[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 151 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6710-H6722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1720
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2832, EXTENDING
THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 3078, UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3079, UNITED
STATES-PANAMA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3080, UNITED STATES-KOREA FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules be permitted to file a supplemental report to accompany House
Resolution 425.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 425 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 425
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read.
The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3078) to
implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion
Agreement. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3079) to
implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The bill
shall be debatable for 90 minutes, with 30 minutes controlled
by Representative Camp of Michigan or his designee, 30
minutes controlled by Representative Levin of Michigan or his
designee, and 30 minutes controlled by Representative Michaud
of Maine or his designee. Pursuant to section 151 of the
Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion.
Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3080) to
implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The bill shall be
debatable for 90 minutes, with 30 minutes controlled by
Representative Camp of Michigan or his designee, 30 minutes
controlled by Representative Levin of Michigan or his
designee, and 30 minutes controlled by Representative Michaud
of Maine or his designee. Pursuant to section 151 of the
Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion.
Sec. 5. House Resolution 418 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for
debate purposes only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. I would also like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. On November 6 of 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his
candidacy for President of the United States. In that speech, he
envisaged an accord of free trade among the Americas. He wanted to
eliminate all barriers for the free flow of goods and services and
products among all of the countries in this hemisphere.
On October 3 of 2011, President Obama sent three trade agreements to
Capitol Hill for consideration. It has been a long time. I mean, 32
years, I guess, this coming November 6 we will mark the anniversary of
President Reagan announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and of
which he envisaged this accord.
It has been a very, very difficult struggle to get here; but, Mr.
Speaker, today marks the first step in this last leg of what, as I
said, has been an extraordinarily lengthy journey towards the passage
of our three free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South
Korea.
For 4 years, workers and consumers in the United States and in all
three FTA countries have waited for the opportunities that these
agreements will create. Republicans and Democrats alike--and let me
underscore that again. Republicans and Democrats alike have worked very
hard to bring us to this point. We have done so, first and foremost,
for the sake of job creation and economic growth.
We're regularly hearing discussion on both sides of the aisle about
the imperative of creating jobs and getting our economy on track. The
President of the United States delivered a speech here to a joint
session of Congress in which he talked about the need to pass his jobs
bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important component of that proposal
that the President talked about when he was here. So, as I hear a great
deal of discussion about a lack of willingness on Capitol Hill to
address the President's jobs bill, it's not an ``all or nothing''
thing. We are taking the very, very important components that the
President has proposed addressing. We've worked in a bipartisan way,
and this measure before us is evidence of that.
As I said, the passage of these agreements will allow us to have an
opportunity to create good jobs for union and nonunion Americans who
are seeking job opportunities. Together, these agreements will give
U.S. workers, businesses, farmers access to $2 trillion of economic
activity; and our union and nonunion workers, our farmers and people
across this country will have access to 97 million consumers in these
three countries.
[[Page H6711]]
President Obama, in his address here, made it very clear and has said
repeatedly that the independent International Trade Commission has said
that, in the coming months, we will add a quarter of a million new jobs
right here in the United States of America--again, union and nonunion
jobs. The independent International Trade Commission has projected that
we will see a quarter of a million--250,000--new jobs for our fellow
Americans seeking job opportunities.
I don't need to explain to anyone in this place why this is so
critical for our ailing economy, but those of us who have joined
together to finally pass these agreements are working towards something
that is even bigger. We are working to restore the bipartisan consensus
on the issue of open trade. Eradicating partisan politics from the
debate on global economic liberalization and returning to a bipartisan
consensus is essential in our quest to move our economy forward. These
three agreements are enormously important; but, Mr. Speaker, as you
know very well, there is still much work that remains to be done.
Now, I understand that the opponents of economic liberalization are
very well-intentioned, and I don't fault them. I will say that, as we
all know very well, we're in the midst of deeply troubling economic
times. It's easy. We all want to look somewhere to point the finger of
blame, and trade is a natural target. I mean, I often argue that I
still have constituents in southern California who, when they get a
hangnail, blame the North American Free Trade Agreement.
{time} 1730
Trade is a natural target for frustration and anxiety, and we've seen
that time and time again. And I know that there are people who believe
that passage of these trade agreements which, according to the ITC,
would create 250,000 new jobs right here in the United States of
America, is, in fact, a bad thing. Trade is the wrong target, Mr.
Speaker.
The worldwide marketplace, as we all know, is a big, dynamic, and
complex operation. It offers tremendous opportunity for those who
engage and tremendous peril for those who follow the isolationist path.
Those who innovate, who aggressively pursue new ideas and new
opportunities are able to compete and succeed. The U.S. has proven this
time and time again. The American entrepreneurial spirit has enabled us
to not just succeed, but, as we all know, we are the largest, most
dynamic economy on the face of the Earth. These agreements will allow
us to reaffirm and strengthen that.
We all know this, Mr. Speaker: Our country, the United States of
America, is the birthplace of Google and Facebook, of Ford and IBM, of
Caterpillar and Whirlpool, and of Coca-Cola and eBay. Unfortunately,
over the last several years, while the three free trade agreements have
languished, the United States of America has stood still. We've let
countless opportunities pass us by. We've let our competitors chip away
at our market share. If we compete, the United States of America wins.
If we compete, we win.
But what happens when we take ourselves out of the game, which has
been the case for the last several years? We've literally taken
ourselves out of the game of breaking down barriers, allowing for the
free flow of goods and services and capital. What happens? We lose
jobs. We lose market share, and we lose our competitive edge.
Now, I'm not going to say that we would not have gone through the
terrible economic downturn that we've suffered over the past few years
if we had, several years ago, passed these trade agreements.
Negotiations began back in 2004 for these agreements. If we had stepped
up to the plate, I am absolutely convinced that we would have mitigated
the pain and suffering that our fellow Americans are going through with
this ailing economy that we have.
Getting our economy back on track and reasserting our American
leadership role in the worldwide marketplace will require far more than
simply passing these free trade agreements, but it's a key and very
important step. The agreements will open new markets for workers and
job creators here in the United States; and perhaps even more
important, it will send a signal to the world that the United States of
America is back open for business.
The United States of America is once again choosing to shape the
global marketplace rather than to allow ourselves to be shaped by it.
Because, Mr. Speaker, if we don't shape the global marketplace, we will
continue to be shaped by that global marketplace. We will also send a
very powerful message to our allies that the United States of America
is living up to its commitments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is utterly shameful that we have forced three
close friends of the United States--two of our own neighbors right here
in the Americas and one in an extraordinarily strategic region--to wait
for 4 long years. It is shameful that we have forced these friends and
allies, who negotiated in good faith with us for these agreements, to
wait as long as they have.
One of the things we've observed is that the world has taken note.
Our would-be negotiators--not only on trade agreements but on other
issues as well--our would-be trade partners and negotiating partners,
as I said, on issues beyond trade have taken note.
I don't believe that our credibility will be immediately restored
with the passage of these free trade agreements, but we will at least
begin the process. We will begin the process of demonstrating
credibility on the part of the United States. We will signal that the
U.S. is recommitting itself to its partnerships, that our word at the
negotiating table can be trusted.
Very sadly, over the past several years, our partners could come to
no other conclusion than that our word cannot be trusted at the
negotiating table because of action that was taken here a few years
ago, rejecting an opportunity for consideration of these agreements.
Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in place a lengthy debate process, during
which the tremendous economic and geopolitical benefits of these three
trade agreements will be discussed, and the misinformation surrounding
these agreements will be able to be refuted. That's why I think this is
a very important debate. It's vitally important that we have this
debate so that the facts can get on the table and the ability to refute
specious arguments can be put forward. And that's what's going to
happen this evening and tomorrow leading up to the votes that we are
going to cast.
This rule provides also for the consideration of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, a modest program that has helped to build that bipartisan
consensus that I have been talking about and I believe is essential to
our economic recovery. Now, I don't believe that the TAA program is
perfect. Meaningful reforms have been incorporated. And most important,
Mr. Speaker, the passage of Trade Adjustment Assistance will, in turn,
help us not just pass the FTAs, but it will help us maintain what I
have had as a goal going back two decades ago when we put together a
trade working group that has had bipartisan participation. It will
allow us to rebuild the bipartisan consensus that I think is so
important. That will send a powerful message to the markets, to job
creators, to workers in this country, to Americans who are seeking job
opportunities, and it will send a very important message to our allies
and we hope future allies throughout this world.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together in a strong
bipartisan way and support the rule that will allow us to have a very,
very rigorous debate on the underlying agreements and Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from California for providing me
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes of that time.
Mr. Speaker, today we take up several trade bills. The Rules
Committee had a chance to guarantee sufficient time for debate on each
agreement and ensure that the time would be equally divided between
those who support and those who oppose each bill. That's the way we
should be debating these bills. That's the fair and the right thing to
do.
But fairness was not part of the discussion in the Rules Committee.
Instead, we have a rule that gives more
[[Page H6712]]
time to those in support of these bills and less time to those who have
legitimate concerns about them. And if that weren't bad enough, this
rule waives CutGo, just one more broken promise by this Republican
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the TAA and GSP bills. These programs
provide America's companies and workers with stability and fairness and
some minimum resources for those that suffer because of trade
agreements. They have earned our support.
{time} 1740
But I cannot say the same for the free trade agreements, and I would
like to focus my remarks on just one of them, the Colombia FTA.
Mr. Speaker, I've gone to Colombia seven times over the past 10
years. Nearly everyone I talk to--the poor, the most vulnerable, those
who defend basic human rights and dignity--they all believe that the
United States stands for human rights, that we stand for justice. And
I'd like to believe that's always true. But not if we pass this FTA.
Colombia is still the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade
unionist. Each year, more labor activists are killed in Colombia than
the rest of the world combined. A staggering 2,908 union members
murdered since 1986. That's about one murder every 3 days for the past
25 years. One hundred fifty in just the past 3 years. If 150 CEOs had
been assassinated over the past 3 years, would you still think Colombia
is a good place to invest?
In 2010, 51 trade unionists were murdered; 21 survived attempts on
their lives; 338 received death threats; and 7 disappeared. Their
bodies may never be found. Forty have been murdered since President
Santos took office.
As for justice, well, in Colombia that's still just a dream. Human
Rights Watch just released a study that looked at convictions in cases
of murdered trade unionists over the past 4\1/2\ years. They found
``virtually no progress'' in convictions in these killings. Just six
out of 195 cases. And not a single, solitary conviction for the more
than 60 attempted murders and 1,500 death threats during that same
period. There's a name for that, Mr. Speaker. It's called complete and
total impunity.
Just look at the faces of six of the 23 unionists murdered so far
this year.
This man in the top right, Luis Diaz, he was a regional leader of the
University Workers' Union and a security guard at Monteria Public
University in Cordoba. He was assassinated near his home, shot four
times.
I was in Cordoba at the end of August. It's controlled by
paramilitaries, drug traffickers, and criminal networks. They work hand
in glove with wealthy landed interests, and many local officials,
judges, prosecutors, and police are corrupt or benefit from the
violence. They are also the most likely parties in Cordoba to profit
from the Colombia FTA.
Another fellow here, Jorge de los Rios. He was a teacher and an
environmentalist who exposed damage to communities by open pit mining.
On June 8, he was shot several times on the campus of his school.
This young man right here, Dionis Sierra, was an elementary
schoolteacher killed May 15, also in Cordoba.
Carlos Castro, an engineer, murdered in Cali on May 23. He was shot
in the neck by two armed men. He was 41 and the father of three.
Here's Hernan Pinto right here, drinking a cup of coffee. He had
taken the lead in the farm workers' struggle right before he was
murdered in March.
Silverio Sanchez, just 37 years old, also a teacher. He died on
January 24 from burns on 80 percent of his body from an explosive.
These men were husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. If we don't
stand up for them, then we also abandon the children, families,
workers, and communities they left behind, those who continue to fight
for labor rights, human rights, and basic human dignity.
As the old song goes, which side are you on?
Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.
Dr. Viviane Morales,
Attorney General, Diagonal 22B, No 52-01,
Bogota, Colombia.
Dear Attorney General Morales: I am writing to follow up on
the very constructive meeting we had in Bogota this June
regarding the problem of impunity for anti-union violence in
Colombia. We are encouraged by the steps the Attorney
General's Office is currently taking under your leadership to
address this longstanding problem. Yet we also believe
further measures are needed to ensure that your efforts
succeed and the era of unchecked violence against trade
unionists in Colombia is finally overcome.
As you know, Colombia continues to face an extraordinarily
high level of anti-union violence. While the number of trade
unionists killed every year is certainly less today than a
decade ago, it remains higher than any other country in the
world. The National Labor School (ENS), Colombia's leading
NGO monitoring labor rights, reports that in 2010 there were
51 killings of trade unionists, 22 homicide attempts, and 397
threats.
A major reason for this ongoing violence has been the
chronic lack of accountability for cases of anti-union
violence. Colombia has failed to deliver justice for more
than 2,500 trade unionist killings committed over the past 25
years. As Vice-President Angelino Garzon acknowledged during
a November 2010 speech, ``[T]he immense majority of crimes
[against] trade unionists remain in impunity . . . there have
been advances in the investigations . . . but we still have
not gotten to 200 court rulings, and there are thousands of
workers and union leaders killed and disappeared.''
In 2006, the Attorney General's Office sought to end this
impunity by establishing a sub-unit of prosecutors to focus
exclusively on crimes against trade unionists. This
initiative brought with it several important advantages: the
sub-unit's prosecutors would receive extra material and human
resources and have the opportunity to develop expertise in
solving these crimes. By working out of Bogota and other main
cities, the prosecutors would generally be less vulnerable to
pressure and threats than local justice officials.
Since its creation, the sub-unit has made important
progress: there are now scores of convictions for trade
unionist killings every year where before there were almost
none. Over the past four-and-a-half years, the sub-unit has
secured convictions for more than 185 trade unionist
killings.
Yet this progress, while welcome, has in fact been very
limited. And, unless urgent steps are taken to improve the
sub-unit's performance, it will almost certainly prove to be
unsustainable.
Over the past several months, Human Rights Watch has
carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the sub-unit's
work, reviewing hundreds of court judgments for crimes
against trade unionists, examining the most recent available
data provided by the Attorney General's Office on the status
of investigations, and conducting dozens of interviews with
prosecutors, judges, rights advocates, and victims.
Our research has found severe shortcomings in both the
scope of the sub-unit's work and the investigative
methodology that it employs. In terms of the scope, we found
that:
The increase in the number of convictions since the sub-
unit's creation, while substantial, represents only a small
fraction of the total number of cases of trade unionist
killings that still need to be investigated and prosecuted.
The increase in convictions is largely due to confessions
provided by paramilitaries under the Justice and Peace
process, which does not apply to cases of killings committed
after 2006.
The sub-unit has made virtually no progress in obtaining
convictions for killings from the past four-and-a-half years.
The sub-unit has made virtually no progress in prosecuting
people who order, pay, instigate or collude with
paramilitaries in attacking trade unionists.
In terms of the methodology of the investigations, we found
that:
The sub-unit has routinely failed to thoroughly investigate
the motives for the crimes.
The sub-unit has not conducted the type of systematic and
contextualized investigations that are necessary to identify
and prosecute all responsible parties.
While we were encouraged to encounter prosecutors in the
sub-unit who are very professional and committed to advancing
these cases, it is also clear that further measures must be
taken to support their work and ensure the sub-unit overcomes
its current limitations.
Under the current circumstances, what is at stake is the
justice system's ability to act as an effective deterrent to
anti-union violence. We are concerned that unless you take
action to improve the sub-unit's performance, the office will
continue to fall short in ensuring accountability for attacks
on trade unionists, and Colombia will remain a uniquely
dangerous country for workers seeking to exercise their basic
labor rights.
The Scope of the Sub-unit's Work
Convictions Represent Fraction of Total Killings
The annual number of convictions for cases of crimes
against trade unionists has risen about nine-fold since the
sub-unit began operating in 2007. Overall, the subunit has
obtained convictions for more than 185 trade unionist
killings.
Despite this accomplishment, a great deal of work remains
to be done. At this stage, Colombia has obtained a conviction
for less than 10 percent of the 2,886 trade unionist killings
recorded since 1986 by the ENS. The sub-unit reported to
Human Rights Watch that it had opened an investigation into
787
[[Page H6713]]
cases of trade unionist killings as of June 2011.
Investigations into the more than 2000 other reported trade
unionist murders presumably remain with ordinary prosecutors,
who have long failed to resolve such cases. As concluded by
the February 2011 International Labor Organization (ILO)
High-level Tripartite Mission to Colombia, ``The majority of
[trade unionist killings] have not yet been investigated nor
have the perpetrators, including the intellectual authors of
these crimes, been brought to justice.''
Recent Progress Is Largely Due to Justice and Peace Process
The sub-unit's progress in prosecuting anti-union violence
has largely been due to confessions by paramilitaries
participating in the Justice and Peace process. Human Rights
Watch reviewed all 74 convictions handed down over the past
year by the three specialized courts dedicated to crimes
against trade unionists and found that 60 percent of the
convictions were the direct result of plea bargains with
demobilized paramilitaries participating in the Justice and
Peace process. In a majority of the remaining rulings from
this period, testimony by defendants in the Justice and Peace
process also played an important role in producing the
conviction.
This increase in the number of convictions spurred by the
Justice and Peace process is certainly a positive
development. Unfortunately, it does not by itself represent
sustainable progress. The process has allowed prosecutors to
resolve cases because it has provided extraordinary
incentives for demobilized paramilitaries to confess to their
crimes. But these incentives do not apply to crimes committed
since paramilitary groups finished demobilizing in 2006 and
therefore will not help prosecute individuals who assassinate
trade unionists today or in the future.
Lack of Convictions for Recent Trade Unionist Killings
When it comes to obtaining convictions for cases from the
past several years--which are not covered by the Justice and
Peace process--the sub-unit has made virtually no progress.
Of the more than 195 such killings that have occurred since
the sub-unit started operating in 2007, the special office
had obtained convictions in only six cases as of May 2011. It
had not obtained a single conviction for the more than 60
homicide attempts, 1,500 threats and 420 forced displacements
reported by the ENS during this period.
The sub-unit has not opened investigations into the
majority of the trade unionist murders that have occurred
since the office began operating in 2007. As of March, it had
opened an investigation into only one of the 51 trade
unionist killings committed in 2010. And the vast majority of
the sub-unit's investigations into killings since 2007 (89
percent) remain in a preliminary stage in which
prosecutors have yet to formally identify a suspect.
We understand that the current Attorney General's Office
shares our concern with the lack of progress in prosecuting
recent killings. As discussed below, your office has
announced steps that could help address this problem, such as
instructing prosecutors to prioritize investigations of
crimes against trade unionists committed since 2007.
Lack of Prosecutions of Intellectual Authors and Accomplices
We are also concerned that the prosecutions have focused
almost exclusively on the commanders of armed groups or
triggermen and have not extended to include other individuals
who may have instigated or facilitated the crimes. Of the
more than 275 convictions handed down through May 2011 by the
specialized courts that handle the sub-unit's cases, 80
percent have been against former members of the United Self-
Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). Yet there is compelling
evidence that paramilitaries and the groups that replaced
them have not acted alone in killing trade unionists. These
groups have historically operated with the toleration or even
active support of members of the public security forces, as
well as in collaboration with politicians and allies in the
private sector. According to several justice officials,
rights advocates and victims' lawyers close to these cases,
paramilitaries appear to have killed trade unionists at the
behest of employers, local officials, or other individuals
with particular interests in eliminating the victims.
A review of 50 recent convictions for anti-union violence
handed down by the specialized courts found that in nearly
half of the cases under consideration, the judgments
contained evidence pointing to the involvement of members of
the security forces or intelligence services, politicians,
landowners, bosses, or coworkers. Rulings in ten of these
cases contained evidence indicating that individuals outside
the armed groups (including two mayors, a hospital
administrator, a plant manager, a captain of the Sectional
Judicial Police, and a detective from the Colombian
intelligence service) may have hired, ordered, or otherwise
instigated paramilitaries to kill the trade unionists.
Yet despite the evidence of involvement and collusion by
third parties in crimes committed by armed groups, the sub-
unit has obtained virtually no results in bringing such
individuals to justice. Only 10 of the more than 275 rulings
handed down by specialized courts since 2007 have convicted
politicians, members of the security forces, employers, or
coworkers. Only one of the 50 rulings handed down between
September 2010 and May 2011 that Human Rights Watch reviewed
punished such individuals. Similarly, a comprehensive study
by the Center for the Study of Law, Justice, and Society
(DeJusticia) reveals that just 3 percent of the judgments in
trade unionist cases handed down through March 2010 included
the conviction of a ``strategic intellectual author'' (an
individual outside of an armed structure who ordered or
otherwise instigated the crime).
Prosecuting the triggermen and their commanders for these
crimes is a crucial step for accountability. But identifying
these individuals alone will not enable the justice system to
act as an effective deterrent to anti-union violence. As long
as some people believe they can get away with ordering,
paying, or instigating armed groups to kill trade unionists,
they will continue to find armed groups and gunmen for hire
to do their dirty work.
Flaws in the Investigative Methodology
Colombia's progress in curbing impunity for anti-union
violence, while important, has been limited by shortcomings
in the investigative strategy pursued by the subunit of the
Attorney General's Office. The first is a routine failure to
adequately investigate the motive in cases of trade unionist
killings. The second--and more troubling--is the failure to
conduct the sort of systematic and contextualized
investigation necessary to identify and bring to justice all
responsible parties.
As discussed below, the current administration of the
Attorney General's Office has recognized the problem of the
sub-unit's methodology and announced the adoption of measures
to improve it. But these correctives remain to be fully
implemented, and must be followed with additional measures to
shore up the quality of the sub-unit's work.
Inadequate Investigation of Motives
Prosecutors often base their charges almost entirely on
testimony by paramilitaries participating in the Justice and
Peace process without conducting a thorough investigation
that could determine the actual motive for targeting the
victim. According to one of the specialized judges, in many
cases prosecutors base their charges on ``two or three lines
from what the defendant in Justice and Peace says.''
Given the lack of additional evidence gathered by
prosecutors, the judges often rely primarily or exclusively
on paramilitaries' accounts to determine the motive for the
crime.
Paramilitaries' confessions frequently seek to justify
trade unionist killings as counter-insurgency operations,
claiming that their victims were guerrilla collaborators.
Consequently, a substantial share of judgments for trade
unionist killings have identified the victims' alleged links
to guerrilla groups as the motive behind the killings.
Yet, there are good reasons to suspect that in many cases
the paramilitaries label the victims as guerrilla
collaborators to disguise the true reasons for the killing.
By offering defendants the same reduced sentence no matter
how many abuses they admit to, the Justice and Peace Law
provides paramilitaries with extraordinary incentives to
confess to all of their crimes. But when it comes to
testifying about their accomplices--who may have ordered
trade unionist killings for their own political or economic
interests--paramilitaries often have strong incentives to
keep silent and justify the murders as part of their anti-
guerrilla campaign. As revealed by several recent judicial
investigations and news reports, there are credible
allegations that paramilitaries have been repeatedly bribed
or pressured to conceal the criminal activity of their
political and economic allies. In cases involving collusion
with powerful individuals, paramilitaries and their family
members could face severe reprisals should they expose their
accomplices.
In some court rulings, judges have found reason to doubt
the veracity of paramilitaries' anti-guerrilla justifications
for the killings. For example, in one recent ruling against
paramilitaries who claimed that the union leader had been
killed because he was a guerrilla collaborator, the judge
wrote that it appeared the group had been paid to murder the
victim because of his union activity, noting that: ``The
excuse provided by the [defendants] regarding the motive of
the killing . . . seems to actually be a form of hiding the
existence of a particular interest to silence the victim.''
The judgment explicitly described how the prosecutor had
failed to collect key pieces of evidence that would have
helped clarify the motive for the crime. According to
DeJusticia's 2010 study, while 102 of the 271 court rulings
they analyzed identified the trade unionist's alleged
guerrilla ties as the motive for the killing, the judges
explicitly rejected the allegations in nearly half of those
judgments.
Given the inadequacy of investigations, it is impossible at
this point to know how many killings were in fact motivated
by the victims' union activities. What is clear is that
without more thorough investigations, prosecutors will not be
able to determine with an adequate level of certainty whether
or not the crimes were related to the victims' participation
in their union. This is a serious problem in Colombia given
the tendency of some officials and commentators to downplay
anti-union violence by dismissing the attacks as isolated
crimes unrelated to the victims' union affiliation. And worse
still, if court rulings based on paramilitaries'
[[Page H6714]]
testimony indicate that the victims were guerrillas, the
stigmatization is confirmed and the risks are worsened for
those who exercise union activity.
Lack of Systematic and Contextualized Investigations
With few exceptions, the sub-unit's prosecutors have not
pursued investigations that take into account the context of
crimes against other members of the victim's union from the
same region and time period, and have often neglected to
conduct serious inquiries into the victim's union activity at
the time of the crime.
Instead, killings have generally been investigated in an
isolated case-by-case manner and without any serious effort
to determine how the crimes might form part of a broader
pattern of anti-union violence. As one top official within
the Attorney General's Office recently told Human Rights
Watch, until now, the sub-unit has treated each case as ``an
island.'' Similarly, in separate interviews, all three
current judges from the specialized courts that handle these
cases told Human Rights Watch that the cases brought to their
courts are investigated as isolated crimes. Victims' lawyers
also said that the sub-unit's failure to draw connections
between killings is one of the fundamental problems with the
investigations.
This serious deficiency in the sub-unit's investigations is
also evident in the judgments in cases of anti-union
violence. According to DeJusticia's 2010 study, a
``systematic approach'' to investigations--defined as taking
the general context of anti-union violence as the starting
point for the investigation--was reflected in five of the 271
court rulings handed down through March 2010.
As a result of this investigative approach, prosecutors
have not been able to identify patterns of crimes that could
lead them to the individuals--including public officials and
employers--who may have ordered, instigated, or otherwise
colluded with armed groups in attacking trade unionists. As
one of the three special judges who handle cases of anti-
union violence said, ``To know what's behind the crimes, if
there was a state policy or company policy or not, there has
to be a macro-investigation. [Prosecutors] have not done
that.'' Another judge specified that the piecemeal
investigations have impeded prosecutors from identifying
intellectual authors: ``It would make more sense to
analyze the historical context of the union and the
criminal organization that operates in the region. But in
reality, [the cases] come [to the courts] as isolated
victims. . . . The investigations have progressed very
little in providing the judges with the context. The
context would help identify intellectual authors.''
This shortcoming is compounded by the sub-unit's failure to
consistently conduct a thorough inquiry into the context of
the victim's union activity at the time of the crime, which
limits prosecutors' ability to establish leads that could
help clarify the motive for the killing and identify
potential suspects. While some prosecutors do make an effort
to look into such activity, two judges we spoke with said
that such rigorous inquiries are not the norm. In our review
of 50 recent convictions in these cases, we found the
majority of the rulings did not refer to the victim's union
activity in the period leading up to the crime. (If the
prosecutors had investigated such activity, a reference to
this line of inquiry should at least appear in the judgment,
according to jurists consulted by Human Rights Watch.) Of the
judgments that did mention the victim's union activity at the
time of the crime, most references were general, suggesting
that no in-depth probe had been undertaken.
Steps Your Office Has Announced To Advance Prosecutions
Based on our meeting last June, we know that your office is
aware of the problems outlined above and has announced some
important initial steps that could help address them.
In terms of increasing the quantity of cases investigated
and prosecuted by the subunit, we were encouraged by the
following measures announced by the Attorney General's
Office:
The addition of 100 judicial police from the Directorate of
Criminal Investigation and Interpol (DIJIN) and planned
incorporation of 14 new prosecutors to the subunit;
Your office's June 2011 memorandum instructing prosecutors
to prioritize cases of trade unionist killings committed
since 2007;
Your office's April 2011 memorandum mandating the early
identification in all new homicide cases of whether the
victim was a union member, which should help ensure that in
the future the sub-unit can immediately open investigations
into these new cases:
Your office's recent transfer of 35 cases of trade unionist
killings from 2009 to the sub-unit.
Your office also has announced measures that could improve
the sub-unit's investigative methodology, such as:
Providing instructions within the April memorandum for
prosecutors to take the urgent steps that will allow them
``to determine the motives for the crime and the causal
relationship between the [homicide] and victim's condition as
a trade unionist'';
Providing instructions within the June memorandum for
prosecutors to analyze cases of trade unionist killings based
on the region where the crimes occurred;
Adding six analysts to the sub-unit who will help identify
links between cases in order to detect patterns of crimes
against trade unionists.
In addition, the current coordinator of the sub-unit told
us in May that the sub-unit has adopted a new methodology
that involves grouping cases not only on the basis of
location, but also based on the victim's union and the
suspected responsible armed group.
Yet, we are concerned that the new methodology has not yet
been effectively implemented. In separate interviews this
May, the prosecutors within the sub-unit appeared to have
very different understandings of how they were expected to
proceed with their investigations. Two prosecutors said that
the sub-unit had not in fact adopted a new methodology.
``There is no policy that comes from the coordinators,'' one
told us. ``The methodology depends on each prosecutor. . .
Investigations are case-by-case. It would be important to
group [cases] by trade union, but it has not been done.''
Other prosecutors mentioned the new investigative policy, but
said that it remains to be carried out in practice.
Furthermore, your office's attempt to implement a
systematic approach is undercut by the sub-unit's limited
caseload and inefficient allocation of investigations among
prosecutors. As discussed above, the sub-unit is not
investigating the majority of reported trade unionist
killings. Consequently, cases from the same union, region,
and time period are often split between the sub-unit and
ordinary local prosecutors. And of those investigations that
have been assigned to the sub-unit, cases involving trade
unionists from the same organization and region have
generally been divided among the office's different
prosecutors.
Recommendations
In order to build on your initial correctives and fully
address the problems identified in this letter, we believe it
is crucial to adopt the following measures:
1) The sub-unit should investigate all reported cases of
killings, enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts
committed against trade unionists. In order to do so, we
recommend the Attorney General's Office:
a) Transfers to the sub-unit all reported cases of
killings, enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts
against trade unionists that are currently assigned to local
prosecutors;
b) Assigns to the sub-unit all future cases of killings,
enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts against
trade unionists.
2) The sub-unit should implement a policy to conduct
systematic, contextualized and thorough investigations. The
policy should ensure that:
a) Rather than treating each killing as an isolated case,
investigations also examine all other crimes against members
of the same union in the same region and time period to
identify possible connections and patterns of crimes that
could help to determine the motive for the killing, and
identify all the responsible parties;
b) Prosecutors do not rely inordinately on paramilitaries'
confessions to resolve cases, but instead use this testimony
as a starting point to pursue a solid judicial investigation;
c) Prosecutors conduct a thorough inquiry into the victim's
union activity at the time of the crime in order to collect
evidence that could help clarify the motive for the attack
and identify potential suspects;
d) Prosecutors vigorously pursue leads that point to the
possible involvement of state agents and other actors in
crimes against trade unionists.
3) Cases should be distributed among the sub-unit's
prosecutors based on the victim's union and the region where
the crime occurred.
As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, overcoming
ongoing impunity for violence against trade unionists
requires confronting complex challenges. There is an enormous
amount of work to be done, and success will not be achieved
overnight. Yet we also believe that, if your office
rigorously pursues the measures we are recommending here, it
will be possible to make significant progress in prosecuting
these cases and transform the sub-unit into an effective
deterrent to future attacks on trade unionists in Colombia.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that
Colombia has gone through incredible tragedy over the past several
years. It has been absolutely horrible. And the suffering that my
colleague from Worcester has just shown is very, very disturbing. But I
think we should note that we have seen an 85 percent decline in the
murder rate. In fact, there are cities in this country that have a
higher murder rate than exist in Colombia today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
We also should make it very, very clear that it is safer to be a
union member and union leader in Colombia because of the protection
that's provided by the government than to be the average citizen. Let's
solidify those gains, and that's exactly what these agreements will do.
With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very, very thoughtful
individual committed to the trade agenda,
[[Page H6715]]
my good friend from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great enthusiasm because at long last
the House and Senate are poised to act on the most bipartisan,
economically compelling jobs bills of the Obama Presidency. By
supporting this rule and ratifying these agreements, we are taking a
huge step towards leveling the playing field for U.S. goods and
services. And in doing so, we can create hundreds of thousands of good-
paying jobs right here in America.
And thanks to the pending free trade agreements with Colombia,
Panama, and South Korea, the tariffs on many American products will
come down immediately, giving a massive boost to our economy at a time
when we need it more than ever.
All told, these fair trade agreements would support an estimated
quarter-million American jobs and increase exports by $13 million. And
my home State of Illinois will be among the first to benefit.
Currently, Illinois ranks sixth in the Nation in terms of total
exports; 109 companies in my district alone export abroad, and local
exports support nearly 65,000 jobs in just DuPage, Cook and Will
counties.
These aren't just large manufacturers like Boeing, Navistar, and
Kraft; they're also small businesses with a handful of employees. In
fact, 90 percent of Illinois exporters are small businesses, exporting
everything from computer chips to financial services.
Already, trade with South Korea in my district alone supports 1,137
jobs, and that number has the potential to rise dramatically after this
week's agreements go into effect. Now imagine that impact multiplied
hundreds of times across congressional districts throughout the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, passing these agreements is one of the most common
sense, low cost, and economically sound things that Congress can do
right now to boost job growth. And now that the President has finally
sent the agreements to Capitol Hill, we must act immediately. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from California.
In 2009 the number of total murders per capita in the U.S.A. was 5
per 100,000. In Mexico, it was 18.4, and in Colombia it was 37.3. These
are all government statistics.
If 23 labor leaders and 29 civil rights leaders and 6 priests were
targeted and murdered in Los Angeles so far this year because of their
work in the community, I would like to think that the city or the
gentleman from California would be up in arms about that. But that's
the reality in Colombia.
At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I cannot state strongly enough I am vigorously opposed to the three
free trade bills that we are considering today.
On behalf of the businesses and workers of western New York, I
implore my colleagues to vote against today's free trade but not fair
trade bills and put an end to the era of giveaway trade.
None of the free trade bills we voted on in the last 20 years,
including these bills today, were designed to protect American
manufacturing and American jobs. They were designed to protect
multinational corporations operating in the towers of New York, London,
and Shanghai. These companies could care less where their goods are
made as long as we allow them to sell them all over the world. As
American legislators, we have different responsibilities. We must care
where goods are made. We must do everything we can to ensure they are
made in the U.S.A.
I think many people would be shocked to know that there is little in
the current trade agreement to prevent our own trading partners from
developing new regulations that we have done all these years making it
harder for us to sell our goods in their countries. Using nontariff
barriers, they could place a dozen arbitrary restrictions on American-
made cars, and they do in order to stop Chevy, Ford, and GM from being
sold in South Korea. Do you know how many car dealers sell American
cars in Korea? Twenty-six. I imagine most major cities in the United
States have 26 car dealers who sell Korean cars in their city alone.
There's something wrong with that picture. This is not free-flowing
trade. We are restricted, but under these proposed free trade
agreements, we can't do a thing to make sure that our companies are
treated fairly. And they call it a good deal.
Currently, nontariff barriers are playing a vital role in preventing
U.S.-made cars from being sold in Japan. According to the American Auto
Council, for every one car that the U.S. exports to Japan, Japan
exports at least 180 vehicles to the United States. That's 1 to 180.
U.S. auto exports to Japan were limited to 8,000 cars last year. That's
all we could sell in all of Japan. The USTR says, A variety of
nontariff barriers have traditionally impeded access to Japan's
automobile and automotive parts market. Overall sales of U.S.-made
vehicles remain low, which is a serious concern.
But despite that, what they think with that hand, the government's
left hand, the government's right hand is going to sign more trade
bills that do exactly the same thing.
{time} 1750
It is an action, as far as I'm concerned, that defies common sense.
Instead of wasting our time voting for a bad trade bill, I have
introduced a bill that will legally ensure a fair playing field for
American manufacturers. It's H.R. 1749. The Reciprocal Market Access
Act would require both the U.S. Government to consider tariff and non-
tariff barriers when negotiating a trade agreement with another country
and not reduce our tariffs until that has been done. This approach
would guarantee that American manufacturers have the same opportunity
as foreign competition to sell their goods around the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If a foreign country is caught trying to stop the sale
of American-made goods, we have a ``snap-back'' provision which will
stop the free trade agreement.
It's a no-nonsense approach. It is bipartisan in the House. It has
been endorsed by Corning; Hickey-Freeman; Hart Schaffner Marx; Globe
Specialty Metals; American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition; the
AFL-CIO; the United Steelworkers; and the Auto Workers, even though
they are the only union that will benefit somewhat by the Korean pact.
Congress needs to wake up, and we need to make countries like China
and Germany see who's going to dominate the green manufacturing for
generations to come. We have just about lost that great thing we
pioneered here. Over and over again we have waited and watched. And the
most recent ones that trouble me so much is General Electric giving
away the intellectual property on airplane engines to China and GM
forced to give over the technology of the Volt to be able to sell
there.
Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We're not going to maintain a
superpower status as long as all we can do is give each other haircuts
and serve each other dinner. We've got to make things here at home so
that our businesses can finally benefit by some fair trade.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that free
trade is fair trade. And it's interesting to note that the United Auto
Workers supports the agreement that exists. I totally concur with my
friend from Rochester in arguing, Mr. Speaker, that we must enforce the
agreements that we have, including on intellectual property issues.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the
Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
one of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to
promote
[[Page H6716]]
and protect American jobs and values. When it comes to trade, jobs and
values go hand-in-hand. To promote American jobs, we must promote
American values. We do this by ensuring that our workers are protected
from unfair competition with countries that keep wages artificially low
by repressing essential democratic rights: the right to speak out, the
right to organize, the right to bargain, the right for a better life
without fear of reprisals.
And so as we now consider the trade agreement with Colombia, what do
you get when you exercise your rights in Colombia today? You get death
threats and death squad activities against you and your families.
Colombia is the most dangerous place on Earth for workers who dare to
exercise their rights. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in
office, 570 union members were assassinated. To date, only 10 percent
of the thousands of killings over the last 25 years have been resolved.
The problems here are undeniable. So I appreciate that the U.S. and
the Colombia Governments have finally brought labor rights into the
equation. They have agreed to a Labor Action Plan requiring Colombia to
change some labor laws and to commit more resources to fight the
violence and impunity.
But that plan is fatally flawed. It only demands results on paper. It
does not demand real change. Colombia could have a record year for
assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Sure
enough, real change is yet to come to Colombia. Since President Santos
took office last year, press reports indicate at least 38 trade
unionists have been murdered--16 since the Labor Action Plan was
announced.
In mid-June of this year, I met with a Port Workers Union leader from
Colombia in my office about his concerns with the free trade agreement.
He told me that he was not provided protection and that the abusive
cooperative system was still in place despite commitments made by the
Colombian Government to remedy both. In July, I spoke directly to his
concerns on the floor of the House. And 2 weeks later, this leader
received death threats via text message. The message said, ``If you
continue to create problems and denounce things, you will die in a
mortuary union.''
It's under these conditions that we are asked to approve this deal.
If we approve the deal now, any incentive for Colombia to truly improve
will vanish. Now is not the time to reward violence with impunity with
the seal of approval from the United States. The deal with Colombia is
neither fair nor free. Telling Colombian workers that if they speak out
for higher wages, they will die--that's not freedom. Telling American
workers to compete with that kind of repression--that's not fair to our
workers or our values.
Stand for American values, and reject the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to one of our
thoughtful, hardworking new Members, the gentleman from Fowler, Kansas
(Mr. Huelskamp).
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you on the
floor today.
Every day that goes by without these agreements is a missed
opportunity. Hundreds of missed opportunities have passed because of
years of delay, which is why we cannot afford to waste one more day.
The fact is, today in South Korea, for example, beef costs nearly $24 a
pound. Pork costs nearly $10 a pound. These facts can only work to the
mutual benefit of both U.S. producers and Korean consumers.
When America is starved for jobs and economic growth, agreements with
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea present an occasion for Washington to
address these challenges. Up to a quarter million new jobs and a
hundred billion-dollar boost to the country's GDP are glimmers of hope
in what is otherwise a bleak economic outlook. And not a dime of
taxpayer money has to be spent to create good American jobs.
For America to be part of the 21st-century economy, it is not enough
to simply buy American. We have to sell American. America's safe and
efficient ag, energy, and manufacturing production makes the U.S. an
attractive trading partner. Americans can compete, and we can win.
When the Ambassador of Vietnam to the United States toured a hog farm
in my district in August, he was both impressed and astonished by the
safety and cleanliness of our facilities. That signaled to me that
America, and Kansas in particular, has much to offer the world.
In sum, these agreements are an opportunity for a nation seeking more
affordable and safe goods and an opportunity for our Nation to benefit
with jobs and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to move quickly and
join me in supporting this rule and the underlying agreements. We need
the jobs, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this rule and the trade
agreements underlying it--particularly the agreement with Colombia.
Nothing is more important to our economy right now than creating jobs
and putting America back to work. And yet we have now before us three
NAFTA-style trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama
that we know from experience will lead to more jobs being shipped
overseas and greater trade deficits. In fact, the Economic Policy
Institute has estimated this agreement with Colombia will result in the
loss of 55,000 American jobs.
The Colombia deal is particularly galling because it will do more
than just destroy American jobs. It will bring into question whether
our Nation continues to be a defender of human rights and workers'
rights around the world. According to the International Trade Union
Confederation, more unionists are killed every year in Colombia than in
the rest of the world combined. Last year saw 51 murders. As the AFL-
CIO's Richard Trumka noted: ``If 51 CEOs had been murdered in Colombia
last year, this deal would be on a very slow track indeed.''
This year, we have seen 23 more men and women killed. Human Rights
Watch reviewed these and hundreds of other cases of antiunion violence
there and concluded that Colombian authorities have ``made virtually no
progress in obtaining convictions for killings from the past 4\1/2\
years.''
{time} 1800
In fact, in only 6 percent of the 2,860 trade unionist murders since
1986 have there been any convictions. That means 94 percent of the
killers are walking away. Worse, 16 of the murders this year have
occurred after the labor action plan put forward by the administration
and the Colombian Government was put into effect.
This action plan is a fig leaf, pure and simple. It is not legally
binding. It makes promises that the Colombian Government will step up
its protections, but it demands no concrete results before this free
trade agreement is implemented. According to the National Labor School,
if Congress passes the free trade agreement, ``the limited willingness
for change will be further reduced and the action plan will be turned
into a new frustration for Colombian workers, in addition to causing
other serious consequences.'' In other words, more violence--murders--
against trade unionists will be just the cost of doing business.
We should not be sanctioning such a system of violence, terror, and
abuse. We have a responsibility to protect the human rights defenders
and working families in Colombia who are exercising, and only
exercising, their fundamental rights. And we have a responsibility to
stand up for our American working families who do not need to see any
more good, well-paying jobs shipped overseas.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this unconscionable
agreement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say that we are
going to respond to some of these arguments that have been made.
First, Colombia is not the safest place in the world. I'm the first
to acknowledge that. There are terrible, terrible problems there. We've
been dealing with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC,
the paramilitaries, and serious, serious problems that have existed in
Colombia. No one is trying to whitewash or dismiss the serious
challenges that exist there. But it's important to note that nearly
2,000 labor leaders in Colombia, Mr. Speaker, have around-the-
[[Page H6717]]
clock bodyguards protecting them. And in Colombia, it is safer to be a
unionist than it is the average citizen.
So I'm not saying that things are perfect. No one is making that
claim. But when we've seen an 85 percent decrease in the murder rate
since 2002, when we've seen more murders take place--tragically--in
some of our cities than have taken place in some areas of Colombia,
that is something that has to be seen as progress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker, to
say that I believe we can, in a bipartisan way, work to address these
very important issues. And we are going to do just that. We are going
to ensure that this kind of agreement effectively addresses these
problems.
My friend, Mr. Farr, and I have sat together in the Office of the
Fiscalia in Colombia, in Bogota.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
We have sat and painstakingly, with several other of our colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans alike, gone through these pending cases to
bring about a resolution on this issue; and in just a few minutes, I'm
going to be yielding to my friend, Mr. Farr, to talk specifically about
this and the challenges we have.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very
good friend, the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who
represents what she calls the gateway to the Americas. I think Los
Angeles comes pretty close to that too. But Miami, Mr. Speaker, is the
gateway to the Americas, and they are very ably represented by our
colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the esteemed chairman of the Rules
Committee for highlighting what a transformation Colombia has made in
recent years, thanks to the strong leadership from the top down to the
cop on the beat.
If the American people are listening to this debate, they would think
that Colombia is a war zone equal to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I
believe that those Members have not gone to Colombia in many a year.
But I rise in strong support of the free trade agreements with
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I thank my good friend from
California for his strong leadership on these three trade deals that
we've been waiting so many years, Mr. Speaker, for them to be sent to
Congress. I am pleased that at last we have the chance to vote on them,
because their passage will mean American businesses will finally have a
competitive level playing field.
And to give you just one example, American industrial exports to
Panama--one of our sister countries to south Florida, we have so many
Panamanian Americans living in our area--now face tariffs as high as 81
percent, but almost all of these will be eliminated thanks to this
trade agreement.
By the administration's own estimates, Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-South
Korea free trade agreement alone will generate around 70,000 new
American jobs. And as the Rules Committee chairman pointed out, south
Florida is indeed the gateway to Latin America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you.
We will see significant benefits in south Florida, and not just for
large companies but for small and medium-sized ones as well.
Let's talk about Colombia. Flower importers in the area estimate that
they will save $2 million per month in duties that they now are paying
on imports from Colombia.
And also, we should point out how important these trade agreements
are, because these three allies are of great importance to our national
security. You can't ask for better partners for peace and making sure
that we have democracy in the region than South Korea, Colombia, and
Panama.
I thank the gentleman for the time, and I'm pleased to support the
rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, if Colombia is so safe, then why do 2,000 labor leaders
need round-the-clock protection? I mean, if Colombia is so safe, why
are there nearly 5 million internally displaced people and over 1
million Colombian refugees in neighboring countries? It is because
they're fleeing the violence and civil unrest.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. I want to thank my friend for yielding to me.
This rule makes in order three NAFTA-style free trade agreements, one
with Korea, one with Panama, and one with Colombia, all of which I
oppose. But I want to focus my remarks today on the trade agreement
with Colombia because it hits so close to home for me.
You will hear from Members that feel passionately about Colombia from
their experience in that country. They support the free trade
agreement, and I respect their perspectives. But there are some of us
who feel just as passionately about our brothers and sisters who are
killed in Colombia just because they are members of a union, and we
oppose the agreement.
I am a proud, card-carrying member of the United Steelworkers Union.
I've been a member of the union for over 39 years and served as vice
president of Local 152. Workers in Colombia are being killed for the
exact same thing.
Since January, 23 unionists have been assassinated. Fifty-one were
killed last year, more than the rest of the world combined. Just for
carrying a union card like mine, nearly 3,000 workers have been killed
in Colombia over the past 25 years.
The administration's Labor Action Plan is intended to address some of
the decades-old problems of violence against unionists and the lack of
impunity for their perpetrators, but it falls far short from doing so:
First, there has not been meaningful collaboration with the Colombian
unions to make sure the action plan is being implemented thoroughly;
Second, the Attorney General's office, according to Human Rights
Watch, hasn't made any progress in investigating the murder cases over
the last 4 years. Ensuring that murder investigations are conducted and
completed and the real killers are brought to justice is a critical
component of protecting our union brothers and sisters in Colombia. So
far, the government hasn't done it; and
Third, employers continue to force workers into collective pacts so
they cannot form unions.
By passing this FTA, Congress is blessing this lack of rights and
this longstanding trend of violence. We are choosing to stand in
solidarity with a government that can't protect its own people instead
of the people who need the protecting.
I urge my colleagues to think about the fact that if they had a card
like this and if they were a leader in a union in Colombia, they would
be a target. We should not reward this country's disregard for basic
rights within an FTA.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on
the Colombian free trade agreement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it's
obvious that Colombia is not a safe place. I'm not claiming that at
all. There have been murders that have taken place and it still is a
very dangerous spot. But it's important to note that a Mr. Gomez, who
is the leader of one of the three main labor organizations in Colombia,
has said that the labor agreements included in this package are the
single greatest achievement for social justice in the last 50 years of
Colombia's history.
{time} 1810
We still have a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. We still have a long way
to go, but progress is being made.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. This is momentous. We're finally talking about jobs on
the floor of the House of Representatives. And the United States of
America is
[[Page H6718]]
number one. Let's have a little enthusiasm. We're number one. We're
number one, and we want to make certain that we continue that status.
What are we number one in? We are number one in exporting jobs to
foreign lands over the last 20 years. Every day we lose 1,370
manufacturing jobs because of our failed trade policies. And guess
what? These agreements are duplicates of all failed past trade
agreements.
Now, the chairman of the committee says we're going to have lengthy
debate, and we will dispel misinformation. Well, the first
misinformation is that we're having any lengthy debate here on the
floor of the House; 4\1/2\ hours for three trade agreements, 270
minutes, boy, a lot of time. Not exactly like we're burning the
midnight oil around here, or even working 5 days a week. Couldn't we
have a little more time?
Fast Track would have allowed for 20 hours on each of the two Fast
Track agreements and who knows what? So that would have been 40 hours.
No, we're going to have 165 minutes by the proponents to dispel the
misinformation, and 105 by those of us who are opposed to these job-
killing trade agreements. That's fair, 165 on their side and 105 on our
side because our arguments are honest, and theirs aren't. But that's
the way things break around here. That is lengthy debate.
Let's talk for a minute about Colombia. You know, in Colombia, the
average income is $3,200. Think of all the U.S. manufactured goods
those Colombians are going to buy with $3,200 of income. Whoa,
thousands of Americans go to work.
Does that remind you of the myth about NAFTA?
No, this is about yet one more platform to get and access abused
labor, unorganized labor under Colombian law to send goods back to the
United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
And then there's the issue of, yes, we will get some more agriculture
exports, insignificant to our industry, won't employ any Americans, may
employ some more people who are in this country to harvest the crops.
But it will cut dramatically into the principal form of employment in
Colombia. There'll be a 75 percent drop potentially in rural employment
in Colombia. And where will they turn?
The noted economist Joseph Stiglitz says they will turn from
traditional farming and farming for their own economy to growing coca.
So not only are we going to facilitate the collapse of their
agricultural economy, like we did in Mexico; we're going to facilitate
the drug lords with this crummy agreement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
friend that we have been debating this issue since the negotiations
began in 2004. Time and time again on this House floor, we've had very
rigorous debates on these agreements. And I will acknowledge, we do
have problems with job creation and economic growth.
What this measure does, Mr. Speaker, is it eliminates the barrier for
union and nonunion workers and farmers in this country to have access
to new markets.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
On August 15, because we had done nothing, our Colombian friends
negotiated a free trade agreement with the Canadians, with our good
friends to the north, the Canadians.
And guess what, Mr. Speaker. In literally 1 month, there was an 18\1/
2\ percent increase in Canadian wheat exports to Colombia. This is the
kind of opportunity that we've been prevented from having, and we've
been debating this for 5 years. It's high time that we vote, and that's
exactly what we're going to do, after hours of debate, both tonight and
tomorrow.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from California.
He mentioned a labor leader, in his remarks before, as saying how
wonderful the Labor Action Plan was. I should point out to him that
last Monday, on October 3, that same labor leader joined in a press
conference with other Colombian unions to express his frustration with
the Colombian Government's failure to implement the Labor Action Plan.
I also would point out that the Colombia Labor School also has issued
a long statement about how the Colombian Government has failed to enact
the Labor Action Plan.
I don't care what the Canadians do. In the United States of America,
we're supposed to respect human rights.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you, Congressman McGovern, for your tireless
commitment to promoting human rights around the world.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the three pending
free trade agreements. The Bush-negotiated Colombia, Panama and South
Korea FTAs expand the NAFTA-style trade model that has proven
destructive to the American economy and harmful to the workers in the
United States and abroad.
Instead of considering a jobs bill, we are instead voting on trade
deals that the Economic Policy Institute estimates will eliminate or
displace an additional 200,000 American jobs. In particular, I believe
we should not extend additional trade privileges to Colombia without
seeing significant progress on human rights.
And it is not sufficient just to say, well, Colombia is a dangerous
place to live. Colombia has a longstanding legacy of serious abuses;
and despite some positive rhetoric by the Santos administration, we
have yet to see a tangible improvement.
The recently agreed-to Labor Action Plan includes language to prevent
and punish abuses against labor leaders and trade unionists, but it is
not legally binding or included in the FTA before us today. We need to
see results before granting preferential trade treatment.
Under this agreement, if violence and impunity continue, the U.S.
will have no mechanism for holding the Colombian Government accountable
to the promises in the Labor Action Plan.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that human rights abuses are not just a
thing of the past in Colombia. Recently published statistics show that
Colombia is still the deadliest place in the world to be a trade
unionist, with 51 murders in 2010, 25 trade unionists have been
murdered so far in 2011, and 16 since this Labor Action Plan went into
effect. And this cycle of violence is going to continue because the
Colombian Government has made little progress toward prosecuting
perpetrators and ending impunity.
The bottom line is this: The Labor Action Plan and the Colombia FTA
reward promises, not progress. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of any
trade deal with Colombia is inappropriate until we see tangible and
sustained results. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has said, and
think about this, he said, ``We have no doubt that if 51 CEOs had been
murdered in Colombia last year the deal would be on a very slow track
indeed.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and
the three underlying trade agreements.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that my
friend from Illinois is absolutely right: Colombia is not a safe place.
But we have seen an 85 percent reduction since 2002 in the murder rate
among trade unionists. It's not perfect and it still is a very
dangerous place, but that is progress.
I'd also like to say to my friend from Worcester--and I appreciate
the fact that he didn't say it--Mr. Gomez is still supportive of the
Colombia-U.S. free trade agreement that he mentioned in his remarks.
And I think that he voiced frustration over the implementation of
agreements. That's something that takes place in a free society. That's
something we see here regularly and there regularly. Implementation of
this will help with that enforcement.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point it is my privilege to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the
Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H6719]]
{time} 1820
Mr. LEVIN. The Bush administration negotiated three seriously flawed
FTAs. The key flaw in the South Korea FTA was that it violated a
fundamental principle of sound, overall trade policy: two-way trade. It
locked in one-way trade for Korea in the automotive sector, the source
of three-quarters of the American trade deficit with Korea. Last year,
urged by congressional Democrats, the Obama administration negotiated
specific provisions opening up the Korean market for automotive
products made in America.
These vital changes would not have happened if, as the Republicans
continually insisted, the FTA had passed as originally negotiated. The
Panama FTA as originally negotiated by the Bush administration failed
to carry out another key provision of sound trade policy, incorporating
international standards on worker rights. Congressional Democrats and
the Obama administration successfully worked with the Panamanian
Government to correct these flaws, and it also took the necessary
concrete steps to change its role as a tax haven.
The Colombia FTA, as originally negotiated, fell far short of
addressing the longstanding concerns about the specific challenges in
Colombia to worker rights and the persistence of violence and impunity.
The Obama administration and the new Santos administration undertook
the important steps of discussions on these issues, culminating in an
action plan relating to labor rights. Unfortunately, there remains
serious shortcomings in the plan's implementation. What's more, giving
in to congressional Republican insistence, there is completely lacking
any link in the implementation bill to the action plan, necessary to
assure its present implementation and future enforcement actions under
the FTA.
In view of those conditions, I oppose the Colombia FTA.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend and Rules
Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, how many speakers he
has remaining on his side?
Mr. McGOVERN. We have the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott),
and then I will close.
Mr. DREIER. I have a couple of speakers. How much time is remaining
on each side, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the bipartisan nature of this,
and to stress that, and being the only one who will yield time to
Democrats who are in support of these agreements, I am happy to yield
2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend and a man with whom I have spent
time in Colombia on numerous occasions and will in just a few weeks,
the gentleman from Carmel, California, a Peace Corps volunteer who
served four decades ago in Colombia and knows about it as well as
anyone, Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I look forward to
this debate.
As was said, I lived in Colombia, and I have a different perspective
than a lot of people. First of all, I think we have to put in
perspective that the Latin American market is important to the United
States. If you take Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, just three countries,
they equal the entire European trade, and they exceed the trade with
Japan and China. It's a very important market.
Colombia is a country that you have heard a lot about, particularly
on crime. And as you remember, there is big, big drug production and a
lot of crime, particularly paramilitaries who have killed a lot of
labor leaders. But what has not been stated is that Colombia is one of
the few countries in the world that keeps track of crimes against
people who happen to be unionists, not necessarily that they are killed
because they are unionists, but because they are killed and they happen
to be a member of a union. So they have this data. We don't do that in
the United States.
Colombia has set up a separate ministry just to handle labor crimes
and put those judges, prosecutors, investigators, and everybody in
place in every single one of the departments or states in Colombia. We
don't do that in the United States.
Colombia has created a protection system for unionists, including
people who want to form unions, who want to advocate for unions,
teachers, and retirees of unions who may be threatened because of their
activity in unions. We don't do that in the United States. They have
all set up a hotline, full disclosure, and you can do that anonymously.
You can either email in or you can call in anonymously to the
government reporting any labor violations. We don't do that in a
national way here in the United States. So there are a lot of issues
here that we ought to recognize when we're talking about Colombia.
But I think most of all we've got to talk about this in terms of
American jobs. We sell a lot of things that we make here in America to
Colombia. Let's take Caterpillar, for example. Canada has just adopted
a free trade agreement. Europe is about to adopt a free trade agreement
with Colombia. And we're not going to have one. That means our goods
are going to be more expensive in Colombia. They're not going to buy
from us. We're going to lose the market share. Caterpillar will be out
of business. They'll be buying that heavy equipment from Europe,
they'll be buying it from Brazil, and they'll be buying it from
Canada--countries that have entered into a free trade agreement.
Let's preserve American jobs and let's think about American jobs.
This is a huge exporter. In my district alone, it's the number one
country in Latin America that we export produce to. So it's an
important country to us.
Let the debate begin. The debate can't begin without passing the
rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington from the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McDermott.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in my district, one out of three or maybe
one out of four people make their job some way in relationship to
foreign trade, either directly through the seaport or through the
companies that operate in my district, or the agricultural sector of
eastern Washington. Now, all of us in Seattle know that trade is not
bad if it's done right, and that's really the issue that we're debating
here tonight under this rule which I support.
Two of the agreements that we have before us, Korea and Panama, are
examples of doing it right. The Bush administration went in and signed
agreements that were flawed, and, in fact, were held up, and then were
renegotiated and are, in my opinion, a good place for the trade issue
for these two countries. We rejected those flawed agreements because we
wanted to do it right.
Now with these new rewritten agreements, we have some real change. In
Panama's case, it is no longer a tax haven. It was the best tax haven
on the face of the Earth before. Now we have a trade agreement, we have
an implemented tax agreement that will make it transparent and no
longer will that happen.
Unfortunately, Colombia is a glass that you could hold up and say, is
it half full or half empty? There clearly have been problems, for many
of us who have been resistant to this for a long time, and I will
resist that particular one tonight because, and most importantly,
Colombia has moved. They've made beautiful speeches. Speeches don't
change anything. My old friend, Ronald Reagan, who I admired greatly,
said ``trust but verify.'' And when the Republicans refused to put into
this trade agreement that the work action plan would be included, they
sent the message ``we're not serious.'' And that's why you're going to
get so much opposition.
I urge the adoption of the rule, and we'll debate the issues later.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to a very, very
strong free trader, a bold and courageous friend from New York City,
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I feel a sense of urgency about passage of
the FTAs before us. Urgency because while we have been waiting on the
passage of the agreements, South Korea has
[[Page H6720]]
moved forward on trade with Europe, and Colombia and Panama are moving
forward on several bilaterals of their own with Canada, China, and
others.
And trade is never just about economics. It's also about our
relationships with other nations, our allies. It's about strengthening
the rule of law, and it's about deepening ties. A recent report by the
Council on Foreign Relations said it well, ``Trade has been and remains
a major strategic instrument of American foreign policy. It binds
together countries in a broad and deep economic network that
constitutes a bulwark against conflict.'' But let me also talk
specifically about the Colombia free trade agreement.
{time} 1830
Many of my colleagues have talked today about the violent past in
Colombia and of the remaining vestiges of that past. Having traveled
extensively in Colombia over the last decade, I can tell you personally
that Colombia is not what it used to be. It's far from it. Even if it
is not where it wants to be just yet, there has been major progress in
Colombia, and this has been with a tremendous amount of cooperation
with and between our great nations. The agreement with Colombia
certainly has its many economic benefits for America. We are leveling
the playing field for American business.
Beyond that, what I want to emphasize right now is a role that the
agreement plays in strengthening the rule of law, specifically as it
relates to labor. The agreed-upon action plan between the Obama
administration and the Santos administration brings about important
changes that labor groups in Colombia have sought to solidify for
years. In fact, several labor organizations in Colombia made public
statements about the importance of the action plan. One of Colombia's
major labor federations lauded the action plan, signifying that, if one
of the results of the FTA is the advancement of labor and is an
increase in the guarantees to exercise freedom of association, then the
FTAs are welcome. Moreover, the federation and others have stated that
this action plan will continue to fight against impunity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. MEEKS. I am pleased to say that just last month, the Obama
administration announced that Colombia has fully complied with its
commitments under the Labor Action Plan that was set for completion in
mid-September. At the same time, the State Department also notified
that Colombia is meeting statutory criteria relating to human rights
that call for the obligation of U.S. assistance funds for the Colombian
Armed Forces.
Let's pass this agreement.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Congress was right in refusing to take up
the Colombia FTA when it was signed in 2006. Supporters of the FTA now
talk about those years as Colombia's dark past, but they supported the
FTA then just as they do now. The House was right to block the FTA in
2008. Supporters then extolled the virtues of the Uribe government, but
Colombia's new Attorney General has revealed mind-boggling corruption
in every agency of Uribe's government. Criminal acts were the norm.
I believe the Santos government is Colombia's best chance to bring
about much needed reforms and institutional change. I want him to
succeed, but goodwill is not enough. We have had promises before. We
need time to see if good intentions result in concrete change on labor
and human rights.
This is Tito Diaz. He was the mayor of El Roble in Sucre. In 2003, he
denounced the links between public officials and paramilitaries. For
this, he was tortured and murdered. His body was found strung up like a
crucifix and shot 11 times--his fingernails ripped out, his knees
bludgeoned, and his mayor's I.D. card taped to his forehead.
His son, Juan David, carried on his father's work, leading the
victims' movement in Sucre. He survived four assassination attempts but
finally fled the country. Others took his place. Since 2006, five more
victims' rights leaders in Sucre have been murdered--two this year.
This is the reality for Colombia's human rights defenders, 29 of whom
have been killed this year; 51 priests murdered in the past decade, six
so far this year. In this violent reality, Colombian workers attempt to
exercise their rights.
I ask my colleagues to think about the lives of all the brave labor
leaders, human rights defenders, religious and community leaders. Do
not turn your backs on them. Demand concrete change on the ground
before approving the Colombia FTA. You know that that is the right
thing to do. If the United States of America stands for anything, we
ought to stand out loud and four-squared for human rights. Let's
remember that as we deliberate on the Colombia FTA. It is just wrong to
rationalize, or explain away, the human rights situation in Colombia.
We are better than that. We should demand more on behalf of the workers
and the human rights defenders in Colombia.
Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the Colombia FTA.
A Brief History of the Victims' Rights Movement (MOVICE) in the
Department of Sucre (Colombia)
Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz
1. Biographical Note on Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz
Summary
Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz was the mayor of El Roble
municipality in Sucre Department, Colombia. He was killed for
denouncing the links between public officials and
paramilitary death squads. On the 5th of April 2003, Mr. Diaz
was disappeared, tortured for five days and murdered. His
body was found, strung up like a crucifix. He had been shot
eleven times, his fingernails ripped out and his knees
bludgeoned. On his forehead, the assassins had placed his
mayor's identity card, as a warning to others who would speak
out against the paramilitaries and public officials who
supported them.
Background
Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz was the mayor of El Roble
municipality in Sucre Department, Colombia. He was killed for
denouncing the links between public officials and
paramilitary death squads. After speaking out, he was sacked
and his security detail was withdrawn. He knew that his
actions carried a high price: ``they are going to kill me''
he said, at a televised public meeting on February 1, 2003,
at which he spoke out about the corruption and threats. The
meeting was attended by former president Uribe and then
governor of Sucre, Salvador Arana Sus, whom Mr. Diaz had
publicly denounced. Two months later, on April 5, 2003, Mr.
Diaz was called to a meeting by governor Arana, colonel
Norman Leon Arango (the former Police Chief of Sucre), Alvaro
Garcia Romero (former Senator, sentenced for his role in the
Chengue massacre and for his links to paramilitaries), Jaime
Gil Ortega (former Inspector General of Sucre), Guillermo
Merlano Martinez (former Inspector General of Sucre) and Eric
Morris Taboada (former governor of Sucre during 1997-2001,
sentenced for his links with paramilitary groups). On his way
to that meeting, Mr. Diaz was disappeared, tortured for five
days and murdered. On April 10th, his body was found, strung
up like a crucifix. He had been shot eleven times, his
fingernails ripped out and his knees bludgeoned. The ulcer in
his stomach showed that he had been deprived of food and
water. On his forehead, the assassins had placed his mayor's
identity card, as a warning to others who would speak out
against the paramilitaries and politicians who supported
them.
Mr. Diaz' son, Juan David, carried on his father's work. He
has survived four assassination attempts and received over 20
death threats. The day his father was killed, he received his
first death threat. Soon after, governor Arana was named
ambassador to Chile by president Uribe. Mr. Arana is
currently serving a 40-year sentence for Mr. Diaz' murder. At
least 12 of the witnesses in the case have been killed.
2. Prosecutions for Assassination of Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz
Salvador Arana Sus, former governor of Sucre, sentenced to
40 years for forced disappearance, aggravated homicide with
political motives, and promotion of illegal armed groups. He
had been appointed by former president Uribe as ambassador to
Chile 2003-2005.
Angel Miguel Berrocal Doria alias ``El Cocha,'' a
paramilitary, sentenced to 37 years for homicide.
Rodrigo Antonio Mercado Pelufo, alias ``Cadena,'' head of
the paramilitary group Heroes de los Montes de Maria,
sentenced in absentia to 40 years for aggravated homicide and
simple kidnapping.
Emiro Jose Correa alias ``Convivir'' and Jose Tomas Torres
alias ``Orbitel,'' known paramilitaries who allegedly carried
out governor Sus' instruction to kill Mr. Diaz, were absolved
in 2011. Diana Luz Martinez, former director of the La Vega
prison, who allegedly enabled the paramilitaries to leave the
prison where they were detained in order to carry out the
assassination, was absolved of all charges.
The paramilitaries Edelmiro Anaya, alias ``El Chino,''
Carlos Verbel Vitola, alias ``Caliche,'' Wilson Anderson
Atencia, alias ``El Gafa'' and Jhon Ospino, alias ``Jhon''
are also under investigation. Coronel Norman Leon Arango,
then police chief of Sucre, has been formally linked to the
assassination.
[[Page H6721]]
3. Members of MOVICE Assassinated (Nationwide)
Thirteen members of MOVICE have been assassinated since the
movement was created in 2005. Five of those were in the
Department of Sucre:
1. Garibaldi Berrio Bautista, MOVICE Sucre, 10 April 2007
2. Jose Dionisio Lozano Torralvo, MOVICE Sucre, 12 August
2007
3. Carlos Burbano, MOVICE Caqueta, 8 March 2008
4. Luis Mayusa Prada, MOVICE Arauca, 8 August 2008
5. Walberto Hoyos, MOVICE Choco, 14 October 2008
6. Carlos Rodolfo Cabrera, MOVICE Arauca, 28 November 2008
7. Carmenza Gomez Romero, MOVICE Bogota, 4 February 2009
8. Jhonny Hurtado, MOVICE Meta, 15 March 2010
9. Nilson Ramirez, MOVICE Meta, 7 May 2010
10. Rogelio Martinez, MOVICE Sucre, 18 May 2010
11. Oscar Maussa, MOVICE Choco, 24 November 2010
12. Eder Verbel Rocha, MOVICE Sucre, 23 March 2011
13. Ana Fabricia Cordoba, MOVICE Antioquia, 7 June 2011
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I'd like to get the debate back to where it was. We have before us
four pending issues. We have trade agreements with Colombia, Panama,
South Korea, and we have the very important trade adjustment
assistance.
Mr. Speaker, our fellow Americans are hurting. Job creation and
economic growth is something that Democrats and Republicans alike are
talking about. I was listening to the words of one of the protest
leaders up in New York. This guy was saying that the protests are about
economic and social justice, and he said working class Americans can no
longer be ignored.
Now, this measure that is before us, according to the International
Trade Commission, will create 250,000 new jobs here in the United
States of America. I argue that, if we had had these agreements in
place, the pain that so many of our fellow Americans are feeling at
this moment would not be as great as it has been because, for half a
decade, these agreements have been languishing, waiting to be
considered.
The last two speakers I yielded to happen to be Democrats. I am very
proud of having worked closely together with Sam Farr and Gregory Meeks
on these agreements. There are lots of other people who have been
involved and who have worked tirelessly for years. Over the last two
decades, I've had a working group that I started with former Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, going all the way up now to
working with Dave Camp and Kevin Brady and Wally Herger and others.
There have been many people who have been involved in working with
this. Democrats have joined with our bipartisan trade working group
because there are Democrats and Republicans who want us to get back to
the bipartisan approach to our global leadership role. They want to
open up markets around the world for the United States of America; and
with the passage of these three agreements, we're going to have access
to $2 trillion of economic activity and to 97 million consumers.
Mr. Speaker, we need to support this rule. We're going to have debate
going into this evening, and we're going to have debate throughout the
day tomorrow. Let's support the rule.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281,
nays 128, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 771]
YEAS--281
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hirono
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--128
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Hahn
Heinrich
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Bachmann
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Kind
Napolitano
Nunnelee
Paul
Pence
Perlmutter
Polis
Richardson
Sanchez, Linda T.
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1900
Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. TSONGAS, and Messrs. GARAMENDI, COHEN, and CROWLEY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
[[Page H6722]]
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California and Messrs. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of
California and SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 771, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________