Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, addressing some earlier comments, many Democrats, including Chairman Levin, supported bringing China into the World Trade Organization to force them to play by the rules. And since we've done that, when they have violated those rules, the United States has prevailed in seven of the eight complaints we have brought to that organization. So it is helping keep China in line so we have a level playing field.

Also, if you've picked up the paper in the last week, you've noticed that while auto sales in the United States for our auto manufacturers has remained flat, its sales are growing overseas, and its profits are growing because they're allowed to sell American automobiles around the world. That's good for the U.S. auto workers in the United States.

I appreciate the chairman bringing this legislation together. I know it is well-intended. It's important to tackle America's trade deficit the right way. And I think everyone understands another government commission alone is no substitute for new customers for American workers, farmers, and manufacturers.

The best way to strengthen the trade deficit while strengthening America's economy is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and open the world to more U.S. products and services. I know if my Democrat friends and those in the White House are serious about reducing the trade deficit, we are eager to work with them by starting to take up and passing the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

I rise in support of this bill because I think that any objective and honest commission will find that creating new markets and new customers for American exports will reduce our trade deficit, will create jobs, and stimulate our economy.

I think it's absolutely appropriate that Congress is considering this legislation today of all days. Today is the fifth anniversary of House passage of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, which gives us an opportunity to look at real results. Those results clearly show how trade agreements increase U.S. sales and reduce trade deficits. As you know, America is a very open market. Countries sell into the United States. But when we try to sell our products, too often we find that ``America need not apply'' sign.

Trade agreements tear that sign down and give us a chance not one-way trade in, but two-way trade where we have a level playing field. The world has changed. It's not enough to simply buy American. We have to sell American. We have to sell our products and goods and services throughout this world. In fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States. That's why we push hard for those agreements.

For example, 5 years ago the United States had a $1.2 billion trade deficit with Central America. Last year, the United States had turned that around, because of the agreement, to a $1.2 billion trade surplus, and we're on track to surpass that surplus again this year. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our Central American partners of almost $2 billion. We're on track again this year.

Nor is CAFTA the only example of how trade agreements can improve the U.S. trade balance. This week also marks the eighth anniversary of the final House vote on the Trade Act of 2002, under which we have resoundingly successful trade agreements with 13 countries now in force. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $25 billion with these 13 countries. And so far this year, we have a surplus again.

Looking at just trade in manufactured goods reveals that these agreements were even better for American manufacturing workers. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $29 billion in manufactured products with these countries that we have free trade agreements. And again, we have this year a surplus already of nearly $16 billion. Without question, these trade agreements have reduced U.S. trade deficits and increased U.S. trade surpluses.

The three pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea would have the same results by leveling the playing field for our American workers.

Madam Speaker, there is one sector in which the United States runs a structural trade deficit, that is energy, and I appreciate the chairman including this in the commission. Last year, our deficit in energy products accounted for almost half of the trade deficit.

So our trade deficit isn't principally in goods--it's in oil, it's in energy. That's what the American people want to change. We can take an enormous step toward reducing our trade deficit simply by increasing American-made energy. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress have taken just about every step they can to reduce American-made energy production.

First, House Democrats rushed through the House a massive national energy tax that would cripple the U.S. energy sector. Now, the White House has defied the courts and has imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling that damages jobs and damages U.S. energy production. The impact of that moratorium would be to increase the deficit because it will result in more imports of foreign oil. This moratorium also means fewer manufacturing jobs.

In fact, last week a recent analysis by IHS Global Insight found the drilling moratorium in the gulf would result in over 300,000 jobs lost along the gulf and over $147 billion in lost State, local, and Federal tax revenue. It is a terrible blow to American jobs.

If the sponsors of this legislation are serious--and I believe they are--about reducing the trade deficit and working together to create manufacturing jobs, let's focus on negotiating more trade agreements to open foreign markets to our U.S. sales and promoting U.S. energy production. We don't need a new government commission to accomplish either of these.

[Time: 12:30] Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.