Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to ask what I consider to be pretty fair questions. That is, if you are in Latin America and you ask anyone in Latin America which country is America's most reliable ally, they likely would say the Republic of Colombia. If you ask anyone in Latin America which political leader in Latin America is America's best partner and most reliable partner, they would say President Uribe, the democratically elected President of Colombia. Ladies and gentlemen, if you asked in Latin America who is the most popular political figure in the entire hemisphere in his own nation, you would discover it's President Uribe, the President of Colombia, who has an over 83 percent approval rating. Why? Because he has made tremendous progress, strengthening what is Latin America's longest-standing democracy, reducing violence, making tremendous progress against the three terrorist groups that operate and that have operated for the last several decades in Colombia--the two Communist groups of the FARC and the ELM and the right-wing paramilitaries. He has made tremendous progress. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to put into the Record two news stories from the BBC. I would note the first story I want to put into the Record is the announcement that President Uribe was sending 14 of Colombia's most notorious paramilitary drug lords to the United States to face drug charges. The second article I would like to put into the Record just ran this week. It was of a top commander of the FARC, which is the Communist narcotrafficking terrorist organization which has been fighting the democratically elected government of Colombia. In just this past week, one of their top commanders surrendered. Her name is Nelly Avila Moreno. Her nickname was Karina, and she is one of the most notorious FARC commanders. She not only surrendered but she called on other FARC rebels to follow her example and surrender, basically saying it's over; it's time to call it a day to stop the civil war, to stop the narcotrafficking and to reach a peace agreement with the democratically elected Government of Colombia. The reason I bring this up is, just a few weeks ago, this House, the Democratic majority, voted to turn its back on President Uribe. It voted to turn its back on the democratically elected Government of Colombia, America's most reliable partner. You think about it. We have no more reliable partner in Latin America when it comes to counterterrorism, to counternarcotics than the democratically elected Government of Colombia. What is interesting is we have a trade agreement, a trade promotion agreement, that we have reached with Colombia. It is good for the United States. Right now, Colombian products enter the United States duty-free, tax-free, but U.S. products exported to Colombia face tariffs and taxes. Bulldozers made in my district face taxes of up to 12 to 15 percent, making our products less competitive with Asian products trying to get into the Colombian market as well. In the almost 2 years since this trade agreement was reached, the stalling efforts by this democratic leadership against Colombia has cost U.S. manufacturers and farmers $1 billion in higher tariffs and in higher taxes on U.S. products. What I point out is this trade agreement wipes out those taxes, making U.S. manufactured goods, U.S. corn and soybeans more competitive. Again, Colombian products enter the United States' market duty-free today. They don't face those taxes when they come here, but our products face taxes when they go there. The folks back home whom I represent, they say, you know, we want an even playing field. We're happy to trade with anyone as long as we have an even playing field here. Their products come in duty-free. We want the same opportunity. President Uribe and the democratically elected Government of Colombia have agreed to do that. We just need to ratify the agreement, which is to the advantage of American manufacturers and to American farmers. Ladies and gentlemen, the reason I mention the prosecution of the paramilitaries, the reason I mention the surrender by a top FARC commander is those who oppose reducing tariffs on U.S.-made products argue that Colombia just doesn't deserve it. They've not done enough when it comes to reducing violence and in going after the narcotraffickers and the terrorists. Under President Uribe, he has increased the prosecution budget of the State Attorney General, the State prosecutor for the entire country--a nation of 42 million people--by 72 percent in the last 2 years. He has added over 400 new prosecutors. Ladies and gentlemen, the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is a good agreement for Illinois manufacturers, for Illinois farmers, for U.S. manufacturers, and for U.S. farmers. Let's ratify this agreement. Let's work with the best partner we have in Latin America. I urge the Speaker to bring to this floor the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. Let's give it an up-or-down vote, and I believe it will pass with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. [From the Economist, May 15, 2008] Free Trade in Thugs: Getting Tougher With Right-Wing Warlords In a surprise move on May 13th, President Alvaro Uribe announced the extradition to the United States of 14 of Colombia's most notorious paramilitary warlords on drug- trafficking charges. As well as sending a warning to other right-wing paramilitaries, the aim is to show Democrats in Washington that Mr. Uribe means what he says about breaking with paramilitary groups who continue to murder trade unionists and other left-wingers. Democratic congressional leaders and their trade-union allies have cited those murders as a reason for their refusal to approve a free-trade agreement with Colombia. Mr. Uribe may also be hoping to boost his already soaring approval ratings to strengthen his hand in an eventual bid for an unprecedented third term as president. More than two terms in a row are currently banned by the constitution, so this would require approval by Congress. Mr. Uribe's move could backfire. Human-rights groups fear that it will rob the victims of the compensation that they are entitled to from their tormentors, and could also remove the evidence needed for a successful investigation into why Colombia's paramilitaries and their political accomplices have hitherto enjoyed impunity. More than 60 congressmen, most allies of Mr. Uribe, are either already in prison or under investigation in Colombia for alleged links to paramilitaries. Last month, Mario Uribe, the president's cousin and close political ally, was arrested. ``The good news is that these paramilitary bosses could now face serious jail time,'' said Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director of Human Rights Watch, a lobbying group. (In the United States, cocaine dealers can get 30 years or more.) ``The bad news is they may no longer have any reason to collaborate with Colombian prosecutors investigating their atrocities . . . Just as local prosecutors were beginning to unravel the web of paramilitary ties to prominent politicians, the government has shipped the men with the most information out of the country,'' he lamented. In fact, the United States has agreed to allow Colombian prosecutors continued access to the extradited men. They have also apparently agreed to transfer to Colombia any seized assets or fines imposed on the warlords to compensate more than 100,000 victims who have come forward. Created in the 1980s by wealthy ranchers to protect themselves from attacks by the left-wing FARC guerrillas, the paramilitaries developed into armed gangs, accused of many thousands of killings as well as drug-trafficking and money-laundering. Explaining his decision in a televised address on May 13th, Mr. Uribe said the extradited men had violated the conditions of a 2003 pact with the government under which they agreed to surrender to the authorities in exchange for relatively light prison sentences--a maximum of eight years--and protection against extradition. In return, they had promised to confess to their crimes, cease all illegal activities and use their drug money to compensate the victims of their appalling crimes. But the 14 warlords had continued to run their criminal networks from prison and had failed to pay reparations, Mr. Uribe said. If the move was made with one eye on Washington, its timing appears to have been determined by a legal wrangle. Groups representing victims have been fighting to halt the extraditions. This appears to have prompted Mr. Uribe's decision to send the paramilitaries to the United States. Colombia's Supreme Court had recently supported these groups, ruling that extraditions of paramilitary bosses should be carried out only after they had confessed to their crimes and paid reparations. But this was overturned by a judicial council last week. Within hours, the first paramilitary leader to be extradited, Carlos Mario Jimenez, alias ``Macaco'', was on a plane bound for the United States, a journey made a week later by his 14 colleagues. More may follow.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Shirley Kiss, on the occasion of her 80th Birthday. With Shirley's help and leadership, We Care of Grundy County has evolved into an organization that has helped thousands of residents in Grundy County, Illinois. We Care helps residents by giving them rides to medical appointments, help with their bills or by providing emergency babysitting services to residents in need. Shirley Kiss began her career with We Care as a phone volunteer 2 years after We Care began providing services in 1971. Shirley's talents became quickly evident and she became Secretary of We Care's Steering Committee in 1975. In 1977, Shirley assumed greater responsibilities when she became Chairman of the Steering Committee. As Chairman, Shirley worked to increase We Care's community presence by giving interviews to WCSJ, the local radio station in Morris. Shirley also worked with community organizations and churches in order to find volunteers and build a network of relationships. Two years after she became Chairman, Shirley was instrumental in helping We Care become incorporated. Because of Shirley's hard work, We Care became ``We Care of Grundy County, Inc.'' on June 12, 1979. For 21 years, until her retirement, Shirley worked as the first full-time paid Administrator of We Care of Grundy County. Shirley continued her involvement with We Care by returning to a volunteer position on the Board of Directors after her 2000 retirement. As a longtime resident of Morris, I have seen We Care grow and provide needed services to many members of the community. I congratulate Mrs. Shirley Kiss on the occasion of her 80th Birthday and thank her for all of her hard work with We Care of Grundy County.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, likewise to the chairman of the subcommittee, which I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member, I just want to state that I enjoy working with you very much as well, and thank you for your compliment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1185, recognizing May as National Foster Care Month. This resolution recognizes the enormous contribution of foster parents who care for so many vulnerable young people across America. And I want to commend its chief sponsors, Representative Jon Porter of Nevada and Chairman McDermott, for sponsoring and introducing this important resolution. The House is considering this resolution right between Mother's Day and Father's Day, which is appropriate, since foster parents step in to take the place of biological mothers and fathers. Taxpayers themselves contribute literally billions of dollars each year in Federal and State assistance to this important effort. But the most important part is the simple willingness of responsible adults to step in and care for kids who cannot safely remain with their own parents. For that, as this resolution expresses, the Nation says thank you. Many other people work to support foster parents through both public and private organizations and in paid and volunteer positions alike. We express our thanks to those dedicated people as well. One example in the congressional district I represent, groups like The Baby Fold, which provides a variety of services to support biological and foster families. We thank all of these individuals for their continuing effort and dedication to improving the lives of children and their families. In spite of all the hard work by individuals involved at all levels in the Nation's foster care system, more work is needed to ensure all children have a safe home, are protected from abuse, and have the best opportunities to lead a healthy and productive life. The Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, on which I serve as ranking member, has held numerous hearings in the past year on child welfare issues, reviewing whether foster children are receiving appropriate medical care, are being prescribed the right medications, are receiving the education they deserve, and are being adequately prepared for their life as adults. For some children, the answer to these questions is a ``yes,'' but for too many the answer is ``no.'' Too many children in foster care are behind their peers in terms of their health, education, and job prospects. So there is still much that we need to do to ensure that all children in foster care receive the care and support they need to overcome these obstacles and thrive as young adults. For those who cannot safely return home to their own parents, that means creating an environment providing as much love, support, and stability as possible. For some children, that may mean placement with relatives. For others, it involves the generosity and sacrifice of foster parents who step in when biological families don't work out. In addition to this resolution, as Chairman McDermott noted, he and I are currently working on a bipartisan package of legislation that we intend to have designed to improve the foster care system: Expecting more educational stability and high school completion for foster children, improving health outcomes, keeping siblings together, and extending and improving a current incentive program that rewards States for increasing adoptions. These legislative changes would implement many of the recommendations our subcommittee has heard for improving the lives of children in foster care. But even with these improvements, the tens of thousands of dedicated foster parents and those who support them will continue to remain the backbone of our foster care system. On our Nation's effort to support children who cannot safely live with their own parents, we owe them our thanks and our continued support. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote for this important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have no additional speakers, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, again, we have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back my time, I want to rise in support of H.R. 6081, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. I particularly want to point out that this product that is before us today is bipartisan. It is clear that both Republicans and Democrats want to ensure that our men and women in uniform, those who stand and every day place their lives at risk to defend our freedoms and the values that our Nation represents, that we provide help for them and their families. I commend Chairman Rangel and ranking member Mr. McCrery for their leadership in putting together this bipartisan bill that helps our military and their families. I urge a bipartisan ``aye'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1208 on foster care youth aging out of care, an important resolution before us today. I join my colleagues in support of the more than 500,000 children who are in foster care today and in support of this resolution. I hope we can craft substantive bipartisan legislation to help address the challenges in our Nation's foster care system. One of the greatest challenges is helping the more than 24,000 youth who age out of foster care each year. Projected outcomes for too many of these young people are sobering: lower high school graduation rates, higher rates of homelessness, and a higher chance of becoming incarcerated than of other youth of their own age. In hearings before our subcommittee, the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, which I serve as ranking member, we have been privileged to hear from many outstanding young men and women who have personally shared their personal stories of life in our Nation's child welfare system. For instance, Jamal Nutall, a young man from the congressional district which I represent, has worked as an intern in my office. He testified before our subcommittee about the challenges he faced in foster care and the progress he was making towards completing his college education. More recently, we heard from Misty Stenslie with the Foster Care Alumni Association which represents former foster youth. Listening to these stories and understanding what they tell us reveals how much more needs to be done to help those who spend the longest time in foster care, including the thousands who age out of the system each year. A good place to start would be to ensure that every young person in foster care completes at least their high school diploma. Last year, I introduced House Resolution 733, which recognizes the importance of improving the high school graduation rate of foster youth. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for being one of the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation. We can and should make improving the educational outcomes of foster youth a key test in measuring any legislation designed to help foster children. Congress is not alone in recognizing the importance of high school graduation for today's youth. America's Promise Alliance, an organization founded by former Secretary of State and General Colin Powell and his wife, has launched a dropout prevention campaign to combat the Nation's high school dropout crisis. The Alliance noted alarming statistics in an April 2008 report. Nearly one in three U.S. high school students drops out before graduating. Approximately 1.2 million students drop out each year, and about 7,000 students drop out each and every day. To improve the high school graduation rate of foster youth, increased coordination between child welfare and educational agencies is necessary. New foster family placements should not necessarily mean a new school, and foster children should have to be able to remain in a single school in their own community so they can build lasting relationships with friends, teachers, and mentors. All these steps can and should contribute to raising graduation rates and increasing chances of future success for foster children, especially those who age out of the system. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this important resolution today. But we should also commit ourselves to producing bipartisan legislation to improve the Nation's foster care and child welfare programs and improving the high school graduation rates and other educational outcomes for children in foster care. Without that simple step, too many will continue to face a desperate future. We owe them far better. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. I urge bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes 306 through 316. I was absent on Tuesday, May 13th and part of the day Wednesday April 14th due to personal reasons. If I were present I would have voted, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 306, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 307, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 308, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 309, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 310, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 311, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 312, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 313, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 314, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 315, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 316, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 317.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose the way that the House majority, the Democratic majority, is managing this legislation, bringing forward a fiscal year irresponsible supplemental bill. I would note, as I recall, on January 29, the Speaker of the House made a statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus package that was about to pass, and Speaker Pelosi said, ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.'' I agree with the Speaker that we should act in a way that is timely, temporary and targeted. Unfortunately, that's not what the House is being offered today. In addition to a large tax increase, the bill before us today includes an untargeted and overly expensive extension of unemployment benefits. Consistent with the Speaker's call for targeting help to those who need it most, I introduced legislation and offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to focus extended unemployment benefits on people and States with relatively high or fast-rising unemployment rates. Combined with regular unemployment benefits available in all States under my amendment, a total of 39 weeks of benefits would be available to unemployed workers whose jobs are hardest to find. On Main Street U.S.A. that helps those who need the help most. Yet this targeted approach was rejected by our Democratic colleagues, the majority on the committee. Why target benefits? Why target benefits to only relatively high unemployment States? For the same reason, the Democratic legislation proposes longer benefits in high unemployment States because workers there have a harder time finding new jobs and thus are in need of extended benefits. Targeting is especially important today since today's national unemployment rate is a low 5.0 percent with a third of all States having unemployment rates below 4 percent. That national unemployment rate is well below the lowest prior level when such a program was created in the past. I have a note in 2002 it was 5.7 percent, and, again, today's unemployment rate is 5 percent. This targeted approach that I offered is also more fiscally responsible. The untargeted Democratic approach costs at least twice as much as a targeted approach and, as the Congressional Budget Office has reported, the Democrat legislation will require State tax increases to pay those additional costs. The bill before the House would require State tax increases, State tax hikes, totaling $1 billion over just next 5 years. If this program is extended, as all such temporary programs have been, the tax increases required will only grow. The Speaker was right, we need to act in a way that is fiscally responsible and targeted. Unfortunately, this legislation before us today achieves neither of these goals and adds to budget deficits and requires payroll tax increases. We can and should do better than this. Congress Has never Extended Unemployment Benefits at Today's Low Unemployment Rate Democratic leaders want to extend unemployment benefits nationwide, with the Federal Government picking up all of the $16 billion tab. Since the 1950s, Congress has created 7 special or ``temporary'' extended benefits programs, which can double the length of total unemployment benefits from the 26 weeks to 52 weeks--or longer--per laid off worker. The logic of these programs is to provide additional weeks of benefits when jobs are relatively hard to find. Today's national unemployment rate is a relatively low 5.0 percent. Congress has never created a temporary extended benefits program at such a low unemployment rate. The next lowest unemployment rate when such a program was created in U.S. history was when the last such program was created in March 2002. The unemployment rate then was 5.7 percent--significantly higher than today's 5.0 percent unemployment rate. Today's U.S. Unemployment Rate Is significantly lower Than Average Rate At Start of Prior Extended Benefit Programs It is also useful to compare today's relatively low 5.0 percent unemployment rate with average rates when prior special Federal programs started. When such programs started, average unemployment rates were far higher than the Nation's unemployment rate today. Today's unemployment rate (5.0 percent) is more than 2 percentage points below the average unemployment rate in the month when Congress chose to start such special programs (7.3 percent). Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average for All of the 1980s and 1990s The current unemployment rate is so low it is actually below the average of entire recent decades. If you look at the 1980s and 1990s--two decades that saw record job creation in the U.S.-- and average all the months, you find those decades actually had higher average unemployment rates than today's 5.0 percent rate. If such a program should exist today--when the Nation's unemployment rate is quite low by historical standards--when should it not? Creating such a program now is in effect an argument for permanently extending unemployment benefits, which would require at least $12 billion more per year in Federal spending and payroll taxes, in addition to State payroll tax hikes. Today's 5.0 Percent Unemployment Rate Does Not Reflect an ``Emergency'' The Democratic leadership is suggesting that a special ``emergency'' nationwide extended unemployment benefit program is needed because today's job market is so weak. Actually, only 20 percent of all months in the past four decades had unemployment rates below today's level. So if today's job market constitutes an ``emergency,'' then the U.S. economy has almost always been in a similar or even worse emergency situation throughout the past four decades. That's a hard case for even the biggest economic pessimist to make. Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average throughout the Clinton Administration Democratic Members are always trying to take credit for the strong economy of the 1990s, even though it was the Republican Congress and its policies of tax relief, spending restraint, and welfare reform that actually promoted record economic growth and budget surpluses. But let's accept the Democratic rhetoric for a minute that the Clinton era economy was just about the best ever. What was the average unemployment rate during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration? 5.2 percent--which is above today's 5.0 percent rate. Did a special extended benefits program operate throughout the Clinton Administrations? No. Did a special extended benefits program operate during all the months when the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent or higher? No again. Current Employment Conditions Are better Than in 1996--Which President Clinton Called the ``Healthiest'' Economy ``In Three Decades'' It's worth considering another reason why Democratic leaders are so determined to argue that today's economy is so bad: Politics. Compare today with 1996: 20 million more employees; a lower unemployment rate; a lower long-term unemployment rate; and fewer average weeks of unemployment. All better today than the 1996 levels. But what did President Clinton, then running for a second term, think about the U.S. economy in 1996? In his State of the Union Address that year he said: ``Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.'' (January 23, 1996) So when a Democrat is in the White House running for reelection, the economy is healthy and strong. And of course no one calls for a special extended benefits program. But with a Republican in the White House, and despite better economic statistics today, Democrats portray the current economy as another Depression. Here's how Senator Chuck Schumer put it: ``The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.'' (Press Release, March 7, 2008) The Democratic ``Emergency'' Extended Benefits Program Is poorly targeted Despite today's relatively low unemployment rate, there are reasonable, arguments for extending unemployment benefits in areas where jobs are scarce. That's the approach Republicans proposed in the Ways and Means Committee, but which Democratic Members rejected. This approach would expand a current program that targets Federal funds for extended unemployment benefits on States with high unemployment rates. Temporarily expanding that program would provide more help to workers where jobs are scarce and the added help is needed most. Early on, Speaker Pelosi seemed to agree with the need for such a ``targeted'' approach. In her January 29, 2008 statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus check package, the Speaker said: ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.'' Unfortunately, the proposed Democratic program does not follow this ``targeted'' approach. Nearly all of its benefits--more than $12 billion of the $14 billion in total benefit spending (not counting administrative costs) in the coming year--would be paid regardless of local unemployment rates. That's poorly targeted, and not fiscally responsible. Under the Untargeted Democratic Program, Federal Benefits Would Be Paid in Many States with very low Unemployment Rates One key reason why the Democratic program is poorly targeted is because extended unemployment benefits would be paid in all states, regardless of the availability of jobs there. In March 2008, a full 15 States had unemployment rates under 4 percent. Another 17 States had unemployment rates between 4.0 and 4.9 percent. That makes 32 States--two thirds of all States--with current unemployment rates under 5 percent. Those are very low unemployment rates by any measure. Another 13 States have unemployment rates between 5.0 and 5.9 percent. That leaves just 6 States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher, which is the Democratic Members' own definition of ``high unemployment.'' Under their own criteria, 45 States today are ``low unemployment'' and only 6 are ``high unemployment'' (includes D.C.). But all States would receive Federal funds to pay extended benefits to workers. Current Long-Term Unemployment Rate Is below the average Since 1980 Democratic Members have suggested that record numbers of workers today have been out of work for long periods. Actually, the current share of all workers who are long-term unemployed--defined as those who have been out of work for more than 6 months--is below average. The average long-term unemployment rate for all months since January 1980--covering nearly three full decades, and including two of the longest expansions in U.S. history--was 1.0 percent. So in the average month in the past generation, 1 percent of the labor force had been out of work for more than 6 months. How does that compare with today? The long-term unemployment rate in April 2008 was 0.9 percent--below the average for the past generation. That means fewer current workers are long-term unemployed than in the typical month in the past 28 plus years. That's hardly the case Democratic Members have been making for what an ``emergency'' situation this is. In fact, current conditions are better than average when it comes to assessing how many American workers are unemployed for long periods. Long-Term Unemployment Today Is below Level in 1994 When Democratic Leaders ended the Extended Benefits Program They Created Some Democratic Members seem to think whether you support creating a special extended benefits program--and under what terms--determines whether you support workers or not. One even said it was ``unconscionable'' to try and target extended benefits to only those in high unemployment States, as Republicans have proposed and even the AFL-CIO apparently supports. Yet when Democrats last held a majority in Congress in 1994 they created a special Federal extended benefits program. The Democratic Majority in Congress back then allowed that program to expire in April 1994. But back then a significantly GREATER share of unemployed workers were long-term unemployed than today--21 percent then versus less than 18 percent today. Was it ``unconscionable'' to ``turn off' that prior special program in April 1994? Weren't they ``leaving workers out in the cold'' or ``shutting them out'' or whatever metaphor Democratic Members use now against those who support a more targeted approach today, when conditions are objectively better in terms of long-term unemployment? The Untargeted Democratic Extended Benefits Program Would drain federal unemployment accounts Some Democratic Members claim there are ``plenty'' of Federal funds to pay for these benefits. Are they right? To answer that, you have to ask ``what are the chances this special program will last only 12 months as advertised?'' A key fact is since 1970 none of the 5 special programs created by Congress ended as originally proposed; every one was extended. So chances are high that program created now wouldn't stop after just 12 months, either. In fact, the average total duration of such programs is about 30 months. The untargeted Democratic program would cost about $1 billion per month. So if its length is ``average,'' the total cost will reach $30 billion. That's almost the balance in the Federal unemployment trust funds today. But remember this program would start at a record low unemployment rate. Also, such programs tend to operate until the unemployment rate falls to the level where it started, or less. So let's assume the program starts now and runs as long as one following the 2001 recession that started and stopped only when the unemployment rate fell below 5.0 percent. That program would operate for 47 months--from now until April 2012--cost $47 billion or more and fully drain the Federal unemployment trust funds, which currently hold just $35 billion.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask this House, why do we continue to punish Illinois and U.S. manufacturers and farmers? In the 531 days since the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was signed, U.S. products exported to Colombia have suffered over $1 billion in taxes and tariffs because they were exported to the United States through Colombia. And during that period of time, Colombian products entering the United States come in duty free. That doesn't seem fair. We have an agreement with Colombia to eliminate those tariffs, and every day we delay it costs almost $190 million a week in higher tariffs on U.S.-made products. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is good for States like Illinois. I represent a State that's dependent on exports. Our biggest product we produce in the district I represent, we have 8,000 union workers who produce yellow bulldozers and construction equipment, something that's common and in need in places like Colombia. Let's be competitive. Let's eliminate those tariffs. Let's bring up for a vote the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes 205 through 233: I was absent on Tuesday, April 22nd, Wednesday, April 23rd, and Thursday, April 24th due to personal reasons. If I were present I would have voted, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 205, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 206, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 207, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 208, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 209, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 210, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 211, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 212, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 213, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 214, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 215, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 216, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 217, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 218, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 219, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 220, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 221, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 222, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 223.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern over an action taken by the majority in this House this past week when this House, the majority of the House, the Democratic majority, voted to turn its back on the Republic of Colombia. You know, when you ask the question of all of Latin America, who is our Nation's best friend, America's best friend in Latin America, everyone says the democratically elected government of Colombia. And when people ask who is America's most reliable ally when it comes to counternarcotics and counterterrorism in Latin America, everyone says it is the democratically elected government of the Republic of Colombia. Ladies and gentlemen, the damage that was done to the image of the United States is going to take us a long time to recover as a result of this House voting to turn its back on America's best friend in Latin America, the democratically elected Government of the Republic of Colombia.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about an action taken by this House this past week, and let me begin by asking this House who is America's best friend in Latin America? Well, the answer is pretty loud and clear, and that is America's best friend in Latin America is the democratic Republic of Colombia, a nation of 42 million people, the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world, a nation which is recognized throughout Latin America and, frankly, throughout the world as United States' most reliable partner in counterterrorism, United States' most reliable partner in counternarcotics. It's the Republic of Colombia. Well, this passed week the House of Representatives, the Democratic majority, which controls it, voted to turn its back, this Congress's back, on our most reliable partner in Latin America, sending a terrible signal to all of Latin America that if you are a good friend of the United States, you're not very important and you're not a very big priority, and when we have an agreement, we'll ignore it. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a trade promotion agreement with Colombia and the United States. It's a good agreement. Why is it a good agreement? Because it's a win-win-win for Illinois workers, Illinois farmers, Illinois manufacturers. The majority of this House, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this House, voted earlier this past year to pass trade preferences for the Andean region, for countries like Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. And what the trade preferences do is allow all the products that come in from Colombia that enter the United States duty free, no taxes, no tariffs. So agricultural products and manufactured goods made in Colombia and produced in Colombia enter the United States duty free. However, without the trade promotion agreement, products made in Illinois by Illinois workers or farm goods like corn and soybeans produced by Illinois farmers and, of course, manufacturers and workers all suffer taxes or tariffs on U.S.- and Illinois-made goods exported to Colombia. We have often heard from constituents that say trade's important in Illinois and it just doesn't seem right when one country's products come into the United States duty free but we don't get reciprocity. And the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement gives us that reciprocity. In fact, farm organizations will tell you that the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement is the best ever negotiated to give U.S. farmers and growers and producers access to a foreign market. And when it comes to manufactured goods, 85 percent of the manufactured goods exported to Colombia would be duty free immediately. In my district, I have 8,000 constituents, union members, who work for a company which makes the yellow bulldozers and yellow construction equipment. Right now, those bulldozers made in America suffer a 15 percent tariff, which means the cost of that product is 15 percent more, making Illinois-manufactured construction equipment, like bulldozers and mining trucks, 15 percent more expensive but also less competitive with Asian competition. We need this trade promotion agreement. And we need to have that brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Because I believe if it is brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote, the majority of this House would agree that we need to continue to expand our markets overseas for Illinois-manufactured goods and Illinois farm products as well as American farm products and American manufactured goods. It is a good agreement. Now, there are those who say, ``Colombia, yeah, they are our partner, and, of course, they are the oldest democracy in Latin America. But there has been violence in that country.'' Historically they are right. President Uribe, when he was elected, pledged to defeat the FARC, the left-wing narcotrafficking terrorist group which has troubled the nation of Colombia over the last 40 years. And he has made tremendous progress. In fact, President Uribe today enjoys 80 percent approval. Eight out of 10 Colombians approve of the leadership of President Uribe. And if you look at this Congress, this House of Representatives, this Congress has an 18 percent approval rating. So clearly, the Colombians think more of their president than the American people do this Congress. And at the same time that he has made progress defeating the left-wing narcotrafficking FARC, 73 percent of the Colombian people believe he has made Colombia more secure and safer while respecting human rights. In fact, today the murder rate in Colombia is lower than in Washington, D.C. It is lower than in Baltimore. In fact, it is safer in Colombia than it is in our Nation's Capital. The U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement is a good agreement for American workers, American farmers and American manufacturers. Let's bring it to a vote.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank Mr. Dreier for your leadership tonight as well as your continuous leadership on trade issues because, as you pointed out, the actions of this House last week have done a lot of damage to the reputation not only to the House of Representatives but the reputation of the United States in Latin America. President Uribe is a popular elected official. This Congress has an 18 percent approval rating. President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent approval rating because he's made such progress in addressing five decades of violence and civil problems in the democratic Republic of Colombia. And as a result, today, 73 percent of Colombians say they feel more secure because of President Uribe's leadership, but also they feel that he has brought security while respecting human rights.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank you for your generous time. This past week, as we all know, there was a delegation of labor leaders from Colombia, including both the private sector and as well as public sector unions, and they made the point that the majority of industrial unions, private sector unions support the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement, but the opposition is coming from the government employees, who are not even impacted.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. That's correct. And one point you made earlier that I would like to--and I don't want to be greedy with the time, you've been very generous.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. But I would just like to comment on one point that you made. You said Illinois is headquarters to Caterpillar, and people think of the yellow construction equipment. There is more to it than you think, and that's why this trade agreement is so important. I have 8,000 Caterpillar employees residing in the 11th Congressional District of Illinois. They're union members, every one of them. And Caterpillar, of course, would benefit from this, and that means their workers would as well. Half of their production in Illinois is dependent on exports.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. There would be. And their growth has come as a result of export. But the point that really needs to be made is there is tremendous economic growth going on in the Andean region, which Colombia is leading, and a lot of that is in the energy and the mining and raw material sector, which means they're going to use construction equipment. And right now, the construction equipment that union workers make in the district I represent, places like Joliet, Aurora, Pontiac and Decatur, it faces a 15 percent tariff when exported to Colombia. Now, some would say, what does that mean? That's a 15 percent tax on the price of that bulldozer. So that makes U.S. products less competitive, say, than competing with Japan.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. And of course these tariffs would be eliminated immediately upon implementation of the U.S-Colombia Trade Agreement. I yield back the time, but it is so important to point out, Illinois is a big winner, manufacturers as well as farmers.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about an action taken by the majority of this House this past week. When the question is often asked, who is America's best friend in Latin America, no matter where you are in Latin America, they always say the democratically-elected government of Colombia is America's best friend. This last week, the House of Representatives voted to turn its back on America's best friend. At a time when the autocrats threaten democracy, when democracy is at risk in Latin America by those who threaten it, such as the President of Venezuela, this Congress, this House, voted to turn its back on Latin America's oldest democracy, America's best friend in Latin America. If you think about it, who else is Colombia? Colombia is also America's most reliable and strongest partner when it comes to addressing terrorism and addressing narcotics. Colombia has been there. President Uribe, the President of Colombia, today is the most popular elected President in the entire hemisphere. This Congress has a 15 percent approval rating with the American people. Fifteen, 1-5 percent. President Uribe has 80 percent approval ratings with his own people. Why? Because he was elected to reduce violence. He was elected to bring security to his country, and today 73 percent of the Colombian people have said in a recent opinion poll that they feel more secure in Colombia. Seventy-two percent in that same poll said they believe President Uribe is making progress and at the same time protecting human rights. So President Uribe has made tremendous progress. Today, violence has been reduced, kidnapping is down, murder rates are down. In fact, it is safer to walk the streets of Bogota, Colombia, or Medellin, once known as the most dangerous city in all the world, than it is to walk the streets of Washington, DC. President Uribe with Plan Colombia and the support of his own people has made tremendous progress. They are reliable partners, reliable friends. And last week this House voted to turn its back on the democratically-elected government of Colombia. Think what message that sends to Latin America, about how the United States House of Representatives respects and treats our friends in Latin America. We have before us a trade promotion agreement with Colombia. It is a good agreement. My friend and colleague from Ohio says it is all about oil. We don't need a trade agreement to buy oil from Colombia. In fact, right now Colombian products, manufactured goods and farm products enter the United States duty free. There are no taxes on their imports. But U.S. products, such as construction equipment, the bulldozers that could be used in mining and various other economic projects in Colombia, face 15 percent tariffs. Our corn and soybeans and livestock products face tariffs of up to 40 percent, but Colombian agricultural products enter the United States duty free. We need a trade promotion agreement with Colombia to even the playing field. We often hear from folks back home, you know, we need trade agreements that are fair and where we treat each other equally, so if they get access to our market, we get access to their's. Well, under the status quo, they have that. We need this agreement so we get access to their market. Some say Colombia is not very important. Well, there are 42 million people there. It is the second largest Spanish-speaking Nation in the world. It is America's best friend. But we have a good agreement before us. Some have said we need to oppose this agreement because there has been violence against union activists. The Uribe government has acknowledged that. In fact, they have done some incredible things. They have increased the budget for prosecution of violent acts by 72 percent. They have added almost 2,200 prosecutors and lawyers and others for the Prosecutor General to go after those who commit violent crimes. When it comes specifically to labor leaders in Colombia, as the Washington Post has pointed out, the murder rate for labor leaders in Colombia is actually lower than the national murder rate, and any murder is unacceptable, whether it is here in Washington, DC or Bogota. The bottom line is, Colombia is our friend. This House voted to turn its back on our best friend. We need to move forward on the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. We should bring that forward and give our best friend in Latin America what they deserve. They have earned it.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. I rise in support of bringing this important agreement to the House floor. Ladies and gentlemen, I come from the State of Illinois. I represent a district that's heavily dependent on exports for growing our economy. We make heavy construction equipment. We grow a lot of corn and soybeans. We export a tremendous amount of plastics and petrochemicals. This trade agreement is a big winner for States like Illinois as it is for our Nation. You know, right now our products made in Colombia, whether farm products or manufactured goods, they enter the United States essentially duty free. The Andean Nations of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia, they've got the opportunity for all their products to come to the United States duty free, but our products made in America face taxes when they're exported to Colombia. In fact, the bulldozers made in my district, I have 8,000 workers, union workers who work for Caterpillar, they make the yellow bulldozers. Mining is a big industry in Colombia, we want to sell those products there, but they face 15 percent tariffs when they're exported. It makes them harder to compete with the Asians. The corn and soybeans and livestock products produced in my district, they face tariffs today up to 40 percent, making it hard to compete with the Argentineans and Brazilians and the Colombian market, a nation of over 40 million people. The bottom line is 80 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia will be duty free immediately once this trade agreement goes into effect. And I would note that, as we've seen, countries like Chile and the central American countries and elsewhere where we have trade agreements, we've seen 50 percent faster growth in exports in nations who have trade agreements than those who do not. And I would note also, again, Colombian products come to the United States duty free, tariff free, but our products face barriers going in. This agreement eliminates those and makes trade a two-way street. It's an important agreement, and I urge it be brought up for a vote and I urge bipartisan support. Those who oppose this trade agreement say Colombia hasn't done enough. And I want to begin by asking, who is the Republic of Colombia? What nation in Latin America is the oldest democracy in Latin America? It's Colombia. What nation is the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in all Latin America? Colombia. What nation is the most reliable ally of the United States, particularly when it comes to counterterrorism and counternarcotics? Colombia. And what nation has done more under its current democratically elected president to reduce violence in Latin America? It's Colombia, clearly. Colombia is not only a friend of the United States, in fact, our enemies in Latin America identify Colombia as our best friend. And they say, you know, watch the United States, they always turn their back on their friends; watch how they treat Colombia when it comes to this trade agreement. And those who would argue against this trade agreement say, you know, you've got to look at the labor violence, you've got to look at the violence in the country; and Colombia just has not done enough to address violence. Well, President Uribe is the most popular elected president in this entire hemisphere. This Congress today suffers from a 15 percent approval rating, President Uribe in Colombia has an 80 percent approval rating. He was elected to reduce the violence in his country, and he succeeded. In fact, 71 percent of Colombians today say they feel more secure because of President Uribe. Seventy-three percent say President Uribe respects human rights. Homicides are down 40 percent, kidnappings are down 76 percent. Colombians feel free to drive anywhere in Colombia. And I would point out that today, the murder rate in Colombia is lower than Washington, D.C., it's lower than Baltimore. It's safer to walk the streets of Bogota, Colombia than it is in Washington, D.C., yet those who oppose this agreement say the murder rate is too high and that Colombia needs to do more. But Washington, D.C. is more violent than Colombia. Here's the facts: When it comes to labor violence, President Uribe has made major changes. He has increased the Prosecutor General's budget by 72 percent in the last 2 years. He has added over 2,100 new posts, adding 418 new prosecutors, 445 new investigators. He has done so much that the President of the United Workers Confederation of Colombia says, ``never in the history of Colombia have we achieved something so important.'' Yet there are those who want to turn their back on President Uribe in Colombia. And when it comes specifically to protections provided to labor leaders, and I have met with many Colombian labor leaders, and they note that in Colombia, if you're a labor activist or labor leader and you feel in danger, you can request special protection from the government. And last year under President Uribe, they spent $39 million providing body guards and special protection for labor leaders and labor activists. In fact, almost 2,000 labor leaders and activists have participated in this program, and it's been so successful that no labor leader who has requested the assistance has been denied because it's provided to those who are denied it, but also no one who has ever participated has ever been a victim of violence. It's been successful. And as the Washington Post noted, and you don't want to see anyone lose their life, but the murder rate for labor activists is actually lower than the murder rate for the average citizens of Colombia. And, again, it's safer to walk the streets of Bogota than it is in Washington, D.C. from the standpoint of being a victim of violent crime or, frankly, a victim of murder. The International Labor Organization has recognized the progress Colombia has made. In fact, they have removed Colombia from its labor watch list. And Colombia has agreed to have a permanent International Labor Organization representative in Colombia. Just a few weeks ago, this House overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, ratified the U.S.-Peru agreement, and Colombia has agreed to every same labor condition that was demanded of Peru. Colombia has agreed to the same. So for those who demanded it, they should be proclaiming victory. The bottom line is Colombia is a friend of the United States. And there are those who want to kill this agreement, those what want to turn their back on Colombia. Let's remember this agreement is good for Americans, it's also good for Colombia, but our best friend in Latin America is Colombia. They deserve a vote and they deserve a ``yes'' vote, bipartisan support, for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and I urge the Speaker of the House to bring this important measure before the House for an up-or-down vote, and submit for the Record two articles, one a column recently published in the New York Times by Edward Schumacher-Matos, a former foreign correspondent for the Times and a visiting professor of Latin American studies at Harvard, as well as an editorial in this week's Washington Post in support of the trade agreement. Killing a Trade Pact (By Edward Schumacher-Matos) President Bush has been urging Congress to approve a pending trade agreement with Colombia, an ally that recently almost went to war with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Even though the agreement includes the labor and environmental conditions that Congress wanted, many Democrats, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, now say that Colombia must first punish whomever has been assassinating the members of the nation's trade unions before the agreement can pass. An examination of the Democrats' claims, however, finds that their faith in the assertions of human-rights groups is more righteous than right. Union members have been assassinated, but the reported number is highly exaggerated. Even one murder for union organizing is atrocious, but isolated killings do not justify holding up the trade agreement. All sides agree that trade-union murders in Colombia, like all violence, have declined drastically in recent years. The Colombian unions' own research center says killings dropped to 39 last year from a high of 275 in 1996. Yet in a report being released next week, the research center says the killings remain ``systematic'' and should be treated by the courts as ``genocide'' designed to ``exterminate'' unionism in Colombia. Most human-rights groups cite the union numbers and conclude, as Human Rights Watch did this year, that ``Colombia has the highest rate of violence against trade unionists in the world.'' Even if that is true, it was far safer to be in a union than to be an ordinary citizen in Colombia last year. The unions report that they have 1 million members. Thirty-nine killings in 2007 is a murder rate of 4 unionists per 100,000. There were 15,400 homicides in Colombia last year, not counting combat deaths, according to the national police. That is a murder rate of 34 citizens per 100,000. Many in Congress, moreover, assume that ``assassinations'' means murders that are carried out for union activity. But the union research center says that in 79 percent of the cases going back to 1986, it has no suspect or motive. The government doesn't either. When the Inter American Press Association several years ago investigated its list of murdered Colombian journalists, it found that more than 40 percent were killed for nonjournalistic reasons. The unions have never done a similar investigation. There are, however, a growing number of convictions for union murders in Colombia. There were exactly zero convictions for them in the 1990s, Colombia's bloodiest decade, when right-wing paramilitaries and leftist guerrillas were at the height of their strength. Each assassinated the suspected supporters of the others across society, including in unions. With help from the United States, in 2000 the Colombian military and the judicial system began to reassert themselves. Prosecuting cases referred by the unions themselves, the attorney general's office won its first conviction for the murder of a trade unionist in 2001. Last year, the office won nearly 40. Of the 87 convictions won in union cases since 2001, almost all for murder, the ruling judges found that union activity was the motive in only 17. Even if you add the 16 cases in which motive was not established, the number doesn't reach half of the cases. The judges found that 15 of the murders were related to common crime, 10 to crimes of passion and 13 to membership in a guerrilla organization. The unions don't dispute the numbers. Instead, they say the prosecutors and the courts are wasting time and being anti- union by seeking to establish motive--a novel position in legal jurisprudence. The two main guerrilla groups have an avowed strategy of infiltrating unions, which attracts violence. About a third of the identified murderers of union members are leftist guerrillas. Most of the rest are members of paramilitary groups--presumed to be behind two of the four trade unionist murders this month. The demobilization of most paramilitary groups, along with the prosecutions and government protection of union leaders, has contributed to the great drop in union murders. President Alvaro Uribe, who has thin skin, can be unwisely provocative when responding to complaints from unions and human rights groups. Still, the level of unionization in Colombia is roughly equal to that in the United States and slightly below the level in the rest of Latin America. The government registered more than 120 new unions in 2006, the last year for which numbers are available. The International Labor Organization says union legal rights in Colombia meet its highest standards. Union leaders have been cabinet members, a governor and the mayor of Bogota. Delaying the approval of the trade agreement would be convenient for Democrats in Washington. American labor unions and human-rights groups have made common cause to oppose it this election year. The unions oppose the trade agreement for traditional protectionist reasons. Less understandable are the rights groups. Human Rights Watch says that it has no position on trade but that it is using the withholding of approval to gain political leverage over the Colombian government. Perversely, they are harming Colombian workers in the process. The trade agreement would stimulate economic growth and help all Colombians.