[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2712-S2715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     COLOMBIAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will 
yield to Senator Stabenow of Michigan who will also talk about trade 
adjustment assistance in Michigan and Ohio and all that our States are 
going through in large part because of misdirected trade policies.
  Yesterday, President Bush announced he would send a proposed 
Colombian Free Trade Agreement to Congress for a vote. He does this 
over the opposition of the Democratic leadership in the House and in 
the Senate, in defiance of our desire to work on a bipartisan basis, 
and in direct opposition to the desires of a growing number of Ohioans 
and Michiganders and Americans all over this country. In doing so, 
President Bush has nailed shut the fast-track coffin.
  As my colleagues know, this agreement was negotiated under the so-
called fast-track provisions. It is an extraordinary procedure provided 
only for trade agreements, not for any other kind of legislation. Trade 
is that special and that important to a very narrow but very powerful, 
very influential group of people in this country. Congress decided 
years ago to delegate an enormous amount of power to the executive 
branch to negotiate trade agreements. In nothing else does this body, 
charged under the Constitution with specific duties and 
responsibilities, give that much power to the executive branch as it 
does with these trade agreements.
  Under the fast-track provisions, once presented to Congress, a so-
called free-trade agreement triggers a 90-day clock for consideration 
of the agreement. No

[[Page S2713]]

amendments can be offered to improve it, unlike anything else here. 
Congress is given a take-it-or-leave-it decision.
  Much of the talk about this agreement centers around the violence and 
impunity in Colombia, especially as it relates to trade unionists, and 
for good reason.
  International organizations and human rights groups look at 
Colombia's record with urgency and alarm. Human rights defenders, trade 
unionists, and community leaders in Colombia are today receiving death 
threats from the rearmed paramilitary group, known as the Black Eagles, 
and are reeling from a new wave of violence.
  This leaflet blown up, of course, was distributed at a March 6 rally 
in Colombia. The beginning says: Death to the leaders who march for 
peace and justice. This was a peace and justice rally. The Black Eagles 
handed out this leaflet to state their point of view, if you will. 
Before, during, and after this countrywide rally on March 6 against 
paramilitary and all forms of violence, at least two march organizers 
were killed.
  Union leaders Carlos Burbano and Carmen Cecilia Carvajal were killed 
for trying to voice their views. At least three other leaders were 
killed in events also associated with the march. March organizers all 
over the country received death threats such as these. One organizer's 
house was attacked with gunfire a week before the rally on February 29.
  These human rights issues are exceedingly serious. Yet the 
administration cavalierly casts them aside, barely acknowledging the 
culture of violence and impunity.
  Just the merits of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is another 
fundamentally flawed trade pact in the long line of trade agreements 
such as NAFTA and CAFTA, in the long line of bad trade policies such as 
PNTR with China. If these are really ``free'' trade agreements, if it 
did what its supporters tell us, simply knocking down trade agreements, 
it would be a smaller document. It would be a couple of pages, just 
getting rid of tariffs. Instead, it is many more pages, such as NAFTA. 
NAFTA was 900 pages of rules and regulations, having little to do with 
trade because instead of simply eliminating tariffs, which we would 
like to do, these agreements are packed with rules on investment, 
services, procurement, telecommunications, drug patents, and more.
  So why do we get thousands of pages of seemingly nontrade issues in a 
trade agreement? Because these trade agreements are rules to protect 
corporations, not rules to protect workers. These trade agreements are 
rules to protect the drug companies, not to protect the environment; 
rules to protect hedge funds, not rules to protect consumers; rules to 
protect Wall Street, not rules to protect Main Street.
  Notice the word ``protect.'' They--the editorial writers, the Harvard 
economists, the CEOs, the Wall Street bankers, the corporate lobbyists, 
the big-time lawyers, the hedge fund managers--try to label people such 
as us ``protectionists.'' I guess it depends on whom, Mr. President, 
you want to protect.
  NAFTA, CAFTA, and Colombia protect the drug companies and the 
investment banks. They protect the corporate interests. Theirs is sort 
of a high-class protectionism. But protecting labor, protecting 
consumers, that is not protectionist. That is the duty of Government.
  Many in this Chamber will recall the debate on the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement. We had a coalition of religious people, consumer 
advocates, environmentalists, small business, medium-size 
manufacturers, and organized labor in opposition to CAFTA. CAFTA's 
proponents said if it did not pass, poverty would get worse in Central 
America. CAFTA, they promised, would promote economic growth and curb 
the violence in Central America and would serve as a model for 
strengthening democracy.
  The U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, said ``if CAFTA 
stumbles, labor rights in Central America will not be strengthened,'' 
as if anybody in this administration really wanted to strengthen labor 
rights. The reality is that there have been disturbing developments in 
the region, including the recent passage by the Honduran Government of 
a law to create exception zones that will allow foreign factories to 
pay less than the national minimum wage.
  How does that help Honduran workers that there is a zone in which 
they pay a subminimum wage?
  Labor ministries in Central American countries still lack the 
staffing and the resources to implement their programs. In many cases, 
budgets have actually been reduced since the passage of the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  Consistent with its history of repeating the same act and expecting 
different results, the administration now wants Congress to approve a 
deal with Colombia, a country where there are increased and continued 
death threats against labor activists, followed by assassinations of 
labor activists, followed by nothing, followed by no prosecution, no 
attempts to find the killers, continued excuses from President Uribe, 
and continued excuses from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Trade 
Representative and, frankly, yesterday, President Bush himself.
  The administration has shown no willingness to enforce labor and 
environmental rules at home, so it is hardly surprising it would ignore 
violations among our trading partners.
  There have been well-documented abuses of sweatshops in Jordan, 
despite the supposedly better labor standards in that agreement. 
Jordan, to its credit, has taken steps to crack down on these companies 
and work with nongovernmental organizations and others in promoting the 
standards intended in that agreement.
  It is important to note that the Bush administration, however, did 
not use the enforcement tools available to it in that trade agreement 
to require labor compliance. So why do we think they will use the 
provisions in this trade agreement, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, 
to require labor compliance? Of course, they won't. But when there is a 
commercial dispute or a drug patent dispute, the administration comes 
down on a country with all the fury it can muster. Protect the drug 
companies? The administration says yes. Protect workers? No thanks. 
Protect oil interests? The administration says, of course. Protect the 
environment? The administration says, no thanks. Protect the banks and 
the financial institutions? The administration says: Where do I sign 
up? Protect food safety for our children, protect toys for our 
children, food safety for our families? The administration is not 
particularly interested.
  Why then should we consider a trade agreement with a country such as 
Colombia which is known as the most dangerous country in the world to 
be a union activist? In fact, Colombia has an unbroken record in recent 
decades of leading the world in trade unionist killings. Violence 
against unionists continues at extremely high levels. The vast majority 
of trade union assassinations remains unsolved.
  Preliminary figures show that between 12 and 17 trade unionists were 
killed in the first 3 months of 2008. Among those murdered was Carmen 
Ramirez, a teacher and member of the teachers union. She was killed on 
her way to work on March 4.
  Gomez Rozo Leonidas, the director of the National Union of Bank 
Workers, disappeared on March 5 and was found dead 3 days later.
  A subunit of the attorney general's office was established in 2006 in 
Bogota to accelerate resolutions of assassinations of trade unionists. 
Despite more resources for these cases, convictions have lagged behind 
murders, leaving the unsolved murder/conviction rate at 98 percent. Of 
the 2,283 murders between 1991 and 2007--2,283 murders of union 
activists in that 17-year period--there have been 50 convictions. There 
have been 50 convictions out of 2,283. Does that sound like the 
Government really is interested in going after hate groups like this?
  We need to craft trade policies that deliver the long-term results we 
need, not just the short-term profits a few multinational companies 
crave. When it comes to trade and the Bush administration, idealogy 
trumps outcomes. Special interests always--always--trump U.S. 
interests.
  Congress needs to reject this agreement. The Senate needs to make a 
clear statement that we stand for a better approach to trade, one based 
on using our market as leverage to raise

[[Page S2714]]

living standards in Latin America, in Michigan, in Montana, in Ohio, 
and our whole country.
  Mr. President, joining me today is Senator Stabenow of Michigan, who, 
during her almost 7\1/2\ years in the Senate and time in the House, has 
been a stalwart advocate for workers in Michigan and across this 
country, and she is particularly interested in this trade adjustment 
work, with the problems in Michigan. She has stood strong, and we are 
joining together today.
  I yield to Senator Stabenow.
  Ms. STABENOW. First of all, I thank Senator Brown for his eloquence 
and his comments and his conviction. I know he would agree with me that 
we want trade; we just want to export our products, not our jobs. That 
is what we want to export.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that the administration, one more 
time, is getting the cart before the horse. We hear all the time about 
the interest in beefing up trade enforcement and passing Trade 
Adjustment Assistance or dealing with currency manipulation and so on. 
Yet those things are not happening, and the administration comes 
forward one more time with another trade agreement without those things 
in place.
  Now, I first wish to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for 
speaking out very strongly about this and for introducing the 
bipartisan Trade Adjustment Assistance bill that he has indicated must 
be passed before this trade agreement is even considered. I appreciate 
that very much and his willingness to report from the Finance 
Committee, on which I am honored to serve, a bill dealing with currency 
manipulation. We have a trade enforcement bill as well.
  But the reality is that we have not received support from the 
administration, and we have not seen the willingness to make this the 
priority it needs to be in terms of our families. I know it is a 
priority for our leader. I know it is a priority for the chairman of 
the Finance Committee and the majority of us on that committee. Yet 
still today we are here one more time with an administration that, 
rather than listening to the leadership, the Speaker, rather than 
listening to our leadership and being willing to address the needs of 
workers who have lost their jobs because of trade, sends up another 
trade agreement. And as my friend from Ohio has indicated, it is not 
one that focuses on what is right in terms of workers--either the 
workers in Colombia or the workers in Michigan or Ohio or Montana or 
across the country. From my perspective, it is hard to imagine that 
since the beginning of this administration, almost 8 years ago, we have 
lost 3.6 million manufacturing jobs--million. That means 3.6 million 
families who had great middle-class jobs with health benefits and 
pensions now find themselves either unemployed or underemployed in many 
situations. In my home State of Michigan, we have lost 425,000 jobs. I 
don't know how many folks are in Montana for sure, but my guess is that 
would be a pretty big percentage of the folks who live in a State you 
love dearly and advocate for every day--425,000 people in the last 7\1/
2\ years.
  Again, we know the economy is changing, and we are focused on 
advanced manufacturing. We are focused on new technology. Michigan is 
becoming a leader in alternative energy and will be a leader in 
alternative energy, but we have to continue to make things in this 
country. That is what manufacturing is about. I happen to believe that 
an economy doesn't grow unless you make things and grow things and then 
you add leverage to it and you add value to it. That is how you have an 
economy. That is how we have had an economy and a middle class that has 
been the envy of the world.
  Frankly, when we look at creating a level playing field, we ought to 
be talking about bringing other countries up to us, not racing to the 
bottom. Americans have been told: If you only work for less, lose your 
health care benefits, lose your pension, we can be competitive. Senator 
Brown talks about Colombia setting up zones, or other countries, where 
companies don't have to even pay minimum wage in those countries. If 
they come in as an American company or a company from another part of 
the world, they can come in and pay workers less. That is a race to the 
bottom. That is not a race we can win, and I don't want to win it 
because if we win that race, we have lost the American dream. We have 
lost the middle class of this country. What we want is a race up, and 
that means education, innovation, changing the way we fund health care, 
and, yes, it means a level playing field on trade.

  I believe that before we can go further with trade agreements, there 
are four things we have to make clear we are going to get done on 
behalf of American workers and American families:
  Trade Adjustment Assistance. There is an excellent bipartisan bill 
which has been introduced in the Senate which is a bill that would 
extend and improve upon trade adjustment assistance. This was set up so 
that if somebody loses their job because of trade, they are going to be 
able to go back to school and they are going to have their health care 
benefits continued for a couple of years while they get retraining to 
be able to go into that new economy we all talk about.
  Secondly, we have to have a stronger trade enforcement operation in 
this country. Mr. President, we have some 230 different trade 
agreements. According to former Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor, 
who came before the Finance Committee, we have the smallest trade 
enforcement office of anyplace in the industrialized world--the 
smallest trade enforcement office. So we need to beef that up. Again, 
we have legislation to do that. We just need to pass it and get it 
signed into law and hear the President will support it. It includes a 
provision that Senator Lindsey Graham and I have been working on, a 
bipartisan agreement we have worked on for years, to create what we 
call a U.S. Trade Prosecutor but basically is a chief enforcement 
officer--a place for business to go when their patent is stolen or 
there is an unfair trade practice against them so we have somebody 
fighting for American businesses and American workers. That needs to 
get done.
  We need the strongest possible currency bill to address what is, in 
fact, against the law and creating an unfair advantage--particularly as 
regards China but in the case of the auto industry, Japan as well--
where they are manipulating their currency and selling products to us 
that get anywhere from a 5-percent up to a 40-percent discount right 
off the top because of the valuation of their currency. That needs to 
change. That is called a level playing field.
  Finally, Mr. President, we need to make sure we extend unemployment 
benefits for folks who have been unemployed due to our inaction on 
trade or through other parts of the economic upheaval we have been in, 
in so many parts of the country, and which, unfortunately, is growing 
across the country. I think Michigan was the canary in the coal mine, 
in many ways. We were hit hardest first--the epicenter of 
manufacturing--but this is now spreading across the country. We need to 
make sure the middle-class person who has lost their job has the 
opportunity to at least put food on the table and pay the mortgage 
while they are continuing to look for work.
  I believe those things need to be put in place before we send any 
more trade agreements forward--a trade agreement that we don't have the 
capacity to enforce, where we are not helping the workers who have lost 
or will lose their jobs, and where we are not addressing the broader 
issues that have cost us jobs every single day.
  I am stunned. We got the new numbers on Friday for what has happened. 
Last week's dismal jobs report was released. It was reported that our 
Nation lost 83,000 jobs last month--83,000 jobs last month. We know 
what is happening. We know we are in a recession. We have known it in 
Michigan for a long time. Yet President Bush's Chief Economist, Edward 
Lazear, said:

       I don't focus too much on the monthly unemployment rate 
     because it has been a bit volatile.

  A bit volatile? Three weeks, 4 weeks ago, we were hearing: Well, the 
underlying fundamentals of the country are good. We have a little 
housing problem, but the underlying fundamentals are good.
  With all due respect, I don't know what planet these folks are on, 
but the reality is that we have seen a convergence of issues, from the 
housing situation, to the broader financial markets,

[[Page S2715]]

to trade imbalance, trade deficits, huge deficits in our budget; we 
have seen a lack of enforcement on trade agreements; jobs lost, 3.6 
million manufacturing jobs alone; and I think this is more than just a 
little bit of volatility in the economy.
  So, Mr. President, I am extremely hopeful that we will say no to this 
Colombian Free Trade Agreement and that we will stand up for Americans, 
that we will stand up for Americans who have lived their lives working 
hard, trying to play by the rules, and who expect us to stand up for 
them, and American businesses that have done the same thing. Let's pass 
Trade Adjustment Assistance the right kind of way. Let's make sure we 
have a strong policy on currency manipulation. Let's make sure we 
toughen our trade enforcement laws. And let's most certainly recognize 
the tens of thousands--millions at this point--of those who are on 
unemployment insurance and who are asking us to extend those benefits, 
as has been done in every other time of recession, so that they have 
the ability to be able to care for their families while they are 
looking for a job.
  Mr. President, I hope we will value the dignity of work and what 
millions of Americans are going through every day now and understand it 
is our job, first and foremost, to fight for them.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________