[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 65 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2917-S2918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, yesterday the Finance Committee held a 
hearing on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, what we call the 
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. This agreement will provide 
significant new opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, agricultural 
producers, and service providers in the rapidly growing Colombian 
market.
  Implementation of the Colombia agreement would also benefit U.S. 
national security. Colombia is emerging from decades of civil strife, 
and it is in our interests to see that Colombia continues to heal from 
its wounds of the past. This free trade agreement will help bring 
further stability to Colombia, a close friend and ally, while also 
opening and further building the market for U.S. exports to that 
country. In short, it is a good agreement for the United States.
  So what is the holdup? Over 4 years have passed since the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was signed. It is imperative that 
the administration submit an implementing bill for this agreement to 
Congress, and soon. The administration, however, still won't say when 
it will send an implementing bill to Capitol Hill.
  During yesterday's hearing, I asked our Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative two very simple questions regarding this issue. First, 
assuming that Colombia fulfills the steps outlined in the labor action 
plan developed by the Obama administration and the Colombian 
Government, will the administration submit the Colombia agreement to 
Congress for a vote? Second, is the administration preconditioning the 
President's formal submission of the Colombia trade agreement on 
matters not related to the action plan, such as congressional extension 
of trade adjustment assistance or permanent normal trade relations for 
Russia? To me, these questions are pretty clear and can be answered 
with a simple yes or no. But, unfortunately, we did not get a clear 
answer. After years of delay, we still do not know if the 
administration will ever submit the Colombia agreement to Congress for 
approval. This is very unfortunate.
  The Obama administration's delay in submitting the Colombia agreement 
is hurting U.S. exporters. This failure is a drag on job creation and 
economic growth. While the President has dithered as to whether to 
implement the trade agreement with Colombia, our trade competitors have 
been more than willing to enter into agreements with Colombia. 
Consequently, while Colombia's tariffs on U.S. imports have remained in 
place, Colombia's tariffs on products from other countries are falling 
away.

[[Page S2918]]

  For example, Colombia has implemented a preferential trade agreement 
with Argentina and Brazil. As a result, U.S. farm products are rapidly 
being displaced in the Colombia market by products from those 
countries. So it is not too surprising that between 2007 and 2010, U.S. 
agricultural exports to Colombia fell by more than half, and it looks 
like matters are going to get even worse. A Montana wheat grower who 
testified at yesterday's hearing noted that the U.S. share of 
Colombia's wheat market fell from 73 percent in 2008 to 43 percent in 
2010. He also stated that following implementation of the Canada-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which is expected to occur this year, 
U.S. exports of wheat to Colombia will drop to zero unless the United 
States implements its trade agreement with Colombia. So U.S. 
agricultural exports to Colombia are already falling. U.S. manufactured 
goods and U.S. services will be next.
  It does not have to be this way. We do not have to continue giving 
away the growing Colombia market to our competitors. If we want to 
boost our exports to Colombia, all we have to do is implement the U.S.-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
  The Obama administration had earlier stated that it wanted to address 
Colombia's internal labor situation before moving ahead with the 
agreement. But the administration delayed taking any meaningful steps 
to address their concerns with the Colombian government for years. A 
few months ago, the administration finally got serious about engaging 
with Colombia. And, lo and behold, in a matter of weeks--in a matter of 
weeks--they were able to develop a labor action plan that addressed 
their concerns in a meaningful and concrete way. The administration 
discovered that, in their own words, they had a willing partner in 
Colombia. The fact of the matter is that Colombia has been taking steps 
for years to address issues related to violence against unionists and 
has always been willing to do more. Why it took the administration so 
long to figure it out is a mystery to me.
  So the Obama administration has now negotiated an action plan that 
addresses its concerns regarding the labor situation in Colombia. You 
would think we would have clarity that, once the steps in the action 
plan are fulfilled, the administration would submit the agreement to 
Congress for its consideration. But we do not have this clarity. There 
has been no clear answer to this very simple question. Instead, there 
seem to be more preconditions on submitting the agreement that are not 
even related to the agreement itself, such as extension of trade 
adjustment assistance and permanent normal trade relations for Russia.
  This is very odd. Most economists would agree that there are likely 
to be very few workers who will lose their jobs because of 
implementation of the Colombia trade agreement. After all, the U.S.-
Colombia trade agreement will result in almost no growth in imports 
from Colombia. This is the case as almost all Colombian products have 
entered the United States duty free over the past two decades on 
account of U.S. trade preference programs. In contrast, Colombia's 
average applied tariff on U.S. imports is over 12 percent, and they can 
reach as high as 388 percent.
  Moreover, the administration itself testified that implementation of 
the Colombia agreement: will expand exports of U.S. goods to Colombia 
by more than a billion dollars--that is with a ``B''--increase U.S. GDP 
by $2.5 billion; and support thousands of additional jobs for our 
workers, at a time when we need jobs, and when we need to pull this 
economy out of the mess it is in. So it is hard to see further 
extension of the TAA program as a necessary precondition for approval 
of an agreement that will help our economy and support jobs in the 
United States. It is a no-brainer.
  I am also bewildered by any attempts to precondition submission of 
the Colombia agreement to congressional support for permanent normal 
trade relations for Russia. These two issues are totally unrelated. 
Given the current disregard for the rule of law and the many trade 
problems that persist in Russia today, it is hard to argue that the 
time is ripe for Congress to grant Russia permanent normal trade 
relations.
  Moreover, it would be particularly ironic and sad to condition 
passage of the Colombia trade agreement with permanent normal trade 
relations for Russia. Over the past 4 years, Colombia has been a 
reliable U.S. trading partner, ready and willing to remove its tariffs 
on U.S. imports through implementation of our trade agreement. During 
these same years, Russia has seemingly gone out of its way on numerous 
occasions to prove to the United States that it is an unreliable 
trading partner.
  It is fundamentally unfair to continue to treat a friend and ally 
like Colombia in this ridiculous way. Unfortunately, it is not the 
first time Democratic leaders have put one of our closest Latin 
American allies in this position. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion 
Agreement was first signed on November 22, 2006--almost 5 years ago. 
Democratic leaders refused to consider the agreement until their 
additional demands were met on labor, the environment, and intellectual 
property. The Bush administration responded by working with then-
Speaker Pelosi on a package of changes that were understood would lead 
to consideration of the agreement. But once they had these changes in 
hand, the Democratic leadership in the House balked, citing yet more 
issues that had to be resolved. When President Bush submitted the 
Colombia agreement to Congress for its consideration utilizing trade 
promotion authority procedures in April 2008, the Democratic leadership 
refused to allow the agreement to come up for a vote. Instead, they 
changed the rules, and the agreement has since languished for almost 5 
years.
  It is time for the excuses to end. Resolution of unrelated issues 
such as trade adjustment assistance and PNTR for Russia should not be 
used as further barriers to submission of this agreement. Colombia is 
taking the steps laid out by the Obama administration that the 
administration has said are necessary before the President will 
formally submit the agreement to Congress. Once those steps are taken 
in June, I fully expect the administration to finally fulfill its end 
of the bargain and formally submit the agreement for congressional 
approval without further conditions. If not, the administration is 
making a conscious decision to continue denying U.S. exporters improved 
access to the Colombian market, and to undermine our standing as a 
credible ally in Latin America.
  It is a no-brainer to realize that Colombia is one of our best 
friends. When you compare it to some of its neighbors, such as 
Venezuela--and I can name other countries that are undermining our very 
country as we sit here and stand here. The fact of the matter is, 
Colombia is a friend. Friends should not be treated this way. It is 
ridiculous what is going on. There is very little need for trade 
adjustment assistance in this particular deal. It is just another way 
of sucking from the taxpayers more money for purposes that literally do 
not exist.
  I hope the administration will wake up and realize this would be a 
tremendous achievement for them. There is no reason in the world why 
they should not want to do this. It would be a sure creator of jobs at 
a time when we need jobs. It will even up a situation that up to this 
point has been sad. And it will help our country. Let's quit playing 
games with this free trade agreement. Let's get it up. Let's vote on 
it, and let's restore our relationship with Colombia to the great 
relationship it deserves to be.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________