[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 33 (Thursday, February 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1388-S1390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXTENSION ACT

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5264, which was 
received from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5264) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, the Senate takes the important step 
of extending the Andean Trade Preferences Act for 10 months. This 
follows

[[Page S1389]]

action in the House yesterday on the same bill. We can now ensure 
continuation of this important program before it expires tomorrow.
  I would have preferred a longer term extension of ATPA. But a 10-
month extension is a sound compromise. It is good for America. And it 
is good for our Andean neighbors.
  In recent weeks, we have had a lively debate over the value of this 
preference program. Opponents point to one-sided benefits. They warn 
against risky investments.
  Proponents say that our Andean preferences complement drug 
eradication efforts. We say that they create jobs in both developing 
countries and here at home.
  Today, as in the past, I support ATPA. ATPA is an investment in 
mutual prosperity and regional stability. It is good foreign policy. 
ATPA is a boon to the developing economies of Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, 
and Ecuador. It brings economic development where poverty persists. It 
encourages alternative crops where illegal drugs plague the landscape. 
It creates jobs where there have long been too few. And it can provide 
a platform for more comprehensive engagement, such as the free-trade 
agreements that Peru and Colombia have negotiated with the United 
States.
  The economic benefits of ATPA are mutual. Flower exports from 
Colombia and Ecuador employ Andean agriculture workers in their 
countries. And they also create transportation and retail jobs here at 
home.
  The United States sells its cotton to Andean buyers, who make it into 
fabric and apparel. And that creates jobs for American farmers and 
skilled Andean labor. It is precisely this mutual prosperity that has 
earned the Andean Trade Preferences Act the broad support it commands, 
even from sectors that have traditionally been wary of trade.
  But as important, we must recognize that ATPA benefits are neither 
handouts nor freebies. To benefit from preferences, each ATPA partner 
must meet strict eligibility criteria. Beneficiaries must afford 
internationally recognized worker rights. They must protect and enforce 
intellectual property rights. They must cooperate in counternarcotics 
efforts. And they must ensure the integrity of U.S. investments by, 
among other things, honoring contracts with U.S. investors and abiding 
by investment decisions made by arbitral panels.
  These eligibility requirements are not optional. If a country does 
not comply, it should not receive ATPA benefits. Actions have 
consequences. The U.S. will notice and take into account actions in 
ATPA countries that unfairly hurt U.S. interests. Ecuador, in 
particular, has taken actions in recent years that call into question 
its intention to abide by the ATPA conditions related to investment. 
These developments are, at best, discouraging. At worst, they might be 
disqualifying.
  In the next few months, I will work with Senator Grassley and others 
to closely monitor whether our ATPA beneficiary countries meet these 
eligibility criteria. And I will work to monitor whether the 
administration is doing enough to enforce them.
  ATPA is good policy. But, as with most policies, hard work can make 
it better. As in the past, I will continue to work with opponents and 
supporters to ensure that all of the elements of the program are 
upheld. I will work to see that not just the trade benefits, but the 
eligibility requirements as well, are upheld. When everyone is playing 
by the rules, we will have a comprehensive program that is as good for 
the United States as it is for Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week the House passed a 10 month 
extension of our unilateral trade preferences for Colombia, Peru, 
Ecuador, and Bolivia, and today it is the Senate's turn to consider the 
issue. I want to take a moment to explain why I have decided to agree 
to support this 10 month extension.
  As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the operation of these 
trade preferences for quite some time. Last year, reported developments 
in Ecuador and Bolivia led me to question the commitment of their 
respective Governments to upholding the democratic rule of law, 
honoring contracts and other legal obligations, protecting civic 
freedoms such as freedom of the press, and fully partnering with us in 
the fight against traffic in illicit narcotics. In that context, I have 
questioned why we should renew these particular trade preferences, 
which we provide in addition to the broad preferences that we give to 
developing countries under our separate Generalized System of 
Preferences program.
  More generally, I have questioned why we should continue to extend 
unilateral trade preferences when our farmers and manufacturers deserve 
to enjoy reciprocal trade benefits. I realize that we advance our 
national interest by fostering the creation of legitimate economic 
opportunities in the four Andean beneficiary countries. There need to 
be viable alternatives in the region if we are going to succeed in the 
fight against illicit narcotics. And the Andean trade preferences have 
been a good start. But I continue to question how unilateral trade 
preferences provide a basis for truly sustainable economic development 
over the long term.
  On the other hand, a permanent, reciprocal, open trading relationship 
would appropriately address each of those questions. That is what we 
should be aiming for. Not only would it provide a level playing field 
for both sides, it would facilitate the establishment of strong long-
term economic relationships through mutually beneficial trade and 
investment. That is one of the reasons why implementation of our trade 
promotion agreement with Colombia is my top priority on the trade 
agenda this year.
  On balance, I have concluded that this 10 month extension of Andean 
trade preferences will allow us to accomplish a number of things. It 
will allow for the smooth entry into force of our trade agreement with 
Peru. It will avoid economic disruption in Colombia as we strive to 
implement our trade agreement with that critical ally. And it will 
extend an opportunity for Ecuador and Bolivia to engage us in a deeper 
dialogue on the direction they want to see our bilateral economic and 
political relationships take going forward. But let me be clear. 
Today's extension should not be interpreted as a sign that Andean trade 
preferences are a de facto perpetuity. They are not. I intend to 
continue my oversight of this program in advance of its expiration at 
the end of the year. Whether this program is again extended, or in what 
form, or for which countries, remains an open question.
  In the meantime, I will continue monitoring a number of important 
concerns. For example, the Government of Ecuador has indicated that the 
U.S. lease to the Eloy Alfaro airfield will not be renewed when it 
expires in 2009. That is, of course, Ecuador's sovereign right. But we 
should not wait until the lease expires to discuss how our cooperative 
efforts to combat traffic in illicit narcotics can be augmented in 
order to offset the loss of this access. I am also concerned about 
expanded cultivation of coca leaf. Just this past Saturday, the New 
York Times reported on how the rollback of restrictions on coca growing 
since President Morales took office in Bolivia has contributed to 
surging drug use in Argentina and Brazil. We need to focus on 
cultivation just as much as on eradication in the fight against drugs.
  With respect to investment disputes, it is essential that legal 
obligations be fully honored. That includes honoring arbitral awards 
once they become final. It also includes honoring contracts and the 
mutual settlement of claims involving prior disputes. Separately, I am 
disappointed that we haven't been able to fully resolve some of our 
differences in agricultural trade. For example, with respect to beef, 
Colombia and Peru comply with the standards of the World Organization 
for Animal Health, which sets benchmark standards for the World Trade 
Organization, by permitting the importation of all U.S. beef. In 
contrast, Ecuador and Bolivia continue to reject these international 
standards. Ecuador restricts U.S. beef imports to only boneless beef 
from cattle under 30 months of age, while Bolivia prohibits imports of 
all U.S. beef. In addition, Ecuador committed to phase out its 
agricultural price-band system by 2001 as part of its World Trade 
Organization accession package, but the Government has yet to do so. 
Ecuador's price-band inhibits U.S. exports of wheat, rice, barley, 
corn, soybeans, poultry, pork, and powdered milk to Ecuador. Such 
failures to

[[Page S1390]]

live up to existing trade obligations undermine the case some make for 
an extension of trade preferences. I would also expect all four Andean 
beneficiary countries to actively support efforts to conclude an 
ambitious agreement in the Doha Development Round negotiations of the 
World Trade Organization. Finally, I will continue to assess our 
respective bilateral relations on a political level, as well as monitor 
the status of protections extended to civic freedoms such as freedom of 
the press.
  In closing, I want to make clear that I am very much interested in 
strengthening our relations with each of the four Andean beneficiary 
countries. But it takes cooperation on all sides to make that happen. 
Colombia and Peru have certainly demonstrated a reciprocal interest in 
stronger relations. I hope to see a similar demonstration on the part 
of Ecuador and Bolivia in the months to come with actions that are 
commensurate with words. I am also going to call upon the 
administration to review conditions in Ecuador and Bolivia in order to 
help me evaluate the concerns that I have identified and determine 
whether changes are warranted if the program is to be extended beyond 
the end of this year.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the extension of the 
Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. This program, which has been in 
place for approaching two decades, has broadened economic opportunities 
in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as an alternative to illegal 
drug production and trafficking. With the current extension of this 
program expiring tomorrow, it is important that Congress is acting this 
week to extend the program for an additional 10 months. The extension 
should allow necessary time for passage of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, 
implementation of the Peru FTA, and continued commerce for Andean 
producers and U.S. consumers and importers.
  However, this extension does not minimize the continued need for the 
timely advancement of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, 
which would deepen our two nation's important relationship, broaden 
market opportunities for U.S. producers and companies, and provide 
longer term certainty for Colombian exporters and workers that short-
term ATPA extensions do not provide. We must do all that we can to 
maintain and improve our Nation's global competitiveness and relations 
throughout the world, and the U.S.-Colombia FTA is a much needed step 
in the right direction for providing economic opportunities for 
Americans through reciprocal trade treatment for U.S. products. For 
example, the U.S.-Colombia FTA would provide immediate duty-free access 
for fresh potatoes and almost all processed potatoes. Currently, 
Colombia's WTO tariff bindings on potatoes and potato products range 
from 70 to 102 percent and applied tariff rates range from 5 to 20 
percent. This is just one example of the areas where the U.S. stands to 
gain improved access into one of the region's fastest growing markets 
through this agreement.
  Additionally, as with all trade preferences and agreements, the 
requirements must be fully enforced. The U.S. is providing special 
trade preferences to these countries through this program, and with 
that comes a responsibility to comply with the standards and 
obligations set forth in ATPA. Our ATPA partner countries must treat 
U.S. investors consistently with current ATPA eligibility.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be 
read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related 
to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the third reading and passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 5264) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.

                          ____________________