[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2643-2649]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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. 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

[[Page 2644]]

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 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.

[[Page 2645]]


  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 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

[[Page 2646]]

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 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

[[Page 2647]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 2648]]

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 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. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, today the U.S. House of Representatives 
agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5264 by voice vote. Had I 
been given the opportunity to vote on this measure I would have voted 
``no'' on H.R. 5264, the Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008.
  In fact, prior to the voice vote on H.R. 5264, I sent a Dear 
Colleague with Representatives Dale Kildee and Marcy Kaptur to all 
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

[[Page 2649]]

urging our colleagues to vote against extending the Andean Trade 
Preference Act.
  The Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008 extends the Andean Trade 
Preference Act for another 10 months. Since the last extension, 8 
months ago, Congress has still not adequately addressed fundamental 
problems of labor practices in the region and the agreement's effect on 
U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, with the on-going debate surrounding the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement it is irresponsible to simply extend 
these preferences without thorough discussions.
  Originally passed in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA, was 
designed to develop economic alternates to narcotics production in 
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. However, ATPA has failed to 
reduce cocaine production, but it has harmed American farmers.
  In both Colombia and Peru, the size and production of illegal drug 
crops has remained virtually unchanged. 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.''
  As a result of the ATPA, the U.S. had a $10 billion trade deficit 
with the four ATPA countries in 2006. Specifically, the asparagus and 
fresh-cut flower industries have been severely hurt by lower prices. 
Since the implementation of ATPA, asparagus acreage in the United 
States dropped from 90,000 acres in 1991 to under 49,000 acres in 2006.
  There are 40,000 flower workers in Ecuador and over 100,000 in 
Colombia working to grow, harvest, and package flowers. Unfortunately, 
these workers routinely experience labor rights violations including 
violations of the right to freedom of association. H.R. 5264 does not 
include stronger labor provisions.
  Before agreeing to extend the Andean Trade Preferences Act for a 
third time, Congress should have taken a closer look at damage it has 
done to American farmers and how it has failed to reduce illegal drug 
production in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
  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.

                          ____________________