he calls economic isolationists, the fact is a majority of Members of this Congress oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. At least 23 business organizations represented at a rally just yesterday in Washington oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Farmers and ranchers and small business people and workers all over these seven countries oppose this agreement and call for a renegotiation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We want a trade agreement with CAFTA countries, but we want one that benefits the many, not the select few. CAFTA was a negotiated agreement, negotiated by the select few, including the drug industry, including the largest corporations in America, an agreement negotiated by the select few, for the select few, for the drug industry, for the largest corporations of America. That is what the White House is trying to force through this Congress, a failed trade agreement that was dead on arrival. Just look at its history. Thirteen months ago President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Every other free trade agreement President Bush has signed, one with Morocco, one with Australia, one with Chile, one with Singapore, four agreements, each of these four agreements that the President signed was voted within 60 days by this Congress. The President signed it; within 2 months Congress voted on it and passed it. This trade agreement is very different. He signed it 13 months ago, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, the most powerful Republican House Member, has not brought it before this body or the Senate simply because it does not have the votes, because it has languished in Congress for more than a year, because this wrong-headed trade agreement is a continuation of failed trade policy in this country and Republicans and Democrats alike understand it. Just look at what has happened with our trade policy in the last dozen years, Mr. Speaker. If we look at this chart, we will see that in 1992, the year I happened to be elected to Congress, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit. That means we imported $38 billion more worth of goods than we exported; $38 billion. That number grew and grew and grew until last year, in 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. In a dozen years, our trade deficit went from $38 billion to $618 billion. What does that mean? That is just a bunch of numbers. Well, it is not just a bunch of numbers. When we have a trade deficit grow like that, what it means is a lot of lost jobs. President Bush the first said that every $1 billion in trade deficit, every billion dollars, and we had $618 billion last year, over $500 billion the year before, over $400 billion the year before, and over $300 billion the year before that, that every $1 billion of trade deficit translates into, according to President Bush the first, 12,000 lost jobs. So if our trade deficit is $1 billion, it is a net loss of 12,000 jobs. If we multiply that times 618, we have a lot of jobs lost in this country as a result of our failed trade policy. Mr. Speaker, if we look at this next chart, we will see what those numbers mean. The States in red are States that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the last 5 years: Ohio, 216,000, where I live; Michigan, 210,000 jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Virginia and West Virginia, 95,000; North and South Carolina, 315,000; Alabama and Mississippi combined, 130,000. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing: Texas, 201,000; Florida, 72,000; Georgia, 107,000; Tennessee, 93,000; California, 353,000. Those are manufacturing jobs lost in the last 5 years in large part because of our trade policy. Yet President Bush wants us to pass another trade agreement called CAFTA, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, an agreement that will cause the same downward spiral in our manufacturing situation in this country. It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President promises three things: He says it will mean more jobs for Americans; it will mean more manufacturing done in the U.S.; it will mean better wages for workers in developing countries. Yet with every trade agreement, their promises fall by the wayside. We lose jobs. The standard of living in the developing world continues to stagnate. Our own wages stagnate. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Mr. Speaker, we are doing the same thing on our trade policy over and over and over again, and for some reason, although not a majority of Congress buys this, but for some reason the President and the largest corporations in the country and some Members of Congress, Republican leadership, believe that the outcome will be better, will be different this time, will actually produce much better results. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this job loss, again, these are just numbers, but think what 216,000 jobs lost in Ohio or in Akron or in Columbus or in Dayton or in Toledo or in Cleveland or in Lorain or in Youngstown, when a factory closes down and moves to Mexico, which happened to a plant in Elyria just in the last couple of years in my district, when a plant closes down, 800 jobs were lost. The schools suffer because there are fewer tax dollars for the schools. Police and fire are often laid off because there are not enough tax dollars. But it is what it does to those families, those 800 families, who generally cannot find jobs. The bread winners in those families simply cannot find jobs that pay nearly at the rate of those manufacturing jobs. So these families suffer. The kids suffer. The school district is hurt. All kinds of people lose when these trade agreements pass this Congress and we see this kind of manufacturing job loss. The administration and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass this Central American Free Trade Agreement. This year the administration is linking CAFTA to helping democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick have said CAFTA will help us in the war on terror, but 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve border security between Mexico and the U.S.; so that argument does not sell. Then in May, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce flew the six Presidents from Central America and the Dominican Republic around the Nation, hoping they might be able to sell CAFTA to the Nation's newspapers, to the public, to the Congress. They flew to Albuquerque and Los Angeles, to New York and Miami, to Cincinnati in my home State. Again, they failed. In fact, the Costa Rican President announced, after the junket paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, that his country would not ratify CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine it would not hurt working families in his country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the administration, finding that nothing else works to convince enough Members of Congress to vote for CAFTA, now the administration has opened the bank. Desperate after failing to gain support for the agreement, CAFTA supporters now are attempting to buy votes with fantastic promises. I would hold this up, Mr. Speaker, This is called ``Trade Wars, Revenge of the Myth, Deals For Trade Votes Gone Bad.'' It refers to a study of 92 documented promises made during trade agreements and how many of those promises by the administration to Members of Congress were actually honored. Fewer than 20 percent; 16 of these 90-some promises were actually honored by the administration. Members are not going to fall for this kind of disingenuous, these kinds of disingenuous actions from the administration. Again, the President can open the bank, the President can promise bridges and highways, the President can promise campaign fund-raisers in districts, the President can make all kinds of promises, sugar deals and textile deals to Members of Congress; but this year, they are not buying it, Mr. Speaker. Instead of wasting time with toothless side deals, our U.S. trade ambassador should renegotiate a CAFTA that will pass Congress. Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups, farmers, ranchers, faith-based groups, religious leaders, environmental, human rights organizations in all seven countries, the Latin American Consulate of Churches, for instance, have opposed CAFTA. All kinds of labor organizations and small businesses, manufacturers in this country have opposed CAFTA. They all say they want a trade agreement, but they want to renegotiate this CAFTA so that we will have one which actually works for American businesses, for American small businesses, for American workers, and for workers in these developing countries. This CAFTA will not enable Central American workers to buy cars made in Ohio or software developed in Seattle or prime beef in Nebraska. They make these promises. The CAFTA supporters have said, Mr. Speaker, they said that if the United States passes CAFTA, we will increase our exports to these six Latin American countries, they will buy our things. But if we look at this, Mr. Speaker, the United States average wage is $38,000; Guatemala is $4,000; Honduras, $2,600; and Nicaragua, $2,300. A Nicaraguan worker cannot buy a car made in Ohio, cannot buy produce from Mr. Farr's district in California. A Guatemalan worker cannot afford to buy software from Seattle. An El Salvadoran worker cannot buy prime beef from Nebraska or textiles or apparel from North Carolina. This is about CAFTA companies moving jobs to Honduras, exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala. Mr. Speaker, in closing, our goal should be to lift up workers in those countries so that they can buy American goods. When the world's poorest people, Mr. Speaker, can buy American products and not just make them, then we will know that our trade policies are working. Again, Mr. Speaker, we must renegotiate CAFTA. I am joined this evening by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a friend of mine, a Member of Congress, who came the same year I did, in 1993, from Northern California; and I would like to yield some time to him.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. History has taught us otherwise; that it does not. We have been joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) from Los Angeles who has been a real leader on all kinds of economic justice issues, especially trade issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentlewoman is exactly right when she talked about small businesses, those manufacturers that we all have in our districts. The gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has joined us. We all have seen these companies of 50 and 100 workers, often nonunion, usually family owned, usually Republican business, mostly men, some women. We had 23 business groups represented yesterday in this news conference; but more importantly, these small manufacturers understand when a big company outsources their jobs, these small companies simply have to close. This may be 50 jobs in Lorraine, Ohio or Akron, Ohio. There may be no article in the newspaper that this plant has closed, and nobody knows much about it except these 50 families whom it is just devastating to. I thank both of our friends from California for joining us. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the stalwart in fighting for economic justice and fair trade, not these free trade deals that do not work, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Lucas County, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). We share the same county, Lorraine County, in our districts.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. You said something very perceptive about California, and whether it is the Silicon Valley or whether it is the Central Valley or whether it is Cleveland, Ohio, what our country has been successful in doing is workers in our country share in the wealth they create. If you work for someone and you help that employer make a decent living and make a good profit, you as an employee share in the wealth you create. That company also pays taxes in that community, so that the community has safe drinking water and the community has decent road structure and other kinds of infrastructure. But, as you know, whether you go to Nicaragua or whether you go to the Mexican border or any number of countries in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. I have been to an auto plant in Mexico 3 miles from the United States. The workers work just as hard as workers in our country. It is a clean, productive plant, with the latest technology. The difference between a Ford plant in my district and the city I live in, and a Ford plant in Mexico, is the Ford plant in Mexico does not have a parking lot, because the workers are not sharing in the wealth they create. You can go around the world to Vietnam, and go to a Nike plant, and the workers cannot afford to buy the shoes they make. Or go to Costa Rica, the workers at a Disney plant, the workers cannot afford to buy the toys for their kids often. So the workers are not sharing the wealth they create, and the companies are generally taxed very little, if at all, so they are not putting any money into those communities. So if we would renegotiate CAFTA and put a program together like you talk about, with safe drinking water and infrastructure and schools so that boys and girls could go to school, and the workers were making enough that they could begin to buy some things, you would see their standard of living going up, and everybody would be better off, instead of just the largest corporations in the world. And the interesting thing about all of that is even though the leaders of those countries, as you have said, most of them except Costa Rica like the idea of CAFTA, the workers in those countries, the citizens of those countries simply do not. I would like to show you this here. Several months ago there was a demonstration in one of the Central American countries, I believe this is Guatemala. There have been 45 demonstrations against CAFTA in each of the six countries, and our country too, but 45 demonstrations where literally tens of thousands of citizens have shown up at the Parliament asking these countries not to ratify the agreement. This is a case where the police attacked workers who were protesting peacefully. Two workers were killed. In place after place, it is clear that, like you understand, of course, they understand better than we possibly could why this agreement does not work. They know it will not raise their standard of living. They know they will not share in the wealth they create in a factory for their employer. They know that these companies that come in will not pay taxes in their local communities so they can have safe drinking water and a better environment and better food safety standards and all that comes with an industry coming to town. I know when an industry comes to Ohio, it means a lot for the community. It is good jobs. They pay property taxes for the schools. They build good roads because of their tax dollars. All that comes when these factories come, they mean continued misery.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No labor standards.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago the President of the United States signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The trade agreement is an agreement between the United States and six Latin American countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic. It has been 13 months, as I said, since the President signed this agreement. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, promised a vote in 2004. He promised a vote by Memorial Day. Now he promised a vote, I think he means it this time, by July 4. It is simple, the reason we have not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and that is because of the broad opposition in this House and among the American people. Republicans and Democrats by the dozens in this House oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Business organizations, labor unions, both in the United States and in the six Latin American countries, oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The Latin American Council of Churches, as do many religious leaders and churches and organizations in the United States, oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Environmentalists, active environmentalists, food safety advocates, all kinds of very broad-based organizations oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Today, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and I did a news conference at the Capitol with 23 business leaders speaking out, business leaders representing 23 businesses speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The reason is simply that our policy is not working. Our trade policy in this country has failed us for 12 years. Just look at this chart. Since 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, the trade deficit, number of dollars' worth of exports versus imports, our trade deficit internationally was $38 billion. Today after NAFTA, PNTR, TPA, all these trade agreements, our trade deficit last year was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion. Now, maybe those are just numbers, but those numbers translate into something much more important than economist data. These numbers translate into manufacturing job losses. The States in red have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the last 5 years. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent. Ohio, my State, 217,000 jobs lost; Michigan 210,000; Illinois 224,000. These are just manufacturing job losses. People who make a decent wage, a middle-class wage, who have health benefits, who have earned pensions, thousands, hundreds of thousands of them, have lost their jobs; 228,000 in North Carolina; 130,000 in Mississippi and Alabama; 353,000 in California; 201,000 in the State of Texas; 200,000 in the State of Pennsylvania; 72,000 in the State of Florida. In State after State after State, we are losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Our the trade policy is not working. CAFTA is more of the same. CAFTA is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was an agreement that was negotiated by the select few, benefiting the select few. Now, supporters of CAFTA tell us, as they always do in trade agreements, that as a result of this agreement U.S. companies will export more products to the developing world. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this chart, that is simply not the case. The U.S. typical average wage is $38,000. The average wage in El Salvador is 4,800; Honduras 2,600; Nicaragua 2,300. To say that people in those countries are going to buy products made in this country simply does not pass the credibility test. Hondurans are not going to be able to buy cars made in Ohio. Nicaraguans making $2,300 a year are not going to be able to buy prime beef raised in Nebraska. Guatemalans making $4,100 a year are not going to be able to buy steel from Pennsylvania or apparel from North and South Carolina, or be able to buy software from Seattle. Mr. Speaker, those 23 business organizations that spoke out against CAFTA today, labor unions in all seven countries, environmentalists, food safety advocates, small businesses, farmers and ranchers in all seven countries, in Latin America and in this country, are simply saying renegotiate CAFTA; come up with a different Central American Free Trade Agreement that will help all of us. If we are going to protect prescription drugs, we should protect workers. If we are going to protect Hollywood films, as CAFTA does, we should protect the environment and food safety. Mr. Speaker, we should pass a trade agreement that works for all of us in this country, not just a select few.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the Central American Free Trade Agreement, we can look on the other side of the world on what our trade agreements and trade policies have wrought. USA Today has an editorial today I will read from for a moment: ``Part of the Internet's magic is the freedom it bestows to travel as far as your mind can take you. But not if you're in China. ``Software giant Microsoft has agreed to block certain words: democracy, freedom, and human rights among them,'' on the Internet as part of its new Chinese Internet portal. They have been joined by Yahoo and by Google. So, Mr. Speaker, write in the words ``democracy'' or ``freedom'' or the phrase ``human rights,'' and what comes up on your screen as those words are blocked? It says, ``This item should not contain forbidden speech, such as profanity.'' Human rights, freedom, democracy? That is profanity? Mr. Speaker, these trade agreements we have signed, coupled with our striving for freedom around the world and what our businesses say about their wanting to promote freedom and democracy, sound a bit hollow.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at the White House news conference early this month, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Earlier this month, the most powerful Republican in Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Well, actually last year he promised a vote during 2004. Then he promised by Memorial Day that we would vote on CAFTA. Now, I think he means it this time, now he is saying we are going to vote on CAFTA by July 4. As Congress waits for the next CAFTA vote countdown to begin, while we wait and wait and wait, many of us who have been speaking out, on both sides of the aisle, dozens of Republicans and dozens of Democrats have a message to the President and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement. President Bush signed CAFTA almost 13 months ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Morocco, Chile, Singapore, Australia, has been voted on within 60 days of the President's signing the agreement. But CAFTA has been 13 months. It has languished in Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats. It offends small business people and farmers and ranchers. It offends Central American workers and American workers. It offends advocates for food safety and the environment. Just look at what has happened with our trade policy, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the President want more of the same. Look at what has happened to our trade policy in the last dozen years. The year that I came to Congress, the same year that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) came to Congress, we were elected in 1992, that year the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit, meaning we imported $38 billion more than we exported. 12 years later, a dozen years later, last year, our trade deficit went from $38 billion 12 years later to $618 billion. It is hard to argue that our trade policy is working when the deficit goes from $38 billion and balloons to $618 billion in just a dozen years. But, it is more than just some numbers, Mr. Speaker, on a trade deficit, it is also job loss. In the last 6 years, manufacturing jobs alone, the States in red have lost 20 percent or more of their manufacturing base. Michigan has lost 210,000 manufacturing jobs, Illinois, 224, Ohio 216, Pennsylvania 199, New Jersey over 100,000 Alabama and Mississippi together, 130,000 jobs. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000. California 354,000. It is pretty clear our trade policy is not working, Mr. Speaker. Opponents to CAFTA know that it is an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, for all intents and purposes. It did not work then, it is not working now. It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement in front of Congress, the President says it will mean more jobs for Americans. The President promises, we will manufacture more products and export them abroad. The President promises it will raise the standard of living in the countries of our trading partners, and the developing countries. Yet, with every trade agreement their promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests, not small business interests, big business interests that sends U.S. jobs overseas and exploit cheap labor abroad. Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on the same kind of trade agreements, and we get the same negative results. In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, Republican leadership and the administration have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA and they failed. Now, they have opened the bank. Desperate after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on its merits, CAFTA supporters are now attempting to buy votes with their fantastic promises. If history is an example, Members should beware of these promises. Fewer than 20 percent, 14 out of 92 trade promises from the administration in the last dozens years, 14 out of 92 trade promises, less than 20 percent, were ever realized. The White House will make all kinds of promises to Members on both sides of the aisle, but do not be suckers, it is going to happen again and again and again. Instead of wasting with toothless side deals, Ambassador Portman should renegotiate a trade deal, a CAFTA that will pass Congress. Republicans and Democrats, labor and business, farmers and ranchers, religious leaders in Central America, religious leaders in the United States, environmental and human rights organizations in all seven countries are speaking with one voice: Defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a CAFTA that lifts up workers in both countries. Mr. Speaker, a worker in the United States averages about $38,000 a year in wages. The Dominican Republic about $6,000, Honduras about $2,600, Nicaragua 2,300. A Nicaraguan worker who earns $2,300 a year cannot buy cars made in Ohio, cannot buy prescription drugs manufactured in New Jersey, cannot buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina, cannot buy software from Seattle, cannot buy prime cut beef from Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is about outsourcing jobs to El Salvador, exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala. When the world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, then you know our trade policy will finally have succeeded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a trade agreement among six Latin American countries with the United States. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican Member of the House, said last year when the agreement was signed in May of 2004 that Congress would soon vote on it. We did not. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said we would vote on it before Memorial Day. We did not. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says we are going to vote on it before July 4. I think he means it this time. But the reason we have not voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement is pretty simple: A majority of Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats, large numbers of Members of this House simply do not think our trade policy is working. Every single trade agreement that has come before this Congress that President Bush has signed has been voted on within 60 days: Morocco, Chile, Australia and Singapore. The Central American Free Trade Agreement has not been voted on in almost 13 months because Americans, represented by their Members of Congress, have said we do not like the way our trade policy is working. Just take a look. In 1992, the year I was elected to Congress for the first time, our trade deficit, imports versus exports, was $38 billion. Last year, 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years. Now, that is just numbers, that is just economics maybe. But look what that means. What that really means is a huge loss in manufacturing jobs. In the last 6 years, for example, the States in red are States which have lost 20 percent, at least one out of five, of their manufacturing jobs: New York, 222,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000; Ohio, my State, 217,000; Michigan, 210,000 lost manufacturing jobs alone; Illinois, 224,000; Mississippi and Alabama together, 132,000; North Carolina, 228,000. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent, between one out of six and one out of five, of their manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000; California, 354,000 manufacturing jobs. Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not working. The Central American Free Trade Agreement is going to be more of the same. It is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which helped to begin this trend of a huge burgeoning trade deficit and the continuing loss of more manufacturing jobs. The President has said he wants us to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement and he makes some promises. The President said the Central American Free Trade Agreement will mean more jobs for Americans, it will mean more manufacturing in the U.S. and more exports to the developing world, and it will mean an increase in the standard of living for all seven countries, not just us, but the six countries in the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, that is the same promise that presidents have made for a decade and a half. They promise more jobs for Americans, they promise more manufacturing exports, they promise a higher standard of living in the developing world. And we end up with this: We end up with wages stagnant in the developing world, continued poverty in Mexico or China or wherever these trade agreements are, whichever countries these trade agreements affect, and more lost jobs in the U.S. The people that have supported CAFTA like to tell us we will start selling more products to Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua. What they do not tell us is that people in those countries simply cannot afford to buy American products. The average wage in the United States is $38,000. The average wage in El Salvador is $4,800. The average wage in Honduras is $2,600. The average wage in Nicaragua is $2,300. People in El Salvador cannot buy cars made in Ohio. People in the Dominican Republic cannot buy software from Seattle. People in Nicaragua cannot buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina. People in Honduras cannot buy steel from West Virginia or Pennsylvania. The fact is, these trade agreements are about one thing: These trade agreements are about exporting more U.S. jobs, outsourcing more U.S. work. That is why the largest companies in this country support CAFTA, because they want to move more production to these countries and continue to pay these very low wages instead of these higher wages. When you see who lines up for this agreement, the people who support CAFTA are the largest companies in the United States. The people who oppose CAFTA are religious leaders in Central America, religious leaders in the United States. The people who support CAFTA, again, are the largest banks and the largest financial institutions in the United States. The people who oppose CAFTA are people representing workers, the environment, people who advocate for food safety. The people who support CAFTA are the most powerful people in our country. The people who oppose CAFTA are Central American trade unions and people who represent the poorest of the poor in Latin America. This trade agreement simply will not work for Americans. It will mean more lost jobs for the United States. It will mean more manufacturing going offshore. It will mean a higher trade deficit with the United States, already going from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen years. It will mean more stagnant wages in Central America. It will mean a pulling down of wages in the United States. The fact is, we can pass a different CAFTA. We should defeat the Central American Free Trade Agreement and we should negotiate a CAFTA with labor standards, with protections for the environment, with protections for food safety. Why do we have protections for the drug companies, and not workers in CAFTA? Why do we have protections for Hollywood films, but not for the environment or food safety? Mr. Speaker, when workers in the developing world can buy American products, not just make them, then we will know finally that our trade policy is working.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, quoting from Roll Call, Lawmakers who are seeking to trade their votes on CAFTA should be forewarned: Such deals don't pan out. A Public Citizen report catalogs promises made to lawmakers by the Clinton and Bush administrations on trade votes from NAFTA to the 2002 TPA vote. Democratic and Republican administrations delivered on only 16 out of 92 promises; 16 out of 92 promises. On textiles, the report highlights a promise made during consideration of the 2002 TPA vote to Representatives Hayes and Myrick to hire 72 additional Customs inspectors, which was never fulfilled. Hayes is leaning against CAFTA, but Myrick this week announced her support. Quoting further from Roll Call: That support is partly based on a pledge from Rob Portman to seek an amendment to CAFTA to help producers of pockets and linings, proving that textile Members like Myrick seem to have learned nothing from the record of broken deals. Quoting further from Roll Call: Myrick said she has been assured by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff that those positions would be filled by 2006. Mr. Speaker, do not believe the deals when they try to buy votes on CAFTA.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a quote from Congress Daily: ``Lawmakers seeking to trade their votes on CAFTA should be forewarned. Such deals do not pan out.'' A Public Citizen report catalogues promises made to lawmakers by the Clinton and Bush administrations on trade votes from NAFTA to PNTR to TPA. Democratic and Republican administrations delivered on 16 out of 92 deals. Examples of broken promises, a pledge from the Clinton administration to put in place expedited safeguard procedures for tomatoes. The Bush administration did nothing to utilize those procedures. Tomato imports have grown 137 percent. On textiles and apparel, a promise made during 2002 TPA to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), and then-Representative Ballenger to hire 72 additional customs inspectors, which was never fulfilled. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is leaning against CAFTA. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) this week announced her support. That support is based on a pledge from Trade Representative Portman to seek an amendment to CAFTA to help North Carolina producers of pockets and linings proving that textile members like the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) seem to have learned nothing from the record of broken deals, the report states. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) said she has been assured by Secretary Chertoff that those positions would be filled by 2006.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a recent White House news conference President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. A couple of weeks ago in this Chamber the most powerful Republican in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), promised a vote by July 4. Well, actually, last year the gentleman promised a vote on CAFTA during 2004, then a couple of months ago he promised there would be a vote by Memorial Day. Now, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) really means it, that there will actually be a vote on CAFTA by July 4. The many of us who have spoken out against CAFTA, and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats, people on both sides of the aisle have a message. Our message is dump this Central American Free Trade Agreement. Renegotiate a CAFTA that large numbers of Members of both parties can support. Now, President Bush signed CAFTA more than a year ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, every single trade agreement negotiated by this administration has passed Congress within 2 months. CAFTA, on the other hand, was signed in May of 2004. It has been almost 13 months since CAFTA was signed by the President, but it has languished in Congress for more than a year, six times longer than any other trade agreement. It has languished in Congress for more than a year because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats in large numbers. Just look at what happened with our trade policy in the last decade. I was elected to Congress in 1992. In those days for that year, the trade deficit, meaning the amount of goods exported from the United States versus imported into the United States, the trade deficit was $38 billion. Twelve years later, in 2004, last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion, and the President and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the Congress, says that our trade policies are working. If you think it is working look at this. In addition to the trade deficit going from $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years, look at what is happening to the American manufacturing in the last 5 or 6 years. The States in red are States which have lost 20 percent or more, at least 20 percent, of their manufacturing: Michigan, 210,000 jobs lost; Illinois, 224,000 jobs lost; Pennsylvania, 199,000; New York, 222,000; Mississippi and Alabama, 138,000; South Carolina and North Carolina, 207,000; the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Kucinich) and my State, 217,000 manufacturing jobs lost, more than one out of five manufacturing jobs in our State. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. More than 200,000 in Texas; Florida and Georgia, 178,000. State after State after State. Our trade policy simply is not working, Mr. Speaker. Now, what the administration's doing, though, what CAFTA supporters in this Congress have done is they have crafted a one-sided plan to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American and Central American workers, at the expense of American and Central American small business, at the expense of American and Central American farmers. It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President says three things: It will be mean jobs for Americans, it will mean more manufacturing done in the U.S. and more exports, and it will mean better wages for workers in developing countries. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin said 200 or so years ago, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different outcome. Every time the President says it is going to mean more jobs for Americans it is going to mean more manufacturing and more export, and it is going to raise living standards in the developing countries. Mr. Speaker, it never, ever does. These promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests that send U.S. jobs overseas. Again, look at this chart. Look at the millions, 200,000, 200 plus, 200, 200, 200,000, 350,000 in California. Millions of jobs sent overseas. The standard of living in the developing world is stagnant, not going up. We are continuing to outsource jobs and the administration says let us pass the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA. It is pass CAFTA. There is a reason CAFTA and NAFTA rhyme. It is because it is the same old story, the same dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA. Now, the administration is doing something different. They are linking CAFTA to helping democracy, and helping democracy develop in the developing world. That argument does not sell. In May, the Chamber of Commerce brought the six Central American and Dominican Republic presidents to the United States on a junket, to Cincinnati, to Albuquerque, to New York, to Los Angeles, to Washington, trying to convince the American people and the American media that this is not working. The Costa Rican president said they will not ratify CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine the agreement will not hurt the working families in his country. Now, the administration has opened the bank in time to cut deals. Mr. Speaker, when the world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, we will know our trade policies are finally working.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, 1 year and 1 month ago, President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which would extend the same NAFTA- type trade provisions to six countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Unlike every other trade agreement which President Bush has signed, Morocco, Chile, Singapore and Australia, which were signed and voted on by Congress within 60 days, the Central American Free Trade Agreement has simply languished in the halls of Congress. The President has not brought it forward to vote on, in large part because the people of this body, a majority of the Members of Congress, will not vote for it. And here is why. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker that our trade policy is not working. In 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a $38 billion trade deficit, meaning we sold $38 billion less than we imported, exported less than we imported. $38 billion. Today, or 2004, that number had increased to $618 billion, from $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years. Mr. Speaker, maybe that is just numbers, but when you look at the trade deficit, and you know what it means, it has meant in large part a huge loss of manufacturing jobs. Just in the last 6 years these States in red have all lost at least 20 percent of their manufacturing. Michigan, 210,000; Ohio, 216-; Illinois, 224-; Pennsylvania, 200-; Mississippi and Alabama 130,000; North Carolina, 228,000. States in the purple here, dark blue, purple, have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that our trade policy is not working. Now, because of that and because the President cannot get nearly enough votes to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, they have begun to negotiate side deals, and they have promised bridges and highways as they did in 2001 on the last big trade vote in this Congress, something called trade promotion authority. They have promised to change CAFTA and do something down the road. Trust us, vote for it, and then we will make some provisions later down to help sugar, help textile, to help the steel industry, to protect jobs, to perhaps bring up living standards in Central America. The latest promise that they have made is to offer $20 million for enforcement of labor standards. This is the same administration that has cut labor standards in the United States and has dropped the funding for the Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs from $148 million 4 years ago down to 12 million. They want to put $20 million back. We can play with numbers, but the fact is the enforcement of labor standards in Central America is basically nonexistent under CAFTA and under the President's plans. At the same time, the International Labor Organization sets standards agreed on by all countries around the world to lift up labor standards so that workers can make a decent wage, that workers can bargain and organize collectively. The ILO standards prohibit child labor, prohibit forced labor, all the kinds of values that we in this country share with our colleagues and our workers in our families. With all of that, the administration is one of only two countries out of 80 in the world that is not fully supporting the ILO and what it wants to do in Geneva with its funding, with its programs, with all that. So it is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that the $20 million offer to support labor standards is just a fig leaf to try to convince a few Members of Congress to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. While all those deals have been going on, Mr. Speaker, a group of us had a rally today at the Cannon building in Washington, a group of legislators from the United States and a group of legislators from Central America. They rallied against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, not to kill it but to defeat this Central American Free Trade Agreement and come back with a better Central American Free Trade Agreement that protects the environment, that helps working people in both countries. All of us together have called on Congress to pass a better Central American Free Trade Agreement. These legislators from our country and from seven countries in Central America and Latin America understand that this CAFTA protects drug companies while harming the sick and the poor. They understand this CAFTA protects the world's largest corporations while hurting small businesses and working families. They understand this trade agreement protects huge industries while undermining the environment. They understand that they want and have called for a CAFTA that lifts workers up and raises living standards, a CAFTA that protects people the same way it protects property rights and the drug industry, a CAFTA that allows HIV patients access to affordable, life-saving drugs. They understand, most importantly, that CAFTA was negotiated by a select few to benefit only a select few, not the masses of people in our country and the other six CAFTA countries. It is past time to renegotiate a trade agreement that works for all citizen of all seven CAFTA Nations.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Too many Americans, as my friend from Ohio said, face financial barriers to health care. The American Cancer Society and other patient advocates support H.R. 1812 because they know that many Americans also face serious nonfinancial barriers; racial, cultural, linguistic and geographical barriers; barriers that have contributed to striking disparities across racial and ethnic lines in the incidence and treatment of cancer and other serious diseases. This is by no means a minor or inconsequential issue. It is a crisis, and addressing it should be one of our Nation's highest priorities. According to former Surgeon General David Satcher, more than 80,000 African Americans die every year because of continuing disparities in health care; 80,000. African American and Latino adults are disproportionately more likely than whites to suffer from chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, asthma, depression, diabetes and high blood pressure. Modern medicine can combat these conditions, but only if it is available to those that need it. The earlier people receive preventative, diagnostic and treatment services, the better. Prevention and timely treatment are not only optimal from a public health perspective, they are optimal from a budget perspective. Timely care is cost-efficient care. The complexity and fragmentation of our health care system is perhaps the most daunting barrier of all. It exacerbates racial and ethnic disparities and reduces the efficiency of health care across the board. The patient navigator bill lays out a comprehensive strategy designed to foster prevention, early diagnosis and efficient treatment of serious illnesses. The goal is twofold: To reach those who are currently disenfranchised from the health care system, and to help ease the way for those who face a serious illness, an intimidating array of treatment options and uncertainty about the best course of action. This bill establishes a year-round community outreach program to promote cost-effective preventive services, including cancer screening. Early detection saves dollars, and, more importantly, saves lives. The program features culturally and linguistically competent patient navigators who are trained to assist and empower patients, serve as their advocates in negotiating our complicated and too often impersonal health care system, and help patients overcome barriers to health care services. With this legislation's passage, we can expect to see increased enrollment in clinical trials, greater community involvement and health awareness, a more coordinated approach to health care delivery, and enhanced access to timely health care services for racial and ethnic minorities. H.R. 1812 has the endorsement of the American Cancer Society, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the National Council of La Raza, the American Diabetes Association and the American Medical Association. I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for their hard work on this legislation. I am pleased to support it.

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentions freedom. Another word or phrase that is thrown around here a lot is Christian values and fair play and morality. And when we pass a trade agreement that throws American workers in these numbers out of jobs and then exploits a worker that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) talked about making 12 cents that makes a product that sells in the United States for $20, what kind of exploitation, what kind of family values, what kind of morality that does describe our actions? Yet, it is pretty clear to an awful lot of people in this body, I think, and it is pretty clear to a whole lot of Americans that the values that we hold dear, no matter what your religion or your faith, if your religion or your faith is based on our country doing the right thing, it simply does not fit, to pass a trade agreement that costs people these kinds of jobs, that exploits the most defenseless people in the developing world, the people that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) says are trapped, the women that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) describes, and then go home and talk about practicing our faith and family values and morality. It just does not work.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). She is exactly right. I think the point she made is so important. First of all, at the beginning of her comments, she said there is a growing bipartisan group, and it is clearly way larger than a majority of this Congress, large numbers of people in both parties, who do not like our trade policy, who see that we have seen this incredible growth in the deficit from $38 billion to $618 billion in 12 years. It is clear our policies are not working. We have seen the kind of job loss that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others have talked about, particularly in these red States, with losing 200,000 jobs. She talked about that we are not against trade agreements; we are against this Central American Free Trade Agreement. We are against this trade agreement because we know who the winners and losers are. The winners have been the drug companies, the largest most powerful corporations. The losers are small manufacturers that are from my district and in Chicago or in the upper peninsula of Michigan. The losers are workers all over the country. When these workers lose, it is not just 216,000 Ohioans who lost their jobs. It is the families. It is the children. It is the school districts, the police and fire protection, and the safety of these communities. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we can simply do better, that we should reject the Central American Free Trade Agreement as presented to us for this vote; renegotiate CAFTA; come back here and pass a trade agreement that lifts standards up, that lifts workers' standards up in our country and Central America; that protects and preserves the environment; that speaks to food safety and all the things that matter in our lives. In closing, I would add both comments from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) about what do we stand for as a Nation, what kind of values, and when I look at the fact that religious leaders in all seven of these countries, the six countries south of us and our country, religious leaders have spoken out saying they are not against trade either, but they can do better, they believe we can do better and come up with a negotiated trade agreement so that working families and the poor in these countries, the environment benefits, food safety benefits. We do better with all of those things that we care about. So I thank my friends for joining us tonight, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and just again saying we should renegotiate CAFTA, start again. It has been a year and a month since this agreement was signed by the President. We can do better. Let us start again and do it right this time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). And before calling the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), I would like to reiterate a couple of things that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stupak) said, talking about people playing by the rules, and American workers who played by the rules and were involved in their community and raised their kids and worked their jobs and put their time in, that they lose their jobs; people who have played by the rules in Central America, who have been exploited in these jobs that have been outsourced; and all the groups, all the religious leaders and all six of these, the six Central American countries and including the Dominican Republic; and the United States religious leaders that oppose these because they know that people that have played straight and played by the rules have been hurt by these trade agreements in the past. And I want to mention one thing before turning to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) because of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and the opposition to these agreements from the public. People know they are getting hurt by these agreements, people in Niles, Ohio, that work at Lordstown, people in Lorain or in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or in Chicago that have been hurt by these agreements, people in Central America that have been hurt by these agreements. Because of that it is clear if this vote were to come to the House today, there is no doubt that we would defeat this trade agreement by 30 or 40 votes. But that is today. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stupak) pointed out the White House is beginning all kinds of ways to convince this Congress to do something to vote for the agreement. Just a couple of days ago Tom Donahue with the Chamber of Commerce told a bunch of Members of Congress, if you vote against CAFTA, it will cost you. Those kinds of threats. At the same time the President and his people are now putting out carrots, not just sticks. They are, in a sense, bribing Members of Congress with everything from promising highways and bridges and other kinds of pork to now saying that they are going to put $20 million in labor enforcement assistance into something called the Department of Labor's Bureau of International Affairs. Now the administration cut the ILAB from $148 million in 2001 down to $12 million, from 148- to $12 million. Now they are saying they are going to add 20 million to it, as if that is helping something, when they have no interest, they have written a trade agreement that does not enforce labor standards or provide labor standards. Now they are saying they are putting a little money in even after they have cut it. At the same time something called the International Labor Organization, which is a multinational group that sets labor standards, were one of, I believe, two countries out of 80 that said we are going to vote against the funding for that international body. So it is pretty clear all the promises they want to make about enforcing labor standards, they wrote weak standards, they cut funding on enforcement. Now they are trying to buy off a few Members' votes by promising to put a little money in enforcing labor standards. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has been a stellar outspoken advocate for workers' rights and the environment, both internationally and in the gentlewoman's Illinois district and around this country.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA specifically protects, if you look at the text of CAFTA, it specifically protects the prescription drug companies, but offers no real protection to workers. It specifically protects and supports Hollywood films and CD-ROMs, but does not have protection for the environment and for food safety. I mean, if that does not tell us something about values; we will write a trade agreement that will help the most privileged, wealthiest people in both our country and the six CAFTA countries, but we will not protect the workers, we will not protect and help and enhance the environment, food safety, safe drinking water, clean air, all of that. We are joined by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who also has been in this Chamber, came with me in 1992 and has been a part of these discussions on trade for many, many years, and I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the States in white, and there are two of them, actually had manufacturing job growth. In these two States, total population is about 2 million people out of a country of 280 million, so these two States represent less than one percent of our country. Not that they are not important if you live in those two States, but they are the only States that have had manufacturing job growth. All of the States in red have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing, 20 percent, hundreds of thousands of jobs in many of these States. The States in blue have lost up to 20 percent, 15 to 20, so it is State after State after State has just been hurt badly by this. And as we have all talked, it clearly translates into people's lives.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). One of the things that the gentleman pointed out is talking about school kids in Youngstown or talking about police and fire in his community, and we do a lot of talking about statistics and numbers and the trade deficit going from $13 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years, but then we think about what this means. When President Bush, Senior, said for every billion dollars in trade surplus or trade deficit, that translated into 12,000 jobs; for every billion-dollar trade surplus, it is 12,000 more jobs for our country; for every 12 billion-dollar trade deficit, it is 12,000 fewer jobs, many of those manufacturing jobs. So when we have this kind of trade deficit of $618 billion, you multiply that times 12,000 jobs, according to President Bush, Senior, however you do the math, these are a lot of people that lose jobs, communities that experience plant closings, a lot of police and fire who protect our communities who get laid off when these plants close. These are a lot of cuts to public education. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) says, you then need to pass school levies and it is so hard to pass school levies when people have lost their homes and lost their jobs and are barely able to make ends meet, and have taken a job where they were making $35,000 a year and are now making $17,000 a year, and they cannot afford a property tax increase, so schools lose out and kids lose out, and it is just a downward spiral. So when you see these numbers, you think about people in our communities, it does not matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, because these job losses, as we have pointed out, these job losses in manufacturing alone, particularly throughout the Midwest and the south, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and States from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, up into Wisconsin, think of these 200,000 per State manufacturing job losses is a whole lot of people, a whole lot of bread winners and families that come home to their kids and cannot do what they were able to do before they lost their jobs. Their schools are hurting, their public safety is hurting, they are not able to send their kids on to school, all the kinds of things that go with lost jobs. That is why this is so important.