Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress that provides economic projections, just released a report on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The report shows the cost of its sugar provisions would be over $500 million over the next 10 years. They also found the loss in revenue to the U.S. Treasury would be $4.4 billion over the next 10 years, more than $400 million every year.

So not only does CAFTA jump up a trade deficit that has gone from $38 billion 12 years ago to $618 billion last year, but CAFTA continues this erosion, the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs: 3 million lost manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. And it is also going to blow an even bigger hole in the Federal budget: one more good, big reason to defeat the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, House leadership promised to bring the Central American Free Trade Agreement to the floor this week for a vote. They have said, Congress will stay here over the weekend until it is done.

The President has said that defeat on CAFTA ``is not an option.'' ``The cookie jar is open.'' One senior CAFTA supporter, a Member of the House, went so far as to say that CAFTA will pass Congress because they will ``twist arms until they break into a thousand pieces.''

CAFTA supporters have resorted to toothless ideals and strong-arm tactics because they know this agreement simply cannot pass on its merits. CAFTA has languished in Congress for more than a year. Four other trade agreements in the last couple of years passed Congress within 60 days. This CAFTA, this trade agreement has languished in Congress for almost 14 months.

The reason is this trade agreement, this CAFTA, it was crafted by and negotiated by a select few, mostly the oil industry, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, was crafted by a select few for a selected few, and that is why this agreement offends so many.

Today on the lawn of the Capitol, I joined 22 House Republicans and Democrats and more than 350 people representing family farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and workers, food safety advocates and small manufacturers, all kinds of human rights organizations, religious leaders, faith-based groups, and others, all of us in concert speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

On the one hand, those supporting CAFTA, we have a very thorough group of special interests, again, the drug industry, the insurance industry, some of America's largest corporations. On the other hand, you have this wide array of people today representing dozens and dozens of organizations of both political parties across the political spectrum.

Since April 21, more than 1,000 people have attended Capitol Hill news conferences asking the President to renegotiate this failed agreement. Democrats and Republicans, legislators from Central America, along with grass-roots organizations representing workers and farmers and religious organizations in all seven countries, in the United States and in the Dominican Republic and in five countries in Central America. Those same voices delivered a common unified message: renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Why do they oppose this? The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) showed this chart earlier. One of the reasons we oppose this agreement is our trade policy is not working. A dozen years ago I first ran in Congress in 1992, 13 years ago. We had a trade deficit in this country of $38 billion. Last year, just a dozen years later, that $38 billion had exploded into $618 billion. Clearly our trade policy is not working.

But make no mistake. Those of us opposed to this CAFTA do want trade with Central America, but we want an agreement that represents us all, not a select few. We want an agreement that deserves to pass Congress based on its merits, not based on arm twisting, not based on middle-of- the-night votes, not based on sleazy deals, not based on, as some cases we have seen on this floor, out and out bribery.

We want an agreement that promotes small business, family farmers, that promotes ranchers and workers, that promotes food safety and the environment and people of faith in all six CAFTA countries and in our country.

We want an agreement that stands in line with our faith and our values and promotes the principles of social and economic justice. This CAFTA will not do that.

The people supporting CAFTA, they love to make promises that with CAFTA jobs in the U.S. will increase. We will export more to the developing world and the standard of living in these poor countries will go up. They promised that every time there is a trade agreement. They never come true.

Here, really, is fundamentally the reason that we know, that American manufacturers know, that American small business knows, that American farmers know that we will not be exporting products to Central American countries. The average wage in the United States is $38,000. The average wage in El Salvador annually is $4,800; $2,600, Honduras; $2,300, Nicaragua.

The combined economic output of these Central American countries is about the same as that of Columbus, Ohio. They simply cannot afford to buy our products. This agreement will not allow workers in Central America to buy cars made in Dayton or Cincinnati or Toledo or Cleveland, Ohio. This agreement will not allow workers in Honduras to buy prime beef from Nebraska. It will not allow workers from Guatemala to buy software made in Seattle.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is about U.S. companies moving plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to El Salvador, and exploiting cheap labor. Renegotiate this CAFTA and produce a better Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the sugar provisions in the Central American Free Trade Agreement would cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million over the next 10 years, according to estimates released this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO, the arm of Congress that estimates the costs of legislation, also found that revenues in the U.S. Treasury would fall by $4.4 billion over the same 10 years if CAFTA is enacted.

So this trade agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is not just about our trade deficit, which has gone from $38 billion to $618 billion in the last 12 years; it is not just about lost jobs, and we have lost 3 million jobs, manufacturing jobs alone in the last 5 years; it is also about busting our budget. It is going to cost us jobs, it is going to swell the trade agreement, it is going to cost us $4.4 billion, and it does nothing for the people of Central America or families in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the Central American Free Trade Agreement would cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million over the next 10 years, according to estimates released this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO, the arm of Congress that estimates the cost of legislation, also found that revenues to the U.S. Treasury would fall by $4.4 billion over the same 10-year period, $440 million a year.

CAFTA will not just drive up a trade deficit that has gone from $38 billion to $618 billion in a dozen years; it will not just cause more job loss, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country in the last 5 years; it is also going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. One more big reason to vote no on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I joined my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), to attend a prayer breakfast near the Capitol where more than 50 representatives of the Christian and Jewish faiths issued a national call for reflection on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) just described that prayer breakfast, that time of reflection.

Despite deep and broad opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, House leadership has promised to bring the agreement to the floor of the House for a vote next week. As an elected official, as a citizen of our great Nation, that disappoints me. As a Lutheran, as a person of faith, I find this trade agreement violates the tenets of my faith and the tenets of my belief in social justice.

Whether Christian or Jew or Muslim, the Abramaic tradition is rooted in the principles of responsibility to each other as brethren, in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As Christians, we are given the New Testament, which shares with us Christ's teachings of social and economic justice.

As Members of Congress, as Democrats and Republicans, we see firsthand the real and tangible effects of trade policies that contradict those teachings. CAFTA does just that.

We have heard on this floor, we have heard from lobbyists, generally lobbyists that work for the drug companies, the insurance industry, the large banks, the oil companies, the big multinational corporations, we have heard from these lobbyists as they troll the House office buildings, we have heard them say, you should pass CAFTA and do this for the people of Central America. But the diversity of faith that was represented at the prayer breakfast where the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and I were today reflects so well the depth and breadth of opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement among religious leaders in the United States and among religious leaders in the Dominican Republic and in the five Central American countries.

We have seen this opposition continue to grow and grow and grow. Workers, small business owners, ranchers, family farmers, Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate Members, Central American legislators, and dozens of Republicans and Democrats on the House side, all share a common message asking not that we do not trade with Central America, not that we do not pass a trade agreement with Central America, but that we defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a better agreement.

Of course, the faith-based community opposes an agreement that will have devastating effects on millions of worshipers in all seven CAFTA countries, the United States and the six countries in Central America. Abandoned by big corporations and too often abandoned by their own government leaders, the world's poorest people have few to speak on their behalf, with little or no voice of their own.

That is why the church, the synagogue, and the mosque are often the only sources of refuge for millions of workers, millions of poor people. In fact, these religious leaders told us today, these 50 or 60 people of faith who rallied in opposition to this trade agreement that will exploit the poor in Central America and hurt working families and communities in our country, they told us we need a different trade agreement, a trade agreement that will lift up the poor, and a trade agreement that will respect workers in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, when the world's poorest people can buy American products and not just make them, then we will know, finally, that our trade policies are working.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the historic state visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. This visit comes at a time of ever-warming relations between the United States and India as these two great nations build partnerships in commerce, security, science, health, and technology. At a time of great global unease and change, our proud country has found a fast friend in India.

In this chamber tomorrow, the Prime Minister will deliver a momentous address to our Joint Session of Congress. His presence in this house will send an unequivocal message to the government and the people of India. That message is that the United States stands in full support of the Indian commitment to democracy, peace, and prosperity. This address will show Indian and American citizens the significance of the enduring relationship between our two great nations.

The United States and India have been partners in the birth of freedom, in 1776 and 1947, from which we grew to be the world's oldest and largest democracies. Let us now be partners in the war against terror as we fight for a more secure existence. Let us be partners in trade and economic growth that benefits all citizens. Let us be partners in scientific and technological advances that promote the collective well-being. Let us be partners in expanding access to first- class health care and quality education. Let us be partners in our strong values, our commitment to our families, and our belief in humanity.

Let the occasion of Prime Minister Singh's address also highlight the advances and contributions of Indian-Americans. The pioneers of this community first settled in California in the mid-1800s and worked as farmers. This tiny minority was not granted the right to American citizenship until 1947 and faced severe visa restrictions until 1965. From such humble beginnings, Indian-Americans have grown dramatically to a national population of 1.9 million. They are now the fastest growing Asian-American group in our great Nation. My district in Ohio is home to 2,480 Indian-Americans, who make vital contributions to our economy, culture, and society.

Mr. Speaker, from my first visit to India in 1977 to having an Indian-American intern in my office every year since 1994, I have grown to appreciate and value the gifts of this nation to the world. I am thankful and proud to host Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the United States. I call on my colleagues to work tirelessly to strengthen our growing relationship and forge new ties with the great nation of India.

Mr. Speaker, I sit here a bit incredulously listening to my colleagues brag about U.S. trade policy. The reason CAFTA has not come for a vote, even though it has been promised to have been brought forward four times, is because Democrats and Republicans and small manufacturers and labor and small ranchers and family farmers and environmentalists and religious leaders in Central America and religious leaders in this country oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Why? Because a dozen years ago we had a $38 billion trade deficit in this country. Last year we had a $618 billion trade deficit. That has translated into 3.5 million lost manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years alone.

Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not working. It may be working for investors, but it is not working for farmers, it is not working for small business. It is not working for consumers and environmentalists and workers and for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, tonight is an unusual, if not unprecedented, special order. It is one that I think that the country will appreciate and I think our colleagues in this Congress will appreciate it; one where we have brought at least a half dozen, and more will join us, Members of Congress of both parties to this Chamber in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I am joined by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). There are five of us here now two Democrats, three Republicans, and I know a number of Members will join us later.

We are joined together because we believe the Central American Free Trade Agreement is not in the best interests of our Nation. We have seen that for a dozen years our trade policy has simply not worked for the American people, it has not worked for rural, family farmers in Alabama, it has not worked for workers in Idaho, in Virginia, in North Carolina, and in my State of Ohio.

Before turning to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and I think people will just kind of join in a conversation here, I want to just point to a series of numbers that really does illustrate why we, as Republicans and Democrats, as people that represent small manufacturers and family farmers and family ranchers and labor unions and environmentalists and religious leaders, and people of faith and all of that, why we oppose it. We can just look at what has happened to our country's trade deficit in the last 12 years.

The year I ran for Congress the first time in 1992 and was elected, we had in our country a trade deficit of $38 billion. That meant, in those days, a trade deficit of $38 billion meant that we imported $38 billion more than we exported. A dozen years later, our trade deficit has grown to $618 billion; from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen years. That translates clearly into lost jobs. It translates into lost textile jobs in Mr. Jones' State, it translates in the lost auto and steel and other jobs in my State. In the last 5 years alone, we have seen somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million manufacturing jobs lost, not entirely because of trade agreements, but in large part because of trade agreements.

That is why all of us say we want to trade with Central America, we want to pass a Central American Free Trade Agreement, but not one that is written and negotiated by a select few for a select few. We want a trade agreement that all of us can support, that ranchers and small farmers and environmentalists and labor unions and small manufacturers and small businesses, that all of us can come together and support. That is really why we are here tonight as a group of Members of Congress from both parties.

I would like to turn it over to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has helped lead this operation in opposition to the

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership, working with both parties in opposition to this agreement.

I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), who is still a relatively new Member of this body, has taken a leadership role in all kinds of development issues and business issues and understands this agreement from a bit of a different perspective, but clearly gets it.

I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). The gentleman's comments about when people almost always dismiss us, say why are you against trade, why are you against globalization, I think you made the case very well that we want to increase trade, but we want to do it in a way that lifts people up, those children in Central America who have no real protections, that go to work as children, not as young adults, but as children, that we could in fact use these trade agreements to improve living standards to respect American workers and American farmers and improve living standards in a developing world.

But this trade agreement, because it was so narrowly constructed, written by a select few for a select few, obviously falls short. And I dream of a day when all of us can vote for a trade agreement, that we can get 350, 400 votes here, a trade agreement that really does lift workers up in the developing world while preserving and enhancing our standard of living and respecting workers in this country. There is simply no reason we cannot do that, as you suggest.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), who has said particularly interesting things about the issues of sovereignty and what that means with both Central American countries and the Dominican Republic and with the United States.

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

I thank the gentleman very much. I think his point about sovereignty really strikes a chord with so many Americans.

As the gentleman suggested with what happened with the Loewen case in Mississippi with the Canadian lawsuit, a company in another country can sue the U.S. government or can sue the State of Idaho, or can sue the City of Akron, Ohio, and that corporation from another country can actually overturn by a CAFTA tribunal or a NAFTA tribal, can overturn a law that was democratically obtained, the Governor and the State legislature in Idaho enacted or that the Mayor Plusquellic in the City of Akron enacted or that the U.S. Congress enacted, that a corporation from another country, a private interest can come in and undo a democratically obtained rule or regulation, whether it is an environmental law or a public health law or what the gentleman is talking about in Mississippi with the funeral homes, a whole host of issues that we in this body certainly make wrong decisions, but they are democratically attained rules and regulations that State legislatures, city council, county commissioners, Congress does and they should stand unless a court of law in our own country strikes them down as unconstitutional. But a company in another country should not be allowed to come in and undercut what we think are important public health laws or other laws in our Nation.

That was very well said. An example is if in my City of Lorain, Ohio, if the city council would say that if police cars that the City of Lorain were buying, if they passed a law, had to be cars made in Lorain County, Ohio, we make cars in that county, that a CAFTA or NAFTA tribunal, a company in another country, one of the other governments could sue saying that is an unfair trade practice. You have to open it up under bid for any other government or any other country or any other company outside that county.

I mean, a buy America law, a buy Idaho law, a buy Ohio law, whatever you might want to pass could easily be struck down by one of these CAFTA or NAFTA tribunals.

We are joined today by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), who has also been a long time advocate for sovereignty issues and for workers in this country and for fair trade instead of the free trade problems that this country has gotten into in the last decade or so. I thank him for joining us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia. What he said about manufacturing and job loss, I put that and the truth he has spoken about what has happened in the last 10 years next to the promises made for CAFTA.

I remember from a dozen years ago when President Clinton made this same promise. He said, under NAFTA it will increase employment in this country, it will create jobs, it will mean we will have more manufacturing and export more goods abroad. And he said it would lift up the standard of living in the developing world. President Bush says the same thing, that it will mean more jobs. He has said it on trade agreement after trade agreement after trade agreement, as did his predecessor: it will mean more jobs, more production and manufacturing in this country, more selling jobs overseas and raising the standard of living, in this case in the five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic.

Well, all we have to do, and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and I were talking about this chart a moment ago, all we have to do is look at this chart to realize what they are saying just does not make sense. There is an old Ben Franklin quote where he said, ``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.'' That is really what our trade policy is. They make the same promises, expecting a different outcome, and continue to get the same kind of failed trade policies and failed results.

But look at this chart. The average wage in the United States is $38,000. The average wage down in these Central American countries and the Dominican Republic is 6,000; Guatemala, $4,100. The average Nicaraguan makes $2,300 a year. These trade agreements do nothing to lift up their living standard so they will make more money. But under these trade agreements, we hear promises from supporters of CAFTA that we are going to sell more products. Whether it is from Virginia, Idaho, or Ohio, we are going to sell more products to these countries.

But Nicaraguans are not going to buy cars made in Ohio, and Hondurans are not going to buy textiles and apparel from Virginia, and Guatemalans are not going to buy lumber from Idaho. These trade agreements are not about our selling products to those countries, because people in those countries do not have enough money to buy software from Seattle or steel from West Virginia. These agreements are about outsourcing jobs to Guatemala or exploiting workers in Honduras or sending manufacturing to Nicaragua.

They are not going to lift those people up because there are no labor standards in this agreement, and they are not going to mean a better standard of living or more exports for the United States simply because these people cannot buy our products. Unless we are trading with a country that can buy our products, or unless we are doing something to raise the standard of living in these countries so that they can buy our products, these trade agreements are destined to fail.

So we end up doing what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) spoke about a minute ago, we end up with a trade deficit going from $38 billion in a

dozen years to $618 billion and all kinds of job losses. In my State of Ohio in the last 5 years we have lost 220,000 manufacturing jobs. In Virginia and the Carolinas, they have combined to lose almost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. In the great Northwest, Washington, Oregon and Idaho, they have lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs.

In State after State after State, because of these failed trade policies, because our trading partners are not buying our products, because these trade agreements are all about moving our companies, our jobs, outsourcing them to these countries, this trade policy simply is not working.

Mr. Speaker, for a guy his age, my colleague can see these numbers pretty well.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about stability of those governments. I have heard the whole series of arguments. It was not much different with NAFTA. The President started off telling us NAFTA would be great for businesses, workers, and small manufacturing. People just were not buying it. Then he shifted it into a national security argument and an immigration argument, and then whether it was NAFTA or CAFTA, the President, whoever the President was in each one of those, would shift into the old issue of stability of those governments. President Clinton said it with NAFTA and Mexico. Now they are talking about political stability in the Dominican Republic and in the five Central American nations, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and in Honduras.

But when we talk about stability, the opposition to these agreements in these countries is widespread and strong. There were all kind of demonstrations. There have been at least 45 demonstrations in the five Central American countries with 150,000 people at least participating in those demonstrations, and these are farmers and small business owners and workers and ranchers and people who came from the countryside, hiked into the cities and protested at their legislatures.

In one of the five Central American countries when the agreement passed, they did it in the middle of the night. The legislature met, they had to surround the building and nobody knew about it. All of those kinds of things have happened. If you talk about stability, you want a trade agreement that people of all stripes can buy into.

As I said earlier, I look to a day when the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), people who have very different political philosophies and have very different kinds of districts, can sit down and write a trade agreement that the Catholic bishops in Central America will support and Jewish and Lutheran leaders in this country can support. They oppose this agreement.

I look forward to a day when labor unions and large corporations and small businesses and farmers and ranchers both in Central America and in the United States could support, and where we would put 350 or 400 Members of Congress together and pass an agreement. But to pass an agreement by 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 votes, to do it in the middle of the night, to keep the rollcall open and try to twist arms to pass it when it is clear that a majority of people in our country oppose it, we have seen these rallies that you have been to, and others, in opposition to this trade agreement here, where a majority of people in Central America and the Dominican Republic oppose it. There is simply no sense in passing a trade agreement that is not inclusive and does not have

Ohio and Idaho's interests in hand. All four members of the Idaho delegation, Senators and Representatives, are going to vote against

Mr. Speaker, that is the same in my State of Ohio. When we talk about numbers and the trade deficit, we talk about the millions of lost jobs, but it comes down to every family that loses a job, what they go through, every neighbor, every school district, the police and fire protection they lose, the equity in their house, all of the things that happen that destroy families and destroy communities. That is what we all need to remember when we are debating these large numbers and billions of numbers in trade deficits.

I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). We were joined this evening in a very unusual bipartisan special order with Republicans, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and Democrats, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, last year, this Congress was promised a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the end of 2004. December 31 came and went. Then, at a White House news conference, the President called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. May 31 came and went. In June, Congress was again promised a vote, which was supposed to have been before July 4. Independence Day came and went.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because dozens of Republicans and Democrats, including my friends who are joining us tonight, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), earlier the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and others, because of the strong opposition by both parties, from small farmers and ranchers to organized labor, from small manufacturers to environmentalists, from religious leaders, from Catholic bishops in Central America and the Dominican Republic, to Lutheran and Presbyterian and Jewish and Episcopal leaders in our country, all of us speak with one strong, united voice: renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Those of us opposed to this CAFTA do want a trade agreement with Central America; but we want a trade agreement, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) says, that benefits our whole Nation, not just a few; not one crafted, not a trade agreement crafted, negotiated by a select few for a select few.

As the President travels the Nation trying to sell this CAFTA to the American public, he is hearing firsthand from U.S. workers, from small business owners and family farmers and family ranchers and religious leaders that they do not want this CAFTA, either. Their message, as is the message coming from us in this body in both parties, is loud and clear: renegotiate this Central American Free Trade Agreement.

In response to the President's trip this past Friday to North Carolina, a newspaper headline read: ``Bush Sells Trade Pact in Hostile Territory.'' A Huntsville Times Alabama editorial on Sunday reads: ``Say No to the Central American Free Trade Agreement.'' A Wall Street Journal headline, a newspaper traditionally very supportive of trade agreements, a Wall Street Journal headline yesterday read: ``Cafta is No Cure-All For Central America.''

This CAFTA represents more than a decade of failed trade policies. Just look what has happened with our trade policies just since the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and I in 1992 came to this Congress. In 1992 we had a trade deficit in this country of $38 billion. That means we sold $38 billion less, exported, than we imported. In 2004, last year, that trade deficit was $618 billion. It went from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen years. How do we argue that our trade policy is working when our trade deficit has gone from $38 billion to $618 billion, and all of the lost manufacturing jobs in North Carolina and Idaho and California and Illinois and all over this country, including my State of Ohio? How do you argue that our trade policy is working?

CAFTA, Mr. Speaker, has languished in Congress for more than a year. Normally, trade agreements are voted on within 60 days. It passed the Senate by the narrowest margin ever of any trade agreement in that body. That is because we know this agreement is a continuation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, a trade agreement which failed to live up to its lofty promises.

It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, whether it is Bill Clinton or whether it is George Bush, they tell us three things: they say more jobs for Americans, they say more manufactured products exported from the U.S. overseas, and they say that it will mean better wages for workers and a higher standard of living for people in the developing world. With every trade agreement, these promises fall flat.

Benjamin Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different outcome. That is what has happened with our trade agreements. This CAFTA will not enable Central American workers to buy cars made in Toledo, Ohio or software developed in Seattle or textiles and apparel from North Carolina or prime beef from Nebraska. This CAFTA is about U.S. companies moving plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to Guatemala, exploiting cheap labor in El Salvador.

I will make one prediction, Mr. Speaker. If CAFTA comes up next week, they will call it up in the middle of the night, they will hold the rollcall open for several hours, they will twist arms to try to get this agreement passed. Instead, we should throw out this failed agreement, go back to the drawing board, renegotiate a CAFTA that lifts workers up, that makes sense for workers in all seven CAFTA countries, including our own.

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 finally working.

Mr. Speaker, last year the House Majority Leader the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most influential Republican in the Congress, promised that this Congress would vote during last year on the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a trade agreement that includes six countries in Latin America and the United States. December 31 rolled around, there was no vote.

Majority Leader DeLay then promised a vote by Memorial Day on CAFTA. Memorial Day came and went.

Majority Leader DeLay then promised a vote on CAFTA prior to July 4. July 4 has since come and gone. Now, Leader DeLay has said there will be a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement some time in July.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that there has not been a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement is because of the overwhelming opposition to that trade agreement, opposition from Republicans on that side of the aisle, Democrats on this side of the aisle, opposition from small manufacturers, machine shops, tool and die makers, small manufacturing companies, opposition from unions and all kind of worker organizations, opposition from environmentalists, opposition from religious leaders, opposition from in the United States to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, widespread opposition among leaders and religious leaders, labor leaders, environmentalists advocates for the poor, small business people, small farmers and ranchers throughout the six Latin American countries. The reason they oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement is it simply will not work for the great majority of people whether it is in Nicaragua or the United States, whether it is in Guatemala or the Dominican Republic.

All of us understand that this CAFTA does not make sense. We should renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement, get rid of this one, renegotiate one that works for everyone.

The reason CAFTA does not work is that it was crafted by a select few, negotiated by a select few to benefit a select few. The drug companies were at the negotiating table. They, of course, will benefit from the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but small manufacturers will not.

The insurance companies and the financial institutions and the banks were at the negotiating table helping to write the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The representatives of small farmers and small ranchers in small businesses were not at the table.

Oil companies and other big energy companies were at the table negotiating the Central American Free Trade Agreement. But consumers and people who will be hurt, the poor and working families in all seven CAFTA countries, were not at the table. It, as I said, was negotiated by a select few, for a select few.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason we know that our trade policy is not working is exemplified very well in this chart. 1992, the year I first ran for Congress, was elected, our trade deficit in this country was $38 billion. In 2004 that trade deficit was $618 billion, from $38 billion to $618 billion in the space of 12 years.

Mr. Speaker, those numbers, those are just trade deficit numbers. But what they represent is loss of manufacturing jobs in large part. The states in red are states that have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. My State of Ohio, at 216,000 in just 5 years. Michigan over 200,000, Illinois over 200,000, Pennsylvania over 200,000. The Speaker, the man in the Speaker's chair, his State of Texas, 200,000. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer's) State has lost 30,000 manufacturing jobs. The gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Pallone's) State of New Jersey has lost 105,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, this trade policy is not working. These trade agreements are not working. This trade agreement is not about lifting up workers in the developing world. It is about U.S. companies moving plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to El Salvador and exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala, not to help those workers, because those

workers living standards under past trade agreements simply have not risen.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that we need a different CAFTA, and we have a different CAFTA when the world's poorest people can buy American goods, not just make them, we will know our trade policies are finally working. We should defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the Central American Free Trade Agreement will likely be brought up for a vote this month. The opposition to CAFTA is broad and deep. Dozens of Republicans and Democrats in this body oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Small manufacturers and organized labor oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Family farmers and small ranchers and environmentalists oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Catholic bishops in Central American, in fact the cardinal from Central America is visiting this Chamber, this House this week, and Lutheran and Presbyterian and Jewish leaders in the United States are opposing the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The reason there is this broad and deep opposition is because the Central American Free Trade Agreement was negotiated by a select few for a select few. We do not oppose trade; we support fair trade. Renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Defeat this CAFTA. Bring forward a CAFTA that can get the broad support of farmers and ranchers and businesses and labor.

Mr. Speaker, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, according to Republican leadership, will come to a vote sometime this month. The Central American Free Trade Agreement was signed 13 months ago by President Bush. Every other trade agreement voted on in this Congress has been voted on within 2 months of the President's signature. That is, those trade agreements with Morocco and Chile, Singapore and Australia, all passed the Congress comfortably by wide margins within 60 days of the President affixing his signatures to them.

This trade agreement, CAFTA, was signed by President Bush in May of 2004, and it has not been brought to this Congress for a vote for one simple reason. One simple mathematical reason: the votes simply are not there to pass this agreement. The votes are not there because of the opposition from dozens of Republicans and Democrats, the opposition from small manufacturers and labor unions, and the deep and broad opposition from small farmers and from family farmers and ranchers and environmentalists. The opposition to CAFTA comes from Catholic bishops in Central America and Lutheran and Presbyterian and Jewish leaders in our country.

It is clear this agreement would not pass the House of Representatives today because Americans, in larger and larger numbers, including Members of Congress, representatives of the American people, understand our trade policy simply is not working.

Look at this chart. In 1992, the year I was first elected to Congress, we had a trade deficit. That means we exported less than we imported. We had a trade deficit of $28 billion. Last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion trade deficit in only a dozen years. It is clear our trade policy is not working when we have these kinds of trade deficits, coupled with the budget deficits we have seen the last 5 years.

Now, these might just be numbers to economists, these numbers about the trade deficit, but here is what they really translate into. The States in red are States which have lost 20 percent of

their manufacturing jobs in the last 6\1/2\ years. The States in blue have lost 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. Now, again, those are numbers, but think about this. My State, and the State of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), has lost 217,000; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has joined us, has lost 217,000. The State of our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), has lost 28,000. The State of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has lost 224,000. My colleague over here, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), has lost 32,000. Pennsylvania has lost 200,000; New York, 222,000; Michigan, 200,000; Texas, 200,000 jobs; and California, 353,000.

These are families who have lost their principal source of income. These are people living in school districts which have seen plants close and funding for education plummet. These are people who live in communities that have inadequate police and fire protection because the tax base in these school districts and in these cities and communities have been eroded when plants close. So it is clear that our trade policy simply is not working.

Now, the supporters of the Central American Free Trade Agreement love to say three things: they say that CAFTA will increase jobs in the United States; they say CAFTA will mean more production, more manufacturing in exports to other countries; and they say that CAFTA will increase, enhance, bring up the standard of living in each of these developing countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Well, Benjamin Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. Presidents always, President Clinton and now President Bush, always promise the same things, more jobs, more manufacturing exports, a higher standard of living in the developing world. It does not work.

They tell us that these CAFTA countries will buy more American goods; that we will manufacture more goods and export them to these six countries. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this chart that says ``show me the money,'' look at the income levels. The United States income of the average person is $38,000; in Costa Rica it is 9,000; the Dominican Republic, 6,000; El Salvador, 4, 000; Guatemala, 4,000; Honduras, 2,600; Nicaragua, 2,300.

Guatemalans making $4,100 a year are not going to buy cars made in Toledo, Ohio, the district of my colleague. Hondurans making $2,600 a year are not going to buy software from the State of my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Nicaraguans making $2,300 a year are not going to buy a prime cut of beef from Illinois or from Nebraska. El Salvadorans making $4,800 a year are not going to be able to buy textiles and apparel from North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, this trade agreement does not work. Defeat this CAFTA and renegotiate a better trade agreement for all Americans and all of Central America.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader and the most powerful Republican Member of Congress, promised last year that we would vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement. December 31 came and went. He promised we would vote on it by Memorial Day; we did not. He promised we would vote on it by July 4; we did not. Now the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promises that CAFTA will come before us by the end of the month.

The reason we have not voted on the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the reason it has been 13 months since the President signed it, six times longer than any trade agreement in years, is that Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, food safety advocates, environmentalists, and religious leaders think the Central America Free Trade Agreement is a bad idea.

Defeat this CAFTA. Let us renegotiate a CAFTA that works for small farmers and ranchers and small business and workers and environmentalists and religious leaders in all seven CAFTA countries including ours.

Mr. Speaker, last year, during the 2004 election season, the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the Congress, in the House or Senate, promised that this Congress would vote up or down on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. December 31 rolled around, and there was no vote.

Majority Leader DeLay again promised earlier this year there would be a vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement by Memorial Day. Memorial Day came and went, and there was no vote.

Majority Leader DeLay, again the most powerful Republican member of this body or the other body, again promised there would be a vote on CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and he promised it prior to the July 4th break. Again, July 4th came and went, and there was no vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says there will be a vote before the end of July up or down on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

There is a reason that Congress did not vote on it by December 31, did not vote on it by Memorial Day, did not vote on it by July 4th, and still has not scheduled it for a vote even this month. That is because there is strong bipartisan opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It is Democrats on this side and Republicans on that side. It is business leaders, small business leaders especially, and labor unions. It is religious leaders. The Catholic bishops in Central America and other religious leaders, Lutherans, all kinds of Protestants, Catholics and Jewish groups, all kinds of religious groups in America that oppose this.

Environmentalists, food safety advocates and people who think the Central American Free Trade Agreement is not working and does not work for the United States of America and does not work for the five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic; they understand we do not want this CAFTA. We want a new CAFTA. We want to renegotiate CAFTA so it will work for small farmers and ranchers, for small manufacturers in my State of Ohio, in Cincinnati and Dayton and Portsmouth and Chilicothe. They understand that this was a trade agreement that was negotiated by a select few for a select few.

Sure, Mr. Speaker, there are people that support the Central American Free Trade Agreement in addition to Majority Leader DeLay and President Bush. The pharmaceutical companies love this agreement because they helped to negotiate it. As I said, it was crafted by a select few for a select few, and the drug industry is one of the select few. The insurance industry loves CAFTA. Again, it was crafted by a select few, the insurance industry and a few others, for a select few. The banks and the other financial institutions love CAFTA. It was negotiated by a select few, and they were at the table, for a select few, for them and a few others.

The largest corporations in the country, many of them like CAFTA because it was negotiated by a select few for a select few, not for small manufacturers in Akron, Ohio; not for small manufacturers in Steubenville, Ohio; but for large corporations that can move their production overseas and exploit cheap labor.

When you think about it, the major reason that Americans are opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement in every poll you look at and that a majority Members of Congress are against CAFTA is, look what has happened with our trade policy in the last 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who understands this so very well, and my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will be here in a moment. If you look at 1992, the year I just happened to run for Congress the first time and get elected, in 1992, our trade deficit was $38 billion. That means the United States imported $38 billion more than we exported. We had a negative trade balance, import versus export, of $38 billion. Last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion. It went from $38 billion to $618 billion in the space of 12 years. It is hard to argue we should do more of the same.

CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA passed here in 1993. Look what happened. Then PNTR for China and a whole host of trade agreements as the trade deficit got worse and worse and worse and worse. It has clearly not worked for our country.

Let's look back for a moment at CAFTA to see what has happened. Thirteen months ago, the President signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the other six countries, five in Central America and the Dominican Republic. Every other trade agreement the President signed was voted on, Morocco, Chile, Australia, Chile, and Singapore, was voted on within 60 days of the President's signature. CAFTA was signed in May of 2004. It has been more than 13 months, six times plus, six times longer than any of these other trade agreements. Again, because Americans and their congressional representatives, and that is why we are called representatives,

we are supposed to represent what our people want us to do, the American people and this Congress understand that CAFTA is an extension of NAFTA. It is more of the same bad trade agreements, and it is simply not working for our country.

Now, these are just numbers. These are trade deficit numbers. Who cares about these kind of numbers? Well, here is what they mean, Mr. Speaker. If you look at this chart, the States in red are those States which have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. The State of New Jersey, my colleague's State, 104,000. More than 20 percent of the manufacturing jobs in that State. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and my State, 217,000 jobs lost in 6.5 years. Michigan, over 200,000. Illinois, 224,000. Pennsylvania, 200,000. New York, 222,000. The Carlolinas, hit by textile job losses, combined 315,000 jobs lost. California, the blue States, have had 15 to 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs lost in the last 6.5 years. California, 354,000 manufacturing jobs. Texas, 201,000. Florida, 72,000. And Georgia, 110,000.

State after State after State are losing their manufacturing jobs not only because of bad trade policies but certainly principally because of bad trade policies. These trade policies simply are not working.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this overwhelming opposition, the administration and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA. They have tried linking CAFTA to help democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick have said that CAFTA will help in the war on terror. I am not sure how, and they do not explain how, but I do know that 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve border security between the United States and Mexico. So that argument simply does not sell.

Then, in May, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce flew on a nice little junket around the country the six Dominican and Central American presidents, around our Nation hoping they might be able to sell CAFTA to newspapers, to the public and ultimately to the Congress. They went to Albuquerque. They went to Los Angeles. They went to Cincinnati in my State. They went to New York and Miami, and again, they failed. In fact, the Costa Rican president at the end of the trip said, I am not going to sign this, I am not part of this until I really see what CAFTA is going to do for working people in my country.

Now, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and I have talked, the administration is opening up the taxpayers' bank. Desperate, after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on its merits, because they know they cannot pass, with this kind of trade policy failure for a dozen years, they know they cannot pass it on the merits, so what they are doing is the President of the United States is promising fundraising for Members of Congress. He is promising bridges and highways, more pork than you can imagine in district after district after district. He is promising all kinds of jobs to his people later, people that might be lame ducks in Congress. Who knows the kinds of promises he is making.

They have made these promises before to pass other trade agreements, and they are making them again. But again, Mr. Speaker, we know Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups, farmers, ranchers, religious leaders, environmental, and human rights organizations are all saying: Vote no on CAFTA. Renegotiate and get a better CAFTA.

Before turning to my colleague from New Jersey, I want to point out one other argument that those supporting CAFTA like to put out there. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President makes three major promises: There will be more jobs in the U.S.; the U.S. will send more manufactured goods, export them out of the U.S. to other countries; and the standard of living in the poorer countries in the developing world will go up. Every time he makes those promises, they fall flat on their face. It never happens.

Benjamin Franklin once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting it to come out differently. They make the same promises, and they never work. And here is why. The President says the Central American countries are going to buy American products, they are going to buy American manufactured goods, and they are going to buy American farm produce. Let's look at this chart. The United States average income is $38,000.

The average income in El Salvador is $4,800; Guatemala, $4,100; Honduras, $2,600; Nicaragua, $2,300. The average worker in Nicaragua who earns $2,300 a year is simply not making enough money to buy any kind of goods that we export. A worker in Honduras cannot afford to buy a car made in Dayton, Ohio. A worker in Guatemala cannot afford to buy software made in Seattle or Northern California.

A Nicaraguan worker cannot afford to buy textiles or apparel from North Carolina or South Carolina. An El Salvadoran worker making $4,800 a year is not going to buy prime cut beef grown in Nebraska. The combined economic output of these CAFTA countries is equivalent to that of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida. The combined economic output of these six countries is equivalent to that of Columbus, Ohio, or Orlando, Florida.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they simply cannot buy our products. So what this agreement is all about, it is not about them buying our products that we export. This agreement is about U.S. companies moving plants to Honduras, outsourcing jobs to El Salvador and exploiting cheap labor in Guatemala. That is what this agreement and every other agreement has led to. It has led to U.S. companies moving to China, moving to Mexico, moving to Guatemala, moving to Pakistan, moving overseas, exploiting cheap labor, doing nothing to raise the standard of living in those countries, and depressing the standard of living in our country.

Mr. Speaker, we want a new CAFTA, a renegotiated CAFTA. When the world's poorest people can buy American products, not just make them, when the world's poorest people can buy American products, then we will know that our trade policies are working. That is why we must renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement and this time do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has, ever since his initial term in Congress, been a leader on trade issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio, who has been on this floor for literally more than 20 years arguing, fighting for American workers and fighting to lift up standards, everything from food safety to environment to workers' standards and standards of living in the poorest countries in the world and trying to get trade agreements that work for everybody.

One thing that I particularly liked that the gentlewoman from Ohio said is that it is pretty clear that the opposition to these trade agreements is not just a few Democratic Members of Congress or Republican Members of Congress, it is also a wide swath of Americans who are against this. It is labor. It is working people and small manufacturers. It is environmentalists. It is religious leaders, but also, as the gentlewoman from Ohio points out, it is religious leaders in all of the CAFTA countries. It is workers in all of the CAFTA countries. It is poor people in all of the CAFTA countries. They had to pull late-night shenanigans, as they have on occasion in this body, in several countries in Central America to even pass this agreement.

We hear the people for CAFTA saying, Well, the people of Central America need this. It will make them more prosperous. It will help them. It will help keep them from being so poor. It will help raise their standard of living. But we do not see any evidence that people in Central America want this agreement except for the wealthiest in those countries. And as we all have said in our opening remarks, this agreement is negotiated by a select few for a select few. It is negotiated by the largest corporations for the largest corporations. It is negotiated by the drug industry, the insurance industry, the banks, the financial institutions because they, in fact, will benefit. The wealthy corporate interests in Guatemala will benefit as they do in the United States. But workers in both countries will not benefit. Religious leaders in both countries think this is a bad idea, environmentalists, all kinds of people.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, both the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) have pointed out how these agreements are not fair. They are written by a select few for a select few, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) writes about how especially working people in Central America and the Dominican Republic simply cannot figure out how to get their voices heard. They ride their horses from the far end of the capital and try to tell their legislators this agreement is not working for them.

But what we are seeing this week is there are a handful of Central American legislators that have come here to say this is a bad idea for our country and various different countries in Central America. We are seeing a Central American Roman Catholic cardinal join with American Catholic leaders and Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders in our country saying this is bad for the poor in all seven countries. It is bad for the poor in the United States. It is bad for the poor in Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, in El Salvador and Guatemala, in Honduras and Nicaragua.

This agreement, if we want to talk about economic justice and social justice, as all of us, and I know faith is important to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) as it is to me, if we want to talk about what faith is all about, any religious faith to which one ascribes, it is clear that faith is about social and economic justice.

That is why the cardinal is here talking to Members of Congress about how this hurts his flock in Central America. That is why Lutheran and Presbyterian leaders and activists in our country are here talking to their Members of Congress, saying this is not fair to our communities, it does not work for our families, it does not work for our workers, it does not work for the environment, it does not work for anybody but those large companies that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) talked about, the large oil companies, the banks, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the big multinationals, that will use this agreement to not lift standards up in any country but to outsource jobs, to ship jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

As we wrap up in the last 60 or 90 seconds, what I again point out, what the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said, working conditions and the standard of living in all of these CAFTA countries. Nicaragua, people are making $2,300 a year; Honduras, $2,600 a year. This agreement does nothing to lift up living standards in those countries.

It means, one, they cannot buy American products as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has said, but it also means they continue to live in abject poverty. And this agreement does nothing to lift them up. That is why the opposition to CAFTA is so broad. That is why the cardinal is here this week. That is why Central American legislators have come up here and paid their own way to get here, I believe. That is why religious leaders in our country who see this issue, this agreement, as a moral question, what we do to the least among us, and so many people, religious leaders, advocates for the poor, advocates for working people, unions, small businesses that care about their communities, Republicans and Democrats alike, have joined against this agreement.

That is why if this vote on CAFTA were held tonight, if it were held right now, this agreement would go down by 20 or 25 votes. I will make a prediction, and I have heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) say the same sort of thing, we know that in the next 2 weeks, if this comes up to a vote, that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most prominent and most powerful Member of this body, will put immense pressure on Republican Members to change their votes, to vote against what they were going to do, to change their vote and vote for this agreement. And the prediction I would make is if this comes to a vote, if in fact they think it is close enough for a vote, they will bring it up in the middle of the night; the roll call will stay open not the regular 15 minutes, but for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours, as they have done before; and if it in fact passes, it will pass by no more than two or three votes.

That is the way business is all too often done here. And when this agreement so clearly runs counter to what most Americans want, it runs counter to what most Central Americans and Latin Americans want, it runs counter to what is good for business and what is good for workers in our country, the only way that they can possibly pass it is to twist arms, exert all kinds of pressures, open up the taxpayer bank and give out all kinds of pork projects to Members so they can get this agreement through. If it passes, it will pass by no more than two or three votes, we can count on that.

But if this Congress, this House of Representatives, follows what the word ``representative'' means and really represents the people whom we are supposed to represent, this agreement will be defeated and Members of this body will look for a new, renegotiated CAFTA that will lift living standards up in the six Latin Americans countries and in the United States and will actually be a win for everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been so stalwart in this for so many years, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who speaks so eloquently about our constitutional rights and sovereignty and where we should go as a Nation.