[Pages H2177-H2190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

H. Res. 1092

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

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

General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1092 relates to the consideration of H.R. 5724,
the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The rule suspends
the timelines for House consideration that are in the fast track law
with respect to consideration of this specific trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a fiduciary obligation to ensure
that the legislation passed through this Chamber represents the best
interests of those that sent us here, the American people. To outsource
that very basic legislative responsibility is to advocate the duties
constitutionally prescribed to our branch and raises questions as to
why we are here in the first place. The situation we find ourselves in
today deals directly with that issue.
The President has attempted to dictate the legislative schedule of
the Congress according to his political calendar. Over the objections
of congressional leadership, he sent Congress the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement in an attempt to force consideration of the measure within 60
days by using a provision known as Trade Promotion Authority, or fast
track.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to dispel a few myths about the
action that we take today. The rule we are taking up today does not in
any way affect the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It simply removes the
timeline for considering it. It gives the House of Representatives the
right to schedule when the agreement is undertaken.
There are some who have called into question whether Congress has the
right to suspend fast track procedures for trade agreements. One need
look no further than the Trade Act of 1974, the legislation that
establishes fast track, to see that the very statute itself allows
that, like any rule of the House, fast track procedures can be
suspended.
We have also heard some raise questions about what consequences our
action here today will have on the Senate's consideration of the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The answer is, it will have no effect.
The rule today was necessitated by the partisan and irresponsible
actions of the President. Instead of working with Congress to reach
agreements on this accord, he instead took the unprecedented step of
sending the Colombia trade deal to Congress over the objection of
congressional leaders.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have been promised a lot when it
comes to trade. However, in a country whose economy has been devastated
by ill-conceived trade deals, it can only be expected that the American
people will remain wary. The promise of good-paying work on the horizon
has consistently been dashed by the reality of job loss.
Last Friday's unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, and more jobs, over
80,000, were lost last month alone. It is yet another indicator of the
worsening economic situation facing millions of America's families.
Each day it becomes clearer that our country is teetering on the edge
of economic disaster, and, for millions, financial ruin is just around
the corner. It is simply not the right time to move forward with this
trade agreement.
The American people deserve an agreement that actually responds to
the needs of the American worker, not makes promises that will not be
met. By passing the rule today, we will no longer be bound by arbitrary
deadlines and the House can bring up the agreement at the appropriate
time and under the appropriate conditions.
Mr. Speaker, there is yet another reason why this free trade
agreement is untimely and requires additional consideration moving
toward passage. We have been promised time after time in trade
legislation that there would be side agreements protecting the life and
work of labor, that there would be environmental safeguards, that there
would no longer be child labor. None of that has come true.
And it certainly makes one suspicious on this trade bill also because
of the number of trade unionists who have been murdered. This makes the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement hard to justify, given the continued
violence against the union leaders, subsistence farmers, indigenous
people and Afro-Colombians.
While President Uribe has made some progress, systematic killings are
still far too prevalent to warrant the passage of this bill.
Persecution of trade unionists is well-known because since the
beginning of this year, 12 have already been murdered. Rewarding the
Colombia Government with this bill under those conditions eliminates
any leverage the U.S. Government has to improve the respect for human
rights and the rule of law in the future.
To push forward at a time of economic insecurity is simply
irresponsible for working families at home. To push forward in the
midst of gross violations of human rights in Colombia is simply wrong.
It is the prerogative of Congress to suspend fast track if the timing
necessitates it and only when it is in the best interests of the
American people. By passing the rule today, we are reestablishing the
House of Representatives as coequal to the President, and, in do doing
so, we are standing up for America's working families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend,
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen many, many unexpected political alliances
that have been formed over the past years that I have been privileged
to serve here, but I never expected to be taking up a rule that aligns
with the goals of Hugo Chavez and South American narcoterrorists.
The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement would deliver a significant
blow

[[Page H2178]]

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

{time} 1215

I have gone to Colombia twice in the past few months, once with
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and once with the Speaker's House
Democracy Assistance Commission. I have seen myself the transformation
that has taken place. I have seen the safe and orderly streets of
Bogota and Medellin. I have seen the new opportunities and economic
growth.
I have met with the attorney general and discussed extensively his
efforts to prosecute violent offenders and end the days of impunity for
murderers. I have sat down with former members of the paramilitaries,
whose leaders have gone to jail and who are now struggling to
reintegrate into society with the help of government-funded social
programs. This is a country that has come miraculously far in just a
few short years and has so far to go.
I find it shocking that the Democratic leadership would turn their
backs on our friend and ally who has accomplished so much and who asks
for our continued help in accomplishing even more. This week we have
all heard the lengthy testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker. A very common theme I have heard from my Democratic colleagues
throughout this testimony is concern for America's lost prestige
abroad. They decry what they call our unilateralism and our disregard
for the concerns of our allies.
Yet today they propose to flagrantly commit what the Colombian Vice
President has called a slap in the face. Editorial boards across this
country have similarly slammed this action.
The Washington Post compared it to telling Colombia to ``Drop Dead.''
The Las Vegas Review-Journal says that what we are doing is ``stabbing
our trade partners in the back.''
The Democratic leadership is determined to isolate our greatest ally
in South America and weaken the region's strongest advocate for
democracy, flouting national security and our international
credibility. The damage to our interests and our leadership will be
significant and lasting.
Our friends and allies will realize that our word at the negotiating
table cannot be trusted and the rules can be changed in the middle of
the game according to the whims of electoral politics.
This rule must be defeated for the sake of our national security
interests, our leadership in the international community and our
responsibilities as an institution. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2179]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, Mr. Rangel.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much, Madam Chairlady, for giving me this
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree with my friend from California
more, and there is no one in this House that I believe that the
administration has not spoken to more in concern for pieces of trade
legislation, and I doubt whether there is anyone that has the
compassion and the concern more than I about the people of Colombia who
I have learned to admire, respect and work with over the years, not
only with their political problems, but certainly their fight, their
narcotics and trying to preserve democracy in that country.
The President has violated protocol in terms of not fulfilling the
outlines that we have been using historically. What I have to say
applies whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
If, in the rules that the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee has outlined to us, there is an area of consultation before
the President actually sends a complex piece of legislation to the
House, which is more conducive to bringing us together, saying to the
House that you have 90 days, and if you don't do anything in 90 days
that it's the House of Representatives that killed the bill designed to
help our friends in this area? Or one may say, Mr. President, you
forgot to consult with us? You forgot to consult with the Ways and
Means Committee. You did not deal with some of the issues that we have.
As you just changed the rule and just sending it over saying it's
your responsibility in the House, what we are saying is that let's give
the House more time and not a timetable to see what can we do to
facilitate an atmosphere that would allow the Members at least to know
what's in the bill.
It is really strange that the ranking member of the Rules Committee
has presented us a speech this morning that is so similar that I don't
remember the last time anyone in the administration has talked about
the bill.
Oh, Hugo Chavez, I go to sleep every night wondering what he is going
to do. Castro, my God, we should vote for the people of Colombia and
against him and make him a big threat in the community.
I am not saying these things shouldn't be considered, but how many
people, Republican or Democrat have the slightest idea what's in the
trade bill? Why not give them an opportunity to make this decision, not
based on 40 days, 50 days or 90 days, but for us to bring up these
things.
When has anyone ever heard that they didn't have a crisis in terms of
peace and tranquility against terrorism and assassination in Colombia?
The question we may ask is Uribe doing, a man that I respect, as much
as he should? Should he be doing more?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York 1
more minute.
Mr. RANGEL. The real question I think we should ask, my friend, is I
know you have a problem. We have problems in every major city. Why
don't you allow us to share with you some of the techniques we have,
some of the technology, work with your law enforcement so at the end of
the day those who claim that it is murder that stops us from voting on
a trade bill, that we will be able to say that we are working with
them.
I hope you would rethink the vote. This vote is going to apply to
every President, every Speaker of the House that deals with us. Do you
believe they can change the rules and then they say that we dictate the
legislative calendar of the House of Representatives? I think not.
You change the procedure. We defend the rules of the House.
What are we giving up? We are giving us an opportunity, one, to find
out what's in the trade bill, and, two, which is most important, what
can we do to resolve the issues that force Members to be against it.
I appreciate the words of my friend from California, but you have to
do that, you are the ranking member. I remember when I had to say
things that I had to say. Let's work together on this.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2
minutes to a hardworking fighter for freedom, a member of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what the majority
leadership of this Congress, what this rule is saying to Colombia today
is you voted to tie your economy to the United States, but, sorry, we
don't care.
You are at war with narcoterrorists armed to the teeth by drug money
and given sanctuary by neighboring governments. Sorry, we don't care.
You have voted, not once, twice, overwhelmingly, to support your
brave President and his government and the Colombian armed forces as
they fight the narcoterrorists and defend your rule of law. Sorry, we
don't care.
Well, I say to the people of Colombia, like the President of the
United States, many of us here in Congress are with you, and you are
not alone despite this day of legislative action that will live in
infamy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, an expert in this issue, and a member of
the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this
important debate, and I rise in strong support of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Bush administration have produced an
American economy in crisis. People are losing their jobs, fuel prices
are at a record high, food prices have dramatically increased,
confidence in the economy is at an all-time low. Maybe this is a
radical idea, but shouldn't the energy, passion and focus of the
administration be on fixing these problems?
This administration has turned a cold shoulder to the plight of
American workers. They have opposed efforts to extend unemployment
benefits. They have no plan to help 45 million Americans get health
insurance. They have even opposed expanding health benefits to
children. Their absolute indifference towards our fellow citizens is
stunning. It takes my breath away.
Well, that must change. The Speaker of the House has the right to
prioritize legislation. She has stated quite clearly that we want to
continue to work with President Uribe to make progress on improving
human rights, the rule of law, ending impunity, breaking Colombia's
political and military ties to drug lords and paramilitary groups and
protecting and promoting basic labor rights.
If the Colombian FTA came up today for a vote, I will strongly oppose
it. I have repeatedly told the Colombian Government that I am always
willing to reassess my position.
But when it comes to issues like human rights, I refuse to be a cheap
date. The U.N., the Red Cross and U.S. and Colombian human rights
groups all describe a worsening humanitarian crisis in Colombia. The
number of internally displaced grew by 27 percent over the past year
due to increasing violence throughout the country.
Over each of the past 3 years, murders of civilians by the Colombian
army have been increasing. Violence against trade unions continues at
an extremely high level, and the vast majority of cases of murders of
labor leaders remain unsolved.
It is true that murders of trade unionists in 2007 were about half of
what they were in 2006. Even then, Colombia had the highest rate of
trade union murders in the world. But death threats, attacks and
disappearances skyrocketed. But this 1-year hiatus in the murder rate
may be over. In just the first 12 weeks of 2008, 17 trade unionists
have already been assassinated.
Like many of my House colleagues, I have traveled to Colombia several
times in the past 7 years. I have gone to Putumayo, not just to fly
over fumigated territory, but to meet with hundreds of human rights
victims and campesinos on the ground. I have been to Barrancabermeja,
Sincelejo and Popayan.

[[Page H2180]]

I have traveled to San Jose de Apartado and to Arauca, where violence
from all armed actors reigns supreme and community leaders are murdered
like flies. I have visited the slums of Bogota where the poor and the
internally displaced struggle to survive.
I spent hours in meetings with human rights groups, with families
whose loved ones are held in brutal captivity by the FARC and with
victims of violence by the paramilitaries and the Colombian army.
I have met with the constitutional court, religious and labor
leaders, with indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians and dozens of
government and military officials. There is so much more to Colombia
than the administration's day and a half excursion tours to Medellin
and Cartagena.
Congress must insist upon improvements in human rights in Colombia
and not paint a rosy picture simply to secure a trade agreement. U.S.
policy must take responsibility for the behavior of Colombian behavior
forces trained with U.S. tax dollars, take into account the continued
suffering of the civilian population in the midst of an ongoing
conflict and support the rights of victims after a decade of
atrocities.
I remain dedicated to the Colombian people. I will never advocate
walking away from Colombia. I also strongly support the right of the
Speaker of the House to take up trade agreements when it makes the most
sense to do so.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule and to remain engaged with
Colombia on these important issues.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request in
opposition to this Hugo Chavez rule, I yield to my friend from Michigan
(Mr. Camp).
(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Today's vote to delay consideration of the U.S.-Colombia free trade
agreement is nothing short of the majority party playing politics and
catering to their special interests. The actions of the majority remind
me of those of a school yard bully--when losing, simply change the
rules of the game. We should reject these changes, and we should
honestly and fairly debate the merits of this deal.
It's ironic that the majority party is delaying a vote on the
agreement because by and large it benefits American workers most. The
United States already grants Colombia duty-free access to U.S. markets.
Colombian goods cross our borders virtually tariff-free. But, 80
percent of American made consumer products, and none of our
agricultural products that we send to Colombia enjoy that same duty-
free access. This is a one-way street. The U.S.-Colombia free trade
agreement would remove the tariffs on American products and create an
even playing field for our workers.
I am disappointed to see the Speaker stand in the way of lowering
tariffs on American products. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, who is a strong opponent of this Hugo
Chavez rule, the gentleman from Shreveport, Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this extraordinary,
unprecedented, and, I believe, dangerous change to the House Rules.
Congress first gave trade promotion authority to the President in
1974, in order to allow him to engage directly with our competitors
around the world to level the playing field, eliminate barriers to
American exports and create jobs for American workers.
Passing this rule would undermine that authority and damage United
States credibility abroad because our trading partners could rightfully
question the commitments of our government in negotiating trade
agreements. I have heard it said that this rule will allow us to
consider this agreement this year after the election, but what this
rule would do is to eliminate the uncertainty under TPA that Congress
will vote on this agreement.
It doesn't guarantee a vote by any time certain. It doesn't push the
vote off until after the election. It simply turns off the clock
entirely.
Even postponing congressional consideration of this agreement does
tremendous damage to America's competitiveness. Right now Canada, the
European Union, are completing trade agreements with Colombia. As a
result, they will gain a competitive advantage over American products.

{time} 1230

Colombia will buy tractors, mining equipment and fertilizer from
Canada, France, and Germany, instead of from Illinois, Georgia, and
Texas.
Chairman Rangel, my good friend, said nobody is talking about the
economic benefits, they are all talking about Hugo Chavez. Well, my
good friend knows that is not the case. And besides, the reason we are
not talking about it all that much is because it is a no-brainer from
an economic standpoint. I am mystified as to why any Member would
oppose this agreement when all it does is level the playing field for
American workers.
Today, American workers compete against imports from Colombia that
enter our country virtually duty free, while our exports going to
Colombia face high tariffs. This agreement eliminates those obstacles
to our goods and services and supports American jobs.
I agree with Chairman Rangel's assessment last month that denying a
vote on this agreement wouldn't help address the concerns about labor
violence in Colombia. In fact, this agreement would help Colombian
labor unions. The agreement includes robust, enforceable international
labor organization core labor standards, standards included with the
strong support of the Democratic leadership to require Colombia to
continue the tremendous progress it has made to improve labor rights.
I plead with my colleagues today: Do not make a vote which will
undermine the credibility of the United States, making it more
difficult for any future administration to eliminate barriers to the
sale of products made by us. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we certainly do need a balanced,
enlightened trade policy. But this debate is not about trade, it is
about the guiding principle of the Bush Administration--arrogance--
arrogance that has served our country so poorly.
This President, personally proclaiming himself to be a ``uniter, not
a divider'' at the beginning, quickly transformed himself into the
``decider.'' And that lone decider has unleashed one divisive,
disastrous decision after another on our land. Mr. Cheney's current
chief of staff, he summed up this attitude very directly: ``We're going
to push and push and push until some larger force is going to make us
stop.'' Well today, our Speaker, backed up by this House, says
``Stop.''
The go-it-alone, disdain for allies, dismissal of anyone who has a
different point of view, has left this White House isolated. It has
left us with a disastrous war, and now Mr. Bush's recession.
We'll secure a more responsible, enlightened trade policy, but we
won't secure it until we trade it for a new President.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, who is
vigorously opposed to this Hugo Chavez rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we need to stop this unprecedented attempt to rewrite
trade laws and jeopardize fair trade for our American farmers.
Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. One
in three Washington jobs is tied to international trade. Since 1991,
Colombia has had open, free entry into the U.S. for many of their
products, while steep tariffs block our farmers' access into Colombia.
This agreement would immediately, immediately, Mr. Speaker, eliminate
tariffs for Washington State apples, cherries, pears, wheat, beef, and
more. If the issue is the economy, what better way to stimulate our
Nation's economy than to level the playing field and wipe out unfair
trade barriers for our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, Representatives and Senators are elected to vote, so
let's do our job and vote on the Colombia agreement. What the House is
now considering is an effort to delay, to hide, to slam the door, shut
the door on free

[[Page H2181]]

and fair trade that millions of Americans' jobs depend on. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Hugo Chavez rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished Chair.
There is a fundamental issue that we face in this rule, and it is
this: Does Congress cede its authority under the Constitution to the
executive, or does it exercise it?
Mr. Speaker, from a distance--I have only been here a little over a
year--I watched with dismay as a citizen, seeing Congress year after
year relinquish its authority, turn that over to the executive, not do
its job of accountability and oversight, not do its job on trade,
essentially not exercise the constitutional authority that we are
custodians of, each and every one of the 435 Members who have been
elected.
The President exercised his prerogative under a rule that was enacted
by this House in 1974, but against the advice of the Speaker and
against the advice of the Senate majority leader. The President did
what he could do, and that is send over on his own timetable a trade
agreement when it wasn't ready to be considered.
And the Speaker, in her judgment, and I support this, stood up for
the prerogatives of this legislative branch, where we have the
responsibility to be the final voice of the people who sent us here.
The bottom line question is: Will Congress assert the authority that
it has under the Constitution?
We can exercise it. The best circumstances, we do it in cooperation
and in consultation with the executive. But if it is unilateral, a my-
way-or-the-highway approach that has been so often employed by this
chief executive, then it becomes incumbent upon us to stand up and
assert the constitutional responsibility we have.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to speak in opposition to this Hugo Chavez
rule, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Marysville,
California, the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Herger.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this procedural vote, if it is successful,
Congress would be rebuffing the Colombia agreement through technical
gimmicks and rejecting a level playing field for American workers.
Colombian workers and producers already have free access to the U.S.
markets, but we don't have reciprocity. Our manufacturers and farmers
need this agreement to sell their products, create jobs, and compete
against foreign producers. A vote for this rule is a vote against
American workers, period.
Since the agreement was signed nearly 500 days ago, congressional
Republicans and the White House have tried to work with the Democratic
majority to approve this agreement. We reached a bipartisan consensus
nearly a year ago to ensure congressional consideration of this
agreement.
In sending up the agreement, the President said that he was open to
continuing discussions with the Democrats. The Democratic leadership,
through this rule, has firmly shut the door to any discussions.
Members should be keenly aware of the very negative foreign policy
ramifications of this vote. This rule would be cheered by belligerent
leftist guerillas abetted by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez who seek
to undermine the democratically elected Colombian government with
menacing ramifications.
This rule is a public slap in the face to a loyal ally at the
epicenter of a philosophical war between democracy and totalitarianism,
capitalism, and socialism.
President Uribe made it very clear that the best way to support
Colombia's struggle for economic and political security is to pass this
agreement. Today's action would trounce that plea and embolden the foes
of democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Trade.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Trade policy under the Bush administration has been badly
off track. The approach of the administration and the then-Republican
majority in Congress was to go their own way and dismiss bipartisan
effort, starting with a side letter to the Jordan FTA thwarting
enforcement of worker rights provisions negotiated by the Clinton
administration.
In the cases of Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman FTAs, it was left to
Democrats to negotiate with governments of those countries to bring
their laws into compliance with international labor standards before a
Congressional vote, with no help from the administration.
And we all remember CAFTA, where the administration's approach was go
it alone from the beginning through the end, with false claims that the
other nations were already in compliance with international standards.
And last year, with the loss of a congressional majority, the Bush
administration was forced to include fully enforceable labor and
environmental standards in the Peru FTA. And when Democrats pressed for
Peru to bring into compliance with the language of the agreement, the
administration attacked Democrats and refused to even participate in
the changes that Peru made in its legal structure.
At that time Democrats made clear that Colombia was different from
Peru with the level of violence against workers, impunity from
prosecution, and laws that did not meet international standards, and
that sustainable progress was required before consideration. The
administration kept on insisting that the status quo was good enough
and has done nothing to address these concerns.
Urged by both the House and Senate Democratic leadership not to
proceed with the Colombia FTA under present circumstances, the
administration decided once again to go its own way. This rule reflects
the Speaker's response to assert a congressional role on international
trade under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the ranking member of the Trade
Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why what the majority
is doing today is gravely harmful to our security. Colombia is a close
ally under siege. And as The Washington Post points out today: ``Score
this action as a boost to Venezuela's agenda of destabilizing democracy
in Colombia.''
By all accounts, the Colombian agreement is a big plus for American
exports and American employment. What the majority is doing is giving
near free-market access to Colombia and taking nothing for our workers.
This agreement would cut tariffs 80 percent on U.S. beef, and 15
percent on U.S.-tractors.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
commend her for her very distinguished leadership of the Rules
Committee and for bringing this very important rule to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is one I wish could have
been avoided, and I think it is important to put it in context because
I have heard our colleagues talk about the merits of the bill or talk
about any precedent on rules, and I have heard them talk about
different things. But I think it is important to know what brought us
here today.
On Monday, I received a call from the President of the United States,
always an honor to receive a call from the President. This is after
months of our going back and forth with members of the cabinet and the
rest about when and if they would send up the Colombia Free Trade
Agreement. The President informed me that he would be sending the bill
over the next day.
I recommended against it. I said, Mr. President, you shouldn't send
it for

[[Page H2182]]

two reasons. If you send it and we take it up, it will lose. Now you
think it is very important to pass a Colombia free trade agreement, and
in the Congress we have people who share your view. And we have others
who share your view that we should pass it as soon as we address the
concerns of America's working people, and others who will never be for
it. But let's talk about what the possibilities are for passing it, and
those possibilities are greatly diminished if you send that bill to the
Congress under these circumstances.
Apart from the fact that it would be a breach of protocol, and let's
just talk about that. A successful trade agenda depends on joint
partnership between the Congress and the administration, as was the
case recently in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Had the administration
followed the established protocol of congressional consultation
relating to the submission of any free trade agreement, we would not
have to take this action today.
By his actions on Tuesday, the President abandoned the traditions of
consultation that have governed past agreement. In fact, the action the
House takes today is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than
the White House's move to force a vote.

{time} 1245

But, as I said, just from a practical standpoint, Mr. President, you
simply don't have the votes. And if we are to try to arrive at a place
where the concerns of the American people are addressed, we need more
time to do that.
I also said what I have said many times to the President. If we are
going to be successful in passing a trade agreement, we have to first
tell the Americans people that we have a positive economic agenda that
addresses their aspirations, addresses their concerns about their
economic security.
This bill's been around for a while, and matters have only gotten
worse in our economy. The former Chair of the Fed has said we're in the
throes of a recession. The current Chair of the Federal Reserve last
week, the end of last week, testified to Congress that there's a
possible recession.
Many people, I mean, the joblessness numbers of last week, again
pointed to a steeper downturn in our economy.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the Speaker yield for some questions?
Ms. PELOSI. No. You control your time. With all due respect to the
gentleman, I'll use mine.
The fact is, as I said to the President, many people in America now
are concerned about their jobs. They're concerned about losing their
homes. Most people won't, but most people are concerned about losing
their living standard.
When the cost of groceries and gasoline and the cost of health care
and education and other staples continues to go up, and the purchasing
power of the income that people have is either stagnant or going down,
they have concerns about their economic security.
So let's have a timetable for the American people. Let's have a
timetable on our consideration of a trade bill that addresses the
concerns and is compatible with the needs of America's working
families. That is, I think, the only fair thing to do.
The President ignored those concerns and sent the bill over. I
pledged to this body, as Speaker of the House, that at the appropriate
time, if many of these concerns are addressed in terms of America's
working families, that we can take up legislation for such a trade
agreement.
Some have concerns about the content of the agreement. Others have
concerns about the treatment of labor organizers in Colombia, and it's
a real concern, and one admitted to by the administration and the
Colombian Government. There are differences of opinion as to how this
is changing, but let's see how we can work together to make that
change.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask again if my distinguished California
colleague would yield.
Ms. PELOSI. Having control of the time, I will retain the control of
the time, Mr. Speaker.
The important point here is, whether it's the substance of the bill,
whether it's the conditions in Colombia, they are to be, obviously,
major considerations.
But what we're saying to the President, we can't do much about some
of these things. We certainly can address the provisions in the bill.
But I'm not here to talk about that now.
What we can do something about, what we haven't done enough about is
to send a positive economic agenda forth. And these are not difficult.
Most of what we're talking to the President about are part of what has
passed this Congress in mostly an overwhelming bipartisan way.
Whether we're talking about rebuilding the infrastructure of America,
whether we're talking about investments in an innovation agenda, our
commitment to competitiveness to keep America number 1, and that
innovation begins in the classroom, and we have to have a strong
commitment to the education of our people, whether we're talking about
tax credits for our energy bill which we passed here, which would
immediately create jobs. No, if we don't do it we will lose jobs that
exist now. Same thing with infrastructure. If we don't make those
investments, our projects will have to discontinue. But many more are
ready. Dirt is ready to fly. The projects are in the pipeline.
There is a way to create good-paying jobs right here in America.
We've passed the legislation. The vehicles are there for us to do it.
And at the same time, we have to address the concerns of those who have
lost their jobs, whether it's unemployment insurance or summer jobs
program for their children or other initiatives.
So this is nothing new. And, in fact, the whole idea that we were
going into recession is nothing new to most families across America. It
took a while for the President and his administration to accept that
fact, and, when they did, we could talk. And when they did, we could
talk, we could work together, as Mr. Boehner and I did, with the
Secretary of the Treasury, to put together a stimulus package that had
strong bipartisan support, and, as the President has said, has not gone
into effect yet. And when it does, I know it will inject demand into
the economy, create jobs and, I think, stimulate the economy.
But since we did that, matters have only become worse, necessitating
the need for us to do more. And we certainly should do more for our
economy. And we certainly should do more for our economy before we pass
another trade agreement. It's all possible in the days that are before
us.
But instead of having the President's timetable, we have the
timetable of the House of Representatives, we have a timetable for
America's working families.
And nothing that we are doing here now should be misconstrued in
terms of our attitude toward Colombia. Colombia is our friend, is a
neighbor in the hemisphere. The relationship between Colombia and the
United States is an important one.
We have concerns about workers in Colombia, and we respect the
leadership of President Uribe. And as I said to the Ambassador
yesterday, I hope you will convey that message to the President, and
when you do, I hope you will also tell him we congratulate him on his
excellent representation in the United States in ambassador service
here.
So this isn't about ending anything. It's about having a timetable
that respects the concerns, the aspirations, the challenges faced by
the American people. We are the people's House. Their timetable should
be our timetable.
I urge our colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds before I yield to
the leader to say that I had hoped to ask the Speaker if, in fact, the
votes are not there, why it is that we had to do this the day after the
President sent this message up, why we could not have waited 45 days.
It was my hope that the Speaker could have answered that question for
us. Unfortunately, she has not.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader,
our friend from West Chester, Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from California for yielding,
and say, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, that our economy is
struggling. Families and businesses are dealing with the rising cost of
living, and certainly the job market has slowed. At a time like this we
should be working together. And as the Speaker said, she and I came
together and our Members came together on both sides of the

[[Page H2183]]

aisle earlier this year to pass an economic growth package. The checks
will be going out to Americans here beginning in the middle of May and
will occur, continue to go on through the end of July. These checks,
again, are not out in the marketplace. We hope they'll be out there
soon, and we hope it will help revive our struggling economy.
But the action that's being taken here today is going to do nothing
more than to hurt American businesses and American workers.
The Speaker earlier went on about the fact that the typical protocol
here was not followed; that the President send this bill to the
Congress without the approval of the Speaker of the House.
Now I think it's time to set the record straight on exactly what has
occurred. There have been hundreds and hundreds of meetings over the
last 15 months trying to come to an agreement on how this bill shall be
considered. There have been changes made. There have been side
agreements that have come forth as a result of this.
And over the course of the last six or eight weeks, there have been
serious conversations between the administration and the Speaker of the
House about the consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. And
the reason this bill was sent up here this week was because, not one
time over these 6 weeks, has the Speaker agreed or made a commitment to
the administration that this bill will be considered this year. The
President's been willing to work with the Congress. The conversations,
again, have gone on for 15 months. But not one time during that 15
months was there ever a commitment by the Democrat majority to bring
this bill to the floor for a vote in the House.
I don't think the President had any choice but to bring, to send that
free trade agreement to the Congress and force Congress to act.
And so what do we do? We don't go try to work to see if we can get
the votes. We don't try, in a bipartisan way, to move this agreement.
No, we're going to go in and cheat. We're going to change the rules
under which the consideration of this free trade agreement should
operate between the House and the Senate. We're not even going to give
it a chance.
And anybody that thinks that well, we're just going to push this off
for a couple of months, that is nonsense. This vote today is a vote to
kill the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, nothing more and nothing less.
The Speaker points out, well, the President did this and, frankly,
there are other priorities in the House.
Let me tell you what. When we passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act
earlier this year, virtually everything that comes from Colombia to the
United States comes here duty-free. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement
would allow U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers who produce these
goods, to send our goods to Colombia virtually tariff-free.
We're doing nothing here but hurting American workers and American
businesses. Why?
I think the Speaker made it very clear. This action today is nothing
short of political blackmail. The Speaker made it clear that she has
her agenda. She wants the President to deal with her on her agenda, and
we're not going to move this bill until the President deals with her
agenda. That is not the way to deal with our trading partners around
the world.
I've listened to candidates that are running for President,
especially candidates on the Democrat side, who have talked about the
fact that the United States needs to be more willing to engage the rest
of the world, that we need to listen, that we need to reach out to
countries around the world. There's probably no place that's more
important for us to reach out than South America.
Here we have a country in South America that's doing their best to
fight off terrorists in their own country. A message that we could
send, not only to Colombia, but to the rest of South America that we
want to engage in them, exactly as many of these contenders for the
Democrat nomination, points that they have made.
What does this say to Colombia? What does it say to South America?
And what does it say about free and fair trade around the world?
This is a precipitous step in the wrong direction. We're sending a
very bad message for our partners around the world, all in the name of
election-year politics. I think that it's regrettable, it's despicable.
If we're going to have a vote here, why don't we put the Colombian
free trade bill up for a vote and let the House work its will on that
bill, because the fact is, I think it would pass.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. For a Republican minority, and particularly the
gentleman from California, who whine day in and day out about their
inability to offer amendments to even the most minor of bills, I've
never seen a group so eager to give up their right, in fact, the right
of every Member of this House to offer an amendment to this trade
agreement in a rush to rubber-stamp yet another failed so-called free
trade agreement.
As one Republican pointed out, yeah, its been the policy since 1974.
Guess what? 1974 we were the manufacturing colossus of the world. We
ran trade surpluses. We had a robust middle class in America. It was
bad policy then. But after 24 years of that bad trade policy, our
manufacturing's cut in half. The middle class is losing ground. They're
unemployed. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from the rest of the
world, including Communist China, to buy things that we used to make
here in America, and they think we should do more of the same.
I've heard this and played this game before. I've never voted for
one. But every President since I've been here, Republican and Democrat,
says, hey, we negotiated this deal in secret. You can't fail us now.
Yeah, it's got big problems, but we'll fix them later.
Guess what? Later never comes. Because this Congress, until today,
has never had a spine to stand up to the special interests that are
pushing failed trade policies, policies that fail the American people
to benefit a few on Wall Street. This is about Main Street.
The House is growing a spine today. This is a great day and the
beginning of a new trade policy for the American people.

{time} 1300

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to speak in opposition to this Hugo Chavez
rule, I'm happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from
Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule. Why is Latin America all today watching this debate in this
House? Because today the House of Representatives is going to tell the
world how we treat our best friends, how we treat our best friend in
Latin America. Who is our best friend in Latin America? The democracy
of Colombia. Who is America's most reliable partner in counternarcotics
and counterterrorism in Latin America? The democracy of Colombia. Which
elected national leader is the most popular elected official in all of
this hemisphere? The President of Colombia, President Uribe. Why?
Because he succeeded in reducing violence.
Today, 73 percent of Colombians today say they feel more secure and
more safe prior to President Uribe 6 years ago. In fact, Colombia today
is safer than Washington, DC.
Today, this House will vote to set Colombia aside, and we will turn
our back on our best friend in Latin America. Why again is Latin
America watching? Because leftist Hugo Chavez and his proxies, the
narcotrafficking FARC, had declared they want to defeat the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. They can't defeat President Uribe
at the ballot box, but they want to in this Congress.
The Prime Minister of Canada said it best: If the United States turns
its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause far
more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve.
Our friends in the Democratic majority say this is all about
election-year politics, but we must understand that turning our back on
Colombia will have long-term consequences for Latin America.

[[Page H2184]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and
Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Emanuel.
Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to thank my colleague for lending the time.
Mr. Speaker, we are having a conversation here about trade and
globalization and about how to make sure that, in fact, globalization
is a win-win strategy for the American people. And we were talking
about Colombia, but what we really are talking about is the effects of
globalization on the American economy.
And in fact today, if you take a look at The Washington Post Business
page, there's a new survey out showing the middle class feeling worse
in this period of time than ever before, more squeezed by rising costs.
Energy is up nearly 2 bucks a gallon since 2001. Nearly $2 up. Health
care costs have doubled. College costs are up 64 percent, and yet the
median household income in this country shrunk $1,100. The middle class
are feeling squeezed.
Globalization can be a good thing. Trade can be a good thing. But if
you don't have an agenda to make sure Americans win in that
globalization, you're going to get a squeeze on the middle class where
they resist the attempts to open up markets to American-made products.
What we need here, and what we are seeking here, is a new deal for
the new economy for the American workers. And that means when health
care costs are up like that, we make sure there's health care security
to the American people, which is why it was wrong to veto a children's
health care bill for America's children to give 10 million children's
parents who work full-time health care.
It is why it is wrong that when we have an extension of the hope and
lifetime college credit so Americans can get to community colleges, can
get the chances for their kids to go to college, it is wrong to allow
that tax credit to end.
It is why we are trying to make sure that, in fact, American people
have a retirement security and a universal 401(k) so those who work
full time, 75 million Americans, who do not have a savings plan outside
of Social Security have in fact a 401(k) like the rest of us. It's an
agenda to make sure there is an economic security plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. EMANUEL. No conversation about trade is ever about trade. It's
about the standard of living of the middle class of this country.
Globalization could be a good thing if you have an agenda, and just
trade alone is not an agenda to make sure that the middle class of this
country, that built this country since World War II are strengthened to
compete and win in this globalized economy.
And what we are ensuring today is that we have in fact a trade deal
that is not seen as a cost to the American people but seen as an
opportunity to succeed in that world, and we today are making sure that
there is a win-win strategy to that globalization.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the Republican
whip, I'd like to yield for a unanimous consent to my good friend from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAYS. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 1092, which will in
effect defeat the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement by postponing
consideration of the legislation indefinitely. It is more than ironic
to me that, at a time when our economy has slowed tremendously,
Democratic leaders are seeking to derail efforts to enhance our export
market, which has been one area of strength in our economy.
The fact is, this trade agreement will help U.S. manufacturers and
high tech service providers export to Colombia, a great friend and
ally, where many of our products face tariffs. If any country deserves
our support for aiding efforts to build a stable economy, it is
Colombia. The Government has taken great strides in preventing attacks
by paramilitary groups, and if we are ever going to curtail drug
production from Colombia, it will be because of a stable economy, which
free trade helps create.
I urge my colleagues who support economic growth, free trade and
better relations with our neighbor to reject this misguided resolution
and keep the Colombia free trade agreement on track.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to yield 3 minutes
to my good friend from Springfield, Missouri, who will vigorously
oppose this Hugo Chavez rule.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.
I, too, vigorously oppose this rule. It seems to me the House today
is doing two things that this Congress has done too often. One is, if
you don't like the rules, you change the rules; and two is, we continue
to take actions that reduce confidence in dealing with the United
States. When you change the rules, other countries just simply don't
want to deal with you.
Five hundred days since this treaty, this agreement was negotiated in
good faith. Changes made sense then in elements that dealt with the
environment and labor that the Colombians went back at our request to
make. Sixteen months of talking to the leaders of the majority about
what was the best day to bring this agreement, now 500 days old, to the
floor of the House, and it's going to happen today or it's apparently
not going to happen anytime in the near future.
We had no trade agreements before we went to the process of Trade
Promotion Authority because nobody wants to trade with you if they
don't think you're dealing in good faith. Nobody wants to deal with you
if they don't think you're dealing in good faith.
This is about jobs. It is about middle-class jobs that my good friend
from Illinois just talked about. I mean, how much more middle-class
jobs could you try to provide than you provide when we open their
market to us? Seventeen years ago we opened our market to them. This is
not a debate about whether we can compete with Colombian products or
whether their workers are being treated fair. Their workers already
make products that come in here every day with virtually no tariff.
This agreement would let our workers send products there with no
tariff. Eighty percent immediately would have no tariff. Very quickly,
100 percent would have no tariff. The 8,600 Caterpillar jobs in
Illinois would be sending their products to Colombia without the 15
percent tariff. Why wouldn't we want to give those 8,600 labor union
workers a 15 percent advantage that they don't have today?
When you change the rules, bad things can happen. This is about
manufacturing jobs. It's about union jobs. It's about middle-class
jobs. And of course, it is about our closest ally in South America, the
second biggest country in South America, a country that for 17 years
has had access to our markets and, in the last decade, has worked
closely with us to try to solve their problems and the problems of this
hemisphere.
This is a huge mistake today. It is the wrong signal to send not just
to Colombia but anybody who's thinking about working with the United
States of America. You have got to deal with countries in good faith.
We are not doing that. We are not dealing with our own workers in good
faith. I hope we do everything we can to defeat this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1092. Colombia is an
ally and a friend, and I commend President Uribe for reducing violence
and unrest in Colombia. However, Colombia still leads the world in
trade unionist murders. According to Human Rights Watch, 17 have been
killed this year alone and more than 400 over the last 6 years. Hardly
any of these murders have been investigated or prosecuted.
This is not only about human rights. This is about domestic
responsibility. How can we trade away jobs when unemployment is
climbing and our economy is in recession? We need to expand and
strengthen trade adjustment assistance. We must educate and train
American workers to better compete in the global economy.
The President had a choice. He chose to force a vote, and today he is
getting that vote: a vote declaring that strong-arming Congress will
not work, a vote for American workers and their families, a vote for
human rights.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and stand up for workers'
families both here at home and in Colombia.

[[Page H2185]]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would be happy to yield to
one of the greatest proponents of free trade, a member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America's status in the world has
never been smaller than this day. Who could imagine the world's largest
economy cowering from Colombia behind the calls of protectionism? Who
could imagine the world's greatest democracy too frightened to even
debate, even consider this agreement. Who could imagine that this
Congress would send a signal to the world that we are not just an
unreliable leader in trade, we are an unreliable negotiator in trade?
It is embarrassing and it is dangerous. And it will cost America jobs.
Today, Colombia can sell their products into America with no tariffs,
no restrictions. But when we try to sell our products, we find barriers
and costs. My workers in Texas want to know why can they buy products
in Colombia at the local mall but we can't sell our products around the
world? Colombia is a strong trading partner. They have reduced
violence. They have embraced the rule of law. They are a strong ally.
They deserve an up-or-down vote this year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from New York, and I
am so much in favor of this process that I had to bring two
constitutional books to the floor to be seen by my colleagues.
I support this initiative because it restores the constitutional
authority to this floor and to the Speaker of the House. And for
someone who has voted for trade bills that are fair, I ask my
colleagues to recognize that we have an obligation to the American
people. For if we look at the month of March, the third month of
declining numbers of U.S. jobs, with losses widespread across all
sectors and the biggest losses coming in construction and
manufacturing, the experts, including Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke and
former Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan, have confirmed the serious
challenges to the United States economy. One former Labor Secretary has
also uttered the word ``depression.''
This is an opportunity for us to be able to establish our authority
on the floor to work through legislation and to ask the question of my
friends on the other side of the aisle, if trade bills are so
effective, why are we losing jobs? Why are people without employment?
Why are we in this economic crisis?
And so we are standing up for American workers. We are standing up
for the workers in Colombia. I have the greatest respect for President
Uribe. I look forward to working on legislation that addresses the
labor concerns of working-class indigenous Colombians, and this is a
two-way street. My friends on the other side of the aisle cannot prove
that ignoring the Constitution will get us jobs.
Vote for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1092, the rule for
consideration of H.R. 5724 implementing the United States-Colombia
Trade Promotion Agreement. I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her
exemplary leadership on this important issue and for bringing this rule
to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, it is vital to delay the consideration of the Colombia
Free Trade Agreement, FTA. The Republican-controlled 109th Congress
recklessly allowed the President to precipitously pass free trade
agreements without sufficient consideration of the impact on our
economy and hard-working Americans and without ensuring that the labor
rights of workers are protected in the country seeking the FTA. Today
more than ever, with our economy suffering from a substantial downturn,
which includes rising unemployment and a housing foreclosure crisis, it
is imperative that the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress continue
our practice of providing sufficient consideration of free trade
agreements prior to their implementation.
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Colombia last year, and I
am extremely concerned about the ongoing oppression of Afro-Colombian
populations. Afro-Colombians face the same social barriers that all
Afro-Latinos face around Latin America; social marginalization, lack of
access to health care, lack of educational opportunities, lack of
workforce opportunities. In Colombia, however, this marginalization is
intensified by the ongoing conflict. The effects of the armed conflict,
specifically forced displacement, in Colombia falls disproportionately
on the back of Afro-Colombians. In fact, Colombia's highest rate of
displacement in 2003 was recorded in the Choco region, where
approximately 75 percent of the population is Afro-Colombian. Because
Afro-Colombians largely inhabit areas that have been neglected by the
federal government, they have been extremely appealing targets for
narco-traffickers, guerilla insurgent groups, and paramilitary forces.
Afro-Colombians have been forcibly and violently displaced, and they
continue to face a range of human rights abuses that go uninvestigated
by the judicial system.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Colombian Government must be more
active protecting and promoting the rights of Afro-Colombian
populations. This must take the shape of providing more access to
health care and education, especially for internally displaced persons.
Additionally, more security must be established in typically neglected
regions.

H. Res. 1092, as reported by the House Rules Committee, provides that
two sections--section 151(e)(1) and section 151(f)(1)--of the Trade Act
of 1974 shall not apply in the case of H.R. 5724, to implement the
United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. In effect, Mr.
Speaker, this rule will suspend the requirement that the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement be considered within 60 legislative days in the House.
It will give Congress the prerogative to schedule a vote on this piece
of legislation, working with labor and many other groups concerned
about American workers and fair trade.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that rushing this legislation to the floor
would be an incredible mistake. We are currently in the midst of an
economic downturn, with numbers released last Friday showing a sharp
increase in the number of jobless Americans. According to these
numbers, the number of jobs outside the agricultural sector fell by
80,000 last month, a figure that represents the biggest drop in nearly
five years.
March is the third month of declining numbers of U.S. jobs, with
losses widespread across all sectors and the biggest losses coming in
construction and manufacturing. The experts, including Fed Chairman Ben
Bernanke and Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have confirmed the
serious challenges facing the United States economy.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to strengthen the American economy. This
Congress must put American workers first. I believe that, through
bipartisan negotiations coupled with urgent action taken to repair the
struggling American economy, we can create the conditions for a
successful free trade deal with Colombia. However, Mr. Speaker, this
will take time.
Instead of working with Congress to address the legitimate and
serious economic concerns of the American people, the President has
engaged in highly partisan politics to attempt to ram this legislation
through the Congress. On Tuesday, President Bush took the unprecedented
step of sending his Colombia trade deal to Congress without following
established protocols of congressional consultation. By engaging in
this political maneuver, the President has forced Congress to take this
action.
The rule we are considering today would remove the fast-track
timeline for the Colombia free-trade agreement. By doing so, this rule
returns the role, provided by the Constitution, of scheduling
considering of measures to the Congress. The authority to do so is
provided in the Fast Track law, PL 107-210, which explicitly recognizes
``the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far
as relating the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.''
Today, we are doing exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a number of issues that need to be
addressed before a free trade deal with Colombia is approved. In
addition to the concerns about the American economy and American
workers, trade legislation should also benefit the people of Colombia,
particularly the working classes. I remain concerned about many ongoing
abuses in Colombia that, in my opinion, make such a deal inappropriate
at this time. In particular, I am concerned about the suppression of
labor rights in Colombia and the targeted killing of labor organizers.
Two Foreign Affairs subcommittees, the Subcommittee on International
Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight and the Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere, held a hearing last June about the ongoing pattern
of labor violence in Colombia, and I would like to see many of the
issues raised in that hearing addressed before a trade deal with
Colombia is signed.

I believe that President Alvaro Uribe Velez has, since taking office
in August 2002, made important strides toward establishing state
control throughout the country, to revitalize the

[[Page H2186]]

economy, and to combat corruption. I also believe that a fair free
trade agreement can immensely benefit the people of Colombia. Colombia
continues to face severe income disparities, coupled with poverty and
inadequate social services. According to World Bank estimates, 65
percent of Colombia's population lives below the poverty line. Poverty
in rural areas is particularly severe, with rates in these regions
approaching 80 percent, and the World Bank estimates that 38 percent of
rural residents do not have access to potable water, and 68 percent do
not have access to sewage treatment services. In addition, Colombia's
rural areas have an estimated illiteracy rate of 15 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we must work together to develop and pass a
trade bill that will benefit the American economy, and that will also
trickle down to benefit all levels of Colombian society. I was proud to
cosponsor and to vote for the Trade and Development Act of 2000, which
included the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. This legislation
expanded the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which is intended to
facilitate the economic development and export diversification of the
Caribbean Basin economies. I supported this initiative because it not
only benefited American workers and the American economy, but it also
carried true benefits for the people of the target nations. I am proud
to vote for fair free trade legislation that will benefit workers both
here and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule because it will return to Congress
its constitutionally granted power to schedule consideration of
legislation, and it will give us the flexibility necessary to hold
bipartisan negotiations regarding this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to put the American economy and American workers first
during this financially uncertain time, and to support the passage of
H. Res. 1092.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield 1 minute to my friend from
Washington, I would say to my friend from Texas that if she turns to
page 1,136 of the book that she held up, she would see that that has
the rule we are abrogating with this vote that we are about to take.
With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Auburn, Washington
(Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. As a representative from the State of Washington, the
most dependent State on trade in the Nation, I strongly urge my
colleagues to reject this unprecedented rule and allow the Colombian
Free Trade Agreement to come to the floor to a vote. I traveled to
Colombia last weekend to see firsthand the progress that country is
making. I met with union members who support this agreement. I met with
union members who oppose this agreement. I met with President Uribe. I
met with the labor minister. I met with the attorney general there. I
met with the people who have been disarmed and left the paramilitary
organizations. I met with shantytown residents.
You want to talk about human rights? Those people are the poorest
people in the world. Those are the people we can help with this
agreement.

{time} 1315

Not only can we help poor people here in the United States of
America, but this is designed to help poor people, struggling people in
Colombia. Human rights, ladies and gentlemen, is worldwide. When we
give them jobs, we give them hope.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many
requests for time he has remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a long list of people here I would
say to my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules.
May I inquire how much time we have remaining, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend how many speakers she has
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more, who is not presently on the floor. So
I will reserve my time.
Mr. DREIER. Well, I would be happy to use the 5 minutes if the
gentlewoman would like to yield me 5 minutes because we've got lots of
people who feel strongly about that, and I know we could expand our
thoughts on this with your 5 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think I'll reserve it. Thank you very much for the
offer.
Mr. DREIER. Just thought I would offer it as a possibility for
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Miami, who
is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the effort today to postpone timely
action on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For over a year,
advocates of this agreement have worked tirelessly with our
counterparts to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
We have the power to make a difference. We can make a difference not
only here at home, but in Colombia and throughout the hemisphere as
well. Colombia is a close ally, fighting our common enemy of drugs and
antidemocratic regimes in the region. We must take a stand for our
national security and against the growing influence of Iran and other
rogue states in the hemisphere.
The choice is clear. This rule change is nothing but an abdication of
responsibility and a decision to leave the hard decisions for another
day. With the Colombian FTA, American businesses will benefit greatly,
our ally will be strengthened, and our interests in the hemisphere will
be secured.
I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' against this
procedural vote.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute
to my very good friend and a passionate free trader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Democrat majority this
week can find time to rename post offices, but somehow cannot find the
time to vote on a trade agreement to help create more American jobs.
We're talking about a trade agreement to where over 90 percent of
Colombian goods come into our country duty-free, yet only 3 percent of
our goods go into their country duty-free. We're trying to level the
playing field here, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to create more American
jobs. What could be more fair?
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to sit down with the Fed Chairman
this week. And as we talk about tough economic times, we ought to learn
the lessons of history. And one of the lessons of history is that
starting a trade war can bring about a recession, and that's what we
see the Democrats doing. People are struggling to make their paychecks
stretch. Why don't we create more jobs? Why don't we level this playing
field?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, when we're talking about our ally,
Colombia, Hugo Chavez wants this trade agreement to never see the light
of day, and our Democrat colleagues agree.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of my friend; so I assume there are no
further speakers then?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. My last speaker has not yet shown up.
Mr. DREIER. So I guess I should infer from that that there won't be
any more speakers, other than your close, I presume.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think that's accurate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from
Fairfax, the distinguished former chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I oppose this resolution strongly, Mr.
Speaker.
We call this fast track authority for a reason. No argument about
process niceties can change the meaning of those words. This is
supposed to be a deadline for a vote in the House.
The administration has been talking and talking, and we think that if
they didn't bring this forward, it would never come up for a vote at
all. This is the vote. That's the very point of the requirement we're
being asked to waive today.
Look, the supposed ``failure to consult'' is just the latest pretext
for the shameless politicization of free trade

[[Page H2187]]

policy and the abandonment of a key ally. The perverse truth underlying
the political battle lines over trade that this action would harm
American interests at home and abroad, in fact, American workers would
benefit from the provisions in this agreement much more than their
Colombian brothers and sisters.
Colombia already has access to the U.S. market under the Andean Free
Trade Agreement. This opens 80 percent of Colombian markets that
currently are closed, have high tariffs, to American farmers and
American manufacturers.
Legislating, like elections, is about choices. And changing the
rules, moving the goal line beyond reach is the wrong choice on the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. DREIER. I would again inquire of the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on Rules if, in fact, there are going to be any other
speakers on the other side of the aisle.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are none.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to
simply say that this has been a very interesting debate. Unfortunately,
our colleagues on the other side have put forward some, well, let's say
some inaccuracies. The fact of the matter is that over the last 4
years, when this process began, the administration has been working
very closely with hundreds and hundreds of meetings in a bipartisan way
to come together so that we can do what both Democrats and Republicans
alike have said that they want to do, strengthen our ties within this
hemisphere and do what we can to ensure that we bring about an
agreement which will work to create jobs right here in the United
States.
The distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee has
just reminded me of the fact that every country with which we have a
free trade agreement, every single country, we enjoy a surplus of
trade, a trade surplus. So the notion that pursuing these FTAs somehow
costs us jobs is preposterous, and the facts don't hold it up.
One of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), talked about the fact that we were the
manufacturing giant in 1974, 34 years ago, when fast track authority
was put into place. And I will tell him that today we are still the
world's manufacturing giant. In 1974, we had a $1.5 trillion economy;
today, we have a $14.1 trillion economy.
So as was said by the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, this is a no-
brainer, as Mr. McCrery said, this is a no-brainer economically. We
need to recognize that if we as a Nation are going to maintain our
leadership role, we have to shape it.
Vote ``no'' on this horrible Hugo Chavez rule, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I need to put on the record the fact that
America is not the manufacturing giant. China is the manufacturing
giant, followed by India.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. No. I would like to have my time to close.
The people who talk today about free trade never mention fair trade.
That's been a problem for me for a long time. If it has not affected
their economy, they're very lucky.
I happen to represent an economy that has been greatly affected by
trade policies that did nothing for the American workers, that did
nothing to produce more jobs. The idea that we would again continue to
follow that failed policy surprised me.
But the most important thing today, we are not debating the Colombia-
U.S. Free Trade Compact. What we are debating today is whether or not
the House of Representatives is going to take back what it is entitled
to take back, and that is, responsibility for scheduling matters that
come to the floor for consideration. It is a very important point. We
are perfectly entitled to do it under the law. It affects the Senate
not a whit.
And I am proud, frankly, to say again that our prerogatives, which
have been slipping away from us for the past 12 years, all the
Congress' prerogatives going to the executive department, that has to
stop. And I not only want to stop this one, I would like to regain some
of the abilities that we have lost already to represent the people who
send us here.
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this rules change today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Article 1, section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations. Through the years, Congress has recognized the
President's role in negotiating trade deals and has granted the
President a great deal of leeway with regard to trade. Congress,
however, must ratify every trade deal, and the President has a great
deal of responsibility to work with elected members of the legislative
branch before pressing forward with any negotiated trade agreement.
One power Congress has occasionally authorized for the President is
the so-called ``fast track'' negotiating authority. ``Fast track''
permits the President to negotiate a trade agreement while giving
Congress an opportunity to ratify the agreement without amendment and
within a certain time frame. ``Fast track'' allows the House and the
Senate to set its own rules with respect to considering a trade
agreement under these expedited conditions. In November 2006, using its
``fast track'' powers, the Administration signed a Trade Promotion
Agreement with the South American country of Colombia.
In June 2007, I visited Colombia and met with President Uribe, other
Colombian leaders, and U.S. embassy and military professionals serving
there. Through the years, I have been extremely skeptical about U.S.
involvement in Colombia's civil war and have voted in the House to
reduce U.S. military aid to that country. That said, Colombia is an
important ally of the United States and the trade agreement negotiated
between the U.S. and Colombia is worthy of support. Should it pass,
most U.S. exports to Colombia--including Missouri's agricultural
exports--will enter that country duty-free. Under current law, nearly
all Colombian goods enter the U.S. duty-free.
On April 8, 2008, the Administration took the unprecedented step of
delivering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to Congress without
having fully consulted with the House and the Senate. In my view, the
Administration's maneuver seriously jeopardizes prospects for the trade
agreement's passage in the House. Without bipartisan support, I am
convinced the House would reject it, sending a negative message to
Colombia and derailing important benefits to Missouri agriculture that
would be brought with the deal.
Mr. Speaker, in an effort to give Congress more time to review the
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and to prevent an embarrassing
defeat of the agreement on the House floor, I will vote today to delay
its consideration. I remain hopeful that the agreement can be
considered before the end of the 110th Congress.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1092 and urge
my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
The Administration would like to force this Congress to take up the
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, before August.
This resolution will allow Congress, not the Administration, to
decide if and when this body should take legislative action on the
U.S.-Colombia FTA.
I strongly oppose the U.S.-Colombia FTA. This is yet another flawed,
NAFTA-style, trade deal that harms workers in the United States and in
Colombia.
Our workers and our communities have been devastated by our flawed
trade policies. Since 2001, over three million valuable manufacturing
jobs have been lost due to the NAFTA model of trade, now being
perpetuated in the U.S.-Colombia FTA.
In Ohio, where we have lost more than 236,000 high-paying
manufacturing jobs, we know the realities of these failed trade
policies all too well.
The actual number is much higher because we have not included job
loss in the service sector and supply chain that we cannot account for.
Excluded are local businesses, such as restaurants, just down the road
from closed manufacturing facilities that are forced to close their
doors. The ripple effect includes a loss of health care and college
educations.
Trade agreements should be responsible. The U.S.-Colombia FTA
continues the destructive trade policies that spur the exodus of well
paying jobs and undermine the ability of working people to protect
their living standards. That is not a responsible trade deal.
Trade agreements that fail to enforce worker rights are
irresponsible. Approximately 2,300 labor organizers, labor leaders and
union members have been murdered in Colombia since 1991. Today,
Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for union
members.
In February, an AFL-CIO delegation met with leaders of the major
Colombian labor federations. According to the AFL-CIO ``[l]eaders of
the major Colombian Labor federations told the delegation they oppose
any free trade deal

[[Page H2188]]

between the United States and Colombia until the government takes
strong action to stop the violence against trade union members and ends
assaults on union rights.''
The U.S. must not continue to expand a failed trade policy based on
the NAFTA model. It outsources valuable American jobs and accelerates
the transfer of capital out of the U.S. It is a model that harms
workers, erodes environmental protections and limits access to
healthcare for the poor in the countries we trade with.
Congress must take a much needed step back and bring all parties to
the table to examine how we can fix our broken trade system.
Common sense suggests that our trade policies should promote workers'
rights, human rights, strong protections for our natural resources and
the environment, and expansion of Buy American practices that support
American competitiveness. What America needs is Fair Trade, not Free
Trade.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1092 and
against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Colombia is an ally and friend of the United States. I commend
President Uribe and his government for reducing the violence and unrest
in Colombia. They have made great progress.
However, Colombia still leads the world in trade unionist murders.
According to Human Rights Watch, 17 have been killed this year alone,
and more than 400 over the last six years. Hardly any of these murders
have been investigated or prosecuted.
It would be immoral and irresponsible to pass a free trade agreement
with Colombia while these conditions persist. But this is not only
about human rights. This is about domestic responsibility.
How can we trade away jobs when unemployment is climbing and our
economy sinks deeper into recession? Surely, this is not the time to
rush into another trade agreement. Doing so without first strengthening
our economy and helping American workers is just plain wrong.
The global economy is changing rapidly, and we need to catch up. We
need to expand and strengthen Trade Adjustment Assistance. We need a
Trade Adjustment Assistance program that educates and trains the
American workforce to better compete in the global economy.
Yet the Administration and its allies on the Hill have expressed no
interest in making this program meet the needs of American workers.
Advancing free trade agreements without first addressing the needs of
American workers is just plain irresponsible.
We are here today because the President has once again chosen
confrontation over compromise. Like with FISA, the Iraq War and
countless other important issues, the President has determined that he
alone knows what's best and that Congress and everyone else should just
go along. Of course, his disastrous record over the last 7 years--on
the economy, jobs, the deficit, health care, disaster relief and our
national security, to name just a few issues--should make any fair
observer pause before deferring to his judgment. By unilaterally
forcing this issue, the President has yet again demonstrated his
arrogant disregard for American workers and their families.
The President had a choice. He chose to force a vote, and today he is
getting that vote. This vote will declare that strong-arming Congress
will not work. This vote will be a vote for human rights. This vote
will be a vote for American workers and their families.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and stand up for working
families both here at home and in Colombia.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
that the Members of this body have been forced to make such a difficult
decision with regard to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As you know,
the Bush Administration sent this proposed agreement directly to
Congress without the level of dialogue many of us would liked to have
seen to ensure we can reach agreement on this matter. I fear that the
poor and unprecedented decision by President Bush to place this matter
before the House of Representatives without the consent of leadership
will result in collateral damage to the Trade Promotion Authority
protocol that is instrumental in our work to promote commerce with
other countries. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to voting
``present,'' with the hope that continued dialogue between Congress and
the White House will lead to a positive resolution of this entire
matter.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, an ancient proverb cautions
``Arrogance diminishes wisdom.'' Sadly, this proposal ignores that
warning, indulging institutional arrogance at the expense of wise
legislating. Based on the transparent facade the President's
transmittal of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement violates a
``protocol,'' the House today is asked to vitiate a law and a process
upon which the administration, the Congress and the people of Colombia
have relied in good faith.
The alleged breach of manners? A claimed failure to consult the House
on the agreement. But, as has been said, consultation has been
extensive, and those consultations have had an impact. The Government
of Columbia has done a great deal--more than some may have thought
wise, in fact--to address Democratic concerns about human rights, labor
organizing, and other issues.
It's called ``fast track authority'' for a reason. No argument about
process niceties can change the meaning of those words. There is
supposed to be a deadline for a vote in this House. That's the very
point of the requirement we're being asked to waive today.
In fact, the supposed failure to consult is just the latest pretext
for the shameless politicization of free trade policy and the
abandonment of a key ally. The perverse truth underlying the political
battle lines over trade: This action would harm American interests at
home and abroad. American workers would benefit from the provisions in
this agreement as much or more than their Colombian brothers and
sisters.
This free trade agreement would spark a tremendous increase in trade
from the United States to Colombia. High quality American goods like
machinery would be available at lower prices in Colombia. The agreement
would therefore create jobs, spur investment, and improve our quality
of life. The benefit is obvious, especially when compared to the
minimal costs. Over 90 percent of Colombian goods already enter the
U.S. tariff-free thanks to the recently renewed Andean Trade Preference
Act, so we would be sacrificing very little.
There are still subtler yet equally vital reasons to approve the FTA.
Colombia is a proud democratic ally in Latin America. It is our closest
friend in an area filled with nations opposed to our shared vision of
harmonious relations. Colombia has also been beset by a dynamic Marxist
insurgency, funded and succored by international drug trafficking and
kidnapping. This movement has brought untold death, destruction, and
other hardships to Colombia. In recent years, however, the tide has
turned. Owing mostly to the steadfast determination of Colombians who
seek peace, guided by the unwaveringly leadership of President Alvaro
Uribe, and assisted by American funding and advice, the rebels are
being defeated. I have been to Colombia many times, most recently in
February, and I have seen first-hand the dramatic improvement in
Colombia's security situation. By growing and diversifying the
Colombian economy, the free trade agreement would provide further
incentive for guerillas to cease their quixotic quest for power while
also demonstrating the benefits of free trade to those in neighboring
countries whose leaders favor demagoguery while letting their economies
fall behind.
Many Democratic leaders who oppose the agreement claim they do so
because labor leaders are endangered in Colombia. This is an excuse,
not a justification. I applaud the vitally important role played by
Colombian labor officials. I unalterably oppose actual or threatened
violence against them. More importantly, I know President Uribe agrees.
His government has instituted widespread reforms to protect labor
leaders and to promptly, efficiently, and legally respond to attacks
against them. Since 2002, when President Uribe was inaugurated,
violence directed at labor officials in Colombia has fallen 80 percent.
These institutional changes and results are precisely what Democratic
officials in the United States said would earn their support for the
free trade agreement. But now the goal posts have been moved.
Democratic leaders, beholden to union bigwigs, refuse to do the right
thing. This sorry spectacle will further confirm the views of those who
believe America's image abroad is deteriorating.
Make no mistake about it, this action will effectively kill this
agreement, despite empty claims to the contrary. Rather than ratify
provisions which would significantly improve the economies of both the
United States and Colombia and solidify relations with a key American
ally, the Democratic leadership prefers to cravenly supplicate
themselves to their political allies in Big Labor.
Colombia has done what was asked of it. Now, the Democrats who run
Congress should opt to help their constituents and aide an important
ally. Legislating, like elections, is about choices. And changing the
rules, moving the goal line beyond reach, is the wrong choice on the
Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1092.
It is with careful consideration that I have chosen to support this
rule removing procedural timetables from House consideration of the
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
A vote on this rule is not a vote on the substance or quality of the
Colombia FTA. It is a vote in protest of the President's failure to
adequately consult the Congress under well-established protocols.
I was one of only a few members of my caucus to support trade
promotion authority in

[[Page H2189]]

2002. It is my strong belief that forcing consideration of such
measures is not the way ``fast track'' was intended to be utilized.
The President's actions place ultimate implementation of the Colombia
FTA in great jeopardy. A failure of the FTA on the House floor would
send the worst possible message to our friends and allies in Latin
America.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, as
well as with the administration, to create the conditions for
consideration of this important agreement on its own merits.
For too long, the United States has neglected its friends and allies
in Latin America, and the Colombia FTA will be a beneficial tool for
engagement in the region.
In the midst of growing peace and order in Colombia, removing trade
barriers between our two countries will facilitate Colombia's progress
and benefit both of our economies.
President Uribe and the Colombian people continue to face a number of
challenges, including narco-trafficking and kidnapping by guerrilla
groups, continued violence committed by armed paramilitaries, and the
need to protect the rights of unions and their leaders. I have great
confidence in his abilities, and I look forward to seeing continued
progress in this regard.
I also look forward to seeing continued progress and bipartisan
support for domestic economic measures, including additional funding to
stimulate the economy, to provide support and training for workers, and
to address housing, energy, and health care. I urge both President Bush
and my colleagues to recommit themselves to these goals, in order to
create favorable conditions for consideration of the Colombia FTA.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
irresponsible rule. The Colombia trade agreement was negotiated under
trade promotion authority, which clearly specifies that once
transmitted to Congress this body must take up the agreement within 90
days. The Government of Colombia negotiated this agreement with us in
good faith, that we would keep our word. Unfortunately the majority now
wants to change the rules of the game. This is damaging to our
relationship with Colombia and damages our reputation in the world. It
shows the world that Congress does not keep its word, and this will
make any other country reluctant to enter into agreements with our
nation. This is simply bad foreign policy.
I believe in the benefits of free and fair trade. I support efforts
to remove tariffs and barriers to trade whenever possible and feel that
such efforts will lead to increased economic growth for the nation as a
whole. With tens of thousands of jobs in my congressional district
being tied to trade, the expansion of trade means a healthy future for
a number of local businesses, and in turn new jobs for my district, and
the Nation.
However, I believe that all trade must be fair trade. The Colombian
agreement would be fair trade. Already, the vast majority of Colombian
products pay zero tariffs to enter the U.S. market. In fact 365 members
of this House, many of whom now stand opposed to this fair trade bill,
voted to allow Colombia this open access to our markets. It is not
defensible to keep U.S. producers from the same access to Colombia,
that Colombia already has to our market. Since 1991, U.S. workers and
businesses have paid over a billion dollars in tariffs to sell their
wares in the Colombian market. Every day we delay enactment of the
Colombia FTA we hurt U.S. workers, farmers, and entrepreneurs who will
benefit from opening the Colombian market.
It is disappointing that the Democratic majority has not embraced
this trade agreement, as it would mean new jobs for citizens across the
nation. New jobs that are very much needed in our tightening economy.
Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to the benefits of free and fair trade.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule which would be detrimental to
our relationship with Colombia and is more importantly reckless foreign
policy.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution
that President Bush has regrettably made necessary.
The immediate effect of the resolution will be to allow deferral of a
vote on the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia.
Some say that the longer-term effect will be to make approval of that
agreement impossible. But I think the reality could be just the
reverse, because as you have said, Mr. Speaker, at this point the odds
are against its approval and so deferring the vote on the agreement
could be the only way it might ever be approved.
I have supported Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain, Singapore,
Chile, Morocco, Australia, Jordan, Oman, and Peru, I'd like the
opportunity to consider the merits of a Columbia FTA, but cannot jump
to the conclusion that its provisions are fully acceptable, and I am
troubled by allegations that labor organizers have been terrorized by
government authorities in Columbia. It seems to me that the proponents
of this agreement have the burden of making a compelling case that the
agreement meets criteria Congress has insisted upon with regard to
labor protections.
Therefore, deferring the vote will allow additional time for the Bush
Administration and the other supporters of the agreement either to the
make the case that it should be approved in its current form or to work
with the Colombian government and the Congress to make revisions to
respond to objections raised by its opponents.
It should not have been necessary for the House to act to provide
that time. If President Bush had been willing to do more to resolve
those objections, we would not be taking such action. But by deciding
to formally transmit the agreement, which set in motion the so-called
``fast track'' procedures of the current law applicable to trade
agreements, the President has brought us to this point.
And while the details are different, that approach is very similar to
the one the president has followed on many other matters--demanding
approval of his proposals and refusing to work with Members of Congress
to resolve objections or accommodate other suggestions.
We have seen the pattern over and over, from the repeated vetoes of
legislation to expand the State Children's Health Program, SCHIP, to
revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and with
regard to more other matters than I have time to list.
But this time, by adopting this resolution, we can give President
Bush time to reconsider that way of doing business, and give the other
proponents of the Colombia trade agreement time to make the case for
why it should be approved.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join you today in standing up
for working families in America by opposing the flawed fast track
procedures.
When the President sent the Colombia Trade Agreement to Congress
earlier this week, he started a clock for the agreement's
consideration. He hoped that by forcing Congress to act, he would be
able to win approval of the Colombia FTA. Yet, in reality, he only
exposed one of the many problems that fast track trade negotiation
authority created.
Today, Congress is sending a clear message to the President that we
will not consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or any other FTA's
on his time table. We will not be bullied. Congress is a coequal branch
of government.
As you may know, I have long opposed the granting of fast track
authority to the President because it removed Congress from shaping and
drafting trade agreements, the timing of their consideration, and
allowed Congress only an up or down vote on unamendable trade
agreements. In doing so Congress abdicated our essential responsibility
to our nation's citizens. I was pleased that this dangerous fast track
authority expired last summer and has not been renewed.
As I hear from people from across central New Jersey, protecting
workers' rights, human rights, and the environment are not secondary or
extraneous concerns; they are central to what the United States stands
for. I support trade that elevates the quality of life for citizens all
over the world. The United States, and indeed the entire world, can
benefit from increased trade, but increased trade in itself is not the
goal we seek. Rather, we seek an improved quality of life for our
people and advancement of other people's well-being.
Additionally, even on the merits I am very concerned by the Colombian
agreement. As I have said before, trade done right helps lift the
global standard of living and works to protect our natural environment.
Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities, they are
about values. Trade agreements state what constitutes acceptable
behavior in worker's rights, environmental matters, intellectual
property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we
produce and not the workers who produce them. We must continue to
demand improvements in our trade policy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 195, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

YEAS--224

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin

[[Page H2190]]

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

NAYS--195

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Tanner

NOT VOTING--12

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

____________________