[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31700-31705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4284) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences and 
the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4284

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

       Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010''.

     SEC. 2. 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 in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) by striking ``December 31, 2009'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (b) Treatment of Certain Apparel Articles.--Section 
     204(b)(3) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3203(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (iii)--
       (i) in subclause (II), by striking ``7 succeeding 1-year 
     periods'' and inserting ``8 succeeding 1-year periods''; and
       (ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by striking ``and for the 
     succeeding 2-year period'' and inserting ``and for the 
     succeeding 3-year period''; and
       (B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ``6 succeeding 1-year 
     periods'' and inserting ``7 succeeding 1-year periods''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking ``December 31, 
     2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (c) Report.--Section 203(f)(1) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(f)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``April 30, 2003'' and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.

     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 ``February 14, 2018'' 
     and inserting ``May 14, 2018''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``February 7, 
     2018'' and inserting ``June 7, 2018''.

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

       The percentage under paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the 
     Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 1.5 
     percentage points.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4284. This bill extends two 
preference programs--the Generalized System of Preferences, known as 
GSP, and the Andean Trade Preference Act, known as ATPA--for 1 year. 
Without this extension, the two programs will expire in less than 3 
weeks, on December 31.
  Preferences, including GSP and ATPA, are important tools in U.S. 
trade policy. They are a means by which the U.S. can work with 
developing nations to help them capture the opportunities and to meet 
the challenges of trade and globalization.
  Over many decades, the GSP and Andean programs have seen these 
results for developing nations: The GSP currently provides duty-free 
treatment to over 3,500 types of products coming into the U.S. from 
more than 130 developing countries. The program provides duty-free 
access to even more products from the 44 poorest, or least developed, 
countries. Last year, the GSP program facilitated $31.7 billion in 
imports from all beneficiary nations. ATPA provided additional benefits 
to the Andean nations to help address their special circumstances, in 
particular, their efforts to fight the trade in narcotics. Under ATPA, 
imports grew from $97 million in 1992, which was the first full year 
after enactment, to more than $17 billion in 2008, including $4 billion 
of nonfuel imports.
  The programs have been crafted carefully so that they mirror the

[[Page 31701]]

complementarities of trade between the developing nations and the 
United States. The needs of developing nations have been matched to the 
needs here at home. As a result, both programs have provided 
significant benefits here in the United States as well:
  ATPA has developed an important market for U.S. textiles in the 
Andean region, and both ATPA and GSP have improved the sourcing options 
that many U.S. businesses, including many small and medium enterprises, 
use to remain competitive in the global marketplace. In recent years, 
for example, the majority of U.S. imports--75 percent--using GSP were 
imports used to sustain U.S. manufacturing, including raw materials, 
parts and components, and machinery and equipment.
  At the same time that they have been structured to foster increased 
trade, the preference programs have been shaped to encourage developing 
countries to implement the kinds of policies that are necessary for 
increased trade to achieve the goal of development. Specifically, the 
preference programs have incorporated key eligibility criteria, 
including conditions regarding respect of fundamental worker rights, 
the rule of law, basic rules protecting innovation and investment, and 
policies to fight corruption.
  The preference programs confirm what many of us have been saying for 
a long time--trade must be shaped so as to spread its benefits widely. 
That is true whether we talk about unilateral preference programs or 
bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
  I do not mean to suggest, however, that our work is done when it 
comes to preference programs. Far from it. We need to ask whether the 
preference programs are working as well as they should. This requires 
taking a hard look at all aspects of the programs, including how 
present eligibility criteria are working. In addition to considering 
any improvements, we also need to look at whether there is a need to 
include additional eligibility criteria, including relating to the 
environment.
  This also means taking a careful look at those countries that are in 
an especially vulnerable situation. One example is Cambodia, which has 
been hard hit by the global economic recession. As many of my 
colleagues may recall, Cambodia and the U.S. were partners in a 
pioneering project called Better Factories Cambodia. That project, 
which grew out of the U.S.-Cambodia Textile Agreement in the late 
1990s, sought to promote labor standards through a trade agreement at a 
time when many in the world were demonizing such efforts as 
protectionism. The effort bore fruit, significantly improving the 
rights of and conditions for workers, which, in turn, can help expand 
other freedoms.
  However, that industry is now under siege as a result of the global 
recession and of competition, including from China and Vietnam. 
According to testimony provided in a recent Ways and Means hearing, 
nearly 1 quarter--80 of 340--of all exporting factories have been shut 
down, and nearly 80,000 workers--most of them women--have lost their 
jobs in Cambodia. We need to know whether the preference programs are 
doing enough to help these enormous challenges.
  The extension we are voting on today gives us the time we need to 
look carefully at these important issues. The Ways and Means Committee 
and the Trade Subcommittee plan to hold hearings and to work with the 
administration next year in a comprehensive review of our preference 
programs. Today's bill also provides for a review, in the middle of 
next year, of the Andean Trade Preference Act and of all issues 
relating thereto with each of the countries covered by the act.
  I want to take a moment to thank my Republican colleagues for working 
on this extension with Chairman Rangel and me. I look forward to 
working with Ranking Members David Camp and Kevin Brady and with our 
other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to evaluate the preference 
programs over the course of next year as we together determine whether 
we can make them work better for all beneficiaries--for both the 
citizens of developing nations and for our citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me be blunt. We can and should be doing much more 
to advance our trade agenda and to create much needed jobs for American 
workers.
  This year, America's trade agenda has stalled, and it has had a 
chilling effect on our economy, on job creation and on global commerce, 
in some cases, even weakening our national security interests. The 
delay in considering the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement alone has 
cost U.S. exporters and their workers over $2.4 billion in unnecessary 
tariffs.
  Last week, the President said there would be a renewed focus on trade 
next year. I welcome that commitment, and I stand ready to prepare our 
free trade agreements for congressional consideration. In the meantime, 
we still have valuable work to do. Although we are not dealing with any 
of our pending free trade agreements today, we are considering 
important trade programs which protect our own interests and which help 
advance developing nations--extensions of the Generalized System of 
Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act.
  Make no mistake; the legislation before us is far from perfect, but 
it is a chance to ensure that the trade agenda does not slide further 
backward. By supporting this bill, we are sending a signal to the world 
that America is ready and willing to engage.
  I am a strong supporter of our trade preference programs. These 
programs are vital, particularly as we struggle with the global 
recession and with the collapse in international trade. Allowing these 
preference programs to lapse would be a mistake that would encourage 
the rest of the world, which is already passing us by when it comes to 
new trade agreements, to increase their lead on us, and we cannot allow 
that to happen.

                              {time}  1615

  As I noted, this legislation should have been stronger to provide 
greater certainty to American employers doing business in developing 
countries, something sorely needed in this economic climate.
  I would have preferred to see a 2-year extension of that program 
instead of the 1-year extension before us, but I think we all agree 
that a 1-year extension is better than no extension at all.
  I would also have preferred to see a continuation of the bipartisan 
provision in the current Andean Trade Promotion Act program that 
requires enhanced oversight over Ecuador's compliance with the 
eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to 
recognize the serious questions that surround Ecuador's compliance with 
the eligibility criteria for this program.
  The 2008 bipartisan extension of ATPA extended benefits for Ecuador 
but required the administration to issue a report on Ecuador's 
compliance with eligibility criteria. This report, released on June 30 
of this year by the Obama administration, highlighted multiple 
concerns, which I share.
  Specifically, the report raised questions about Ecuador's compliance 
with its international investment obligations. The report raised 
concerns about Ecuador's decision to increase certain import duties 
above their bound levels and impose quotas on imports. None of these 
issues have been resolved. In fact, they have gotten worse.
  Despite failure by Ecuador to address the issues raised in the Obama 
administration report, the majority has inexplicably stripped out last 
year's reporting requirement. For all the talk from the other side 
about enforcement and compliance, this legislation fails to address 
legitimate concerns our workers and employers face in Ecuador. While 
the legislation requires reporting for all of the Andean countries, I 
am disappointed that the majority has decided not to engage in specific 
oversight of a country clearly falling short of our expectations.
  As 2009 comes to a close, there will be many retrospectives on the 
year. One focus ought to be on whether Washington advanced a pro-
growth, pro-job

[[Page 31702]]

trade agenda. The answer is clearly ``no.''
  We started the year with the passage of a new Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program, showing what can be achieved when there is a 
bipartisan, bicameral commitment. We should all be very proud of what 
we have done for workers who are trying to adjust to the global 
economy.
  But until today, there has been absolutely no positive movement on 
the trade agenda since TAA. While I am encouraged the majority decided 
to extend two trade preference programs, the failure to make this 
legislation as robust as it could have been shows the need to return 
next year to the sort of bipartisanship that we saw on TAA. I urge the 
majority to make that happen, and I am committed to doing my part.
  Madam Speaker, we owe the American people a better result. Today's 
legislation gives us the first opportunity to build on the President's 
words to us at the White House last week, in which he acknowledged the 
importance of trade in creating jobs, but it represents the bare 
minimum.
  I urge my colleagues to support a robust trade agenda that creates 
opportunities for American workers. For that reason, I support passage 
of this legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished member of the committee and my colleague, Jim McDermott 
of Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage of 
H.R. 4284 to extend the general system of preferences and the Andean 
trade preference program for 1 year. I have called for an extension to 
our preference programs in the past. We need to make these programs 
long and stable. This extension is only for a year, and that's okay in 
this instance, because we need to force more action on broader 
preference reform.
  In difficult economic times like today, developed countries sometimes 
decide to pull back. But I think that in a globalized economy we need 
to push forward on improving trade with poorer countries of the world.
  Our preference programs have done enormous good for the poor of the 
world and for American business. Now we need to make them even better.
  For development to really accelerate, we need to get more countries 
involved in trading more products. I have introduced a bill with the 
support of Chairman Rangel and Congressman Levin that will go far in 
modernizing our preference programs for American businesses and the 
poor of the world.
  Now, while there are details to work out, there is broad agreement 
that our trade programs need to be stable, they need to be simplified, 
they need to be more effective, and they need to help more people.
  I think we agree that the stability of our programs is essential to 
them being effective. No one who has ever run a business would want to 
invest in a climate that is so unstable, that goes year by year, you 
are never sure can you plan on it next year. That simply is very 
difficult for businesses to deal with, and our programs, therefore, 
need to be long term.
  Second, our programs are too complicated and too hard to use. 
Simplifying our programs and doing more to help our partners meet the 
important standards we set are keys to their success.
  An interesting fact sort of clarifies it in your mind. Cambodia pays 
as much tariff on $1.5 billion worth of exports in the United States as 
does Great Britain on $50 billion. Now, if you are trying to help 
Cambodia, you ought to think about those kinds of numbers. We need to 
address the capacity building. We all know that the wisdom of trade, 
not aid, is obvious. Preferences help our trading partners quite a bit. 
But without thoughtful capacity building, we can only help them so 
much. We need to pool these efforts together to help poor countries 
grow and to give American businesses more customers.
  Finally, we need to find a way to strengthen the programs we have 
while at the same time helping more people. Trade is not a zero-sum 
game. We can strengthen our current programs while also helping other 
desperately poor countries who right now get no benefits. We can help 
different countries like Lesotho, the Philippines, and Cambodia at the 
same time.
  I think this is a good start, and the House ought to pass this bill, 
and next year we will deal with a larger bill.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today also in support of this legislation to 
extend our trade preference programs.
  Trade is vital to creating jobs, growing our economy, and 
strengthening ties with key partners around the world. Preferences are 
a bridge for developing countries to enter the global market, to grow, 
and to achieve permanent trade relationships with America.
  Look no further than South Korea and Colombia for great examples of 
preferences done right. Through successful preference programs, both 
allies now stand ready to enter into permanent trade agreements with 
the United States.
  The failure to pass pending free trade agreements like those with 
Korea and Colombia is costing America thousands of jobs and billions of 
dollars. President Obama did recently speak about how growing exports 
creates jobs, and I hope the Congress will soon prepare these 
agreements for consideration, because not only do these agreements 
create jobs, but also business relationships and partnerships and 
friendships.
  It creates opportunities for cultural exchanges and the opportunities 
to help our friends across the globe educate each other and educate us. 
It also even affects our national security and our environment.
  While I am disappointed that we could not extend these preference 
programs beyond just 1 year, they are too important to our partner 
countries to let them expire. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this extension of our preference programs.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my very 
distinguished colleague and member of the Ways and Means Committee from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this, as I appreciate his thoughtful leadership in this 
area of trade and balancing the commitments that we have.
  The extension of the system of preferences was not merely related to 
trade but is reflective of a Nation's social values. It was in that 
context that we inaugurated our program of preferences in 1974.
  It's more than a trade agreement; it's a statement about what 
policies we find valuable in our trading partners and which policies we 
feel drive the development of nations. For this reason, it's often 
referred to as a tool of foreign policy as well as trade.
  We appropriately judge our trading partners on eligibility for this 
program on protection of American commercial interests, protection of 
intellectual property, preventing the seizure of property belonging to 
United States citizens or businesses, as well as protection of 
individual rights such as the protection of commonly accepted labor 
rights and the elimination of child labor.
  Madam Speaker, the United States has, I think, at times fallen short 
in our dealing with tariff barriers for poor nations and agriculture. 
My friend from Washington referenced the difference between Cambodia 
and Great Britain.
  I am hopeful that we will be able to work in the year ahead dealing 
with some outmoded tariff dealing with footwear and outerwear that's no 
longer even manufactured in the United States, and I am confident that 
we can work through in this approach.
  But I would hope, as we move forward, that we would add to the list 
of the criteria by which we are going to judge the extension of these 
preferences environmental criteria. They

[[Page 31703]]

are noticeably absent as we go through the list currently.
  Making sure that agreements are required of our trading partners to 
enforce environmental laws already on the books and comply with various 
international environmental agreements, I think, is absolutely 
essential.
  Concern for the environment is a core element of development. It 
reflects an appreciation of civil law for protection of individual and 
often indigenous people's rights and concern for the long-term 
sustainability of a state and society. Protection of the environment is 
not merely what rich nations do after they become wealthy, but it is 
what nations must do as they become wealthy.
  Madam Speaker, at this moment the world is meeting in Copenhagen, and 
I am pleased the United States has not turned its back on these global 
climate negotiations. We are dealing with problems of energy demands 
and carbon pollution that may well be the most important for this 
century.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. These may be the most important discussions that we 
are going to have on the survival of human habitation as we know it, 
for the economies of countries rich and poor.
  Being able to deal meaningfully with environmental protections 
through trade negotiations is perhaps the single most effective way 
that we are going to be able to establish a basis, a criteria, moving 
forward.
  I hope that we will be able to have a more robust conversation in 
this next year. I hope that we will be successful in moving the world 
and this country forward in Copenhagen. I hope that as we move forward 
we can work together to strengthen the role of environmental 
protections that will be found as we extend these preferences in the 
future and our overall approach to trade.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another year, another 
Andean trade preference extension, another year of the Colombian trade 
agreement held up. Another missed opportunity.
  Let's be clear: The Colombia agreement, which the majority is not 
moving, would be a job creator for Americans. If we passed it, 
Colombian tariffs, the tariffs that they place on U.S. exports, would 
be cut. If you reduced that export tariff, it would create more jobs 
here in the United States.
  With the Colombia FTA, we could get two-way trade between the United 
States and Colombia. Right now, U.S. exporters sending to Colombia are 
mainly small- and medium-sized businesses. A lot of them are in my area 
in Southern California. They are our economic engine.
  Let's help them. It's very ironic that many who routinely attack 
trade agreements are giving Colombia preferential treatment here today, 
asking for nothing in return, which is especially galling when there is 
a good agreement sitting on ice which would help our exporters in that 
market.

                              {time}  1630

  I think it's time to stand up for the American worker; certainly past 
time to get an agreement that's a two-way agreement here.
  Of course, Colombia is our closest partner in an important region. It 
is locked in a very deadly struggle with well-financed forces, in this 
case terrorists and drug traffickers that are called the FARC. This 
bill today is better than nothing, but the majority is missing a good 
opportunity, an opportunity to help a friend in Colombia and to help 
American workers by passing the Colombia FTA.
  This bill has another shortcoming that I wanted to speak on briefly, 
and that is Ecuador. A beneficiary, Ecuador is far, far from living up 
to this program's conditions. To be a beneficiary of this agreement, 
there should be certain requirements. Yet it hasn't been cooperative in 
combating narco-terrorism, and Ecuador is very close to the FARC, which 
is warring against the Colombian Government. Its independent media has 
come under government attack. Its government has corrupted its legal 
system, harming U.S. companies.
  Just to go into some of the specifics, the President of Ecuador, 
President Correa, has dissolved the Parliament there, the Congress. He 
has replaced all the judges in the country. He's censored the media and 
seized control of the television stations there. The State Department's 
2009 human rights report cites concerns with what the State Department 
calls corruption and the denial of due process within Ecuador's 
judicial system. Transparency International ranked this country as one 
of the worst surveyed for 2008 in terms of its corruption perceptions 
index, one of the worst in corruption. And it has announced that it 
will withdraw from its bilateral investment treaty with the United 
States.
  This bill frankly would be better without Ecuador. Instead, the 
majority rejected using these benefits as leverage. I think that's also 
a missed opportunity. Rejecting this bill would hurt Colombia and our 
strategic interests there, so let's pass it; but it should be noted 
that we should have done so much better for American jobs.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to my very distinguished colleague 
and friend, Mr. Doggett of Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman and I thank him for his 
leadership.
  I certainly support more trade--where it most stands to benefit 
American consumers and to spur economic development in some of the 
world's least developed countries. During the last 2 years, there has 
been considerable talk about crafting a 21st century American trade 
policy that ensures we are not encouraging trade that depends upon 
degrading our environment and lowering labor standards. Unfortunately, 
talk is often about all that we've had. Upholding labor and 
environmental standards has been much more rhetoric than reality. 
Today's renewal of this GSP legislation does nothing to encourage 
participating countries to even enforce their own minimal environmental 
laws or to honor the multilateral environmental agreements that they 
have joined.
  This is in significant contrast with the European Union. There, in 
order to enjoy the benefits of its GSP Plus program, beneficiary 
countries must fully implement major multilateral environmental 
agreements. There's no reason why we should not be doing the same and 
more. We should have led the European Union on the environment, but we 
can now at least follow its lead.
  There are GSP labor standards, but under the Bush administration, 
naturally, there was very little interest in seeing them enforced. Why, 
for example, should the thuggish government of Uzbekistan enjoy any 
trade preferences? In addition to being one of the world's leading 
violators of human rights across the board, we have ample evidence of 
widespread labor abuses within Uzbekistan, including compulsory child 
labor. For over 2 years, the USTR has failed to act on a related 
petition about child labor, even after the Uzbeks failed to appear at a 
hearing to defend or explain their egregious child labor record.
  This raises troubling questions about the integrity and effectiveness 
of the USTR review process. The Uzbek case is but one example of the 
significant problems with that enforcement mechanism of labor 
provisions in the GSP. Surely our trade policies here in the 21st 
century can aspire to do more than to bless practices that come right 
out of a 19th century Charles Dickens novel.
  In the promised GSP review for this next year, as described by 
Chairman Levin, I think we have considerable work to do if we are to 
give full and complete meaning to the promises of President Barack 
Obama that our trade policy will reflect not only our desire for more 
commerce but our commitment to uphold our environment and our workers.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have long been a supporter of 
our

[[Page 31704]]

preference programs because they allow valuable inputs to enter the 
United States duty free, helping our manufacturers and their employees. 
At the same time, trade preference programs are an important tool to 
help developing countries break into the international market. Over 
many years, Congress has worked on a bipartisan basis to develop trade 
preference programs that have provided a vital economic boost to many 
developing countries.
  But effective trade preferences are just one step on a developing 
country's journey to becoming a full player in the international 
market, which a country achieves through a permanent, reciprocal trade 
agreement with the United States. Chile, Singapore and the CAFTA 
countries all graduated from trade preferences into these more mature 
relationships, giving them full, permanent duty-free access to the U.S. 
market. This is a significant benefit over the partial, temporary 
access provided by our preference programs, sending a strong signal 
that helps attract necessary investment and capital into the partner 
country.
  For the United States, the benefits of reciprocal trade are obvious. 
American workers and businesses get a level playing field as a result 
of these countries opening their markets to U.S. exports. As a result, 
U.S. exports to these countries surge and those growing exports support 
American jobs. We can quickly realize similar benefits by implementing 
the pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, two more 
countries that are anxious to move from a one-way relationship to one 
that levels the playing field for American workers. I am frustrated to 
once again be faced with extending preferences for these countries 
instead of voting on a more permanent relationship that benefits all of 
us.
  Now there are many countries that aren't yet ready to take the step 
from preferences to a free trade relationship, and for these countries 
effective trade preference programs are the right policy. To that end, 
we must design our preference programs with eligibility criteria that 
challenge countries to improve their laws while encouraging investment. 
The current eligibility criteria provide the right balance, allowing 
the U.S. on many occasions to use these criteria to prompt improvements 
in conditions in several countries and further economic development.
  At the same time, when a country does not abide by the criteria in 
the preference programs, we must take notice and even eliminate 
benefits if necessary. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the criteria is 
undermined.
  In this regard, I have been watching the situation in Ecuador for 
several years, and I'm deeply troubled by what I am seeing. When 
Congress last extended ATPA in 2008, we added an additional statutory 
review requirement for Bolivia and Ecuador because of our concerns 
about their compliance with the eligibility criteria. This past June 
the Obama administration completed this review. The administration 
found that Bolivia was not complying with the eligibility criteria in 
the ATPA program, which is why Bolivia is no longer eligible for 
benefits. The administration also noted several serious concerns about 
Ecuador. In particular, the administration cited Ecuador's withdrawal 
from the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment 
Disputes and Ecuador's unilateral decision to raise many of its tariffs 
to levels above its WTO bindings.
  Since the administration's report, there have been further troubling 
developments in Ecuador. The country has announced that it will 
withdraw from its bilateral investment treaty with the United States, 
and the investment climate continues to cause concern. In addition, 
President Correa has made questionable statements with regard to 
Ecuador's respect for intellectual property rights. Moreover, 
negotiations to replace U.S. access to the Manta air base are still 
unresolved. Together with many other Members, I remain extremely 
concerned about the situation in Ecuador.
  Therefore, I am disappointed that the bill before us today does not 
retain the requirement in current law that the President report to 
Congress on the situation in Ecuador. I believe that this report 
provides us an opportunity to keep a careful eye on Ecuador and its 
compliance with the eligibility criteria. But just as important is the 
fact that the reporting requirement is enormously important as a signal 
to Ecuador--a message that this Congress is watching Ecuador closely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  In addition, I am disappointed that today's bill doesn't do more to 
establish certainty for users of the program here and abroad through an 
extension that is longer than a mere year. I and Mr. Camp have been 
seeking a 2-year extension.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill because I don't want the remaining 
preferences to lapse, but we can and should do better.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Andean Trade Preference Extension 
Act of 2009, which will extend the Andean trade preferences, as we know 
as ATPA, and also the Generalized System of Preferences, we also refer 
to as GSP, for an additional year. However, I do think it's important 
to note my disappointment that we did not put a message specifically 
putting Ecuador on notice that its behavior and its receipt of 
continued benefits is at serious risk. There is a deteriorating 
investment climate in Ecuador as well as their repudiation of the 
bilateral investment treaty. I think it's very important that while it 
is understood in this legislation that there is language maintaining a 
review, I am concerned that there is not specific language aimed at 
challenging Ecuador's actions. I do think this is a change from current 
law and it's a step backward. I think it's important to send a strong 
message that any central tenet of a preference program is that the 
participants uphold their commitments to the rule of law as well as 
their commitments to the U.S. on investment and other matters.
  So as a result of this, I believe preference programs should not be 
viewed as an entitlement; that they are based upon meeting certain 
criteria as I mentioned, particularly, as others have said, the 
observance of labor and environmental laws, certainly actions to 
prevent the distortion of investment as well as the support and 
enforcement of intellectual property laws as well as reasonable access 
to markets.
  However, I do think despite these concerns, this legislation is 
extremely important. It is essential that we extend this for another 
year. I think that this is an important step to take, and I will 
support its passage. I look forward to working with the administration 
as well as my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman 
Rangel and Chairman Levin, as we continue to address trade issues in 
the coming year.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4284, 
which would extend the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA, and the 
Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, for an additional year. I would 
like to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this issue and for 
bringing this bill to the floor. It is critically important that we 
extend these trade preferences before they expire at the end of this 
calendar year. We have seen in the past the damage that a short lapse 
can do to cross border business relationships.
  The trade preferences we seek to extend benefit both the United 
States and our South American trading partners. These preferences 
support economic growth both here in the United States and abroad in 
some of the poorest countries in the world. Almost 2 million jobs in 
the United States and the Andean region depend on ATPA preferences and 
the region has emerged an important market for U.S. exports. Because 
use of the programs is conditioned through eligibility criteria, such 
as labor, human rights, and intellectual property, the United States is 
able to advance both important economic and foreign policy goals.
  I therefore urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 
4284.

[[Page 31705]]


  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support 
of H.R. 4284, the Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2009 (ATPA), 
which would extend both the General System of Preferences (GSP) and the 
Andean Trade Preferences for one year.
  It is important to extend these preference programs, which assist 
developing countries in their efforts to build up domestic industries, 
increase exports, and alleviate poverty. In some cases, these programs 
have worked well. South Korea, Singapore, and other nations have 
graduated from the GSP program, and no longer qualify for these special 
trade benefits.
  Failure to extend these preferences would put even more pressure on 
impoverished populations in developing nations.
  Make no mistake, my support for this extension is not an unqualified 
endorsement of their current structure. To be sure, our preferences 
programs need improvement.
  One key improvement that is desperately needed is to change the 
prevailing view that trade preferences are a development strategy. 
Instead, we must recognize that trade preferences are only part of a 
comprehensive development strategy, which must also include investments 
in education, training, and infrastructure, as well as a consideration 
of targeted debt relief.
  In addition, our preferences programs currently have inadequately-
enforced labor standards and no environmental standards whatsoever.
  The rationale for linking trade and labor rights is vital to avoiding 
a ``race to the bottom.'' For American working families, we need to 
ensure that developing countries attract investment based on a 
competitive wage advantage, not by artificially suppressing wages 
through labor repression. For working families in developing countries, 
the opportunity to bargain collectively for better wages and working 
conditions will ensure that some of the benefits of trade go to them, 
not just to multi-national corporations.
  This one-year extension will give us the time we need to reform 
existing programs without disrupting the fragile economies of the 
lesser-developed nations that our preferences programs are designed to 
help.
  Finally, I want to address the issue of Ecuador in particular. 
Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that Chevron Corporation has 
been urging Members of Congress and the Administration to punish 
Ecuador because its government refuses to intervene in a private 
lawsuit against the oil giant. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend 
that the company is responsible for polluting a vast area of the Amazon 
Basin, causing serious health and environmental consequences.
  While I take no position on the lawsuit, I do believe that the 
plaintiffs should have their day in court. I also believe that, of all 
the legitimate reasons to oppose the U.S. trade preferences programs, 
doing the bidding of a single corporation is not one of them.
  As the editors of the Los Angeles Times wrote in a recent editorial, 
``There are other factors for Congress to consider in determining 
whether to extend Ecuador's trade preferences: workers' rights and 
trade and investment policy also are important. And there are issues 
that remain to be negotiated between the two countries. But in each of 
these areas, Ecuador has demonstrated a willingness to work with the 
U.S. That should be the test for an extension of trade benefits, not 
the private interests of one corporation.''
  To reiterate, while our trade preferences programs are not perfect, 
extending them for one year is vital, and I strongly support this 
legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 4284, a bill that would increase our trade deficit, compromise our 
labor laws, and delay a much-needed reform to our nation's trade 
policy.
  Since the last extension, in October 2008, Congress has still not 
adequately addressed the fundamental problems in relation to 
agriculture and labor practices in this trade preference agreement.
  With the on-going debate surrounding the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement and the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, and the sharp 
economic recession, it would be irresponsible to simply extend these 
preferences without thorough discussions on the effects of our trade 
policy on American jobs.
  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 and it has 
harmed American farmers.
  As a result of the ATPA, the U.S. had a $7 billion trade deficit with 
the four ATPA countries in 2008.
  Overall, the U.S. trade deficit has grown to more than $738 billion 
and trade policies have cost America 3.2 million manufacturing jobs 
over the past 10 years.
  Because both the Bush and Obama administrations deemed that Bolivia 
failed to meet eligibility criteria, H.R. 4284 would extend trade 
preferences only with Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru.
  Before extending the Andean Trade Preferences Act for a fourth time, 
Congress should take 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.
  Among the great economic challenges our nation faces is creating new 
trade and globalization policies that serve America's workers, 
consumers, farmers, and firms.
  The Obama administration and Congress have an opportunity to rewrite 
our trade policy and to create a trade framework that supports American 
jobs.
  Let's seize this opportunity to create a new framework for trade 
agreements.
  New trade agreements must meet basic standards to protect labor 
rights, environmental standards, food safety regulations, financial 
regulations, and taxation transparency.
  Most importantly, new trade agreements must protect American workers 
first.
  I urge you to vote against H.R. 4284 when it comes to the House floor 
today so that we can focus on reforming America's trade laws.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I urge passage, and 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. 4284.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________