[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2334-H2341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is true that today
is the day that the American people have their obligation to pay taxes
for the American government to continue to function. And obviously,
there are many good things that the Federal Government does, and there
are many not so good things that the Federal Government does.
But one of the things that I think is very important for us to focus
attention on, especially as we deal with a challenging economy, is the
need for us to ensure that, as stewards of those taxpayer dollars,
those dollars fund this institution, the greatest deliberative body
known to man, and we need to ensure that we put into place policies
that will encourage strong, dynamic, economic growth and to make sure
that there are opportunities for every single American. And Madam
Speaker, we're going to talk about that this evening.
I have to say that my original intentions for this special order were
a little different than they are going to end up being tonight. I'd
planned to join tonight with several of my colleagues who have spent
time in Colombia. I'd planned to talk about what I've personally
witnessed there, and I'd invited many of my colleagues to do the same.
I'd hoped to make this a bipartisan endeavor, and I extended
invitations to several of my Democratic colleagues to participate this
evening. And I will say that I still do hope that we might have a
chance to do that. And one of our Democratic colleagues did come up to
me and say that he had hoped to participate.
I thought that this was very important, because I knew that when the
President sent, a week ago today, when he sent the implementing
legislation for the U.S/Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a 60-day clock,
under trade promotion authority, would begin. We would have 60
legislative days to hold a vote on the agreement. This meant that the
House of Representatives would face a vote on the U.S./Colombia Free
Trade Agreement some time in probably late July. That would leave us 3
months for debate, discussion, education, and enlightenment about what
this agreement would mean to the American people.
However, despite the ample time granted under trade promotion
authority, I knew that many of my colleagues, particularly my
Democratic colleagues, remained deeply ambivalent on the trade
agreement itself. We certainly saw that as we had this debate last
week.
For this reason, it was my hope that this special order this evening
would be opening the 3-month discussion in a bipartisan way, and what I
wanted to do was I wanted to shift the focus away from the free trade
agreement, and I'd hoped that a group of Republicans and Democrats
who've gone to Colombia could come together here on the House floor to
simply share our experiences and describe what we've seen in Colombia,
over the past year, or at least a half a year.
I knew that much of the free trade agreement debate would hinge on
the current situation, as it exists in Colombia, what progress has been
made, what steps has the Colombian government taken.
I wanted this debate to stay grounded in facts and a full
understanding of the Colombia, of 2008, not a caricature of the
Colombia past. I'd thought that bipartisan, firsthand testimony would
further that goal of allowing the American people and our colleagues to
understand the changes that have taken place in Colombia.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the landscape here in the House was
drastically altered last week when my California colleague, Speaker
Pelosi, took the unprecedented step, never before had this been done,
but it was a step of changing the Rules of the House in order to block
a vote on the free trade agreement.
In one fell swoop, she ended 3 months, what would be the beginning,
and tonight would have been part of that, of substantive, bipartisan
deliberation before it even had the chance to begin. Apparently, she
didn't like her odds in what would clearly have been a fair fight, so
she changed the rules in the middle of the game.
The condemnation from around the country came swiftly. Now, I have
control of the floor now for an hour, and I could easily fill the
entire 1 hour simply by reading the scathing editorials that have come
about over the past week reproaching the Democratic leadership for
their petulant act. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the
Washington Post, hardly mouthpieces for Republicans or President Bush.
And even Speaker Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco
Chronicle. All, Madam Speaker, have had the harshest of words for the
dangerous and unprecedented action that was taken here last week.
Now, I'll read just a few of those highlights. I mentioned Speaker
Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper that
I actually enjoy reading myself, but again, far from being a Republican
mouthpiece. They accuse Speaker Pelosi of ``pandering'' and ``playing
politics.''
It points out that the decision to block a vote on the agreement is
especially egregious, considering that she represents a region that
heavily depends on exports for its economic competitiveness and job
creation, particularly through its ports.
My hometown paper, the Los Angeles Times, stated it very plainly, and
I quote. ``Halting the vote wasn't about the U.S. economy and wasn't
about Colombia. It was about politics.'' That's what the Los Angeles
Times, again, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, had to say.
It points out that the FTA creates quite a bind for the Democratic
leadership because what is good for their party is bad for the United
States of America.
It highlights the current imbalance in our trade relationship. We
have an open market, yet face barriers in Colombia.
I'll say that again. And Los Angeles Times pointed that out, Madam
Speaker. We allow the rest of the world, including Colombia now, under
the ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Agreement, we allow them access
to the U.S. consumer market. All this agreement that we had hoped to be
debating now, but the clock has stopped on that. All this agreement
would do was level that playing field and allow
[[Page H2335]]
U.S. workers to have a chance to send their products into Colombia.
The New York Times, in its editorial, Madam Speaker, emphasizes not
just the economic consequences but the foreign policy implications as
well. It declares that last week's actions ``reduce the United States'
credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond,'' adding that it
``serves human rights in Colombia no good'' whatsoever. The cause of
human rights, about which many of our colleagues rarely talk, and which
we're all concerned about, would do no good by not proceeding with
consideration.
The New York Times is certainly, as I said, no knee-jerk supporter of
the agreement. Actually, they, last year, in the New York Times,
proposed postponing the consideration. And that was last year. And yet
this year they are strong proponents of our moving ahead with this.
The Washington Post, Madam Speaker, was the quickest of all the major
papers to condemn Speaker Pelosi's decision, equating the move to
telling Colombia to ``drop dead.'' That's what the Washington Post had
to say, and calling into question the Democrats credibility and
judgment.
The message from around the Nation has been clear and unequivocal.
The unprecedented rule change was a grave mistake that should be
corrected immediately by proceeding with a vote. The damage described
in those editorials is twofold, economic and international. Now, I
would add an additional level to that that really hasn't been pointed
to in a lot of these editorials, the institutional damage that has been
done.
Now, first the economic damage. As I said just a moment ago, the
Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress renewed just a few weeks
ago, allows all Colombian goods, virtually all Colombian goods to enter
the United States duty free. They have full access to our market, and
we don't get the same treatment today. American goods face an average
of 14 percent tariff on goods that we are sending into the Colombian
market, with agricultural products facing particularly steep barriers.
These preferences, like all of our preference system, have enjoyed
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. So Democrats and
Republicans have come together to say that we should allow these
Colombian goods to come into the United States, their products, whether
it's coffee, cut flowers, bananas, it allows them to virtually tariff
free come into United States. So Democrats and Republicans alike said
that's good for our consumers.
And yet, this free trade agreement, which would end the imbalance and
extend that same preferential treatment for American exports, is
opposed by the Democratic leadership.
It's a bizarre quirk of American politics. The Democrats always
support trade as charity. They'll gladly give away one-sided trade
without a second thought. But as soon as we propose to make it
reciprocal and create a direct benefit for our own workers as well,
they cry foul. To add to the absurdity, they do it in the name of
protecting American workers.
Now, we're in a time, as I said, today is Tax Day, April 15. We're
dealing, unfortunately, with an economic slowdown, and there is a great
deal of economic anxiety throughout the United States of America and in
other parts of the world. You might think that we could finally put
politics aside and make the rational, logical decision to give American
workers equal treatment and to protect American exports by creating new
markets for U.S. goods and services. But unfortunately, and bizarrely,
that's apparently not the case. By blocking a vote on the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement, the Democratic leadership has blocked a clear win for
our exports and the workers who produce those exports.
{time} 2045
The second form of damage that has been done is in the international
arena. Again, we wander into the absurd. Time and again, I hear my
Democratic colleagues decry what they call our diminished standing in
the world. President Bush has, in fact, diminished our standing and in
fact is a big part of the presidential campaign.
They accuse the administration of unilateralism and a disregard for
our allies. They say that that has hurt our leadership and our
credibility in the international community. And in the presidential
campaign, they promise, Senators Clinton and Obama, they promise to
restore our prestige.
And yet the Democratic leadership raced to sabotage our relationship
with our best and closest ally in South America with what could only be
described as reckless abandon. Following a mere 1 hour of debate, they
chose to treat our close democratic friend in our very own hemisphere,
a slap in the face is the way this was described by the Vice President
of Colombia, or as the Las Vegas Review Journal put it, a stab in the
back. That's how the action that was taken here last week has been
characterized.
Colombian democracy has grown steadily stronger under the courageous
leadership of President Uribe with whom I spoke today. His popularity
has soared above 70 percent and stayed there because he took his
country from the brink of a failed State and put it back on the path of
peaceful and prosperous stability. He's strengthened democratic
institutions, not least of which is a Justice Department that has
aggressively tackled the culture of impunity for murderers.
Under Uribe's presidency, crime has plummeted, largely because he has
aggressively pursued the eco-terrorist guerillas and the equally
murderous paramilitaries. The former have been pushed from their
stronghold, and the latter have been systematically dismantled and
their leadership imprisoned. The rank-and-file are beginning the long
and difficult process of rehabilitation and reintegration into society
with the help of government-funded social programs. The same has been
offered to rank-and-file guerrillas who wish to surrender their arms.
Now, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to witness the real-world
implications of these demobilization efforts. When I was in Colombia
last August, several of my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down
with former paramilitary members. These are young men and women, and I
do mean young, teenagers in most cases, who had heart-wrenching tales
to share with us. We heard from one young man who described his
parents' murder right before his eyes. In his grief and anger, he
turned to vigilantism. Like so many Colombians spanning multiple
generations, he experienced the horror of violence, and he turned to
violence himself.
The leaders of these paramilitary groups, like their guerrilla
counterparts, committed heinous acts of violence and are now paying
their debt to society. As remarkable an achievement as that is, the
much harder part is bringing these young men and women, like those who
I met, back into society.
I met them at a vocational training facility where they are learning
the skills that will allow them to provide for themselves and become
responsible members of society. They're learning to leave their violent
past behind them and contribute to a peaceful and prosperous Colombia.
These efforts undertaken by President Uribe's government are already
serving as a model for other post-conflict countries that have faced
similar challenges. The process, Madam Speaker, of demobilization and
reconciliation is not easy. There is still a great deal of work that
needs to be done. While most paramilitary groups have been dismantled,
there are still vigilantes in the jungle. There are still violent
leaders at large who must go to jail. The guerrilla groups have yet to
lay down their arms. And even as demobilization goes forward, the work
of reintegration will take years.
But, Madam Speaker, I saw firsthand, as I know my colleagues who are
going to be participating in this Special Order have. Tough work is
being done, and it is being done with great success.
At the same time this transformation is taking place, Colombia has
also faced a formidable foe of democracy on its border. We all know
very well. Hugo Chavez has long been working to dismantle democratic
institutions and free markets in his country of Venezuela and to export
his authoritarian designs throughout the region. He suppressed dissent,
trashed the Venezuelan constitution and squashed free
[[Page H2336]]
enterprise. He's interfered with the elections of his neighbors and
drawn Ecuador and Bolivia into his orbit.
He keeps company with Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad. His anti-democratic institutions for this hemisphere are
no secret, and he is as openly hostile to the region's bulwarks of
democracy as he is to the United States of America. Just weeks ago, he
sent troops to his border with Colombia in a naked act of hostility.
Flush with oil money, we all know that Hugo Chavez poses a grave threat
to Latin America.
President Uribe, facing enormous challenges within his own borders
and on the front lines of this ideological battle, is standing up.
Colombia, under his leadership, is actively countering the influence of
Hugo Chavez by acting as a model of the great gains to be made in a
free and transparent democracy.
With seemingly little thought for the cause of democracy or U.S.
interests, the Democratic leadership has disregarded both with last
week's vote. Only time will tell the extent of the damage to our
relationship with Colombia or our struggle to rein in the influence of
Hugo Chavez. The damage to our credibility may be even more durable,
unfortunately.
We have now sent a clear message to our partners: our word at the
negotiating table is cheap, and if we don't like how things are going,
we will just change the rules in the middle of the process. The
implications extend well beyond trade. The United States is engaged in
a great many negotiations on a great many issues: Israeli-Palestinian
peace talks, nuclear nonproliferation, regional diplomatic efforts for
Iraq. If our word to our close friends can't be trusted, how will we
effectively engage around the globe?
Our credibility, Madam Speaker, and our leadership in the
international community can hardly endure when they are so casually
disregarded by this body.
This was the main thrust of the criticism from editorial boards
across the country. But to economic and foreign policy damage, I would
add institutional damage. Ironically, the vote to kill the free trade
agreement succeeded because the Democratic leadership effectively
argued to its membership that it was in the House's interest, this
institution's interest to do so. They appealed to that institutional
and party pride. I have already discussed the issue of party pride,
Madam Speaker, as the L.A. Times editorialized, it's no secret on this
issue, Democratic party interests run counter to our Nation's interest.
But the claims of institutional prerogative are utterly specious.
During the rule debate last week, I went through the administration's
requirements under Trade Promotion Authority chapter and verse, and I
won't belabor them here. Suffice it to say, the Trade Promotion
Authority was not ambiguous in its demands. I was involved in the
negotiations in putting trade promotion authorities together. It is
very, very rigorous because I believe in the first branch of
government, I'm a believer in this institution, and I believe that we
have very important rights.
The requirements for any administration under Trade Promotion
Authority are laid out very clearly, and as my colleagues who are here
on the floor know, this administration followed those directives to the
letter in both spirit and in letter. They followed it to a T. These
requirements were designed to ensure that Congress is consulted at
every single step of the way. This goal was demonstrably and
unequivocally achieved.
But under Trade Promotion Authority, there are two sets of processes:
There is the negotiating process, which closely involves Congress but
is led by the administration, and there is the congressional process.
Both processes are unambiguously defined by very strict timetables.
The first timeline was followed. The second timeline was abrogated.
One side followed the rules in good faith; the other side cheated. The
Charlottesville Daily Progress outlined the implications of these
actions perfectly, and they said, ``If rules of procedure mean nothing,
then the legislative process can be warped, and moreover, it can be
warped at the discretion of a single powerful person. This is not the
way democracy should work. The effort to change the rules after the
process was under way dishonors Congress.''
Those are not my words. Those are the words of the editorial written
in the Charlottesville Daily Progress.
Madam Speaker, so much for institutional pride. The message the
Democratic leadership has sent is that the ends justify the means. And
what lofty goal did they sacrifice institutional integrity for? Killing
an agreement, killing an agreement that extends preferential treatment
to American workers and strengthens a key democratic ally in our own
hemisphere.
No wonder the condemnation came so swiftly, and my staff has done a
great deal of research. We have yet to find an editorial that is in
support of the actions of the Speaker. As I said, her hometown paper,
the New York Times, the Washington Post, on and on and on, we're going
to discuss some of those further in just a minute. It is not too late
though, Madam Speaker, it is not too late to correct this.
We were supposed to have a 3-month process of debate and
deliberations. We can still have it. We were supposed to have a vote at
the end of that process. The Democratic leadership can still commit to
do it.
I mentioned the fact that I spoke with President Uribe a few hours
ago. He's patient and he's optimistic. Frankly, he has no choice other
than to be patient and optimistic. Madam Speaker, I call on Speaker
Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to make a commitment to hold a vote on
this very important Colombia Free Trade Agreement prior to the August
recess. I call on them to quit demagoging this issue and let their
rank-and-file Members vote their conscience.
I will say that I completely disagree with the statement made by
Speaker Pelosi here last week. She said that one of the reasons she
didn't want this vote is that she was afraid it would go down to
defeat. As I look at my colleagues who have joined me here, we've been
working in a bipartisan way, and I'm not going to state the names of
any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; but the fact of
the matter is, in going through this 3-month process, I have every
confidence that a bipartisan majority of this institution would
recognize that helping American workers, strengthening a democratic
ally, doing everything that we can for the word of this institution,
would be the right thing to do. I know that because, frankly, more than
a few Democrats have told me that they want to have a choice to vote
for and support this measure.
Passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is clearly in our
economic and our foreign policy interest. Blocking it is clearly not.
And changing the rules in the middle of the game because you're afraid
of a fair fight is not defensible. It's time for us to exert true
leadership as an institution and make sure that we pass this agreement.
So those are my prepared remarks, Madam Speaker. And I'm so proud
that I have been joined by a number of my colleagues, all of whom have
been great champions in this effort and have worked on the notion of
expanding opportunities for U.S. goods and services to be sold all
around the world.
And one of the great leaders who has been pursuing this, specifically
in this hemisphere for many, many years and was a great champion of the
Central American Free Trade Agreement and a wide range of other free
trade initiatives, comes from a State, by the way, that is the
headquarters for Caterpillar, and we know that by not passing this free
trade agreement, we are preventing good, hardworking Caterpillar
employees from having an opportunity to duty-free sell their very
important equipment into Colombia. And I'm very happy at this time to
yield to my very, very good friend who I'm saddened to say will not be
joining us in the 111th Congress because he's chosen to retire to spend
time with his wonderful, wonderful and very young family, but I'm happy
to yield to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I
also want to thank Mr. Dreier for your leadership tonight as well as
your continuous leadership on trade issues because, as you pointed out,
the actions of this House last week have done a lot of damage to the
reputation not only
[[Page H2337]]
to the House of Representatives but the reputation of the United States
in Latin America.
President Uribe is a popular elected official. This Congress has an
18 percent approval rating. President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent
approval rating because he's made such progress in addressing five
decades of violence and civil problems in the democratic Republic of
Colombia. And as a result, today, 73 percent of Colombians say they
feel more secure because of President Uribe's leadership, but also they
feel that he has brought security while respecting human rights.
{time} 2100
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to pose a
question, if I might, to my friend.
As we hear this 73 percent support level in Colombia, we know that
the opposition here in the United States to this is being led by the
AFL-CIO and organized labor. Now, I'm sure that my friend has seen in
Colombia, as I have, that the private sector unions in Colombia are
strongly supportive of this agreement. Is that the case or not?
I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank you for your generous time.
This past week, as we all know, there was a delegation of labor
leaders from Colombia, including both the private sector and as well as
public sector unions, and they made the point that the majority of
industrial unions, private sector unions support the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Agreement, but the opposition is coming from the government
employees, who are not even impacted.
Mr. DREIER. In no way impacted by this agreement at all.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. That's correct. And one point you made
earlier that I would like to--and I don't want to be greedy with the
time, you've been very generous.
Mr. DREIER. I would just like to include our colleagues here with the
discussion.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. But I would just like to comment on one point
that you made.
You said Illinois is headquarters to Caterpillar, and people think of
the yellow construction equipment. There is more to it than you think,
and that's why this trade agreement is so important. I have 8,000
Caterpillar employees residing in the 11th Congressional District of
Illinois. They're union members, every one of them. And Caterpillar, of
course, would benefit from this, and that means their workers would as
well. Half of their production in Illinois is dependent on exports.
Mr. DREIER. So maybe there would be more than 11,000 workers if this
agreement were to go through.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. There would be. And their growth has come as
a result of export.
But the point that really needs to be made is there is tremendous
economic growth going on in the Andean region, which Colombia is
leading, and a lot of that is in the energy and the mining and raw
material sector, which means they're going to use construction
equipment. And right now, the construction equipment that union workers
make in the district I represent, places like Joliet, Aurora, Pontiac
and Decatur, it faces a 15 percent tariff when exported to Colombia.
Now, some would say, what does that mean? That's a 15 percent tax on
the price of that bulldozer. So that makes U.S. products less
competitive, say, than competing with Japan.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would say taxes are
something very important today to discuss. I mean, we talk about that
tax on April 15.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. And of course these tariffs would be
eliminated immediately upon implementation of the U.S-Colombia Trade
Agreement. I yield back the time, but it is so important to point out,
Illinois is a big winner, manufacturers as well as farmers.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I hope that you can stay for a few
minutes because I know we would like to get in some other questions.
When my friend began discussing the fact that a delegation came from
Colombia of union leaders to the United States, I thought that you were
going to mention the fact that a delegation of Members of the United
States Congress went last week to Colombia. One of those who went was
the distinguished secretary of the Republican Conference, our very,
very good friend, Judge John Carter, a gentleman from Texas. And I
would love to hear his thoughts, having just been in Colombia a week
ago, on his trip. And I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding to me. My friend from California
is gracious to do so.
Let me start off by telling you what happened when I decided I was
going to Colombia. My daughter, who lives here in Washington, called me
up and said, Daddy, I told you not to go down to Colombia. Didn't you
see ``Clear and Present Danger?'' Didn't you see that movie? Have you
lost your mind?
I want to point that out because I think that's a lot of what the
American people think about Colombia when it comes to their mind, they
think of that movie and that book. And I am pleased to say that I was
very pleasantly surprised to find a very peaceable place where an awful
lot of people have done an awful lot of hard work to get violent people
out of their country and to get those people who joined defense bands
and guerrilla bands to lay down their weapons.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, did you
have a chance to visit Medellin?
Mr. CARTER. I was in Medellin.
Mr. DREIER. Medellin was the murder capital of the world, clearly the
most dangerous spot in the world. And now Medellin has a murder rate
that is too high. We have a murder rate that is too high in the
District of Columbia. We have a murder rate that is too high in the
United States of America. But the transformation of Medellin under the
great Mayor Sergio Fajardo, with whom I'm sure you met, has been so
dramatic. His leadership and the leadership of President Uribe has just
transformed that city. Is that what my friend found?
Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. Transformed it completely. It's a joy to be
in Medellin, it really is. And, you know, the Medellin cartels are
gone, and they are prospering.
And, you know, they talked to us and they said, look, we are trying
to stand up for democracy and free enterprise, we believe in this
system. And this trade agreement is the linchpin that holds it all
together for this country that has worked so desperately to solve
problems that, quite frankly, not very many countries in the world
would have been able to solve. Getting 40,000 people to lay down their
arms is a major project.
Mr. DREIER. And Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend if he,
in fact, had the chance to meet with any of these young people who had
been former paramilitaries, and I wonder if he has any anecdotes that
he can share with us.
Mr. CARTER. We did. We divided into groups and met with an assortment
of both male and female. And you're right--
Mr. DREIER. Share one of those stories.
Mr. CARTER. You know, the first question, they all started talking
about how they joined the paramilitary unit. They told about families
being slaughtered, being separated from their families, having to run
and escape the guerrillas that came out of the woods. And they ran to
escape, and then came back to find their families slaughtered, and so
they joined a paramilitary group. And a question was asked, rather
naively, I think, by us, you mean, you were carrying weapons?
Absolutely. Every one of them, male and female, were carrying weapons.
And now they are working in programs that are changing the culture of
these people that joined the violent behavior. They have laid down
their weapons. We asked them why. They said the comandantes said we
have talked to the president, we lay down our weapons, and they did.
They are out studying. They're proud to say they're getting high
school educations. They're proud to say they're going to trade schools.
A few were proud to say they had received admission to university.
These were jungle fighters just a short while ago, and now they are
coming into society and working very hard because they see a future for
Colombia. And this future rests upon a world of free enterprise and
trade, and this agreement starts the
[[Page H2338]]
process that gives them many opportunities for free trade around the
world.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. My friend is absolutely right. And I will
tell you, these meetings are always, for me, I've participated in
several of them, very emotional. As I said in my opening remarks, I
remember very vividly seeing this young, I mean, a kid, he said he was
18 years old when he watched the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, the FARC, which we all know that acronym, they came in and
they murdered his mother and father right in front of him. And of
course he was, like any of us would be, so angry and so bitter that he
joined with the paramilitary and began being, as you said so well, Mr.
Carter, a guerrilla fighter. And he was able to become productive
because of the trade schools that have been put into place.
And the patriotism that these young Colombians have for their country
and their desire for a peaceful nation is so great. They were forced
into this because these narcoterrorists in the FARC were resorting to
murdering their parents. And so many others have been tragically
murdered there. To see this take place and to hear those individual
stories, they are very, very emotional. In fact, as you listen to these
people, I mean, I'm getting emotional thinking about it because of the
fact that these young people who have been forced into this are now
becoming productive members of society. And the notion of our not doing
what we can to bring about peace and stability in this hemisphere is, I
think, very, very distressing.
I am happy to see that we're joined by the very distinguished ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee, my
California colleague, Mr. Herger. And I would be happy to yield for
some comments to my very good friend.
Mr. HERGER. Well, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for
setting this up this evening.
This is so incredibly important. It's important to our Nation, it's
important to our workers at a time when we're seeing our economy
dipping, when we need to be able to produce jobs. And we look at how we
produce jobs. Since last year, some 27 percent of our increase in gross
domestic product came from exports. It's projected that just this year
of our increase in gross domestic product, some 40 percent will be
again from exports.
And I wish it weren't true, but it seems like perhaps the best kept
secret in our Nation today is that the United States is the largest
trading nation in the world. We're the largest exporting nation in the
world.
I represent, as my good friend knows, a very rich agricultural
district north of Sacramento in northern California.
Mr. DREIER. Beautiful area.
Mr. HERGER. One of the richest agriculture areas in the world, second
largest rice producing district. Some 60 percent of all the dried plums
in the world, prunes, are grown there, walnuts, almonds, these
specialty crops. And America cannot consume all that we produce. As a
matter of fact, one-third of all that we produce we need to be able to
export. And to be able to see, again, talking about Colombia, what this
does for American workers, we just heard about Caterpillar from our
good friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller) just earlier in his district,
the thousands that it affects. And so it affects in the district I
represent.
Right now, because of our duty free status for the Andean nations,
which we've gone in to try to help Colombia, Colombia was not always
this great nation where some 42,000 former paramilitary, as we were
talking about earlier, have gone from fighting the country to now being
part of the country and supporting them. As we know, it wasn't always
that way. And so some years ago we gave these Andean nations, including
Colombia, Peru, Panama, and others, the ability to be able to export
into the United States duty free, duty free, but yet we still have
export duties, some as high as 60, 70 percent, going into their
country.
And what this free trade agreement would do is it would be able to
give us the same access to their markets that they currently have to
ours, to our rice, to our walnuts, to our wheat, to our corn, to other
commodities that are so very, very important.
So it is important what we're doing. It's important not only for, we
were discussing the change in Colombia itself, which is our strongest
ally in South America; we cannot turn our back on them, we cannot slap
them in the face.
And Madam Speaker, I would like to place into the Record some of
these editorials that you were speaking about, Mr. Dreier, for the
Record.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2008]
Time for the Colombian Trade Pact
American workers are understandably anxious. Their incomes
went nowhere through six years of economic growth. Many are
losing their jobs as the economy slips into recession. Yet
concern about workers' plight should not lead Congressional
Democrats to reject the trade agreement with Colombia. This
deal would benefit the American economy and further the
nation's broader interests in Latin America.
It is time for Congress to ratify it.
The trade pact would produce clear benefits for American
businesses and their workers. Most Colombian exports are
exempt from United States' tariffs. American exports,
however, face high Colombian tariffs and would benefit as the
so-called trade promotion agreement brought them down to
zero.
The deal also would strengthen the institutional bonds
tying the United States to Colombia, one of America's few
allies in an important region that has become increasingly
hostile to the United States' interests. Perhaps most
important, the deal would provide a tool for Colombia's
development, drawing investment and helping the nation
extricate itself from the mire of poverty that provides
sustenance to drug trafficking and a bloody insurgency.
Violence in Colombia is way too high. We remain very
concerned over the killing of trade unionists by right-wing
paramilitary groups. Last year, we advised Congress not to
ratify the trade agreement until Colombia demonstrated
progress in investigating the murders and prosecuting and
convicting their perpetrators.
Though by no means ideal, the situation today has improved.
Thirty-nine trade unionists were killed last year, down from
197 in 2001, the year before the government of Alvaro Uribe
came to office. Prosecutors obtained 36 convictions for the
murder of trade unionists--up from 11 in 2006 and only one in
2001. The budget of the prosecutor general's office has
increased every year. Last year, it created a special unit to
prosecute labor murders that has obtained 13 sentences.
Pressure from the United States Congress has contributed to
this progress, nudging the Colombian government with its
offer that gains on the human rights front would lead to
ratification of the trade agreement. Washington must sustain
the pressure to ensure the energetic prosecution of crimes by
paramilitary thugs and further reduce violence against union
members. It has a powerful tool to do so: about $600 million
a year in mostly military aid for Colombia to combat drug
trafficking. The money must be approved by Congress every
year.
Rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would
reduce the United States' credibility and leverage in
Colombia and beyond. In a letter last year to Congressional
Democrats, a group of Democratic heavyweights from the
Clinton administration and previous Congresses wrote:
``Walking away from the Colombia trade agreement or
postponing it until conditions are perfect would send an
unambiguous signal to our friends and opponents alike that
the United States is an unreliable partner without a vision
for cooperation in our hemisphere.'' It would serve human
rights in Colombia no good.
Unfortunately, the agreement has become entangled in
political jockeying between the White House and Democrats.
The Democrats are right to demand assistance for American
workers, and the Bush administration should work with
Congress to expand the safety net for workers displaced by
globalization. But this should not stop the Colombian trade
pact from coming to fruition.
____
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2008]
Drop Dead, Colombia
The year 2008 may enter history as the time when the
Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party's
presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest
to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if
elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her
intention to change the procedural rules governing the
proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President
Bush submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote
within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the
``fast-track'' authority under which the U.S. negotiated the
deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says she'll ask the House to
undo that rule.
The likely result is no vote on the agreement this year.
Ms. Pelosi denies that her intent is to kill the bill,
insisting yesterday that Congress simply needs more time to
consider it ``in light of the economic uncertainty in our
country.'' She claimed that she feared that, ``if brought to
the floor immediately, [the pact] would lose. And what
message would that send?'' But Ms. Pelosi's decision-making
process also included a fair component of pure Washington
pique: She accused Mr. Bush of ``usurp[ing] the discretion of
the speaker of the House'' to schedule legislation.
[[Page H2339]]
That political turf-staking, and the Democrats'
decreasingly credible claims of a death-squad campaign
against Colombia's trade unionists, constitutes all that's
left of the case against the agreement. Economically, it
should be a no-brainer--especially at a time of rising U.S.
joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United
States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would
make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free
access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S.
jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American
interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government
that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite
harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
To be sure, President Bush provoked Ms. Pelosi. But he
forced the issue only after months of inconclusive dickering
convinced him that Democrats were determined to avoid a vote
that would force them to accept accountability for opposing
an agreement that is manifestly in America's interest. It
turns out his suspicions were correct.
``I take this action with deep respect to the people of
Colombia and will be sure that any message they receive is
one of respect for their country, and the importance of the
friendship between our two countries,'' Ms. Pelosi protested
yesterday. Perhaps Colombia's government and people will
understand. We don't.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my
friend for pointing to these editorials because, as I said a few
minutes ago, we've done a great deal of research. We've been trying
desperately to find an editorial anywhere in this country that has been
written in support of the egregious action taken by the Democratic
leadership in this institution, undermining the ability to open up this
very important new market for U.S. workers, agricultural products and
manufactured goods. We hear from California and Illinois and other
States as well. And I actually have, I think, about 15 of these
editorials here with some incredible quotes that are pretty damning.
And again, these come from publications that are hardly considered
Republican mouth pieces.
You know, we had this very harsh criticism level at the President of
the United States, and he somehow was trying to ram this thing through
and rush it. We know that this agreement, the negotiation began 4 years
ago, it was completed 2 years ago, and a year and a half ago it was
signed. There have been constant attempts to bring this up; 27 meetings
held with the Democratic leadership by this administration, and yet, as
has been pointed out in these editorials, this terrible action was
taken.
I'm very pleased that one of the great free traders in this
institution who represents the very important port town of Houston,
Texas, has joined us, another hardworking member of the Ways and
Means--I guess we've got three members of the Ways and Means Committee
here, so I'm particularly pleased to have members of that very, very
important committee with us, including my good friend, as I said, from
Houston, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Dreier. And thank you for your
leadership. I'm glad to join all the Members here tonight on this
important issue.
The reason this country is so dismayed by the action last week is
that it was such a huge loss for American jobs, for security in our
hemisphere, and a big loss for America's prestige around the world.
{time} 2115
Colombia's a remarkable trading partner, as you have noted. They are
a remarkable study and model in progress, in democracy, and human
rights, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps by rule of law and
freedom of speech and freedom of trade, all the American traits that
you have to admire. They're in our backyard. They're in our hemisphere.
A remarkable trading partner.
I think last week many in America wondered just what happened to this
great country. Who could imagine that America, with the world's largest
economy, would cower from Colombia behind walls of protectionism? Who
could imagine the world's strongest democracy would be afraid to even
debate, even consider this agreement? And who could imagine, by
changing the rules after we had already shaken hands and signed an
agreement, that we would send a signal to the rest of the world that we
are no longer not even a reliable trade leader in this world but we are
not even reliable negotiators, that our word, our bond, our agreements
mean nothing?
And the loss in jobs, as you know, America is wide open, Mr. Dreier.
As you know, we can buy anything from almost any country anywhere we
want in our communities.
Mr. DREIER. And that's a good thing.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. But when we try to sell our goods and services
around the world, we find too much of it blocked. As we have said
before, it's not enough anymore to just buy American. We have to sell
American. We have to sell our goods and services throughout the world.
But when we do, we find so much of the world is closed off, locked away
from us.
Colombia, a great partner, has been selling their goods and services
into America since 1991, but we face real barriers when we try to do
the same, and this trade agreement creates that two-way trade.
For Texas I know it's critical. We're the largest seller of goods to
Colombia. We sell about a little over a billion dollars a year in
chemicals, construction, equipment and machinery and computers. And
under this agreement we would sell another billion dollars of not only
that but grapefruit and beef and financial services. A number of
services our small businesses could sell into Colombia, our neighbor in
the backyard and in our hemisphere. So we lost jobs here in America.
Colombia lost jobs because they lost a guaranteed market because by
not acting, by changing the rules, they are now coming at a
disadvantage to their neighbors, in Peru and Central American
countries. So they actually lost ground from a jobs perspective.
And, finally, to turn our back on what a tremendous ally, as you have
noted over and over, who has made such great progress, who we deserve
to engage more and be a stronger partner with, not to turn our back on,
it's a huge loss.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution,
Madam Speaker.
And one of the issues that has come to the forefront, and I would be
happy to yield to any of my colleagues who would like to comment on
this, has been this notion that the Colombian Government is somehow
murdering union leaders. We have continued to hear this. And it is
true. In the past it's been absolutely outrageous to see the treatment.
But in the last several years under the leadership of President
Uribe, very important steps have been taken to bring to justice any of
those who have been responsible for the heinous act of murdering these
union leaders. And the government has done something which is totally
unprecedented. The government does not want to see union leaders
killed; so what do they do? There are 1,500 union leaders who enjoy
full security protection paid for by the Government of Colombia. And
yet we continually hear arguments put forward by our friends at the
AFL-CIO that ``the Colombian Government is murdering our brothers.'' I
mean I've heard that chant over and over and over again. Because, of
course, as these very thoughtful arguments that my colleagues have put
forward are there, the only response that they can have is the
Colombian Government is murdering, is murdering, our brothers.
I would be happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Very briefly, Judge Carter was with me and others
here 2 weeks ago as we met with the general prosecutor, an independent
prosecutor, for the country of Colombia.
Mr. DREIER. I believe he's called the Fiscalia.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes. And he told us straight out, because we
asked him, he said there is no thread, no direct or indirect thread at
all, between the Colombian Government and any murders of anyone, much
less union leaders. And he said what you've said, that this government
has not only sat down to prosecute those who would commit violent
crimes against union leaders but provides protection. In fact, it is
safer to be a union leader in Colombia than just the general population
might be. That is such an effort they have made. That government is
providing a lower level of violence, a safer country for all citizens.
So the argument that they are targeting or that they are allowing it
or just looking the other way is exactly
[[Page H2340]]
wrong, and the unions themselves told us that.
Mr. DREIER. That's right because, as I pointed out earlier, the
private sector unions, and Mr. Weller and I had this exchange, are very
supportive of this. And I suspect that on your trip, you had a chance
to meet with a number of those union leaders.
Let me just say that one Member who is here that we haven't heard
from is the distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to my friend from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding,
and I thank him especially for gathering us together here for this
Special Order.
Being mindful of the clock, there are a few points I would like to
make. And one of them is to address our trade deficit. We have had a
trade deficit over the last several years that has grown an average of
about 20 percent a year. Now, it's flattened out in this last year
because the weaker dollar has shifted so that we have more exports in
proportion. However, I believe the dollar needs to be shored up. And
why would a nation that has a trade deficit refuse to allow a trade
agreement that would open up a country to allow our goods to go in?
I'm astonished continually at the continuing shift on the part of the
Democrats. And I looked through the trade agreements that we have dealt
with here since I have been in this Congress, and I'm thinking of trade
agreements like Singapore and Chile and Australia and Morocco, the
Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA. All of those gave us
opportunities that were advantageous to us. And the logic in this is
just as clear and simple: If you market something or if you're doing
business with people, where you buy it from is where the jobs are.
That's where the production is. We have production in the United
States. We need to market more goods overseas. If we shore up the
dollar, and I think we should, we're going to need to be more
aggressive marketing our goods overseas. Colombia's sitting there
waiting to open that up.
I have to say a couple kind words about our pork producers. They sold
$8.5 million worth of pork into Colombia last year, not a lot. They're
losing money on every head today. They need to open up this market. It
would be in multiples if we would simply allow that tariff that's in
Colombia to disappear, which would happen immediately if we could sign
into this free trade agreement. That's some of the components.
But I am also more concerned about our relationships in the Western
hemisphere. And as we watch Hugo Chavez teaming up and picking up the
legacy of Fidel Castro and watching the unrest that's being promoted or
watching tanks roll up to the border, these things are taking place in
our hemisphere. And this Monroe Doctrine, I think, calls upon us to be
good diplomats, good stewards of the money, and good promoters of
trade, taking care of American jobs and protecting our opportunity to
compete in the rest of the world. All of this comes together in this
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
What happened here in this Congress was a shameful act. And Americans
have to be viewed as having character, the kind of character that holds
up when a business deal is a deal. We did more than shake hands on
this. This Congress passed it. The President signed it. This agreement
was negotiated under terms that said this trade agreement will come to
the floor of this House and it will be brought forward for a vote, up
or down, in 90 days. That's the deal. That's the deal it was negotiated
under. That's the deal that it should have been brought to the floor of
this House under.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time so I could
propound a question to my friend, and I don't mean to interrupt his
very thoughtful statement.
But as I listened to the arguments that have been made by Speaker
Pelosi and others against this, they said we have an economy that is
weakening. We all know that is the case. Our economy is facing very
serious challenges. Here again, this is Tax Day, April 15, and it is
hard for people to make ends meet. It has become more difficult. So the
argument has been made. I hear Speaker Pelosi regularly say we need to
focus on American workers and their concerns rather than some kind of
agreement, and so we should put off this agreement until our economy is
stronger.
And I just don't quite understand that. And I wonder if my friend
might enlighten me on exactly what the point of that statement is.
And I further yield.
Mr. KING of Iowa. If we took that position with every country on the
globe, you could virtually guarantee our economy would collapse, not
get stronger. We need to make every move that we can make to improve
this economy. I'm really not as concerned as the pundits are, but it's
prudent for us to open trade. Free trade, fair trade smart trade is a
better code word for this, and it means jobs in America. The U.S.
market is open to Colombia. They're saying, let's open our market to
you. I'm happy to send Caterpillars down there. We buy them in my
business. And I'm happy to send the pork down there that we produce and
everything that we can compete with. This global market that we're
involved in demands that we export, and the Western hemisphere demands
that we lead. And that means we need to promote strong, strong
relationships in the Western hemisphere. And as we watch the bullying
tactics of Hugo Chavez, I think that cries out for us to shake hands
with President Uribe and complete this Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. DREIER. So basically this would best be described as a win-win
all the way around. It's a winner for the cause of democracy and
freedom and the rule of law in South America, which we all know is very
important. It's a winner when it comes to stopping those drug
traffickers who are selling drugs, poisoning our children and
grandchildren. And then we look at the opportunity created for the
United States of America, our workers. They're greatly benefited by
this.
And that's why I continue to try to figure out why it is that anyone
would oppose this. I mean we use the term ``no brainer'' to describe
this. It really is a no brainer. We used that in the debate last week.
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee, Mr. McCrery, and a couple of others have said this is a no
brainer.
And these editorials that have been written, I think we probably
should share some of the words of these publications that often
criticize Republican policies who have come forward with this. I know a
number of things have been put forward. But one thing just today, the
Wall Street Journal had an editorial that was in strong support of a
letter, an open letter, that came from former senior administration
officials from the Clinton administration and Democratic Members of
Congress, and it was signed by 35 of them, former colleagues of ours
who are Democrats. And it includes people, by the way, just some of the
signatories of this letter, the former Commerce Secretary William
Daley, who is from Mr. Weller's State that we talked about; Stuart
Eizenstat, a very prominent brilliant economic mind; General Barry
McCaffrey; our former colleague who was a Republican Senator but went
on to be the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, Bill
Cohen, signed this. So a lot of people have signed this letter.
It says: ``We believe this agreement is in both our vital national
security and economic interests. We feel that the treaty should be
considered as soon as possible.'' I remind people it's not actually a
treaty; it's an agreement. ``We feel that the treaty should be
considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and
amicably resolved.''
The letter cites ``an overwhelming national security imperative'' and
that ``President Uribe has been a strong and faithful ally. To turn our
back on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be a severe blow to
that relationship and would send a very negative message to our friends
in a volatile region?
The letter praises Colombia for its ``dramatic improvement in
security'' and for being ``a model of open market democracy that
supports fundamental U.S. national interests'' and points out that
these are ideals that many in the
[[Page H2341]]
region ``openly scorn,'' of course, referring, as my friend just said,
to Hugo Chavez. The letter goes on to praise Uribe personally for his
``great personal courage'' in aggressively going on the offensive in
fighting narcoterrorists and dramatically increasing drug interdiction
and eradication of criminals to the United States, or extradition of
criminals. Eradication of criminals too, we want to do that. It also
praises his substantial progress in the issue of violence against trade
unionists, pointing out that Uribe has provided special security
protection to some 9,400 individuals. This number says including 1,900
trade unionists. I said 1,500, and this letter that these officials of
the Clinton administration and former Democratic Members of the United
States Congress said 1,900 trade unionists have been able to receive
this kind of protection.
And that's why I implore my colleagues in the Democratic leadership
to bring this up for a vote.
Mark my words, and I would ask any of my colleagues who are here if
they disagree with my assessment, if after we go through these
arguments, which we have begun talking about tonight and we talked a
little bit about last week, is there any doubt that we would have
strong bipartisan support with many Democrats joining with us in
support of this?
{time} 2130
I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues who have any
thoughts or comments on that at all. I suspect you might agree with me,
but if you have any thoughts on it, I would be happy to.
Mr. Brady, you look like you would like to cast your vote.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Absolutely. There have been a number of Democrat
colleagues who have traveled to Colombia to see that remarkable
progress firsthand, who have assessed it themselves rather than playing
the politics of it, and who have been both public and private in their
support for this agreement. I think all they would like is an up-or-
down vote, a fair chance to debate this issue and bring it to the
floor. I am confident with it would pass. And I am confident we would
send a completely different signal to our allies like Colombia and the
rest of the world.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. And it is
very interesting. We have heard the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, talk about
the need for trade adjustment assistance, a second stimulus package.
And Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Colombia free-trade
agreement, which will create an opportunity for more U.S. workers to
sell their goods and agricultural products into Colombia is, in fact,
trade adjustment assistance itself. And I would argue that this
agreement, job creating, is in fact an economic stimulus package in and
of itself. So if the commitment is to trade adjustment assistance and
economic stimulus so that we can create more jobs in the United States
of America, the answer is, pass the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement.
I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I agree wholeheartedly that I think an up-or-down vote
and we will have a Colombia free-trade agreement. I think that our
Democratic colleagues will be reasonable and understand this. And I
think we have the votes to get it done.
But I think Speaker Pelosi needs to release this and let us have a
vote. That is the key thing. And you notice that letter you just read
kept talking about national security. What we really have here, if you
look at it closely, is a contest of two socialist--we used to call them
Communist--a regime in Hugo Chavez, and we have Uribe who is trying to
create a free democracy, and a free enterprise system. These are two,
side-by-side competing systems that will influence that entire
continent.
And that is why this is in our national security interest. It is not
just a trade agreement which is going to benefit American workers. It
is a security agreement that points to the direction that we stand up
for what we believe in, democracy and free enterprise.
Mr. DREIER. My friend makes a very good and important point here. And
I was talking to my colleague, Dan Lungren, who served here, I was
pleased to serve with him during the 1980s when we were in the midst,
and I know my friend from California came in 1986 to this institution.
We have spent time, energy, resources and weapons in dealing with the
expansion of Communism in Central America as we were providing
resources to the Democratic resistance in Nicaragua known as the
Contras. And we regularly hear criticism from Democrats that what we
should be doing in Iraq is we shouldn't be using weapons, we should, in
fact, be engaging and using trade and other things.
And what is it we have here? We have Democrats, the Democratic
leadership, unfortunately, saying that as we seek to build a stronger
relationship with a country that is standing up to narcoterrorists,
that is standing up to the expansion of Hugo Chavez on their borders
trying to extend into the country, and they are saying ``no'' to this.
They are saying ``no'' to this because somehow they believe it is going
to hurt U.S. workers.
To me it is absolutely outrageous that this has taken place. And
Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my colleagues for the
time that they have spent here this evening. And I hope very much that
Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will, in fact, schedule a
vote on the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement before the August
recess. Let's begin the process of debate and voting right now.
I thank again my colleagues, Madam Speaker, and with that I yield
back the balance of my time.
____________________