[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.

                          ____________________