Relating to the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5724) to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen many, many unexpected political alliances that have been formed over the past years that I have been privileged to serve here, but I never expected to be taking up a rule that aligns with the goals of Hugo Chavez and South American narcoterrorists.

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement would deliver a significant blow

to Chavez's authoritarian designs for the region and the FARC's terrorist agenda. No one was quicker, no one was quicker to condemn the President's decision to send this FTA implementing legislation to Congress, than Hugo Chavez himself. So that is why, Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today is nothing more than the Hugo Chavez rule.

The agreement, the agreement that we hope very much we can see this institution pass, would help to strengthen democratic institutions, provide real economic opportunity for the Colombian people and solidify the rule of law. So naturally it is vehemently opposed by someone who is systematically dismantling representative democracy and free markets and resorting to corruption and crony capitalism to enrich government coffers at the expense of the working poor. That is the legacy of Hugo Chavez.

Naturally, naturally, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is also vehemently opposed by a terrorist organization that simply cannot continue to survive in a thriving, stable and transparent democracy with strong institutions and an increasingly prosperous population.

The Government of Colombia, its business leaders and its private sector unions all strongly support this agreement for the very reasons it is opposed by the region's most nefarious forces. It would be a giant leap forward in solidifying their attempts to take back their country from the violent and lawless groups that tore it apart for decades. And yet here we are today considering a rule that blocks consideration of the agreement under the rules of the Trade Promotion Authority which were established over 30 years ago.

Many supporters of this Hugo Chavez rule like to argue that this rule is as much about process as it is substance. I regularly make the argument that process is substance. So let's examine these claims, Mr. Speaker.

The argument has been made that by sending up the implementing legislation without an invitation, the President has violated the rules set forth by the Trade Act of 1974 and Congress must take special action to assert its role.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have witnessed a number of struggles between the first two branches of government, so congressional prerogative is a familiar theme these days. And I am a strong supporter of congressional prerogative. As a result, the argument in this case has found an overly credulous audience in this body and proven persuasive to the uninformed, so I will do my Democratic colleagues the favor of reviewing the details of Trade Promotion Authority.

The statute outlines very clearly the responsibilities of the administration. It sets forth a number of negotiating principles. It demands that the administration closely consult with Congress prior to, during and after the negotiating process. It requires notification 90 days before entering into negotiations. Prior to signing, it requires notice of potential changes to trade remedy laws 180 days in advance and notification of intent to sign 90 days in advance, followed by advisory committee reports within 30 days. Sixty days after signing, a list of law changes is due. Ninety days after signing, an International Trade Commission report is due. All of this is designed to ensure that the concerns and prerogatives of the United States Congress are met.

The administration, Mr. Speaker, upheld both the letter and the spirit of the law at every single step. High ranking officials met with Congress 160 times prior to and during negotiations. They have held nearly 450 meetings since August of 2007 and taken 55 Members of Congress to Colombia to see the situation there for themselves. To say that the administration has not upheld their end of the bargain is outright laughable.

Now, what is Congress' end of the bargain under TPA? To hold an up or down vote within 60 days in the House and 90 days in the Senate. That is the deal, close consultation followed by a timely vote. Congress gets the final say, but it has the responsibility to not let a complicated and time-consuming negotiation go to waste or languish indefinitely.

We have a negotiation that was launched 4 years ago, concluded 2 years ago, and signed a year-and-a-half ago. Now, after all of this, all of this consultation, all of this time, the Democratic leadership wants to make an unprecedented, never before has this been done, an unprecedented rule change to allow them to abrogate their role under TPA, all the time while blaming the administration, and the administration is somehow to blame for a broken process. They are just making up this nonsense as they go along.

Mr. Speaker, ironically, on Wednesday morning when the Democratic leadership was announcing their intention to take this highly divisive, partisan and unprecedented action, I was sending a letter to several of my Democratic colleagues in which I was reaching out to them in hopes that they would join me in a special order next week to talk about Colombia. As colleagues who have gone to the country for ourselves, I was hoping that we could come together to simply share what we had seen firsthand in Colombia.

Under TPA, the House has, as I said, 60 days to debate and work together to reach consensus, 60 days to work in a bipartisan way. I thought that our special order describing our experiences would be a constructive and congenial way to begin. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has cut off this substantive process before it could even begin, killing any hope of bipartisanship on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, their actions are causing even more damage abroad. They are sabotaging our relationship with or best and closest ally in South America. This is an ally that faces a hostile neighbor on its border which threatens not just Colombia, but the very ideals of democracy and free markets. This ally faces an even graver daily threat within its borders; a threat that has been weakened by President Uribe's brave efforts, but one that still exists.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

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. Speaker, will the Speaker yield for some questions?

Mr. Speaker, I ask again if my distinguished California colleague would yield.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

May I inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

May I inquire of my friend; so I assume there are no further speakers then?

So I guess I should infer from that that there won't be any more speakers, other than your close, I presume.

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.

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.

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.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

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

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1092 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York 1 more minute.

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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

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. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague how many requests for time he has remaining.

I have one more, who is not presently on the floor. So I will reserve my time.

I think I'll reserve it. Thank you very much for the offer.

I continue to reserve.

I will continue to reserve.

My last speaker has not yet shown up.

I think that's accurate.

There are none.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her for her very distinguished leadership of the Rules Committee and for bringing this very important rule to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is one I wish could have been avoided, and I think it is important to put it in context because I have heard our colleagues talk about the merits of the bill or talk about any precedent on rules, and I have heard them talk about different things. But I think it is important to know what brought us here today.

On Monday, I received a call from the President of the United States, always an honor to receive a call from the President. This is after months of our going back and forth with members of the cabinet and the rest about when and if they would send up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The President informed me that he would be sending the bill over the next day.

I recommended against it. I said, Mr. President, you shouldn't send it for

two reasons. If you send it and we take it up, it will lose. Now you think it is very important to pass a Colombia free trade agreement, and in the Congress we have people who share your view. And we have others who share your view that we should pass it as soon as we address the concerns of America's working people, and others who will never be for it. But let's talk about what the possibilities are for passing it, and those possibilities are greatly diminished if you send that bill to the Congress under these circumstances.

Apart from the fact that it would be a breach of protocol, and let's just talk about that. A successful trade agenda depends on joint partnership between the Congress and the administration, as was the case recently in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Had the administration followed the established protocol of congressional consultation relating to the submission of any free trade agreement, we would not have to take this action today.

By his actions on Tuesday, the President abandoned the traditions of consultation that have governed past agreement. In fact, the action the House takes today is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules than the White House's move to force a vote.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, during the week of February 25-29, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 69-87.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 69, H. Res. 978, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 70, H. Res. 930, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 71, H. Res. 944, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 74, H. Res. 974, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 75, H.R. 3521 the Sires of New Jersey Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 76, H.R. 3521 the Meek of Florida Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 81, H. Res. 1001, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 83, H.R. 5351 on Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 84, H.R. 5351, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 85, S. 2272, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 86, H.R. 4454, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 87, H.R. 4454.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 3-7, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 88-106.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 88, H.R. 1143, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 89, H.R. 1311, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 90, H.R. 816, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 91, H.R. 4191, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 92, H. Con. Res. 278, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 93, H. Res. 951, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 96, H. Res. 1014, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 97, H.R. 4774, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 98, H. Con. Res. 286, ``nay'' on rolicall vote 100, H.R. 1424 the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 101, H.R. 1424, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 102, H.R. 5400, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 104, H. Res. 1015, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 105, H.R. 2857 the Flake of Arizona Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 106, H.R. 2857 the Inslee of Washington Amendment.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 10-14, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 108-145.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 108, H. Res. 537, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 109, H.R. 3196, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 110, H.R. 4166, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 115, H. Res. 924, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 116, Motion, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 117, H.R. 2082, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 118, H. Res. 948, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 119, H. Res. 493, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, H. Res. 1031, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 130, H. Res. 1036, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 131, H.R. 5563, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 132, H. Con. Res. 316, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 133, H. Res. 936, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 134, S. 2733, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 137, H. Con. Res. 312 Kilpatrick of Michigan Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 138, H. Con. Res. 312 Lee of California Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 140, H. Con. Res. 312 Ryan of Wisconsin Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 141, H. Con. Res. 312, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 142, H. Res. 991, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 143, H. Res. 1041 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 144, H. Res. 1041 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 145, H.R. 3773.

Madam Speaker, during the week of March 31-April 4, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rolicall votes 147-160.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 147, H.R. 3352, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 148, H.R. 2675, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149, H. Con. Res. 302, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 150, H. Con. Res. 310, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 151, H. Res. 1005, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 152, H. Res. 1021, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 154, H. Res. 1065 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 155, H. Res. 1065 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 156, H.R. 5501 Carson of Indiana Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 157, H.R. 5501 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 158, H.R. 5501 On Passage, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 159, H.R. 4847 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 160, H.R. 4847 On Passage.

Madam Speaker, during the week of April 7-11, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from rollcall votes 161-182.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 161, H.J. Res. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 162, H.R. 2464, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 163, S. 793, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 164, H. Res. 1084 On Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 165, H. Res.

1084 On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 166, H. Res. 1077, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 167, H.R. 2016 the Grijalva of Arizona Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 168, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 169, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 170, H.R. 2016 the Bishop of Utah Amendment, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 171, H.R. 2016 the Altmire of Pennsylvania Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 172, H.R. 2016 the Pearce of New Mexico Amendment, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 173, H.R. 2016 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 174, H.R. 2016 On Passage, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 175, H.R. 2419, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 176, H.R. 5489, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 177, H.R. 5472, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 179, H. Res. 1083, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 180, H. Res. 1038, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 181, H. Res. 1092, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 182, H.R. 2537 the Flake of Arizona Amendment.