April 15, 2008

Before I begin tonight, I would like to describe my original intentions for this special order.  I had planned to join tonight with several of my colleagues who have spent time in Colombia.  I had planned to talk about what I have personally witnessed there, and had invited my colleagues to do the same.  I had hoped to make this a bipartisan endeavor, and extended invitations to several of my Democratic colleagues to participate this evening. 

I thought this was important because I knew that when the President sent the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress, a 60-day clock under Trade Promotion Authority would begin.  We would have 60 legislative days to hold a vote on the agreement.  This meant that the House of Representatives would be facing a vote in late July.  That would leave us three months for debate and discussions and education. 

However, despite the ample time granted under TPA, I knew that many of my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, remained deeply ambivalent on the agreement.  For this reason, I had hoped to open the three-month discussion in a bipartisan way by temporarily shifting the focus away from the FTA.  I had hoped that a group of Republicans and Democrats who have gone to Colombia could come together simply to share our experiences and describe what we have seen there. 

I knew that much of the FTA debate would hinge on the current situation in Colombia.  What progress has been made.  What steps the Colombian government is taking.  I wanted this debate to stay grounded in facts and a full understanding of the Colombia of 2008, not a caricature of the Colombia of the past.  I had thought that bipartisan, first-hand testimony would further that goal. 
Unfortunately, the landscape here in the House was drastically altered last week when Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the unprecedented step of changing the rules of the House in order to block a vote on the FTA.  In one fell swoop, she ended three months of substantive, bipartisan deliberation before it even had the chance to begin.  Apparently, she didn’t like her odds in a fair fight, so she changed the rules in the middle of the game. 

The condemnation from around the country came swiftly.  I have control of the floor for an hour, and I could easily fill the entire time simply reading the scathing editorials over the last few days, reproaching the Democratic Leadership for their petulant act.  The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Speaker Pelosi’s own hometown paper the San Francisco Chronicle.  All have very harsh words for the dangerous and unprecedented action that was taken last week. 
I’ll read a few of the highlights. 

The San Francisco Chronicle accuses Speaker Pelosi of “pandering” and “playing politics.”  It points out that the decision to block a vote on the agreement is especially egregious considering she represents a region that heavily depends on exports for its economic competitiveness and job creation, particularly through its ports. 

The LA Times states it very plainly: “Halting the vote wasn’t about the U.S. economy and it wasn’t about Colombia.  It was about politics.”  It points out the FTA creates quite a bind for the Democratic Leadership, because what is good for the party is bad for the country.  It highlights the current imbalance in our trade relationship – we have an open market, yet face barriers in Colombia.  This agreement would level the playing field. 

The New York Times emphasizes not just the economic consequences, but the foreign policy implications as well.  It declares that last week’s actions “reduce the United States’ credibility and leverage in Colombia and beyond,” adding that it “serves human rights in Colombia no good.”  And the New York Times is certainly no knee-jerk supporter of the agreement, having recommended postponing consideration last year. 

The Washington Post was the quickest of all the major papers to condemn Speaker Pelosi’s decision, equating the move to telling Colombia to “drop dead” and calling into question the Democrats’ credibility and judgment. 

The message from around the nation has been clear and unequivocal: the unprecedented rule change was a grave mistake that should be corrected immediately by proceeding with a vote.  The damage described in these editorials is two-fold – economic and international.  I would add an additional level – the institutional damage. 

First, the economic damage.  Through the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress renewed just a few weeks ago, virtually all Colombian goods enter our market duty free.  They have full access to our market, but we don’t get the same treatment.  American goods face an average tariff of 14% in the Colombian market, with agricultural products facing particularly steep barriers. 
These preferences, like all our preference systems, have enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.  And yet the FTA, which would end the imbalance and extend the same preferential treatment for American exports, is opposed by the Democratic Leadership.  It’s a bizarre quirk of American politics that Democrats always support trade as charity.  They’ll gladly give away one-sided trade without a second thought.  But as soon as we propose to make it reciprocal and create a direct benefit for our own workers as well, they cry foul.  To add to the absurdity, they do it in the name of protecting American workers. 

Now we’re in a time of economic slowdown and deep economic anxiety.  You might think we could finally put politics aside and make the rational, logical decision to give American workers equal treatment and promote American exports.  But unfortunately, and bizarrely, that’s apparently not the case.  By blocking a vote on the Colombia FTA, the Democratic Leadership has blocked a clear win for our exports and the workers who produce them. 

The second form of damage that has been done is in the international arena.  Again, we wander into the absurd.  Time and again, I hear my Democratic colleagues decry what they call our diminished standing in the world.  They accuse the Administration of unilateralism and a disregard for our allies.  They say this has hurt our leadership and our credibility in the international community.  And on the presidential campaign trail, they promise to restore our prestige. 
And yet the Democratic Leadership raced to sabotage our relationship with our best and closest ally in South America with reckless abandon.  Following a mere hour of debate, they chose to treat our close democratic friend – in our very own hemisphere – with a, quote, “slap in the face,” as the Colombian Vice President put it.  Or a stab in the back, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal put it. 

Colombian democracy has grown steadily stronger under the courageous leadership of President Uribe.  His popularity has soared above 70%, and stayed there, because he took his country from the brink of a failed state, and put it back on the path of peaceful and prosperous stability.  He has strengthened democratic institutions, not least of which is a Justice Department that has aggressively tackled the culture of impunity for murderers. 

Under Uribe’s presidency crime has plummeted, largely because he has aggressively pursued the naro-terrorist guerrillas and the equally murderous paramilitaries.  The former have been pushed from their strongholds, and the latter have been systematically dismantled and their leadership imprisoned.  The rank and file are beginning the long and difficult process of rehabilitation and reintegration into society with the help of government-funded social programs.  The same has been offered to rank-and-file guerrillas who wish to surrender their arms. 

I had the opportunity to witness the real-world implications of these demobilization efforts when I was in Colombia last August.  Several of my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down with former paramilitary members.  These are young men and women – and I do mean young.  Teenagers in most cases, who had heart-wrenching tales to tell.  We heard from one young man who described his parents’ murder, right before his eyes.  In his grief and anger, he turned to vigilantism.  Like so many Colombians spanning multiple generations, he experienced the horror of violence and turned to violence himself. 

The leaders of these paramilitary groups, like their guerilla counterparts, committed heinous acts of violence and are now paying their debt to society.  As remarkable an achievement as that is, the much harder part is bringing the young men and women, like those whom I met, back into society.  I met them at a vocational training facility, where they are learning the skills that will allow them to provide for themselves and become responsible members of society.  They are learning to leave their violent past behind them, and contribute to a peaceful and prosperous Colombia.  These efforts, undertaken by Uribe’s government, are already serving as a model for other post-conflict countries that have faced the same challenges.

The process of demobilization and reconciliation is not easy.  There is still a great deal of work to be done.  While most paramilitary groups have been dismantled, there are still vigilantes in the jungles.  There are still violent leaders at large that must go to jail.  The guerrilla groups have yet to lay down their arms.  And even as demobilization goes forward, the work of reintegration will take years.  But I saw first-hand that this tough work is being done, and it is being done with great success.

At the same time this transformation has taken place, Colombia has also faced a formidable foe of democracy on its border.  Hugo Chavez has long been working to dismantle democratic institutions and free markets in Venezuela, and to export his authoritarian designs throughout the region.  He has suppressed dissent, trashed the Venezuelan constitution and squashed free enterprise.  He has interfered with the elections of his neighbors and drawn Ecuador and Bolivia into his orbit.  He keeps company with Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. 
His anti-democratic intentions for this hemisphere are no secret, and he is as openly hostile toward the region’s bulwarks of democracy as he is toward the U.S.  Just weeks ago he sent troops to his border with Colombia in a naked act of hostility.  Flush with oil money, Hugo Chavez poses a grave threat to Latin America. 

President Uribe, facing enormous challenges within his own borders, is on the front lines of this ideological battle.  Colombia, under his leadership, is actively countering the influence of Hugo Chavez by acting as a model of the great gains to be made in a free and transparent democracy.  With seemingly little thought for the cause of democracy or U.S. interests, the  Democratic Leadership has disregarded both with last week’s vote.  Only time will tell the extent of the damage to our relationship with Colombia or our struggle to reign in the influence of Hugo Chavez.

The damage to our credibility may be even more durable.  We have now sent a clear message to our partners – our word at the negotiating table is cheap.  And if we don’t like how things are going, we’ll just change the rules in the middle of the game.  The implications extend well beyond trade.  The U.S. is engaged in a great many negotiations on a great many issues.  Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.  Nuclear non-proliferation.  Regional diplomatic efforts for Iraq.  If our word to our close friends can’t be trusted, how will we effectively engage around the globe?  Our credibility and our leadership in the international community can hardly endure when they are so casually disregarded by this body. 

This was the main thrust of the criticism from editorial boards across the country.  But to economic and foreign policy damage, I would add institutional damage.  Ironically, the vote to kill the FTA succeeded because the Democratic Leadership effectively argued to its membership that it was in the House’s interests to do so.  They appealed to institutional and party pride.  I’ve already discussed party pride.  As the LA Times editorialized, it’s no secret that on this issue, Democratic Party interests run counter to the country’s. 

But the claims of institutional prerogative are utterly specious.  During the rule debate last week, I went through the Administration’s requirements under TPA, chapter and verse.  I won’t belabor them here.  Suffice to say that TPA was not ambiguous in its demands.  The requirements for any Administration are laid out quite clearly, and they were followed to the T, in letter and in spirit.  These requirements were designed to ensure that Congress is consulted at every step of the way.  This goal was demonstrably and unequivocally achieved. 

But under TPA, there are two sets of processes – there is the negotiating process, which closely involves Congress but is led by the Administration.  And there is the Congressional process.  Both processes are unambiguously defined by strict timetables.   The first timeline was followed.  The second timeline was abrogated.  One side followed the rules in good faith.  The other side cheated. 

The Charlottesville Daily Progress outlined the implications of these actions perfectly: “If rules of procedure mean nothing, then the legislative process can be warped — and, moreover, it can be warped at the discretion of a single powerful person.  This is not the way democracy should work. The effort to change the rules after the process was under way dishonors Congress.”

So much for institutional pride.  The message the Democratic Leadership has sent is that the ends justify the means.  And what lofty goal did they sacrifice institutional integrity for?  Killing an agreement that extends preferential treatment to American workers and strengthens a key democratic ally in our hemisphere.  No wonder the condemnation came so swiftly and so soundly from around the country.  The Democratic Leadership made a very grave mistake. 

But it’s not too late to correct it.  We were supposed to have a three-month process of debate and deliberation.  We can still have it.  We were supposed to have a vote at the end of that process.  The Democratic Leadership can still commit to it.  I call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to make a commitment to hold a vote prior to the August recess.  I call on them to quit demagoging this issue and let their rank-and-file Members vote their conscience. 

Passage of the U.S.-Colombia FTA is clearly in our economic and foreign policy interests.  Blocking it is clearly not.  And changing the rules in the middle of the game because you’re afraid of a fair fight is indefensible.  It’s time for us to exert true leadership as an institution, hold a vote and pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.