[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6058-6066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is true that today 
is the day that the American people have their obligation to pay taxes 
for the American government to continue to function. And obviously, 
there are many good things that the Federal Government does, and there 
are many not so good things that the Federal Government does.
  But one of the things that I think is very important for us to focus 
attention on, especially as we deal with a challenging economy, is the 
need for us to ensure that, as stewards of those taxpayer dollars, 
those dollars fund this institution, the greatest deliberative body 
known to man, and we need to ensure that we put into place policies 
that will encourage strong, dynamic, economic growth and to make sure 
that there are opportunities for every single American. And Madam 
Speaker, we're going to talk about that this evening.
  I have to say that my original intentions for this special order were 
a little different than they are going to end up being tonight. I'd 
planned to join tonight with several of my colleagues who have spent 
time in Colombia. I'd planned to talk about what I've personally 
witnessed there, and I'd invited many of my colleagues to do the same.
  I'd hoped to make this a bipartisan endeavor, and I extended 
invitations to several of my Democratic colleagues to participate this 
evening. And I will say that I still do hope that we might have a 
chance to do that. And one of our Democratic colleagues did come up to 
me and say that he had hoped to participate.
  I thought that this was very important, because I knew that when the 
President sent, a week ago today, when he sent the implementing 
legislation for the U.S/Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a 60-day clock, 
under trade promotion authority, would begin. We would have 60 
legislative days to hold a vote on the agreement. This meant that the 
House of Representatives would face a vote on the U.S./Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement some time in probably late July. That would leave us 3 
months for debate, discussion, education, and enlightenment about what 
this agreement would mean to the American people.
  However, despite the ample time granted under trade promotion 
authority, I knew that many of my colleagues, particularly my 
Democratic colleagues, remained deeply ambivalent on the trade 
agreement itself. We certainly saw that as we had this debate last 
week.
  For this reason, it was my hope that this special order this evening 
would be opening the 3-month discussion in a bipartisan way, and what I 
wanted to do was I wanted to shift the focus away from the free trade 
agreement, and I'd hoped that a group of Republicans and Democrats 
who've gone to Colombia could come together here on the House floor to 
simply share our experiences and describe what we've seen in Colombia, 
over the past year, or at least a half a year.
  I knew that much of the free trade agreement debate would hinge on 
the

[[Page 6059]]

current situation, as it exists in Colombia, what progress has been 
made, what steps has the Colombian government taken.
  I wanted this debate to stay grounded in facts and a full 
understanding of the Colombia, of 2008, not a caricature of the 
Colombia past. I'd thought that bipartisan, firsthand testimony would 
further that goal of allowing the American people and our colleagues to 
understand the changes that have taken place in Colombia.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the landscape here in the House was 
drastically altered last week when my California colleague, Speaker 
Pelosi, took the unprecedented step, never before had this been done, 
but it was a step of changing the Rules of the House in order to block 
a vote on the free trade agreement.
  In one fell swoop, she ended 3 months, what would be the beginning, 
and tonight would have been part of that, of substantive, bipartisan 
deliberation before it even had the chance to begin. Apparently, she 
didn't like her odds in what would clearly have been a fair fight, so 
she changed the rules in the middle of the game.
  The condemnation from around the country came swiftly. Now, I have 
control of the floor now for an hour, and I could easily fill the 
entire 1 hour simply by reading the scathing editorials that have come 
about over the past week reproaching the Democratic leadership for 
their petulant act. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the 
Washington Post, hardly mouthpieces for Republicans or President Bush. 
And even Speaker Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco 
Chronicle. All, Madam Speaker, have had the harshest of words for the 
dangerous and unprecedented action that was taken here last week.
  Now, I'll read just a few of those highlights. I mentioned Speaker 
Pelosi's hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper that 
I actually enjoy reading myself, but again, far from being a Republican 
mouthpiece. They accuse Speaker Pelosi of ``pandering'' and ``playing 
politics.''
  It points out that the decision to block a vote on the agreement is 
especially egregious, considering that she represents a region that 
heavily depends on exports for its economic competitiveness and job 
creation, particularly through its ports.
  My hometown paper, the Los Angeles Times, stated it very plainly, and 
I quote. ``Halting the vote wasn't about the U.S. economy and wasn't 
about Colombia. It was about politics.'' That's what the Los Angeles 
Times, again, hardly a Republican mouthpiece, had to say.
  It points out that the FTA creates quite a bind for the Democratic 
leadership because what is good for their party is bad for the United 
States of America.
  It highlights the current imbalance in our trade relationship. We 
have an open market, yet face barriers in Colombia.
  I'll say that again. And Los Angeles Times pointed that out, Madam 
Speaker. We allow the rest of the world, including Colombia now, under 
the ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Agreement, we allow them access 
to the U.S. consumer market. All this agreement that we had hoped to be 
debating now, but the clock has stopped on that. All this agreement 
would do was level that playing field and allow U.S. workers to have a 
chance to send their products into Colombia.
  The New York Times, in its editorial, Madam Speaker, emphasizes not 
just the economic consequences but the foreign policy implications as 
well. It declares that last week's actions ``reduce the United States' 
credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond,'' adding that it 
``serves human rights in Colombia no good'' whatsoever. The cause of 
human rights, about which many of our colleagues rarely talk, and which 
we're all concerned about, would do no good by not proceeding with 
consideration.
  The New York Times is certainly, as I said, no knee-jerk supporter of 
the agreement. Actually, they, last year, in the New York Times, 
proposed postponing the consideration. And that was last year. And yet 
this year they are strong proponents of our moving ahead with this.
  The Washington Post, Madam Speaker, was the quickest of all the major 
papers to condemn Speaker Pelosi's decision, equating the move to 
telling Colombia to ``drop dead.'' That's what the Washington Post had 
to say, and calling into question the Democrats credibility and 
judgment.
  The message from around the Nation has been clear and unequivocal. 
The unprecedented rule change was a grave mistake that should be 
corrected immediately by proceeding with a vote. The damage described 
in those editorials is twofold, economic and international. Now, I 
would add an additional level to that that really hasn't been pointed 
to in a lot of these editorials, the institutional damage that has been 
done.
  Now, first the economic damage. As I said just a moment ago, the 
Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress renewed just a few weeks 
ago, allows all Colombian goods, virtually all Colombian goods to enter 
the United States duty free. They have full access to our market, and 
we don't get the same treatment today. American goods face an average 
of 14 percent tariff on goods that we are sending into the Colombian 
market, with agricultural products facing particularly steep barriers.
  These preferences, like all of our preference system, have enjoyed 
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. So Democrats and 
Republicans have come together to say that we should allow these 
Colombian goods to come into the United States, their products, whether 
it's coffee, cut flowers, bananas, it allows them to virtually tariff 
free come into United States. So Democrats and Republicans alike said 
that's good for our consumers.
  And yet, this free trade agreement, which would end the imbalance and 
extend that same preferential treatment for American exports, is 
opposed by the Democratic leadership.
  It's a bizarre quirk of American politics. The Democrats always 
support trade as charity. They'll gladly give away one-sided trade 
without a second thought. But as soon as we propose to make it 
reciprocal and create a direct benefit for our own workers as well, 
they cry foul. To add to the absurdity, they do it in the name of 
protecting American workers.
  Now, we're in a time, as I said, today is Tax Day, April 15. We're 
dealing, unfortunately, with an economic slowdown, and there is a great 
deal of economic anxiety throughout the United States of America and in 
other parts of the world. You might think that we could finally put 
politics aside and make the rational, logical decision to give American 
workers equal treatment and to protect American exports by creating new 
markets for U.S. goods and services. But unfortunately, and bizarrely, 
that's apparently not the case. By blocking a vote on the Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement, the Democratic leadership has blocked a clear win for 
our exports and the workers who produce those exports.

                              {time}  2045

  The second form of damage that has been done is in the international 
arena. Again, we wander into the absurd. Time and again, I hear my 
Democratic colleagues decry what they call our diminished standing in 
the world. President Bush has, in fact, diminished our standing and in 
fact is a big part of the presidential campaign.
  They accuse the administration of unilateralism and a disregard for 
our allies. They say that that has hurt our leadership and our 
credibility in the international community. And in the presidential 
campaign, they promise, Senators Clinton and Obama, they promise to 
restore our prestige.
  And yet the Democratic leadership raced to sabotage our relationship 
with our best and closest ally in South America with what could only be 
described as reckless abandon. Following a mere 1 hour of debate, they 
chose to treat our close democratic friend in our very own hemisphere, 
a slap in the face is the way this was described by the Vice President 
of Colombia, or as the Las Vegas Review Journal put it, a

[[Page 6060]]

stab in the back. That's how the action that was taken here last week 
has been characterized.
  Colombian democracy has grown steadily stronger under the courageous 
leadership of President Uribe with whom I spoke today. His popularity 
has soared above 70 percent and stayed there because he took his 
country from the brink of a failed State and put it back on the path of 
peaceful and prosperous stability. He's strengthened democratic 
institutions, not least of which is a Justice Department that has 
aggressively tackled the culture of impunity for murderers.
  Under Uribe's presidency, crime has plummeted, largely because he has 
aggressively pursued the eco-terrorist guerillas and the equally 
murderous paramilitaries. The former have been pushed from their 
stronghold, and the latter have been systematically dismantled and 
their leadership imprisoned. The rank-and-file are beginning the long 
and difficult process of rehabilitation and reintegration into society 
with the help of government-funded social programs. The same has been 
offered to rank-and-file guerrillas who wish to surrender their arms.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to witness the real-world 
implications of these demobilization efforts. When I was in Colombia 
last August, several of my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down 
with former paramilitary members. These are young men and women, and I 
do mean young, teenagers in most cases, who had heart-wrenching tales 
to share with us. We heard from one young man who described his 
parents' murder right before his eyes. In his grief and anger, he 
turned to vigilantism. Like so many Colombians spanning multiple 
generations, he experienced the horror of violence, and he turned to 
violence himself.
  The leaders of these paramilitary groups, like their guerrilla 
counterparts, committed heinous acts of violence and are now paying 
their debt to society. As remarkable an achievement as that is, the 
much harder part is bringing these young men and women, like those who 
I met, back into society.
  I met them at a vocational training facility where they are learning 
the skills that will allow them to provide for themselves and become 
responsible members of society. They're learning to leave their violent 
past behind them and contribute to a peaceful and prosperous Colombia.
  These efforts undertaken by President Uribe's government are already 
serving as a model for other post-conflict countries that have faced 
similar challenges. The process, Madam Speaker, of demobilization and 
reconciliation is not easy. There is still a great deal of work that 
needs to be done. While most paramilitary groups have been dismantled, 
there are still vigilantes in the jungle. There are still violent 
leaders at large who must go to jail. The guerrilla groups have yet to 
lay down their arms. And even as demobilization goes forward, the work 
of reintegration will take years.
  But, Madam Speaker, I saw firsthand, as I know my colleagues who are 
going to be participating in this Special Order have. Tough work is 
being done, and it is being done with great success.
  At the same time this transformation is taking place, Colombia has 
also faced a formidable foe of democracy on its border. We all know 
very well. Hugo Chavez has long been working to dismantle democratic 
institutions and free markets in his country of Venezuela and to export 
his authoritarian designs throughout the region. He suppressed dissent, 
trashed the Venezuelan constitution and squashed free enterprise. He's 
interfered with the elections of his neighbors and drawn Ecuador and 
Bolivia into his orbit.
  He keeps company with Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud 
Ahmedinejad. His anti-democratic institutions for this hemisphere are 
no secret, and he is as openly hostile to the region's bulwarks of 
democracy as he is to the United States of America. Just weeks ago, he 
sent troops to his border with Colombia in a naked act of hostility. 
Flush with oil money, we all know that Hugo Chavez poses a grave threat 
to Latin America.
  President Uribe, facing enormous challenges within his own borders 
and on the front lines of this ideological battle, is standing up. 
Colombia, under his leadership, is actively countering the influence of 
Hugo Chavez by acting as a model of the great gains to be made in a 
free and transparent democracy.
  With seemingly little thought for the cause of democracy or U.S. 
interests, the Democratic leadership has disregarded both with last 
week's vote. Only time will tell the extent of the damage to our 
relationship with Colombia or our struggle to rein in the influence of 
Hugo Chavez. The damage to our credibility may be even more durable, 
unfortunately.
  We have now sent a clear message to our partners: our word at the 
negotiating table is cheap, and if we don't like how things are going, 
we will just change the rules in the middle of the process. The 
implications extend well beyond trade. The United States is engaged in 
a great many negotiations on a great many issues: Israeli-Palestinian 
peace talks, nuclear nonproliferation, regional diplomatic efforts for 
Iraq. If our word to our close friends can't be trusted, how will we 
effectively engage around the globe?
  Our credibility, Madam Speaker, and our leadership in the 
international community can hardly endure when they are so casually 
disregarded by this body.
  This was the main thrust of the criticism from editorial boards 
across the country. But to economic and foreign policy damage, I would 
add institutional damage. Ironically, the vote to kill the free trade 
agreement succeeded because the Democratic leadership effectively 
argued to its membership that it was in the House's interest, this 
institution's interest to do so. They appealed to that institutional 
and party pride. I have already discussed the issue of party pride, 
Madam Speaker, as the L.A. Times editorialized, it's no secret on this 
issue, Democratic party interests run counter to our Nation's interest.
  But the claims of institutional prerogative are utterly specious. 
During the rule debate last week, I went through the administration's 
requirements under Trade Promotion Authority chapter and verse, and I 
won't belabor them here. Suffice it to say, the Trade Promotion 
Authority was not ambiguous in its demands. I was involved in the 
negotiations in putting trade promotion authorities together. It is 
very, very rigorous because I believe in the first branch of 
government, I'm a believer in this institution, and I believe that we 
have very important rights.
  The requirements for any administration under Trade Promotion 
Authority are laid out very clearly, and as my colleagues who are here 
on the floor know, this administration followed those directives to the 
letter in both spirit and in letter. They followed it to a T. These 
requirements were designed to ensure that Congress is consulted at 
every single step of the way. This goal was demonstrably and 
unequivocally achieved.
  But under Trade Promotion Authority, there are two sets of processes: 
There is the negotiating process, which closely involves Congress but 
is led by the administration, and there is the congressional process. 
Both processes are unambiguously defined by very strict timetables.
  The first timeline was followed. The second timeline was abrogated. 
One side followed the rules in good faith; the other side cheated. The 
Charlottesville Daily Progress outlined the implications of these 
actions perfectly, and they said, ``If rules of procedure mean nothing, 
then the legislative process can be warped, and moreover, it can be 
warped at the discretion of a single powerful person. This is not the 
way democracy should work. The effort to change the rules after the 
process was under way dishonors Congress.''
  Those are not my words. Those are the words of the editorial written 
in the Charlottesville Daily Progress.
  Madam Speaker, so much for institutional pride. The message the 
Democratic leadership has sent is that the

[[Page 6061]]

ends justify the means. And what lofty goal did they sacrifice 
institutional integrity for? Killing an agreement, killing an agreement 
that extends preferential treatment to American workers and strengthens 
a key democratic ally in our own hemisphere.
  No wonder the condemnation came so swiftly, and my staff has done a 
great deal of research. We have yet to find an editorial that is in 
support of the actions of the Speaker. As I said, her hometown paper, 
the New York Times, the Washington Post, on and on and on, we're going 
to discuss some of those further in just a minute. It is not too late 
though, Madam Speaker, it is not too late to correct this.
  We were supposed to have a 3-month process of debate and 
deliberations. We can still have it. We were supposed to have a vote at 
the end of that process. The Democratic leadership can still commit to 
do it.
  I mentioned the fact that I spoke with President Uribe a few hours 
ago. He's patient and he's optimistic. Frankly, he has no choice other 
than to be patient and optimistic. Madam Speaker, I call on Speaker 
Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to make a commitment to hold a vote on 
this very important Colombia Free Trade Agreement prior to the August 
recess. I call on them to quit demagoging this issue and let their 
rank-and-file Members vote their conscience.
  I will say that I completely disagree with the statement made by 
Speaker Pelosi here last week. She said that one of the reasons she 
didn't want this vote is that she was afraid it would go down to 
defeat. As I look at my colleagues who have joined me here, we've been 
working in a bipartisan way, and I'm not going to state the names of 
any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; but the fact of 
the matter is, in going through this 3-month process, I have every 
confidence that a bipartisan majority of this institution would 
recognize that helping American workers, strengthening a democratic 
ally, doing everything that we can for the word of this institution, 
would be the right thing to do. I know that because, frankly, more than 
a few Democrats have told me that they want to have a choice to vote 
for and support this measure.
  Passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is clearly in our 
economic and our foreign policy interest. Blocking it is clearly not. 
And changing the rules in the middle of the game because you're afraid 
of a fair fight is not defensible. It's time for us to exert true 
leadership as an institution and make sure that we pass this agreement.
  So those are my prepared remarks, Madam Speaker. And I'm so proud 
that I have been joined by a number of my colleagues, all of whom have 
been great champions in this effort and have worked on the notion of 
expanding opportunities for U.S. goods and services to be sold all 
around the world.
  And one of the great leaders who has been pursuing this, specifically 
in this hemisphere for many, many years and was a great champion of the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement and a wide range of other free 
trade initiatives, comes from a State, by the way, that is the 
headquarters for Caterpillar, and we know that by not passing this free 
trade agreement, we are preventing good, hardworking Caterpillar 
employees from having an opportunity to duty-free sell their very 
important equipment into Colombia. And I'm very happy at this time to 
yield to my very, very good friend who I'm saddened to say will not be 
joining us in the 111th Congress because he's chosen to retire to spend 
time with his wonderful, wonderful and very young family, but I'm happy 
to yield to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
also want to thank Mr. Dreier for your leadership tonight as well as 
your continuous leadership on trade issues because, as you pointed out, 
the actions of this House last week have done a lot of damage to the 
reputation not only to the House of Representatives but the reputation 
of the United States in Latin America.
  President Uribe is a popular elected official. This Congress has an 
18 percent approval rating. President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent 
approval rating because he's made such progress in addressing five 
decades of violence and civil problems in the democratic Republic of 
Colombia. And as a result, today, 73 percent of Colombians say they 
feel more secure because of President Uribe's leadership, but also they 
feel that he has brought security while respecting human rights.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to pose a 
question, if I might, to my friend.
  As we hear this 73 percent support level in Colombia, we know that 
the opposition here in the United States to this is being led by the 
AFL-CIO and organized labor. Now, I'm sure that my friend has seen in 
Colombia, as I have, that the private sector unions in Colombia are 
strongly supportive of this agreement. Is that the case or not?
  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank you for your generous time.
  This past week, as we all know, there was a delegation of labor 
leaders from Colombia, including both the private sector and as well as 
public sector unions, and they made the point that the majority of 
industrial unions, private sector unions support the U.S.-Colombia 
Trade Agreement, but the opposition is coming from the government 
employees, who are not even impacted.
  Mr. DREIER. In no way impacted by this agreement at all.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. That's correct. And one point you made 
earlier that I would like to--and I don't want to be greedy with the 
time, you've been very generous.
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to include our colleagues here with the 
discussion.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. But I would just like to comment on one point 
that you made.
  You said Illinois is headquarters to Caterpillar, and people think of 
the yellow construction equipment. There is more to it than you think, 
and that's why this trade agreement is so important. I have 8,000 
Caterpillar employees residing in the 11th Congressional District of 
Illinois. They're union members, every one of them. And Caterpillar, of 
course, would benefit from this, and that means their workers would as 
well. Half of their production in Illinois is dependent on exports.
  Mr. DREIER. So maybe there would be more than 11,000 workers if this 
agreement were to go through.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. There would be. And their growth has come as 
a result of export.
  But the point that really needs to be made is there is tremendous 
economic growth going on in the Andean region, which Colombia is 
leading, and a lot of that is in the energy and the mining and raw 
material sector, which means they're going to use construction 
equipment. And right now, the construction equipment that union workers 
make in the district I represent, places like Joliet, Aurora, Pontiac 
and Decatur, it faces a 15 percent tariff when exported to Colombia. 
Now, some would say, what does that mean? That's a 15 percent tax on 
the price of that bulldozer. So that makes U.S. products less 
competitive, say, than competing with Japan.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would say taxes are 
something very important today to discuss. I mean, we talk about that 
tax on April 15.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. And of course these tariffs would be 
eliminated immediately upon implementation of the U.S-Colombia Trade 
Agreement. I yield back the time, but it is so important to point out, 
Illinois is a big winner, manufacturers as well as farmers.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I hope that you can stay for a few 
minutes because I know we would like to get in some other questions.
  When my friend began discussing the fact that a delegation came from 
Colombia of union leaders to the United States, I thought that you were 
going to mention the fact that a delegation of Members of the United 
States Congress went last week to Colombia. One

[[Page 6062]]

of those who went was the distinguished secretary of the Republican 
Conference, our very, very good friend, Judge John Carter, a gentleman 
from Texas. And I would love to hear his thoughts, having just been in 
Colombia a week ago, on his trip. And I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding to me. My friend from California 
is gracious to do so.
  Let me start off by telling you what happened when I decided I was 
going to Colombia. My daughter, who lives here in Washington, called me 
up and said, Daddy, I told you not to go down to Colombia. Didn't you 
see ``Clear and Present Danger?'' Didn't you see that movie? Have you 
lost your mind?
  I want to point that out because I think that's a lot of what the 
American people think about Colombia when it comes to their mind, they 
think of that movie and that book. And I am pleased to say that I was 
very pleasantly surprised to find a very peaceable place where an awful 
lot of people have done an awful lot of hard work to get violent people 
out of their country and to get those people who joined defense bands 
and guerrilla bands to lay down their weapons.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, did you 
have a chance to visit Medellin?
  Mr. CARTER. I was in Medellin.
  Mr. DREIER. Medellin was the murder capital of the world, clearly the 
most dangerous spot in the world. And now Medellin has a murder rate 
that is too high. We have a murder rate that is too high in the 
District of Columbia. We have a murder rate that is too high in the 
United States of America. But the transformation of Medellin under the 
great Mayor Sergio Fajardo, with whom I'm sure you met, has been so 
dramatic. His leadership and the leadership of President Uribe has just 
transformed that city. Is that what my friend found?
  Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. Transformed it completely. It's a joy to be 
in Medellin, it really is. And, you know, the Medellin cartels are 
gone, and they are prospering.
  And, you know, they talked to us and they said, look, we are trying 
to stand up for democracy and free enterprise, we believe in this 
system. And this trade agreement is the linchpin that holds it all 
together for this country that has worked so desperately to solve 
problems that, quite frankly, not very many countries in the world 
would have been able to solve. Getting 40,000 people to lay down their 
arms is a major project.
  Mr. DREIER. And Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend if he, 
in fact, had the chance to meet with any of these young people who had 
been former paramilitaries, and I wonder if he has any anecdotes that 
he can share with us.
  Mr. CARTER. We did. We divided into groups and met with an assortment 
of both male and female. And you're right--
  Mr. DREIER. Share one of those stories.
  Mr. CARTER. You know, the first question, they all started talking 
about how they joined the paramilitary unit. They told about families 
being slaughtered, being separated from their families, having to run 
and escape the guerrillas that came out of the woods. And they ran to 
escape, and then came back to find their families slaughtered, and so 
they joined a paramilitary group. And a question was asked, rather 
naively, I think, by us, you mean, you were carrying weapons? 
Absolutely. Every one of them, male and female, were carrying weapons. 
And now they are working in programs that are changing the culture of 
these people that joined the violent behavior. They have laid down 
their weapons. We asked them why. They said the comandantes said we 
have talked to the president, we lay down our weapons, and they did.
  They are out studying. They're proud to say they're getting high 
school educations. They're proud to say they're going to trade schools. 
A few were proud to say they had received admission to university. 
These were jungle fighters just a short while ago, and now they are 
coming into society and working very hard because they see a future for 
Colombia. And this future rests upon a world of free enterprise and 
trade, and this agreement starts the process that gives them many 
opportunities for free trade around the world.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. My friend is absolutely right. And I will 
tell you, these meetings are always, for me, I've participated in 
several of them, very emotional. As I said in my opening remarks, I 
remember very vividly seeing this young, I mean, a kid, he said he was 
18 years old when he watched the Revolutionary Armed Forces of 
Colombia, the FARC, which we all know that acronym, they came in and 
they murdered his mother and father right in front of him. And of 
course he was, like any of us would be, so angry and so bitter that he 
joined with the paramilitary and began being, as you said so well, Mr. 
Carter, a guerrilla fighter. And he was able to become productive 
because of the trade schools that have been put into place.
  And the patriotism that these young Colombians have for their country 
and their desire for a peaceful nation is so great. They were forced 
into this because these narcoterrorists in the FARC were resorting to 
murdering their parents. And so many others have been tragically 
murdered there. To see this take place and to hear those individual 
stories, they are very, very emotional. In fact, as you listen to these 
people, I mean, I'm getting emotional thinking about it because of the 
fact that these young people who have been forced into this are now 
becoming productive members of society. And the notion of our not doing 
what we can to bring about peace and stability in this hemisphere is, I 
think, very, very distressing.
  I am happy to see that we're joined by the very distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee, my 
California colleague, Mr. Herger. And I would be happy to yield for 
some comments to my very good friend.
  Mr. HERGER. Well, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for 
setting this up this evening.
  This is so incredibly important. It's important to our Nation, it's 
important to our workers at a time when we're seeing our economy 
dipping, when we need to be able to produce jobs. And we look at how we 
produce jobs. Since last year, some 27 percent of our increase in gross 
domestic product came from exports. It's projected that just this year 
of our increase in gross domestic product, some 40 percent will be 
again from exports.
  And I wish it weren't true, but it seems like perhaps the best kept 
secret in our Nation today is that the United States is the largest 
trading nation in the world. We're the largest exporting nation in the 
world.
  I represent, as my good friend knows, a very rich agricultural 
district north of Sacramento in northern California.
  Mr. DREIER. Beautiful area.
  Mr. HERGER. One of the richest agriculture areas in the world, second 
largest rice producing district. Some 60 percent of all the dried plums 
in the world, prunes, are grown there, walnuts, almonds, these 
specialty crops. And America cannot consume all that we produce. As a 
matter of fact, one-third of all that we produce we need to be able to 
export. And to be able to see, again, talking about Colombia, what this 
does for American workers, we just heard about Caterpillar from our 
good friend from Illinois (Mr. Weller) just earlier in his district, 
the thousands that it affects. And so it affects in the district I 
represent.
  Right now, because of our duty free status for the Andean nations, 
which we've gone in to try to help Colombia, Colombia was not always 
this great nation where some 42,000 former paramilitary, as we were 
talking about earlier, have gone from fighting the country to now being 
part of the country and supporting them. As we know, it wasn't always 
that way. And so some years ago we gave these Andean nations, including 
Colombia, Peru, Panama, and others, the ability to be able to export 
into the United States duty free, duty free, but yet we still have 
export duties, some as high as 60, 70 percent, going into their 
country.
  And what this free trade agreement would do is it would be able to 
give us

[[Page 6063]]

the same access to their markets that they currently have to ours, to 
our rice, to our walnuts, to our wheat, to our corn, to other 
commodities that are so very, very important.
  So it is important what we're doing. It's important not only for, we 
were discussing the change in Colombia itself, which is our strongest 
ally in South America; we cannot turn our back on them, we cannot slap 
them in the face.
  And Madam Speaker, I would like to place into the Record some of 
these editorials that you were speaking about, Mr. Dreier, for the 
Record.

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2008]

                   Time for the Colombian Trade Pact

       American workers are understandably anxious. Their incomes 
     went nowhere through six years of economic growth. Many are 
     losing their jobs as the economy slips into recession. Yet 
     concern about workers' plight should not lead Congressional 
     Democrats to reject the trade agreement with Colombia. This 
     deal would benefit the American economy and further the 
     nation's broader interests in Latin America.
       It is time for Congress to ratify it.
       The trade pact would produce clear benefits for American 
     businesses and their workers. Most Colombian exports are 
     exempt from United States' tariffs. American exports, 
     however, face high Colombian tariffs and would benefit as the 
     so-called trade promotion agreement brought them down to 
     zero.
       The deal also would strengthen the institutional bonds 
     tying the United States to Colombia, one of America's few 
     allies in an important region that has become increasingly 
     hostile to the United States' interests. Perhaps most 
     important, the deal would provide a tool for Colombia's 
     development, drawing investment and helping the nation 
     extricate itself from the mire of poverty that provides 
     sustenance to drug trafficking and a bloody insurgency.
       Violence in Colombia is way too high. We remain very 
     concerned over the killing of trade unionists by right-wing 
     paramilitary groups. Last year, we advised Congress not to 
     ratify the trade agreement until Colombia demonstrated 
     progress in investigating the murders and prosecuting and 
     convicting their perpetrators.
       Though by no means ideal, the situation today has improved. 
     Thirty-nine trade unionists were killed last year, down from 
     197 in 2001, the year before the government of Alvaro Uribe 
     came to office. Prosecutors obtained 36 convictions for the 
     murder of trade unionists--up from 11 in 2006 and only one in 
     2001. The budget of the prosecutor general's office has 
     increased every year. Last year, it created a special unit to 
     prosecute labor murders that has obtained 13 sentences.
       Pressure from the United States Congress has contributed to 
     this progress, nudging the Colombian government with its 
     offer that gains on the human rights front would lead to 
     ratification of the trade agreement. Washington must sustain 
     the pressure to ensure the energetic prosecution of crimes by 
     paramilitary thugs and further reduce violence against union 
     members. It has a powerful tool to do so: about $600 million 
     a year in mostly military aid for Colombia to combat drug 
     trafficking. The money must be approved by Congress every 
     year.
       Rejecting or putting on ice the trade agreement would 
     reduce the United States' credibility and leverage in 
     Colombia and beyond. In a letter last year to Congressional 
     Democrats, a group of Democratic heavyweights from the 
     Clinton administration and previous Congresses wrote: 
     ``Walking away from the Colombia trade agreement or 
     postponing it until conditions are perfect would send an 
     unambiguous signal to our friends and opponents alike that 
     the United States is an unreliable partner without a vision 
     for cooperation in our hemisphere.'' It would serve human 
     rights in Colombia no good.
       Unfortunately, the agreement has become entangled in 
     political jockeying between the White House and Democrats. 
     The Democrats are right to demand assistance for American 
     workers, and the Bush administration should work with 
     Congress to expand the safety net for workers displaced by 
     globalization. But this should not stop the Colombian trade 
     pact from coming to fruition.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2008]

                          Drop Dead, Colombia

       The year 2008 may enter history as the time when the 
     Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party's 
     presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest 
     to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if 
     elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her 
     intention to change the procedural rules governing the 
     proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President 
     Bush submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote 
     within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the 
     ``fast-track'' authority under which the U.S. negotiated the 
     deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says she'll ask the House to 
     undo that rule.
       The likely result is no vote on the agreement this year. 
     Ms. Pelosi denies that her intent is to kill the bill, 
     insisting yesterday that Congress simply needs more time to 
     consider it ``in light of the economic uncertainty in our 
     country.'' She claimed that she feared that, ``if brought to 
     the floor immediately, [the pact] would lose. And what 
     message would that send?'' But Ms. Pelosi's decision-making 
     process also included a fair component of pure Washington 
     pique: She accused Mr. Bush of ``usurp[ing] the discretion of 
     the speaker of the House'' to schedule legislation.
       That political turf-staking, and the Democrats' 
     decreasingly credible claims of a death-squad campaign 
     against Colombia's trade unionists, constitutes all that's 
     left of the case against the agreement. Economically, it 
     should be a no-brainer--especially at a time of rising U.S. 
     joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United 
     States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would 
     make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free 
     access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S. 
     jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American 
     interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government 
     that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite 
     harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
       To be sure, President Bush provoked Ms. Pelosi. But he 
     forced the issue only after months of inconclusive dickering 
     convinced him that Democrats were determined to avoid a vote 
     that would force them to accept accountability for opposing 
     an agreement that is manifestly in America's interest. It 
     turns out his suspicions were correct.
       ``I take this action with deep respect to the people of 
     Colombia and will be sure that any message they receive is 
     one of respect for their country, and the importance of the 
     friendship between our two countries,'' Ms. Pelosi protested 
     yesterday. Perhaps Colombia's government and people will 
     understand. We don't.

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my 
friend for pointing to these editorials because, as I said a few 
minutes ago, we've done a great deal of research. We've been trying 
desperately to find an editorial anywhere in this country that has been 
written in support of the egregious action taken by the Democratic 
leadership in this institution, undermining the ability to open up this 
very important new market for U.S. workers, agricultural products and 
manufactured goods. We hear from California and Illinois and other 
States as well. And I actually have, I think, about 15 of these 
editorials here with some incredible quotes that are pretty damning. 
And again, these come from publications that are hardly considered 
Republican mouth pieces.
  You know, we had this very harsh criticism level at the President of 
the United States, and he somehow was trying to ram this thing through 
and rush it. We know that this agreement, the negotiation began 4 years 
ago, it was completed 2 years ago, and a year and a half ago it was 
signed. There have been constant attempts to bring this up; 27 meetings 
held with the Democratic leadership by this administration, and yet, as 
has been pointed out in these editorials, this terrible action was 
taken.
  I'm very pleased that one of the great free traders in this 
institution who represents the very important port town of Houston, 
Texas, has joined us, another hardworking member of the Ways and 
Means--I guess we've got three members of the Ways and Means Committee 
here, so I'm particularly pleased to have members of that very, very 
important committee with us, including my good friend, as I said, from 
Houston, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Dreier. And thank you for your 
leadership. I'm glad to join all the Members here tonight on this 
important issue.
  The reason this country is so dismayed by the action last week is 
that it was such a huge loss for American jobs, for security in our 
hemisphere, and a big loss for America's prestige around the world.

                              {time}  2115

  Colombia's a remarkable trading partner, as you have noted. They are 
a remarkable study and model in progress, in democracy, and human 
rights, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps by rule of law and 
freedom of speech and freedom of trade, all the American traits that 
you have to admire. They're in our backyard. They're in our hemisphere. 
A remarkable trading partner.

[[Page 6064]]

  I think last week many in America wondered just what happened to this 
great country. Who could imagine that America, with the world's largest 
economy, would cower from Colombia behind walls of protectionism? Who 
could imagine the world's strongest democracy would be afraid to even 
debate, even consider this agreement? And who could imagine, by 
changing the rules after we had already shaken hands and signed an 
agreement, that we would send a signal to the rest of the world that we 
are no longer not even a reliable trade leader in this world but we are 
not even reliable negotiators, that our word, our bond, our agreements 
mean nothing?
  And the loss in jobs, as you know, America is wide open, Mr. Dreier. 
As you know, we can buy anything from almost any country anywhere we 
want in our communities.
  Mr. DREIER. And that's a good thing.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. But when we try to sell our goods and services 
around the world, we find too much of it blocked. As we have said 
before, it's not enough anymore to just buy American. We have to sell 
American. We have to sell our goods and services throughout the world. 
But when we do, we find so much of the world is closed off, locked away 
from us.
  Colombia, a great partner, has been selling their goods and services 
into America since 1991, but we face real barriers when we try to do 
the same, and this trade agreement creates that two-way trade.
  For Texas I know it's critical. We're the largest seller of goods to 
Colombia. We sell about a little over a billion dollars a year in 
chemicals, construction, equipment and machinery and computers. And 
under this agreement we would sell another billion dollars of not only 
that but grapefruit and beef and financial services. A number of 
services our small businesses could sell into Colombia, our neighbor in 
the backyard and in our hemisphere. So we lost jobs here in America.
  Colombia lost jobs because they lost a guaranteed market because by 
not acting, by changing the rules, they are now coming at a 
disadvantage to their neighbors, in Peru and Central American 
countries. So they actually lost ground from a jobs perspective.
  And, finally, to turn our back on what a tremendous ally, as you have 
noted over and over, who has made such great progress, who we deserve 
to engage more and be a stronger partner with, not to turn our back on, 
it's a huge loss.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution, 
Madam Speaker.
  And one of the issues that has come to the forefront, and I would be 
happy to yield to any of my colleagues who would like to comment on 
this, has been this notion that the Colombian Government is somehow 
murdering union leaders. We have continued to hear this. And it is 
true. In the past it's been absolutely outrageous to see the treatment.
  But in the last several years under the leadership of President 
Uribe, very important steps have been taken to bring to justice any of 
those who have been responsible for the heinous act of murdering these 
union leaders. And the government has done something which is totally 
unprecedented. The government does not want to see union leaders 
killed; so what do they do? There are 1,500 union leaders who enjoy 
full security protection paid for by the Government of Colombia. And 
yet we continually hear arguments put forward by our friends at the 
AFL-CIO that ``the Colombian Government is murdering our brothers.'' I 
mean I've heard that chant over and over and over again. Because, of 
course, as these very thoughtful arguments that my colleagues have put 
forward are there, the only response that they can have is the 
Colombian Government is murdering, is murdering, our brothers.
  I would be happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Very briefly, Judge Carter was with me and others 
here 2 weeks ago as we met with the general prosecutor, an independent 
prosecutor, for the country of Colombia.
  Mr. DREIER. I believe he's called the Fiscalia.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes. And he told us straight out, because we 
asked him, he said there is no thread, no direct or indirect thread at 
all, between the Colombian Government and any murders of anyone, much 
less union leaders. And he said what you've said, that this government 
has not only sat down to prosecute those who would commit violent 
crimes against union leaders but provides protection. In fact, it is 
safer to be a union leader in Colombia than just the general population 
might be. That is such an effort they have made. That government is 
providing a lower level of violence, a safer country for all citizens.
  So the argument that they are targeting or that they are allowing it 
or just looking the other way is exactly wrong, and the unions 
themselves told us that.
  Mr. DREIER. That's right because, as I pointed out earlier, the 
private sector unions, and Mr. Weller and I had this exchange, are very 
supportive of this. And I suspect that on your trip, you had a chance 
to meet with a number of those union leaders.
  Let me just say that one Member who is here that we haven't heard 
from is the distinguished gentleman from Iowa.
  Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to my friend from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, 
and I thank him especially for gathering us together here for this 
Special Order.
  Being mindful of the clock, there are a few points I would like to 
make. And one of them is to address our trade deficit. We have had a 
trade deficit over the last several years that has grown an average of 
about 20 percent a year. Now, it's flattened out in this last year 
because the weaker dollar has shifted so that we have more exports in 
proportion. However, I believe the dollar needs to be shored up. And 
why would a nation that has a trade deficit refuse to allow a trade 
agreement that would open up a country to allow our goods to go in?
  I'm astonished continually at the continuing shift on the part of the 
Democrats. And I looked through the trade agreements that we have dealt 
with here since I have been in this Congress, and I'm thinking of trade 
agreements like Singapore and Chile and Australia and Morocco, the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement, DR-CAFTA. All of those gave us 
opportunities that were advantageous to us. And the logic in this is 
just as clear and simple: If you market something or if you're doing 
business with people, where you buy it from is where the jobs are. 
That's where the production is. We have production in the United 
States. We need to market more goods overseas. If we shore up the 
dollar, and I think we should, we're going to need to be more 
aggressive marketing our goods overseas. Colombia's sitting there 
waiting to open that up.
  I have to say a couple kind words about our pork producers. They sold 
$8.5 million worth of pork into Colombia last year, not a lot. They're 
losing money on every head today. They need to open up this market. It 
would be in multiples if we would simply allow that tariff that's in 
Colombia to disappear, which would happen immediately if we could sign 
into this free trade agreement. That's some of the components.
  But I am also more concerned about our relationships in the Western 
hemisphere. And as we watch Hugo Chavez teaming up and picking up the 
legacy of Fidel Castro and watching the unrest that's being promoted or 
watching tanks roll up to the border, these things are taking place in 
our hemisphere. And this Monroe Doctrine, I think, calls upon us to be 
good diplomats, good stewards of the money, and good promoters of 
trade, taking care of American jobs and protecting our opportunity to 
compete in the rest of the world. All of this comes together in this 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  What happened here in this Congress was a shameful act. And Americans 
have to be viewed as having character,

[[Page 6065]]

the kind of character that holds up when a business deal is a deal. We 
did more than shake hands on this. This Congress passed it. The 
President signed it. This agreement was negotiated under terms that 
said this trade agreement will come to the floor of this House and it 
will be brought forward for a vote, up or down, in 90 days. That's the 
deal. That's the deal it was negotiated under. That's the deal that it 
should have been brought to the floor of this House under.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time so I could 
propound a question to my friend, and I don't mean to interrupt his 
very thoughtful statement.
  But as I listened to the arguments that have been made by Speaker 
Pelosi and others against this, they said we have an economy that is 
weakening. We all know that is the case. Our economy is facing very 
serious challenges. Here again, this is Tax Day, April 15, and it is 
hard for people to make ends meet. It has become more difficult. So the 
argument has been made. I hear Speaker Pelosi regularly say we need to 
focus on American workers and their concerns rather than some kind of 
agreement, and so we should put off this agreement until our economy is 
stronger.
  And I just don't quite understand that. And I wonder if my friend 
might enlighten me on exactly what the point of that statement is.
  And I further yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If we took that position with every country on the 
globe, you could virtually guarantee our economy would collapse, not 
get stronger. We need to make every move that we can make to improve 
this economy. I'm really not as concerned as the pundits are, but it's 
prudent for us to open trade. Free trade, fair trade smart trade is a 
better code word for this, and it means jobs in America. The U.S. 
market is open to Colombia. They're saying, let's open our market to 
you. I'm happy to send Caterpillars down there. We buy them in my 
business. And I'm happy to send the pork down there that we produce and 
everything that we can compete with. This global market that we're 
involved in demands that we export, and the Western hemisphere demands 
that we lead. And that means we need to promote strong, strong 
relationships in the Western hemisphere. And as we watch the bullying 
tactics of Hugo Chavez, I think that cries out for us to shake hands 
with President Uribe and complete this Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. DREIER. So basically this would best be described as a win-win 
all the way around. It's a winner for the cause of democracy and 
freedom and the rule of law in South America, which we all know is very 
important. It's a winner when it comes to stopping those drug 
traffickers who are selling drugs, poisoning our children and 
grandchildren. And then we look at the opportunity created for the 
United States of America, our workers. They're greatly benefited by 
this.
  And that's why I continue to try to figure out why it is that anyone 
would oppose this. I mean we use the term ``no brainer'' to describe 
this. It really is a no brainer. We used that in the debate last week. 
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. McCrery, and a couple of others have said this is a no 
brainer.
  And these editorials that have been written, I think we probably 
should share some of the words of these publications that often 
criticize Republican policies who have come forward with this. I know a 
number of things have been put forward. But one thing just today, the 
Wall Street Journal had an editorial that was in strong support of a 
letter, an open letter, that came from former senior administration 
officials from the Clinton administration and Democratic Members of 
Congress, and it was signed by 35 of them, former colleagues of ours 
who are Democrats. And it includes people, by the way, just some of the 
signatories of this letter, the former Commerce Secretary William 
Daley, who is from Mr. Weller's State that we talked about; Stuart 
Eizenstat, a very prominent brilliant economic mind; General Barry 
McCaffrey; our former colleague who was a Republican Senator but went 
on to be the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, Bill 
Cohen, signed this. So a lot of people have signed this letter.
  It says: ``We believe this agreement is in both our vital national 
security and economic interests. We feel that the treaty should be 
considered as soon as possible.'' I remind people it's not actually a 
treaty; it's an agreement. ``We feel that the treaty should be 
considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and 
amicably resolved.''
  The letter cites ``an overwhelming national security imperative'' and 
that ``President Uribe has been a strong and faithful ally. To turn our 
back on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be a severe blow to 
that relationship and would send a very negative message to our friends 
in a volatile region?
  The letter praises Colombia for its ``dramatic improvement in 
security'' and for being ``a model of open market democracy that 
supports fundamental U.S. national interests'' and points out that 
these are ideals that many in the region ``openly scorn,'' of course, 
referring, as my friend just said, to Hugo Chavez. The letter goes on 
to praise Uribe personally for his ``great personal courage'' in 
aggressively going on the offensive in fighting narcoterrorists and 
dramatically increasing drug interdiction and eradication of criminals 
to the United States, or extradition of criminals. Eradication of 
criminals too, we want to do that. It also praises his substantial 
progress in the issue of violence against trade unionists, pointing out 
that Uribe has provided special security protection to some 9,400 
individuals. This number says including 1,900 trade unionists. I said 
1,500, and this letter that these officials of the Clinton 
administration and former Democratic Members of the United States 
Congress said 1,900 trade unionists have been able to receive this kind 
of protection.
  And that's why I implore my colleagues in the Democratic leadership 
to bring this up for a vote.
  Mark my words, and I would ask any of my colleagues who are here if 
they disagree with my assessment, if after we go through these 
arguments, which we have begun talking about tonight and we talked a 
little bit about last week, is there any doubt that we would have 
strong bipartisan support with many Democrats joining with us in 
support of this?

                              {time}  2130

  I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues who have any 
thoughts or comments on that at all. I suspect you might agree with me, 
but if you have any thoughts on it, I would be happy to.
  Mr. Brady, you look like you would like to cast your vote.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Absolutely. There have been a number of Democrat 
colleagues who have traveled to Colombia to see that remarkable 
progress firsthand, who have assessed it themselves rather than playing 
the politics of it, and who have been both public and private in their 
support for this agreement. I think all they would like is an up-or-
down vote, a fair chance to debate this issue and bring it to the 
floor. I am confident with it would pass. And I am confident we would 
send a completely different signal to our allies like Colombia and the 
rest of the world.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. And it is 
very interesting. We have heard the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, talk about 
the need for trade adjustment assistance, a second stimulus package. 
And Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Colombia free-trade 
agreement, which will create an opportunity for more U.S. workers to 
sell their goods and agricultural products into Colombia is, in fact, 
trade adjustment assistance itself. And I would argue that this 
agreement, job creating, is in fact an economic stimulus package in and 
of itself. So if the commitment is to trade adjustment assistance and 
economic stimulus so that we can create more jobs in the United States 
of America, the answer is, pass the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement.

[[Page 6066]]

  I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. I agree wholeheartedly that I think an up-or-down vote 
and we will have a Colombia free-trade agreement. I think that our 
Democratic colleagues will be reasonable and understand this. And I 
think we have the votes to get it done.
  But I think Speaker Pelosi needs to release this and let us have a 
vote. That is the key thing. And you notice that letter you just read 
kept talking about national security. What we really have here, if you 
look at it closely, is a contest of two socialist--we used to call them 
Communist--a regime in Hugo Chavez, and we have Uribe who is trying to 
create a free democracy, and a free enterprise system. These are two, 
side-by-side competing systems that will influence that entire 
continent.
  And that is why this is in our national security interest. It is not 
just a trade agreement which is going to benefit American workers. It 
is a security agreement that points to the direction that we stand up 
for what we believe in, democracy and free enterprise.
  Mr. DREIER. My friend makes a very good and important point here. And 
I was talking to my colleague, Dan Lungren, who served here, I was 
pleased to serve with him during the 1980s when we were in the midst, 
and I know my friend from California came in 1986 to this institution. 
We have spent time, energy, resources and weapons in dealing with the 
expansion of Communism in Central America as we were providing 
resources to the Democratic resistance in Nicaragua known as the 
Contras. And we regularly hear criticism from Democrats that what we 
should be doing in Iraq is we shouldn't be using weapons, we should, in 
fact, be engaging and using trade and other things.
  And what is it we have here? We have Democrats, the Democratic 
leadership, unfortunately, saying that as we seek to build a stronger 
relationship with a country that is standing up to narcoterrorists, 
that is standing up to the expansion of Hugo Chavez on their borders 
trying to extend into the country, and they are saying ``no'' to this. 
They are saying ``no'' to this because somehow they believe it is going 
to hurt U.S. workers.
  To me it is absolutely outrageous that this has taken place. And 
Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my colleagues for the 
time that they have spent here this evening. And I hope very much that 
Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will, in fact, schedule a 
vote on the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement before the August 
recess. Let's begin the process of debate and voting right now.
  I thank again my colleagues, Madam Speaker, and with that I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________