[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7896-7900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last month, Democratic leaders in the 
House made a truly terrible decision. They opted to kill a free-trade 
agreement that had already been reached between the United States and 
Colombia, one of our closest, if not our closest, ally in Latin 
America, and a nation that has made great strides at democratic reform.
  At the heart of the deal was an agreement that U.S. manufacturers and 
farmers would no longer have to pay tariffs on U.S. goods that are sold 
in Colombia. This would have leveled the playing field since most 
Colombian goods are sold in the United States duty free.
  At a time of economic uncertainty at home, the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement should have been an obvious bipartisan effort to bolster U.S. 
manufacturing and agriculture and to expand overseas markets for U.S. 
goods.
  Unfortunately, the House leaders decided that the support of union 
leaders was, in this case, more important than our relations with a 
close ally or the state of the U.S. economy. That decision has already 
had serious and far-reaching consequences, and that is not just the 
view on this side of the aisle.
  Virtually every major paper in the country was swift in condemning 
the House Democrats for changing the rules and blocking a vote on this 
trade agreement. They recognized that the decision was bad for our 
relations with Colombia, bad as a matter of national security, and bad 
for the U.S. economy.
  Here are just a few of the headlines from newspapers across our 
country:
  ``Drop Dead, Colombia,'' said the Washington Post.
  ``Free Trade Deal is A Winner,'' said the Charleston Post and 
Courier.
  ``Approve Pact with Colombia,'' said the Los Angeles Times.
  ``A Trade Deal that All of the Americas Need,'' said the Rocky 
Mountain News.
  ``Our View On Free Trade: Pass the Colombia Pact,'' USA Today.
  ``Pelosi's Bad Faith,'' the Wall Street Journal.
  ``Time for the Colombian Trade Pact,'' the New York Times.
  ``Historical Failure on Colombia Trade Pact,'' the Denver Post.
  ``Lose-Lose; House Rejection of Trade Agreement is Bad for U.S. 
Workers and Colombia,'' the Houston Chronicle.
  ``Caving on Colombia,'' the Chicago Tribune.
  And in my own hometown paper, the Louisville Courier Journal, an 
editorial titled: ``Free Trade's Benefits.''
  Here is how the Courier Journal put it:

       Far from the Washington Beltway, out here in Kentucky, the 
     U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement would have real 
     consequences in real people's lives--most of them good, in 
     our view.

  I could go on. In the days after the House scuttled the Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement, the Office of U.S. Trade Representative counted more 
than 75 editorials opposing that decision. It is still waiting for a 
single editorial somewhere in America supporting the Speaker's decision 
to scuttle the free-trade agreement.
  A congressional resolution in support of Independence Day would 
probably draw more criticism than the Colombia Free Trade Agreement has 
from U.S. newspapers. And the reason is abundantly clear. The decision 
to block a vote has already had serious and far-reaching consequences. 
As the San Diego Union Tribune put it in yet another editorial critical 
of the move: ``Bashing Has a Price.''

[[Page 7897]]

  With respect to tariffs, that price is quantifiable. According to an 
estimate by the Department of Commerce, U.S. goods entering Colombia 
have been weighted down with more than $1 billion--$1 billion--in 
tariffs since the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed--$1 billion. 
This is a heavy burden to place on U.S. workers and the businesses they 
work for.
  We hear a lot from the other side about the need for fair trade. Is 
it fair that U.S. goods have been saddled with more than $1 billion in 
tariffs just in the last year and a half alone, while more than 90 
percent of Colombian-made goods are sold here without any tariffs at 
all? What is fair about that? This, apparently, is what House Democrats 
in Congress regard as fair trade.
  The trade imbalance between the United States and Colombia is a 
matter of enormous significance for the many States that rely on 
exports--States such as Kentucky, which exported about $67 million 
worth of goods to Colombia last year. Had the FTA been brought up and 
passed, that figure would have been all but certain to increase this 
year.
  The beef industry is a good example of how the trade imbalance hurts 
the U.S. Kentucky is the largest beef-cattle-producing State east of 
the Mississippi River. But at the moment, prime and choice cuts of 
Kentucky beef face 80 percent duties once they reach Colombian ports. 
Obviously, an 80-percent markup on beef makes it hard for cattle 
farmers in my State to compete.
  The House failure to take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement puts 
States such as Kentucky at a serious competitive disadvantage with 
Colombia--despite the fact that Colombia itself wants to level the 
playing field. It is Democrats in the House, not Colombia, who insist 
on keeping high tariffs on U.S. goods in place.
  At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling, we should be doing all 
we can to help U.S. exporters sell their goods abroad. Instead, House 
Democrats are burdening our exporters with high tariffs. In these 
economic times, we should be expanding access to overseas markets for 
American-made products and American-grown goods, not standing in the 
way.
  This is a consensus view--a consensus view--not just a Republican 
view. The Senate is ready to vote in favor of the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement on a very broad bipartisan basis. For the good of the 
economy, we should be allowed to take that vote. The House should take 
up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and pass it, and they should do it 
without any further delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to join today with 
our leader, Senator McConnell, in urging prompt action on the Colombia 
Free Trade Agreement because, as he has said, this represents one of 
the most important foreign policy and economic opportunities before 
this Congress.
  It is both an economic opportunity to increase our exports, 
particularly at a time when our economy has slowed down--the dollar is 
weak--and we should be supporting policies that will create jobs and 
boost exports.
  The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement also represents a key 
opportunity to strengthen an alliance with a friend and ally in a part 
of the world full of anti-American socialists led by, of course, Hugo 
Chavez of Venezuela.
  I have long believed that trade and commercial ties are one of the 
most effective arrows in America's quiver of smart power, to build 
strong alliances for peace and friendship throughout the world.
  But, also, as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and a 
longtime believer in free trade, I believe this agreement is in our 
national security interests as well as our economic best interests.
  First, let me discuss some of the geopolitical and strategic benefits 
and why Colombia, as a partner with the United States, has demonstrated 
that it is worthy of such an agreement.
  President Alvaro Uribe's administration finds itself surrounded by 
states determined to undermine Colombia's growing democracy. These 
other states provide safe havens to insurgent groups, allow freedom of 
maneuvering in border areas, and provide monetary support for their 
drug and terror activities that threaten those countries and our own 
country.
  I am sure Hugo Chavez would love nothing more than to see this deal 
fail. This would be a huge victory for Hugo Chavez. Such an event would 
embolden his support for rebels in Colombia and undercut American 
interests throughout the region. Our credibility would be sadly 
destroyed among people who should be our friends--our neighbors in the 
Western Hemisphere.
  The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, Do we support Hugo 
Chavez or do we support President Alvaro Uribe? It is critical for 
peace and prosperity, not just in Colombia but for all of Latin 
America, and it is very important for our security that we take the 
opportunity to show we stand with President Uribe, who has done so much 
to move his country forward in a positive manner.
  President Uribe has implemented far-reaching policies to protect 
labor union members--policies that have led to a general decline in 
violence, and an even greater decline in violence against union 
members.
  Murders in Colombia overall have decreased by nearly 40 percent 
between 2001 and 2007, and murders of union members were reduced by 
over 80 percent. Legal reforms have been implemented under President 
Uribe to transform the judicial system and increase the number of 
prosecutions. These prosecutions and law enforcement are necessary 
because of the violent terrorists who are still operating in Colombia, 
though President Uribe deserves great credit for cracking down on them.
  In October 2006, a special subunit within the Unit of Human Rights 
was set up in Colombia to investigate and prosecute over 1,200 criminal 
cases of violence against trade union members.
  President Uribe has pushed back Marxist guerrillas of the 
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC--that we will be 
referring to later--and the National Liberation Army, or ELN.
  Earlier this year, the interdiction of two high-value targets, senior 
terror planners and former operators, was a testament to President 
Uribe's commitment to ending terror operations in his country and 
stopping the threat to his democratic government posed by the socialist 
Marxist neighbors trying to bring him down.
  It is important to remember that the FARC insurgent group holds more 
than 700 political and military prisoners, including three Americans.
  This regime has been behind some of the most disturbing human rights 
atrocities over the past three decades, and it finances its operations 
by facilitating the drug trade. Now, that, if nothing else, ought to 
get our attention.
  If the leadership in the House in Congress is concerned about 
improving America's image abroad, fighting to keep illicit drugs off 
our streets, and improving America's strategic interests in its own 
backyard, then why don't they start by giving a helping hand to the one 
good friend we have surrounded by challenges?
  What would the rejection of this agreement say about America's 
commitment to our friends around the world? It would say: Don't count 
on the United States. Big talk; no action. Big hat; no cattle. We talk 
a good game, but we can't come through. And that is a serious 
indictment of the United States.
  Friends such as Colombia, and I might even add Korea, who are helping 
us fight terrorism, fighting for freedom in their parts of the world, 
want to open their markets to U.S. goods and embrace America's values.
  Under President Uribe's leadership, tremendous strides have been made 
in the last 5 years. Colombia is a functioning democracy in an area 
surrounded by socialist anti-American vitriol.
  The fact that Colombia still faces challenges and needs continued 
reforms should not lead us to withdraw

[[Page 7898]]

support for this agreement. Rather, we should increase our support to 
help Colombia strengthen its democratic institutions, implement 
continued social reforms, and strengthen its legal proceedings.
  Approving the Colombia FTA will embolden President Uribe to continue 
to make these positive reforms and keep Colombia on the right path.
  As for the economic benefits, as I have said, if the strategic and 
geopolitical benefits were not enough, I believe the economic interests 
in supporting free trade are just as compelling.
  As anxiety increases about what most analysts agree is the beginning 
of a recession, a sure way to help head it off is through increasing 
free trade and opening markets abroad to sell U.S. goods. Yet the 
Colombia Free Trade agreement, as have other negotiated FTAs, has been 
held hostage by short-sighted politicians and Presidential election 
year politics. These politics are denying American producers and 
exporters expanded markets.
  Now, my colleague and good friend, our leader, Senator McConnell, has 
already talked about an 80-percent tariff on beef going into Colombia. 
It is not just Kentucky beef producers, it is Missouri beef producers, 
it is America's beef producers who want to have access to that market 
because that is going to be an important market to them.
  But look at the others. Here is what the U.S. workers have to pay for 
the goods they produce to export, and that is a tariff--a tax--on what 
they are exporting.
  Automobiles: American workers pay 35 percent in tariffs put on by 
Colombia. They pay 2.5 percent. Furniture: a 20-percent tax on goods 
going into Colombia. Mineral fuels: 5 to 15 percent. There is no tax on 
fuels coming into the United States. Cotton: Our cotton farmers have to 
pay a 10-percent tariff going into Colombia. They pay less than 4 
percent. Metal products: Our workers in the metal products industry are 
hampered by 5 to 15 percent. They pay zero. Computer products: We are 
taxed 10 percent on computer products we send to them. They pay no tax. 
They come in free.
  Why is this not a good deal? It makes no sense. These are efforts 
that could increase by $1 billion our trade with Colombia.
  I remember in 1999 going to the battle in Seattle. There were people 
demonstrating against world trade. There were longshoremen up there. 
They were out demonstrating against free trade. Without international 
trade, they have no job. There were workers at Boeing in Washington who 
were demonstrating against free trade. Over half their business is in 
world markets. There were teamsters up there demonstrating against free 
trade. The largest teamster employer in the United States, I 
understand--at least at the time--was United Parcel Service, UPS, but 
for every 40 packages UPS sends abroad, they hire another teamster.
  We need to get real about economics. Free trade is in our interests.
  Some people have been throwing around the term ``Hooverism.'' They 
are worried about Hoover economic policies, and I think they are right, 
because President Hoover made some disastrous decisions that kept us 
not only in recession but deepened it into a long-serving depression we 
only came out of with World War II. In 1930 he signed the Smoot-Hawley 
Tariff Act, setting off a wave of protectionist retaliation and damage 
to the world economy. He damaged it more than the initial stock market 
crash did in 1929. Two years later, he undid the Coolidge-Mellon tax 
cuts, raising the top marginal income tax rate from 25 percent to 63 
percent. Now, that is Hooverism: When you are in a recession, impose 
protectionist barriers and raise taxes. That got us the longest 
depression we have had in the last century and a half.
  Unfortunately, we are hearing some people in the campaign talk about 
raising taxes and withdrawing from NAFTA, withdrawing and stopping free 
trade. That is a recipe for disaster. We need to look beyond the 
politics and look at the economics. Free trade expands not only 
economic and commercial ties, but it strengthens critical cultural ties 
and strategic alliances.
  Yet many in Congress seem to care more about improving our image by 
talking with rogue regimes such as those in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran 
than working with and completing trade agreements with friends in 
places such as Colombia and Korea. Their denial of the Colombia Free 
Trade Agreement, if we continue on that path, would irreparably damage 
our ability to maintain and forge new strategic alliances with 
countries of the world.
  To close, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said:

       Continued progress in Colombia is essential to stability in 
     the region . . . the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 
     will help a neighbor and a long-time ally continue putting 
     its house in order under very difficult circumstances. It 
     offers a pivotal opportunity to help a valued strategic 
     partner consolidate security gains, strengthen its economy, 
     and reduce the regional threat of narco-terrorism. This is an 
     opportunity we cannot--and must not--ignore.

  I could not agree more. We cannot continue to delay the U.S.-Colombia 
Free Trade Agreement. It will disadvantage America's economy and most 
certainly damage our reputation in Colombia, Latin America, and damage 
our national security interests. I join my colleagues in urging the 
House to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how long remains for morning 
business on this side of the aisle?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seventeen minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given half of that 
time, and the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, be given the 
other half of that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Missouri in talking about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  Last week marked the inauspicious benchmark for American companies 
that do business in Latin America, and there are a lot of them. Since 
the Colombian Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 2006--533 days 
ago--more than $1 billion in tariffs has been exacted against American 
companies that have sold their goods, their produce, to Colombia. Put 
another way, that is $1 billion in a missed opportunity.
  The reason why that is a problem is because Columbia pays no tariffs 
or duty on their goods coming into the United States, of which my State 
is the single largest trading partner. They pay no tariffs or duty on 
their goods. So we have a decidedly unlevel playing field when it comes 
to goods and services that are exported from the United States to 
Colombia. It is something they are willing to level the playing field 
on if we will simply act, if the Speaker would call up the Colombia 
Free Trade Agreement for a vote in the United States House of 
Representatives.
  I would think at a time when we are all concerned about the softening 
of the American economy and jobs here at home, we would want to create 
more jobs, producing goods for our farmers and greater markets for 
their produce in places such as Latin America. But instead, we find 
this has become more or less a chip in a high stakes poker game. It is 
totally inappropriate to the responsibility we ought to demonstrate 
with regard to one of our best allies in Latin America and America's 
national security and economic interests.
  As I mentioned, last year Colombia bought about $2.3 billion in goods 
and services from the State of Texas. This has been good for our 
economy, good for job creation and, as I said, Colombia has been an 
important ally in fighting the narcoterrorists, the FARC in particular, 
who have had it their way unimpeded far too long in Latin America, and 
particularly in Colombia.
  After more than a year of being stalled by Speaker Pelosi, the 
President was finally left with no option but to send this Free Trade 
Agreement for fast track approval. But rather than Congress doing its 
job--acting on this

[[Page 7899]]

Free Trade Agreement on an expedited timetable--Speaker Pelosi went to 
the most extreme lengths to avoid a vote on this critical agreement. 
The Speaker of the House, instead of following the rules, decided to 
rewrite the rules to avoid the possibility of this coming up for a vote 
in the House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time politics has taken 
precedence over our national security and economic interests. I remind 
my colleagues we are still waiting for the House of Representatives' 
cooperation to finally enact essential reforms our intelligence 
community needs to timely receive accurate information through 
something known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I want to 
come back to that in a moment, but I think it is instructive to look at 
this chart to see exactly what I was referring to when it comes to the 
importance of this free trade agreement for the United States from an 
economic standpoint.
  As I indicated, without the passage of this free trade agreement, 
American goods and services continue to bear a tariff as they are 
exported to Colombia and imported into Colombia. For automobiles, it is 
35 percent; furniture, 20 percent; mineral fuels and coal, 5 to 15 
percent; cotton, 10 percent; metal products, 5 to 15 percent; computer 
products, another 10 percent. If Speaker Pelosi would simply allow the 
Colombian Free Trade Agreement to be voted on in the House of 
Representatives, I am confident it would pass, and this 35-percent 
disadvantage for our domestic auto manufacturers, which are 
particularly suffering in these slower economic times, would go from a 
35-percent tariff down to zero. Likewise for all of the other goods I 
mentioned a moment ago. This is most decidedly in America's best 
interests. This is most decidedly in the best interests of a strong 
economy. Also, as I said, it is in the best interests of our national 
security as well.
  With the current state of the economy, we have passed one or perhaps 
now two stimulus packages with discussion of passing yet another. But I 
continue to believe the most effective way to jump-start our economy is 
to put more money into family budgets. One thing that is clear to me is 
that giving American businesses a fair path to compete in foreign 
markets will bring money back to the United States and back to the 
people, particularly small businesses and farmers who work so hard here 
in America to keep our country prosperous and provide for their 
families. Growing businesses mean growing wages, growing jobs, and a 
growing economy. There is no better way in these uncertain economic 
times to help our economy grow than to create new markets in places 
such as Latin America, and particularly with one of our greatest allies 
in Latin America, the nation of Colombia.
  But in addition to helping our own businesses in America, we need to 
consider the additional benefits of granting a meaningful agreement to 
our strongest Latin American ally. This agreement would be a strong 
showing of our support for the reforms that are continuing in Colombia 
and the leadership, at great risk to President Uribe in particular, 
when it comes to improving its democracy, respecting the rights of all 
of its citizens, and fighting against the drug cartels and terrorist 
organizations and the like.
  Unfortunately, I think we too often neglect our Latin American 
neighbors, both when looking for partnerships and when identifying 
threats. We are well familiar with the rhetoric of President Hugo 
Chavez of Venezuela and, frankly, I think there is nothing that Hugo 
Chavez would like better than for Speaker Pelosi to prevail in her 
attempt to block a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. After 
all, Venezuela is a next-door neighbor, and President Chavez, who has 
been host to President Ahmadinejad of Iran and who has made himself an 
enemy of the United States, has to be enjoying the blocking of this 
free trade agreement, because he can say to President Uribe and like-
minded democracies in Latin America: This is what you get when you 
cooperate with the United States.
  That is exactly the opposite message we need. We need a message which 
portrays that when you cooperate with the United States in terms of 
developing your democracy, opening your markets to our goods and 
produce and services, when you cooperate with the United States to 
fight narcotraffickers and to bring peace and stability to your 
country, we will be your strongest ally and we will be your best 
friend. Unfortunately, the message we see being sent by Speaker Pelosi 
is that rather than treating the nation of Colombia as one of our best 
friends in Latin America, they are being demeaned into being treated as 
nothing but a poker chip in a high stakes game of cards. It is not 
right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. How much time remains in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nine minutes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to follow the comments of my 
colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, who so aptly framed this issue of 
the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I wish to focus on a couple of 
points.
  Senator Cornyn pointed out that the differential in tariffs is 
tremendous. Now, what does it mean to the American worker? It means if 
an American worker is manufacturing something that is sold overseas, 
when that product is being sold in the Colombian market--suppose it 
were a heavy piece of equipment made by Caterpillar and is going to be 
sold now in Colombia to build roads or other things that are happening 
there because the country is prospering as a result of President 
Uribe's leadership--that particular piece of equipment is now competing 
in the Colombian marketplace with one made in Japan and one made in 
Germany. The American piece of equipment today has to pay that tariff.
  As we speak, Colombia is negotiating a free trade agreement with the 
European Union. As soon as that is done, they will have the opportunity 
to then bring their product in at a tremendous advantage over an 
American product. Canada is in the process of negotiating a similar 
type agreement with Colombia. Mexico already has negotiated one. So 
when it comes to American manufacturers, the advantage to the others is 
going to be that over time, these trading patterns will be set with 
other countries. Contracts will be made with the others because of the 
tremendous advantage. While they may prefer an American-made good, they 
are now going to pay an extra 35 percent for it, and as the American 
good goes in there with a tariff, the advantage will be to our foreign 
competitors.
  This is a global marketplace. Colombia has other trading 
opportunities. As they work and create free trade agreements with other 
marketplaces, they will put American products at a tremendous 
disadvantage going into the Colombia market. That may not just be for 
the one particular sale. That is going to be for time on into the 
future because, as I say, trading patterns will be set and contracts 
will be made, many of which could have a long-term impact. So it is not 
good in that respect. It is not good because American jobs would not be 
created. I was in Tampa with the Ambassador from Colombia on Monday. We 
have an opportunity in that very important trade city, the port of 
Tampa, and for the American economy. The fourth largest trading partner 
using that port is Colombia. For that very reason, the longshoremen's 
union in Tampa is in favor of this agreement because they know it will 
mean more jobs.
  In the first year this agreement is in place, our trade with Colombia 
will increase by $1 billion. That increase will translate to not only 
jobs but good-paying jobs in the cargo area of the airports, as well as 
in our ports and harbors. These are good-paying jobs, which pay well 
above the minimum wage. These are the kinds of jobs we need to create 
in Florida and across the United States so the American worker can 
benefit from this enhanced trade relationship.
  There is another dimension to this problem, which I know has been

[[Page 7900]]

touched upon, and I wish to put my two cents in. We are in an 
ideological battle in Latin America. The fact is the Cold War ended, 
and we pretty well let our guard down in terms of this ideological 
competition. Well, it is back in a big kind of way. We have the country 
of Venezuela, under the rule of a tyrant, who is less democratic every 
day and who has maniacal ambitions of conquering the entire region. He 
talks of a Bolivian revolution. That ideology is rooted in the Castro 
brothers in Cuba, who have given him the playbook, if you will. On the 
other side of Colombia is Ecuador. We know Colombia, for 40 years, has 
been in a fight with terrorists, with those who would subvert the 
democratic process. Colombia has had a long and established tradition 
of democracy. This tradition is now threatened by the FARC, the 
narcoterrorists who have been kidnapping, killing, and maiming in 
Colombia for a number of years.
  We know, because of recent incidents that have occurred, that the 
Venezuelan Government, with assistance from the Cubans, has been 
funding and giving all sorts of resources to the FARC. The fact is the 
FARC is in existence today in large part because of the support they 
are getting from Venezuela. Venezuela now is engaging in new 
negotiations with Russia, and Hugo Chavez will be traveling to Russia 
in the near future to sign another large arms agreement. With the price 
of oil at $120 a barrel, Venezuela is awash with cash that it is 
utilizing to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries in 
the region, with Colombia, with the FARC, and it is also interfering in 
the political process in other countries, where large sums of money are 
being passed to the political candidates of their favor.
  The United States is AWOL in the region. We need to engage there. The 
worst message we can send to those who look to the United States for 
leadership and partnership and friendship is we are an uncertain ally, 
that we will not even go into a free-trade agreement which, in fact, is 
to the great benefit of the United States, simply for politics as usual 
in Washington. That is unacceptable.
  I submit it is in the long-term best interest of the United States, 
not only from an economic standpoint but also from a geopolitical 
standpoint, from the regional implications of the trade agreement, and 
what it would mean to all those in the region who look to the United 
States for a signal: Are you with us or will you ignore us? Are you 
going to support democracies or not stand behind democracies?
  The time is now. I know the Hispanic community of America looks upon 
this agreement as a signal. I know there is a great movement afoot by 
those who deeply care about the region and about the need for this 
agreement to help create jobs in America, and it is going to be felt 
and heard throughout this Nation.
  So I am pleased to join my colleagues in talking today about the 
virtues of the free-trade agreement with Colombia. It is important from 
an economic standpoint, and it is important to create jobs. I know it 
will create jobs in Florida. I know it will create jobs in other parts 
of the United States. I know it is good for Colombia. It will tighten 
and close ranks with a country that is our ally and long-time friend.
  I believe the time has come for this agreement to get an up-or-down 
vote on the floor of the Senate and in the House. It is time for 
Speaker Pelosi to not play politics with something of this importance, 
this magnitude. I ask that the free-trade agreement with Colombia be 
brought to a vote and that we have an opportunity to engage with this 
close ally and friend.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side for 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for his leadership on this issue. This is not one of those 
issues that grabs a headline, but it is certainly one that is very 
important to the economy of the United States, and it is important to 
our national security.
  There is one other point I wish to make in that regard. For those 
concerned about the exodus of individuals from Latin America and other 
parts of the world who are looking for jobs and opportunities because 
they have none at home, this is an important part of our overall 
strategy to try to see that people have jobs and they have hope where 
they live, so they don't feel compelled to have to come to the United 
States in order to get a job and provide for their family. This is an 
important part of our strategy across Latin America.
  There is another initiative that I think we will be hearing more 
about soon, called the Meridia Initiative, to help our ally in Mexico, 
President Calderon, as he fights the drug cartels down there, for the 
future of that country, which of course is on our southern border, 
1,600 miles of which is common border with my State of Texas.
  Whether we like it or not--and I know some people don't--our fate, in 
many ways, and our economy and our security are inextricably tied to 
countries in Latin America, in the Western Hemisphere. It is not 
smart--it is perhaps even naive--to think we can ignore what is 
happening in Colombia, in Mexico, and we can fail to come to the aid of 
our allies and people who are like-minded in wanting to establish 
democracy, security, and prosperity in those countries. It is naive to 
think we can simply turn a blind eye to things such as the Columbia 
Free Trade Agreement and the Meridia Initiative to help President 
Calderon in Mexico fight the drug cartels, in what is a fight for the 
future of that great country on our southern border.
  I yield the floor and yield back the rest of our time. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the present business of the Senate?

                          ____________________