Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act. I want to commend the current leadership of the committee, the bipartisan leadership, Mr. Berman and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership in moving this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan way. And it's most appropriate that it be named after Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, two distinguished chairmen of the International and Foreign Relations Committees that changed names, but one thing that was in common between Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde was they always worked to ensure that foreign policy should be a bipartisan product and a team effort. So, it is so appropriate that they be recognized by naming this legislation after them, which reauthorizes President Bush's emergency plans for AIDS relief. As noted by a number of my colleagues, almost 33 million citizens of this planet today suffer from the consequences of HIV/AIDS. We have a moral responsibility, and it's important that the United States exhibit and demonstrate moral leadership in addressing this crisis, which not only is a health issue, but it's a security issue for this globe. I think we all watched the reception of President Bush when he traveled recently to Africa and the appreciation that was shown by the leadership in Africa for the President's initiative and the bipartisan support that we've seen in the effort against AIDS, and to help those who are victims of AIDS in Africa. We often think of Africa when we talk about global AIDS, but of the 33 million, there are also many living in Latin America and the Caribbean who suffer from HIV/AIDS as well. In Latin America today there are 1,600,000 people living with HIV/AIDS, that's up from 1.3 million in 2001; and 58,000 citizens of Latin America have lost their lives to HIV/AIDS. In the Caribbean, 230,000 adults and children are currently known to be infected with HIV/AIDS. That's up from 190,000 in 2001. In the Caribbean, 11,000 citizens of the Caribbean have lost their lives. I note we've made some progress as a result of the President's initiative for AIDS relief. In Haiti alone, a large recipient of aid as a result of this initiative, almost 4 percent of the population of Haiti is infected with HIV/AIDS. Think about that, 190,000 people. And since 2004, thanks to this initiative, the number of people receiving care and support has grown from 30,000 to 125,000, and an anticipated 150,000 people will be reached this year because of this initiative. Haiti received almost $85 million from this program in the past year to address this crisis which affects many in the Caribbean. The point is is that PEPFAR, as we know it, has allowed us to reach almost every person in Haiti struggling with HIV/AIDS. And, for example, the continued support is necessary to make sure we reach every person struggling with HIV/AIDS in the world, and that's why this extension is so important.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. May I ask for an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I would also like to share a couple other examples of the success of this initiative and how this funding is helping regular people and making a difference in Latin America. Bolivia, a large nation the size of Texas with 9 million people, thanks to the PEPFAR initiative we're using data to combat HIV/AIDS. In fact, real-time data is helping Bolivian health officials carry out more HIV/AIDS prevention education, including HIV counseling and testing services. And according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, prevalence rates in Bolivia's general population has remained at 1-10th of 1 percent, which is remarkable success compared to some of its neighbors. In Central America, in the Republic of Honduras, beginning in February of 2005 the United States awarded its first set of grants through USAID to 10 local nongovernmental organizations working with 43 Honduran communities most impacted by HIV/AIDS. In their first 7 months of implementation, the organization has reached over 27,000 at-risk individuals with behavioral change models. As part of the HIV prevention efforts, the group began offering HIV counseling and testing, and the counseling and testing programs were the first in Honduras to be offered by those trained in accordance working with the Ministry of Health standards as part of a larger national prevention effort. And this collaboration between the government of the Honduras, USAID, indigenous organizations and the Ministry of Health has set this standard expanding access to testing in the Nation of Honduras. The bottom line is, this program is making a difference in combating what is clearly a terrible crisis throughout the world, currently impacting 33 million citizens of this planet. We have a moral obligation, and it's important that the United States continue to exert the leadership and demonstrate the leadership we have over the last few years to address the global AIDS crisis. I urge bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Speaker of this House to bring forward for a vote in this House the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. We know Colombia not only has the most long- standing democracy in all of Latin America, but is our most trusted and dependable partner in counternarcotics and counterterrorism. We also know that President Uribe, the democratically-elected President of Colombia, is a good friend of the United States, and someone who has brought security in his successful efforts to eliminate the FARC, a narcotrafficking terrorist organization in Colombia, and as a result today he has made tremendous progress in reducing violence in that country and bringing security throughout the entire country. The U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is good for Illinois, my home State. My district is dependent on exports. Construction equipment that is made in my district and the 8,000 union workers who make construction equipment suffer 15 percent tariffs when exported to Colombia. Under this trade agreement, they are eliminated on day one. The farm community will tell you the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is the best ever when it comes to access for Illinois and U.S. farm products to the Colombian market. The bottom line is, the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is a win-win for the United States, it is a win-win for Colombia. Mr. Speaker, we need to bring it to the floor. Colombia is our friend, and this deserves a vote.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I join my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, in urging the Speaker of the House to bring to this floor the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, an agreement that's good for Illinois farmers, good for Illinois workers, and good for Illinois manufacturers. Let me begin by asking some important questions. What nation in Latin America is the most longstanding democracy? The Republic of Colombia. What nation in Latin America is the United States' most reliable and dependable partner against narcotics and against terrorism? The Republic of Colombia. What nation today has the most popular elected official year after year after year in their own country? That is President Uribe of Colombia. The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a good agreement for my State of Illinois. We are a big winner, as is the United States. In 2006, Illinois exported $214 million in exports to Colombia, but that's just the beginning. Why? Because Illinois exports, U.S. exports to Colombia are taxed by tariffs. But their exports to the United States are not taxed by tariffs. So right now trade is a one-way street. We want to make it a two-way street. As a result of this trade agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports that are currently taxed will be duty-free immediately. And as we know, our exports to other countries grow 50 percent faster with countries we have trade agreements with. So it's a win-win-win for American workers, American farmers, and American manufacturers. We want to be competitive with Asia. We know Colombia is a reliable partner, our most important ally. We know Colombia is a longstanding democracy. We also know that President Uribe is popular. He was elected to stem the violence in Colombia. He was elected to push the FARC, the leftist narcotrafficking terrorist organization, out of the country. And he's made tremendous progress. And today because of his success in expanding government presence throughout the country, bringing stability and order and safety and security to Colombia, his approval rating in his own country year after year has been over 80 percent. Compare that to this Congress which has a 15 percent approval rating. Now there are those who oppose this trade agreement and they are the same people who have opposed every trade agreement. They say not enough is done for labor. When the Peru and Colombia trade agreements were finalized, my Democratic friends said we needed to do more regarding labor rights. Both Peru and Colombia complied. And, of course, Peru has been ratified, but Colombia has not. Now they say that there's too much labor violence in Colombia. Well, let's look at the facts. Seventy-one percent of Colombians say they are more secure under President Uribe. Seventy-three percent of Colombians say Uribe respects human rights. Homicides are down 40 percent. Kidnappings are down 76 percent. In fact, the murder rate in Colombia today is lower than Washington, D.C., lower than Baltimore. Here are the facts on labor violence: The last 2 years, President Uribe has hired 418 new prosecutors; 545 new investigators; created over 2,166 new posts overall in the Prosecutor General's office; and increased funding for prosecution of those who commit violent acts by 75 percent. Carlos Rodriguez, president of the United Workers Confederation, said about these new posts: ``Never in the history of Colombia have we achieved something so important.'' Now when it comes particularly to labor leaders, President Uribe has allocated almost $39 million to providing bodyguards for protection for labor union leaders. One thousand five hundred union leaders and activists provided protection, the second largest protected group in the nation of Colombia. And it's been successful. In fact, no labor leader under this protection has lost his life or experienced violence. As the Washington Post noted yesterday, the murder rate for labor activists is lower than the national rate for the rest of the country. So President Uribe has made tremendous progress in reducing violence. For those who point to labor activists being the subject of labor violence, he's made even greater success in reducing violence. I would also note that the International Labor Organization has removed Colombia from its labor watch list and Colombia has agreed to permanent International Labor Organization presence in Colombia. Perhaps most telling, 14 Colombian labor union leaders have personally given their support to the Trade Promotion Agreement and they represent 79,000 organized workers. We continue to hear opposition with no explanation. The bottom line is this is a good trade agreement. Colombia is our best ally. If you care about the future of Latin America, if you care about democracy, if you care about security, we need to bring the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to this floor for a vote.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge the majority leadership to bring to the floor the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Authority Agreement. It is a good agreement. The question is, who is Colombia? It is the longest-standing democracy in Latin America, it is the United States' most reliable and best partner in counterterrorism and counternarcotics, and, frankly, it is an important ally of the United States. This trade agreement is good for the U.S., it is good for Colombia. Right now, Colombian products come into the United States, and they come in basically duty-free without any taxes. Our products going to Colombia suffer taxes. Under this trade promotion agreement, 80 percent of those duties and taxes are eliminated immediately. It is good for Illinois workers, Illinois manufacturers and Illinois farmers. There are those who oppose this agreement. The Washington Post probably said it best yesterday in their editorial when they stated their support for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. They noted, ``The agreement is currently being held hostage by Members of the House who argue that Colombia, despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder rate, doesn't deserve this.'' The bottom line is, President Uribe has greatly reduced violence. The murder rate is lower than in Baltimore or Washington.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from yesterday's Washington Post in support of the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, as well as a column by Edward Schumacher-Matos, a former foreign correspondent for the Times, as well as a visiting professor of Latin American Studies at Harvard, a column that was published in yesterday's New York Times as well. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 31, 2008] Free Colombia: A Trade Pact Everyone Can Love Sometime after Congress returns from Easter recess this week, President Bush is likely to present the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement for the approval of the House and Senate. As we have said, the proposed pact is good policy for both Colombia and the United States. Colombia has long enjoyed periodically renewable tariff-free access to the U.S. market; the agreement would make that permanent. In exchange, U.S. producers would, for the first time, get the same tariff-free deal when they export to Colombia. Meanwhile, the agreement contains labor and environmental protections much like those that Congress has already approved in a U.S.-Peru trade pact. A vote for the Colombia deal would show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for improving its human rights record and resisting the anti-American populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Sending the agreement to the House of Representatives without the prior approval of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would be risky for the president; usually, the executive and legislative branches tee up such votes cooperatively. But months of Democratic resistance to the Colombia deal may have left Mr. Bush no choice. The agreement is being held hostage by members of the House (and Senate) who argue that Colombia--despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder toll under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe--hasn't done enough to protect trade union activists or to punish past murders of labor leaders. It's a spurious complaint: Actually, in 2006, union members were slightly less likely than the average Colombian to be murdered. But the human rights issue has served as cover for many Democrats whose true objections are to free trade itself. Once the agreement arrives on the Hill, Congress will have 90 legislative days to vote yes or no--no amendments and no filibusters allowed, because special ``fast track'' rules apply. The Bush administration is betting that enough Democrats would support the pact to ensure its passage in the House, if it ever comes up for a vote. Of course, Ms. Pelosi could make an issue of the president's failure to get her approval to submit the pact and then could have her caucus shoot down the deal. But she could also engage the White House in serious negotiations. The president has signaled a willingness to consider reauthorizing aid for workers displaced by trade, legislation that is dear to the Democrats' labor constituency and that he has heretofore resisted. Ms. Pelosi recently said that no Colombia deal could pass without trade adjustment assistance--without also mentioning the bogus trade unionists issue. Perhaps she is realizing that talking to Mr. Bush about swapping a Colombia vote for trade adjustment assistance might actually lead to a tangible accomplishment. At least we have to hope so.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, today I rise to urge the Speaker of the House to bring forward the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. I also ask my colleagues to support this agreement. It's an agreement that's good for America, it's good for my State of Illinois, and it's good for Colombia. In fact, the State that I represent, Illinois, is a big winner under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The International Trade Commission did an economic analysis. They said if you're an Illinois worker, an Illinois manufacturer, an Illinois farmer, you're a winner under this trade agreement. Corn, soybeans, pork, beef, manufactured metal products, chemicals, machinery, exports will go up. Why? Because right now Colombian products enter the United States duty-free, tariff-free, tax-free, but our products face tariffs. Caterpillar, the biggest employer in my district, 8,000 workers, their heavy construction equipment faces a 12 percent tariff. For a million-dollar piece of equipment, that's a $100,000 tax which would be eliminated immediately, day one, when this trade agreement would go into effect. The bottom line is Illinois will be a big winner. Now who is Colombia? To begin with, the democracy we know as Colombia, the oldest democracy in all Latin America, today is the United States' most reliable and trusted partner in Latin America. Its President, President Uribe, is the most popular elected official in the hemisphere. And while this Congress suffers from 15 percent approval ratings, President Uribe in his own country enjoys 80 percent approval ratings. Why? Because he's made a difference in reducing violence and winning the war against the FARC and the narcoterrorists. Today, 71 percent of Colombians say they are more secure under President Uribe. Seventy-three percent of Colombians say Uribe respects human rights. Homicides are down. Kidnappings are down. Today the murder rate in Colombia is the lowest in 15 years. In fact, Medellin, once considered one of the most dangerous cities in the world, today has a lower murder rate than Washington, DC, or Baltimore. Now there are those who oppose President Uribe. There are those who oppose the trade promotion agreement between the United States and Colombia. They argue that President Uribe just has not done enough on the issue of labor and protecting labor leaders from violence. Well, let's look at the facts. Under President Uribe, he's totally reformed the judiciary, the entire institution. For the general prosecutor, he's added 2,166 new positions, including 418 new prosecutors and 545 new investigators, and increased funding for the general prosecutor, the federal independent prosecutor, by 75 percent. Carlos Rodriguez, president of the United Workers Confederation of Colombia, said about this: ``Never in the history of Colombia have we achieved something so important.'' I would note that President Uribe has also created special programs today to protect labor leaders. In fact, they spent almost $39 million this past year for body guards and protection for labor union members. There are 1,500 labor union leaders and activists who receive special protection, the second largest protected group in the entire country, and this program has been successful. In fact, no labor leader has lost their life who's been under this protection program. In fact, the murder rate, which is a terrible thing, for labor and union activists is lower than the national rate for everyone else. So tremendous progress has been made. The International Labor Organization has removed Colombia from its labor watch list. Colombia has agreed to a permanent ILO representative in Colombia, and 14 labor union leaders representing 14 labor unions in Colombia have endorsed this agreement. Now we continue to hear from opponents and they are really the people who have always traditionally opposed trade and so they've got a different line today, but they always say that President Uribe still has not done enough, we need to demand more, but they never specifically say what more they want. Clearly, President Uribe has done a lot, a tremendous amount, and he has made real progress. As we have seen this past week, there is a lot happening in Latin America. Colombia, of course, has been fighting the FARC and other terrorists and narcotrafficking groups over the last three and four decades and they've made tremendous progress under President Uribe. We know the FARC in particular are the biggest leftist, antigovernment narcotraffic and terrorist group. They fund themselves by the sales of narcotics. It was recently uncovered, we discovered the links between Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the FARC, possibly $300 million in subsidies, long suspected but now proven. The bottom line is the Colombia agreement is good for democracy, it's good for America, it's good for workers, and it's good for manufacturing. I urge this Congress to bring it up for a vote and let's pass it.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, to urge the Speaker of this House to bring the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement to this House floor for a vote. And let me tell you this: this agreement is good for the State that I represent. It's good for Colombia. It's good for the United States. It's good for Illinois farmers. It's good for Illinois workers. And it's good for Illinois manufacturing. And I would note that in my district I have 8,000 Caterpillar workers, union Caterpillar workers who are manufacturing workers. And under this agreement, I note under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement that our machinery exports see their tariffs imposed on Illinois-made construction equipment eliminated on day one. Now, you think about it, mining equipment used in Colombia is $1 million equipment, that's a $100,000 tax on U.S.-made products eliminated on day one. Currently, Illinois exports $214 million to Colombia, and that's just the beginning. According to the International Trade Commission, Illinois is a big winner. Pork products will increase 72 percent, according to their economic analysis. Corn and soybeans will see increased sales to Colombia. Fabricated metal products, processed foods, and chemicals will all see increases. And, again, it's expected that machinery, manufactured machinery, like products made by John Deere and Navistar and Caterpillar, will increase 15 percent. Agriculture. The leaders of agriculture will tell you the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is the best for agriculture in the history of all trade negotiations. And let's not forget that 80 percent of U.S. exports are currently taxed when they enter Colombia, and they will become duty free immediately. That will allow us to become competitive with China and Asia and other competition. We know Colombia, a democracy, as a reliable partner and ally. We know that Colombia is the oldest democracy in Latin America. And we also recognize that President Uribe of Colombia is our hemisphere's most popular elected official with over 80 percent approval ratings. Compare that to this Congress, which has a 15 percent approval rating. Big difference. Now, there are those who oppose the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. They say that Colombia, amongst all the good things it's done, just hasn't done enough regarding violence against labor leaders. Let's remember that Colombia has had 40 years of civil strife driven by left-wing gorillas trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Colombia. But today, 71 percent of Colombians say they feel more secure under President Uribe; 73 percent say Uribe respects human rights. Those are Colombians, not Americans, saying that. Homicides are down 40 percent in Colombia; kidnappings are down 76 percent. The murder rate today in Medellin, once the poster child of violence in Colombia, one of the most dangerous cities on the planet, today has a lower murder rate than Washington, DC, or Baltimore. But let's look at the facts on labor violence. President Uribe has made major changes, beginning with reforming the judiciary. He has had hired 418 new prosecutors, 545 new investigators. In fact, in the Prosecutor General's Office, responsible for targeting those who are responsible for the violence in Colombia, they've added over 2,000 new posts. Funding has gone up 75 percent in the last few years alone under President Uribe. And quoting Carlos Rodriguez, president of the United Workers Confederation, a labor leader in Colombia: ``Never in the history of Colombia have we achieved something so important.'' Again, that's a Colombian labor leader. President Uribe and Colombia, under the government initiatives, have worked to protect labor leaders, giving them special protections. Last year, they spent over $38 million for body guard protection for labor union leaders; 1,500 union members and activists received special protection, the second largest protected group in Colombia, and it's been successful. For labor activists under this program, none have lost their lives. And I would note that the murder rate today for labor unionists is lower than the national murder rate for everyone else. So progress has been made. And I would note that crimes categorized as anti-union violence often are not union related, but regular crime that everyone in Colombia has contended with, many are the responsibility of the leftist FARC. I would note that the International Labor Organization has removed Colombia from its labor watch list. Colombia has agreed to a permanent ILO representative in Colombia. And perhaps most telling, 14 Colombian labor leaders have given their support to the trade agreement. The bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, this agreement is good for Illinois workers, it's good for Illinois manufacturers, it's good for Illinois farmers. Let's bring it up for a vote. I ask my colleagues to support this important trade agreement. And I will also include for the Record a copy of an ``Economist'' article talking about President Hugo Chavez and the FARC and their opposition to this agreement. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. March 10, 2008. Dear Colleague: Please read this informative recent article from The Economist about FARC narcoterrorists in Colombia and troubling links with the Chavez administration in Venezuela. As noted below, ``Mr. Chavez, still with oil money but politically on the defensive, may have thrown in his lot with an outlaw army of drug-traffickers.'' Now more than ever we must support the pending Trade Promotion Agreement with our neighbor and friend Colombia. Sincerely, Jerry Weller, Member of Congress.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly stand in opposition of this legislation. We had an opportunity to develop bipartisan legislation, and I regret that was not achieved today. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record this particular advertising for the building trades of the AFL-CIO. New energy taxes won't create energy . . . but they will destroy jobs. Reliable, affordable supplies of energy fuel America's economy and support millions of American jobs. But some in Congress want to put all this in jeopardy with new, higher taxes on energy. History shows such taxes reduce domestic energy production. But they also threaten to undermine America's economy--and send American jobs overseas. Americans need energy policies that ensure reliable supplies to create jobs and support our quality of life for generations to come Americans need more energy, not more energy taxes. And let me quote this ad here. It says, ``Reliable, affordable supplies of energy fuel America's economy and support millions of American jobs. ``But some in Congress want to put all this in jeopardy with new, higher taxes on energy. History shows such taxes reduce domestic energy production. But they also threaten to undermine America's economy, and send American jobs overseas.'' Very simple. Very succinct. The primary reason most Members who oppose this bill stand in opposition, because it raises taxes on domestic manufacturers and domestic jobs. I would like to keep those jobs in America, and this bill will send those jobs elsewhere. I also want to draw attention to something I find, frankly, kind of alarming in this legislation, and the reason I would encourage my colleagues who are thinking about supporting this legislation to think twice. And that's what has become known as the Venezuela carve-out in this legislation. Now, the Chavez government in Venezuela admittedly is no friend of the United States. We just hear the rhetoric each and every day, and they've made that very clear. But this legislation carves out the PDVSA, the Venezuelan Government-owned oil company, from the tax increases. Now the biggest gasoline retailer in America is the Venezuelan Government-owned oil company, and one of the biggest refineries of America is CITGO, and they're exempt from the tax increases. Now, who is the Chavez government? The Chavez government is Iran's best friend. The Chavez government started direct flights between Caracas and Tehran, and now Iranian's intelligence and security operatives use that to come into Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. And frankly, it was the Chavez government that sent troops into a Jewish grade school just two years ago and just this past December raided a Jewish community center in Caracas claiming that the community was hiding guns. And also, just this past week, President Chavez of Venezuela said it is his policy to keep oil at $100 a barrel, that he is going to work with OPEC to keep oil prices high. And this legislation, I can't believe it was done intentionally, but this legislation gives a carve- out to the Venezuelan Government-owned oil company. No friends of ours. I hope my colleagues think twice about supporting this. I believe we had an opportunity for bipartisanship. Much in this bill are good ideas. Much of it builds on what we passed in 2005 in the energy bill of 2005, which I strongly supported. My own district, the revisions in the 2005 energy bill that provided incentives for the development of alternative sources of energy, renewable sources of energy, have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in the 11th Congressional District of Illinois: wind energy, biofuels, ethanol, and biodiesel. And it creates jobs right here at home. There are some good ideas. We need to work on it in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that goal.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation, bipartisan legislation. I note it's a 10-month extension of the existing trade preferences we grant our friends in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. What's important about this 10 months is it gives us ample opportunity for our friends in Peru to work with us to implement the recently ratified U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. It gives us the opportunity over the next 10 months to move forward on ratification of the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, of course Colombia being our most reliable partner for the United States in Latin America. But today we want to talk about trade preferences for the Andean region. When you think about it, 2 million families today are watching the United States Congress. Two million families in the four countries in the Andean region have jobs and livelihoods that depend on the trade preferences. If the trade preferences go away, the livelihood for those 2 million families goes away. Peru, 800,000 jobs have been created by trade preferences. Colombia, 600,000 jobs. Ecuador, 350,000 jobs. Bolivia, up to 150,000 jobs directly and indirectly created as a result of the Andean trade preferences. And when you think about it, what's the alternative? In this region, which is seeking opportunity, and thanks to the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration we have worked to create these trade preferences, the alternatives, if they lose their jobs, are they become part of the wave of illegal immigration as they seek economic opportunities or to become involved in illicit activity, such as the growing of coca and involved in narcotrafficking networks. They don't want to do that. They want good, honest jobs, and the trade preferences give them that. This past week I was part of a bipartisan delegation visiting Ecuador and Bolivia with my friend Eliot Engel and others. It was a bipartisan delegation. We saw firsthand how regular folks, little people, workers, small businesses, men and women, particularly those who in the past have been denied economic opportunity, because of the trade preferences, the opportunity to export to the U.S. market, they have economic opportunity. In Otavalo, Ecuador, we met with a women's cooperativo where they made sweaters and textiles for the U.S. market. We visited those who are involved in cacao production for the purpose of making chocolate, and they are creating organic chocolates that we consume, they can sell in the U.S. market. We, of course, visited organic coffee growers, and we saw how they can take advantage of preferences creating jobs in Ecuador. In Bolivia we visited a textile factory where thousands of workers who otherwise would not have jobs were involved in making garments, assembling textiles and various materials inputs that are manufactured in the United States that are assembled in La Paz, Bolivia, creating jobs and economic opportunity. The point is easily well made that without the trade preferences, those jobs go away. And what is the consequence to America? Another wave of illegal immigration, people seeking economic opportunity, the temptation to become involved in the growing of coca and other crops that are used for narcotics. What is really important I think to note is when we talk about what we as Americans can do to help lift up our neighbors, the trade preferences really work. They come at little or no cost to the United States. But they create a tremendous amount of opportunity in the democracies of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia. I urge bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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 29 through 31. I was absent on Wednesday, February 6th due to familial obligations. If I were present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 29, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 30, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 31.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for the opportunity to speak. Of course, I come before this body today to stand in support of our bipartisan agreement put together by the President and our leadership in an effort to boost our economy. I do want to express to my chairman and my ranking member my disappointment, however, that this product didn't come through the committee, since I know we have good leaders, beginning with our chairman and ranking member, who have good ideas; and I believe this product should have come through the committee with committee action and committee input. But I do stand in support of what I feel is a good compromise. Under this plan, a family of four making $70,000 a year in the district I represent in Illinois will see an extra $1,800 that they can use for family expenses, and that is a good thing, money that can be spent locally and creating local jobs. I would like to focus on the component that I feel is the centerpiece of this stimulus package, which is the 50 percent bonus depreciation, a mechanism that works. It should be called, rather than bonus depreciation, it should be called the ``invest in American jobs component'' of the stimulus package. Because this extra 50 percent bonus depreciation goes to invest in new computers and company equipment and assembly lines, manufacturing lines, they are going to get an extra 50 percent for depreciation purposes. That is an incentive to invest in American jobs here in America, and that is why bonus depreciation is so important. Because when we did it in 2003, it worked. You look at this chart here; and when bonus depreciation was passed into law, we saw an immediate jump in demand for U.S. manufactured goods. The law had an impact, and it had a big impact. Now, I have heard reports today that our friends in the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee, according to reports, may be considering cutting in half the bonus depreciation. Well, in 2001, in the first Bush tax cut, we tried 30 percent bonus depreciation back in this period of time; and as you can see on the chart, it had a little bit of an impact, not very much. As the House and Senate work out our differences if we pass different legislation, I urge that we keep the 50 percent bonus depreciation, again, the ``invest in American jobs'' provision that is in the stimulus act. Mr. Speaker, I urge bipartisan support of this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the renewed recognition of Pluto as a planet. The planet Pluto was discovered on January 23, 1930, by Clyde Tombaugh. Although just 24 years of age with no formal education beyond high school, Mr. Tombaugh discovered this new planet by painstakingly and systematically examining and comparing photographic plates he had made of the night skies over New Mexico. For this achievement, Mr. Tombaugh received a prestigious award from the Royal Astronomical Society along with a scholarship to the University of Kansas, which allowed him to continue his formal education. Clyde Tombaugh went on to make a large number of additional contributions to our knowledge of the universe and to receive many more awards and honors before his death on January 17, 1997. I am proud to note that Mr. Tombaugh was born on February 4, 1906, on a farm near Streator, IL, in LaSalle County--a community which I am privileged to represent in the Congress of the United States. Unfortunately, on August 26, 2006, the International Astronomical Union, IAU, meeting in Prague and relying on the votes of only a handful of its approximately 10,000 members, made the decision to downgrade the status of Pluto. This decision was met with protests from eminent scientists and astronomers all over the world. Perhaps foremost among those in the international scientific community strongly disagreeing with the IAU decision was Dr. S. Alan Stern. Named earlier this year by Time magazine as one of the ``One Hundred Most Influential People in the World'', Dr. Stern is also one of the lead consultants for the New Horizons Mission. The New Horizons Mission is an unmanned spacecraft launched in January of 2006, which is projected to reach Pluto and the outer edge of our solar system in the year 2015. This spacecraft is carrying some of the ashes of Clyde Tombaugh. In closing, I urge my colleagues to express their support for the reversal of the International Astronomical Union's decision and the official reinstatement of Pluto as the ninth and outermost planet in our solar system.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Christian Youth Center in Joliet, IL. The Christian Youth Center, CYC, is celebrating their 50th anniversary this year. In 1957, a group of concerned businessmen under the leadership of Mr. Joseph Pickering, approached Youth Pastor Chuck Miller with the idea of starting a Christian Youth Center. In the fall of 1957, the Christian Youth Center began meeting at the home of Mr. Joseph Pickering and then to a rented storefront on Cass Street near Joliet Central High School. Within a year's time, the club had outgrown the storefront and purchased a two- story house on Herkimer Street. Mr. Miller felt called to another area of service and left the center. In 1961, Harv Russell assumed the responsibility of director of the Center. The organization realized tremendous growth in the following 9 years. Several programs were started which include a Tuesday 1 hour high school radio program, a monthly publication called the Center News, and the establishment of the Women's Auxiliary. All of these programs and more continue to function to this day. In the spring of 1972, ground was broken on a 5-acre tract of land to build the current Christian Youth Center. The new facility was opened on April 15, 1973. Since moving into the new facility, the center has been able to increase the staff to five full-time and five part-time employees. Thousands of young people have passed through the new facility and have participated in weekly activities, concerts, day camps, films and a host of activities established to attract young people. Madam Speaker, I urge this body to identify, and recognize other organizations in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's families and communities.

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 1086 through 1126. I was absent on November 14th, November 15th, and December 4th, due to a death in the family. If I were present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1086, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1087, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1088, ``yea'' on roll call vote 1089, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1090, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1091, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1092, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1093, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1094, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1095, ``nay'' on roll call vote 1096, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1097, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1098, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1099, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1100, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1101, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1102, ``nay'' on roll call vote 1103, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1104, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1105, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1106, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1107, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1108, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1109, ``nay'' on roll call vote 1110, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1111, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1112, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1113, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1114, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1115, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1116, ``yea'' on roll call vote 1117, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1118, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1119, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1120, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1121, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1122, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1123, ``yea'' on roll call vote 1124, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1125, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1126.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, you know, trade and exports are important in States like Illinois, and particularly the district that I represent. In Illinois, 17,000 businesses depend on exports for their survival. Forty percent of the corn soybeans and pork and beef and other livestock products are exported. One out of five manufacturing jobs is dependent on exports. We have an opportunity today to expand trade. The 14 trade agreements this Congress has adopted in the last 12 years have created 16 million new jobs. Today, we have before us the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. What's nice about this agreement is it makes trade a two-way street. Right now, Peruvian products enter the United States duty free. Manufactured goods, agricultural products from Peru enter the United States without tariffs or duties, but it's not reciprocal. Caterpillar, for example, our biggest manufacturer in Illinois, their products face a 12 percent tariff. What's good about the agreement we're going to vote for today is 80 percent of the tariffs on manufactured goods are gone on day one for U.S. products exported to Peru under this trade agreement. It is good for Illinois workers, it's good for Illinois manufacturers, and I also note for Illinois farmers. Right now, they're at a disadvantage. It gives them the opportunity to be competitive. Let's have a bipartisan vote for U.S.-Peru.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Let me begin by congratulating the chairman of this committee, Mr. Rangel, and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Levin, as well as the two ranking Republicans, Mr. McCrery and Mr. Herger, for their leadership in bringing this important trade agreement to the floor. I also want to congratulate Ambassador Susan Schwab, our trade negotiator, as well as her predecessor, Rob Portman, in their good work and frankly also congratulate the leadership of Peru, particularly President Garcia and former President Toledo and their administrations. Mr. Speaker, trade is important to my State of Illinois. One out of five jobs in Illinois is dependent on exports, and 40 percent of the agricultural products in the State of Illinois are dependent on exports. In fact, 17,000 Illinois companies export. And trade agreements are working for Illinois. My State benefits, my district benefits. In fact, if you look at the nations that we have free trade agreements with, they represent almost half of all our exports today, even though they represent only 7 percent of all the nations. And free trade, in the last 10, 12 years has created 16 million jobs nationwide, thousands in my own State. And this trade agreement here is good for Illinois manufacturers; it's good for Illinois farmers. You know, my friend Mr. McCrery pointed out that the current status quo, which was renewed recently by this Congress, gives Peru a pretty good deal. Their manufactured goods, their farm products come into the United States duty free. But our products made in Illinois, manufactured goods and farm products, face tariffs going into Peru. Well, this trade agreement makes trade with Peru a two-way street. On day one of this trade agreement going into effect, 80 percent of the tariffs on manufactured products from Illinois are eliminated. Now, I have 8,000 workers, 8,000 union workers who make yellow construction equipment, well-recognized household name, in my district. And half of the product they produce is exported. This agreement's good for them. But under the current status quo, those mining trucks, those off-road construction equipment that are produced in Joliet and Decatur, they face a 12 percent tariff. And that equipment's a $1 million piece of equipment. That's $120,000 tariff tax imposed on that yellow piece of equipment when it's exported to Peru today. And under this trade agreement, that tariff is eliminated on day one, allowing U.S.-made, Illinois-made construction equipment to be more competitive with their Japanese and Asian competition. It means jobs in Illinois. And I would note, if you care about agriculture in Illinois, farmers will tell you that the Peru and Colombia trade agreements are the best ever for agriculture. This agreement deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule as well as this trade agreement. You know, exports are pretty important to the State that I represent. We have jobs at stake that are dependent on exports in Illinois. In fact, for manufacturing, one out of five manufacturing jobs in Illinois depend on exports. 17,000 Illinois companies depend on exports. And when it comes to agriculture, 40 percent of all the corn and soybeans and farm products produced in Illinois depend on exports. So trade makes a big difference, and trade agreements are important. We win with trade agreements. You look at the record; since 2002, we have nine countries that we have free trade agreements with. In those countries, our exports grew by 19 percent, which is 50 percent faster than the overall growth in exports. Morocco grew 67 percent, Bahrain grew 40 percent, Chile grew 30 percent. We have free trade agreements with 7 percent of the world's countries, representing 14 percent of the gross domestic product of the globe, but those free trade agreements represent half of the exports from America. And free trade in the last dozen or so years has created 16 million new jobs. We've got a good trade agreement before us tonight. Peru is a strong ally and friend of the United States. We have an agreement before us that's good for Illinois and it's good for America. On day one, 80 percent of our exports of consumer and industrial products become duty free immediately. Illinois already exports $198 million in exports to Peru. And it's predicted that exports from key industries will rise as much as 57 percent as a result of this agreement. That's not just the big companies. Small and medium-size enterprises also benefit from tariff elimination. My biggest manufacturer is Caterpillar. They make the yellow construction equipment; 8,000 workers in my district dependent on Caterpillar for their jobs. Today, they face a 12 percent tariff on the equipment that they want to export to Peru. On a million dollar mining truck, that's $120,000 tariff tax. It goes away on day one. And those union workers at Caterpillar, and I would note, 8,000 workers, half of the production in Joliet, the biggest city in my district, is exported today. So they depend on trade. So, the Peru agreement creates jobs in Illinois. Illinois manufacturers are expecting to see a 51 percent increase in exports. And I would note that Peruvian products coming into Illinois today face no tariffs, but Illinois products going to Peru do. And the Peru Trade Agreement is also good for Illinois farmers. Soybeans become duty free immediately; many new markets for Illinois farmers. And before this agreement, Illinois pork and corn were at a competitive disadvantage with our competition in South America, Chile and Argentina, who don't face the high tariffs we do, and so they undercut us on prices, hurting our farmers. This agreement helps Illinois pork, corn, soybean, and other agricultural producers. In fact, farm organizations will tell you, those representing producers will tell you that the Peru and Colombian agreements are the best ever negotiated to break down barriers for American farm products. It is estimated that agriculture alone will see a $700 million increase in exports as a result of the Peru Free Trade Agreement. This trade agreement also has broader implications. As you know, there are some negative forces threatening democracy in Latin America today, and Peru is a shining example of a working democracy with strong leadership. And President Toledo and President Garcia, his successor, are making a difference. Poverty is being reduced; real jobs are being created. Peru is an economic success story. You don't see Peru resorting to anti-American rhetoric and populist rhetoric. You see Peru being a responsible partner with its neighbors. This trade agreement is part of their strategy to reduce poverty. Let's vote for this agreement.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week, the House will vote on a trade agreement between the United States and Peru. By moving forward on the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement we are signaling that the United States will not retreat from trade and will maintain its commitment to its partners. I note that my district depends on exports, both farmers, manufacturers, and workers, and the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement is good for the 11th District of Illinois. This agreement is about economics; it is about the big picture of our hemisphere. We know the numbers. For the United States, on day one, 80 percent of our exports, consumer and industrial products, become duty free immediately. Illinois' small and medium enterprises will benefit greatly from the tariff elimination, as well as its largest employer in the district I represent, Caterpillar. Union workers who build world-famous Caterpillar machinery will benefit when their products such as off- highway trucks are no longer taxed when they arrive in Peru. These vehicles sell for about $1 million and face a 12 percent tariff, meaning $120,000 is added to the price of the vehicle. That goes away on day one, making Caterpillar equipment more competitive with Asian competition, and meaning Caterpillar's union workers will build more machinery for export. The Peru TPA is good for Illinois farmers. Soybeans become duty free immediately, meaning new markets for our farmers. Before this agreement, Illinois pork and corn were at a competitive disadvantage to Chile and Argentina, who faced lower tariffs than the United States' products going into Peru. Now, our pork producers and corn farmers will be competitive. In fact, farmers' groups say Peru and the Colombia Free Trade Agreements are the best deals ever negotiated on behalf of agriculture. In fact, the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement has the potential to increase farm exports by well over $700 million a year. We benefit from two-way trade. But this agreement has broader implications beyond increasing exports for Illinois farmers and manufacturers. Peru is a leader in the hemisphere, and the leadership of President Toledo and now President Garcia is making a difference. Poverty is being reduced, real jobs are being created, and Peru is becoming an economic success story for the hemisphere. Peru is achieving results at home not by following anti- American rhetoric or by giving in to populist demagoguery, but by sound economics and partnerships with the United States. We congratulate President Garcia on his 8 percent economic growth and poverty reduction, and I note poverty is down to 49 percent this past year. This trade agreement is not the solution to poverty, but it is a tool and it will help. In 1994, 270,000 jobs in Peru relied on exports; today, more than 1 million rely on exports, thanks to trade granted by Andean Trade Preferences granted by this Congress. Now, this agreement has the potential to create 1 million more formal jobs in Peru because of exports. Clearly, this partnership with Peru will help lift more families out of poverty. The U.S.-Peru partnership also has broader implications. Coca production is down 70 percent since 1995. Today, Peru is a hemispheric leader in security, helping with peacekeeping in Haiti and is hosting a campus of the International Law Enforcement Academy. Peruvians elected President Garcia to maintain the independence of the country from extremist ideology and to continue on a moderate path. Now is the time to complete the trade commitment with Peru. Peruvians and people across the hemisphere are waiting to see what the United States is going to do and whether we are going to answer the question, are we going to stand by our commitments to our friends? I urge my colleagues to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement this week with a strong bipartisan vote. Let's strengthen the U.S.-Peru partnership that is good for both the United States and is good for Peru.

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 961 through 971. I was absent on Monday, October 29th through Friday, November 2nd due to an illness in the family. If I were present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1010, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1011, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1012, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1013, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1014, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1015, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1016, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1017, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1018, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1019, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1020, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1021, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1022, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1023, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1024, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1025, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1026, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1027, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1028, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1029, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1030, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1031, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1032, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 1033, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1034, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1035, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 1036.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, last month the members of the Ways and Means Committee heard compassionate testimony on several of the tax and benefit provisions for veterans, military families and volunteers in the bill we are considering on the floor today. Several provisions amend the Supplemental Security Income program that operates under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, which I have the privilege of serving as ranking member. These would effectively expand eligibility for and increase SSI benefit payments to certain military families, veterans and AmeriCorps participants. The bill also includes provisions offered by my friends and colleagues, Phil English of Pennsylvania and Tom Reynolds of New York, that would ensure comparable treatment under the SSI program when it comes to State annuities for blind and other disabled veterans. It is important that we look for ways to ensure that those in the military and their families who make sacrifices receive appropriate and timely support. The bill before us today will provide more help to our veterans, to our military families and to others who volunteer in service to our Nation. That is something I support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting our soldiers, our families and others who volunteer to help America by voting ``yes'' for this legislation.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I was absent on Monday, October 15 through mid-day Tuesday, October 16, due to an illness in the family. If I were present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 961, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 962, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 963, ``no'' on rollcall vote 964, ``no'' on rollcall vote 965, ``no'' on rollcall vote 966, ``no'' on rollcall vote 967, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 968, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 969, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 970, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 971.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 949 and 950, I missed these votes because my flight to Washington arrived after votes had concluded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''