[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1874-H1875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an 
editorial from yesterday's Washington Post in support of the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, as well as a column by Edward 
Schumacher-Matos, a former foreign correspondent for the Times, as well 
as a visiting professor of Latin American Studies at Harvard, a column 
that was published in yesterday's New York Times as well.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 31, 2008]

             Free Colombia: A Trade Pact Everyone Can Love

       Sometime after Congress returns from Easter recess this 
     week, President Bush is likely to present the Colombia Trade 
     Promotion Agreement for the approval of the House and Senate. 
     As we have said, the proposed pact is good policy for both 
     Colombia and the United States. Colombia has long enjoyed 
     periodically renewable tariff-free access to the U.S. market; 
     the agreement would make that permanent. In exchange, U.S. 
     producers would, for the first time, get the same tariff-free 
     deal when they export to Colombia. Meanwhile, the agreement 
     contains labor and environmental protections much like those 
     that Congress has already approved in a U.S.-Peru trade pact. 
     A vote for the Colombia deal would show Latin America that a 
     staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for improving its human 
     rights record and resisting the anti-American populism of 
     Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
       Sending the agreement to the House of Representatives 
     without the prior approval of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) 
     would be risky for the president; usually, the executive and 
     legislative branches tee up such votes cooperatively. But 
     months of Democratic resistance to the Colombia deal may have 
     left Mr. Bush no choice. The agreement is being held hostage 
     by members of the House (and Senate) who argue that 
     Colombia--despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder toll 
     under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe--hasn't done 
     enough to protect trade union activists or to punish past 
     murders of labor leaders. It's a spurious complaint: 
     Actually, in 2006, union members were slightly less likely 
     than the average Colombian to be murdered. But the human 
     rights issue has served as cover for many Democrats whose 
     true objections are to free trade itself.
       Once the agreement arrives on the Hill, Congress will have 
     90 legislative days to vote yes or no--no amendments and no 
     filibusters allowed, because special ``fast track'' rules 
     apply. The Bush administration is betting that enough 
     Democrats would support the pact to ensure its passage in the 
     House, if it ever comes up for a vote. Of course, Ms. Pelosi 
     could make an issue of the president's failure to get her 
     approval to submit the pact and then could have her caucus 
     shoot down the deal. But she could also engage the White 
     House in serious negotiations. The president has signaled a 
     willingness to consider reauthorizing aid for workers 
     displaced by trade, legislation that is dear to the 
     Democrats' labor constituency and that he has heretofore 
     resisted.
       Ms. Pelosi recently said that no Colombia deal could pass 
     without trade adjustment assistance--without also mentioning 
     the bogus trade unionists issue. Perhaps she is realizing 
     that talking to Mr. Bush about swapping a Colombia vote for 
     trade adjustment assistance might actually lead to a tangible 
     accomplishment. At least we have to hope so.
                                  ____


                          Killing a Trade Pact

                      (By Edward Schumacher-Matos)

       President Bush has been urging Congress to approve a 
     pending trade agreement with Colombia, an ally that recently 
     almost went to war with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Even 
     though the agreement includes the labor and environmental 
     conditions that Congress wanted, many Democrats, including 
     Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, now say that 
     Colombia must first punish whomever has been assassinating 
     the members of the nation's trade unions before the agreement 
     can pass.
       An examination of the Democrats' claims, however, finds 
     that their faith in the assertions of human-rights groups is 
     more righteous than right. Union members have been 
     assassinated, but the reported number is highly exaggerated. 
     Even one murder for union organizing is atrocious, but 
     isolated killings do not justify holding up the trade 
     agreement.
       All sides agree that trade-union murders in Colombia, like 
     all violence, have declined drastically in recent years. The 
     Colombian unions' own research center says killings dropped 
     to 39 last year from a high of 275 in 1996.
       Yet in a report being released next week, the research 
     center says the killings remain ``systematic'' and should be 
     treated by the courts as ``genocide'' designed to 
     ``exterminate'' unionism in Colombia. Most human-rights 
     groups cite the union numbers and conclude, as Human Rights 
     Watch did this year, that ``Colombia has the highest rate of 
     violence against trade unionists in the world.''
       Even if that is true, it was far safer to be in a union 
     than to be an ordinary citizen in Colombia last year. The 
     unions report that

[[Page H1875]]

     they have 1 million members. Thirty-nine killings in 2007 is 
     a murder rate of 4 unionists per 100,000. There were 15,400 
     homicides in Colombia last year, not counting combat deaths, 
     according to the national police. That is a murder rate of 34 
     citizens per 100,000.
       Many in Congress, moreover, assume that ``assassinations'' 
     means murders that are carried out for union activity. But 
     the union research center says that in 79 percent of the 
     cases going back to 1986, it has no suspect or motive. The 
     government doesn't either.
       When the Inter American Press Association several years ago 
     investigated its list of murdered Colombian journalists, it 
     found that more than 40 percent were killed for 
     nonjournalistic reasons. The unions have never done a similar 
     investigation.
       There are, however, a growing number of convictions for 
     union murders in Colombia. There were exactly zero 
     convictions for them in the 1990s, Colombia's bloodiest 
     decade, when right-wing paramilitaries and leftist guerrillas 
     were at the height of their strength. Each assassinated the 
     suspected supporters of the others across society, including 
     in unions.
       With help from the United States, in 2000 the Colombian 
     military and the judicial system began to reassert 
     themselves. Prosecuting cases referred by the unions 
     themselves, the attorney general's office won its first 
     conviction for the murder of a trade unionist in 2001. Last 
     year, the office won nearly 40.
       Of the 87 convictions won in union cases since 2001, almost 
     all for murder, the ruling judges found that union activity 
     was the motive in only 17. Even if you add the 16 cases in 
     which motive was not established, the number doesn't reach 
     half of the cases. The judges found that 15 of the murders 
     were related to common crime, 10 to crimes of passion and 13 
     to membership in a guerrilla organization.
       The unions don't dispute the numbers. Instead, they say the 
     prosecutors and the courts are wasting time and being anti-
     union by seeking to establish motive--a novel position in 
     legal jurisprudence.
       The two main guerrilla groups have an avowed strategy of 
     infiltrating unions, which attracts violence. About a third 
     of the identified murderers of union members are leftist 
     guerrillas. Most of the rest are members of paramilitary 
     groups--presumed to be behind two of the four trade unionist 
     murders this month. The demobilization of most paramilitary 
     groups, along with the prosecutions and government protection 
     of union leaders, has contributed to the great drop in union 
     murders.
       President Alvaro Uribe, who has thin skin, can be unwisely 
     provocative when responding to complaints from unions and 
     human rights groups. Still, the level of unionization in 
     Colombia is roughly equal to that in the United States and 
     slightly below the level in the rest of Latin America. The 
     government registered more than 120 new unions in 2006, the 
     last year for which numbers are available. The International 
     Labor Organization says union legal rights in Colombia meet 
     its highest standards. Union leaders have been cabinet 
     members, a governor and the mayor of Bogota.
       Delaying the approval of the trade agreement would be 
     convenient for Democrats in Washington. American labor unions 
     and human-rights groups have made common cause to oppose it 
     this election year. The unions oppose the trade agreement for 
     traditional protectionist reasons. Less understandable are 
     the rights groups.
       Human Rights Watch says that it has no position on trade 
     but that it is using the withholding of approval to gain 
     political leverage over the Colombian government. Perversely, 
     they are harming Colombian workers in the process. The trade 
     agreement would stimulate economic growth and help all 
     Colombians.

  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion 
Agreement. I urge the Speaker of the House to bring this important 
agreement to the floor for a vote, an agreement that was, where 
negotiations were completed 2 years ago, where an agreement that was 
signed 18 months ago and has been waiting for a long time. This 
agreement is a good agreement for America. It's a good agreement for 
Illinois. It's also a good agreement for Colombia.
  Illinois is a major exporting State. My district is dependent on 
exports to grow jobs. And last year my State of Illinois exported $214 
million worth of Illinois products to Colombia, and that's just the 
beginning because under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, 80 
percent of all tariffs, and tariffs are taxes, on U.S. and Illinois 
products are eliminated immediately when the trade agreement goes into 
effect.
  And I would note today that Colombian products come into the United 
States duty-free, without taxes. But we suffer taxes when we export to 
Colombia.
  And I would note that the facts have shown that exports grow 50 
percent faster with nations like Chile and Peru and Central America, 
where we have trade agreements, than those where we do not.
  Who is Colombia? Well, Colombia is our most reliable partner and best 
friend in Latin America. Colombia is our most reliable partner in 
counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism. It's the longest standing 
democracy in all of Latin America. And they have a popular president, 
President Uribe. The reason President Uribe has been so popular is he's 
reduced violence; he's brought security to the entire country.
  People today feel secure traveling between cities, where five and 10 
years ago they feared to go. In fact, 71 percent of Colombians today 
say they feel more secure under President Uribe. 37 percent say 
President Uribe respects human rights. Homicides are down by 40 
percent; kidnappings are down by 76 percent. In fact, the murder rate 
today in Colombia is lower than Baltimore or Washington, D.C.
  No wonder President Uribe is the most popular elected official in 
this entire hemisphere. And compare that 80 percent approval rating 
President Uribe enjoys with the 18 percent that this Congress suffers 
and the difference in approval.
  Now those who oppose the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement say, well, 
Colombia just hasn't done enough. They need to keep doing more before 
we'll give them the privilege of having this agreement with the United 
States. And they say that there's been violence against labor leaders.
  Well, let's look at the facts. President Uribe has made major changes 
in how they prosecute those who commit murder and violent acts. He's 
added 418 new prosecutors, 545 new investigators, 2,166 new posts 
overall in the Prosecutor General's office. And he's increased 
prosecution funding by 75 percent.
  A respected labor leader in Colombia said, Carlos Rodriguez, 
President of the United Workers Confederation said about these new 
posts and this funding, never in the history of Colombia have we 
achieved something so important. $39 million was spent this past year 
providing bodyguards and protection for 1,500 labor leaders and 
activists. No other group enjoys this special kind of protection. And 
it's been successful. I would note no labor leader has suffered an 
attack or lost his life who's participated in this program.
  The International Labor Organization has removed Colombia from its 
labor watch list. Colombia has agreed to a permanent ILO representative 
in Colombia. That helps explain why 14 major labor leaders in Colombia 
have endorsed this trade agreement.
  Colombia is our best friend in Latin America. It's our most reliable 
ally. Colombia deserves a vote.
  Think about it. 2 years this trade agreement has waited; 18 months 
since it was signed by the leadership of both countries.
  Latin America is undergoing some challenges, and those who are not 
friends of the United States have made it very clear they want to 
defeat the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement because they think that's in 
their best interest, and they've also said that if the Congress defeats 
the trade agreement, it will send a powerful signal to all Latin 
America that the United States can't be trusted, and that if you're a 
friend of the United States, in the long run they'll let you down.
  Well, President Uribe and the government of Colombia, the 
democratically elected government of Colombia, are our best friends, 
our most reliable allies in all Latin America, and all Latin America is 
watching on how we treat our best friend.
  This agreement is good for America. It's good for Illinois. If you're 
an Illinois worker, an Illinois manufacturer, an Illinois farmer, you 
win under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Authority.
  Madam Speaker, I urge that this House schedule soon a vote on the 
U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement and ratify this agreement so important to 
democracy, freedom and economic growth in our own hemisphere.

                          ____________________