Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008

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.

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.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Becerra).

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.

I am the only speaker remaining. Why don't you proceed.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 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.

Mr. President, this week the House passed a 10 month extension of our unilateral trade preferences for Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and today it is the Senate's turn to consider the issue. I want to take a moment to explain why I have decided to agree to support this 10 month extension.

As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the operation of these trade preferences for quite some time. Last year, reported developments in Ecuador and Bolivia led me to question the commitment of their respective Governments to upholding the democratic rule of law, honoring contracts and other legal obligations, protecting civic freedoms such as freedom of the press, and fully partnering with us in the fight against traffic in illicit narcotics. In that context, I have questioned why we should renew these particular trade preferences, which we provide in addition to the broad preferences that we give to developing countries under our separate Generalized System of Preferences program.

More generally, I have questioned why we should continue to extend unilateral trade preferences when our farmers and manufacturers deserve to enjoy reciprocal trade benefits. I realize that we advance our national interest by fostering the creation of legitimate economic opportunities in the four Andean beneficiary countries. There need to be viable alternatives in the region if we are going to succeed in the fight against illicit narcotics. And the Andean trade preferences have been a good start. But I continue to question how unilateral trade preferences provide a basis for truly sustainable economic development over the long term.

On the other hand, a permanent, reciprocal, open trading relationship would appropriately address each of those questions. That is what we should be aiming for. Not only would it provide a level playing field for both sides, it would facilitate the establishment of strong long- term economic relationships through mutually beneficial trade and investment. That is one of the reasons why implementation of our trade promotion agreement with Colombia is my top priority on the trade agenda this year.

On balance, I have concluded that this 10 month extension of Andean trade preferences will allow us to accomplish a number of things. It will allow for the smooth entry into force of our trade agreement with Peru. It will avoid economic disruption in Colombia as we strive to implement our trade agreement with that critical ally. And it will extend an opportunity for Ecuador and Bolivia to engage us in a deeper dialogue on the direction they want to see our bilateral economic and political relationships take going forward. But let me be clear. Today's extension should not be interpreted as a sign that Andean trade preferences are a de facto perpetuity. They are not. I intend to continue my oversight of this program in advance of its expiration at the end of the year. Whether this program is again extended, or in what form, or for which countries, remains an open question.

In the meantime, I will continue monitoring a number of important concerns. For example, the Government of Ecuador has indicated that the U.S. lease to the Eloy Alfaro airfield will not be renewed when it expires in 2009. That is, of course, Ecuador's sovereign right. But we should not wait until the lease expires to discuss how our cooperative efforts to combat traffic in illicit narcotics can be augmented in order to offset the loss of this access. I am also concerned about expanded cultivation of coca leaf. Just this past Saturday, the New York Times reported on how the rollback of restrictions on coca growing since President Morales took office in Bolivia has contributed to surging drug use in Argentina and Brazil. We need to focus on cultivation just as much as on eradication in the fight against drugs.

With respect to investment disputes, it is essential that legal obligations be fully honored. That includes honoring arbitral awards once they become final. It also includes honoring contracts and the mutual settlement of claims involving prior disputes. Separately, I am disappointed that we haven't been able to fully resolve some of our differences in agricultural trade. For example, with respect to beef, Colombia and Peru comply with the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health, which sets benchmark standards for the World Trade Organization, by permitting the importation of all U.S. beef. In contrast, Ecuador and Bolivia continue to reject these international standards. Ecuador restricts U.S. beef imports to only boneless beef from cattle under 30 months of age, while Bolivia prohibits imports of all U.S. beef. In addition, Ecuador committed to phase out its agricultural price-band system by 2001 as part of its World Trade Organization accession package, but the Government has yet to do so. Ecuador's price-band inhibits U.S. exports of wheat, rice, barley, corn, soybeans, poultry, pork, and powdered milk to Ecuador. Such failures to

live up to existing trade obligations undermine the case some make for an extension of trade preferences. I would also expect all four Andean beneficiary countries to actively support efforts to conclude an ambitious agreement in the Doha Development Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization. Finally, I will continue to assess our respective bilateral relations on a political level, as well as monitor the status of protections extended to civic freedoms such as freedom of the press.

In closing, I want to make clear that I am very much interested in strengthening our relations with each of the four Andean beneficiary countries. But it takes cooperation on all sides to make that happen. Colombia and Peru have certainly demonstrated a reciprocal interest in stronger relations. I hope to see a similar demonstration on the part of Ecuador and Bolivia in the months to come with actions that are commensurate with words. I am also going to call upon the administration to review conditions in Ecuador and Bolivia in order to help me evaluate the concerns that I have identified and determine whether changes are warranted if the program is to be extended beyond the end of this year.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the other side how many speakers they have remaining.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.