You're forgetting the most important player here, Bill Clinton. He(and Hillary) took in $800,000 to promote a trade agreement with Colombia. Has he been fired? (Actually Mark Penn has not been fired either. He's still very active in the campaign.) In addition Clinton campaign advisor Wolffson has a major business interest in promoting the free trade agreement as well. Bit of double dealing here... Bill Clinton in the employ of the Colombian govt, Mark Penn in the employ of the Colombian govt. Harold Wolffson benefiting from the business of the Colombian govt. Hillary Clinton benefiting from Bill's paycheck from the Colombian govt. And the American worker... screwed .. once again. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry4004134.shtml

Tomorrow, House Democrats will vote to change the rules of the House to suspend “Fast Track” procedures for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Adoption of this rules change will leave the timing of consideration of the agreement up to the Democratic Leadership.

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0601

It's a shame that Rep. Hooley has not come out against the Colombia FTA yet. I understand that she is stepping down after this term, but is this what she wants her legacy to be? To be stained with the blood of Colombian trade unionists? We need to let her know that we are watching her actions in D.C.. And we will not forget them when she's back home in Oregon.

Ever since Democrats took control of Congress the economy has been going down the toilet.

I can't believe that Hooley and Wyden are even considering supporting this agreement. Any Democrat that supports Bush on this trade deal deserves to lose their next election.

And what's up with Pelosi trying to delay this? Is she going to try to "fix" this deal, like she did with the Peru agreement? Are we looking at another back room deal?

Shame on Hooley, Wyden and Wu for not immediately rejecting the Columbia FTA. And shame on all the Democrats for not addressing the damage done to working folks here and in the partner countries from the other FTAs. These agreements need to be rescinded so a fresh start can be made to develop fair trade policies.

Thanks for this thread! FYI, Rep. Wu just formally announced his opposition. This should be a no-brainer for Rep. Hooley and Sen. Wyden. Where are they?

I find it almost offense that these kinds of trade deals are even referred to as "fair trade." We should call it what it is--managed trade or monopolized trade.

Our current trade policy is the side effect of big corporations using big government to tax and regulate their competitors out of business, because they can afford the lobbyists to help write the legislation.

True free trade would enhance the ability of everyone on this post, and everyone in the world, to utilize communication technology to sell goods and services to each other without the undue interference of our government and their government. Otherwise, it ends up becoming more like organized crime.

After she returns to the White House, President Hillary Clinton will approve the Colombia Free Trade Act and will respond to critics, "I was against it before I was for it."

Bill, I can't believe you don't believe Hillary on this! Just because she's lying about her support for NAFTA, and her hubby is good friends with Colombia's President Uribe, and her camapagn manager was actively lobbying for it, I'm sure we can count on her to oppose this deal.

Yeah, right...

Check out the Huffington Post story on Bill's connection to Colombia.

We must oppose all these investor rights accords that pose as free trade agreements, and Representatives Hooley and Wu and Senator Wyden should be ashamed they would not immediately come out an say they will not throw US jobs in the toilet and support a Colombian government that willfully supports the murder of its own people who do crazy things like demand basic human rights.

As is, even the so-called reforms, such as in the Peru FTA, are only better in terms of how they read. The reality is that whatever "safeguards" are in the Peru FTA must be enforced, and few in the US and Peruvian governments care to support such things if it diminishes profit.

Bill Bowden: are you a republican bill, because that is phrasing directly from the repubs swift boat ads???????we are democrats-and we are not buying it..Doesn' the republican party have a website for you guys to go to?????Bill R : went to the CBS report from the road, expecting some big revelation....still waiting...only one person in that piece running for president-and she's against it-altho mabe something is illuding me here; who is going to move their corp. to an unstable country and take american jobs with them..last i checked their major export was cocaine..Am I missing something here, aren't we hoping they will get an economic base to compete with that ,as we are doing (not very sucessfully in afganistan)to try and slow down the cocaine and heroine traffic?

“Trade agreements are one of the key ways in which Congress has the ability to promote democracy, human and workers’ rights, and the rule of law abroad. Because Colombia continues to have among the world’s highest rates of killings of trade unionists and human rights workers, I intend to vote against the free trade agreement as presented to Congress by President Bush. As with all trade agreements, I considered it based on three key items: how well the country in question respects its citizens’ human rights, whether its labor policies are fair to workers and unions, and whether it operates in an environmentally conscious manner. The continued reports of violence in Colombia necessitate my rejection of a free trade agreement with Colombia at this time.”

Congressman Wu (quote)

I got a call back from Representive Hooley's office Suzanne Kunse she is still taking phone calls and not sure which way she will go.

I looked at Cong. Hooley's and Sen. Wyden's web sites today and could find no mention of the Columbia Free Trade Act or their positions on it. I won't repeat all the reasonable arguments against this pact. Count me in opposition to the Columbia Free Trade Agreement until it includes REAL ILO protections as well as reasonable environmental and human rights language.

It would be great if Congresswoman Hooley ended her illustrious tenure in congress by taking a strong stance against this corporate give away.

It seems like a bad dream but the Bush administration continues to get their way on pretty much everything.... while engaged in two occupations (at least one of them illegal). The Democrats need to grow a spine and stop being "enablers".

If Hillary is so clearly opposed to this deal then, at minimum, she should give back the $800,000 that she and Bill pocketed for promoting it. That might be more convincing than playing a game of "let's pretend" Mark Penn isn't on the team anymore, when he is very much in the inner circle and still moonlighting in his lobbying work.

The real question here is why would the good Congresswoman, or any Democrat, support any NAFTA style agreement? Columbia is a "no brainer" with its abysmal human rights record and the government sanctioned killing of thousands of men and women for the crime of trying to organize. All Free Trade Agreements from Jordan to Singapore or from Chile to Canada are bad for working families around the world but good for the corporate élite. So, Madam Hooley, and Mister Wyden, what constituency are you serving?

Oh and I would challange the unsupportable statement that protectionism is bad. People recite this mantra as if it is a given but offer no proof. After 40 of Free Trade favored policy, where is the proof that anyone but the rich corporate élite benefit?

For Sandra and others who hope that an FTA will provide Colombia with an economic base to compete with the cocaine industry, please note that Colombia's own Ministry of Agriculture has issued a report warning that the FTA will lead to an increase is coca production, drug tyrafficking and illegally armed groups.

Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. These trade agreements have increased poverty around the world.

Unions and indigenous groups in Colombia has asked our Members of Congress to oppose the Colombia FTA. It's offensive that Democrats in Oregon are even considering supporting it.

Arianna Huffington has an article here about the extensive and long term connections between the Clintons and the govt. of Colombia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-clinton-colombia-conn_b_95929.html

In response to several comments.

Let me quote several left-of-center economists. NY Times columist Paul Krugman wrote a column (4/14/07) "Divided Over Trade" (see here). The column was summarized by Harvard economist Dani Rodrik (see here) as follows:

"1. One could have minimized the impact of trade on U.S. wages ten years ago (as Krugman among other economists did), but it is difficult to do so now in light of sharply expanded trade with developing countries.

"2. Protectionism is not the right response, but primarily because it would have adverse effects on poor nations such as Bangladesh and India. (Krugman implies, but does not explicitly say, that raising trade barriers at home would move distribution in the "desired" direction.)

"3. Including labor standards in trade agreements is OK, but it will do very little to improve labor incomes at home (in this Krugman echoes the points made by James Galbraith in his debate with Jeff Faux).

"4. The solution to labor woes therefore lies not in trade, but in appropriate social policies, such as universal health insurance.

"The point that trade policy cannot substitute for an adequate social policy is perfectly sensible. So is the argument that the need for social policy becomes greater when globalization exerts downward pressure on wages and creates new risks and anxieties. As a large and venerable literature has shown, countries that trade more have larger social programs and more generous safety nets.

"It is also interesting that Krugman's main objection to protectionism is not that it would be bad for the U.S. (the usual economist's argument), but that it would be bad for others, particularly poor nations." Ends quote.

Two other points: (a) all legislation coming out of Washington, including trade legislation, bear too many provisions for special interests. I'm against that. But general rhetoric and rants against trade bills for being good only for corporations do not cut it with me. (b) The Colombian trade bill is probably not significant. See Dani Rodrik's wonderings here. But other trade relations are very important. I am most concerned about China. China has moved hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty over the last several decades. Much of that was possible because of trade and their export economy. China could become the globe's dominant superpower over the course of this century. And while anti-China sentiment is on the increase in the US and punitive trade proposals circulate, I agree with Berkeley economist Brad DeLong: "There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible." (see here)

Even Nancy Pelosi has shown spine on the Colombia FTA -- she is going to move to change the House rules to remove the 90-day "fast track" for trade bills. It is unlikely that the Colombia deal will come to a vote before the November election -- so the next President will have the opportunity to renegotiate it with labor and environmental protections included in the deal.

Kari Chisolm: As I wrote back in November, Gordon Smith isn't just supportive of the Colombia trade deal - he's taking a lead role in promoting it.

And the Urban Planning Overlord responded with the following:

[sigh] I can tell by the tone of this post that political operative Kari Chisolm has decided that free trade is the "wedge" issue that is going to get the Democrats some traction, just like illegal immigration is the Republicans' "wedge" issue.

It's called outsourcing the misery of demagoguery onto other nations, in both cases.

Except that it will bite this country in the butt too.

Is political power worth the long-term decline facing this country from protectionism and closed borders?

Which means, once again, thinking voters like myself will have no choice in November 2008..

And now the ugly, illogical, economically defeatist, to-hell-with-the-poor-people-in-the-rest-of-the-world ideology of protectionism has returned, this time in the words of Lenny Dee.

Rusa says: It's a shame that Rep. Hooley has not come out against the Colombia FTA yet. I understand that she is stepping down after this term, but is this what she wants her legacy to be? To be stained with the blood of Colombian trade unionists?

I've got another interpretation for you, Rusa.

Darlene Hooley isn't stupid - she took Economics 101 in college and, unlike the protectionists caterwauling on this thread, actually learned that FREE TRADE IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Both parties benefit from the more efficient allocation of production in the most economically efficient manner. And by "parties" I don't mean economic elites, I also mean the working people of Columbia, who will have access to new and better jobs in export industries, and the working people of the U.S., who will ALSO have access to new and better jobs in export industries. And consumers in both nations will have extra money in their pockets because the goods they buy can be produced more efficiently and will cost less.

And Representative Hooley knows that, since she isn't running for re-election, she doesn't have to kow-tow to economic illiterates in the Democratic party like Blumenauer and Wu do. (DeFazio is another (nut)case altogether on this subject)

Maybe I'm giving too much credit to Darlene Hooley. I certainly hope that I'm right though.

Here's some that I wrote about Colombia and free trade back in November. It remains as true now as it was then.

Colombia is a functioning democracy. It's not functioning very well, but they have an elected President and Congress. They have big trouble with governmental corruption, right-wing death squads, drug lords, and left-wing revolutionaries. But they are not sliding into oblivion, they are progressing and growing steadily more prosperous as a nation, and not just the wealthy elite. For some unbiased facts about Colombia, try this site .

Now let's look at some other case studies in Latin America:

MEXICO: I get really tired of those who claim that NAFTA has hurt, rather than helped the U.S. and Mexico. Is it coincidence that we have not suffered a significant recession since 1994, when NAFTA was passed? Is it coincidence that Mexico's economy has, after the disaster of 1994-95, gone steadily upward, enriching all classes of Mexicans?

CHILE: Dictator Pinochet introduced "the Chicago Boys" to Chile in the early 1980's to provide free markets at the end of the barrel of the gun. Fortunately for Chileans, his democratically elected successors have kept the same free market policies, and Chile is the most prosperous nation in Latin America today.

BRAZIL: Widely feared to reverse the economic progress made under his right of center predecessor, President Lula da Silva has kept in place the free market economic policies that brought the progress and ended hyperinflation. Brazil is enjoying one of its most prosperous and economically advancing periods in its history.

Meanwhile, in VENEZUELA, almost-dictator Chavez has promised Bolivarian Socialism. Without the oil revenues his country's economy would have already collapsed, but as it is his economic illiteracy has led to artificial consumer shortages and other economic hardships. And I haven't even discussed the "miracle" economies of East Asia, built upon cheap imports to the developed world and built upon capitalism. Now those nations are becoming prosperous enough that they can care about labor rights and environtalism, luxuries of the world's more developed economies.

Even if all of this free trade has hurt the U.S. somewhat (and where is the evidence of that? - restructuring has created new jobs to replace the old - it's mainly a matter of retraining workers not equipped to do the new jobs), doesn't the vast improvement in the fortunes of the masses of humanity in former and current Third World nations more than balance it out?

I obviously feel passionately about this issue - it's a HUGE mistake for the left in this country to demonize free trade, just as it's a HUGE mistake for the right in this country to demonize immigrants.

Dave Porter (ed. note: who also defends free trade quite ably on Blue Oregon) presented the case for free trade in the developing countries, but what about the U.S.? Yes, some workers lose their jobs. There are lots of other jobs in the U.S. - we have a historically low unemployment rate and we have undocumented workers flooding the border to fill jobs Americans won't do. If you want to argue that the government should provide subsidies for re-training of workers for new skills, I agree.

What you are also forgetting is that low wage foreign workers mean lower prices for U.S. consumers. Isn't it a benefit that our food prices, our clothing prices, our prices for lots of goods are lower than if we put up a protectionist wall and required all of these goods to be produced in the U.S.? What good is a higher wage if higher prices go along with it? When we pay less for our goods, we can buy more goods, or save the extra money, or subsist on a lower wage.

There are lots of things government can be doing to make the lives of working class Americans easier - that's one of the prime reasons for throwing the Republicans out on their butt in 2008. But putting up protectionist walls to keep out goods from places like Colombia is NOT one of them.

Urban Planning Overlord's qualifications are wonderful. Colombia's a democracy, but never mind that people who might think differently than those who control the government get tortured and/or murdered, because, apparently, democracy is only defined by voting. We have not had a significant recession in this country since NAFTA was passed, save for the two or three since then c. 1998, 2001, and now, unless of course one follows the textbook definition of a recession, and not the reality of people suffering. Good correlation between these ideas of recession and democracy.

And the mantra of ignoring reality continues by the UPO. Fortunately for Chileans, many of their friends and relatives were tortured, disappeared, murdered; etc. They could only have been more fortunate had bubonic plague struck, I guess. Never mind that Lula has made significant changes to the free market system that also came at the end of a gun barrell during the 1960s, with the usual suffering.

Meanwhile, the only real thing that should matter to people who remotely give a damn about democracy is whether or not people like the way their country is. Venezuela has the highest ranking from its people of any country.

<h2>And since the Venezuelan government is not currently slaughtering its citizens, this must be of double pain to UPO. No, UPO, lower priced goods, at least by my standards , are not worth the cost of other people dying.</h2>