Reciprocal Market Access Act of 2011

I thank the gentleman from California for providing me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes of that time.

Mr. Speaker, today we take up several trade bills. The Rules Committee had a chance to guarantee sufficient time for debate on each agreement and ensure that the time would be equally divided between those who support and those who oppose each bill. That's the way we should be debating these bills. That's the fair and the right thing to do.

But fairness was not part of the discussion in the Rules Committee. Instead, we have a rule that gives more

time to those in support of these bills and less time to those who have legitimate concerns about them. And if that weren't bad enough, this rule waives CutGo, just one more broken promise by this Republican Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the TAA and GSP bills. These programs provide America's companies and workers with stability and fairness and some minimum resources for those that suffer because of trade agreements. They have earned our support.

But I cannot say the same for the free trade agreements, and I would like to focus my remarks on just one of them, the Colombia FTA.

Mr. Speaker, I've gone to Colombia seven times over the past 10 years. Nearly everyone I talk to--the poor, the most vulnerable, those who defend basic human rights and dignity--they all believe that the United States stands for human rights, that we stand for justice. And I'd like to believe that's always true. But not if we pass this FTA.

Colombia is still the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. Each year, more labor activists are killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined. A staggering 2,908 union members murdered since 1986. That's about one murder every 3 days for the past 25 years. One hundred fifty in just the past 3 years. If 150 CEOs had been assassinated over the past 3 years, would you still think Colombia is a good place to invest?

In 2010, 51 trade unionists were murdered; 21 survived attempts on their lives; 338 received death threats; and 7 disappeared. Their bodies may never be found. Forty have been murdered since President Santos took office.

As for justice, well, in Colombia that's still just a dream. Human Rights Watch just released a study that looked at convictions in cases of murdered trade unionists over the past 4\1/2\ years. They found ``virtually no progress'' in convictions in these killings. Just six out of 195 cases. And not a single, solitary conviction for the more than 60 attempted murders and 1,500 death threats during that same period. There's a name for that, Mr. Speaker. It's called complete and total impunity.

Just look at the faces of six of the 23 unionists murdered so far this year.

This man in the top right, Luis Diaz, he was a regional leader of the University Workers' Union and a security guard at Monteria Public University in Cordoba. He was assassinated near his home, shot four times.

I was in Cordoba at the end of August. It's controlled by paramilitaries, drug traffickers, and criminal networks. They work hand in glove with wealthy landed interests, and many local officials, judges, prosecutors, and police are corrupt or benefit from the violence. They are also the most likely parties in Cordoba to profit from the Colombia FTA.

Another fellow here, Jorge de los Rios. He was a teacher and an environmentalist who exposed damage to communities by open pit mining. On June 8, he was shot several times on the campus of his school.

This young man right here, Dionis Sierra, was an elementary schoolteacher killed May 15, also in Cordoba.

Carlos Castro, an engineer, murdered in Cali on May 23. He was shot in the neck by two armed men. He was 41 and the father of three.

Here's Hernan Pinto right here, drinking a cup of coffee. He had taken the lead in the farm workers' struggle right before he was murdered in March.

Silverio Sanchez, just 37 years old, also a teacher. He died on January 24 from burns on 80 percent of his body from an explosive.

These men were husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. If we don't stand up for them, then we also abandon the children, families, workers, and communities they left behind, those who continue to fight for labor rights, human rights, and basic human dignity.

As the old song goes, which side are you on?

Washington, DC, September 29, 2011.

Dr. Viviane Morales,

Attorney General, Diagonal 22B, No 52-01,

Bogota, Colombia.

Dear Attorney General Morales: I am writing to follow up on

the very constructive meeting we had in Bogota this June

regarding the problem of impunity for anti-union violence in

Colombia. We are encouraged by the steps the Attorney

General's Office is currently taking under your leadership to

address this longstanding problem. Yet we also believe

further measures are needed to ensure that your efforts

succeed and the era of unchecked violence against trade

unionists in Colombia is finally overcome.

As you know, Colombia continues to face an extraordinarily

high level of anti-union violence. While the number of trade

unionists killed every year is certainly less today than a

decade ago, it remains higher than any other country in the

world. The National Labor School (ENS), Colombia's leading

NGO monitoring labor rights, reports that in 2010 there were

51 killings of trade unionists, 22 homicide attempts, and 397

threats.

A major reason for this ongoing violence has been the

chronic lack of accountability for cases of anti-union

violence. Colombia has failed to deliver justice for more

than 2,500 trade unionist killings committed over the past 25

years. As Vice-President Angelino Garzon acknowledged during

a November 2010 speech, ``[T]he immense majority of crimes

[against] trade unionists remain in impunity . . . there have

been advances in the investigations . . . but we still have

not gotten to 200 court rulings, and there are thousands of

workers and union leaders killed and disappeared.''

In 2006, the Attorney General's Office sought to end this

impunity by establishing a sub-unit of prosecutors to focus

exclusively on crimes against trade unionists. This

initiative brought with it several important advantages: the

sub-unit's prosecutors would receive extra material and human

resources and have the opportunity to develop expertise in

solving these crimes. By working out of Bogota and other main

cities, the prosecutors would generally be less vulnerable to

pressure and threats than local justice officials.

Since its creation, the sub-unit has made important

progress: there are now scores of convictions for trade

unionist killings every year where before there were almost

none. Over the past four-and-a-half years, the sub-unit has

secured convictions for more than 185 trade unionist

killings.

Yet this progress, while welcome, has in fact been very

limited. And, unless urgent steps are taken to improve the

sub-unit's performance, it will almost certainly prove to be

unsustainable.

Over the past several months, Human Rights Watch has

carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the sub-unit's

work, reviewing hundreds of court judgments for crimes

against trade unionists, examining the most recent available

data provided by the Attorney General's Office on the status

of investigations, and conducting dozens of interviews with

prosecutors, judges, rights advocates, and victims.

Our research has found severe shortcomings in both the

scope of the sub-unit's work and the investigative

methodology that it employs. In terms of the scope, we found

that:

The increase in the number of convictions since the sub-

unit's creation, while substantial, represents only a small

fraction of the total number of cases of trade unionist

killings that still need to be investigated and prosecuted.

The increase in convictions is largely due to confessions

provided by paramilitaries under the Justice and Peace

process, which does not apply to cases of killings committed

after 2006.

The sub-unit has made virtually no progress in obtaining

convictions for killings from the past four-and-a-half years.

The sub-unit has made virtually no progress in prosecuting

people who order, pay, instigate or collude with

paramilitaries in attacking trade unionists.

In terms of the methodology of the investigations, we found

that:

The sub-unit has routinely failed to thoroughly investigate

the motives for the crimes.

The sub-unit has not conducted the type of systematic and

contextualized investigations that are necessary to identify

and prosecute all responsible parties.

While we were encouraged to encounter prosecutors in the

sub-unit who are very professional and committed to advancing

these cases, it is also clear that further measures must be

taken to support their work and ensure the sub-unit overcomes

its current limitations.

Under the current circumstances, what is at stake is the

justice system's ability to act as an effective deterrent to

anti-union violence. We are concerned that unless you take

action to improve the sub-unit's performance, the office will

continue to fall short in ensuring accountability for attacks

on trade unionists, and Colombia will remain a uniquely

dangerous country for workers seeking to exercise their basic

labor rights.

The Scope of the Sub-unit's Work

Convictions Represent Fraction of Total Killings

The annual number of convictions for cases of crimes

against trade unionists has risen about nine-fold since the

sub-unit began operating in 2007. Overall, the subunit has

obtained convictions for more than 185 trade unionist

killings.

Despite this accomplishment, a great deal of work remains

to be done. At this stage, Colombia has obtained a conviction

for less than 10 percent of the 2,886 trade unionist killings

recorded since 1986 by the ENS. The sub-unit reported to

Human Rights Watch that it had opened an investigation into

787

cases of trade unionist killings as of June 2011.

Investigations into the more than 2000 other reported trade

unionist murders presumably remain with ordinary prosecutors,

who have long failed to resolve such cases. As concluded by

the February 2011 International Labor Organization (ILO)

High-level Tripartite Mission to Colombia, ``The majority of

[trade unionist killings] have not yet been investigated nor

have the perpetrators, including the intellectual authors of

these crimes, been brought to justice.''

Recent Progress Is Largely Due to Justice and Peace Process

The sub-unit's progress in prosecuting anti-union violence

has largely been due to confessions by paramilitaries

participating in the Justice and Peace process. Human Rights

Watch reviewed all 74 convictions handed down over the past

year by the three specialized courts dedicated to crimes

against trade unionists and found that 60 percent of the

convictions were the direct result of plea bargains with

demobilized paramilitaries participating in the Justice and

Peace process. In a majority of the remaining rulings from

this period, testimony by defendants in the Justice and Peace

process also played an important role in producing the

conviction.

This increase in the number of convictions spurred by the

Justice and Peace process is certainly a positive

development. Unfortunately, it does not by itself represent

sustainable progress. The process has allowed prosecutors to

resolve cases because it has provided extraordinary

incentives for demobilized paramilitaries to confess to their

crimes. But these incentives do not apply to crimes committed

since paramilitary groups finished demobilizing in 2006 and

therefore will not help prosecute individuals who assassinate

trade unionists today or in the future.

Lack of Convictions for Recent Trade Unionist Killings

When it comes to obtaining convictions for cases from the

past several years--which are not covered by the Justice and

Peace process--the sub-unit has made virtually no progress.

Of the more than 195 such killings that have occurred since

the sub-unit started operating in 2007, the special office

had obtained convictions in only six cases as of May 2011. It

had not obtained a single conviction for the more than 60

homicide attempts, 1,500 threats and 420 forced displacements

reported by the ENS during this period.

The sub-unit has not opened investigations into the

majority of the trade unionist murders that have occurred

since the office began operating in 2007. As of March, it had

opened an investigation into only one of the 51 trade

unionist killings committed in 2010. And the vast majority of

the sub-unit's investigations into killings since 2007 (89

percent) remain in a preliminary stage in which

prosecutors have yet to formally identify a suspect.

We understand that the current Attorney General's Office

shares our concern with the lack of progress in prosecuting

recent killings. As discussed below, your office has

announced steps that could help address this problem, such as

instructing prosecutors to prioritize investigations of

crimes against trade unionists committed since 2007.

Lack of Prosecutions of Intellectual Authors and Accomplices

We are also concerned that the prosecutions have focused

almost exclusively on the commanders of armed groups or

triggermen and have not extended to include other individuals

who may have instigated or facilitated the crimes. Of the

more than 275 convictions handed down through May 2011 by the

specialized courts that handle the sub-unit's cases, 80

percent have been against former members of the United Self-

Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). Yet there is compelling

evidence that paramilitaries and the groups that replaced

them have not acted alone in killing trade unionists. These

groups have historically operated with the toleration or even

active support of members of the public security forces, as

well as in collaboration with politicians and allies in the

private sector. According to several justice officials,

rights advocates and victims' lawyers close to these cases,

paramilitaries appear to have killed trade unionists at the

behest of employers, local officials, or other individuals

with particular interests in eliminating the victims.

A review of 50 recent convictions for anti-union violence

handed down by the specialized courts found that in nearly

half of the cases under consideration, the judgments

contained evidence pointing to the involvement of members of

the security forces or intelligence services, politicians,

landowners, bosses, or coworkers. Rulings in ten of these

cases contained evidence indicating that individuals outside

the armed groups (including two mayors, a hospital

administrator, a plant manager, a captain of the Sectional

Judicial Police, and a detective from the Colombian

intelligence service) may have hired, ordered, or otherwise

instigated paramilitaries to kill the trade unionists.

Yet despite the evidence of involvement and collusion by

third parties in crimes committed by armed groups, the sub-

unit has obtained virtually no results in bringing such

individuals to justice. Only 10 of the more than 275 rulings

handed down by specialized courts since 2007 have convicted

politicians, members of the security forces, employers, or

coworkers. Only one of the 50 rulings handed down between

September 2010 and May 2011 that Human Rights Watch reviewed

punished such individuals. Similarly, a comprehensive study

by the Center for the Study of Law, Justice, and Society

(DeJusticia) reveals that just 3 percent of the judgments in

trade unionist cases handed down through March 2010 included

the conviction of a ``strategic intellectual author'' (an

individual outside of an armed structure who ordered or

otherwise instigated the crime).

Prosecuting the triggermen and their commanders for these

crimes is a crucial step for accountability. But identifying

these individuals alone will not enable the justice system to

act as an effective deterrent to anti-union violence. As long

as some people believe they can get away with ordering,

paying, or instigating armed groups to kill trade unionists,

they will continue to find armed groups and gunmen for hire

to do their dirty work.

Flaws in the Investigative Methodology

Colombia's progress in curbing impunity for anti-union

violence, while important, has been limited by shortcomings

in the investigative strategy pursued by the subunit of the

Attorney General's Office. The first is a routine failure to

adequately investigate the motive in cases of trade unionist

killings. The second--and more troubling--is the failure to

conduct the sort of systematic and contextualized

investigation necessary to identify and bring to justice all

responsible parties.

As discussed below, the current administration of the

Attorney General's Office has recognized the problem of the

sub-unit's methodology and announced the adoption of measures

to improve it. But these correctives remain to be fully

implemented, and must be followed with additional measures to

shore up the quality of the sub-unit's work.

Inadequate Investigation of Motives

Prosecutors often base their charges almost entirely on

testimony by paramilitaries participating in the Justice and

Peace process without conducting a thorough investigation

that could determine the actual motive for targeting the

victim. According to one of the specialized judges, in many

cases prosecutors base their charges on ``two or three lines

from what the defendant in Justice and Peace says.''

Given the lack of additional evidence gathered by

prosecutors, the judges often rely primarily or exclusively

on paramilitaries' accounts to determine the motive for the

crime.

Paramilitaries' confessions frequently seek to justify

trade unionist killings as counter-insurgency operations,

claiming that their victims were guerrilla collaborators.

Consequently, a substantial share of judgments for trade

unionist killings have identified the victims' alleged links

to guerrilla groups as the motive behind the killings.

Yet, there are good reasons to suspect that in many cases

the paramilitaries label the victims as guerrilla

collaborators to disguise the true reasons for the killing.

By offering defendants the same reduced sentence no matter

how many abuses they admit to, the Justice and Peace Law

provides paramilitaries with extraordinary incentives to

confess to all of their crimes. But when it comes to

testifying about their accomplices--who may have ordered

trade unionist killings for their own political or economic

interests--paramilitaries often have strong incentives to

keep silent and justify the murders as part of their anti-

guerrilla campaign. As revealed by several recent judicial

investigations and news reports, there are credible

allegations that paramilitaries have been repeatedly bribed

or pressured to conceal the criminal activity of their

political and economic allies. In cases involving collusion

with powerful individuals, paramilitaries and their family

members could face severe reprisals should they expose their

accomplices.

In some court rulings, judges have found reason to doubt

the veracity of paramilitaries' anti-guerrilla justifications

for the killings. For example, in one recent ruling against

paramilitaries who claimed that the union leader had been

killed because he was a guerrilla collaborator, the judge

wrote that it appeared the group had been paid to murder the

victim because of his union activity, noting that: ``The

excuse provided by the [defendants] regarding the motive of

the killing . . . seems to actually be a form of hiding the

existence of a particular interest to silence the victim.''

The judgment explicitly described how the prosecutor had

failed to collect key pieces of evidence that would have

helped clarify the motive for the crime. According to

DeJusticia's 2010 study, while 102 of the 271 court rulings

they analyzed identified the trade unionist's alleged

guerrilla ties as the motive for the killing, the judges

explicitly rejected the allegations in nearly half of those

judgments.

Given the inadequacy of investigations, it is impossible at

this point to know how many killings were in fact motivated

by the victims' union activities. What is clear is that

without more thorough investigations, prosecutors will not be

able to determine with an adequate level of certainty whether

or not the crimes were related to the victims' participation

in their union. This is a serious problem in Colombia given

the tendency of some officials and commentators to downplay

anti-union violence by dismissing the attacks as isolated

crimes unrelated to the victims' union affiliation. And worse

still, if court rulings based on paramilitaries'

testimony indicate that the victims were guerrillas, the

stigmatization is confirmed and the risks are worsened for

those who exercise union activity.

Lack of Systematic and Contextualized Investigations

With few exceptions, the sub-unit's prosecutors have not

pursued investigations that take into account the context of

crimes against other members of the victim's union from the

same region and time period, and have often neglected to

conduct serious inquiries into the victim's union activity at

the time of the crime.

Instead, killings have generally been investigated in an

isolated case-by-case manner and without any serious effort

to determine how the crimes might form part of a broader

pattern of anti-union violence. As one top official within

the Attorney General's Office recently told Human Rights

Watch, until now, the sub-unit has treated each case as ``an

island.'' Similarly, in separate interviews, all three

current judges from the specialized courts that handle these

cases told Human Rights Watch that the cases brought to their

courts are investigated as isolated crimes. Victims' lawyers

also said that the sub-unit's failure to draw connections

between killings is one of the fundamental problems with the

investigations.

This serious deficiency in the sub-unit's investigations is

also evident in the judgments in cases of anti-union

violence. According to DeJusticia's 2010 study, a

``systematic approach'' to investigations--defined as taking

the general context of anti-union violence as the starting

point for the investigation--was reflected in five of the 271

court rulings handed down through March 2010.

As a result of this investigative approach, prosecutors

have not been able to identify patterns of crimes that could

lead them to the individuals--including public officials and

employers--who may have ordered, instigated, or otherwise

colluded with armed groups in attacking trade unionists. As

one of the three special judges who handle cases of anti-

union violence said, ``To know what's behind the crimes, if

there was a state policy or company policy or not, there has

to be a macro-investigation. [Prosecutors] have not done

that.'' Another judge specified that the piecemeal

investigations have impeded prosecutors from identifying

intellectual authors: ``It would make more sense to

analyze the historical context of the union and the

criminal organization that operates in the region. But in

reality, [the cases] come [to the courts] as isolated

victims. . . . The investigations have progressed very

little in providing the judges with the context. The

context would help identify intellectual authors.''

This shortcoming is compounded by the sub-unit's failure to

consistently conduct a thorough inquiry into the context of

the victim's union activity at the time of the crime, which

limits prosecutors' ability to establish leads that could

help clarify the motive for the killing and identify

potential suspects. While some prosecutors do make an effort

to look into such activity, two judges we spoke with said

that such rigorous inquiries are not the norm. In our review

of 50 recent convictions in these cases, we found the

majority of the rulings did not refer to the victim's union

activity in the period leading up to the crime. (If the

prosecutors had investigated such activity, a reference to

this line of inquiry should at least appear in the judgment,

according to jurists consulted by Human Rights Watch.) Of the

judgments that did mention the victim's union activity at the

time of the crime, most references were general, suggesting

that no in-depth probe had been undertaken.

Steps Your Office Has Announced To Advance Prosecutions

Based on our meeting last June, we know that your office is

aware of the problems outlined above and has announced some

important initial steps that could help address them.

In terms of increasing the quantity of cases investigated

and prosecuted by the subunit, we were encouraged by the

following measures announced by the Attorney General's

Office:

The addition of 100 judicial police from the Directorate of

Criminal Investigation and Interpol (DIJIN) and planned

incorporation of 14 new prosecutors to the subunit;

Your office's June 2011 memorandum instructing prosecutors

to prioritize cases of trade unionist killings committed

since 2007;

Your office's April 2011 memorandum mandating the early

identification in all new homicide cases of whether the

victim was a union member, which should help ensure that in

the future the sub-unit can immediately open investigations

into these new cases:

Your office's recent transfer of 35 cases of trade unionist

killings from 2009 to the sub-unit.

Your office also has announced measures that could improve

the sub-unit's investigative methodology, such as:

Providing instructions within the April memorandum for

prosecutors to take the urgent steps that will allow them

``to determine the motives for the crime and the causal

relationship between the [homicide] and victim's condition as

a trade unionist'';

Providing instructions within the June memorandum for

prosecutors to analyze cases of trade unionist killings based

on the region where the crimes occurred;

Adding six analysts to the sub-unit who will help identify

links between cases in order to detect patterns of crimes

against trade unionists.

In addition, the current coordinator of the sub-unit told

us in May that the sub-unit has adopted a new methodology

that involves grouping cases not only on the basis of

location, but also based on the victim's union and the

suspected responsible armed group.

Yet, we are concerned that the new methodology has not yet

been effectively implemented. In separate interviews this

May, the prosecutors within the sub-unit appeared to have

very different understandings of how they were expected to

proceed with their investigations. Two prosecutors said that

the sub-unit had not in fact adopted a new methodology.

``There is no policy that comes from the coordinators,'' one

told us. ``The methodology depends on each prosecutor. . .

Investigations are case-by-case. It would be important to

group [cases] by trade union, but it has not been done.''

Other prosecutors mentioned the new investigative policy, but

said that it remains to be carried out in practice.

Furthermore, your office's attempt to implement a

systematic approach is undercut by the sub-unit's limited

caseload and inefficient allocation of investigations among

prosecutors. As discussed above, the sub-unit is not

investigating the majority of reported trade unionist

killings. Consequently, cases from the same union, region,

and time period are often split between the sub-unit and

ordinary local prosecutors. And of those investigations that

have been assigned to the sub-unit, cases involving trade

unionists from the same organization and region have

generally been divided among the office's different

prosecutors.

Recommendations

In order to build on your initial correctives and fully

address the problems identified in this letter, we believe it

is crucial to adopt the following measures:

1) The sub-unit should investigate all reported cases of

killings, enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts

committed against trade unionists. In order to do so, we

recommend the Attorney General's Office:

a) Transfers to the sub-unit all reported cases of

killings, enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts

against trade unionists that are currently assigned to local

prosecutors;

b) Assigns to the sub-unit all future cases of killings,

enforced ``disappearances,'' and homicide attempts against

trade unionists.

2) The sub-unit should implement a policy to conduct

systematic, contextualized and thorough investigations. The

policy should ensure that:

a) Rather than treating each killing as an isolated case,

investigations also examine all other crimes against members

of the same union in the same region and time period to

identify possible connections and patterns of crimes that

could help to determine the motive for the killing, and

identify all the responsible parties;

b) Prosecutors do not rely inordinately on paramilitaries'

confessions to resolve cases, but instead use this testimony

as a starting point to pursue a solid judicial investigation;

c) Prosecutors conduct a thorough inquiry into the victim's

union activity at the time of the crime in order to collect

evidence that could help clarify the motive for the attack

and identify potential suspects;

d) Prosecutors vigorously pursue leads that point to the

possible involvement of state agents and other actors in

crimes against trade unionists.

3) Cases should be distributed among the sub-unit's

prosecutors based on the victim's union and the region where

the crime occurred.

As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, overcoming

ongoing impunity for violence against trade unionists

requires confronting complex challenges. There is an enormous

amount of work to be done, and success will not be achieved

overnight. Yet we also believe that, if your office

rigorously pursues the measures we are recommending here, it

will be possible to make significant progress in prosecuting

these cases and transform the sub-unit into an effective

deterrent to future attacks on trade unionists in Colombia.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California.

In 2009 the number of total murders per capita in the U.S.A. was 5 per 100,000. In Mexico, it was 18.4, and in Colombia it was 37.3. These are all government statistics.

If 23 labor leaders and 29 civil rights leaders and 6 priests were targeted and murdered in Los Angeles so far this year because of their work in the community, I would like to think that the city or the gentleman from California would be up in arms about that. But that's the reality in Colombia.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if Colombia is so safe, then why do 2,000 labor leaders need round-the-clock protection? I mean, if Colombia is so safe, why are there nearly 5 million internally displaced people and over 1 million Colombian refugees in neighboring countries? It is because they're fleeing the violence and civil unrest.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 25 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California.

He mentioned a labor leader, in his remarks before, as saying how wonderful the Labor Action Plan was. I should point out to him that last Monday, on October 3, that same labor leader joined in a press conference with other Colombian unions to express his frustration with the Colombian Government's failure to implement the Labor Action Plan.

I also would point out that the Colombia Labor School also has issued a long statement about how the Colombian Government has failed to enact the Labor Action Plan.

I don't care what the Canadians do. In the United States of America, we're supposed to respect human rights.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, at this point it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

We have the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and then I will close.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington from the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McDermott.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Congress was right in refusing to take up the Colombia FTA when it was signed in 2006. Supporters of the FTA now talk about those years as Colombia's dark past, but they supported the FTA then just as they do now. The House was right to block the FTA in 2008. Supporters then extolled the virtues of the Uribe government, but Colombia's new Attorney General has revealed mind-boggling corruption in every agency of Uribe's government. Criminal acts were the norm.

I believe the Santos government is Colombia's best chance to bring about much needed reforms and institutional change. I want him to succeed, but goodwill is not enough. We have had promises before. We need time to see if good intentions result in concrete change on labor and human rights.

This is Tito Diaz. He was the mayor of El Roble in Sucre. In 2003, he denounced the links between public officials and paramilitaries. For this, he was tortured and murdered. His body was found strung up like a crucifix and shot 11 times--his fingernails ripped out, his knees bludgeoned, and his mayor's I.D. card taped to his forehead.

His son, Juan David, carried on his father's work, leading the victims' movement in Sucre. He survived four assassination attempts but finally fled the country. Others took his place. Since 2006, five more victims' rights leaders in Sucre have been murdered--two this year.

This is the reality for Colombia's human rights defenders, 29 of whom have been killed this year; 51 priests murdered in the past decade, six so far this year. In this violent reality, Colombian workers attempt to exercise their rights.

I ask my colleagues to think about the lives of all the brave labor leaders, human rights defenders, religious and community leaders. Do not turn your backs on them. Demand concrete change on the ground before approving the Colombia FTA. You know that that is the right thing to do. If the United States of America stands for anything, we ought to stand out loud and four-squared for human rights. Let's remember that as we deliberate on the Colombia FTA. It is just wrong to rationalize, or explain away, the human rights situation in Colombia. We are better than that. We should demand more on behalf of the workers and the human rights defenders in Colombia.

Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the Colombia FTA.

A Brief History of the Victims' Rights Movement (MOVICE) in the

Department of Sucre (Colombia)

Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz

1. Biographical Note on Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz

Summary

Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz was the mayor of El Roble

municipality in Sucre Department, Colombia. He was killed for

denouncing the links between public officials and

paramilitary death squads. On the 5th of April 2003, Mr. Diaz

was disappeared, tortured for five days and murdered. His

body was found, strung up like a crucifix. He had been shot

eleven times, his fingernails ripped out and his knees

bludgeoned. On his forehead, the assassins had placed his

mayor's identity card, as a warning to others who would speak

out against the paramilitaries and public officials who

supported them.

Background

Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz was the mayor of El Roble

municipality in Sucre Department, Colombia. He was killed for

denouncing the links between public officials and

paramilitary death squads. After speaking out, he was sacked

and his security detail was withdrawn. He knew that his

actions carried a high price: ``they are going to kill me''

he said, at a televised public meeting on February 1, 2003,

at which he spoke out about the corruption and threats. The

meeting was attended by former president Uribe and then

governor of Sucre, Salvador Arana Sus, whom Mr. Diaz had

publicly denounced. Two months later, on April 5, 2003, Mr.

Diaz was called to a meeting by governor Arana, colonel

Norman Leon Arango (the former Police Chief of Sucre), Alvaro

Garcia Romero (former Senator, sentenced for his role in the

Chengue massacre and for his links to paramilitaries), Jaime

Gil Ortega (former Inspector General of Sucre), Guillermo

Merlano Martinez (former Inspector General of Sucre) and Eric

Morris Taboada (former governor of Sucre during 1997-2001,

sentenced for his links with paramilitary groups). On his way

to that meeting, Mr. Diaz was disappeared, tortured for five

days and murdered. On April 10th, his body was found, strung

up like a crucifix. He had been shot eleven times, his

fingernails ripped out and his knees bludgeoned. The ulcer in

his stomach showed that he had been deprived of food and

water. On his forehead, the assassins had placed his mayor's

identity card, as a warning to others who would speak out

against the paramilitaries and politicians who supported

them.

Mr. Diaz' son, Juan David, carried on his father's work. He

has survived four assassination attempts and received over 20

death threats. The day his father was killed, he received his

first death threat. Soon after, governor Arana was named

ambassador to Chile by president Uribe. Mr. Arana is

currently serving a 40-year sentence for Mr. Diaz' murder. At

least 12 of the witnesses in the case have been killed.

2. Prosecutions for Assassination of Eudaldo ``Tito'' Diaz

Salvador Arana Sus, former governor of Sucre, sentenced to

40 years for forced disappearance, aggravated homicide with

political motives, and promotion of illegal armed groups. He

had been appointed by former president Uribe as ambassador to

Chile 2003-2005.

Angel Miguel Berrocal Doria alias ``El Cocha,'' a

paramilitary, sentenced to 37 years for homicide.

Rodrigo Antonio Mercado Pelufo, alias ``Cadena,'' head of

the paramilitary group Heroes de los Montes de Maria,

sentenced in absentia to 40 years for aggravated homicide and

simple kidnapping.

Emiro Jose Correa alias ``Convivir'' and Jose Tomas Torres

alias ``Orbitel,'' known paramilitaries who allegedly carried

out governor Sus' instruction to kill Mr. Diaz, were absolved

in 2011. Diana Luz Martinez, former director of the La Vega

prison, who allegedly enabled the paramilitaries to leave the

prison where they were detained in order to carry out the

assassination, was absolved of all charges.

The paramilitaries Edelmiro Anaya, alias ``El Chino,''

Carlos Verbel Vitola, alias ``Caliche,'' Wilson Anderson

Atencia, alias ``El Gafa'' and Jhon Ospino, alias ``Jhon''

are also under investigation. Coronel Norman Leon Arango,

then police chief of Sucre, has been formally linked to the

assassination.

3. Members of MOVICE Assassinated (Nationwide)

Thirteen members of MOVICE have been assassinated since the

movement was created in 2005. Five of those were in the

Department of Sucre:

1. Garibaldi Berrio Bautista, MOVICE Sucre, 10 April 2007

2. Jose Dionisio Lozano Torralvo, MOVICE Sucre, 12 August

2007

3. Carlos Burbano, MOVICE Caqueta, 8 March 2008

4. Luis Mayusa Prada, MOVICE Arauca, 8 August 2008

5. Walberto Hoyos, MOVICE Choco, 14 October 2008

6. Carlos Rodolfo Cabrera, MOVICE Arauca, 28 November 2008

7. Carmenza Gomez Romero, MOVICE Bogota, 4 February 2009

8. Jhonny Hurtado, MOVICE Meta, 15 March 2010

9. Nilson Ramirez, MOVICE Meta, 7 May 2010

10. Rogelio Martinez, MOVICE Sucre, 18 May 2010

11. Oscar Maussa, MOVICE Choco, 24 November 2010

12. Eder Verbel Rocha, MOVICE Sucre, 23 March 2011

13. Ana Fabricia Cordoba, MOVICE Antioquia, 7 June 2011

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be permitted to file a supplemental report to accompany House Resolution 425.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 425 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for debate purposes only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

General Leave

I would also like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

On November 6 of 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President of the United States. In that speech, he envisaged an accord of free trade among the Americas. He wanted to eliminate all barriers for the free flow of goods and services and products among all of the countries in this hemisphere.

On October 3 of 2011, President Obama sent three trade agreements to Capitol Hill for consideration. It has been a long time. I mean, 32 years, I guess, this coming November 6 we will mark the anniversary of President Reagan announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and of which he envisaged this accord.

It has been a very, very difficult struggle to get here; but, Mr. Speaker, today marks the first step in this last leg of what, as I said, has been an extraordinarily lengthy journey towards the passage of our three free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

For 4 years, workers and consumers in the United States and in all three FTA countries have waited for the opportunities that these agreements will create. Republicans and Democrats alike--and let me underscore that again. Republicans and Democrats alike have worked very hard to bring us to this point. We have done so, first and foremost, for the sake of job creation and economic growth.

We're regularly hearing discussion on both sides of the aisle about the imperative of creating jobs and getting our economy on track. The President of the United States delivered a speech here to a joint session of Congress in which he talked about the need to pass his jobs bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important component of that proposal that the President talked about when he was here. So, as I hear a great deal of discussion about a lack of willingness on Capitol Hill to address the President's jobs bill, it's not an ``all or nothing'' thing. We are taking the very, very important components that the President has proposed addressing. We've worked in a bipartisan way, and this measure before us is evidence of that.

As I said, the passage of these agreements will allow us to have an opportunity to create good jobs for union and nonunion Americans who are seeking job opportunities. Together, these agreements will give U.S. workers, businesses, farmers access to $2 trillion of economic activity; and our union and nonunion workers, our farmers and people across this country will have access to 97 million consumers in these three countries.

President Obama, in his address here, made it very clear and has said repeatedly that the independent International Trade Commission has said that, in the coming months, we will add a quarter of a million new jobs right here in the United States of America--again, union and nonunion jobs. The independent International Trade Commission has projected that we will see a quarter of a million--250,000--new jobs for our fellow Americans seeking job opportunities.

I don't need to explain to anyone in this place why this is so critical for our ailing economy, but those of us who have joined together to finally pass these agreements are working towards something that is even bigger. We are working to restore the bipartisan consensus on the issue of open trade. Eradicating partisan politics from the debate on global economic liberalization and returning to a bipartisan consensus is essential in our quest to move our economy forward. These three agreements are enormously important; but, Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, there is still much work that remains to be done.

Now, I understand that the opponents of economic liberalization are very well-intentioned, and I don't fault them. I will say that, as we all know very well, we're in the midst of deeply troubling economic times. It's easy. We all want to look somewhere to point the finger of blame, and trade is a natural target. I mean, I often argue that I still have constituents in southern California who, when they get a hangnail, blame the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trade is a natural target for frustration and anxiety, and we've seen that time and time again. And I know that there are people who believe that passage of these trade agreements which, according to the ITC, would create 250,000 new jobs right here in the United States of America, is, in fact, a bad thing. Trade is the wrong target, Mr. Speaker.

The worldwide marketplace, as we all know, is a big, dynamic, and complex operation. It offers tremendous opportunity for those who engage and tremendous peril for those who follow the isolationist path. Those who innovate, who aggressively pursue new ideas and new opportunities are able to compete and succeed. The U.S. has proven this time and time again. The American entrepreneurial spirit has enabled us to not just succeed, but, as we all know, we are the largest, most dynamic economy on the face of the Earth. These agreements will allow us to reaffirm and strengthen that.

We all know this, Mr. Speaker: Our country, the United States of America, is the birthplace of Google and Facebook, of Ford and IBM, of Caterpillar and Whirlpool, and of Coca-Cola and eBay. Unfortunately, over the last several years, while the three free trade agreements have languished, the United States of America has stood still. We've let countless opportunities pass us by. We've let our competitors chip away at our market share. If we compete, the United States of America wins. If we compete, we win.

But what happens when we take ourselves out of the game, which has been the case for the last several years? We've literally taken ourselves out of the game of breaking down barriers, allowing for the free flow of goods and services and capital. What happens? We lose jobs. We lose market share, and we lose our competitive edge.

Now, I'm not going to say that we would not have gone through the terrible economic downturn that we've suffered over the past few years if we had, several years ago, passed these trade agreements. Negotiations began back in 2004 for these agreements. If we had stepped up to the plate, I am absolutely convinced that we would have mitigated the pain and suffering that our fellow Americans are going through with this ailing economy that we have.

Getting our economy back on track and reasserting our American leadership role in the worldwide marketplace will require far more than simply passing these free trade agreements, but it's a key and very important step. The agreements will open new markets for workers and job creators here in the United States; and perhaps even more important, it will send a signal to the world that the United States of America is back open for business.

The United States of America is once again choosing to shape the global marketplace rather than to allow ourselves to be shaped by it. Because, Mr. Speaker, if we don't shape the global marketplace, we will continue to be shaped by that global marketplace. We will also send a very powerful message to our allies that the United States of America is living up to its commitments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is utterly shameful that we have forced three close friends of the United States--two of our own neighbors right here in the Americas and one in an extraordinarily strategic region--to wait for 4 long years. It is shameful that we have forced these friends and allies, who negotiated in good faith with us for these agreements, to wait as long as they have.

One of the things we've observed is that the world has taken note. Our would-be negotiators--not only on trade agreements but on other issues as well--our would-be trade partners and negotiating partners, as I said, on issues beyond trade have taken note.

I don't believe that our credibility will be immediately restored with the passage of these free trade agreements, but we will at least begin the process. We will begin the process of demonstrating credibility on the part of the United States. We will signal that the U.S. is recommitting itself to its partnerships, that our word at the negotiating table can be trusted.

Very sadly, over the past several years, our partners could come to no other conclusion than that our word cannot be trusted at the negotiating table because of action that was taken here a few years ago, rejecting an opportunity for consideration of these agreements.

Mr. Speaker, this rule puts in place a lengthy debate process, during which the tremendous economic and geopolitical benefits of these three trade agreements will be discussed, and the misinformation surrounding these agreements will be able to be refuted. That's why I think this is a very important debate. It's vitally important that we have this debate so that the facts can get on the table and the ability to refute specious arguments can be put forward. And that's what's going to happen this evening and tomorrow leading up to the votes that we are going to cast.

This rule provides also for the consideration of Trade Adjustment Assistance, a modest program that has helped to build that bipartisan consensus that I have been talking about and I believe is essential to our economic recovery. Now, I don't believe that the TAA program is perfect. Meaningful reforms have been incorporated. And most important, Mr. Speaker, the passage of Trade Adjustment Assistance will, in turn, help us not just pass the FTAs, but it will help us maintain what I have had as a goal going back two decades ago when we put together a trade working group that has had bipartisan participation. It will allow us to rebuild the bipartisan consensus that I think is so important. That will send a powerful message to the markets, to job creators, to workers in this country, to Americans who are seeking job opportunities, and it will send a very important message to our allies and we hope future allies throughout this world.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to come together in a strong bipartisan way and support the rule that will allow us to have a very, very rigorous debate on the underlying agreements and Trade Adjustment Assistance.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that Colombia has gone through incredible tragedy over the past several years. It has been absolutely horrible. And the suffering that my colleague from Worcester has just shown is very, very disturbing. But I think we should note that we have seen an 85 percent decline in the murder rate. In fact, there are cities in this country that have a higher murder rate than exist in Colombia today.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

We also should make it very, very clear that it is safer to be a union member and union leader in Colombia because of the protection that's provided by the government than to be the average citizen. Let's solidify those gains, and that's exactly what these agreements will do.

With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very, very thoughtful individual committed to the trade agenda,

my good friend from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that free trade is fair trade. And it's interesting to note that the United Auto Workers supports the agreement that exists. I totally concur with my friend from Rochester in arguing, Mr. Speaker, that we must enforce the agreements that we have, including on intellectual property issues.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to one of our thoughtful, hardworking new Members, the gentleman from Fowler, Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say that we are going to respond to some of these arguments that have been made.

First, Colombia is not the safest place in the world. I'm the first to acknowledge that. There are terrible, terrible problems there. We've been dealing with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC, the paramilitaries, and serious, serious problems that have existed in Colombia. No one is trying to whitewash or dismiss the serious challenges that exist there. But it's important to note that nearly 2,000 labor leaders in Colombia, Mr. Speaker, have around-the-

clock bodyguards protecting them. And in Colombia, it is safer to be a unionist than it is the average citizen.

So I'm not saying that things are perfect. No one is making that claim. But when we've seen an 85 percent decrease in the murder rate since 2002, when we've seen more murders take place--tragically--in some of our cities than have taken place in some areas of Colombia, that is something that has to be seen as progress.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker, to say that I believe we can, in a bipartisan way, work to address these very important issues. And we are going to do just that. We are going to ensure that this kind of agreement effectively addresses these problems.

My friend, Mr. Farr, and I have sat together in the Office of the Fiscalia in Colombia, in Bogota.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

We have sat and painstakingly, with several other of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, gone through these pending cases to bring about a resolution on this issue; and in just a few minutes, I'm going to be yielding to my friend, Mr. Farr, to talk specifically about this and the challenges we have.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who represents what she calls the gateway to the Americas. I think Los Angeles comes pretty close to that too. But Miami, Mr. Speaker, is the gateway to the Americas, and they are very ably represented by our colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it's obvious that Colombia is not a safe place. I'm not claiming that at all. There have been murders that have taken place and it still is a very dangerous spot. But it's important to note that a Mr. Gomez, who is the leader of one of the three main labor organizations in Colombia, has said that the labor agreements included in this package are the single greatest achievement for social justice in the last 50 years of Colombia's history.

We still have a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. We still have a long way to go, but progress is being made.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend that we have been debating this issue since the negotiations began in 2004. Time and time again on this House floor, we've had very rigorous debates on these agreements. And I will acknowledge, we do have problems with job creation and economic growth.

What this measure does, Mr. Speaker, is it eliminates the barrier for union and nonunion workers and farmers in this country to have access to new markets.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

On August 15, because we had done nothing, our Colombian friends negotiated a free trade agreement with the Canadians, with our good friends to the north, the Canadians.

And guess what, Mr. Speaker. In literally 1 month, there was an 18\1/ 2\ percent increase in Canadian wheat exports to Colombia. This is the kind of opportunity that we've been prevented from having, and we've been debating this for 5 years. It's high time that we vote, and that's exactly what we're going to do, after hours of debate, both tonight and tomorrow.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that my friend from Illinois is absolutely right: Colombia is not a safe place. But we have seen an 85 percent reduction since 2002 in the murder rate among trade unionists. It's not perfect and it still is a very dangerous place, but that is progress.

I'd also like to say to my friend from Worcester--and I appreciate the fact that he didn't say it--Mr. Gomez is still supportive of the Colombia-U.S. free trade agreement that he mentioned in his remarks. And I think that he voiced frustration over the implementation of agreements. That's something that takes place in a free society. That's something we see here regularly and there regularly. Implementation of this will help with that enforcement.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, how many speakers he has remaining on his side?

I have a couple of speakers. How much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the bipartisan nature of this, and to stress that, and being the only one who will yield time to Democrats who are in support of these agreements, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend and a man with whom I have spent time in Colombia on numerous occasions and will in just a few weeks, the gentleman from Carmel, California, a Peace Corps volunteer who served four decades ago in Colombia and knows about it as well as anyone, Mr. Farr.

At this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to a very, very strong free trader, a bold and courageous friend from New York City, Mr. Meeks.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I'd like to get the debate back to where it was. We have before us four pending issues. We have trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, South Korea, and we have the very important trade adjustment assistance.

Mr. Speaker, our fellow Americans are hurting. Job creation and economic growth is something that Democrats and Republicans alike are talking about. I was listening to the words of one of the protest leaders up in New York. This guy was saying that the protests are about economic and social justice, and he said working class Americans can no longer be ignored.

Now, this measure that is before us, according to the International Trade Commission, will create 250,000 new jobs here in the United States of America. I argue that, if we had had these agreements in place, the pain that so many of our fellow Americans are feeling at this moment would not be as great as it has been because, for half a decade, these agreements have been languishing, waiting to be considered.

The last two speakers I yielded to happen to be Democrats. I am very proud of having worked closely together with Sam Farr and Gregory Meeks on these agreements. There are lots of other people who have been involved and who have worked tirelessly for years. Over the last two decades, I've had a working group that I started with former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, going all the way up now to working with Dave Camp and Kevin Brady and Wally Herger and others. There have been many people who have been involved in working with this. Democrats have joined with our bipartisan trade working group because there are Democrats and Republicans who want us to get back to the bipartisan approach to our global leadership role. They want to open up markets around the world for the United States of America; and with the passage of these three agreements, we're going to have access to $2 trillion of economic activity and to 97 million consumers.

Mr. Speaker, we need to support this rule. We're going to have debate going into this evening, and we're going to have debate throughout the day tomorrow. Let's support the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot state strongly enough I am vigorously opposed to the three free trade bills that we are considering today.

On behalf of the businesses and workers of western New York, I implore my colleagues to vote against today's free trade but not fair trade bills and put an end to the era of giveaway trade.

None of the free trade bills we voted on in the last 20 years, including these bills today, were designed to protect American manufacturing and American jobs. They were designed to protect multinational corporations operating in the towers of New York, London, and Shanghai. These companies could care less where their goods are made as long as we allow them to sell them all over the world. As American legislators, we have different responsibilities. We must care where goods are made. We must do everything we can to ensure they are made in the U.S.A.

I think many people would be shocked to know that there is little in the current trade agreement to prevent our own trading partners from developing new regulations that we have done all these years making it harder for us to sell our goods in their countries. Using nontariff barriers, they could place a dozen arbitrary restrictions on American- made cars, and they do in order to stop Chevy, Ford, and GM from being sold in South Korea. Do you know how many car dealers sell American cars in Korea? Twenty-six. I imagine most major cities in the United States have 26 car dealers who sell Korean cars in their city alone. There's something wrong with that picture. This is not free-flowing trade. We are restricted, but under these proposed free trade agreements, we can't do a thing to make sure that our companies are treated fairly. And they call it a good deal.

Currently, nontariff barriers are playing a vital role in preventing U.S.-made cars from being sold in Japan. According to the American Auto Council, for every one car that the U.S. exports to Japan, Japan exports at least 180 vehicles to the United States. That's 1 to 180. U.S. auto exports to Japan were limited to 8,000 cars last year. That's all we could sell in all of Japan. The USTR says, A variety of nontariff barriers have traditionally impeded access to Japan's automobile and automotive parts market. Overall sales of U.S.-made vehicles remain low, which is a serious concern.

But despite that, what they think with that hand, the government's left hand, the government's right hand is going to sign more trade bills that do exactly the same thing.

It is an action, as far as I'm concerned, that defies common sense. Instead of wasting our time voting for a bad trade bill, I have introduced a bill that will legally ensure a fair playing field for American manufacturers. It's H.R. 1749. The Reciprocal Market Access Act would require both the U.S. Government to consider tariff and non- tariff barriers when negotiating a trade agreement with another country and not reduce our tariffs until that has been done. This approach would guarantee that American manufacturers have the same opportunity as foreign competition to sell their goods around the world.

If a foreign country is caught trying to stop the sale of American-made goods, we have a ``snap-back'' provision which will stop the free trade agreement.

It's a no-nonsense approach. It is bipartisan in the House. It has been endorsed by Corning; Hickey-Freeman; Hart Schaffner Marx; Globe Specialty Metals; American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition; the AFL-CIO; the United Steelworkers; and the Auto Workers, even though they are the only union that will benefit somewhat by the Korean pact.

Congress needs to wake up, and we need to make countries like China and Germany see who's going to dominate the green manufacturing for generations to come. We have just about lost that great thing we pioneered here. Over and over again we have waited and watched. And the most recent ones that trouble me so much is General Electric giving away the intellectual property on airplane engines to China and GM forced to give over the technology of the Volt to be able to sell there.

Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We're not going to maintain a superpower status as long as all we can do is give each other haircuts and serve each other dinner. We've got to make things here at home so that our businesses can finally benefit by some fair trade.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, one of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to promote

and protect American jobs and values. When it comes to trade, jobs and values go hand-in-hand. To promote American jobs, we must promote American values. We do this by ensuring that our workers are protected from unfair competition with countries that keep wages artificially low by repressing essential democratic rights: the right to speak out, the right to organize, the right to bargain, the right for a better life without fear of reprisals.

And so as we now consider the trade agreement with Colombia, what do you get when you exercise your rights in Colombia today? You get death threats and death squad activities against you and your families. Colombia is the most dangerous place on Earth for workers who dare to exercise their rights. During the last Colombian President's 8 years in office, 570 union members were assassinated. To date, only 10 percent of the thousands of killings over the last 25 years have been resolved.

The problems here are undeniable. So I appreciate that the U.S. and the Colombia Governments have finally brought labor rights into the equation. They have agreed to a Labor Action Plan requiring Colombia to change some labor laws and to commit more resources to fight the violence and impunity.

But that plan is fatally flawed. It only demands results on paper. It does not demand real change. Colombia could have a record year for assassinations and still meet the requirements of the plan. Sure enough, real change is yet to come to Colombia. Since President Santos took office last year, press reports indicate at least 38 trade unionists have been murdered--16 since the Labor Action Plan was announced.

In mid-June of this year, I met with a Port Workers Union leader from Colombia in my office about his concerns with the free trade agreement. He told me that he was not provided protection and that the abusive cooperative system was still in place despite commitments made by the Colombian Government to remedy both. In July, I spoke directly to his concerns on the floor of the House. And 2 weeks later, this leader received death threats via text message. The message said, ``If you continue to create problems and denounce things, you will die in a mortuary union.''

It's under these conditions that we are asked to approve this deal. If we approve the deal now, any incentive for Colombia to truly improve will vanish. Now is not the time to reward violence with impunity with the seal of approval from the United States. The deal with Colombia is neither fair nor free. Telling Colombian workers that if they speak out for higher wages, they will die--that's not freedom. Telling American workers to compete with that kind of repression--that's not fair to our workers or our values.

Stand for American values, and reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I look forward to this debate.

As was said, I lived in Colombia, and I have a different perspective than a lot of people. First of all, I think we have to put in perspective that the Latin American market is important to the United States. If you take Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, just three countries, they equal the entire European trade, and they exceed the trade with Japan and China. It's a very important market.

Colombia is a country that you have heard a lot about, particularly on crime. And as you remember, there is big, big drug production and a lot of crime, particularly paramilitaries who have killed a lot of labor leaders. But what has not been stated is that Colombia is one of the few countries in the world that keeps track of crimes against people who happen to be unionists, not necessarily that they are killed because they are unionists, but because they are killed and they happen to be a member of a union. So they have this data. We don't do that in the United States.

Colombia has set up a separate ministry just to handle labor crimes and put those judges, prosecutors, investigators, and everybody in place in every single one of the departments or states in Colombia. We don't do that in the United States.

Colombia has created a protection system for unionists, including people who want to form unions, who want to advocate for unions, teachers, and retirees of unions who may be threatened because of their activity in unions. We don't do that in the United States. They have all set up a hotline, full disclosure, and you can do that anonymously. You can either email in or you can call in anonymously to the government reporting any labor violations. We don't do that in a national way here in the United States. So there are a lot of issues here that we ought to recognize when we're talking about Colombia.

But I think most of all we've got to talk about this in terms of American jobs. We sell a lot of things that we make here in America to Colombia. Let's take Caterpillar, for example. Canada has just adopted a free trade agreement. Europe is about to adopt a free trade agreement with Colombia. And we're not going to have one. That means our goods are going to be more expensive in Colombia. They're not going to buy from us. We're going to lose the market share. Caterpillar will be out of business. They'll be buying that heavy equipment from Europe, they'll be buying it from Brazil, and they'll be buying it from Canada--countries that have entered into a free trade agreement.

Let's preserve American jobs and let's think about American jobs. This is a huge exporter. In my district alone, it's the number one country in Latin America that we export produce to. So it's an important country to us.

Let the debate begin. The debate can't begin without passing the rule.