Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as I hear you talk and I think about what has happened with workers around the world, one of the great things about our economy, one of the great things about our country is if you work somewhere, if you work for General Motors or if you work for the local hardware store, if you are a teacher or if you are a nurse, you create value. You create either a profit for your company, wealth for your company. You create value if you are not working for a for-profit company. Under our system, in part because of labor unions, in part because we have a democratic system, and in part because of our history and our traditions, you share in the wealth you create. The lesson of these trade agreements you can go anywhere that we have these trade agreements. You can go to Mexico, Nicaragua and China, and you will notice that workers do not share in the wealth they create. I heard the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) talk about this years ago. The best example was you go to a General Motors plant in Mexico, and it looks just like a General Motors plant in Ohio except it is often newer. The technology is up to date. It is modern. The floors are clean. The workers are working hard. The difference between a Mexican auto plant and the American auto plant, the Mexican auto plant does not have a parking lot because the workers cannot afford to buy the cars they make. You can go halfway around the world to Malaysia and go to a Motorola plant, and the workers cannot afford to buy the cell phones that they make. You can go back to this hemisphere, to Costa Rica, and go to a Disney plant. The workers cannot afford to buy the Disney toys for their children that they make. You can go back halfway around the world to China and go to a Nike plant, and the workers cannot afford to buy the shoes that they make. That is what these trade agreements have failed to do. So when a Nike worker in Oregon loses her job and a Nike job in China is created, that means that Nike worker in Oregon is no longer paying into Medicare, no longer paying into Social Security, no longer able to buy Nike, no longer able to buy a car, no longer able to do whatever. So the world has one fewer consumer. The world really is poorer. Nike is a little bit richer, but the world overall is poorer. In China there is no real wealth created because they are not able to buy anything other than subsistence living and the community in Oregon, in Medford or whatever town, has less wealth. My definition of successful trade is when the world's poorest workers can buy American products rather than just make products for Americans. Then we will know that our trade policies finally are working. Once this deadline has expired, the President normally takes 2 months to pass a trade agreement. This one has taken 11.5 months. Republican leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, has said that we will vote on it by May 27. That will be roughly 1 year. We need to go back, as the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) said, and start again. I want a great trade agreement with Central America because I think we can write one that will lift their workers up so they will want to buy our products as we buy their products. We can do that. We need to start again. So once the CAFTA countdown, we are at 16 days, something like that now, once that is past the end of this month, let us just go back to the drawing board and write a CAFTA that, number one, we can be proud of; number two, that will lift up workers in those countries and will help invigorate the middle class in this country. It is very possible to do that. It is just we do not have the will to do it.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from Toledo, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). And the gentlewoman is exactly right. I have a chart just with the Mexico trade deficit. The gentlewoman talked about Canada, the U.S., all of this. And you can see, we went from a trade surplus when NAFTA was signed to this, over $40 billion. And I look at the year that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and I were elected to Congress in 1992. The United States, and I do not want to bore people with numbers, but in 1992, the year we first ran, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit with the world. That meant we bought $38 billion more than we exported. Last year we had a trade deficit of $620 billion. Every trade agreement, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) says, they promise the same thing. They say more growth in the United States, more jobs, more manufacturing, more exports to the United States if you pass this trade agreement. Every time Congress passes one, it gets worse. The trade deficit keeps growing. The job loss keeps increasing. The definition of insanity is when you do the same thing over and over and over again and you expect a different outcome. They are asking us to do the same thing. So we can see these same numbers come with Central America by increasing, increasing, increasing, increasing deficits every year. I would yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, especially on trade issues and jobs issues and health issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Exactly right. I thank the gentleman. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) has joined us. We are also joined by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has worked on trade agreements for years; and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my colleague on the other side of the State bordering my district to the west, who has been involved in trade agreements probably longer and more aggressively and more assertively than I think any Member of this body; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), a freshman who has taken this issue and run with it. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) earlier. I appreciate that human spiritual component. I would close in an optimistic tone. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) talked about what happens with labor unions and human rights in Central America and in South America and in Mexico. Just hold up for a model what happened in Central and Eastern Europe in the last 20 years. The thrust of their equal rights movement came out of the labor movement, and flowing out of that labor movement came a much better way of life, came freedom, better economic security, more wealth for workers, all that we should be striving for. That is why labor standards for these workers in these trade agreements is so important. As the CAFTA countdown comes, we are down to the last 16 days, it is pretty clear NAFTA will be dead on arrival. It is time at the end of May when we come back in June to start with a new trade agreement that will lift workers up and make us both spiritually and intellectually and in every other way proud of what we do.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this evening I am joined by fellow House Members, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), a freshman, and other House Members who will join us shortly as we talk a little bit about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Some call it the Central American Free Labor Agreement, as we will soon see. As you can see by this calendar, we are barely 2 weeks away from the deadline set by the House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, for a vote. They plan a vote in this Chamber on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This deadline coincides with the 1-year anniversary of when President Bush signed the agreement. That does not seem like news, except for this: every trade agreement signed by the Bush administration in his 4\1/2\ years in office, every single trade agreement signed by the Bush administration has been voted on within 60 days of its signing. The President signs the agreement with Australia, with Singapore, with Chile, with Morocco; and this Congress votes on it right away, in large part because there is not huge opposition to the trade agreements. This time, we are now at 347 days since Congress, since the President signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That is how long CAFTA has languished in Congress without a vote. Why? Because Democrats and Republicans alike, people on this side of the aisle, people on that side of the aisle, understand that the Central American Free Trade Agreement is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. Last month, two dozen Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined more than 150 business groups and labor organizations echoing a united message: vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Yesterday, just outside this building across the street, more than 400 union workers and Members of Congress again gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol to deliver a united message; vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. So Republican leaders in this House and the Bush administration understood they had a problem. On this day it will be 12 months, 1 year, since the President sent CAFTA to Congress. There is not the support in this country or this Congress for this trade agreement because people understand what it does to our Nation, what it does to our workers, what it does to our food safety, what it does to the environment. So what did the Republican leaders and President Bush do? They brought the six presidents of these five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, they brought these six presidents to the United States. In fact, the six presidents are touring our Nation on a United States Chamber of Commerce junket going around the country trying to convince the American people, the press, and the American Congress to vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They traveled to Miami. They went to Los Angeles, they went to Albuquerque, they came to my State of Ohio attempting to convince Americans this is a good idea. The Bush administration has not been able to sell it. Business in this country has not been able to sell it. The free trade ideologues in this Congress who need your vote for every trade agreement, they have not been able to sell it. So what is next? They bring the six presidents from Central America to come in. Unfortunately, these presidents are not telling the whole story. Like our own President, they tried to convince us that CAFTA will lift up low-income workers and that CAFTA will create jobs here at home. First of all, there is no truth to that. We have heard that on every trade agreement. But what they do not say about CAFTA, what they have not said is that the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations, the combined purchasing power is equal to that of Columbus, Ohio, or equal to that of Orlando, Florida, or equal to that of Memphis, Tennessee. They do not discuss the fact that people in Central America, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, these six countries, they do not discuss the fact that they are not making enough money to buy cars made in Ohio; they are not making enough money to buy software made in Washington State or steel made in Pennsylvania, or textiles or apparel made in North Carolina or South Carolina or Georgia, or planes made in Washington State. Why? Because look at the average wage in these countries. The average wage in the United States is $38,000. People who are making $38,000, the average wage, can usually own a car, oftentimes own a small home, at least rent an apartment, sometimes own a home. People making $38,000 a year are buying shoes. They are paying into Medicare. They are buying clothes. They are consumers. They are buying products. But look at the rest of the countries in the Central American Free Trade Agreement: Costa Rica, $9,000; Dominican Republic, average salary $6,000 a year; El Salvador, $4,800; Guatemala, $4,100; Honduras, $2,600; Nicaragua $2,300. They are not going to buy cars made in Ohio. They are not going to buy steel made in West Virginia. They are not going to buy software from Seattle. They are not going to buy textiles from North Carolina. What is this all about? What this is about is for U.S. companies to offsource, outsource offshore, send offshore jobs to these low-income countries. They will set up factories in Nicaragua, so they will pay Nicaraguan pennies on the dollar to manufacture products to sell back into the United States. It will not raise their standard of living in Nicaragua; it will certainly hurt our standard of living in this country. But let me for a moment share again, when these six presidents toured the United States, what they said and what they did not say. What they did not say, with all due respect to these Central American leaders, they did not tell us that NAFTA-CAFTA does nothing to ensure enforcement of labor provisions in their own country. They have not told reporters or the Congress or the public that more than 8,000 Guatemalan workers protested against CAFTA last month; two of them were killed by the police in Guatemala. They did not mention that tens of thousands of El Salvadorans who protested the Central American Free Trade Agreement a year-and-a-half ago. They do not mention the 18,000 letters sent last year by Honduran workers to the Honduran Congress protesting, decrying this dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA. They did not tell us about the 10,000 people who protested CAFTA in Nicaragua in 2003. They did not tell us about the 30,000 CAFTA protestors in Costa Rica just this past fall. Hundreds of thousands of workers in these six countries have protested in 50 demonstrations in the last 3 years saying that CAFTA is not good for those countries. Before yielding to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I want to sort of finish this story of the six presidents. The six presidents last night assembled in Washington in the midst of their travels around the United States to sell the American people on a bad trade agreement between us and them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hosted a reception for these visiting dignitaries rewarding them for their lobbying efforts. You can walk around the Capitol today and the last couple of days and you would see these presidents going from office to office to office trying to convince American Members of Congress that they should pass this trade agreement. But they were rewarded for their efforts at a very lavish reception at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last night. You can see these presidents raise their glasses, toasting these U.S., these large corporations in the country, thanking them for this tour; you can see these corporate CEOs raising their glasses, toasting these presidents of the six countries, thanking them for fighting for this trade agreement which will, more than anything, help these large businesses. I wondered if these CEOs and I wondered if these six presidents reflected on what happens to small businesses in Ohio and Michigan, those that do not want another failed trade agreement. I wondered if they thought about the family farms in North Carolina and Louisiana holding on for dear life. I wondered if they thought about those workers in Nicaragua and Costa Rica and Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras and the Dominican Republic. I wondered if they thought about that when they were toasting, the CEOs were toasting the six presidents and the six presidents were toasting the CEOs. My guess is they did not. Tonight, we are here in this Special Order to talk about CAFTA facts and the fact that CAFTA is dead on arrival and the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that we are now down to 16 days. It will be 1 year, and this deadline is approaching, 16 days until CAFTA is absolutely buried. I yield to my friend from my neighboring district in Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). As we continue this conversation, when I listen to the gentlewomen talk about this, we all talked about the trade deficit, that it went from $38 billion to $620 billion, the trade deficit with Mexico going from a trade surplus to a trade deficit. Those are just numbers, and they make sense but they are just numbers. When you hear the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) ask about those families in Galesburg, these are not numbers. These are families that lose their job in Lorraine, Ohio, or in Portsmouth, Ohio, or in Chicago or Toledo. They lose their jobs. What it does to their families, often they lose their pensions with some of these companies. The schools have significantly fewer dollars to run. The police and fire departments are understaffed. All the kinds of things that are more likely, alcoholism, all that happens with the families in our country. Then you talk about those families in, I have seen them in Mexico; I have seen them in Nicaragua; I have seen them several other places; these families that are working, often 8 to 10 hours a day, often 6 days a week making clothes for us. I was with a family in Nicaragua. They get paid 23 cents for every pair of jeans they sew. The mother gets paid 23 cents for every jeans she sews that end up at Wal-Mart getting sold for between $25 and $30. I was at her home in Tipitapa, a little sprawling bedroom community as you would say in this country, but it is a series of shacks made out of packing materials form the plants they work for. She was standing in this community home one day. I was talking to her, and she was holding her 3-year-old daughter who had hair down to about her shoulders, jet black hair, except that the bottom inch or two of her hair was sort of discolored. I asked somebody what that was about, and they said, probably this girl does not get enough protein because the parents cannot afford milk. The parents do not buy meat except for very special occasions because she is getting paid 23 cents for every pair of jeans. So this trading system that these trade agreements bring us bring horrific poverty to the developing world where these people are working harder than maybe any of us, working 60 hours a week, not to mention how hard they have to work at home to do everything, getting to and from work on a bus that takes an hour and a half each way, and all the other things that happen to them. Then you think of the pain it inflicts on our communities, our schools, our health care system, our police, our fire departments, the safety in our communities, on our families, on our self-respect. All of that. We can talk numbers, and we can prove our case with these numbers, but all you have to do is look at people at both ends of the trade agreement and where they sit and how their lives go and what we are doing to them. And that is the story in so many ways.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today more than 400 union workers and Members of Congress gathered in front of the United States Capitol delivering a united message: vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This week, the presidents of Central America and the Dominican Republic are touring the Nation on a United States Chamber of Commerce- funded junket, pushing the Central American Free Trade Agreement. They are traveling to Miami and Los Angeles. They are going to Albuquerque and to my State, Cincinnati, Ohio, attempting to convince the American people and the American press that CAFTA is good for their countries and for their people. Unfortunately, these leaders are not telling the whole story. Like our own President, they try to convince us that CAFTA will lift up low- income workers in Central America and that CAFTA will create jobs here in the United States. What they have not said is that CAFTA does nothing to ensure enforcement of labor provisions in their own countries. What they have not said is that the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations, is equal to that of Columbus, Ohio; or Memphis, Tennessee; or Orlando, Florida. In other words, people in Guatemala and Honduras and Nicaragua and El Salvador and Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the steel produced in Pennsylvania. They cannot afford to buy cars made in Ohio. They cannot afford to buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia. They cannot afford to buy software from Northern California or Oregon or the State of Washington. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the Central American leaders, what they are not saying and what millions of us know already is that millions of their workers in Central America, like tens of millions of American workers, do not support the Central American Free Trade Agreement. What their leaders will not tell the American people, what their leaders will not share with reporters covering their junket, is that 8,000 Guatemalan workers protested against CAFTA in March. Two of them lost their lives when government forces attacked the crowds. We have not heard Central American leaders mention the literally tens of thousands of El Salvadorans who protested CAFTA in 2002. They do not mention the 18,000 letters sent last year by Honduran workers to their Honduran Congress decrying this dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Central American leaders do not mention the 10,000 people who protested CAFTA 1\1/2\ years ago in Nicaragua. They do not tell us about the 30,000 CAFTA protestors in Costa Rica just last fall. Hundreds of thousands of workers have protested CAFTA in more than 45 demonstrations in these six Central American countries. Opposition to CAFTA here in the United States has been equally stalwart. More than a year has passed since President Bush signed CAFTA. Every other trade agreement the President has brought to Congress has been voted on within 6 or 7 weeks. This has been 11\1/2\ months since the President signed it because there is so much opposition from American workers, from American educators, from American social service organizations, from Americans of both parties. Instead of supporting the President on CAFTA, overwhelming numbers of Republicans and Democrats in this body and across the country have come out against the agreement. Last month, two dozen Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined more than 150 business groups and labor organizations echoing a united message: vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost more than 1 million jobs. Under NAFTA the promise of a thriving middle class in Mexico was never realized. Under NAFTA, just like every other trade agreement, the administration, the corporate leaders make the same promises. They promise more manufacturing jobs in the United States. They promise growth in industry in the United States. They promise more exports from the United States. But it never happens that way. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and over again and expecting a different result. We have heard these same promises about CAFTA, about NAFTA, about trade with China, about the World Trade Organization. We have heard these same promises over and over and over again, and the American people understand the promises simply do not work. Now the President and his big business allies are hoping that bringing these Central American leaders on their Chamber of Commerce junket can help deliver support for an agreement that, frankly, as we look across this Chamber, is dead on arrival. Right now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is hosting a reception for the visiting dignitaries, these six presidents, rewarding them for their lobbying efforts this week. Right now the leaders of these countries are raising their toasts to their corporate sponsors. Mr. Speaker, there can be no more delay. We must throw out this failed agreement and renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today marks the national commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Six million Jews were murdered as a result of state-sponsored, systematic persecution. The Holocaust is not just a story of destruction and loss; it is a story of an apathetic world and a few individuals of extraordinary courage. It is a remarkable story of the human spirit that thrived before the Holocaust, struggled during its darkest hours, and ultimately prevailed as survivors rebuilt their lives. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a vehicle for honoring the victims of the Holocaust and reminding us all of what can happen to civilized people when bigotry, hatred and indifference reign. This year's observance marks the 60th Anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. On VE Day, those living in Allied Countries celebrated the end of the war. Those imprisoned in concentration camps had lost too much and seen too much evil to celebrate. The history of the Holocaust offers an opportunity to reflect on the moral responsibilities of individuals, societies, and governments. We should always remember the terrible events of the Holocaust and remain vigilant against hatred, persecution, and tyranny. We must actively rededicate ourselves to the principles of individual freedom in a just society. The Jewish Holocaust revealed to the world the horrors man can perpetrate if racial and religious hatred are allowed to fester in the heart of society. As we remember those who were killed because of racial and religious hatred, we must act to stop these crimes against humanity today. Civilians in Sudan are being systematically murdered, raped and brutalized by the government and other forces. And yet, the world has not acted. Last July, the House recognized these atrocities but has done little to intervene. The United States and the international community have an obligation to end this humanitarian crisis. While we reflect on the Holocaust and its victims, and honor the survivors, rescuers and liberators, we should strive to overcome intolerance and indifference through learning, understanding, and remembrance.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House a couple of days ago, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) said the Nation's Governors support cuts in Medicaid funding. In fact, the Nation's Governors wrote a letter to all of us as House Members opposing those cuts. Then 2 days ago, 348 House Members instructed House negotiators to keep Medicaid cuts out of the final budget resolution. The gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), one of the House negotiators, joined the chorus and actually instructed himself to say no to the Medicaid cuts. Apparently, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) changed his mind; he flip flopped and ignored our, his, all of our instructions, because he agreed to a budget resolution that includes at least $10 billion, maybe as much as $14 billion, in Medicaid cuts, significantly more than the President and a whole lot more than the Senate made a decision about. Now it is time for the other 347 Members in this body to decide if they too will reverse their positions and flip flop and endorse the Medicaid cuts. After all, Mr. Speaker, no one really likes a flip flopper. Now, the budget, Mr. Speaker, is a moral document which illustrates our values and demonstrates our priorities. Tonight, this House is about to cut medical services for 50 million of the most vulnerable Americans, at the same time giving multinational corporations and billionaires another $106 billion in tax cuts. How can any Member of this body go home and tell our constituents, I took health care away from impoverished children and home care away from impoverished seniors, but do not worry, I gave Ken Lay another tax cut. Mr. Speaker, we should begin this process by voting overwhelmingly to protect Medicaid, as we did 2 days ago.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks half a dozen Ohio newspapers have used the following terms to describe recent ethics problems proliferating through the United States Congress: acts of hypocrisy; national moral lapse; disgrace; dirty moves; ethically corrupt; unethical behavior; multi-indictment-producing investigation; illegal political fundraising; campaign money spigot; the very appearance of evil; and, finally, Mr. Speaker, sugar daddy. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Nation deserve better from the People's house.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, 44 Members on the Republican side defied their party, not because some deep-pocketed lobbyist asked them to, but because fighting for people in desperate need was and is the right thing to do. Medicaid health and long-term coverage is already limited to the impoverished elderly in nursing homes, the lowest-income children, and other vulnerable populations. My friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) expressed shock that Medicaid costs have actually grown. I think he must know that private insurance growth in this country is greater than 12 percent, Medicare costs are going up around 7 or 8 percent. Medicaid costs are going up only about 6 percent, half the pace of private insurance. There is no cost-effective alternative to Medicaid. Medicaid is the cost-effective alternative. Medicaid cuts would not only jeopardize 5 million elderly Americans who would lack access to nursing home care without it, these cuts would place every nursing home resident, on Medicaid or not, in this country at risk. Each year nursing homes serve 2.5 million Americans. Medicaid covers 70 percent of these Americans. The very health and safety of nursing home residents hinges on adequate Medicaid reimbursement. As it stands, Medicaid funding is insufficient to cover both those Americans who need nursing home services and those who need home and community-based care. If the Federal Government makes further cuts in Medicaid, we must take responsibility in abandoning people who have no where else to turn. Two-thirds of people in nursing homes have no living spouse or relative. The fact is we, the Medicaid program, the Federal Government, are all the family who cares for them that they have. I hope that before any Member of this body votes against this motion, you might just imagine trading places with an elderly American in a nursing home. Put yourself in their shoes; then decide whether starving Medicaid is responsible for reprehensible.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last week more than 150 Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House Members, business groups and labor organizations gathered on Capitol Hill to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This group of unlikely bedfellows, if you will, spoke with one voice to deliver a unified message, no to CAFTA. CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, expands the failed trade policies of the North American Free Trade Agreement to Central America. When I ran for Congress in 1992, the United States had a $38 billion trade deficit. Last year, a dozen years later, the United States had a $618 billion trade deficit: from $38 billion to $618 billion trade deficit. The more you look at the face of CAFTA, the better you can see who will benefit and who will pay the price if Congress passes one more trade agreement. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to go overseas, exploit cheap labor in the developing world, and then import their products back into the United States. That is why we have a $618 billion trade deficit. The Central American Free Trade Agreement should actually be called the Central American Free Labor Agreement. Now, we know in the United States our economy over the last several decades has been a tremendous success because workers share in the wealth they create. If you work for General Motors, if you work for a hardware store, you help your employer by your labor make money, and your employer in turn allows you to share in the wealth you create. That is why the American economy is such a success story. But throughout the developing world, workers simply do not share in the wealth they create. Workers in Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the toys they make for Disney for their children. Workers in Vietnam at a Nike plant cannot afford to buy the shoes they make. Motorola workers in Malaysia cannot afford to buy the cell phones they make. Ford and GM workers in Mexico cannot afford to buy the cars they manufacture. The Central American Free Labor Agreement is about access to cheap labor. The numbers do not lie. The combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the combined purchasing power of those six countries is equal to that of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida, or Memphis, Tennessee, or the entire State of Kansas. CAFTA supporters attempt to argue that this trade agreement will open markets for U.S. exports. They paint a picture of American workers manufacturing products for this hugely growing consumer market in Central America. But the math does not lie. The average salary of a Nicaraguan worker is $2,300 a year, $191 a month. Nicaraguan workers cannot afford to buy a car made in Ohio. They cannot afford to buy shoes made in Maine. They cannot afford to buy textiles or apparel made in North Carolina or Georgia. They cannot afford to buy software made in Seattle in the district of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). The fact is, I ask CAFTA supporters, what American-made product can a Central American worker purchase who is earning less than $200 a month? CAFTA supporters will not answer these questions. They cannot. The truth is that CAFTA is not about selling them American products. CAFTA is about exploiting foreign workers, about taking American jobs to Central America. It is about exploiting those foreign workers, and it means fewer jobs here. NAFTA promised job growth in the U.S. and a thriving middle class in Mexico; but 10 years later our Nation has lost 1 million jobs, and Mexican workers' wages have remained stagnant. CAFTA, the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, is more of the same: another trade agreement that ships jobs overseas, another trade agreement that neglects the essential environmental standards, another trade agreement that weakens food safety standards in both countries, another trade agreement that keeps foreign workers in poverty. The definition of madness, Mr. Speaker, is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result. That is what happened: 12 years of trade agreements, 12 years of promises, 12 years of failed trade policy. Yet the insanity of it is we keep doing the same thing. We keep passing more trade agreements. CAFTA simply does not make sense. The President signed CAFTA almost 1 year ago. Since 2001, typically when the President signs an agreement, we vote on it within 60 days. This week, on Thursday, will be the 11- month anniversary of the signing of CAFTA. House leaders said they are going to vote on it by the end of May. Mr. Speaker, I would close by saying when the world's poorest workers can buy American products, rather than make them, then we will know that our trade policies are finally succeeding. CAFTA will not. Vote ``no'' on CAFTA.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin tonight by again talking about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of what supporters of CAFTA say, the buying power of countries in Central America simply will not have an impact on American exports. Central America represents only $62 billion in generating economic power. That means that people in Central America will not be able to buy cars from Ohio, or steel from West Virginia, they will not be able to buy software from Seattle or textiles or apparel from North Carolina. The fact is that CAFTA will only mean more outsourcing of American jobs, more loss of American jobs, more loss of American manufacturing and does nothing to raise the living standards of Central Americans.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, earlier today, nearly two dozen House and Senate Members, a large number of Members of both parties, held a news conference with about 175 to 200 people representing a whole host of organizations in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Those groups were as diverse as textile manufacturers, as sugar farmers, as environmentalists, labor organizations, religious groups, all kinds of groups, all kinds of organizations, all kinds of individuals in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Madam Speaker, sometime in the next 6 weeks, this legislation, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, will come to the House floor for a vote, according to Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas.) The supporters of the Central American Free Trade Agreement have told Members of Congress, have told the public, have told newspapers that the Central American Free Trade Agreement will create jobs for Americans, it will create more opportunities to manufacture goods and export them to Central America, it will help farmers and small businesses and manufacturers and consumers and all kinds of groups and people in our country. The problem is that is the exact same thing that supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement told us a dozen years ago. It is the exact same promise that sponsors of entry into the World Trade Organization told us about 10 years ago; it is the same promise that they told us when we considered the China PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations, most favored nation status for China; this is the same promise they made on a half dozen other trade agreements. Yet, in every case, after every trade agreement, we lost more manufacturing jobs, we saw our environmental and food safety standards weakened, we saw less prosperity within those countries with whom we traded, whether it was Mexico, whether it was China, whether it was country after country after country. Wages continued to stagnate in those countries, and wages continue to stagnant in our country. People actually earn less in real dollars today than they did a year ago before the last trade agreement. On issue after issue they continue to make these promises, and they generally failed to live up to these promises. Madam Speaker, I would call your attention to this chart. The year I ran for Congress in 1992, the United States had a trade deficit of $38 billion, $38 billion in 1992, 13 years ago. You can see how this trade deficit got bigger and bigger and bigger. Today our trade deficit, through the year 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. It went from $38 billion just about a dozen years later $618 approximately. That means more Americans, more American jobs are exported, more American job losses, and that is bad news not just for manufacturing and the people that own those companies; it is bad news for American workers, it is bad news for our communities, it is bad news for our schools and our families. And if we really want to talk about American values, then we ought to be talking about what these trade agreements do to our children, do to our families, what they do to the school systems, what they do to police and fire protection, school districts, police districts and fire districts; and cities lose more and more tax revenue. The fact is the promises of the Central American Free Trade Agreement are again the same as they were under NAFTA, the same as they were under China trade, the same as they were under the legislation setting up the World Trade Organization. But what we see time and time again is more trade deficit, more hemorrhaging of American jobs. Now, when they talk about CAFTA, the six countries in Central America that this trade agreement involves with the United States under that, the entire economies of these six countries are equal to the economy of Columbus, Ohio or the State of Kansas, or Orlando, Florida. Their buying power is such in those countries, those six countries, as poor as they are, and as small as they are, they simply do not have the buying power to buy American products. Guatemalans and Nicaraguans and the people in Honduras and Costa Rica and El Salvador simply do not have the money to buy cars manufactured in Ohio, or steel made in West Virginia. They do not have the purchasing power to buy textiles and apparel from Georgia, South Carolina, from North Carolina. They do not have the money or the purchasing power or the income to buy software from Seattle or high-tech products from California. Madam Speaker, what this trade agreement is about is what all of these trade agreements are about: they are about cheap labor, no environmental regulation, weak worker safety laws. We need to vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is when someone does the same thing over and over and over again, and then expects a different outcome. Every time a trade agreement comes in front of this Congress, the American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, the trade agreements throughout the 1990s, trade with China, trade agreement after trade agreement, the support of those trade agreements promise the American people several things. They promise more jobs for Americans, they promise more U.S. exports to those countries with whom the trade agreement is signed. They promise strengthening the middle class in the United States. They promise more manufacturing jobs for Americans. They promise a prosperity in the developing countries whom we are trading with. They promise strong environmental standards and food safety standards and worker standards and all of that. Every time they make those promises, this Congress passes a trade agreement, usually in the middle of the night, usually by a handful of votes, and every time after this Congress passes these trade agreements, the promises just evaporate. We simply do not see the kind of results they promise. One of the promises they make in every single trade agreement is that our trade deficit would come down. And let me point out our trade deficit, what has happened in this country. Our trade deficit is a simple calculation: It is how much the United States exports versus how much it imports. If we export more than we import, we have a trade surplus. If we buy, import, more than we sell, export, we then have a trade deficit. I ran for Congress in 1992. In 1992 the trade deficit in this country was $38 billion. Since 1992 we have seen a series of trade agreements passed, NAFTA, China, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile, several others. Today, the trade deficit, $38 billion in 1992, the trade deficit last year 2004, was $620 billion. From 38 billion to 620 billion, yet the people that brought us NAFTA, the people that brought us China, Most Favored Nation status, are still saying, Vote for our trade agreements and we will bring deficits down. But do not take my word for it when I say that they break these promises. Look at these trade deficit numbers, and then look at what President Bush wants to do today. President Bush is saying, Please pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He says, If you pass CAFTA, we will have more exports; we will grow manufacturing in the United States; we will have a strengthened middle class; we will have strong environmental standards both in the United States and Central America; it will bring prosperity to the Central American countries. What he does not tell you is that the six Central American countries that make up CAFTA, their combined economies figure at about $62 billion. Our economy generates $10.5 trillion in GDP, the six countries in Central America have a combined GDP, if you will, of $62 billion. So CAFTA is not about robust markets for the exporting of American goods. They simply are not able to buy our products. $62 billion GDP in those six countries, that is about the combined purchasing power of the city of Orlando, Florida, or the city of Columbus, Ohio, or the entire State of Kansas. In other words, these six very small, very poor countries, have the economic input of Kansas or of Columbus or of Orlando. So they are not buying American products. So they simply cannot buy agricultural produce from this country. They cannot buy the wines from California or the cars from Ohio or the steel production from West Virginia. They cannot buy computer goods. They simply cannot afford to buy these products from the United States. So what are these trade agreements about? What was NAFTA about? What was the China trade agreement, MFN, about, what was CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement that the President wants us to pass, what is that about? It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about moving production from the United States where workers make $8 or $10 or $15 or $20 an hour producing things, to Guatemala, to Honduras, to Costa Rica, to Nicaragua, to El Salvador, to countries where the wages are maybe a dollar or two a day, or $3 or $4 a day in some cases. It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about moving production to Central America. It is about loss of American jobs. It is about exploitation of workers in the developing countries. It is about worse environmental regulations. It is about weaker food safety standards. But it is also about profits, the profits for large American companies. That is why in this hall you are seeing the largest CEOs of the largest companies walk the halls asking Members of Congress to vote for CAFTA. You are seeing the CEOs of America's largest companies contributing to elected officials, to Members of Congress. You are seeing them trying to buy their way into this institution, this corrupt institution, under the leadership of Republican leader Tom DeLay. You are seeing in this institution an attempt to buy the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is about profits for American companies. It is about campaign contributions. But what CAFTA will not do is stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs in the United States, and what it will not do is create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods. Our economic success in this country is that workers in our country share in the wealth we create. If you work for General Motors, you help that company produce profits, you help that company do well. As a result, you, as a worker, share in the profits that you create. That is what has made our economy vibrant. It is that people who work hard and play by the rules do well. But throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. So what will make a trade agreement work is when the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them; then we will know that our trade policy finally will have succeeded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. It does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The way that proponents of the Central American Free Trade Agreement talk, one would think that Central America was one of the biggest economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations, in fact, are not only among the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies. Think about this: This big trade agreement that President Bush wants, CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of CAFTA nations is almost identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio. Tomorrow the House will hold a hearing on CAFTA. Since President Bush took office, Congress has voted within 55 days of the President's affixing his signature on a trade agreement. April 28, coming up, will mark the 11-month anniversary of when the President signed CAFTA. In other words, trade agreements are always sent to Congress quickly. Within a couple of months, we vote on them. The President has delayed CAFTA for 11 months because this simply is not an agreement that the American people want or need. As I said, other trade agreements were all done within about 2 months, but because CAFTA is so unpopular, because trade policy in this country is so wrong-headed, the President still has not asked this Congress to vote on CAFTA. Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks for good reason. CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and continues a legacy of failed trade policy. Look at NAFTA's record; NAFTA is the United States, Mexico, and Canada: One million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Wages of Mexicans have stagnated. Environmental conditions, especially along the U.S.-Mexican border have worsened dramatically. And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same: more of the same job hemorrhaging, more of the same income-lowering trade agreements, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect environmental safety standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty, more trade agreements that undercut our food safety laws in our country. The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and over again and expecting a different result. On trade we hear the same promises over and over and over again, and we see the same results: lost jobs, a weakened economy, lower standards of living in Mexico, bad environmental outcomes. But this Congress somehow barely in the middle of the night continues to pass these trade agreements, and we see the same bad results. But do not take my word for it. Look at the numbers. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170 times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62 billion combined. It is like comparing a bowling ball that weighs 170 times a slice of bread. CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods. It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our jobs overseas. Workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not enabling them to raise their standard of living even a bit. U.S. corporations make more money. American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story time and time again. Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about that of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida, or the entire State of Kansas. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries in the developing world, then import their products back into the United States under favorable tariff terms. American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for workers in those countries. Yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and so many other companies continue to rise. CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs except make it worse. It will do even less to create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods. Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Our decades of economic success in this country show that employees share in the wealth they create for their employer. If one works at GM, they help GM create wealth; they help GM make a profit. They get some of that money back. These trade agreements in the developing world simply do not work, and when the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, then we will know our trade agreements finally are working. Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement coming in front of Congress, fact number one: The economic output of the six Central American countries entering into this agreement with the United States is equal to the economic output of Columbus, Ohio; Orlando, Florida; or the entire State of Kansas. What this trade agreement, CAFTA, is all about: It is not about selling American goods into six small, poor countries in Central America. It is about outsourcing jobs. It is about weakening our economy. It is about losing our manufacturing base. It is about hiring low-income workers in Guatemala and Honduras and Nicaragua and Costa Rica. This agreement hurts American workers. It depresses American wages. It does nothing to lift up standards of living in Central America. CAFTA is a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It will continue to wreak havoc on the economy of Central America and Latin America and do nothing for American manufacturing.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today is an important day. It is opening day for the Washington Nationals. Baseball is back in Washington. But we ought to come up with a better name than the Washington Nationals, a name that really fits this city. The new baseball team should be called the Washington Lobbyists. After all, who runs this town? The energy lobbyists that wrote the energy bill last night in committee, the bank lobbyists who wrote the bankruptcy bill today, the pharmaceutical lobbyists who write the medicare legislation, the Wall Street lobbyists who write the Social Security privacy legislation, and they and their Republican allies in Congress play under different rules. ``It ain't over 'til it's over,'' unless we are losing. At home games, the Washington Lobbyists could hold the game open, adding extra innings if they are losing at the end of the arbitrary nine. Instead of the oh-so-boring ball day and bat day, we could have Halliburton Gasoline Night: a tank of gas for the first thousand fans at the Halliburton patriotic price of $8.95 a gallon. Or, we could have the Enron Double Header: fans get in early with promises of a big win, but then the team kicks you out and takes your pension away. Or, we could have Wal-Mart Kids Day: kids do not actually get to watch the game. Somebody has actually got to work the concession stand, after all. Mr. Speaker, if we want to change how things work in Washington, we need a new pitching staff, and the Washington Lobbyists have to go.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, from April 8, a Plain Dealer editorial from a Cleveland Republican-leaning newspapers writes: ``Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader, can fashion what to him is a reasonable explanation for each of the ethics questions increasingly being raised against him. `` `It's a witch hunt by a Democrat out to destroy him,' '' DeLay responds. This is the Plain Dealer writing. ``To each of these and far too many more defensive responses, his faithful defenders, especially those who have bathed regularly under the campaign money spigot he controls, shout a loud ``amen'' and accuse the Times and Post of mounting a liberal smear campaign. ``But the ranks of DeLay's defenders shrink almost daily, as they should.'' The Republican-leaning Plain Dealer then asks: ``Is the Sugarland sugar daddy the best their party has to offer the Nation in this key leadership post? Can they not find a fellow Republican wise enough to avoid, in terms he might understand, the very appearance of evil? Can't someone open a window and let in a breath of integrity to blow the growing stench out of the people's Chamber?'' Words from a newspaper that endorsed George Bush in 2000, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 8.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a bowling ball weighs about 170 times the weight of a slice of sandwich bread. It does not take a physicist to see the mismatch between a bowling ball and a slice of bread. And it does not take a trade expert to see the economic mismatch between the United States and the nations that make up the Central American Free Trade Agreement: Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The way that CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, proponents talk, you would think Central America was one of the biggest economies in the Western Hemisphere. CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries, they are among its smallest economies. Think about this: this big trade agreement that President Bush wants, CAFTA, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is almost identical to the purchasing power of Columbus, Ohio. Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first congressional hearing on CAFTA. Congress typically has voted within 55 days of President Bush signing a trade agreement. May 28 will mark the 1-year anniversary of when the President signed CAFTA. The other trade agreements were all done within only about 2 months. Because CAFTA is so unpopular and trade policy in this country is so wrong-headed, the President still has not sent CAFTA here for a vote. Clearly, there is dissension in the ranks, and for good reason. CAFTA is the dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing a legacy of failed trade policies. Look at NAFTA's record: one million United States manufacturing jobs lost to the North American Free Trade Agreement. One million. NAFTA did nothing. NAFTA: Mexico, Canada, the U.S. NAFTA did nothing for Mexican workers as promised. They continue to earn just about a dollar a day, while living in abject poverty. Not exactly a great market for U.S. products. And yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more of the same job hemorrhaging, income-lowering trade agreements, more trade agreements that ship U.S. jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty. The only difference between CAFTA and NAFTA is the first letter. Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and expecting a different result. We hear the same promises on every trade agreement. This Congress, somehow barely, in the middle of the night, passes them. We see the same bad results. But do not just take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Numbers do not lie. The U.S. economy, with a $10 trillion GDP in 2002, is 170 times bigger than the economies of the CAFTA nations, at about $62 billion combined. It is like pairing a bowling ball with a slice of bread. CAFTA is not about robust markets for the export of American goods. It is about outsourcing. It is about access to cheap labor. We send our jobs overseas. The workers overseas get paid almost nothing, not able to raise their living standard. U.S. corporations make more money, American workers lose their jobs. It is the same old story. Again, the combined purchasing power of the CAFTA nations is about that of Orlando, Florida. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their products back to the U.S. under favorable terms. American companies outsource their jobs to Guatemala, outsource their jobs to China, outsource their jobs to Mexico. It costs American workers their jobs. It does almost nothing for the workers in those countries, yet profits at Wal-Mart and GM and those companies continue to rise. CAFTA will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs, except make it worse, will do nothing to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and will do even less to create a strong Central American consumer market for American goods. Throughout the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. If you work at GM in the United States, if you work at a hardware store in the United States, you create wealth for your employer and you share some of that wealth. That is how you get a middle-class existence. But in the developing world, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford to buy the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford to buy the toys for their children. Ford workers in Mexico cannot afford to buy the cars that they make. Motorola workers in Malaysia cannot afford to buy the cell phones they make. The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and its enormous economic clout, we, in our country, are in a unique position to empower workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity at home. When the world's poorest people can buy American products, rather than just make them, then we will know our trade policies finally are working. Vote ``no'' on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is springtime, and Major League Baseball is coming to Washington. The thing is, though, I am not sure they got the name right. They are calling the team the Washington Nationals. Not a bad name, but I always thought the name should reflect the true character of a city. The right choice is obvious: the new team's name should be the Washington Lobbyists. The Washington Lobbyists and their Republican allies would play under new rules of the game. Rule number one: pay to play. You cannot step on the field unless you ante up. But in the land where cash is king, that is just the start. For a modest added contribution, a batter can shrink the strike zone, replace the traditional hardball with a more responsive tennis ball, or move the pitcher back 10 feet. Rule number two: no errors. Missed the ball, say, by $800 billion on your Medicare cost estimate? No worries. With enough money, enough spin and enough citizen education, the Lobbyists can make those errors vanish overnight, or at least until election day. Rule number three: it ain't over until its over, unless we are losing. Soccer ends after a set period of time. But do you know who plays soccer? Old Europe, that is who. Well, none of that in ``reformed'' baseball. At home games, the Lobbyists can hold the game open, adding extra innings if they are losing at the end of an arbitrary nine innings. And the Washington Lobbyists would create a whole new fan experience too. Instead of the oh-so-boring Ball Day Or Bat Day, the Lobbyists and their corporate partners could offer U.S. Chamber of Commerce Blanket Day: Fans get blanket product-liability waivers. Or the Washington Lobbyists baseball team could offer Golf Junket Getaway Giveaways: one lucky fan gets an all-expense sweet golf trip to Scotland, all expenses paid by the Indian gaming industry. Or the Washington Lobbyists could give away at the ball park Timber Industry Bat Night: every bat is made from 100 percent old-growth forest. Or Pressroom Sweepstakes: the winning fan gets White House press credentials for a day, but only if he is affiliated with an on-line escort service. Or maybe Burger Night: free burgers for the first 5,000 fans, made with 100 percent caribou from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Maybe they could have Wal-Mart Kids Day, where kids would not get to actually watch the game, because somebody has got to work the concessions. Or Mug Night: the lucky fan gets to keep his swank Republican leadership job, even if his mugshot is taped to his grand jury's dart board. Or we could even have at the Washington Nationals baseball game starting Thursday night, we could have Halliburton Gasoline Night: a tank of gas for the first 1,000 fans at the patriotic Halliburton price of $8.95 a gallon. Or the Enron Doubleheader: Fans get in early with promises of a big win, but then the team kicks you out and takes your pension away. In the spirit of Republican Washington, the Washington Lobbyists will not care much about public opinion, making decisions in secret and ignoring criticism from the fans. And to avoid unpatriotic dissent, games will be played in the middle of the night, after sports writers have gone to bed. If we want to change things and change how things really work in Washington, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to change pitchers. Until we do, the Washington lobbyists and their friends here in Congress will always win.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

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

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is the face of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This photo was taken by Reuters news service last week in Guatemala as police forces used tear gas and water cannons to beat back demonstrators who had united to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Sadly, despite days of protests in organized worker strikes against CAFTA, the Guatemalan Congress ratified that trade agreement late last week. It appears that politicians encouraged by multinational corporations fail to understand what their workers realize all too clearly: CAFTA is an empty promise that will keep workers in poverty while reaping huge profits for the corporate executives. Throughout the developing world, Mr. Speaker, workers simply, unlike in this country in most cases, workers simply do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot afford the toys for their children. Motorola workers in Malaysia are unable to purchase the cell phone. The North American Free Trade Agreement promised to create a thriving middle class in Mexico, promising higher wages, promising to lift people out of poverty. Eleven years later there is no newly created middle class realizing its dreams. Instead there is a fallen minimum wage and the ongoing nightmare of abject poverty, despite backbreaking work, despite deplorable working conditions. Now President Bush wants to expand this failed trade policy with CAFTA, dysfunction cousin of NAFTA, involving five Central American countries: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries; they are among the smallest economies. With a $62 billion combined economic output, about that of Columbus, Ohio, these nations can hardly serve as a growth engine for the $10 trillion U.S. economy. CAFTA is more about access to cheap labor and exporting American jobs than it is exporting U.S. goods and produce. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable countries to exploit cheap labor in other countries and then import their products back into the United States under favorable terms. As a result, America, especially my State of Ohio, bleeds manufacturing jobs and runs unprecedented trade deficits. The first year I ran for Congress, our trade deficit was $38 billion. Today it is $617 billion for calendar year 2004. Gregory Mankiw, then President Bush's chief economist, portrayed the exporting of jobs as inevitable and desirable saying, ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than it does to provide it domestically.'' What really makes sense is a trade policy that lifts workers up in rich and poor countries alike, while respecting human rights and democratic principles. Proof that CAFTA is a legacy of failing trade policies is evidence in this Congress's own inaction. For the last 5 years, Congress has typically voted within about 2 months, within 60 days of President Bush signing a trade agreement. Nearly 300 days have elapsed since President Bush signed the Central America Free Trade Agreement, still this Congress has not acted because the majority of this Congress understands our trade policies have failed. Proof that CAFTA is a failure can be seen in this photo, Mr. Speaker. In Guatemala today, thousands of workers united in a nationwide strike voicing opposition to a trade policy they know will fail them, one that American workers also know will fail us. This is the result of these demonstrations, where police turn on this country's workers, workers who are simply opposing in a democratic, open demonstration opposing its government trade policies. Yet the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental rules, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty. Madness is repeating the same action over and over and over and expecting a different result. The United States with our unrivaled purchasing power and our enormous economic clout is in a unique position to help empower poor workers in developing countries while promoting prosperity here at home. When the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, we know then that our trade policies have finally succeeded.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is the face of CAFTA. This photo was taken by Reuters News Service yesterday in Guatemala as police forces used tear gas and water cannons to beat back hundreds of demonstrators who had united to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. This is the face of CAFTA. More than 25,000 letters have been signed by workers in Guatemala begging their Congress not to rush through this bad trade agreement. Throughout the developing world, from Guatemala to every other developing country, workers do not share in the wealth they create. Nike workers in Vietnam cannot afford the shoes they make. Disney workers in Costa Rica cannot buy the toys for their children. Motorola workers in Malaysia are unable to purchase the cell phones. The North American Free Trade Agreement promised to create a thriving middle class in Mexico, to raise wages and lift people out of poverty. A dozen years later, there is no middle class realizing their dreams. Instead, there is a fallen minimum wage and the ongoing nightmare of abject poverty despite the backbreaking work and deplorable working conditions. Now President Bush wants to expand this failed trade agreement with CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, involving five Central American countries: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. CAFTA nations are not only among the world's poorest countries; they are also among its smallest economies. With a $62 billion combined economic output, about that of Columbus, Ohio, these countries can hardly serve as a growth engine for the $10 trillion U.S. economy. CAFTA is more about access to cheap labor and exporting American jobs than exporting American goods. Trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA enable companies to exploit cheap labor in other countries, then import their products back to the U.S. under favorable terms. As a result, our country, especially my State of Ohio, bleed manufacturing jobs and run unprecedented trade deficits. Gregory Mankiw, the President's former chief economist, portrays the exporting of jobs as inevitable and desirable, saying, ``When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to provide it domestically.'' Mr. Speaker, I would say to Mr. Mankiw that what really makes sense is a trade policy that lifts workers up in rich and poor countries alike while respecting human rights and democratic principles. Proof that CAFTA is a legacy of failed trade policies is evidenced in Congress' own inaction. Since 2001, Congress typically votes within 8 weeks, about 60 days, of President Bush signing a trade agreement. Nearly 300 days have elapsed since President Bush signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That delay is proof that CAFTA is a failure and further proof of CAFTA's failure can be seen in this photo when police have turned on their own protesting public, people who are exercising their rights simply to petition their Congress and ask that they not pass this trade agreement. And yet, the U.S. continues to push for more of the same, more trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, more trade agreements that neglect essential environmental standards, more trade agreements that keep foreign workers in poverty. Madness, Mr. Speaker, is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result. The United States, with its unrivaled purchasing power and our enormous economic clout, we are in a unique position to help empower poor workers in the developing world while promoting prosperity at home. When the world's poorest people can buy American products rather than just make them, then we will know that our trade policies are finally working.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we all support American manufacturers; every Member of Congress should. But feel-good resolutions such as the one we are voting on this week will do little to cure our manufacturing ills. We are running record trade deficits each year. When I first ran for Congress in 1992, the U.S. trade deficit, as you can see on this chart, was $38 billion. The trade deficit last year, after 12 years of misplaced trade policy, 12 years of misplaced tax policy and 4 years of a Bush administration that has totally ignored manufacturing, we now see a trade deficit of $617 billion. From $38 billion to $617 billion in a space of only 13 years. The U.S. has become the world's largest debtor nation, over $2.5 trillion in 2002. The dollar continues to lose value in world markets. Last year, we had the opportunity to pass Crane/Rangel, a bipartisan bill to help the American manufacturing industry by encouraging them to produce goods in the United States. But instead, we passed an alternative that, as usual, gave handouts to multinational corporations and did little to nothing for our family-owned manufacturing facilities. My State of Ohio has lost more than 170,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and the remaining small manufacturing businesses are struggling to keep the doors open. The manufacturing extension program, MEP, is an important resource that helps small manufacturers in Ohio and across the country to help improve efficiency, increase competitiveness and stay in business. Despite this success, the President is asking in his budget to eviscerate MEP. In 2003, when MEP was funded at $111 million, Ohio, although only receiving a small fraction of that funding, that modest investment produced impressive results. MEP helped more than 2,700 Ohio businesses to create or retain more than 1,100 jobs, increase sales by $20 million, cut costs by $47 million, increase investments by $58 million. That is exactly the sort of helping hand Ohio and the Nation's small manufacturers need. Then the President proposed an MEP funding cut of 88 percent, ended up signing a law a couple of years ago that cut it almost that much. Not surprisingly, services to Ohio businesses dropped significantly. This year, the President's budget request asked for a funding cut of another 50 percent. Less than $1 million per State will be left for MEP. We should be supporting a funding level five times that amount because it would mean more tax revenue, more jobs, more success for U.S. manufacturers. Ohio's Republican governors urge the President to change his position on MEP. Working men and women from my State and across the Nation understand that our economic future is at stake. We should pass a bill this week ensuring increased MEP funds over the President's request, but this body probably will not do it. To support our Nation's manufacturing, we should pass a bill to stop China from manipulating its currency by artificially pegging it below the dollar. China starts outs with a 40 percent advantage over American manufacturers by this illegal act, not to mention having no minimum wage and forced labor camps and child labor and all the other advantages, artificial advantages if you will, in a free marketplace that China has. But I do not think that legislation to deal with currency manipulating will be on the House floor this week. To support our Nation's manufacturers, we should pass such a bill making sure China plays fair and meets its World Trade Organization obligations, but I do not see a bill on the floor this week to do that. To support our Nation's manufacturing, we should pass the bill of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Foreign Debt Ceiling Act of 2005, that would create an emergency trade review group at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to develop a plan of action if the trade deficit is above 5 percent of U.S. GDP or if foreign debt climbs above 25 percent of GDP. But that is not being considered this week either. The manufacturing industry is the backbone of our country. This industry, these workers, these communities built America. And when these industries suffer, our communities suffer, our families suffer, our schools suffer, our Nation is hurt. Yet many in Congress continue to support measures that move these jobs overseas. Let us be clear about whom we should support. Congratulate manufacturers, is what the resolution on the floor will do and nothing else this week, who have remained in the U.S. and refrained from sending manufacturing jobs overseas. But it is not just about keeping our middle class strong; we should be concerned about national security. Without a strong manufacturing base, there can be no strong reliable national security in this country. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we, finally, in this Congress adopt a manufacturing policy.