[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H7861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the 
question: Why is the House of Representatives withdrawing from trade? 
Why is the House of Representatives drawing away from our need to 
export products to good markets?
  The economic statistics speak volumes. This past week, we saw 3.3 
percent economic growth for the last quarter. We'd all like to see it 
better, but what was interesting was that, of that 3.3 percent economic 
growth, almost all of it, in fact 3.1 percent economic growth, resulted 
from trade and from exports. So the good news in the economy today is 
that we're expanding our exports, and if we did not have the 
opportunity to export products, our economy would really be in bad 
shape because it's the export market that's keeping this economy moving 
forward with manufactured goods, agricultural goods, services, and 
other products.
  Today, we are fortunate to have 16 bilateral agreements with other 
nations, many in our own hemisphere in the Americas, and we're 
fortunate to enjoy a trade surplus with all of them. We voted on these 
trade agreements in the House. Those who opposed them said, you know, 
if we have trade agreements, we always lose. Well, the interesting 
thing is, with the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade 
Agreement and with the Chilean Free Trade Agreement, we've seen the 
results. American farmers, American manufacturers and American workers 
are winning because we have a trade surplus with those countries today. 
In fact, we had a trade deficit with Central America before DR-CAFTA, 
and today, we have a trade surplus. So trade agreements win.
  That's why I was so concerned when a spokesman for the Speaker of the 
House explained her refusal to schedule a vote on the Colombian trade 
agreement: You know, the economy is bad and trade agreements are bad 
for America. We can't have a vote on a trade agreement, because somehow 
that hurts us.
  All you have to do is look at the facts, and you'll see that trade 
and exports are good for America. My State and the district that I 
represent in Illinois are trade dependent. We depend on exports to 
create jobs as does the rest of America whether it's union workers who 
make Caterpillar bulldozers in Joliet or in Decatur or in Peoria or 
whether it's farmers in Bureau County who are growing corn or soybeans. 
We depend on our exports, on the export market, to create jobs and to 
raise our incomes. Frankly, it's the export market today that's the 
engine of economic growth. We have before this House a good trade 
agreement. It's the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement. ``Trade promotion 
agreement'' is the technical term.
  Colombia is not only the oldest democracy in Latin America; it is 
also the second largest Spanish-speaking country, a market of 42 
million consumers. It's a country that has made tremendous progress. In 
fact, our ally Colombia, which is a democracy, has a very popular 
president. President Uribe is the most popular elected president in all 
of the Americas. He has an over 80 percent approval rating. Compare 
that with the United States House of Representatives, which, I think, 
has a 16 percent approval rating from our own citizens. Clearly, he has 
made progress. He inherited a civil war. He has made progress in 
reducing violence. He is bringing those who committed atrocities during 
the civil war, on both the left and the right, to trial to be held 
accountable. He is going after the narco-traffickers who have 
jeopardized the security of that country.
  It's interesting to know that 71 percent of Colombians today say they 
feel more secure under President Uribe while 73 percent say Uribe 
respects human rights. Homicides are down 40 percent. Kidnappings are 
down 76 percent. In fact, the murder rate in Colombia is the lowest in 
15 years, and it's actually lower than that of Washington, D.C.'s. So, 
if you're a citizen of Colombia, you're safer than a tourist or a 
citizen who is walking the streets of Washington, D.C. when it comes to 
being a victim of violence.
  The bottom line is the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is good for 
America. There are those who always oppose trade, and they always have 
an excuse. They say, you know, in the history of Colombia, there has 
been some violence, and everyone acknowledges that. President Uribe and 
his government have made tremendous progress. Then they say, well, 
there has been violence against labor leaders. Yes, there has been. 
President Uribe and everyone involved acknowledge that, but they've 
made tremendous progress. The bottom line is, under President Uribe, 
Colombia is a safer and better place.
  Colombia deserves a vote. We need to bring the U.S.-Colombia trade 
agreement to this floor and to vote on it up or down. I believe it will 
pass with a bipartisan majority, and American workers will be the 
winners.

                          ____________________