Pelosi to Block Vote on Colombia

JIM ABRAMS | April 9, 2008 06:42 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, second from left, speaks in the White House briefing room in Washington, Wednesday, April 9, 2008, about President Bush's proposal for a free trade agreement with Colombia. The pact is heavily opposed by Democrats, who claim Colombia has not done enough to halt violence, protect labor activists and demobilize paramilitary organizations. From left are, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Rice, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and United States Trade Representative Susan Schwab. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

WASHINGTON — Defying the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday the House will change its rules to avoid a required vote this year on a free-trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said the change would remove the timetable that says Congress must take up trade bills within 90 legislative days after they are received from the White House. She intended to bring the rule proposal to the full House on Thursday.

"The president took action" in submitting the deal Tuesday, she said. "I will take mine tomorrow."

The Colombia deal was a leading topic as President Bush and congressional leaders discussed the economy and other issues at the White House Wednesday afternoon. Pelosi, emerging from the meeting, said their message to the president was that the main concern must be the living standards of Americans and they could not consider the free trade pact "unless we address the economic insecurity of America's working families."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Pelosi was trying to do something "unprecedented in the history of negotiating trade deals in announcing that Democrats would change the rules in the middle of the game."

Removing the timetable sets an awful precedent "for all future administrations, both Republicans and Democrats, because countries will not be able to have faith in our word when we're negotiating trade deals," Perino said.

The White House says helping an important ally in South America is in the political and security interests of the United States. Perino accused Democrats of trying to kill the deal "without having to have their fingerprints on it."

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement that Pelosi's proposal "would be cheating." What nation, he asked, "would conclude a treaty with the United States knowing that Congress can change the rules of the game after it is negotiated?"

Most Democrats, backed by organized labor and some human rights groups, are against the Colombia deal. They have cited violence against union organizers in Colombia and have made clear they will not consider further agreements until legislation is passed to expand current programs to help American workers displaced by foreign trade.

"Our focus on Colombia is the continuing violence against trade unionists," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director. He said he thought Pelosi's action effectively would stop any action on the agreement this year.`

The administration says the Colombian government has made significant strides in reducing violence. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, in a letter to Pelosi last week, said the agreement "will send a clear message of support to a strong democratic ally, particularly given the continuing assault on the government of Colombia by narco-terrorists and the recent provocative actions by an increasingly aggressive Venezuela."

They also pointed out that the agreement would help U.S. companies with exports. While Colombia already enjoys duty-free status on almost all its exports to the United States, the agreement would reduce and eventually eliminate tariffs on U.S. shipments to Colombia.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the rule change would apply only to Colombia. Under trade rules that expired last year but still applied to the Colombia deal, the House has 60 legislative days to take up the agreement after the president sends it to Congress. The Senate has 30 days after that to act.

Pelosi said at a news conference that if legislation approving the trade deal were considered now, it would lose. "What message would that send" to the Colombian people?

She denied that the rule change doomed action on the agreement this year, saying that "depends on the good faith in which we conduct these negotiations."

The administration has talked to Democrats about ways to help American workers. The House last year passed legislation to expand a program that provides financial aid and training to people who lose jobs as a result of trade. But the White House threatened a veto and the Senate never took it up.

Pelosi insisted that the House's right to determine its own rules overrides any requirements that Congress take up a measure within a certain time.

In a display of urgency, the White House hastily called several Cabinet secretaries to the press briefing room Wednesday so they could restate the case to reporters.

Rice said there was no more important trade agreement in recent memory. "What will it say if the United States turns its back now on Colombia?" she said.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said the House's maneuvering was "unprecedented and unfair by any definition." Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez called the move "profoundly disappointing."

There was dismay in Colombia among supporters of the agreement. Hernando Gomez, the former chief of negotiations for Colombia's trade ministry and current president of the think tank Council on Private Competition said: "I don't see any reason for further delay. People must remember that traditionally U.S. policy toward Colombia has been bipartisan."

"The credibility of the U.S. is at stake here" if it was to further complicate a trade deal with its closest ally in Latin America, he said.

___

Associated Press writer Toby Muse in Bogota, Colombia, contributed to this report.

 

Comments
141
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Taking TIME to research Bush's plans for the USA's trade deal is needed.

When has Bush done anything remotely good for the country?

How long has it been that the DEMS had any power to do anything to curb The Dry Drunk?

Carry on, Nancy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 AM on 04/10/2008

Good job, Nancy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 AM on 04/10/2008

It's very good news that the Colombian free trade agreement has run into a roadblock. This is progress. If Dennis Hastert were still speaker, the damned thing would probably have passed faster than you can say "murdered Colombian labor leader". Now if the House could just cut off all military aid to Colombia too!! But one must have reasonable expectations. People who want to see more positive developments for Colombia need to spend more time ensuring that Uribe's government gets all the denunciation it deserves.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 PM on 04/09/2008

THANK YOU ! Speaker Pelosi

There is no reason to rush, it should be fully explored and understood as to the impacts in both the United States and Colombia. To just reward and strengthen the leadership in Colombia without addressing the treatment of it's own citizens could prove counter productive.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 PM on 04/09/2008

Hey Dana, whats your objection to the Dems changing rules all about? Your boss is the KING of rules change. Any free trade trade agreement made so far by this country should be renamed "free job loss agreement". Columbia's is no different. You go Nancy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 04/09/2008

So this is how the US treats its allies.....Shameful!!!! I have been to Colombia before and after President Uribe took charge and there has been and incredible turn around in Colombia . Murder and Kidnapping down around 80-90%, people are safe to travel the country something they were not able to do a few years ago. The economy is growing there a lot of foreign investment, tourism is growing by leaps and bounds. I dont get it? the deal would have help both countries, why stop it? It is just because Bush was supporting it? Is it just for political gain since its an election year and all the FTA's are not popular with democratic voters?
I have lost a lot of faith on democratic leadership.......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 PM on 04/09/2008

NO, Its not at all about dissing Columbia. The agreement does not benefit either country's peoples. It only makes it easier for corporations in this country to exploit the people and resources of Columbia, as well as move economy sustaining jobs from this one.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 04/09/2008

Speaker Pelosi: If you manage to stop this horrible trade deal I will completely change my mind about you. I have called you a quisling and worse. I will take it all back. When people condemn you for your failure to impeach, I will say yes, but Nancy deserves praise for stopping that horrible free trade deal with Colombia. I don't care in the least how you justify or rationalize your actions just so long as you block and ultimately kill this deal. You are sticking it to the bushies where it hurts. They will scream bloody murder. Good luck to you and thank you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 04/09/2008

I must say it! I am slightly less repulsed by this cowardly little woman. Still, she is a case study of Dereliction of duty, taking impeachment off the table while public evidence of crimes exists is not among forgivable sins!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 PM on 04/09/2008

Now come on! The last thing you do to a dog that won't hunt is to yell at it or kick it. Pelosi deserves credit and public approval for her action against the dissolution of the US economy. We want more of the same, please, and as for the critics who say this is hurting Columbia? Ask Mexican farmers and workers about the wonders of NAFTA. Once the doors were down, the Corporations had a green light to loot and run from BOTH of the involved countries at will. And they did. Continue to "encourage" Pelosi to pursue a Progressive agenda, but praise her when she does!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 AM on 04/10/2008

Dear Dana; Thanks to Chimpy, most countries already have no faith in our words...

Dear Nancy; More please....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 PM on 04/09/2008

You mean impeachment is off the table N.P. is finalllllly going to stand for something? I did not think i would live long enough to see this. This woman is a total piece of work.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 04/09/2008

She is growing BALLS!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 04/09/2008

Let me preface this by stating I am against CAFTA and all other "free trade agreements" that are not fully and publically vetted. That said, What the hell does Pelosi think she's doing?She's not the Queen of Congress! She doesn't want to have a vote? Change the rules, again? How about no more House votes until a Dem is President with a 70-30 majority in both houses. Why not go over to Archives and change the Constitution while you're at it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 04/09/2008

"Why not go over to Archives and change the Constitution while you're at it."

Bush has already done that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 04/09/2008

Good one.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 04/09/2008

I wish her reasons were better. Free trade as defined by United States standards is a failed policy. It's almost surreal to have Pelosi defy the policy - she's just another washington whore and everyone knows it. If she had any real integrity - she'd be doing this for the right reasons.

But I suppose this is better than nothing, and it's a start.
*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 04/09/2008

YOU GOT IT.. Better than nothing and a start.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 04/09/2008

I think she is blocking the agreement for the "right" reasons. The problem is that "Fast-Track" rules don't leave the Congress much in the way of a mechanism for blockage outside of changing House rules.

While I agree she never should have said that foolishness about the Constitutionally-mandated process of impeachment, I don't think it's reason enough to jump down her throat constantly. Pelosi has consistently taken a strong stand on a whole host of progressive issues despite her background in machine politics. She was against the illegal Iraq war, she's condemned Administration inaction on Darfur (as well as Rwanda back when Clinton did nothing to prevent the death of a MILLION), and she has been opposing America's appeasement of the brutal Chinese government for years.

Besides, if Pelosi wasn't Speaker, we would have had Steny Hoyer, DINO Extraordinaire.
Criticize our Congressional allies when they're wrong & support them when they're right - is it really so hard?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 04/09/2008

Fast track means they can't add pork,......... that is why they don't like fast track!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 04/09/2008

NOW the "credibility of the US is at stake"? Now THAT's even funnier!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 04/09/2008

Dana Perino referencing history? Now THAT's funny!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 04/09/2008

Since 2007 I have not heard a single argument given even hypothetically that leads me to believe the Democratic party is better off with Nancy Pelosi as speaker. I have tried to think of all the possible down sides to her removal, and I keep coming to the realization that Pelosi' inaction is far more dangerous and destructive to liberal and progressive ideology and its ability to shape American culture in a progressive manner, than having a less experienced congress person in Cindy Sheehan.

Either you fight to make real that which you claim to believe in, or you shut up and stand aside for those
individuals with enough balls to do so. This has been the key behind the success of the debased organization called the republican party. A willingness to take political risk in order to move the country in you ideological direction. Republicans will lose in November, but in 8 years, they have moved the nations institutions so far to the right that they will continue to rule even while being punished.
It amazes me that people like Nancy Pelosi have no fundamental grasp of this reality in the game of power.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:18 PM on 04/09/2008

"Either you fight to make real that which you claim to believe in, or you shut up and stand aside for those individuals with enough balls to do so... A willingness to take political risk in order to move the country in you ideological direction."

I see that as exactly what Speaker Pelosi is doing on this issue along with her opposition to appeasement of China and to the illegal Iraq invasion. As Speaker, she's responsible for corralling all of the Democrats in the House, not just the Progressive Caucus. I don't envy her the task of getting people like Heath Schuler and all the other me-first right-wing Democrats to stop kissing GOP azz.

As for the alternative to Pelosi as speaker, while I may wish it was Kucinich or Barney Frank or Barbara Lee or just about any dyed-in-the-wool left wing Democrat, that doesn't reflect the reality of the House. In 2006 the alternative was Steny Hoyer and before that, her chief rival for Minority Leader was Harold Ford Jr. - they get to choose their own leadership. Like it or not, Pelosi is and was the progressive alternative to the conservative troglodytes that the old boys' network ran against her. We don't see behind the scenes, but I'm guessing that her experience in old-school machine politics makes her a pretty good bulwark against the corporatist bozos like Hoyer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 04/09/2008

That's because you apparently no nothing about this woman. She is brilliant and smart and calculating and she is picking her fights well.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 PM on 04/09/2008

Sheehan would Lose badly?

Sort of like how Hillary was inevitable, and Barack stood "zero chance" at the nomination?

My friend you just don't seem to grasp the transformational wave that is happening around you.

Would Cindy have an uphill battle? You bet your butt she would.
Would Cindy have more help than she knew what to do with? You bet your butt she would.
Would Cindy actually do what she says if elected? You bet she would.

You see, people like Cindy Sheehan have already made the personal sacrifice required to have credibility on Iraq. Nancy Pelosi and other weak spirited lawmakers have made no sacrifice at all.
This is why they can play endless semantic games with issues of War and death. It costs them NOTHING. At no point in her term has Speaker Pelosi ever honestly intended to even "try" and end the Iraq war. Whether troops are dying in Iraq for 100 hours or 100 years. It costs nothing to Nancy Pelosi.

Well the time has come for Americans to exact a cost on everyone who lied and caused this mass amount of fraud death and murder to occur and continue. If not a personal cost, then a political and professional cost. There is simply no other way to get people like Pelosi to be effective other than getting rid of them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 04/09/2008

I dont think this worked, so I will try again.

You know if Pelosi is against it, that means she will vote for it behind closed doors and then go mute about the whole thing. Just like every time she supported Bush before. I dont trust her at all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 04/09/2008

Pelosi for President!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 04/09/2008

She'd have to impeach Bush and Cheney first.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 04/09/2008

*

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

Impeach Bush and Cheney... or STFU.
Stop funding the Iraqupation... or STFU.
Stop meddling with the SuperDelegates, unless it's to tell Christine to STFU,... or STFU.

By not impeaching Bush for "torching" the Constitution and fiddling while the nation burns ON YOUR WATCH, you are derelict in your "duty" to "cast off despotism" as defined in the Declaration of Independence.

Both documents are recommended reading, as clearly, you are not familiar with them.

If you think it personally unseemly to bring charges as you would be next in line for the Presidency, feel free to step down from your Speaker post when the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House are delivered to the Senate. It should be a heavy stack of documents, but there's always room for a resignation letter.

And to think, I had such high hopes for you and for Congress a mere 14 months ago.

P.S. Please note that as a blogger here on HuffPo, you may respond to my and other commenters directly. Arianna will even put your comments in a pretty little box so they stand out.

Sincerely,
- RIMR

*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 04/09/2008

There are not enough votes to impeach the bastards. But wait until we get into the White House and have our own Justice Department who will try these bastards war crimes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 04/09/2008

ReasonIsMyReligion,

I, for one, definitely share your OUTRAGE that no action has been taken in our own country against these criminals, enemies of our nation who have taken over.

There is always speculation about why no action has been taken -- it would distract from more important matters (clearly the weakest argument); it would cause a backlash of support for the neo-cons (another weak argument); the Dems want to keep all of this administration's crimes alive for campaign issues (the argument that makes sense to me); or the Dems fear revealing their own complicity in these crimes (an argument that may be true for some Dems).

I suppose there are other theories, too, but nothing really holds up under scrutiny in terms of explaining the dereliction of duty to which you refer. I hope voters turn out in November and replace some of these current Dems with BETTER DEMS who will not be complicit, and who will do what is right, what is needed, if we are to right this sinking ship that is our nation -- that would be to hold these criminals responsible for their crimes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 04/09/2008

Thank you for adding your eloquence to this matter.

Add two more arguments:
1) Pelosi is afraid of the personal and party backlash should impeachment not be supported in the Senate. To me, that's on the Senate's conscience.
2) By so stating, Pelosi won herself the Speakership. To me, that's on Pelosi's conscience.

I continue to marvel that by saying in advance that "impeachment is off the table," Pelosi paved the way for even more new abuses on her watch. Is there nothing that would out impeachment back ON the table?

If not Bush and Cheney as a matching set, then why not Cheney only?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 04/09/2008

rimr -

Simple majority -vs- super majority. If you don't understand this concept or how it effects the type of action you'd like to see then sir, I hope you crack the books a bit or click around the internets and find out what it is.

I'm pissed too at all that has gone on for the past 7 years but Pelosi is the wrong person to blame. In fact the bash Pelosi crowd is typically a rightest, sometimes pretending to be a Dem (moderate or lefty, take your choice) on a blog near you, just to deliver the meme.

Obama '08

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 04/09/2008

Navy26Yrs,

Pelosi is not the wrong person to blame, although I would agree that she is not the ONLY person to blame. She is Speaker of the House, which entitles her to certain privileges that others do not have. She made the announcement. The big question is WHY are there not enough votes? There simply SHOULD BE. And announcing "impeachment is off the table" was giving up the only viable bargaining chip the Dems had coming into congress after the 2006 elections. It was like a poker player laying his cards on the table BEFORE making any bets. How stupid is that?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 04/10/2008

First, thank you for your service.

I more than understand the math. But I'm not sure YOU understand the lofty principles being pushed "off the table" by not only declining to impeach, but by so announcing in advance.

As for cracking the books, sir, or the internets (sic), please ponder why the Founding Fathers made it easier to impeach than to override a veto.<