[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17752-17758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT EXTENSION

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1830) to extend the authorities of the Andean Trade 
Preference Act until September 30, 2009, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1830

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Section 208(a) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3206(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``June 30, 2007'' and inserting ``February 29, 2008''.
       (b) Repeal of Conditional Extensions.--Section 208 of the 
     Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3206) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Termination.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), no'' and inserting ``No''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPAREL ARTICLES.

       Section 204(b)(3)(B) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii)--
       (A) in subclause (II)--
       (i) by striking ``Subject to section 208, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (ii) by striking ``4 succeeding 1-year periods'' and 
     inserting ``5 succeeding 1-year periods''; and
       (B) in subclause (III)--
       (i) by striking ``means 2 percent'' and inserting ``means--

       ``(aa) 2 percent'';

       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(bb) for the 1-year period beginning October 1, 2007, the 
     percentage determined under item (aa) for the 1-year period 
     beginning October 1, 2006.''; and

       (2) in clause (v)(II)--
       (A) by striking ``Subject to section 208, during'' and 
     inserting ``During''; and
       (B) by striking ``3 succeeding 1-year periods'' and 
     inserting ``4 succeeding 1-year periods''.

     SEC. 3. MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEES.

       Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2014'' and inserting 
     ``October 14, 2014''.

     SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase 
     Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by 
     striking ``114.25 percent'' and inserting ``114.50 percent''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as most of us know, some time ago in 1991, President 
Bush, with bipartisan support, reached out to the Andean countries and 
extended favorable treatment as related to their exports to the United 
States.
  This has proven successful in making it possible for these countries 
to get substitute crops for coca, and, therefore, it has been 
tremendously successful in building up a market for the people in this 
area, as well as people in the United States of America.
  Right now, however, there are four free trade agreements that are 
pending that haven't passed the House as yet, which includes, of 
course, Peru. So as we speak, there are two countries for which free 
trade agreements have not been negotiated, Colombia and Peru. If we 
were to allow this provision to expire, we would find ourselves in the 
situation where these countries and their tariffs would be in disarray.
  Because of the shortness of notice, and because we have to avoid the 
expiration, I have been able to work with Mr. McCrery in our committee 
to get, not a 2-year extension that we would really want, but at least 
an 8-month extension to avoid irreparable damage from being caused 
during this period, at which time we will again able to review the 
situation in the free trade agreements and also the substance of the 
continuation of the Andean Trade Preference Act, trade promotion 
agreements.

                              {time}  1815

  I also would like to say, in working with Mr. McCrery of the 
committee, the Members of this House should know that the cooperative 
spirit in which we got this extension extended to the point that we had 
to really go to the other Chamber in order to work out what we're able 
to do today.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been an avid supporter of Andean preferences, and 
today I voice my support for this short-term extension of the 
preferences. And I want to thank Chairman Rangel for working with me 
and others to effect what we believe should pass on the floor today 
under suspension of the rules.
  Our country's relationship with the Andean countries of Peru, 
Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia is vitally important, and preferences 
have helped enormously with their economic development and with 
stability in the region.
  At the same time, however, I believe it is time to move to a more 
substantial, mature and reciprocal relationship through free trade 
agreements. The unilateral preferences provide duty-free treatment to 
products from the region, but very limited value to United States 
interests in return. The FTAs, the free trade agreements, provide 
reciprocal market access benefits, creating new opportunity for United 
States producers, farmers and exporters.
  I might add that our FTAs also create greater obligations on our 
trading partners than preferences by requiring them to abide by 
fundamental labor rights and certain multilateral environmental 
agreements.
  Right now we have an immediate opportunity to implement the FTAs with 
Peru and Colombia, with the possibility of future FTAs with Ecuador and

[[Page 17753]]

Bolivia. We should seize this opportunity now. Both Peru and Colombia 
have already passed the pending FTAs, and they are expected soon to 
pass amendments to them reflecting the recently concluded bipartisan 
trade deal on labor and the environment.
  It's time for our Congress here in the United States to move these 
FTAs, too. Preferences are a stopgap measure. Our trading partners and 
United States interests deserve more than that. Every day we wait is a 
lost opportunity to gain the advantages of those more mature 
agreements.
  With respect to Ecuador and Bolivia, I remain very concerned with the 
treatment of United States investors there. This 8-month extension 
gives us time to evaluate how these countries are abiding by the 
preference program requirements with respect to United States 
investment. We will be watching developments very carefully.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this short-term extension of preferences for 8 
months, which will give us the time we need to implement our 
outstanding free trade agreements in the region. The first step will be 
to complete congressional action on the Peru agreement, I hope, before 
the August recess. The time is now to solidify our relationship, 
instead of perpetuating what I believe is an unsatisfactory status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to Mr. Levin, 
who's been the subcommittee Chair on Trade and has done an absolutely 
great job in spearheading this bipartisan approach of this sensitive 
subject.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed, it should be clear. We're 
talking now about the Andean Trade Preference Act, and we're not 
talking about the free trade agreements that have been discussed here.
  In my view, whether one supports or opposes any of those free trade 
agreements, it would be counterproductive for someone to vote against 
extension of the ATPA for 8 months.
  This relates, as mentioned, to the four nations. The original ATPA 
was passed in 1991, and it was expanded and extended through a voice 
vote in the year 2001.
  I think it should be emphasized that, basically, our trade 
relationship with these four nations is more complementary than it is 
competitive. That's a crucial issue. And if you exclude oil and oil 
products, our trade balance, our relationship, is essentially balanced 
in the range of 10- to $11 billion that we export and they export, if 
you exclude oil, which is not covered by the ATPA.
  The Andean countries are a steadily growing market for U.S. goods, 
and that meant there was an increase, a rather substantial one, in 2005 
over 2004.
  Let me touch briefly on issues that have been discussed regarding the 
ATPA. First, apparel. The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the use 
of U.S. yarns in fabrics, so it isn't a one-way street. And it's 
somewhat technical, but if you include, if you look at the source of 
the fabric, essentially the U.S. has made clear that we're not going to 
be left out in the cold.
  In terms of crops, whether they're fruit or vegetable crops, the 
trade is far more seasonal. In that sense, the trade is far more 
complementary than it is competitive. And so it's been of mutual 
interest to have this Andean Trade Preference Act. And that's why it 
was passed originally with broad support. It was extended with broad 
support. There was controversy last time because it was tied to TPA, 
and it essentially gave different treatment to Bolivia and Ecuador that 
this bill does not do.
  So it's also, I think, because of the complementariness of this 
agreement that it has had broad support in this country, and that's 
true in good parts of the management ranks as well as the labor ranks.
  There's been reference here to drugs, and that's been a mixed 
picture. But I think there is evidence that the ATPA, which was 
originally passed as part of a drug eradication strategy, has had some 
positive impact in several countries, much less so I think in Colombia 
than in Bolivia and Peru.
  If this is not renewed, I think it would be mutually disadvantageous. 
I think, because of the mutuality of this agreement, the way it's 
worked out, that we should pass it.
  And I close by emphasizing we're talking today about the renewal, or 
I should say the extension, of the ATPA for 8 months. We're not talking 
about free trade agreements. I strongly urge approval of this 8-month 
extension.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of controlling time, I'd 
like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Herger from California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California will control the balance of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee 
and a very active member of the Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the strong 
bipartisan support for this legislation which is critical to our need 
to continue working to reduce poverty, to create jobs and to strengthen 
democracy.
  Today this House has an opportunity to continue moving forward by 
extending the Andean trade preferences for Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and 
Bolivia. It's only a short-term extension, 8 months, but it moves 
forward.
  Just like the Caribbean Basin Initiative, these preferences create 
jobs, reduce poverty and also build capacity in nations that previously 
were left out. The Andean preferences offer many who have been 
previously left out of the opportunity to participate in free 
enterprise as well as the export marketplace.
  I think of examples of communities who benefit. I think of the 
Gatazo-Zambrano community in Chimborazo, Ecuador, 400 indigenous 
families now being lifted out of poverty because they are now exporting 
broccoli and produce to the U.S. export market.
  I think of the thousands of women engaged in flower production, as 
well as the processing of flowers in Colombia, involved in that 
industry, dependent on these preferences. And if they went out of 
business, China would take over the flower business.
  There's almost 2 million jobs dependent in the Andean region on these 
Andean preferences which we created to lift people out of poverty. If 
you care about democracy in Latin America, you should vote ``yes.'' If 
you want to increase and expand markets for U.S. products, you should 
also vote ``yes'' because we in the United States benefit from the 
Andean trade preferences.
  U.S. workers and businesses benefit, farmers; U.S. cotton exports to 
Peru and Colombia totaled $110 million in 2006, almost double that of 
2001. U.S. yarn and fabric exports to Peru and Colombia more than 
doubled between 2002 and 2006.
  And I would note that when we import garments from the Andean region 
benefiting from the Andean trade preferences, the components are 
largely from inputs manufactured in the United States. The Andean trade 
preferences are win/win for both.
  It's important to remember they're temporary. We have good trade 
agreements with Peru and Colombia. We also need to move forward on 
them. And I urge a bipartisan bill today.
  Mr. RANGEL. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), an outstanding member on 
our committee.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from New York willing to 
engage in a brief colloquy?
  Mr. RANGEL. I'd be glad to.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. We appreciate the legislation that you've put before 
us today. The Andean Trade Preference Promotion Act continues to enjoy 
broad bipartisan support, and I believe the program is needed because 
we have a responsibility to ensure that our market, the largest in the 
world, remains open to the products from developing nations.
  ATPA is a program that is helping to reduce poverty and strengthen 
our economic ties with our hemisphere, but it

[[Page 17754]]

really is only one scheme of many. The generalized system of 
preferences is also a vital tool we use to fight global poverty and 
better engage with developing countries.
  As you know, the duty-free treatment GSP provides to imports coming 
from developing nations like India and Brazil is at risk of being 
eliminated by the Bush administration. In the case of India, the 
tariffs the Bush administration will propose on Indian jewelry will 
cause the loss of 300,000 jobs, and that would weaken our strategic 
alliance with an important ally. In this case, what's bad for India is 
also bad for the United States.
  Now, in the coming weeks and months, I hope that we can work together 
to ensure that any GSP benefits aren't revoked for arbitrary reasons 
that would have a negative outcome in developing countries. And I hope 
that you would be willing to listen to those kind of proposals.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my dear friend from Washington and indicate 
that I share your concern. At the end of the day, America must have a 
trade policy that helps workers here at home and provides opportunities 
for workers overseas. As the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways 
and Means, I can assure you that I will work with you and others to be 
sure that we can improve our trade policy as it relates to developing 
countries.
  In the case of GSP and the benefits the administration may propose to 
eliminate, let me make it abundantly clear that on our watch we're 
going to expand opportunities to the developing world and not curtail 
them.
  I'm pleased to know that you're working on some innovative ways to 
improve our trading ties with Africa and Least Developed Nations. Let 
it be clear to you, the Congress and everyone else that if the 
administration proposes to impose tariffs on products coming from poor 
countries, and that such tariffs serve no development purpose, I will 
be working with you to move toward legislation to prevent that from 
happening.
  And let me add this, that your constant concern about making America 
look like it's a country for freedom and opportunity and providing 
trade with these nations has been indicated by your leadership in the 
African growth and opportunity bill, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
and I hope to continue to work with you to bring opportunities for 
people in developing countries and make our country all that she can 
be.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by 
thanking my good friend Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. We have 
talked to a number of the countries involved in the preferences, and 
they were very concerned.
  So, Charlie, I want to thank you for bringing this to the floor at 
this time. I wish it was for a longer period, but 8 months, as has been 
said by Mr. Weller, is a good start.
  The one issue that I would like to mention, and it has not been 
addressed, and that is creating jobs in Central and South America helps 
us with our immigration problem. We are going to be talking about 
illegal immigration here in a couple of weeks or a couple of days 
maybe. I don't know when the Senate is going to send it over. But the 
fact of the matter is where there is poverty, where there are no jobs, 
where there is conflict, people leave and the people in Central and 
South America, obviously, would come north to the United States. We 
have a very serious immigration problem right now. In 1986 we tried to 
solve it. It didn't work. We gave amnesty then. It won't work now. But 
one thing that will help and will work to a degree are trade 
preferences and free trade agreements, Charlie, and I hope that you, as 
chairman of the Ways and Means, will look with some favor on some of 
the free trade agreements when they come up later on. I think it helps 
not only their economy and our economy, but it also helps with the 
illegal immigration problem in the long run.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Levin, and ask unanimous consent that he 
be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who chairs the Western 
Hemisphere Subcommittee for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding 
to me.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of H.R. 1830, which 
extends trade preferences for Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador. I 
want to thank Chairman Rangel, the dean of the New York delegation, and 
Chairman Levin for their leadership on this issue.
  I am the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western 
Hemisphere, and as chairman, I believe that the extension of the Andean 
trade preferences is crucial in promoting development in the 
economically and politically fragile Andean region while also 
supporting essential U.S. geopolitical goals. My ranking member, Mr. 
Burton, just spoke and gave very good reasons why this should be 
supported. I agree with every one of them.
  With anti-Americanism on the rise in the Western Hemisphere, I 
believe that positive engagement with the Andean region can both 
improve our image abroad and help us to more effectively engage our 
neighbors. Many of our neighbors in the hemisphere feel a huge sense of 
neglect from the United States. The extension of the Andean preferences 
is a great way to show our neighbors that we are engaged and do indeed 
care.
  I believe that the preference program has been enormously successful, 
having created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Andean region. 
Every job created in the Andean region is another potential illegal 
immigrant remaining in their home country. Without the extension of 
these preferences, these jobs, which are in sectors that do not 
directly compete with U.S. jobs, will be eliminated.
  I am also in possession of a letter from the AFL-CIO which gives its 
approval of these agreements.
  Moreover, I feel that without the extension of ATPA, 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 toward legitimate industries. 
Using these trade preferences as a tool in the drug war is still very 
important today.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by mentioning that President Bush 
recently traveled to five countries in the Americas in an effort to 
reinvigorate our partnership with our friends in the region. Prior to 
his trip, President Bush said that ``The working poor of Latin America 
need change, and the United States of America is committed to that 
change.'' I believe that the extension of ATPA can help bring this 
well-needed change to our friends in the Andean region.
  I want to emphasize that in my travels in the region, the region 
feels that the United States is looking elsewhere and is not engaged. 
The worst thing we could do would be not to pass this because it would 
prove their fears. We need to pass this. We need to do it quickly, and 
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from California for yielding me the time.
  I have to say that I stand here in opposition to this bill, and I am 
one that generally supports fair trade liberalization efforts. I 
believe that when properly structured, trade agreements can benefit all 
parties involved. But, Mr. Speaker, the Andean Trade Preference Act is 
not a trade agreement. This is

[[Page 17755]]

an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in return for reduced 
drug production by certain Andean countries. Let me repeat that, Mr. 
Speaker. This is an agreement to give access to the U.S. market in 
return for reduced drug production by certain Andean countries.
  The original idea may have been a noble one, and it probably still 
is, but the Act has proven to be a failure, and as a result, American 
asparagus growers have paid the price. In practice, the Andean Trade 
Preference Act has resulted in higher South American drug production 
and a steep loss of acreage and processing of asparagus in the United 
States, as reflected by this chart where in the last 16 years the 
amount of acreage has been reduced by 50 percent.
  A recent International Trade Commission report found that asparagus 
was the domestic commodity most negatively affected by the Act. Unlike 
other sectors, American asparagus growers were not provided a 
transition period before tariffs on Peruvian imports were unilaterally 
eliminated. Since implementation of the Andean Trade Preference Act of 
1991, imports of Peruvian asparagus have increased by more than 20 
times. These duty-free imports have decimated U.S. asparagus growers 
and closed domestic asparagus processing plants in my district.
  Now, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you are not from an asparagus 
production area in this country, you may be thinking this trade-off is 
worth it because it results in less drug production. The unfortunate 
reality is that this Act is a failure in that regard too. The latest 
studies confirm that cocaine production in the Andean countries is 
actually higher today than when the Andean Trade Preference Act was 
adopted in 1991.
  In other words, we have exported jobs from rural America to these 
Andean countries and we are still seeing narcotics production going up. 
Nevertheless, we are here asking American farmers to sacrifice their 
livelihoods to perpetuate a wholly unrelated and unsuccessful anti-
narcotics strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I also regret that we are considering an extension of 
this flawed policy under a process that denies Members the opportunity 
to amend the bill, the text of which was not even available until a 
couple of hours ago. This is being rushed to the floor with no time to 
debate or offer amendments. The markup of this bill in Ways and Means 
was cancelled. The bill has not gone through the Rules Committee. The 
House should have an opportunity to have a full and fair debate on this 
Act, which has a profound negative effect on my constituents.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I will insert into the Record an article from the Seattle Times that 
more fully points out the dilemma that asparagus growers have suffered, 
and, also, I will insert into the Record an article from the New York 
Times regarding the plight of asparagus growers as a result of this 
Act.

                 [From the Seattle Times, Jan. 2, 2007]

                     New Hope for Asparagus Growers

       Washington asparagus growers might get a break in the new 
     Democrat-controlled Congress.
       They sure need it.
       The industry has been decimated by a U.S. drug policy 
     designed to encourage Peruvian coca-leaf growers to switch to 
     asparagus. Passed in 1990 and since renewed, the Andean Trade 
     Preferences and Drugs Eradication Act permits certain 
     products from Peru and Colombia, including asparagus, to be 
     imported to the United States tariff-free.
       The act was set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress approved a 
     six-month extension to make time to negotiate a proposed 
     free-trade agreement.
       We believe world markets should be more open and barriers 
     to trade should be lowered. But this trade preferences act, 
     when it comes to asparagus, is a one-sided deal that does 
     only harm to the U.S. industry while failing miserably at its 
     stated intent of reducing drug production.
       The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Web 
     site currently notes that the Peruvian coca acreage, mostly 
     in the highlands, is the highest it has been in eight years.
       Meanwhile, the small country has become a powerhouse in 
     asparagus production along its Pacific Coast lowlands. 
     Peruvian asparagus production has multiplied 18-fold. The 
     industry has developed a vigorous market and attracted 
     sizable capital investment.
       Meanwhile, the Washington industry is a shadow of its 
     former self. Acreage has been cut by 71 percent to just 9,000 
     acres. In 2005, Seneca closed the world's largest cannery in 
     Dayton, Columbia County, and shipped its state-of-the-art 
     equipment to--no surprise--Peru. So did Del Monte, when it 
     closed its Toppenish plant.
       Is it any wonder the U.S. asparagus industry hopes the 
     preferences act will be allowed to lapse in June?
       That's not to say the Washington Asparagus Commission has 
     its head in the sand over the global economy. In particular, 
     the commission is willing to support a proposed free-trade 
     agreement with provisions common to other free-trade 
     agreements.
       The industry wants the tariff re-imposed on Peruvian 
     asparagus but only during the U.S. growing season--roughly 
     April through June in Washington--and then phased out over a 
     period of years. The tariff on U.S. production would diminish 
     also.
       That would be a long, overdue solution for an industry 
     decimated by a drug-reduction policy that failed miserably.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 25, 2004]

          War on Peruvian Drugs Takes a Victim: U.S. Asparagus

                           (By Timothy Egan)

       After 55 years of packing Eastern Washington asparagus, the 
     Del Monte Foods factory here moved operations to Peru last 
     year, eliminating 365 jobs. The company said it could get 
     asparagus cheaper and year-round there.
       As the global economy churns, nearly every sector has a 
     story about American jobs landing on cheaper shores. But what 
     happened to the American asparagus industry is rare, the 
     farmers here say, because it became a casualty of the 
     government's war on drugs.
       To reduce the flow of cocaine into this country by 
     encouraging farmers in Peru to grow food instead of coca, the 
     United States in the early 1990's started to subsidize a 
     year-round Peruvian asparagus industry, and since then 
     American processing plants have closed and hundreds of 
     farmers have gone out of business.
       One result is that Americans are eating more asparagus, 
     because it is available fresh at all times. But the growth 
     has been in Peruvian asparagus supported by American 
     taxpayers.
       ``We've created this booming asparagus industry in Peru, 
     resulting in the demise of a century-old industry in 
     America,'' said Alan Schreiber, director of the Washington 
     Asparagus Commission. ``And I've yet to hear anyone from the 
     government tell me with a straight face that it has reduced 
     the amount of cocaine coming into this country.''
       Government officials respond that it was never their intent 
     to hobble an American industry. But they say a thriving 
     asparagus industry in Peru stabilizes the country and 
     provides an incentive to grow something other than coca 
     leaves, the raw material of a drug used regularly by about 
     2.8 million Americans.
       ``Apologies to the people affected,'' said David Murray, 
     special assistant for the White House's drug policy office, 
     ``but the idea of creating alternative development, 
     countrywide, does serve our purposes.'' Mr. Murray said that 
     net cultivation of coca leaf in Peru had fallen considerably, 
     but that it was unclear how much of a role the alternative 
     crop incentives had played.
       Here in Washington, the nation's second-leading asparagus 
     producer, after California, about 17,000 acres have been 
     plowed under since a 1991 trade act prompted a flood of less-
     expensive Peruvian asparagus, a 55 percent decline in 
     acreage.
       During the same period, Peruvian asparagus exports to the 
     United States have grown to 110 million pounds from 4 million 
     pounds.
       Two of the biggest asparagus processing factories in the 
     United States have closed. The Del Monte plant in Toppenish 
     is still packing other vegetables, but it buys and packs its 
     asparagus in Peru. The other factory was in Walla Walla.
       Peruvian asparagus is sold without tariffs under terms of 
     the Andean Trade Preference Act, signed in 1991 and renewed 
     in 2002. The United States also spends about $60 million a 
     year in Peru to help farmers grow and develop their industry 
     for asparagus and other crops seen as alternatives to coca.
       Many American farmers still compete, saying they offer a 
     better-tasting and fresher product. But others have abandoned 
     the crop.
       When the American factories closed, Washington farmers were 
     left without a buyer for millions of pounds of asparagus. 
     Among them was Ed McKay, who has given up on asparagus, a 
     crop that takes three to five years to mature, and then grows 
     perennially. After growing it for 50 years and employing more 
     than 100 people at the height of the season, he turned over 
     his 225 acres in central Washington near Othello last year, 
     and now plants some in corn and wheat, and lets other land go 
     fallow.
       ``We're a victim of the drug war,'' said Mr. McKay, 73. 
     ``It seems like we still got plenty of cocaine coming into 
     this country, but now we got cheap asparagus as well.''

[[Page 17756]]

       Acreage devoted to asparagus has dropped by a third in 
     California, and the crop has nearly disappeared from the 
     Imperial Valley, once a huge source of asparagus. Growers 
     blame imports from Peru, but also cheaper asparagus from 
     Mexico, which benefits from the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement.
       In Michigan, the value of the industry has fallen by 35 
     percent since the Andean trade agreement. Michigan and 
     Washington have been hit the hardest because they lead the 
     nation in production of canned or frozen asparagus, a segment 
     that has been in particular decline with the year-round 
     Peruvian crop.
       ``The irony is that they didn't plow under the coke to 
     plant asparagus in Peru,'' said John Bakker, executive 
     director of the Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board. ``If you 
     look at that industry in Peru and where it's growing, it has 
     nothing to do with coca leaf growers becoming normal farmers. 
     Coca leaf is grown in the highlands. The asparagus is near 
     sea level.''
       In a letter to the State Department in March, Peru's 
     government said the asparagus industry employed 50,000 people 
     and 40 percent came from coca-producing regions.
       ``It is important to understand that the war against drugs 
     is another face of the battle against terrorism, and will be 
     successful only if new legal jobs are created as an 
     alternative to illegal activities,'' the Peruvian Asparagus 
     and Other Vegetables Institute said in the letter.
       Yet United States auditors, in a 2001 report to Congress, 
     said the Foreign Agricultural Service ``does not believe that 
     Peruvian asparagus production provides an alternative 
     economic opportunity for coca producers and workers--the 
     stated purpose of the act.''
       Mr. Schreiber, of the Washington asparagus board, said he 
     had made two trips to Peru and doubted many coca growers had 
     turned to asparagus.
       ``I don't fault the Peruvians,'' Mr. Schreiber said. 
     ``We're in this situation because of what our government has 
     done to us. They say it's a national security issue. Well, 
     the cost of it has been borne on the back of the American 
     asparagus grower.''
       The 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, the 
     auditing arm of Congress, found that the value of the 
     asparagus processing industry in the United States had fallen 
     by nearly 30 percent, which it attributed to Peruvian 
     imports. The industry was valued at $217 million in 2000.
       Asparagus is labor intensive, and some industry experts 
     have said Washington's high minimum wage of $7.16 an hour has 
     contributed to the industry's decline. But Mr. McKay, the 
     farmer, said he was able to pay high wages and even give 
     workers housing, and still make a profit before Peruvian 
     asparagus was given trade preference.
       Mr. Bakker of the Michigan asparagus board said about 300 
     farmers in his state had lost a total of about $25 million 
     because of the cheaper Peruvian imports. The government has 
     bought some Michigan asparagus, but farmers there and in 
     Washington say money that is supposed to be available to 
     industries hurt by free trade pacts is difficult to get, 
     because of a formula that takes prices rather than job losses 
     into account.
       ``Our industry will disappear before we qualify for any 
     trade assistance money,'' Mr. Bakker said. ``And it's not 
     like Michigan farmers are against the war on drugs. There are 
     certainly social benefits from trying to curb cocaine 
     production, but why should one industry take it on the chin 
     for it?''

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a 
colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, a distinguished colleague, 
indeed, Mr. Kind from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, in strong 
support of this 8-month extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. 
It is the right thing to do at the right time, Mr. Speaker.
  There is no question, as my friend from New York just referenced 
previously, that our image has been tattered and beaten abroad. That is 
no less true here in the Western Hemisphere, especially with our 
neighbors to the south, through Central and South America. And I have 
always believed that our trade policies are more than just the exchange 
of products and goods between our Nation and others but also an 
important tool in our diplomatic arsenal. An arsenal that needs to be 
rebuilt now even in our own Western Hemisphere.
  But I also want to remind my colleagues that this is not a free pass 
for these four Andean nations to get this trade preference. They have 
certain strict criteria that they have to meet first to gain 
eligibility for these preferences. Criteria such as respecting 
internationally recognized worker rights, treating the United States 
investors fairly, providing market access to U.S. goods, demonstrating 
a commitment to implement its WTO obligations, and, finally, to meet 
the U.S. counter-narcotics criteria.
  And on that last point, it is not insignificant that there has been 
substantial progress, according to our own State Department and USTR 
office, of the drug eradication efforts and partnership that we have 
established with these four Andean nations. They have also met the 
criteria, again, through reference of our own State Department, but 
ATPA is perhaps the single most effective alternative development 
program we have going in the region. By providing these local citizens 
with long-term alternatives to narcotics trafficking and illegal 
immigration, ATPA has helped the governments, especially in Colombia 
and Peru, to isolate violent extremist groups; to revise their 
economies; and increase their investments in their education, health 
care, and infrastructure system.
  And I submit that if we are not trying to actively engage these 
nations to help them build their economy and expand economic 
opportunities, they are going to come to the United States to realize 
those opportunities that they are not receiving in their own countries.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this extension.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to a very 
valued Member of this body, and we came to this institution together, 
Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's yielding me the 
time even though I rise in opposition to this bill and to any bill that 
will continue to outsource more U.S. jobs, increase our trade deficit, 
and not stop the import of illegal narcotics into this country.
  This is another one of those bills cast in NAFTA model that is 
already yielding over $10 billion a year in trade deficits to this 
country by the outsourcing of our jobs. Why would we want to do more?
  The American people elected us to make a difference. They are 
expecting us to be different than the Thomas committee. Why are we 
delivering the same kind of bills to this floor?
  Procedurally, this bill is being brought up overnight without Members 
even having the opportunity to read a text. I don't know who made that 
decision. I doubt it was anyone on this floor. But for people who 
represent districts like ours, it is truly a tragedy.
  One fact we are certain of is that NAFTA-type agreements have cost 
more jobs, more job losses, more trade deficit every time one of these 
bills comes to the floor. When are we going to learn?
  The idea of the Andean agreement was that it would help to displace 
coca production with other economic enterprises, and yet we see coca 
production increasing and more of those illegal drugs coming over our 
border. When something isn't working, you ought to fix it.
  We look at the provisions dealing with labor enforcement. There is no 
enforcement, especially in the farm-related positions, in the flour 
industry, in the asparagus industry, and so forth. There is no 
enforcement in those countries. Why would we do this?
  I would love to be a Member of this Congress when a trade agreement 
is advanced that creates jobs in the United States of America, which is 
our first responsibility, rather than outsourcing; that yields trade 
surpluses, not growing deficits that are such a huge drag on this 
economy, now knocking two points off GDP every year; and that treats 
the Members of this institution with respect, with respect. Not 
excluding those who disagree, but putting us around the table, letting 
our voices be heard, letting us be constructive Members of this 
institution.

                              {time}  1845

  I would say to the leadership of this institution, treat the Members 
with respect. We were also elected.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me this time to speak in 
opposition.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the United 
States is the number one trading Nation in the world. Because of the 
great

[[Page 17757]]

trade that we have, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates of any 
Nation in the world, 4.5 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, a very active member of the Trade 
Subcommittee (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which 
would provide a short-term extension of current trade preferences to 
our Andean neighbors.
  I have always supported the Andean trade program designed to help 
create alternative jobs and economies to those in the drug trade and to 
offer hope to these nations.
  And it has worked. Millions of jobs have developed in the region in 
the flower industry, in agriculture, all that contribute to 
stabilization and economic growth, all of which are in America's 
interest.
  But preferences which are one-way trade into America aren't 
permanent. They aren't designed that way because they matter. The 
impact on American asparagus farmers, which has shrunk by a third as a 
result of these preferences is a good example. And that's why it's 
imperative that we work with our Andean neighbors to transition to two-
way free trade agreements that balance and strengthen our 
relationships.
  Not only is two-way trade fair, but it benefits all parties by 
encouraging more permanent investment in nations where rule of law, 
property rights, democracy and higher labor environmental standards are 
insisted upon. This helps create even more jobs in the legitimate 
market, more so than the preferences do today.
  As an example, Peru's legislature today voted to amend our agreement 
that incorporates important labor and environmental provisions 
negotiated by Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and others.
  Approving the pending free trade agreements with partners Peru and 
Colombia have significant security and foreign policy implications as 
well by strengthening our hand against President Chavez in Venezuela 
and his corrosive influence in the region.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the preference extension. We shouldn't disrupt 
current trade flows or hurt our friends in the region whose livelihoods 
depend upon this program, but we need to move forward in a timely 
manner with agreements with Peru and Colombia.
  I am hopeful that Ecuador and Bolivia understand that one-way 
preferences are temporary and require a good faith effort on their part 
to address outstanding trade and expropriation issues if they wish to 
continue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I 
appreciate what my colleague from Ohio said a moment ago. But with all 
due respect, I couldn't disagree with her more.
  First of all, what is brought here today is not a NAFTA-type 
agreement. Bear in mind, this is being urged for approval by the 
Council of Textile Organizations, the Bush administration and the AFL-
CIO. It is an 8-month extension for us to be able to move forward in an 
orderly fashion.
  We have, in fact, heard concerns that have been voiced by our friend 
from Ohio and others. That's why the committee is hard at work. And I 
commend the leadership of Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin to be able 
to put together a framework on a bipartisan basis that speaks to those 
concerns. I am quite confident when we bring forward the FTAs that they 
are decidedly not NAFTA-type agreements.
  I think the gentlelady is right, there are certain parts of this 
decision that were made beyond perhaps the chairman, but there are also 
two bodies that are at work. And our chairman has been working to be 
able to accommodate a complex set of issues going forward.
  This 8-month extension ought to be welcomed because it will enable 
more concrete information to be available that I think will raise the 
comfort level of the gentlelady. It will certainly speak to the 
concerns that I have heard back home, and will underscore the hard work 
that this committee has been doing.
  I respectfully suggest that the work that we're going to see, for 
example, with the environment in Peru, with illegal logging, with 
what's happening with the environmental sector, labor standards, these 
are going to provide a more complete package that is going to enable us 
to have trade, provide that two-way comfort level, and work for all 
concerns.
  In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that we support this 
extension under an expedited process that will enable us to return to 
this floor with a more comprehensive approach, and that will enable us 
to move our entire agenda forward.
  Mr. HERGER. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, 
the ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this extension. 
I want to congratulate the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
the subcommittee chairman, and of course my very good friend and fellow 
Californian (Mr. Herger) who joins with the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means Mr. McCrery in moving this 
effort forward in a bipartisan way.
  As I listen to this debate, I heard my colleague from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) malign the issue of trade saying that she very much wants to 
see trade agreements that create American jobs. I could not agree with 
her more. I very much believe that as we look at trade agreements that 
we have put into place, recognizing that we have an excess of a third 
of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade between Mexico and the 
United States of America following implementation of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, that has demonstrated that what we're doing here 
this evening is just a very small step in establishing these very 
important agreements with Peru and Colombia. We hope very much that we 
can do it with Bolivia and Ecuador, and we hope very much that we can 
do it with Panama.
  And frankly, as we look at those agreements, what is it that those 
agreements will do? They will lower the tariff barriers that exist 
preventing U.S. workers from having opportunities to send their goods 
and services into those very important countries in this hemisphere.
  I join with my colleagues who have underscored the fact that the 
threat of Hugo Chavez and other leaders in this hemisphere is a very 
serious one. The anti-American sentiment is high, and it's being fueled 
by Hugo Chavez. He is very much opposed to these free trade agreements. 
He is very much opposed to any opportunity to expand commerce within 
this hemisphere. And that's why, for national security reasons, for job 
creation reasons, and to benefit consumers right here in the United 
States of America, it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we have 
strong bipartisan support for this effort. And let it lay the 
groundwork for us to pass these important trade agreements for our 
future.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I support this short-term extension of the Andean preferences.
  U.S. trade preferences for Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia have 
furthered important economic development and political purposes, 
including creating incentives that shift from production of illegal 
drugs to legitimate products, increasing economic growth in these 
countries and strengthening democracy in the region.
  The Andean trade preference expires on June 30. I believe that 
extending these preferences is very important, but only as a short-term 
bridge to implementing bilateral free trade agreements with these 
countries. Such FTAs are reciprocal, open up more trade opportunities, 
and provide permanent tariff reductions for U.S. interests as compared 
to the temporary tariff reductions provided to Andean interests by the 
preferences.

[[Page 17758]]

  For example, the pending FTAs with Peru and Colombia will greatly 
enhance our economic and trade ties to the benefit of the Andean and 
U.S. industries and workers. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, once the Colombia and Peru FTAs are implemented, one, 
80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods will 
immediately be duty free, with another 7 percent duty free within 5 
years and our remaining tariffs eliminated within 10 years.
  Two, a substantial amount of U.S. farm exports will receive immediate 
duty-free treatment.
  Three, Colombia and Peru will provide substantial market access to 
U.S. service providers with very few exceptions.
  Four, all U.S. information technology products will enter duty free.
  And five, U.S. investors and intellectual property right holders will 
receive important protections.
  From the perspective of Peru and Colombia, these FTAs will expand 
their trade opportunities with the United States. The FTAs, with their 
permanence and, in many cases, immediate tariff reductions will provide 
more certainty for their own industries and workers.
  Moving to FTAs with our Andean trading partners also will greatly 
build on our growing overall trade relationship with these countries at 
a time when the EU and other countries are looking to strengthen their 
own trade ties in the region. We must act now before the EU and other 
countries pass us by.
  At the same time we need to be wary over how Ecuador and Bolivia 
react over the 8 months. We have been generous with preferences, but 
I'm very troubled that the response in those countries has been a lack 
of respect for the rights of U.S. investors. Our generosity has its 
limits.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the extension of the Andean preferences being 
considered today which will allow these important benefits to continue. 
At the same time it is important for us to remember that we have the 
unique opportunity now to go beyond the Andean preferences and expand 
our economic and trade ties to Peru and Colombia through the pending 
FTAs. Therefore, I look forward to House consideration of the Peru FTA 
in July, and then moving through the other pending FTAs.
  The time is now to solidify our relationship. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to be clear; we're voting on the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, we are not voting on FTAs. We are not voting for a 
bridge to other agreements, we're voting on the merits of the extension 
of this Trade Preference Act.
  It has basically worked. On this side, we're opposed to one-way trade 
agreements. This has been a two-way passage for those countries and for 
this country.
  Our trade, if you include oil not covered by the Trade Preference 
Act, has essentially been in balance. We should extend this on its own 
merits.
  In terms of asparagus, if you look at the facts, it shows that these 
agreements are basically complementary and not competitive.
  I urge support of this extension, as I said, on its own merits, not 
because anyone is trying to use this as a path to anything else.
  Vote ``yes'' on this. Be clear. This has been a two-way street, which 
this side of the aisle has insisted on as a basic part of American 
trade policy, and we will continue to do that, building upon it with a 
new model of trade.
  I urge a strong vote for this extension.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, trade is a complex issue. But some things 
are very clear--We need a fair playing field for our workers and 
businesses and we need a new trade model, with enforceable standards 
and rules to eliminate unfair trade practices.
  So why are we continuing to seek to expand a trade policy that has 
proven time and time again to be harmful for American workers, 
businesses, farmers and communities? And why are we seeking to expand 
the Andean Trade Preference Act or ATPA when there appears no 
substantive reason to extend the preferences.
  According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), we have a $10 
billion and growing trade deficit with the four ATPA nations, Colombia, 
Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. American farmers and workers have been 
directly harmed by the ATPA as can be seen with our asparagus and 
fresh-cut flower industries. According to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, these domestic producers have been affected by lower prices 
and many growers have gone out of business as a result.
  Under the ATPA, flower imports from Colombia and Ecuador receive 
duty-free treatment, seven though the workers who grow, harvest, and 
package these flowers routinely experience a number of labor rights and 
human rights violations. By law, the ATPA is supposed to condition 
these trade benefits on improvements in worker rights in these 
countries. However, labor rights violations in the flower industry and 
other sectors, including violations of the right to freedom of 
association, continue unchecked.
  Where is the enforcement from the Bush Administration? Where is the 
outrage from this Congress.
  Also promised to us when the ATPA was enacted in 1991 was a reduction 
in coca production in the four ATPA countries. However, in Colombia, 
according to the CRS, coca crop size estimates remain mostly unchanged 
since the enactment of the ATPA and in Peru coca crop cultivation has 
actually grown. Colombia remains the source of roughly 90 percent of 
the cocaine entering the U.S. In a 2001 report to Congress, the U.S. 
Foreign Agricultural Service said that they ``do not believe that 
Peruvian asparagus production provides an alternative economic 
opportunity for coca producers and workers--the stated purpose of the 
Act.'' And all this is on top of the fact that Colombia has an 
appalling horrific record on labor and human rights--Leading the world 
in the number of unionists murdered year after year.
  So why are we seeking to give Colombia further trade preferences?
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 1830, which seeks to renew the Andean Trade Preferences 
for 8 months. This legislation is vital to expanding trade between the 
United States and Latin American countries. We must break down trade 
barriers with our allies in Latin America. Trade has strengthened the 
economies of our strongest allies in the region, including Colombia and 
Peru, and is vital to democracy. Andean countries rely on trade with 
the United States to bolster their economies and produce jobs; Andean 
Trade Preferences have provided over 1.5 million jobs in the region. I 
ask my colleagues to support our allies in Latin America by voting 
``yes'' on H.R. 1830.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1830, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________