[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5640-5654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1200
  RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5724, UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA 
              TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1092 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1092

       Resolved, That section 151(e)(1) and section 151(f)(1) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 shall not apply in the case of the bill 
     (H.R. 5724) to implement the United States-Colombia Trade 
     Promotion Agreement.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1092 relates to the consideration of H.R. 5724, 
the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The rule suspends 
the timelines for House consideration that are in the fast track law 
with respect to consideration of this specific trade agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a fiduciary obligation to ensure 
that the legislation passed through this Chamber represents the best 
interests of those that sent us here, the American people. To outsource 
that very basic legislative responsibility is to advocate the duties 
constitutionally prescribed to our branch and raises questions as to 
why we are here in the first place. The situation we find ourselves in 
today deals directly with that issue.
  The President has attempted to dictate the legislative schedule of 
the Congress according to his political calendar. Over the objections 
of congressional leadership, he sent Congress the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement in an attempt to force consideration of the measure within 60 
days by using a provision known as Trade Promotion Authority, or fast 
track.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to dispel a few myths about the 
action that we take today. The rule we are taking up today does not in 
any way affect the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It simply removes the 
timeline for considering it. It gives the House of Representatives the 
right to schedule when the agreement is undertaken.
  There are some who have called into question whether Congress has the 
right to suspend fast track procedures for trade agreements. One need 
look no further than the Trade Act of 1974, the legislation that 
establishes fast track, to see that the very statute itself allows 
that, like any rule of the House, fast track procedures can be 
suspended.
  We have also heard some raise questions about what consequences our 
action here today will have on the Senate's consideration of the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The answer is, it will have no effect.
  The rule today was necessitated by the partisan and irresponsible 
actions of the President. Instead of working with Congress to reach 
agreements on this accord, he instead took the unprecedented step of 
sending the Colombia trade deal to Congress over the objection of 
congressional leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have been promised a lot when it 
comes to trade. However, in a country whose economy has been devastated 
by ill-conceived trade deals, it can only be expected that the American 
people will remain wary. The promise of good-paying work on the horizon 
has consistently been dashed by the reality of job loss.
  Last Friday's unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, and more jobs, over 
80,000, were lost last month alone. It is yet another indicator of the 
worsening economic situation facing millions of America's families. 
Each day it becomes clearer that our country is teetering on the edge 
of economic disaster, and, for millions, financial ruin is just around 
the corner. It is simply not the right time to move forward with this 
trade agreement.
  The American people deserve an agreement that actually responds to 
the needs of the American worker, not makes promises that will not be 
met. By passing the rule today, we will no longer be bound by arbitrary 
deadlines and the House can bring up the agreement at the appropriate 
time and under the appropriate conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, there is yet another reason why this free trade 
agreement is untimely and requires additional consideration moving 
toward passage. We have been promised time after time in trade 
legislation that there would be side agreements protecting the life and 
work of labor, that there would be environmental safeguards, that there 
would no longer be child labor. None of that has come true.
  And it certainly makes one suspicious on this trade bill also because 
of the number of trade unionists who have been murdered. This makes the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement hard to justify, given the continued 
violence against the union leaders, subsistence farmers, indigenous 
people and Afro-Colombians.
  While President Uribe has made some progress, systematic killings are 
still far too prevalent to warrant the passage of this bill. 
Persecution of trade unionists is well-known because since the 
beginning of this year, 12 have already been murdered. Rewarding the

[[Page 5641]]

Colombia Government with this bill under those conditions eliminates 
any leverage the U.S. Government has to improve the respect for human 
rights and the rule of law in the future.
  To push forward at a time of economic insecurity is simply 
irresponsible for working families at home. To push forward in the 
midst of gross violations of human rights in Colombia is simply wrong.
  It is the prerogative of Congress to suspend fast track if the timing 
necessitates it and only when it is in the best interests of the 
American people. By passing the rule today, we are reestablishing the 
House of Representatives as coequal to the President, and, in do doing 
so, we are standing up for America's working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, 
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen many, many unexpected political alliances 
that have been formed over the past years that I have been privileged 
to serve here, but I never expected to be taking up a rule that aligns 
with the goals of Hugo Chavez and South American narcoterrorists.
  The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement would deliver a significant 
blow to Chavez's authoritarian designs for the region and the FARC's 
terrorist agenda. No one was quicker, no one was quicker to condemn the 
President's decision to send this FTA implementing legislation to 
Congress, than Hugo Chavez himself. So that is why, Mr. Speaker, what 
we are considering today is nothing more than the Hugo Chavez rule.
  The agreement, the agreement that we hope very much we can see this 
institution pass, would help to strengthen democratic institutions, 
provide real economic opportunity for the Colombian people and solidify 
the rule of law. So naturally it is vehemently opposed by someone who 
is systematically dismantling representative democracy and free markets 
and resorting to corruption and crony capitalism to enrich government 
coffers at the expense of the working poor. That is the legacy of Hugo 
Chavez.
  Naturally, naturally, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is also vehemently 
opposed by a terrorist organization that simply cannot continue to 
survive in a thriving, stable and transparent democracy with strong 
institutions and an increasingly prosperous population.
  The Government of Colombia, its business leaders and its private 
sector unions all strongly support this agreement for the very reasons 
it is opposed by the region's most nefarious forces. It would be a 
giant leap forward in solidifying their attempts to take back their 
country from the violent and lawless groups that tore it apart for 
decades. And yet here we are today considering a rule that blocks 
consideration of the agreement under the rules of the Trade Promotion 
Authority which were established over 30 years ago.
  Many supporters of this Hugo Chavez rule like to argue that this rule 
is as much about process as it is substance. I regularly make the 
argument that process is substance. So let's examine these claims, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The argument has been made that by sending up the implementing 
legislation without an invitation, the President has violated the rules 
set forth by the Trade Act of 1974 and Congress must take special 
action to assert its role.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have witnessed a number of 
struggles between the first two branches of government, so 
congressional prerogative is a familiar theme these days. And I am a 
strong supporter of congressional prerogative. As a result, the 
argument in this case has found an overly credulous audience in this 
body and proven persuasive to the uninformed, so I will do my 
Democratic colleagues the favor of reviewing the details of Trade 
Promotion Authority.
  The statute outlines very clearly the responsibilities of the 
administration. It sets forth a number of negotiating principles. It 
demands that the administration closely consult with Congress prior to, 
during and after the negotiating process. It requires notification 90 
days before entering into negotiations. Prior to signing, it requires 
notice of potential changes to trade remedy laws 180 days in advance 
and notification of intent to sign 90 days in advance, followed by 
advisory committee reports within 30 days. Sixty days after signing, a 
list of law changes is due. Ninety days after signing, an International 
Trade Commission report is due. All of this is designed to ensure that 
the concerns and prerogatives of the United States Congress are met.
  The administration, Mr. Speaker, upheld both the letter and the 
spirit of the law at every single step. High ranking officials met with 
Congress 160 times prior to and during negotiations. They have held 
nearly 450 meetings since August of 2007 and taken 55 Members of 
Congress to Colombia to see the situation there for themselves. To say 
that the administration has not upheld their end of the bargain is 
outright laughable.
  Now, what is Congress' end of the bargain under TPA? To hold an up or 
down vote within 60 days in the House and 90 days in the Senate. That 
is the deal, close consultation followed by a timely vote. Congress 
gets the final say, but it has the responsibility to not let a 
complicated and time-consuming negotiation go to waste or languish 
indefinitely.
  We have a negotiation that was launched 4 years ago, concluded 2 
years ago, and signed a year-and-a-half ago. Now, after all of this, 
all of this consultation, all of this time, the Democratic leadership 
wants to make an unprecedented, never before has this been done, an 
unprecedented rule change to allow them to abrogate their role under 
TPA, all the time while blaming the administration, and the 
administration is somehow to blame for a broken process. They are just 
making up this nonsense as they go along.
  Mr. Speaker, ironically, on Wednesday morning when the Democratic 
leadership was announcing their intention to take this highly divisive, 
partisan and unprecedented action, I was sending a letter to several of 
my Democratic colleagues in which I was reaching out to them in hopes 
that they would join me in a special order next week to talk about 
Colombia. As colleagues who have gone to the country for ourselves, I 
was hoping that we could come together to simply share what we had seen 
firsthand in Colombia.
  Under TPA, the House has, as I said, 60 days to debate and work 
together to reach consensus, 60 days to work in a bipartisan way. I 
thought that our special order describing our experiences would be a 
constructive and congenial way to begin. Unfortunately, the Democratic 
leadership has cut off this substantive process before it could even 
begin, killing any hope of bipartisanship on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, their actions are causing even more damage abroad. They 
are sabotaging our relationship with or best and closest ally in South 
America. This is an ally that faces a hostile neighbor on its border 
which threatens not just Colombia, but the very ideals of democracy and 
free markets. This ally faces an even graver daily threat within its 
borders; a threat that has been weakened by President Uribe's brave 
efforts, but one that still exists.

                              {time}  1215

  I have gone to Colombia twice in the past few months, once with 
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and once with the Speaker's House 
Democracy Assistance Commission. I have seen myself the transformation 
that has taken place. I have seen the safe and orderly streets of 
Bogota and Medellin. I have seen the new opportunities and economic 
growth.
  I have met with the attorney general and discussed extensively his 
efforts to prosecute violent offenders and end the days of impunity for 
murderers. I have sat down with former members of the paramilitaries, 
whose leaders have gone to jail and who are now struggling to 
reintegrate into society with the help of government-funded social 
programs. This is a country that has come

[[Page 5642]]

miraculously far in just a few short years and has so far to go.
  I find it shocking that the Democratic leadership would turn their 
backs on our friend and ally who has accomplished so much and who asks 
for our continued help in accomplishing even more. This week we have 
all heard the lengthy testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker. A very common theme I have heard from my Democratic colleagues 
throughout this testimony is concern for America's lost prestige 
abroad. They decry what they call our unilateralism and our disregard 
for the concerns of our allies.
  Yet today they propose to flagrantly commit what the Colombian Vice 
President has called a slap in the face. Editorial boards across this 
country have similarly slammed this action.
  The Washington Post compared it to telling Colombia to ``Drop Dead.'' 
The Las Vegas Review-Journal says that what we are doing is ``stabbing 
our trade partners in the back.''
  The Democratic leadership is determined to isolate our greatest ally 
in South America and weaken the region's strongest advocate for 
democracy, flouting national security and our international 
credibility. The damage to our interests and our leadership will be 
significant and lasting.
  Our friends and allies will realize that our word at the negotiating 
table cannot be trusted and the rules can be changed in the middle of 
the game according to the whims of electoral politics.
  This rule must be defeated for the sake of our national security 
interests, our leadership in the international community and our 
responsibilities as an institution. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, Mr. Rangel.
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, Madam Chairlady, for giving me this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree with my friend from California 
more, and there is no one in this House that I believe that the 
administration has not spoken to more in concern for pieces of trade 
legislation, and I doubt whether there is anyone that has the 
compassion and the concern more than I about the people of Colombia who 
I have learned to admire, respect and work with over the years, not 
only with their political problems, but certainly their fight, their 
narcotics and trying to preserve democracy in that country.
  The President has violated protocol in terms of not fulfilling the 
outlines that we have been using historically. What I have to say 
applies whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
  If, in the rules that the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee has outlined to us, there is an area of consultation before 
the President actually sends a complex piece of legislation to the 
House, which is more conducive to bringing us together, saying to the 
House that you have 90 days, and if you don't do anything in 90 days 
that it's the House of Representatives that killed the bill designed to 
help our friends in this area? Or one may say, Mr. President, you 
forgot to consult with us? You forgot to consult with the Ways and 
Means Committee. You did not deal with some of the issues that we have.
  As you just changed the rule and just sending it over saying it's 
your responsibility in the House, what we are saying is that let's give 
the House more time and not a timetable to see what can we do to 
facilitate an atmosphere that would allow the Members at least to know 
what's in the bill.
  It is really strange that the ranking member of the Rules Committee 
has presented us a speech this morning that is so similar that I don't 
remember the last time anyone in the administration has talked about 
the bill.
  Oh, Hugo Chavez, I go to sleep every night wondering what he is going 
to do. Castro, my God, we should vote for the people of Colombia and 
against him and make him a big threat in the community.
  I am not saying these things shouldn't be considered, but how many 
people, Republican or Democrat have the slightest idea what's in the 
trade bill? Why not give them an opportunity to make this decision, not 
based on 40 days, 50 days or 90 days, but for us to bring up these 
things.
  When has anyone ever heard that they didn't have a crisis in terms of 
peace and tranquility against terrorism and assassination in Colombia? 
The question we may ask is Uribe doing, a man that I respect, as much 
as he should? Should he be doing more?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York 1 
more minute.
  Mr. RANGEL. The real question I think we should ask, my friend, is I 
know you have a problem. We have problems in every major city. Why 
don't you allow us to share with you some of the techniques we have, 
some of the technology, work with your law enforcement so at the end of 
the day those who claim that it is murder that stops us from voting on 
a trade bill, that we will be able to say that we are working with 
them.
  I hope you would rethink the vote. This vote is going to apply to 
every President, every Speaker of the House that deals with us. Do you 
believe they can change the rules and then they say that we dictate the 
legislative calendar of the House of Representatives? I think not.
  You change the procedure. We defend the rules of the House.
  What are we giving up? We are giving us an opportunity, one, to find 
out what's in the trade bill, and, two, which is most important, what 
can we do to resolve the issues that force Members to be against it.
  I appreciate the words of my friend from California, but you have to 
do that, you are the ranking member. I remember when I had to say 
things that I had to say. Let's work together on this.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to a hardworking fighter for freedom, a member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what the majority 
leadership of this Congress, what this rule is saying to Colombia today 
is you voted to tie your economy to the United States, but, sorry, we 
don't care.
  You are at war with narcoterrorists armed to the teeth by drug money 
and given sanctuary by neighboring governments. Sorry, we don't care.
  You have voted, not once, twice, overwhelmingly, to support your 
brave President and his government and the Colombian armed forces as 
they fight the narcoterrorists and defend your rule of law. Sorry, we 
don't care.
  Well, I say to the people of Colombia, like the President of the 
United States, many of us here in Congress are with you, and you are 
not alone despite this day of legislative action that will live in 
infamy.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, an expert in this issue, and a member of 
the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this 
important debate, and I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Bush administration have produced an 
American economy in crisis. People are losing their jobs, fuel prices 
are at a record high, food prices have dramatically increased, 
confidence in the economy is at an all-time low. Maybe this is a 
radical idea, but shouldn't the energy, passion and focus of the 
administration be on fixing these problems?
  This administration has turned a cold shoulder to the plight of 
American workers. They have opposed efforts to extend unemployment 
benefits. They have no plan to help 45 million Americans get health 
insurance. They have even opposed expanding health benefits to 
children. Their absolute indifference towards our fellow citizens is 
stunning. It takes my breath away.

[[Page 5643]]

  Well, that must change. The Speaker of the House has the right to 
prioritize legislation. She has stated quite clearly that we want to 
continue to work with President Uribe to make progress on improving 
human rights, the rule of law, ending impunity, breaking Colombia's 
political and military ties to drug lords and paramilitary groups and 
protecting and promoting basic labor rights.
  If the Colombian FTA came up today for a vote, I will strongly oppose 
it. I have repeatedly told the Colombian Government that I am always 
willing to reassess my position.
  But when it comes to issues like human rights, I refuse to be a cheap 
date. The U.N., the Red Cross and U.S. and Colombian human rights 
groups all describe a worsening humanitarian crisis in Colombia. The 
number of internally displaced grew by 27 percent over the past year 
due to increasing violence throughout the country.
  Over each of the past 3 years, murders of civilians by the Colombian 
army have been increasing. Violence against trade unions continues at 
an extremely high level, and the vast majority of cases of murders of 
labor leaders remain unsolved.
  It is true that murders of trade unionists in 2007 were about half of 
what they were in 2006. Even then, Colombia had the highest rate of 
trade union murders in the world. But death threats, attacks and 
disappearances skyrocketed. But this 1-year hiatus in the murder rate 
may be over. In just the first 12 weeks of 2008, 17 trade unionists 
have already been assassinated.
  Like many of my House colleagues, I have traveled to Colombia several 
times in the past 7 years. I have gone to Putumayo, not just to fly 
over fumigated territory, but to meet with hundreds of human rights 
victims and campesinos on the ground. I have been to Barrancabermeja, 
Sincelejo and Popayan.
  I have traveled to San Jose de Apartado and to Arauca, where violence 
from all armed actors reigns supreme and community leaders are murdered 
like flies. I have visited the slums of Bogota where the poor and the 
internally displaced struggle to survive.
  I spent hours in meetings with human rights groups, with families 
whose loved ones are held in brutal captivity by the FARC and with 
victims of violence by the paramilitaries and the Colombian army.
  I have met with the constitutional court, religious and labor 
leaders, with indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians and dozens of 
government and military officials. There is so much more to Colombia 
than the administration's day and a half excursion tours to Medellin 
and Cartagena.
  Congress must insist upon improvements in human rights in Colombia 
and not paint a rosy picture simply to secure a trade agreement. U.S. 
policy must take responsibility for the behavior of Colombian behavior 
forces trained with U.S. tax dollars, take into account the continued 
suffering of the civilian population in the midst of an ongoing 
conflict and support the rights of victims after a decade of 
atrocities.
  I remain dedicated to the Colombian people. I will never advocate 
walking away from Colombia. I also strongly support the right of the 
Speaker of the House to take up trade agreements when it makes the most 
sense to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and to remain engaged with 
Colombia on these important issues.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request in 
opposition to this Hugo Chavez rule, I yield to my friend from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Today's vote to delay consideration of the 
U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is nothing short of the majority 
party playing politics and catering to their special interests. The 
actions of the majority remind me of those of a school yard bully--when 
losing, simply change the rules of the game. We should reject these 
changes, and we should honestly and fairly debate the merits of this 
deal.
  It's ironic that the majority party is delaying a vote on the 
agreement because by and large it benefits American workers most. The 
United States already grants Colombia duty-free access to U.S. markets. 
Colombian goods cross our borders virtually tariff-free. But, 80 
percent of American made consumer products, and none of our 
agricultural products that we send to Colombia enjoy that same duty-
free access. This is a one-way street. The U.S.-Colombia free trade 
agreement would remove the tariffs on American products and create an 
even playing field for our workers.
  I am disappointed to see the Speaker stand in the way of lowering 
tariffs on American products. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, who is a strong opponent of this Hugo 
Chavez rule, the gentleman from Shreveport, Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this extraordinary, 
unprecedented, and, I believe, dangerous change to the House Rules.
  Congress first gave trade promotion authority to the President in 
1974, in order to allow him to engage directly with our competitors 
around the world to level the playing field, eliminate barriers to 
American exports and create jobs for American workers.
  Passing this rule would undermine that authority and damage United 
States credibility abroad because our trading partners could rightfully 
question the commitments of our government in negotiating trade 
agreements. I have heard it said that this rule will allow us to 
consider this agreement this year after the election, but what this 
rule would do is to eliminate the uncertainty under TPA that Congress 
will vote on this agreement.
  It doesn't guarantee a vote by any time certain. It doesn't push the 
vote off until after the election. It simply turns off the clock 
entirely.
  Even postponing congressional consideration of this agreement does 
tremendous damage to America's competitiveness. Right now Canada, the 
European Union, are completing trade agreements with Colombia. As a 
result, they will gain a competitive advantage over American products.

                              {time}  1230

  Colombia will buy tractors, mining equipment and fertilizer from 
Canada, France, and Germany, instead of from Illinois, Georgia, and 
Texas.
  Chairman Rangel, my good friend, said nobody is talking about the 
economic benefits, they are all talking about Hugo Chavez. Well, my 
good friend knows that is not the case. And besides, the reason we are 
not talking about it all that much is because it is a no-brainer from 
an economic standpoint. I am mystified as to why any Member would 
oppose this agreement when all it does is level the playing field for 
American workers.
  Today, American workers compete against imports from Colombia that 
enter our country virtually duty free, while our exports going to 
Colombia face high tariffs. This agreement eliminates those obstacles 
to our goods and services and supports American jobs.
  I agree with Chairman Rangel's assessment last month that denying a 
vote on this agreement wouldn't help address the concerns about labor 
violence in Colombia. In fact, this agreement would help Colombian 
labor unions. The agreement includes robust, enforceable international 
labor organization core labor standards, standards included with the 
strong support of the Democratic leadership to require Colombia to 
continue the tremendous progress it has made to improve labor rights.
  I plead with my colleagues today: Do not make a vote which will 
undermine the credibility of the United States, making it more 
difficult for any future administration to eliminate barriers to the 
sale of products made by us. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we certainly do need a balanced, 
enlightened trade policy. But this debate is not about trade, it is 
about the guiding principle of the Bush Administration--arrogance--
arrogance that has served our country so poorly.
  This President, personally proclaiming himself to be a ``uniter, not 
a

[[Page 5644]]

divider'' at the beginning, quickly transformed himself into the 
``decider.'' And that lone decider has unleashed one divisive, 
disastrous decision after another on our land. Mr. Cheney's current 
chief of staff, he summed up this attitude very directly: ``We're going 
to push and push and push until some larger force is going to make us 
stop.'' Well today, our Speaker, backed up by this House, says 
``Stop.''
  The go-it-alone, disdain for allies, dismissal of anyone who has a 
different point of view, has left this White House isolated. It has 
left us with a disastrous war, and now Mr. Bush's recession.
  We'll secure a more responsible, enlightened trade policy, but we 
won't secure it until we trade it for a new President.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, who is 
vigorously opposed to this Hugo Chavez rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stop this unprecedented attempt to rewrite 
trade laws and jeopardize fair trade for our American farmers.
  Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. One 
in three Washington jobs is tied to international trade. Since 1991, 
Colombia has had open, free entry into the U.S. for many of their 
products, while steep tariffs block our farmers' access into Colombia.
  This agreement would immediately, immediately, Mr. Speaker, eliminate 
tariffs for Washington State apples, cherries, pears, wheat, beef, and 
more. If the issue is the economy, what better way to stimulate our 
Nation's economy than to level the playing field and wipe out unfair 
trade barriers for our farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, Representatives and Senators are elected to vote, so 
let's do our job and vote on the Colombia agreement. What the House is 
now considering is an effort to delay, to hide, to slam the door, shut 
the door on free and fair trade that millions of Americans' jobs depend 
on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Hugo Chavez rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished Chair.
  There is a fundamental issue that we face in this rule, and it is 
this: Does Congress cede its authority under the Constitution to the 
executive, or does it exercise it?
  Mr. Speaker, from a distance--I have only been here a little over a 
year--I watched with dismay as a citizen, seeing Congress year after 
year relinquish its authority, turn that over to the executive, not do 
its job of accountability and oversight, not do its job on trade, 
essentially not exercise the constitutional authority that we are 
custodians of, each and every one of the 435 Members who have been 
elected.
  The President exercised his prerogative under a rule that was enacted 
by this House in 1974, but against the advice of the Speaker and 
against the advice of the Senate majority leader. The President did 
what he could do, and that is send over on his own timetable a trade 
agreement when it wasn't ready to be considered.
  And the Speaker, in her judgment, and I support this, stood up for 
the prerogatives of this legislative branch, where we have the 
responsibility to be the final voice of the people who sent us here.
  The bottom line question is: Will Congress assert the authority that 
it has under the Constitution?
  We can exercise it. The best circumstances, we do it in cooperation 
and in consultation with the executive. But if it is unilateral, a my-
way-or-the-highway approach that has been so often employed by this 
chief executive, then it becomes incumbent upon us to stand up and 
assert the constitutional responsibility we have.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to speak in opposition to this Hugo Chavez 
rule, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Marysville, 
California, the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Herger.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this procedural vote, if it is successful, 
Congress would be rebuffing the Colombia agreement through technical 
gimmicks and rejecting a level playing field for American workers.
  Colombian workers and producers already have free access to the U.S. 
markets, but we don't have reciprocity. Our manufacturers and farmers 
need this agreement to sell their products, create jobs, and compete 
against foreign producers. A vote for this rule is a vote against 
American workers, period.
  Since the agreement was signed nearly 500 days ago, congressional 
Republicans and the White House have tried to work with the Democratic 
majority to approve this agreement. We reached a bipartisan consensus 
nearly a year ago to ensure congressional consideration of this 
agreement.
  In sending up the agreement, the President said that he was open to 
continuing discussions with the Democrats. The Democratic leadership, 
through this rule, has firmly shut the door to any discussions.
  Members should be keenly aware of the very negative foreign policy 
ramifications of this vote. This rule would be cheered by belligerent 
leftist guerillas abetted by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez who seek 
to undermine the democratically elected Colombian government with 
menacing ramifications.
  This rule is a public slap in the face to a loyal ally at the 
epicenter of a philosophical war between democracy and totalitarianism, 
capitalism, and socialism.
  President Uribe made it very clear that the best way to support 
Colombia's struggle for economic and political security is to pass this 
agreement. Today's action would trounce that plea and embolden the foes 
of democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade.
  Mr. LEVIN. Trade policy under the Bush administration has been badly 
off track. The approach of the administration and the then-Republican 
majority in Congress was to go their own way and dismiss bipartisan 
effort, starting with a side letter to the Jordan FTA thwarting 
enforcement of worker rights provisions negotiated by the Clinton 
administration.
  In the cases of Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman FTAs, it was left to 
Democrats to negotiate with governments of those countries to bring 
their laws into compliance with international labor standards before a 
Congressional vote, with no help from the administration.
  And we all remember CAFTA, where the administration's approach was go 
it alone from the beginning through the end, with false claims that the 
other nations were already in compliance with international standards.
  And last year, with the loss of a congressional majority, the Bush 
administration was forced to include fully enforceable labor and 
environmental standards in the Peru FTA. And when Democrats pressed for 
Peru to bring into compliance with the language of the agreement, the 
administration attacked Democrats and refused to even participate in 
the changes that Peru made in its legal structure.
  At that time Democrats made clear that Colombia was different from 
Peru with the level of violence against workers, impunity from 
prosecution, and laws that did not meet international standards, and 
that sustainable progress was required before consideration. The 
administration kept on insisting that the status quo was good enough 
and has done nothing to address these concerns.
  Urged by both the House and Senate Democratic leadership not to 
proceed with the Colombia FTA under present circumstances, the 
administration decided once again to go its own way. This rule reflects 
the Speaker's response to assert a congressional role on international 
trade under the Constitution of the United States of America.

[[Page 5645]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the ranking member of the Trade 
Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why what the majority 
is doing today is gravely harmful to our security. Colombia is a close 
ally under siege. And as The Washington Post points out today: ``Score 
this action as a boost to Venezuela's agenda of destabilizing democracy 
in Colombia.''
  By all accounts, the Colombian agreement is a big plus for American 
exports and American employment. What the majority is doing is giving 
near free-market access to Colombia and taking nothing for our workers. 
This agreement would cut tariffs 80 percent on U.S. beef, and 15 
percent on U.S.-tractors.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
commend her for her very distinguished leadership of the Rules 
Committee and for bringing this very important rule to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is one I wish could have 
been avoided, and I think it is important to put it in context because 
I have heard our colleagues talk about the merits of the bill or talk 
about any precedent on rules, and I have heard them talk about 
different things. But I think it is important to know what brought us 
here today.
  On Monday, I received a call from the President of the United States, 
always an honor to receive a call from the President. This is after 
months of our going back and forth with members of the cabinet and the 
rest about when and if they would send up the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement. The President informed me that he would be sending the bill 
over the next day.
  I recommended against it. I said, Mr. President, you shouldn't send 
it for two reasons. If you send it and we take it up, it will lose. Now 
you think it is very important to pass a Colombia free trade agreement, 
and in the Congress we have people who share your view. And we have 
others who share your view that we should pass it as soon as we address 
the concerns of America's working people, and others who will never be 
for it. But let's talk about what the possibilities are for passing it, 
and those possibilities are greatly diminished if you send that bill to 
the Congress under these circumstances.
  Apart from the fact that it would be a breach of protocol, and let's 
just talk about that. A successful trade agenda depends on joint 
partnership between the Congress and the administration, as was the 
case recently in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Had the administration 
followed the established protocol of congressional consultation 
relating to the submission of any free trade agreement, we would not 
have to take this action today.
  By his actions on Tuesday, the President abandoned the traditions of 
consultation that have governed past agreement. In fact, the action the 
House takes today is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than 
the White House's move to force a vote.

                              {time}  1245

  But, as I said, just from a practical standpoint, Mr. President, you 
simply don't have the votes. And if we are to try to arrive at a place 
where the concerns of the American people are addressed, we need more 
time to do that.
  I also said what I have said many times to the President. If we are 
going to be successful in passing a trade agreement, we have to first 
tell the Americans people that we have a positive economic agenda that 
addresses their aspirations, addresses their concerns about their 
economic security.
  This bill's been around for a while, and matters have only gotten 
worse in our economy. The former Chair of the Fed has said we're in the 
throes of a recession. The current Chair of the Federal Reserve last 
week, the end of last week, testified to Congress that there's a 
possible recession.
  Many people, I mean, the joblessness numbers of last week, again 
pointed to a steeper downturn in our economy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the Speaker yield for some questions?
  Ms. PELOSI. No. You control your time. With all due respect to the 
gentleman, I'll use mine.
  The fact is, as I said to the President, many people in America now 
are concerned about their jobs. They're concerned about losing their 
homes. Most people won't, but most people are concerned about losing 
their living standard.
  When the cost of groceries and gasoline and the cost of health care 
and education and other staples continues to go up, and the purchasing 
power of the income that people have is either stagnant or going down, 
they have concerns about their economic security.
  So let's have a timetable for the American people. Let's have a 
timetable on our consideration of a trade bill that addresses the 
concerns and is compatible with the needs of America's working 
families. That is, I think, the only fair thing to do.
  The President ignored those concerns and sent the bill over. I 
pledged to this body, as Speaker of the House, that at the appropriate 
time, if many of these concerns are addressed in terms of America's 
working families, that we can take up legislation for such a trade 
agreement.
  Some have concerns about the content of the agreement. Others have 
concerns about the treatment of labor organizers in Colombia, and it's 
a real concern, and one admitted to by the administration and the 
Colombian Government. There are differences of opinion as to how this 
is changing, but let's see how we can work together to make that 
change.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask again if my distinguished California 
colleague would yield.
  Ms. PELOSI. Having control of the time, I will retain the control of 
the time, Mr. Speaker.
  The important point here is, whether it's the substance of the bill, 
whether it's the conditions in Colombia, they are to be, obviously, 
major considerations.
  But what we're saying to the President, we can't do much about some 
of these things. We certainly can address the provisions in the bill. 
But I'm not here to talk about that now.
  What we can do something about, what we haven't done enough about is 
to send a positive economic agenda forth. And these are not difficult. 
Most of what we're talking to the President about are part of what has 
passed this Congress in mostly an overwhelming bipartisan way.
  Whether we're talking about rebuilding the infrastructure of America, 
whether we're talking about investments in an innovation agenda, our 
commitment to competitiveness to keep America number 1, and that 
innovation begins in the classroom, and we have to have a strong 
commitment to the education of our people, whether we're talking about 
tax credits for our energy bill which we passed here, which would 
immediately create jobs. No, if we don't do it we will lose jobs that 
exist now. Same thing with infrastructure. If we don't make those 
investments, our projects will have to discontinue. But many more are 
ready. Dirt is ready to fly. The projects are in the pipeline.
  There is a way to create good-paying jobs right here in America. 
We've passed the legislation. The vehicles are there for us to do it. 
And at the same time, we have to address the concerns of those who have 
lost their jobs, whether it's unemployment insurance or summer jobs 
program for their children or other initiatives.
  So this is nothing new. And, in fact, the whole idea that we were 
going into recession is nothing new to most families across America. It 
took a while for the President and his administration to accept that 
fact, and, when they did, we could talk. And when they did, we

[[Page 5646]]

could talk, we could work together, as Mr. Boehner and I did, with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, to put together a stimulus package that had 
strong bipartisan support, and, as the President has said, has not gone 
into effect yet. And when it does, I know it will inject demand into 
the economy, create jobs and, I think, stimulate the economy.
  But since we did that, matters have only become worse, necessitating 
the need for us to do more. And we certainly should do more for our 
economy. And we certainly should do more for our economy before we pass 
another trade agreement. It's all possible in the days that are before 
us.
  But instead of having the President's timetable, we have the 
timetable of the House of Representatives, we have a timetable for 
America's working families.
  And nothing that we are doing here now should be misconstrued in 
terms of our attitude toward Colombia. Colombia is our friend, is a 
neighbor in the hemisphere. The relationship between Colombia and the 
United States is an important one.
  We have concerns about workers in Colombia, and we respect the 
leadership of President Uribe. And as I said to the Ambassador 
yesterday, I hope you will convey that message to the President, and 
when you do, I hope you will also tell him we congratulate him on his 
excellent representation in the United States in ambassador service 
here.
  So this isn't about ending anything. It's about having a timetable 
that respects the concerns, the aspirations, the challenges faced by 
the American people. We are the people's House. Their timetable should 
be our timetable.
  I urge our colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before I yield to 
the leader to say that I had hoped to ask the Speaker if, in fact, the 
votes are not there, why it is that we had to do this the day after the 
President sent this message up, why we could not have waited 45 days. 
It was my hope that the Speaker could have answered that question for 
us. Unfortunately, she has not.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, 
our friend from West Chester, Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from California for yielding, 
and say, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, that our economy is 
struggling. Families and businesses are dealing with the rising cost of 
living, and certainly the job market has slowed. At a time like this we 
should be working together. And as the Speaker said, she and I came 
together and our Members came together on both sides of the aisle 
earlier this year to pass an economic growth package. The checks will 
be going out to Americans here beginning in the middle of May and will 
occur, continue to go on through the end of July. These checks, again, 
are not out in the marketplace. We hope they'll be out there soon, and 
we hope it will help revive our struggling economy.
  But the action that's being taken here today is going to do nothing 
more than to hurt American businesses and American workers.
  The Speaker earlier went on about the fact that the typical protocol 
here was not followed; that the President send this bill to the 
Congress without the approval of the Speaker of the House.
  Now I think it's time to set the record straight on exactly what has 
occurred. There have been hundreds and hundreds of meetings over the 
last 15 months trying to come to an agreement on how this bill shall be 
considered. There have been changes made. There have been side 
agreements that have come forth as a result of this.
  And over the course of the last six or eight weeks, there have been 
serious conversations between the administration and the Speaker of the 
House about the consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And 
the reason this bill was sent up here this week was because, not one 
time over these 6 weeks, has the Speaker agreed or made a commitment to 
the administration that this bill will be considered this year. The 
President's been willing to work with the Congress. The conversations, 
again, have gone on for 15 months. But not one time during that 15 
months was there ever a commitment by the Democrat majority to bring 
this bill to the floor for a vote in the House.
  I don't think the President had any choice but to bring, to send that 
free trade agreement to the Congress and force Congress to act.
  And so what do we do? We don't go try to work to see if we can get 
the votes. We don't try, in a bipartisan way, to move this agreement. 
No, we're going to go in and cheat. We're going to change the rules 
under which the consideration of this free trade agreement should 
operate between the House and the Senate. We're not even going to give 
it a chance.
  And anybody that thinks that well, we're just going to push this off 
for a couple of months, that is nonsense. This vote today is a vote to 
kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, nothing more and nothing less.
  The Speaker points out, well, the President did this and, frankly, 
there are other priorities in the House.
  Let me tell you what. When we passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act 
earlier this year, virtually everything that comes from Colombia to the 
United States comes here duty-free. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement 
would allow U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers who produce these 
goods, to send our goods to Colombia virtually tariff-free.
  We're doing nothing here but hurting American workers and American 
businesses. Why?
  I think the Speaker made it very clear. This action today is nothing 
short of political blackmail. The Speaker made it clear that she has 
her agenda. She wants the President to deal with her on her agenda, and 
we're not going to move this bill until the President deals with her 
agenda. That is not the way to deal with our trading partners around 
the world.
  I've listened to candidates that are running for President, 
especially candidates on the Democrat side, who have talked about the 
fact that the United States needs to be more willing to engage the rest 
of the world, that we need to listen, that we need to reach out to 
countries around the world. There's probably no place that's more 
important for us to reach out than South America.
  Here we have a country in South America that's doing their best to 
fight off terrorists in their own country. A message that we could 
send, not only to Colombia, but to the rest of South America that we 
want to engage in them, exactly as many of these contenders for the 
Democrat nomination, points that they have made.
  What does this say to Colombia? What does it say to South America? 
And what does it say about free and fair trade around the world?
  This is a precipitous step in the wrong direction. We're sending a 
very bad message for our partners around the world, all in the name of 
election-year politics. I think that it's regrettable, it's despicable.
  If we're going to have a vote here, why don't we put the Colombian 
free trade bill up for a vote and let the House work its will on that 
bill, because the fact is, I think it would pass.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. For a Republican minority, and particularly the 
gentleman from California, who whine day in and day out about their 
inability to offer amendments to even the most minor of bills, I've 
never seen a group so eager to give up their right, in fact, the right 
of every Member of this House to offer an amendment to this trade 
agreement in a rush to rubber-stamp yet another failed so-called free 
trade agreement.
  As one Republican pointed out, yeah, its been the policy since 1974. 
Guess what? 1974 we were the manufacturing colossus of the world. We 
ran trade surpluses. We had a robust middle class in America. It was 
bad policy then. But after 24 years of that bad trade policy, our 
manufacturing's cut in half. The

[[Page 5647]]

middle class is losing ground. They're unemployed. We're borrowing $2 
billion a day from the rest of the world, including Communist China, to 
buy things that we used to make here in America, and they think we 
should do more of the same.
  I've heard this and played this game before. I've never voted for 
one. But every President since I've been here, Republican and Democrat, 
says, hey, we negotiated this deal in secret. You can't fail us now. 
Yeah, it's got big problems, but we'll fix them later.
  Guess what? Later never comes. Because this Congress, until today, 
has never had a spine to stand up to the special interests that are 
pushing failed trade policies, policies that fail the American people 
to benefit a few on Wall Street. This is about Main Street.
  The House is growing a spine today. This is a great day and the 
beginning of a new trade policy for the American people.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to speak in opposition to this Hugo Chavez 
rule, I'm happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from 
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule. Why is Latin America all today watching this debate in this 
House? Because today the House of Representatives is going to tell the 
world how we treat our best friends, how we treat our best friend in 
Latin America. Who is our best friend in Latin America? The democracy 
of Colombia. Who is America's most reliable partner in counternarcotics 
and counterterrorism in Latin America? The democracy of Colombia. Which 
elected national leader is the most popular elected official in all of 
this hemisphere? The President of Colombia, President Uribe. Why? 
Because he succeeded in reducing violence.
  Today, 73 percent of Colombians today say they feel more secure and 
more safe prior to President Uribe 6 years ago. In fact, Colombia today 
is safer than Washington, DC.
  Today, this House will vote to set Colombia aside, and we will turn 
our back on our best friend in Latin America. Why again is Latin 
America watching? Because leftist Hugo Chavez and his proxies, the 
narcotrafficking FARC, had declared they want to defeat the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. They can't defeat President Uribe 
at the ballot box, but they want to in this Congress.
  The Prime Minister of Canada said it best: If the United States turns 
its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause far 
more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve.
  Our friends in the Democratic majority say this is all about 
election-year politics, but we must understand that turning our back on 
Colombia will have long-term consequences for Latin America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and 
Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to thank my colleague for lending the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are having a conversation here about trade and 
globalization and about how to make sure that, in fact, globalization 
is a win-win strategy for the American people. And we were talking 
about Colombia, but what we really are talking about is the effects of 
globalization on the American economy.
  And in fact today, if you take a look at The Washington Post Business 
page, there's a new survey out showing the middle class feeling worse 
in this period of time than ever before, more squeezed by rising costs. 
Energy is up nearly 2 bucks a gallon since 2001. Nearly $2 up. Health 
care costs have doubled. College costs are up 64 percent, and yet the 
median household income in this country shrunk $1,100. The middle class 
are feeling squeezed.
  Globalization can be a good thing. Trade can be a good thing. But if 
you don't have an agenda to make sure Americans win in that 
globalization, you're going to get a squeeze on the middle class where 
they resist the attempts to open up markets to American-made products.
  What we need here, and what we are seeking here, is a new deal for 
the new economy for the American workers. And that means when health 
care costs are up like that, we make sure there's health care security 
to the American people, which is why it was wrong to veto a children's 
health care bill for America's children to give 10 million children's 
parents who work full-time health care.
  It is why it is wrong that when we have an extension of the hope and 
lifetime college credit so Americans can get to community colleges, can 
get the chances for their kids to go to college, it is wrong to allow 
that tax credit to end.
  It is why we are trying to make sure that, in fact, American people 
have a retirement security and a universal 401(k) so those who work 
full time, 75 million Americans, who do not have a savings plan outside 
of Social Security have in fact a 401(k) like the rest of us. It's an 
agenda to make sure there is an economic security plan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. No conversation about trade is ever about trade. It's 
about the standard of living of the middle class of this country.
  Globalization could be a good thing if you have an agenda, and just 
trade alone is not an agenda to make sure that the middle class of this 
country, that built this country since World War II are strengthened to 
compete and win in this globalized economy.
  And what we are ensuring today is that we have in fact a trade deal 
that is not seen as a cost to the American people but seen as an 
opportunity to succeed in that world, and we today are making sure that 
there is a win-win strategy to that globalization.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the Republican 
whip, I'd like to yield for a unanimous consent to my good friend from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 1092, which will in 
effect defeat the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement by postponing 
consideration of the legislation indefinitely. It is more than ironic 
to me that, at a time when our economy has slowed tremendously, 
Democratic leaders are seeking to derail efforts to enhance our export 
market, which has been one area of strength in our economy.
  The fact is, this trade agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and 
high tech service providers export to Colombia, a great friend and 
ally, where many of our products face tariffs. If any country deserves 
our support for aiding efforts to build a stable economy, it is 
Colombia. The Government has taken great strides in preventing attacks 
by paramilitary groups, and if we are ever going to curtail drug 
production from Colombia, it will be because of a stable economy, which 
free trade helps create.
  I urge my colleagues who support economic growth, free trade and 
better relations with our neighbor to reject this misguided resolution 
and keep the Colombia free trade agreement on track.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend from Springfield, Missouri, who will vigorously 
oppose this Hugo Chavez rule.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.
  I, too, vigorously oppose this rule. It seems to me the House today 
is doing two things that this Congress has done too often. One is, if 
you don't like the rules, you change the rules; and two is, we continue 
to take actions that reduce confidence in dealing with the United 
States. When you change the rules, other countries just simply don't 
want to deal with you.
  Five hundred days since this treaty, this agreement was negotiated in 
good faith. Changes made sense then in elements that dealt with the 
environment and labor that the Colombians went back at our request to 
make. Sixteen months of talking to the leaders of the majority about 
what was the best day to bring this agreement, now 500 days old, to the 
floor of the House, and it's going to happen today or it's apparently 
not going to happen anytime in the near future.
  We had no trade agreements before we went to the process of Trade 
Promotion Authority because nobody

[[Page 5648]]

wants to trade with you if they don't think you're dealing in good 
faith. Nobody wants to deal with you if they don't think you're dealing 
in good faith.
  This is about jobs. It is about middle-class jobs that my good friend 
from Illinois just talked about. I mean, how much more middle-class 
jobs could you try to provide than you provide when we open their 
market to us? Seventeen years ago we opened our market to them. This is 
not a debate about whether we can compete with Colombian products or 
whether their workers are being treated fair. Their workers already 
make products that come in here every day with virtually no tariff.
  This agreement would let our workers send products there with no 
tariff. Eighty percent immediately would have no tariff. Very quickly, 
100 percent would have no tariff. The 8,600 Caterpillar jobs in 
Illinois would be sending their products to Colombia without the 15 
percent tariff. Why wouldn't we want to give those 8,600 labor union 
workers a 15 percent advantage that they don't have today?
  When you change the rules, bad things can happen. This is about 
manufacturing jobs. It's about union jobs. It's about middle-class 
jobs. And of course, it is about our closest ally in South America, the 
second biggest country in South America, a country that for 17 years 
has had access to our markets and, in the last decade, has worked 
closely with us to try to solve their problems and the problems of this 
hemisphere.
  This is a huge mistake today. It is the wrong signal to send not just 
to Colombia but anybody who's thinking about working with the United 
States of America. You have got to deal with countries in good faith. 
We are not doing that. We are not dealing with our own workers in good 
faith. I hope we do everything we can to defeat this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1092. Colombia is an 
ally and a friend, and I commend President Uribe for reducing violence 
and unrest in Colombia. However, Colombia still leads the world in 
trade unionist murders. According to Human Rights Watch, 17 have been 
killed this year alone and more than 400 over the last 6 years. Hardly 
any of these murders have been investigated or prosecuted.
  This is not only about human rights. This is about domestic 
responsibility. How can we trade away jobs when unemployment is 
climbing and our economy is in recession? We need to expand and 
strengthen trade adjustment assistance. We must educate and train 
American workers to better compete in the global economy.
  The President had a choice. He chose to force a vote, and today he is 
getting that vote: a vote declaring that strong-arming Congress will 
not work, a vote for American workers and their families, a vote for 
human rights.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and stand up for workers' 
families both here at home and in Colombia.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would be happy to yield to 
one of the greatest proponents of free trade, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America's status in the world has 
never been smaller than this day. Who could imagine the world's largest 
economy cowering from Colombia behind the calls of protectionism? Who 
could imagine the world's greatest democracy too frightened to even 
debate, even consider this agreement. Who could imagine that this 
Congress would send a signal to the world that we are not just an 
unreliable leader in trade, we are an unreliable negotiator in trade? 
It is embarrassing and it is dangerous. And it will cost America jobs.
  Today, Colombia can sell their products into America with no tariffs, 
no restrictions. But when we try to sell our products, we find barriers 
and costs. My workers in Texas want to know why can they buy products 
in Colombia at the local mall but we can't sell our products around the 
world? Colombia is a strong trading partner. They have reduced 
violence. They have embraced the rule of law. They are a strong ally. 
They deserve an up-or-down vote this year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from New York, and I 
am so much in favor of this process that I had to bring two 
constitutional books to the floor to be seen by my colleagues.
  I support this initiative because it restores the constitutional 
authority to this floor and to the Speaker of the House. And for 
someone who has voted for trade bills that are fair, I ask my 
colleagues to recognize that we have an obligation to the American 
people. For if we look at the month of March, the third month of 
declining numbers of U.S. jobs, with losses widespread across all 
sectors and the biggest losses coming in construction and 
manufacturing, the experts, including Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke and 
former Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan, have confirmed the serious 
challenges to the United States economy. One former Labor Secretary has 
also uttered the word ``depression.''
  This is an opportunity for us to be able to establish our authority 
on the floor to work through legislation and to ask the question of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, if trade bills are so 
effective, why are we losing jobs? Why are people without employment? 
Why are we in this economic crisis?
  And so we are standing up for American workers. We are standing up 
for the workers in Colombia. I have the greatest respect for President 
Uribe. I look forward to working on legislation that addresses the 
labor concerns of working-class indigenous Colombians, and this is a 
two-way street. My friends on the other side of the aisle cannot prove 
that ignoring the Constitution will get us jobs.
  Vote for this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1092, the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5724 implementing the United States-Colombia 
Trade Promotion Agreement. I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her 
exemplary leadership on this important issue and for bringing this rule 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is vital to delay the consideration of the Colombia 
Free Trade Agreement, FTA. The Republican-controlled 109th Congress 
recklessly allowed the President to precipitously pass free trade 
agreements without sufficient consideration of the impact on our 
economy and hard-working Americans and without ensuring that the labor 
rights of workers are protected in the country seeking the FTA. Today 
more than ever, with our economy suffering from a substantial downturn, 
which includes rising unemployment and a housing foreclosure crisis, it 
is imperative that the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress continue 
our practice of providing sufficient consideration of free trade 
agreements prior to their implementation.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Colombia last year, and I 
am extremely concerned about the ongoing oppression of Afro-Colombian 
populations. Afro-Colombians face the same social barriers that all 
Afro-Latinos face around Latin America; social marginalization, lack of 
access to health care, lack of educational opportunities, lack of 
workforce opportunities. In Colombia, however, this marginalization is 
intensified by the ongoing conflict. The effects of the armed conflict, 
specifically forced displacement, in Colombia falls disproportionately 
on the back of Afro-Colombians. In fact, Colombia's highest rate of 
displacement in 2003 was recorded in the Choco region, where 
approximately 75 percent of the population is Afro-Colombian. Because 
Afro-Colombians largely inhabit areas that have been neglected by the 
federal government, they have been extremely appealing targets for 
narco-traffickers, guerilla insurgent groups, and paramilitary forces. 
Afro-Colombians have been forcibly and violently displaced, and they 
continue to face a range of human rights abuses that go uninvestigated 
by the judicial system.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Colombian Government must be more 
active protecting and promoting the rights of Afro-Colombian 
populations. This must take the shape of providing more access to 
health care and education, especially for internally displaced persons. 
Additionally, more security must be established in typically neglected 
regions.

[[Page 5649]]

  H. Res. 1092, as reported by the House Rules Committee, provides that 
two sections--section 151(e)(1) and section 151(f)(1)--of the Trade Act 
of 1974 shall not apply in the case of H.R. 5724, to implement the 
United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. In effect, Mr. 
Speaker, this rule will suspend the requirement that the Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement be considered within 60 legislative days in the House. 
It will give Congress the prerogative to schedule a vote on this piece 
of legislation, working with labor and many other groups concerned 
about American workers and fair trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that rushing this legislation to the floor 
would be an incredible mistake. We are currently in the midst of an 
economic downturn, with numbers released last Friday showing a sharp 
increase in the number of jobless Americans. According to these 
numbers, the number of jobs outside the agricultural sector fell by 
80,000 last month, a figure that represents the biggest drop in nearly 
five years.
  March is the third month of declining numbers of U.S. jobs, with 
losses widespread across all sectors and the biggest losses coming in 
construction and manufacturing. The experts, including Fed Chairman Ben 
Bernanke and Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have confirmed the 
serious challenges facing the United States economy.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time to strengthen the American economy. This 
Congress must put American workers first. I believe that, through 
bipartisan negotiations coupled with urgent action taken to repair the 
struggling American economy, we can create the conditions for a 
successful free trade deal with Colombia. However, Mr. Speaker, this 
will take time.
  Instead of working with Congress to address the legitimate and 
serious economic concerns of the American people, the President has 
engaged in highly partisan politics to attempt to ram this legislation 
through the Congress. On Tuesday, President Bush took the unprecedented 
step of sending his Colombia trade deal to Congress without following 
established protocols of congressional consultation. By engaging in 
this political maneuver, the President has forced Congress to take this 
action.
  The rule we are considering today would remove the fast-track 
timeline for the Colombia free-trade agreement. By doing so, this rule 
returns the role, provided by the Constitution, of scheduling 
considering of measures to the Congress. The authority to do so is 
provided in the Fast Track law, PL 107-210, which explicitly recognizes 
``the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far 
as relating the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same 
manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.'' 
Today, we are doing exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a number of issues that need to be 
addressed before a free trade deal with Colombia is approved. In 
addition to the concerns about the American economy and American 
workers, trade legislation should also benefit the people of Colombia, 
particularly the working classes. I remain concerned about many ongoing 
abuses in Colombia that, in my opinion, make such a deal inappropriate 
at this time. In particular, I am concerned about the suppression of 
labor rights in Colombia and the targeted killing of labor organizers. 
Two Foreign Affairs subcommittees, the Subcommittee on International 
Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight and the Subcommittee on the 
Western Hemisphere, held a hearing last June about the ongoing pattern 
of labor violence in Colombia, and I would like to see many of the 
issues raised in that hearing addressed before a trade deal with 
Colombia is signed.
  I believe that President Alvaro Uribe Velez has, since taking office 
in August 2002, made important strides toward establishing state 
control throughout the country, to revitalize the economy, and to 
combat corruption. I also believe that a fair free trade agreement can 
immensely benefit the people of Colombia. Colombia continues to face 
severe income disparities, coupled with poverty and inadequate social 
services. According to World Bank estimates, 65 percent of Colombia's 
population lives below the poverty line. Poverty in rural areas is 
particularly severe, with rates in these regions approaching 80 
percent, and the World Bank estimates that 38 percent of rural 
residents do not have access to potable water, and 68 percent do not 
have access to sewage treatment services. In addition, Colombia's rural 
areas have an estimated illiteracy rate of 15 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we must work together to develop and pass a 
trade bill that will benefit the American economy, and that will also 
trickle down to benefit all levels of Colombian society. I was proud to 
cosponsor and to vote for the Trade and Development Act of 2000, which 
included the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. This legislation 
expanded the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which is intended to 
facilitate the economic development and export diversification of the 
Caribbean Basin economies. I supported this initiative because it not 
only benefited American workers and the American economy, but it also 
carried true benefits for the people of the target nations. I am proud 
to vote for fair free trade legislation that will benefit workers both 
here and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule because it will return to Congress 
its constitutionally granted power to schedule consideration of 
legislation, and it will give us the flexibility necessary to hold 
bipartisan negotiations regarding this legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to put the American economy and American workers first 
during this financially uncertain time, and to support the passage of 
H. Res. 1092.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Washington, I would say to my friend from Texas that if she turns to 
page 1,136 of the book that she held up, she would see that that has 
the rule we are abrogating with this vote that we are about to take.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Auburn, Washington 
(Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. As a representative from the State of Washington, the 
most dependent State on trade in the Nation, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to reject this unprecedented rule and allow the Colombian 
Free Trade Agreement to come to the floor to a vote. I traveled to 
Colombia last weekend to see firsthand the progress that country is 
making. I met with union members who support this agreement. I met with 
union members who oppose this agreement. I met with President Uribe. I 
met with the labor minister. I met with the attorney general there. I 
met with the people who have been disarmed and left the paramilitary 
organizations. I met with shantytown residents.
  You want to talk about human rights? Those people are the poorest 
people in the world. Those are the people we can help with this 
agreement.

                              {time}  1315

  Not only can we help poor people here in the United States of 
America, but this is designed to help poor people, struggling people in 
Colombia. Human rights, ladies and gentlemen, is worldwide. When we 
give them jobs, we give them hope.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many 
requests for time he has remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a long list of people here I would 
say to my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules.
  May I inquire how much time we have remaining, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend how many speakers she has 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more, who is not presently on the floor. So 
I will reserve my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I would be happy to use the 5 minutes if the 
gentlewoman would like to yield me 5 minutes because we've got lots of 
people who feel strongly about that, and I know we could expand our 
thoughts on this with your 5 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think I'll reserve it. Thank you very much for the 
offer.
  Mr. DREIER. Just thought I would offer it as a possibility for 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Miami, who 
is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the effort today to postpone timely 
action on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For over a year, 
advocates of this agreement have worked tirelessly with our 
counterparts to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
  We have the power to make a difference. We can make a difference not 
only here at home, but in Colombia and throughout the hemisphere as 
well. Colombia is a close ally, fighting our

[[Page 5650]]

common enemy of drugs and antidemocratic regimes in the region. We must 
take a stand for our national security and against the growing 
influence of Iran and other rogue states in the hemisphere.
  The choice is clear. This rule change is nothing but an abdication of 
responsibility and a decision to leave the hard decisions for another 
day. With the Colombian FTA, American businesses will benefit greatly, 
our ally will be strengthened, and our interests in the hemisphere will 
be secured.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' against this 
procedural vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to my very good friend and a passionate free trader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Democrat majority this 
week can find time to rename post offices, but somehow cannot find the 
time to vote on a trade agreement to help create more American jobs.
  We're talking about a trade agreement to where over 90 percent of 
Colombian goods come into our country duty-free, yet only 3 percent of 
our goods go into their country duty-free. We're trying to level the 
playing field here, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to create more American 
jobs. What could be more fair?
  Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to sit down with the Fed Chairman 
this week. And as we talk about tough economic times, we ought to learn 
the lessons of history. And one of the lessons of history is that 
starting a trade war can bring about a recession, and that's what we 
see the Democrats doing. People are struggling to make their paychecks 
stretch. Why don't we create more jobs? Why don't we level this playing 
field?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, when we're talking about our ally, 
Colombia, Hugo Chavez wants this trade agreement to never see the light 
of day, and our Democrat colleagues agree.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will continue to reserve.
  Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend; so I assume there are no 
further speakers then?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. My last speaker has not yet shown up.
  Mr. DREIER. So I guess I should infer from that that there won't be 
any more speakers, other than your close, I presume.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think that's accurate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from 
Fairfax, the distinguished former chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I oppose this resolution strongly, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We call this fast track authority for a reason. No argument about 
process niceties can change the meaning of those words. This is 
supposed to be a deadline for a vote in the House.
  The administration has been talking and talking, and we think that if 
they didn't bring this forward, it would never come up for a vote at 
all. This is the vote. That's the very point of the requirement we're 
being asked to waive today.
  Look, the supposed ``failure to consult'' is just the latest pretext 
for the shameless politicization of free trade policy and the 
abandonment of a key ally. The perverse truth underlying the political 
battle lines over trade that this action would harm American interests 
at home and abroad, in fact, American workers would benefit from the 
provisions in this agreement much more than their Colombian brothers 
and sisters.
  Colombia already has access to the U.S. market under the Andean Free 
Trade Agreement. This opens 80 percent of Colombian markets that 
currently are closed, have high tariffs, to American farmers and 
American manufacturers.
  Legislating, like elections, is about choices. And changing the 
rules, moving the goal line beyond reach is the wrong choice on the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. I would again inquire of the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Rules if, in fact, there are going to be any other 
speakers on the other side of the aisle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are none.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
simply say that this has been a very interesting debate. Unfortunately, 
our colleagues on the other side have put forward some, well, let's say 
some inaccuracies. The fact of the matter is that over the last 4 
years, when this process began, the administration has been working 
very closely with hundreds and hundreds of meetings in a bipartisan way 
to come together so that we can do what both Democrats and Republicans 
alike have said that they want to do, strengthen our ties within this 
hemisphere and do what we can to ensure that we bring about an 
agreement which will work to create jobs right here in the United 
States.
  The distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee has 
just reminded me of the fact that every country with which we have a 
free trade agreement, every single country, we enjoy a surplus of 
trade, a trade surplus. So the notion that pursuing these FTAs somehow 
costs us jobs is preposterous, and the facts don't hold it up.
  One of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), talked about the fact that we were the 
manufacturing giant in 1974, 34 years ago, when fast track authority 
was put into place. And I will tell him that today we are still the 
world's manufacturing giant. In 1974, we had a $1.5 trillion economy; 
today, we have a $14.1 trillion economy.
  So as was said by the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, this is a no-
brainer, as Mr. McCrery said, this is a no-brainer economically. We 
need to recognize that if we as a Nation are going to maintain our 
leadership role, we have to shape it.
  Vote ``no'' on this horrible Hugo Chavez rule, Mr. Speaker.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I need to put on the record the fact that 
America is not the manufacturing giant. China is the manufacturing 
giant, followed by India.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. No. I would like to have my time to close.
  The people who talk today about free trade never mention fair trade. 
That's been a problem for me for a long time. If it has not affected 
their economy, they're very lucky.
  I happen to represent an economy that has been greatly affected by 
trade policies that did nothing for the American workers, that did 
nothing to produce more jobs. The idea that we would again continue to 
follow that failed policy surprised me.
  But the most important thing today, we are not debating the Colombia-
U.S. Free Trade Compact. What we are debating today is whether or not 
the House of Representatives is going to take back what it is entitled 
to take back, and that is, responsibility for scheduling matters that 
come to the floor for consideration. It is a very important point. We 
are perfectly entitled to do it under the law. It affects the Senate 
not a whit.
  And I am proud, frankly, to say again that our prerogatives, which 
have been slipping away from us for the past 12 years, all the 
Congress' prerogatives going to the executive department, that has to 
stop. And I not only want to stop this one, I would like to regain some 
of the abilities that we have lost already to represent the people who 
send us here.
  I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this rules change today.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. 
Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations. Through the years, Congress has recognized the 
President's role in negotiating

[[Page 5651]]

trade deals and has granted the President a great deal of leeway with 
regard to trade. Congress, however, must ratify every trade deal, and 
the President has a great deal of responsibility to work with elected 
members of the legislative branch before pressing forward with any 
negotiated trade agreement.
  One power Congress has occasionally authorized for the President is 
the so-called ``fast track'' negotiating authority. ``Fast track'' 
permits the President to negotiate a trade agreement while giving 
Congress an opportunity to ratify the agreement without amendment and 
within a certain time frame. ``Fast track'' allows the House and the 
Senate to set its own rules with respect to considering a trade 
agreement under these expedited conditions. In November 2006, using its 
``fast track'' powers, the Administration signed a Trade Promotion 
Agreement with the South American country of Colombia.
  In June 2007, I visited Colombia and met with President Uribe, other 
Colombian leaders, and U.S. embassy and military professionals serving 
there. Through the years, I have been extremely skeptical about U.S. 
involvement in Colombia's civil war and have voted in the House to 
reduce U.S. military aid to that country. That said, Colombia is an 
important ally of the United States and the trade agreement negotiated 
between the U.S. and Colombia is worthy of support. Should it pass, 
most U.S. exports to Colombia--including Missouri's agricultural 
exports--will enter that country duty-free. Under current law, nearly 
all Colombian goods enter the U.S. duty-free.
  On April 8, 2008, the Administration took the unprecedented step of 
delivering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to Congress without 
having fully consulted with the House and the Senate. In my view, the 
Administration's maneuver seriously jeopardizes prospects for the trade 
agreement's passage in the House. Without bipartisan support, I am 
convinced the House would reject it, sending a negative message to 
Colombia and derailing important benefits to Missouri agriculture that 
would be brought with the deal.
  Mr. Speaker, in an effort to give Congress more time to review the 
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and to prevent an embarrassing 
defeat of the agreement on the House floor, I will vote today to delay 
its consideration. I remain hopeful that the agreement can be 
considered before the end of the 110th Congress.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1092 and urge 
my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
  The Administration would like to force this Congress to take up the 
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, before August.
  This resolution will allow Congress, not the Administration, to 
decide if and when this body should take legislative action on the 
U.S.-Colombia FTA.
  I strongly oppose the U.S.-Colombia FTA. This is yet another flawed, 
NAFTA-style, trade deal that harms workers in the United States and in 
Colombia.
  Our workers and our communities have been devastated by our flawed 
trade policies. Since 2001, over three million valuable manufacturing 
jobs have been lost due to the NAFTA model of trade, now being 
perpetuated in the U.S.-Colombia FTA.
  In Ohio, where we have lost more than 236,000 high-paying 
manufacturing jobs, we know the realities of these failed trade 
policies all too well.
  The actual number is much higher because we have not included job 
loss in the service sector and supply chain that we cannot account for. 
Excluded are local businesses, such as restaurants, just down the road 
from closed manufacturing facilities that are forced to close their 
doors. The ripple effect includes a loss of health care and college 
educations.
  Trade agreements should be responsible. The U.S.-Colombia FTA 
continues the destructive trade policies that spur the exodus of well 
paying jobs and undermine the ability of working people to protect 
their living standards. That is not a responsible trade deal.
  Trade agreements that fail to enforce worker rights are 
irresponsible. Approximately 2,300 labor organizers, labor leaders and 
union members have been murdered in Colombia since 1991. Today, 
Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for union 
members.
  In February, an AFL-CIO delegation met with leaders of the major 
Colombian labor federations. According to the AFL-CIO ``[l]eaders of 
the major Colombian Labor federations told the delegation they oppose 
any free trade deal between the United States and Colombia until the 
government takes strong action to stop the violence against trade union 
members and ends assaults on union rights.''
  The U.S. must not continue to expand a failed trade policy based on 
the NAFTA model. It outsources valuable American jobs and accelerates 
the transfer of capital out of the U.S. It is a model that harms 
workers, erodes environmental protections and limits access to 
healthcare for the poor in the countries we trade with.
  Congress must take a much needed step back and bring all parties to 
the table to examine how we can fix our broken trade system.
  Common sense suggests that our trade policies should promote workers' 
rights, human rights, strong protections for our natural resources and 
the environment, and expansion of Buy American practices that support 
American competitiveness. What America needs is Fair Trade, not Free 
Trade.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1092 and 
against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Colombia is an ally and friend of the United States. I commend 
President Uribe and his government for reducing the violence and unrest 
in Colombia. They have made great progress.
  However, Colombia still leads the world in trade unionist murders. 
According to Human Rights Watch, 17 have been killed this year alone, 
and more than 400 over the last six years. Hardly any of these murders 
have been investigated or prosecuted.
  It would be immoral and irresponsible to pass a free trade agreement 
with Colombia while these conditions persist. But this is not only 
about human rights. This is about domestic responsibility.
  How can we trade away jobs when unemployment is climbing and our 
economy sinks deeper into recession? Surely, this is not the time to 
rush into another trade agreement. Doing so without first strengthening 
our economy and helping American workers is just plain wrong.
  The global economy is changing rapidly, and we need to catch up. We 
need to expand and strengthen Trade Adjustment Assistance. We need a 
Trade Adjustment Assistance program that educates and trains the 
American workforce to better compete in the global economy.
  Yet the Administration and its allies on the Hill have expressed no 
interest in making this program meet the needs of American workers. 
Advancing free trade agreements without first addressing the needs of 
American workers is just plain irresponsible.
  We are here today because the President has once again chosen 
confrontation over compromise. Like with FISA, the Iraq War and 
countless other important issues, the President has determined that he 
alone knows what's best and that Congress and everyone else should just 
go along. Of course, his disastrous record over the last 7 years--on 
the economy, jobs, the deficit, health care, disaster relief and our 
national security, to name just a few issues--should make any fair 
observer pause before deferring to his judgment. By unilaterally 
forcing this issue, the President has yet again demonstrated his 
arrogant disregard for American workers and their families.
  The President had a choice. He chose to force a vote, and today he is 
getting that vote. This vote will declare that strong-arming Congress 
will not work. This vote will be a vote for human rights. This vote 
will be a vote for American workers and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and stand up for working 
families both here at home and in Colombia.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the Members of this body have been forced to make such a difficult 
decision with regard to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As you know, 
the Bush Administration sent this proposed agreement directly to 
Congress without the level of dialogue many of us would liked to have 
seen to ensure we can reach agreement on this matter. I fear that the 
poor and unprecedented decision by President Bush to place this matter 
before the House of Representatives without the consent of leadership 
will result in collateral damage to the Trade Promotion Authority 
protocol that is instrumental in our work to promote commerce with 
other countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to voting 
``present,'' with the hope that continued dialogue between Congress and 
the White House will lead to a positive resolution of this entire 
matter.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, an ancient proverb cautions 
``Arrogance diminishes wisdom.'' Sadly, this proposal ignores that 
warning, indulging institutional arrogance at the expense of wise 
legislating. Based on the transparent facade the President's 
transmittal of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement violates a 
``protocol,'' the House today is asked to vitiate a law and a process 
upon which the administration, the Congress and the people of Colombia 
have relied in good faith.
  The alleged breach of manners? A claimed failure to consult the House 
on the agreement.

[[Page 5652]]

But, as has been said, consultation has been extensive, and those 
consultations have had an impact. The Government of Columbia has done a 
great deal--more than some may have thought wise, in fact--to address 
Democratic concerns about human rights, labor organizing, and other 
issues.
  It's called ``fast track authority'' for a reason. No argument about 
process niceties can change the meaning of those words. There is 
supposed to be a deadline for a vote in this House. That's the very 
point of the requirement we're being asked to waive today.
  In fact, the supposed failure to consult is just the latest pretext 
for the shameless politicization of free trade policy and the 
abandonment of a key ally. The perverse truth underlying the political 
battle lines over trade: This action would harm American interests at 
home and abroad. American workers would benefit from the provisions in 
this agreement as much or more than their Colombian brothers and 
sisters.
  This free trade agreement would spark a tremendous increase in trade 
from the United States to Colombia. High quality American goods like 
machinery would be available at lower prices in Colombia. The agreement 
would therefore create jobs, spur investment, and improve our quality 
of life. The benefit is obvious, especially when compared to the 
minimal costs. Over 90 percent of Colombian goods already enter the 
U.S. tariff-free thanks to the recently renewed Andean Trade Preference 
Act, so we would be sacrificing very little.
  There are still subtler yet equally vital reasons to approve the FTA. 
Colombia is a proud democratic ally in Latin America. It is our closest 
friend in an area filled with nations opposed to our shared vision of 
harmonious relations. Colombia has also been beset by a dynamic Marxist 
insurgency, funded and succored by international drug trafficking and 
kidnapping. This movement has brought untold death, destruction, and 
other hardships to Colombia. In recent years, however, the tide has 
turned. Owing mostly to the steadfast determination of Colombians who 
seek peace, guided by the unwaveringly leadership of President Alvaro 
Uribe, and assisted by American funding and advice, the rebels are 
being defeated. I have been to Colombia many times, most recently in 
February, and I have seen first-hand the dramatic improvement in 
Colombia's security situation. By growing and diversifying the 
Colombian economy, the free trade agreement would provide further 
incentive for guerillas to cease their quixotic quest for power while 
also demonstrating the benefits of free trade to those in neighboring 
countries whose leaders favor demagoguery while letting their economies 
fall behind.
  Many Democratic leaders who oppose the agreement claim they do so 
because labor leaders are endangered in Colombia. This is an excuse, 
not a justification. I applaud the vitally important role played by 
Colombian labor officials. I unalterably oppose actual or threatened 
violence against them. More importantly, I know President Uribe agrees. 
His government has instituted widespread reforms to protect labor 
leaders and to promptly, efficiently, and legally respond to attacks 
against them. Since 2002, when President Uribe was inaugurated, 
violence directed at labor officials in Colombia has fallen 80 percent. 
These institutional changes and results are precisely what Democratic 
officials in the United States said would earn their support for the 
free trade agreement. But now the goal posts have been moved. 
Democratic leaders, beholden to union bigwigs, refuse to do the right 
thing. This sorry spectacle will further confirm the views of those who 
believe America's image abroad is deteriorating.
  Make no mistake about it, this action will effectively kill this 
agreement, despite empty claims to the contrary. Rather than ratify 
provisions which would significantly improve the economies of both the 
United States and Colombia and solidify relations with a key American 
ally, the Democratic leadership prefers to cravenly supplicate 
themselves to their political allies in Big Labor.
  Colombia has done what was asked of it. Now, the Democrats who run 
Congress should opt to help their constituents and aide an important 
ally. Legislating, like elections, is about choices. And changing the 
rules, moving the goal line beyond reach, is the wrong choice on the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1092.
  It is with careful consideration that I have chosen to support this 
rule removing procedural timetables from House consideration of the 
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  A vote on this rule is not a vote on the substance or quality of the 
Colombia FTA. It is a vote in protest of the President's failure to 
adequately consult the Congress under well-established protocols.
  I was one of only a few members of my caucus to support trade 
promotion authority in 2002. It is my strong belief that forcing 
consideration of such measures is not the way ``fast track'' was 
intended to be utilized.
  The President's actions place ultimate implementation of the Colombia 
FTA in great jeopardy. A failure of the FTA on the House floor would 
send the worst possible message to our friends and allies in Latin 
America.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, as 
well as with the administration, to create the conditions for 
consideration of this important agreement on its own merits.
  For too long, the United States has neglected its friends and allies 
in Latin America, and the Colombia FTA will be a beneficial tool for 
engagement in the region.
  In the midst of growing peace and order in Colombia, removing trade 
barriers between our two countries will facilitate Colombia's progress 
and benefit both of our economies.
  President Uribe and the Colombian people continue to face a number of 
challenges, including narco-trafficking and kidnapping by guerrilla 
groups, continued violence committed by armed paramilitaries, and the 
need to protect the rights of unions and their leaders. I have great 
confidence in his abilities, and I look forward to seeing continued 
progress in this regard.
  I also look forward to seeing continued progress and bipartisan 
support for domestic economic measures, including additional funding to 
stimulate the economy, to provide support and training for workers, and 
to address housing, energy, and health care. I urge both President Bush 
and my colleagues to recommit themselves to these goals, in order to 
create favorable conditions for consideration of the Colombia FTA.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
irresponsible rule. The Colombia trade agreement was negotiated under 
trade promotion authority, which clearly specifies that once 
transmitted to Congress this body must take up the agreement within 90 
days. The Government of Colombia negotiated this agreement with us in 
good faith, that we would keep our word. Unfortunately the majority now 
wants to change the rules of the game. This is damaging to our 
relationship with Colombia and damages our reputation in the world. It 
shows the world that Congress does not keep its word, and this will 
make any other country reluctant to enter into agreements with our 
nation. This is simply bad foreign policy.
  I believe in the benefits of free and fair trade. I support efforts 
to remove tariffs and barriers to trade whenever possible and feel that 
such efforts will lead to increased economic growth for the nation as a 
whole. With tens of thousands of jobs in my congressional district 
being tied to trade, the expansion of trade means a healthy future for 
a number of local businesses, and in turn new jobs for my district, and 
the Nation.
  However, I believe that all trade must be fair trade. The Colombian 
agreement would be fair trade. Already, the vast majority of Colombian 
products pay zero tariffs to enter the U.S. market. In fact 365 members 
of this House, many of whom now stand opposed to this fair trade bill, 
voted to allow Colombia this open access to our markets. It is not 
defensible to keep U.S. producers from the same access to Colombia, 
that Colombia already has to our market. Since 1991, U.S. workers and 
businesses have paid over a billion dollars in tariffs to sell their 
wares in the Colombian market. Every day we delay enactment of the 
Colombia FTA we hurt U.S. workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs who will 
benefit from opening the Colombian market.
  It is disappointing that the Democratic majority has not embraced 
this trade agreement, as it would mean new jobs for citizens across the 
nation. New jobs that are very much needed in our tightening economy. 
Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to the benefits of free and fair trade. 
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule which would be detrimental to 
our relationship with Colombia and is more importantly reckless foreign 
policy.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution 
that President Bush has regrettably made necessary.
  The immediate effect of the resolution will be to allow deferral of a 
vote on the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia.
  Some say that the longer-term effect will be to make approval of that 
agreement impossible. But I think the reality could be just the 
reverse, because as you have said, Mr. Speaker, at this point the odds 
are against its approval and so deferring the vote on the agreement 
could be the only way it might ever be approved.

[[Page 5653]]

  I have supported Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain, Singapore, 
Chile, Morocco, Australia, Jordan, Oman, and Peru, I'd like the 
opportunity to consider the merits of a Columbia FTA, but cannot jump 
to the conclusion that its provisions are fully acceptable, and I am 
troubled by allegations that labor organizers have been terrorized by 
government authorities in Columbia. It seems to me that the proponents 
of this agreement have the burden of making a compelling case that the 
agreement meets criteria Congress has insisted upon with regard to 
labor protections.
  Therefore, deferring the vote will allow additional time for the Bush 
Administration and the other supporters of the agreement either to the 
make the case that it should be approved in its current form or to work 
with the Colombian government and the Congress to make revisions to 
respond to objections raised by its opponents.
  It should not have been necessary for the House to act to provide 
that time. If President Bush had been willing to do more to resolve 
those objections, we would not be taking such action. But by deciding 
to formally transmit the agreement, which set in motion the so-called 
``fast track'' procedures of the current law applicable to trade 
agreements, the President has brought us to this point.
  And while the details are different, that approach is very similar to 
the one the president has followed on many other matters--demanding 
approval of his proposals and refusing to work with Members of Congress 
to resolve objections or accommodate other suggestions.
  We have seen the pattern over and over, from the repeated vetoes of 
legislation to expand the State Children's Health Program, SCHIP, to 
revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and with 
regard to more other matters than I have time to list.
  But this time, by adopting this resolution, we can give President 
Bush time to reconsider that way of doing business, and give the other 
proponents of the Colombia trade agreement time to make the case for 
why it should be approved.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join you today in standing up 
for working families in America by opposing the flawed fast track 
procedures.
  When the President sent the Colombia Trade Agreement to Congress 
earlier this week, he started a clock for the agreement's 
consideration. He hoped that by forcing Congress to act, he would be 
able to win approval of the Colombia FTA. Yet, in reality, he only 
exposed one of the many problems that fast track trade negotiation 
authority created.
  Today, Congress is sending a clear message to the President that we 
will not consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or any other FTA's 
on his time table. We will not be bullied. Congress is a coequal branch 
of government.
  As you may know, I have long opposed the granting of fast track 
authority to the President because it removed Congress from shaping and 
drafting trade agreements, the timing of their consideration, and 
allowed Congress only an up or down vote on unamendable trade 
agreements. In doing so Congress abdicated our essential responsibility 
to our nation's citizens. I was pleased that this dangerous fast track 
authority expired last summer and has not been renewed.
  As I hear from people from across central New Jersey, protecting 
workers' rights, human rights, and the environment are not secondary or 
extraneous concerns; they are central to what the United States stands 
for. I support trade that elevates the quality of life for citizens all 
over the world. The United States, and indeed the entire world, can 
benefit from increased trade, but increased trade in itself is not the 
goal we seek. Rather, we seek an improved quality of life for our 
people and advancement of other people's well-being.
  Additionally, even on the merits I am very concerned by the Colombian 
agreement. As I have said before, trade done right helps lift the 
global standard of living and works to protect our natural environment. 
Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities, they are 
about values. Trade agreements state what constitutes acceptable 
behavior in worker's rights, environmental matters, intellectual 
property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we 
produce and not the workers who produce them. We must continue to 
demand improvements in our trade policy.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the passage of 
H. Res. 1092, a resolution designed to block consideration of the U.S.-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  This resolution will more than likely prevent the U.S.-Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement from receiving an up-or-down vote during the 110th 
Congress. I believe we should have an open and fair debate on every 
free trade agreement. The normal process established by law in which 
free trade agreements are considered allows Members of Congress 
opportunities to raise concerns regarding free trade that they heard 
from their constituents.
  I disagree with the decision by the President to send this agreement 
to Congress without the necessary consent of both the House and Senate. 
However. I am concerned the passage of H. Res. 1092, which suspends the 
60-day time line for a House floor vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement, will only serve to deepen the already existing partisan 
divide in Washington.
  Along with my fellow colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives. 
I closely weigh the potential costs and benefits of each free trade 
agreement the President negotiates. Furthermore, I believe in order for 
these agreements to be evaluated thoroughly, they must be considered by 
the normal process established by law. The resolution adopted today 
undercuts this process.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons I voted against H. Res. 1092 
along with 195 of my colleagues. I hope in the coming months Members of 
the House and Senate will have the opportunity to debate and assess the 
potential value of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1092, a 
rule to suspend fast track procedures for the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement (FTA). U.S. trade policy should promote democracy based on 
the protection of fundamental human rights. However, by sending the 
Colombia FTA to Congress, President Bush has disregarded the rights of 
workers in Colombia and the needs of working families in the U.S.
  Since the 1980s, more than 2,500 workers have been assassinated in 
Colombia for joining, forming, or leading labor unions. More unionists 
are killed in Colombia each year than the rest of the world combined. 
We should not be engaging in free trade policies with a nation whose 
human rights record is so abysmal.
  Our Nation's economy is struggling. The United States lost a record 
of 80,000 jobs in the month of March alone. The cities in the 32nd 
Congressional District that I represent have seen unemployment rates 
soar to more than 7 percent. In this time of economic turmoil, Congress 
must work to restore the economic security of working- and middle-class 
Americans.
  This rule prioritizes the needs of American workers by removing the 
timeline for House action on this trade agreement. I strongly support 
this rule and urge my colleagues to vote for final passage.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented vote to change the rules 
and delay considering the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was one of the 
most disappointing moments I have had as a Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  I was disappointed that the Majority would so blatantly play 
election-year politics and cater to special interests at the expense of 
good economic policy.
  I was disappointed that my Democratic colleagues in Washington 
State--the most trade-dependent State in the Nation--rejected my call 
for a united delegation effort to bring the FTA to the floor, and 
instead followed the Speaker at the expense of our region's needs. With 
our economy lagging, and in light of how important this agreement is to 
large employers in our State like Boeing and Microsoft, I cannot 
understand the thinking behind their position.
  But more than anything, I was disappointed that the House was denied 
the opportunity to consider a trade measure of critical importance to 
our economy and to our workers.
  I traveled to Colombia two weeks ago to see firsthand the progress 
the country is making, and it is remarkable. I met with union members 
who support and union members who oppose it. And let me say a word 
about that: The unions who oppose the FTA represent workers who are 
unaffected by it. The unions who support the agreement are those whose 
workers will be affected. Let me repeat that: The unions in Colombia 
that will be affected by this trade agreement support it.
  I also met with President Uribe, the Attorney General, and disarmed 
paramilitary combatants. I saw the broad support from the Colombian 
people for this agreement and the progress the country has made to 
protect and promote human rights. I returned even more convinced that 
we must pass this agreement to grow our economy, create jobs, and 
support a strategic ally.
  The Colombia FTA would grow our economy by opening new markets for 
American businesses and farmers while bringing fairness to our existing 
trade relationship. Virtually

[[Page 5654]]

all of Colombian goods enter America duty-free, while American goods 
face tariffs. With so many jobs tied to trade in Washington, common 
sense says we must level the playing field.
  The FTA will also support democracy in an unstable region. It's 
imperative for Americans to view free trade agreements not just as a 
mutual economic benefit, but also as a core component of our country's 
diplomacy and security. Colombia stands tall as a beacon of democracy 
in the face of Hugo Chavez's anti-American policies. And Colombia 
remains a key ally in efforts to combat the illegal drug trade. What 
message does it send to our allies around the world if we ask so much 
of them, then turn our backs on them at a crucial moment? Why do so 
many Members come down here to talk about working together with other 
countries in foreign policy, but do not want to do so in trade? Trade 
is foreign policy.
  Delaying the Colombia FTA signals to our allies that America is 
closed for trade, and encourages our rivals to exploit new markets. It 
also derails the consideration of other pending trade agreements like 
one with Korea, Washington State's fourth largest trading partner. This 
is absolutely the wrong message to send in this time of economic 
uncertainty.
  Regardless of your views of the FTA, the House deserves to debate it 
under the rules of consideration this chamber agreed to when it 
approved trade promotion authority. Let's stop playing political games 
that cater to special interests, and let's start working together, as 
Democrats and Republicans, to pass the trade measures that are 
important to our economy and our workers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 224, 
nays 195, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Tanner
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Ferguson
     Granger
     Hulshof
     Larson (CT)
     Ramstad
     Rush
     Sires

                              {time}  1347

  Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ORTIZ and ADERHOLT 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.

                          ____________________