Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3078) to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3079) to implement the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3080) to implement the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

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.

Madam Speaker, the Colombia FTA is bad for American workers, bad for jobs, and bad for Colombian workers, small farmers, and human rights defenders. Colombia is still a country in conflict that affects thousands every year. We know Colombia is the deadliest place in the world to be a trade unionist, but it also suffers from over 4 million internally displaced, second only to Sudan. Over 1 million Colombians are refugees in neighboring countries. They are fleeing terrifying, crippling violence from paramilitaries, guerrillas, and even Colombia's own army. And after these people leave, drug traffickers, criminals, and wealthy interests come in and they take over.

This FTA will only increase that vicious cycle. Nearly every study done asserts that the FTA will push even more small farmers off their land. They will either be forced to join the ranks of the displaced, grow coca or join the guerrillas or paramilitaries just to feed their families. They won't be buying American goods, Madam Speaker.

And when Colombian workers have no rights, then there's no level playing field for American workers, and that costs jobs. This FTA is set up to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's the last thing Colombia's workers, farmers, and human rights defenders need.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me ask my colleagues in this Chamber, do human rights matter anymore? If so, we should not be debating this FTA today. We should be waiting until we see real, honest-to-goodness results on the ground in terms of improvements of human rights. When it comes to human rights, Madam Speaker, the United States of America should not be a cheap date. We should stand firm, and we should be unabashed in our support for human rights.

Madam Speaker, that is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this FTA agreement.

[From Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 10, 2011]

Free Trade: The Big Lie--We Should Stop Making Trade Agreements That

Hurt Workers

(By Daniel Kovalik)

On March 10, 2010, former President Bill Clinton made this

stunning confession to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

regarding his free trade policies in Haiti:

``It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas,

but it has not worked. It was a mistake. I had to live every

day with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce

a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I

did; nobody else.''

Even more surprisingly, Mr. Clinton, one of the founding

fathers of the modern free trade agreement, admitted that

this type of trade policy ``failed everywhere it's been

tried. . . .'' Truer words have never been spoken. And yet,

even in the face of such a confession, and in the face of

incontrovertible facts, the U.S. Congress is poised to pass

not just one, but three new free trade agreements--with

Colombia, South Korea and Panama--of the very type that Mr.

Clinton now loses sleep over.

So, what are the facts?

Let's start with the mother of all free trade agreements--

the North American Free Trade Agreement--the one which Mr.

Clinton had promised would create jobs in the United States

but which presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack

Obama ran from in 2008, claiming that it needed fixing. And

fixing it surely needs. According to the Economic Policy

Institute, nearly 900,000 (mostly high-paying) U.S. jobs were

lost to NAFTA between 1993 and 2002 alone.

Meanwhile, Mexico has fared even worse. Indeed, the same

devastation Mr. Clinton's policies wrought in Haiti have been

experienced in Mexico. Thus, the agricultural provisions of

NAFTA--almost identical to those contained in the Colombia

Free Trade Agreement now being considered--cost the

livelihood and land of 1.3 million small farmers in Mexico.

Where did these small farmers go? Many are being forced to

emigrate to the United States. Indeed, while small farmers

make up a relatively small percentage of the Mexican

population, they make up around 40 percent of Mexicans

immigrating into the United States. Still others have been

pushed into the illicit drug trade--the very drug trade the

United States purports to fight there.

Meanwhile, the good industrial jobs lost in the United

States under NAFTA never translated into good jobs in Mexico.

Rather, NAFTA created low-paying, dangerous and

environmentally damaging industries on the other side of the

border which have devastated Mexican workers and their

communities. One only need look at Juarez, Mexico--the city

that was to be a model of development under NAFTA and which

instead is experiencing violence at wartime levels, with

4,300 civilians murdered in the last two years out of a

population of 2 million.

Again, it was NAFTA and the ``free trade'' principles it

embodied which have done this, which have transformed Mexico

into the near failed state it is today.

This now brings us to the Colombia FTA--the one I know most

about and which represents the biggest concern for labor and

human rights advocates.

When running for office, President Obama took a principled

stance against the Colombia FTA, echoing the concerns of

labor that we shouldn't enter into a free trade agreement

with Colombia in light of its abysmal labor and human rights

situation. As Mr. Obama explained, ``We have to stand for

human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't

being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to

organize for their rights.''

The rationale behind this stance continues to this day,

with 51 unionists killed in Colombia in 2010 and 23 killed so

far this year, allowing Colombia to retain its dubious

distinction as the most dangerous country in the world in

which to be a trade unionist. In addition to unionists, human

rights defenders, indigenous and Afro-Colombian leaders, and

Catholic priests defending the poor are also targeted in

Colombia. This year alone, six Catholic priests have been

murdered in Colombia.

Meanwhile, according to Colombia's own prosecutor general,

right-wing paramilitaries aligned with the Colombian state

have murdered more than 170,000 civilians over the past 15

years. Of these, around 50,000 have ``disappeared.'' Yet this

is a country to which the United States may give special

trade preferences.

The Colombia FTA, while costing the United States an

estimated 55,000 net jobs, according to the Economic Policy

Institute, would wreak further havoc in Colombia. The

agricultural policies that devastated Haiti and Mexico--those

allowing the United States to dump cheap, subsidized food

into those countries--would be applied to Colombia. This

would lead to the impoverishment and dislocation of hundreds

of thousands of small farmers in Colombia, many of whom would

join the ranks of the 5 million internally displaced persons

in Colombia--the largest internally displaced population in

the world.

In short, free trade has never worked as promised and it

will not work now. But sadly, like the false prophets of a

bad religion, those holding the reins of power in the United

States continue to push ``free trade'' policies despite all

the evidence that they have failed. These false prophets

exhort us to believe in the magical force of the ``invisible

hand'' of the ``free market'' to save us, all the while

giving real and visible aid to corporations and Wall Street

banks even as they tell working people to keep tightening

their belts. It is time that these lies and these bad

economic and trade policies be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, finally we come to the most important of the bills that we're going to deal with tonight. This should have been the first bill. This should have been dealt with a long time ago--back in February when it expired--because this is a bill that extends two programs that have had strong bipartisan support in the past, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the Generalized System of Preferences program.

When the leadership in the Senate decided that the only thing that they were going to do was stop President Obama from having a second term, they recognized this trade issue was a very sensitive one, and the most sensitive issue was what does it do to American workers. Do we help people that are displaced when jobs go overseas or just disappear generally? Then are we going to help our workers? And the Democrats said we've got to do that. If we don't do that, nothing else is going to happen. Finally, the Republican leadership in the Senate said, well, okay. Because we want something, we'll finally give a little something to the workers. You've heard the reductions that have been made.

This bill started in 1962 under John Kennedy, and it was done to help workers who were laid off because of increased competition in trade. In 2009, we finally had a reform with bipartisan support. The Congress made significant changes in TAA, many of which were made to deal with past criticisms of the bill. It wasn't enough; it didn't help people. It needed health care benefits. There were a lot of things that were problematic since 1962.

When the Recovery Act became the vehicle in 2009, TAA was put on it. There was never any expectation that it would just disappear in 2011. Senator Grassley, a nice conservative, solid Republican Senator from Iowa said: ``Today's achievement is the culmination of years of effort, and I'm confident the result will serve to benefit American workers in Iowa and across the United States for years to come.'' Not ending in 2011--for years to come. Don't forget those words. And yet the House leadership made the unfortunate choice to let those critical reforms expire last winter.

Washington State workers benefited immensely from those 2009 reforms. In fact, in the past couple of years, 35 percent of all of the workers certified for TAA in Washington State were certified under the new eligibility criteria, including the expansion of work programs to cover service workers. Today's bill protects and preserves the integrity of the TAA program and the 2009 reforms and provides trade-impacted workers with the support they need to get back on their feet.

Now when you lose a job, it used to be unemployment was sort of set up, if your construction job went away because it was wintertime, you went on unemployment insurance. And springtime came back and the job came back, and away you went. In this economy, the jobs go away, and they don't come back. So you have to learn some new skill to make a living for your family. Now that concept is one we should have for all workers in this country, not just for those affected by trade.

Workers in Washington and all across the country have suffered because of the delay in the implementation of this bill.

This bill also extends the General Systems of Preferences program, which is the oldest of the U.S. assistance programs for our businesspeople in this country. It's played an important role in our Nation's trade and development efforts for decades.

Sometimes I ask myself if anybody on the Republican side ever had anything to do with a business. I'm not a

businessman, but I know that the most important thing for a businessman or businesswoman is to be able to plan, to know that the program is going to be there and that you can quote a price to somebody because you know it will be there. But the GSP program, which has been important to a lot of our small businesses, has simply been unreliable because the Republican leadership couldn't seem to figure out how to extend something that has been bipartisan for years.

U.S. workers as well as businesses have relied on GSP. About 65 to 70 percent of U.S. imports under GSP are imports used to support U.S. manufacturing. We're getting things from outside to bring into this country. As a result of the delay in extending GSP in the U.S. and in developing countries that rely on these preferences, the business deals have ended. There have been all kinds of problems. We hear about them in our office from our little businesses in our district.

Now we are finally considering this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass it. I understand that the Senate is, tomorrow, going to pass; it at exactly the same time as we pass it in here. It will be a historic moment that we extend a program that started as bipartisan in 1962. It is essential that we as a Congress think about our workers and their jobs. We're not worried about the rest of the world.

A big problem in this country is that we haven't paid attention to our workers and what happens to them when they lose their jobs. They have unemployment maybe for 99 weeks. We haven't extended unemployment benefits either. That's another issue hanging around here that's going to ultimately hurt our workers. The leadership on the other side knows it. Why do they sit there and dangle our workers that way? Why do you want to make them angry and upset and uncertain?

You watch the Tea Party in the street, you watch what's going on down on Wall Street, you've got to say to yourself, There's something brewing out there. And if you don't deal with unemployment insurance and what happens to workers, we are going to have a very turbulent year in the next year.

I urge all Members to vote for this.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 3078) to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Camp, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control the time.

Thank you, Chairman Camp, for your leadership on trade and, really, your critical role of working across the aisle and with this administration to finally bring this free trade agreement and others to the floor.

The world's changed. It's not enough to simply sell American or to buy American anymore. We have to sell American. We have to go out in every corner of this world and sell American products and services and agricultural products. But when we do, we find too much of the world was tilted against us. Too many countries have an America need not apply sign. But these trade agreements change that. They tear that sign down; and with our best trading allies, they level the playing field and create two-way trade, where it's not just sales into America, we get the chance to sell our products and compete for new customers in their country, and that's critical because so much of the world's consumers live outside of America.

This Colombia agreement is critical because, one, Colombia is such a critical ally of ours. As a country, they've made remarkable progress on human rights, labor rights, democracy and rule of law. They fought terrorism to a halt. They've created a much safer country than a decade ago. And, in fact, if they were a company, we would call them the turn- around of the decade.

Colombia is a trusted ally. More important, they're a dynamic economy that wants to trade first with the United States, and that's what this agreement does. It opens the door for over $1 billion of new sales from America into Colombia. It increases our economy by $2.5 billion. It creates new standards that allow, not just our agricultural community, not just our manufacturing community to sell two-way, but creates the standard so that our financial and telecommunications and energy management and accounting, and a whole list of other services, can sell on a standard equal to equal, plug in together so that we can both compete and buy and sell as equal trading partners.

It's critical, too, that we not allow America to fall farther behind. It has been, as Chairman Camp said, nearly 5 years since this agreement has been signed. President Bush signed, I think, a very strong agreement. President Obama, to his credit, continued to work with both sides of the aisle, I think, to put on some preconditions that have been very important to our Democrat Members and to labor.

This agreement has strong bipartisan support, has strong economic support, and is critical for a national security ally like Colombia that we wait no longer; that Congress stand up, Republicans and Democrats together, to pass a bipartisan jobs bill that creates two-way trade, creates real jobs, and strengthens our security relationship with a remarkable ally in our hemisphere.

I strongly support this agreement, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we have finally reached this important moment. Next month we will mark five years since the United States and Colombia signed the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. U.S. workers and job-creating exporters have had to wait for far too long for the President to submit this promising agreement to Congress, but it has now reached the floor--and I look forward to a bipartisan vote to approve the agreement.

This agreement, like our other trade agreements, will create well- paid American jobs without any government spending. I like to call our trade agreements ``Sell American'' agreements because they lower other countries' barriers to American goods and services. More U.S. exports translate into more U.S. jobs. With over 90 percent of consumers living outside our borders, we must look to other markets in order to sell more of our goods and services.

The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the Colombia trade agreement alone will increase U.S. goods exports by $1.1 billion and expand U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 billion. This agreement is all upside for us. Last year, Colombian exporters to the United States paid an average tariff of less than one percent because, under the Andean Trade Preference Act, most Colombian goods entered duty- free. In contrast, U.S. exporters to Colombia paid an average tariff of over eleven percent last year--and now this agreement will eliminate Colombian tariffs on most U.S. exports.

As co-chairman of the Congressional Services Caucus, I should also note that this trade agreement with Colombia will reduce non-tariff and regulatory barriers and provide expanded market access and increased protections for U.S. services exporters. For example, Colombia estimates that its public infrastructure spending will exceed $55 billion this decade--and our world-class construction, energy, engineering, and other services firms will now have a leg-up in pursuing that work, which will generate substantial economic growth and jobs back home.

The United States has been sitting on the sidelines for far too long. Now we finally have the opportunity to get back in the game, so I ask my colleagues to join me in voting to approve the United States- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, as well as our other two pending agreements.