[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 51 (Wednesday, April 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1945-H1946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WIN-WIN FOR U.S. AND COLOMBIA
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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and I urge the Speaker of the House
to bring this important measure before the House for an up-or-down
vote, and submit for the Record two articles, one a column recently
published in the New York Times by Edward Schumacher-Matos, a former
foreign correspondent for the Times and a visiting professor of Latin
American studies at Harvard, as well as an editorial in this week's
Washington Post in support of the trade agreement.
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 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.
____
[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. Its 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
[[Page H1946]]
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.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Colombia Trade
Promotion Agreement. I urge the Speaker to schedule a vote soon on this
important agreement. Why? It is good for Illinois.
I represent an export dependent district. I have 8,000 union workers
who make construction equipment; and, because of the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Promotion Agreement, the 15 percent tariffs, taxes, the 15
percent on that construction equipment exported to Colombia are
eliminated on day one. When you talk to agriculture, our farmers, those
who raise corn and soybeans and livestock and specialty crops, they
will tell you the U.S.-Colombia agreement is the best ever for
agriculture. Clearly, States like Illinois win under the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Agreement.
I would note that, overall, 80 percent of U.S. exports currently
taxed will see those taxes waived and eliminated immediately upon
implementation of the U.S.-Colombia Agreement. And facts have shown, if
we have a trade agreement with a nation, exports grow 50 percent
faster. So, it is good for Illinois and good for America.
Ladies and gentlemen, who is Colombia? Let me tell you, Colombia is
America's best friend in Latin America. It is the oldest democracy in
Latin America. It is America's most reliable partner in
counterterrorism and in counternarcotics in this entire hemisphere. And
today, President Uribe, who was democratically elected overwhelmingly
with a mandate to bring security to the country, has been successful in
driving the leftist narcotic-trafficking terrorist group, the FARC, to
the fringes of Colombia and brought security to his country. As a
result, he is the most popular elected president anywhere in the
hemisphere, with an 80 percent approval rating.
I would note that 71 percent of Colombians in a recent opinion poll
say that they believe that Colombia is more secure because of President
Uribe, and 73 percent of Colombians say that President Uribe respects
human rights. Homicides are down 40 percent, kidnappings are down 76
percent. And I would note, the murder rate in Colombia today is lower
than Washington, DC. It is safer to walk the streets of Colombia than
it is our own Nation's capital. President Uribe has made tremendous
progress in the last few years in reducing violence.
Now there are those who oppose the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement, and
they say that President Uribe hasn't done enough. He hasn't done
enough, particularly when it comes to violence against labor leaders.
Let's look at the facts regarding President Uribe and the
democratically-elected government of Colombia as it comes to violence
against labor leaders as well as against other Colombian citizens.
President Uribe has increased by 75 percent in the last 2 years
funding for the prosecution of those who commit violent acts. He has
added over 2,100 new posts overall in the Prosecutor General's Office,
adding 418 new prosecutors and 545 new investigators. He has made major
changes. Colombia should be recognized and rewarded for the progress
they have made. And, I would note that Carlos Rodriguez, president of
the United Workers Confederation, has said about this effort: ``Never
in the history of Colombia have we achieved something so important.''
When it comes specifically to labor leaders and labor activists,
almost $39 million was spent by the government of Colombia last year to
provide body guards and protection for labor activists and labor
leaders; 1,500 individuals, labor activists and labor leaders,
participated and they are protected. And, I would note, that it has
been successful. No labor leader has suffered a violent act or lost his
life under this protection. Again, as the Washington Post noted this
week, the murder rate for labor activists is actually lower than the
national average. So he has made tremendous progress.
I would note, the International Labor Organization has removed
Colombia from its labor watch list, even while Colombia has agreed to
permanent ILO representation in Colombia. Most telling is 1,400 major
labor union leaders have endorsed the Trade Agreement. The bottom line
is, those who oppose this trade agreement always say they never do
enough, but they never say what more can they do. Colombia deserves to
be rewarded.
The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is good for America, it
is good for Illinois, it is good for Colombia. They deserve a vote.
Let's bring this agreement to the floor for an up-or-down vote soon.
____________________