[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1131-H1137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXTENSION ACT OF 2008
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5264) to extend certain trade preference programs, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5264
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Andean Trade Preference
Extension Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT.
(a) Extension.--Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference
Act (19 U.S.C. 3206) is amended by striking ``February 29,
2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
(b) Treatment of Certain Apparel Articles.--Section
204(b)(3) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C.
3203(b)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (iii)--
(i) in subclause (II), by striking ``5 succeeding 1-year
periods'' and inserting ``6 succeeding 1-year periods''; and
(ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by inserting ``and for the
succeeding 1-year period,'' after ``for the 1-year period
beginning October 1, 2007,''; and
(B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ``4 succeeding 1-year
periods'' and inserting ``5 succeeding 1-year periods''; and
(2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking ``December 31,
2006'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
SEC. 3. CUSTOMS USER FEES.
Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``December 13, 2014''
and inserting ``December 27, 2014''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``December 13,
2014'' and inserting ``December 27, 2014''.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of
the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased
by 0.25 percentage points.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
each will control 20 minutes.
[[Page H1132]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of extending the Andean Trade Preference Act,
which provides duty-free treatment to certain exports from Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
The ATPA program is a program that has been working. It has benefited
the region by providing much-needed economic development to these four
countries. There is also some evidence that it has helped create some
alternatives to the illegal drug trade.
Importantly, and I emphasize this, this has all been accomplished in
a way that is more complementary than it is competitive; so there have
been economic benefits for the four nations and for our Nation. In
fact, if you exclude oil and oil products, the U.S. has a trade surplus
with the region. We export about $13 billion to these four countries,
and they export about $11 billion to us.
Beyond the numbers, the composition of the trade is also
complementary. With agriculture, it's the seasonal nature of the trade.
Crops from these countries tend to be imported when the U.S. crops they
compete with are not in season.
It's also complementary in textiles and apparel trade. Under ATPA the
U.S. textile industry ships U.S. yarns and fabrics to the region, and
they export to us apparel made with those U.S. inputs. In fact, U.S.
exports of yarn and fabric to the region were $111 million in 2007, up
from $58 million in 2002. The only apparel that comes in duty free that
is not made with U.S. yarn and fabrics is made with materials that we
don't have in our country like pima cotton and alpaca.
It's the complementary nature of this trade that has generated
widespread support for the extension of this program, including support
from the business community and the labor community.
Concerns have been raised about whether Ecuador and Bolivia are
living up to their ATPA obligations and treating U.S. investors fairly.
And the answer is, and I want this to be clear, that the administration
has the authority to revoke ATPA status to any country failing to meet
any of the ATPA criteria, and there is a broad range of them, including
those related to the treatment of investors.
If this program is not extended, it would be mutually disadvantageous
to both the United States and to these four countries.
I want to emphasize, as I did some months ago when there was an
extension, we are talking today about the Andean Trade Preference Act.
We are not talking about any other FTA, whether it be Colombia, Korea,
or any other place. Each agreement must be decided on its own merits.
In any respect, therefore, it would be counterproductive to vote
against extending the Andean Trade Preference Act.
I strongly urge approval of this 10-month extension.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this short-term extension of the
Andean trade preferences. This extension will provide a necessary
bridge to provide time for the implementation of the U.S.-Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement and for Congress to consider the U.S.-Colombia
Trade Promotion Agreement.
The short duration of the extension signifies that Congress is
concerned with the deteriorating investment climate for U.S. investors
in Ecuador and Bolivia and that these countries must quickly and
completely comply with all their international obligations with regard
to investment disputes. While the Andean trade preference program
provides important economic benefits to exporters in Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru, it is not a substitute for moving toward a
reciprocal arrangement that also provides benefits to U.S. exporters.
Congress has already taken the first step in this process by passing
the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Now Congress must take the
next step to pass the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to
my colleague from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a valued member of the
committee.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of shaping
globalization to ensure that its benefits are shared more broadly,
particularly for the vulnerable living in America or in developing
countries.
President Kennedy said that American apathy ``would be disastrous to
our national security, harmful to our comparative prosperity, and
offensive to our conscience.'' His observation rings true today perhaps
more than yesterday. Globalization is not helping the poor around the
world as much as it is helping the rich. We have a moral obligation to
adjust our trade and development policies to reverse this situation.
The bill before us would extend a program that's enabling developing
countries within our own hemisphere to diversify and grow their own
economies. The Andean trade preference program has enabled the creation
of jobs in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador by reducing import tariffs on
American-bound products from these countries.
These economies are doing well in part because of the partnership
achieved through ATPA, so it's important that we extend this program in
order to not undo the progress that has been achieved in what can be a
very economically and politically fragile region of our hemisphere.
This extension, while important, is a baby step. It is imperative
that this Congress this year examine the need to reform our trade
policies to ensure we provide maximum opportunity to the poorest of the
world's poor.
One of six children in Africa, where the majority of the world's poor
live, will die before reaching age 5, on a continent where hunger is a
key factor in more deaths than those caused by all infectious disease.
The United States, in agreeing to the Millennium Development Goals in
2000, committed to fully opening our markets to the least developed
countries. It's been 8 years. It's time to act.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Generalized System of
Preferences continues to fall short. I'm really disappointed that we
could not achieve bipartisan consensus on making some modest
improvements in GSP and AGOA within this bill, but I am confident we
will reach consensus in the future.
Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter from the
Catholic Bishops. This letter encourages us to pass the bill before us
and pass legislation to improve our trade policies with the least
developed countries.
Department of Justice, Peace,
and Human Development,
Washington, DC, February 25, 2008.
Hon. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Washington, DC.
Ambassador Susan Schwab,
U.S. Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Senator Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Paulson, Ambassador Schwab, Senator Reid,
Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressman Boehner: I
am writing on behalf of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to offer reflections on several key
trade measures that Congress may act on this year.
USCCB takes a particular interest in trade policy and
legislation because of its potential to promote integral
human development in the poorest countries and among the
poorest communities around the world. Much more than
fostering economic growth, trade should play an essential
role in reducing poverty by helping to shape domestic and
international legal frameworks to protect workers and the
environment, ensure opportunities for decent work at a just
wage for struggling families and provide access to technology
and knowledge for those at the margins of society.
In the Church's vision, economic life should be guided by a
moral framework that respects the life and dignity of every
person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: ``The
human being is the author, center
[[Page H1133]]
and goal of all economic and social life. The decisive point
of the social question is that goods created by God for
everyone should in fact reach everyone in accordance with
justice and with the help of charity.'' (# 2459)
Trade policy should include complementary policies and
initiatives that promote equitable development for all
people. Increased trade should leave no one behind,
particularly the least among us. For this reason, the United
States has an obligation to ensure that trade agreements
reach beyond merely economic considerations to wider concerns
of the common good of all and the well-being of the poorest
in particular.
Some steps have been taken over the past year to improve
current trade policies so that they foster genuine
development. Last year, our Conference welcomed the
bipartisan trade framework agreed to by Congressional leaders
and the Administration. In 2008, there are several ways to
build upon work already done to help make trade work for all:
Haiti Trade Preferences: USCCB actively worked for
enactment of trade preference legislation for Haiti in 2006.
The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership
Encouragement (HHOPE) Act was an initial step in building
trade capacity that offered some Haitians a chance to escape
poverty and build a future for themselves and their families.
HHOPE's successes are modest but real. USCCB urges you to
work to improve the existing legislation in ways that lead to
longer-term development. The United States should seize the
earliest opportunity to make a significant improvement in the
lives of Haitians.
Andean Trade Preferences (ATPDEA): USCCB supports long-term
renewal of trade preferences for Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia
and Peru. The Andean countries continue to have high levels
of poverty. The original intention of this program was to
help poor countries in the hemisphere diversify their
economies in ways that would offer alternatives to illicit
drug crop production. Weakening these export opportunities
may also weaken counter-narcotics efforts in the Andean
region. The recent practice of short- term extensions of
these trade preferences is damaging to economic development.
Our nation should not hold some of the poorest people in the
Hemisphere in economic limbo in the hope of gaining leverage
in efforts to pass other bilateral agreements. The poor must
not be made to compete for trade preferences that are a vital
part of reducing deprivation.
New Partnership for Development Act (NPDA) H.R. 3905: H.R.
3905 would create a mutually beneficial trade relationship
between the world's richest economy and the world's least
developed countries. NPDA would help ensure that the poorest
countries can benefit from appropriate trade preferences by
including significant trade capacity building assistance. The
poor should have ``preference'' as the Church teaches. NPDA
makes this preference concrete; showing that U.S. trade
policy can become more effective and fair.
United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreements: The May 2007
bipartisan trade policy framework led to some improvements in
the trade agreement between the United States and Peru. The
United States-Colombia trade agreement reflects these
changes. The changes made to the intellectual property
provisions within the agreement that would more readily
ensure access to life-saving medicines are particularly
important. However, the likely negative impact of the
agreement on Colombia's small farmers and rural communities
is troubling. There must be more effective mechanisms to
alleviate the adverse effects on Colombia's rural
communities. Rural desperation could lead to increased coca
production with dire consequences not only for Colombia, but
for the United States and the entire region. Given its
multifaceted provisions, USCCB does not take an overall
position on the agreement, but it is our hope that the debate
and decisions on the proposed U.S.-Colombia FTA lead to
improved and meaningful steps forward in advancing fair trade
relations between the countries.
With good wishes for your efforts to make trade work for
all and for poor people in particular, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Thomas G. Wenski,
Bishop of Orlando, Chairman, Committee on International
Justice and Peace.
In conclusion, the contrast between the lives led by those enriched
countries and those in poor countries is only less scandalous than this
Congress's apathy if we fail to act. I'm looking forward to working
with my colleagues on renewing America's leadership and promoting
development around the world. The first step in this process is passing
H.R. 5264, which is before us today.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an active member of the Ways and
Means Committee and very active in trade, particularly in Central and
South America.
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.
{time} 1645
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. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes
to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I too rise in support of this bill, H.R. 5264, to extend the Andean
Trade Preference Act for another 10 months to our friends and allies in
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
At some point, we are going to find that this Congress will move
closer to a bipartisan trade agenda because for many years, it was
absent, but I think you see in the seeds of this legislation and in
previous actions on the Peru
[[Page H1134]]
Free Trade Agreement the opportunities for us to not only move towards
a bipartisan trade agenda, but quite honestly a nonpartisan trade
agenda where what we are talking about is an American trade agenda that
promotes the interests of our workers and of our industries and so that
when we reach a hand out to our neighbors whether in our hemisphere or
otherwise, we are doing this in a way that promotes not just
competition, healthy competition among our friends, but it also makes
it possible for us to move forward the thing that will keep the engine
of American ingenuity going.
And so as we try to figure out how to open the doors to the markets
of the world, to our interests, so that our American workers can
continue to produce more goods and goods of excellent quality, we will
be able to open our door to the goods of other countries where, based
on a fair trade agenda, we can do so and feel comfortable that we are
bringing in quality goods that are safe and reliable here in the U.S.
for its use.
Now whether you are with the labor movement, and the AFL-CIO has come
out and supported this extension, or whether you are with the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, which has also come out in support of this, I
think what we are finding is that the seeds can be planted for us to
move forward on trade in a way that leaves out the words ``party
affiliation'' completely and lets us talk about how the trade agenda
for this country, for America, will be not only advanced but benefit so
many people in this country who work.
I believe that this is a chance for us to show our friends in
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru that we want to strengthen our
friendship with them, that we want to increase our ties with our
hemispheric neighbors and make this into something that leads towards
an American agenda on trade that we can all feel very comfortable with
and get resounding support in this House.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield now at this time 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), again an active member of Ways and
Means and the Trade Subcommittee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for his leadership on trade issues.
I too rise in support of this bill. I think it is important for Peru
to have the transition time to enact the free trade agreement we just
worked on. It is important to buy additional time for us to discuss and
ultimately pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. And I think it is
important for our friends in Bolivia and Ecuador to understand that
these preferences are temporary, that we want a full trading
partnership with them, and it is important that they take concrete
steps to move toward the types of signals and improvements in their
country, in government, that would allow us ultimately to move to a
full partnership for free trade.
When we began this trade agreement, trade preferences in the 1990s,
our hope was to create jobs away from drug trafficking in these
countries, and it has worked. Millions of jobs have been created
benefiting not just the Andean region, but the American workers as
well. But this bill is no substitute for a free trade agreement with
Colombia. Today we are allowing these countries to sell duty-free,
almost without restrictions, into the United States, competing against
our workers. We are doing that to help pull them toward democracy, to
stimulate their economy, to move them away from narcotrafficking. And
it is working. But what we want ultimately is two-way trade. We want
the ability of our factory workers, our plant workers, our steelworkers
in Texas, for example, today they can go down to the store and buy
products from Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador but when we try to sell the
products they produce overseas, we are not allowed to. The barriers
exist. How is that free trade? How is that fair to the American
workers? It is to me irresponsible for us to not take up the Colombian
Free Trade Agreement. This is a country with a growing economy. It is a
strong ally to the United States. It has made remarkable progress on
labor violence. They are in the midst of a civil war. And President
Uribe is taking commendable steps, strong leadership steps to solidify
that country, to bring democracy and the rule of law, to prosecute
those violators. He has made remarkable progress in quelling violence
against labor leaders. And indeed unions, productive unions in Colombia
support this free trade agreement. For those who believe America is
going it alone far too much in the world, it is incomprehensible we
would go it alone without Colombia, that we would leave them, walk away
from our commitments in that region. It is vital both from an economic
standpoint and vital from a security standpoint that we take up and
pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement this year.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel) who is indeed very active in these
international issues.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5264 which extends
trade preferences for Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. I want to
thank Chairman Levin and Chairman Rangel, the dean of our New York
delegation, for their leadership on this issue. This is certainly a
bipartisan issue, and it is a very, very important issue.
I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee. And as chairman of that subcommittee, I
believe that the extension of the Andean Trade Preferences is crucial
in promoting the development of the economically and politically
fragile Andean region while at the same time supporting the United
States' geopolitical goals.
ATPDEA has been enormously successful, as all my colleagues have
stated, having created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Andean
region. Every job created in the Andean region, as was mentioned
before, is another potential illegal immigrant remaining in their home
country. Without the extension of ATPDEA, these jobs, which are in
sectors that do not directly compete with U.S. jobs, will be
eliminated.
I just returned a few short days ago from leading a bipartisan
congressional delegation which included Ecuador and Bolivia. In fact,
Madam Speaker, at this time I will submit into the Record a letter that
the five of us who were on the trip sent around to the rest of our
colleagues supporting the extension of the Andean Trade Preferences,
signed by myself, Mr. Weller, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Green, and Ms. Foxx.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 25, 2008.
Support Extension of the Andean Trade Preferences
Dear Colleague: Having just returned from a CODEL to
Ecuador and Bolivia, we are writing to urge you to vote for
H.R. 5264--which would extend trade preferences for Colombia,
Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia for 10 months--when it is on the
House floor on Tuesday. While many of us would prefer a
longer term extension of ATPDEA, we believe that a 10 month
extension is a good start.
We are a bipartisan group of Members who believe that the
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) is a
win-win for both the citizens of the Andean region and the
U.S. private sector. ATPDEA has literally created hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the Andean region, while at the same
time supporting essential U.S. geopolitical goals.
We fear that if the Andean trade preference program is
eliminated, many of the unemployed would turn to drug
cultivation after they lose their jobs. Assistant Secretary
of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon has
argued that ATPDEA, ``has been an important counterpoint to
drug production in the region. It's produced hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the region, so in that sense it's been a
very, very successful program.'' We firmly agree.
We visited with producers of flowers, broccoli, coffee,
cacao and other products in Ecuador. Without ATPDEA, workers
in these sectors would undoubtedly lose their jobs, leaving
them with little option outside of the illegal drug trade or
illegal immigration to the United States.
In Bolivia--the poorest country in South America--we met
with textile workers whose jobs would also be eliminated
without an extension of ATPDEA. Many of these workers are
indigenous women, who are among the most historically
marginalized members of society in Bolivia and throughout the
Andean region.
Finally, failure to extend ATPDEA would put many U.S. jobs
at risk. For example, U.S. yarns, fabrics, fibers and other
textile inputs are exported to the Andean region, where they
are incorporated into finished garments and exported back
into the United States.
While we all supported ATPDEA prior to our trip, meeting
firsthand with the people
[[Page H1135]]
in Ecuador and Bolivia who. are directly impacted by ATPDEA
renewed our commitment to this crucial trade preference
program. Please join us in supporting the citizens of the
Andean region by voting for H.R. 5264 when it is on the House
floor on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Eliot L. Engel,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Maurice Hinchey,
Member of Congress.
Jerry Weller,
Member of Congress.
Gene Green,
Member of Congress.
Virginia Foxx,
Member of Congress.
We visited on the trip with producers of flowers, broccoli, coffee,
cacao and other products. Without the Andean Trade Preferences, workers
in these sectors would undoubtedly lose their jobs, leaving them with
little option outside of the illegal drug trade or illegal immigration
to the United States.
In Bolivia, which is the poorest country in South America, my
delegation met with textile workers whose jobs would also be eliminated
without an extension of ATPDEA. Many of these workers are indigenous
women who are among the most historically marginalized members of
society in Bolivia and throughout the Andean region.
I truly fear that without the extension of ATPDEA, many of the
unemployed in the Andean region would turn to drug cultivation after
they lose their jobs. The Andean preference program was originally
created not only to support economic development in the region but also
to divert illegal coca manufacturing towards legitimate industries.
Using these trade preferences as a tool in the drug war is no less
important today. Indeed it is more important.
While I have been a long-time supporter of ATPDEA, meeting firsthand
with the people in Ecuador and Bolivia who are directly impacted by
these crucial trade preferences renewed my commitment to it. Having
visited Colombia twice in the past 4 months, I am also convinced that
that country, along with Peru, would have great benefits from this
bill.
We need to be engaged in the Western Hemisphere. If we don't, we do
so at our own peril. And so I urge my colleagues overwhelmingly in a
bipartisan fashion to please vote for this bill and send a very strong
message to our friends in Latin America that the United States is a
good partner and we can be counted on in time of need. It helps them.
It helps us. It is a winner for both of us.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the other side how many
speakers they have remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I am the only speaker remaining. Why don't you proceed.
Mr. HERGER. We have three more speakers on our side, and then I will
close.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
California, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. While I support this legislation, we should be doing
better, much better. And unfortunately, Madam Speaker, many in the
majority are undermining our interests throughout the Andean region.
There is no excuse, in my view, for bottling up the Colombia TPA
which should be on this floor. It is a much better proposal than what
we are debating today. Without the Colombia TPA, we are denying
American businesses and workers greater access to Colombia.
With this legislation today, American exporters will continue to pay
tariffs to Colombia, 80 percent on beef, 15 percent on tractors. So
unlike the Colombia TPA which slashes Colombian taxes on our exports,
this bill does nothing to increase U.S. exports to Colombia or to the
three other countries it includes.
It is ironic that many who routinely attack trade agreements are
giving Colombia preferential treatment and getting little in return
when there is so much opportunity. With the Colombia TPA, we could get
on a two-way street, one that lifts American workers as well. We could
also have a deal that is stronger on labor protections. But many in the
majority are settling for less, and far less at that.
And then there are our strategic interests in Colombia. It is our
closest partner in a very important region. Colombia is locked in a
deadly struggle with well-financed forces, undemocratic, terrorist and
drug trafficking forces. Its government has made great strides against
the narcoterrorists and improved the economy for millions. It has
significantly reduced violence against labor leaders. This is major
progress for Colombia.
The Colombia TPA is the next step for our partnership. Instead, with
our inaction we are kicking Colombia, jeopardizing our regional
standing. This bill is a poor substitute for the Colombia TPA. I know
the chairman would like to do more. Let's get to the real business of
approving that important agreement.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the Western
Hemisphere Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
{time} 1700
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to associate myself with
the remarks just made by Mr. Royce of California. I think he made the
case very well for the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
Colombia has been a great friend of ours under President Uribe, and
we ought to be doing more to make sure that that government down there
is stable and that the trade with us improves. Right now we have about
a $2.56 billion trade deficit, because they have access to our markets
but we don't have access to theirs, like we should, because of the
tariffs. If we pass a Colombian Free Trade Agreement, it will be a two-
way street that will help them, will help us create more jobs in the
United States, as well as more jobs in Colombia.
But there is more to it than that. Right now, there is a threat from
the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, and right on the border is Venezuela.
President Chavez of Venezuela has recognized the FARC down there and is
kind of working with those people, and I think that is a peril that
faces Colombia over the long haul. Having a strong free trade agreement
that will create jobs and a stronger economy in Colombia I think will
be one of the things that will help stop the terrorists down there, the
FARC guerrillas, the ELN and those who may be coming out of Venezuela.
So I think this is a very good first step tonight. We are extending
the trade preferences for the next 9 or 10 months, and I think that
that is all right. But we need to get on with the business of making
sure we pass a free trade agreement with Colombia, as we did with Peru.
I think it is in our national interests and their national interests.
They are a good friend, and we should get the job done.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation.
The Andean Trade Preferences program continues to be a vital component
of our efforts to promote peace, prosperity and stability in South
America, and it should be extended.
But, Madam Speaker, listening to the debate today, I was reminded of
an old adage that says ``political friendships follow the trade
lanes.'' Consider Colombia. The success of this program there
demonstrates just how critical trade is to creating friendly and
democrat allies in troubled regions.
But there is more that we can do and should be doing. We must act
quickly to approve the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, not only to meet
our international obligations, but to strengthen our economy by
boosting U.S. exports to Latin America. Last year alone, my home State
of Illinois exported $214 million in merchandise to Colombia, ranking
it fourth among the States. More importantly, Illinois exports to
Colombia grew 136 percent between 2002 and 2006.
These trends are not unique. For all of our economic troubles, U.S.
exports continue to drive profits and job growth. According to the
Treasury Department's latest economic update, real exports have risen
7.7 percent in just the last four quarters.
A free trade agreement will promote even faster growth by giving U.S.
exporters duty free access to Colombian
[[Page H1136]]
markets, the same access that our Colombian exporters already enjoy to
the U.S. At the same time, it will strengthen our friendship with a
vital ally and provide for stronger protection of the rights of
laborers in that region.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a good first step. I
commend the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee
for their bipartisan efforts, and urge my colleagues to support this
bill. But I also ask my colleagues to keep in mind that action today
must be followed by action tomorrow. We must work as quickly as
possible to pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in the coming
months.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, someone who has long been active in the area of trade.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend from
California, the ranking member of this very important Trade
Subcommittee, and I congratulate my good friend from Michigan for
moving forward this very important 10-month extension.
Obviously, it is clear that we are using this time to talk about the
importance of coming together in a bipartisan way, working as Democrats
and Republicans, to ensure that we are able to proceed to deal with
both the economic as well as the national security implications of
ultimately seeing us put into place the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
One of the great misconceptions around here and one that
unfortunately has been spread very widely, Madam Speaker, is the fact
that many people say that the Government of Colombia has been involved
in killing labor leaders. I have heard that said on many occasions. I
think it is very unfortunate that that and things close to that have
gotten out there, when in fact we have seen since 2002 a 50 percent
increase in the level of funding for the Fiscalia, the entity spending
a great deal of time prosecuting those who have been responsible for
killings of those labor leaders.
Similarly, it is important to note that there are roughly 1,500 labor
leaders who get protection provided by the Government of Colombia. They
are working to ensure the safety of those labor leaders, number one;
and, number two, they are working to ensure that they bring to justice
those who might be responsible for any of those killings.
There is no desire on the part of the government to do that. The
government has done everything it possibly can to demobilize the
paramilitaries, the FARC, the ELN and others who have been involved in
the narcotrafficking and other criminal activity that has taken place
in the country.
There is no nation on the face of the Earth that in a 5-year period
of time has gone through a greater transition than Colombia has, and
the leadership of President Uribe and so many others in his country who
are dedicated to the future of that nation have, I believe, laid the
groundwork for us to ensure the strength of the relationship between
our two countries and to deal with the national security implications.
I have to say in closing, Madam Speaker, that I truly do believe that
this will help us stabilize this very important part of the Western
Hemisphere.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, in closing, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, today we are voting on the Andean Preferences, but the
U.S.-Colombia TPA is far superior to the Andean Trade Preferences in
several very important ways. The Andean trade preferences program
provides duty-free access for imports from Colombia, but not for U.S.
exports to Colombia, which face an average duty of over 11 percent. As
a result, U.S. exporters are at a major disadvantage.
Here are just a few of the examples in which imports from Colombia
receive duty-free access to the U.S. markets and the significant
tariffs U.S. exporters currently face which would be eliminated upon
implementation of the U.S.-Colombia TPA: U.S. wheat, fruits and
vegetables; soybean meal; paper products; aircraft; turbines; diesel
engines; and tractors.
Passing the U.S.-Colombian TPA would level the playing field for U.S.
exporters. However, the longer we wait, the worse the situation
becomes. Currently, several countries, including Argentina, Brazil and
Chile, have preferential access into the Colombian market. Canada and
the EEU are close to completing trade agreements with Colombia that
would provide their businesses with a competitive advantage in the
Colombian market. All of these countries are major competitors with
U.S. exporters.
Failure of Congress to pass the U.S.-Colombia TPA does not preserve
the status quo. It exacerbates and magnifies disadvantages already
faced by U.S. exporters.
Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: The U.S.-Colombian TPA is far
superior in every way to the Andean Trade Preferences program, and
Congress should use the next 10 months to pass the agreement for the
benefit of U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, let me just emphasize a few points. Mr. Rangel and I and
others offered a bill for a longer extension than this one, but we
weren't able to bring that about here on a bipartisan basis. So what we
have today is a 10-month extension, and I very much urge its passage.
I simply want to emphasize that every program has to be considered on
its own merits. This is a continuation of a preference program that has
been mutually beneficial. This is not involving an FTA with any of
these countries. FTAs involve different and broader considerations. So
I think discussion of that must be left for a different time under
different circumstances after different events have occurred.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of
the Andean Trade Preference Act. These preferences have been critical
in encouraging both development and liberalization in a key region. But
as we look at where each of the four Andean nations stands today, we
see that they are all at very different stages, with preferences having
significance for different reasons.
Peru is a country that has made tremendous strides in its economic
liberalization process while remaining a close political ally, and we
have propelled our trade relationship forward through ratification of a
free trade agreement (FTA). As we go through the implementation
process, preferences are still necessary to provide continuity until
the agreement is fully realized. But Peru has clearly graduated beyond
one-sided preferences, and our engagement will only grow exponentially.
In the case of Colombia, once again, this is a country that has made
outstanding progress on economic and political fronts, and has
negotiated an FTA with us in good faith. We have left this agreement in
limbo for far too long, and should vote to pass it immediately. I have
supported repeated extensions of our preference system for Colombia,
because it would be unfair to punish them for our inability to make
progress. But this is a critical agreement that will help to lock in
great gains, and we cannot afford to allow the U.S.-Colombia FTA to
languish any longer.
Bolivia and Ecuador, however, have not made the great progress in
liberalization that their neighbors have. Our trade preferences in
these two countries are critically important, but for very different
reasons. It is important for us to continue to engage with them, to
encourage both economic and political liberalization. Preferences can
help workers in these countries reach that first rung of the economic
ladder. And with new opportunities come rising living standards, and
momentum for greater reform.
However, there can be no progress without the rule of law. Both
countries are facing great challenges on this front, with justice
systems that are unable--or perhaps at times even unwilling--to uphold
the law and create an environment that supports free markets and
accountable governments. In some instances, there have been egregious
abuses in the courts, punishing those who have invested in the economy
and creating a powerful deterrent to other prospective investors. Both
Bolivia and Ecuador have much to gain by focusing on strengthening the
rule of law, and much to lose by neglecting to do so. Without an
improved legal environment, our trade preferences will be of little
value.
Furthermore, failure in this regard will erode support in Congress
for preferences altogether. I believe the fact that we are considering
only a ten-month extension of the program is a reflection, in part, of
grave concerns
[[Page H1137]]
that many Members hold for the direction Bolivia and Ecuador are
heading. It is my hope that ten months from now, when we again address
the issue of preferences for the Andean countries, we will be
witnessing a renewed commitment in these two countries for the reform
and liberalization that are essential to eliminating poverty and
improving the standard of living for every Bolivian and Ecuadorian.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R.
5264, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), a program meant to assist
the Andean countries in their economic development. The ATPA provides
duty free treatment for 94 percent of imports from the four Andean
nations-Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
The original Andean Trade Preferences Act was passed in 1991 and
extended and expanded in 2002 with the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug
Eradication Act (ATPDEA), and again extended last June 2007. This
program is fundamental in our mission to foster trade-based economic
relations between the United States and the Andean region and stimulate
legitimate economic alternatives to narcotics production and
trafficking in the Andean region.
If Congress does not pass the Andean Trade Preference Act, the
previous extension of the program will expire on February 29, 2008.
Renewing ATPA will continue to build on the program's success and help
us achieve our larger policy goals for the Andean region. At a time of
increasing economic uncertainty, it will help sustain critical U.S.
jobs that are dependent on stable trade with and investments in the
Andean region.
From 2003 to 2006, U.S. textile exports to the Andean region
increased by more than $50 million signifying a 40 percent increase.
However, with the uncertainty the constant renewal brings, last year it
was extended for 8 months 2 hours before it was set to expire, it has
discouraged companies from continuing their investment in the Andean
region.
Our current regional partnership is grounded on the joint struggle
to eradicate the narcotics menace that terrorizes both the Andean
region and the United States and to provide economic stability through
trade. As the Andean region currently enjoys duty-free treatment, an
expansion of these trade policies, like the U.S.-Peru Free Trade
Agreement, would allow us to enter into a full partnership with the
remaining Andean countries instead of just a one way trading benefit.
While free trade agreements are not on the immediate agenda of
Congress, I urge a vote in favor of H.R. 5264, to extend trade
preferences for Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia and continue to
show our support for our Andean neighbors and allow U.S. companies to
continue investing in that region.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5264, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to extend
the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________