U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–731—PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–186 

U.S.-COLOMBIA TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 11, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

Sapiro, Hon. Miriam, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative, Washington, DC ............................................................. 4 

Polaski, Sandra, Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs, 

Department of Labor, Washington, DC .............................................................. 7 

Hill, General James T., U.S. Army (Ret.), former commander of the U.S. 

Southern Command, Coral Gables, FL .............................................................. 9 

Vogt, Jeff, deputy director, International Affairs Department, AFL–CIO, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 11 

Stoner, Gordon, president, Montana Grain Growers Association, Great Falls, 

MT ......................................................................................................................... 13 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Hill, General James T.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Response to a question from Senator Bingaman ........................................... 42 

Polaski, Sandra: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 49 

Sapiro, Hon. Miriam: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 61 

Stoner, Gordon: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Vogt, Jeff: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 92 

COMMUNICATIONS

Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT) ............................................ 93 

Gonzalez, Gilbert G. ................................................................................................ 96 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Chambers of 

Commerce in Latin America ............................................................................... 98 

U.S. Grains Council ................................................................................................. 108 

(III) 

(1) 

U.S.-COLOMBIA TRADE 

PROMOTION AGREEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry, Wyden, Stabenow, Nelson, Cardin, 

Hatch, Grassley, Snowe, Roberts, and Thune. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Russ Sullivan, Staff Director; 

Amber Cottle, Chief International Trade Counsel; Michael Smart, 

International Trade Counsel; Gabriel Alder, Senior International 

Trade Counsel; and Chelsea Thomas, Professional Staff. Republican Staff: Everett Eissenstat, Chief International Trade Counsel; 

David Johanson, International Trade Counsel; and Maureen 

McLaughlin, Detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

President John F. Kennedy once said, ‘‘Geography has made us 

neighbors, history has made us friends, economics has made us 

partners, and necessity has made us allies.’’ 

President Kennedy’s words describe our relationship with Colombia. The United States and Colombia are neighbors in the Americas. Washington, DC is as close to Cartagena, Colombia as it is to 

Columbia Falls, MT. 

While geography has made us neighbors, history has made us 

friends. The United States and Colombia are the two oldest democracies in the western hemisphere. When Colombia declared its 

independence from Spain in 1810, the United States was the first 

country to recognize its new sovereign neighbor. The historical 

roots of our friendship run deep. 

As history has made us friends, economics has made us partners. Last year, the United States exported goods worth $12 billion to 

Colombia, our third-largest market in South America. Colombia 

buys more U.S. farm products than all but one country in South 

America. 

In fact, we trade more goods and services with Colombia than we 

do with Russia, Spain, and other larger economies. Rather than 

compete, our economies complement each other. Colombia buys 

2 

wheat, cars, machinery, and aircraft from the United States. We 

buy flowers, coffee, oil, and clothing from Colombia. 

Our economic relationship with Colombia has helped U.S. businesses to grow, and that has created jobs for American workers. 

While economics has made us partners, necessity has made us 

allies. A decade ago, Colombia was on the brink of collapse, nearly 

a failed state. Armed conflict raged, drug traffickers flourished, violence against workers flared, and the economy stagnated. Vital 

U.S. national interests were at risk. 

As allies, the United States and Colombia joined forces to respond. The United States pledged its support for Plan Colombia. 

Under that plan, we provided more than $7 billion to Colombia to 

fight drug trafficking, spur development, and protect human rights. 

We expanded the Andean Trade Preference Act to provide more 

duty-free access to the United States market for Colombian products. We created new opportunities for the Colombian people and 

new alternatives to the illegal drug trade. 

With our help, Colombia has achieved impressive results. Since 

2002, homicides have decreased by 46 percent, kidnappings have 

declined by 93 percent, terrorist attacks have fallen by 70 percent, 

and more than 50,000 former combatants have laid down their 

arms. 

But we have unfinished business with our friend and ally. In 

2006, the United States and Colombia signed a free trade agreement. It was overwhelmingly approved by Colombia. The International Trade Commission estimates that this agreement will 

boost the U.S. economy by $2.5 billion, but it awaits action by the 

United States. Our approval of the FTA has been delayed by legitimate concerns for the rights and safety of Colombian workers. 

During decades of armed conflict, Colombian workers were subject to threats, intimidation, and violence. I traveled to Colombia 

earlier this year to gauge firsthand the progress Colombia has 

made to address these concerns. This progress is real, it is impressive, and it will be enhanced once the FTA takes effect. 

The FTA convinced both parties to protect fundamental labor 

rights. This commitment is fully enforceable, just like the commercial provisions in the agreement. This commitment is far stronger 

than those in Colombia’s FTAs with other countries, including Canada and the European Union. 

Colombian President Santos has also agreed to do far more. Last 

month, President Obama and President Santos agreed to a labor 

action plan. In that plan, Colombia committed to a series of concrete steps to strengthen labor rights, improve protection of workers from violence, and increase prosecutions of the perpetrators of 

violence. 

The action plan has been embraced by all of the major labor 

unions in Colombia. And a prominent Colombian labor group in 

fact called the action plan ‘‘the most significant labor rights development in Colombia in 20 years.’’ The action plan is also enforceable. It is divided into three stages to ensure that Colombia meets 

each of its core commitments. 

Last week, the administration notified Congress that Colombia 

has met the first stage of the commitments. As a result, Congress 

3 

and the administration are now working on a bill to implement the 

FTA. 

The second stage of commitments is due by June 15. Once these 

are met, we understand that the administration will be prepared 

to formally submit the FTA to Congress for a vote. 

The third stage of commitments is due by December 15. Once Colombia implements these commitments and others related to the 

FTA, the administration will certify to Congress that Colombia has 

taken the necessary steps to allow the FTA to enter into full force. 

We are now poised to approve our FTAs with Colombia, Panama, 

and Korea. As we move forward with these FTAs we must also 

help American workers meet the challenge of global competition. 

To do so, we must ensure that Congress enacts a robust, long-term 

extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance in tandem with the 

FTAs. 

Colombia is our neighbor, our friend, our partner, and our ally. 

So let us work together to implement the labor action plan and 

move forward quickly and approve the FTA. And let us extend 

Trade Adjustment Assistance. Let us create new opportunities that 

will improve the economies and the lives of the people in both 

countries. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I am informed that Senator Hatch has been temporarily delayed. He, of course, will make his opening statement 

when he arrives. In the meantime, let us proceed with the testimony. 

I will introduce the witnesses. First, we have Miriam Sapiro, 

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative for Europe, the Mideast, and the 

Americas. Welcome, Ambassador Sapiro. 

Then we have Sandra Polaski, the Deputy Under Secretary for 

International Labor Affairs at the Department of Labor. Thank 

you, too, Ms. Polaski, for taking your time. 

After Sandra Polaski we have General James Hill, a retired 4- 

star general from the U.S. Army. General Hill served as commander of U.S. Southern Command, with responsibility for all U.S. 

military operations and relationships in the Caribbean, Central 

America, and South America. 

In addition, we have Jeff Vogt, deputy director of the AFL–CIO’s 

International Labor Department. Thank you, Mr. Vogt, very much 

for attending. 

And finally, I am pleased to welcome Gordon Stoner, last but not 

least, president of the Montana Grain Growers Association. Gordon 

is a 4th-generation Montanan, a rancher from Outlook, MT. He 

really should not be here today, he should be planting. It has been 

such a late, wet spring. But thank you, Gordon, for taking your 

time and coming. 

I would also like to give a special welcome to Ambassador Silva, 

who is with us here today. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for all that 

you have done in hosting my trip, as well as the trips of many 

other members of Congress, to your country. I frankly urge all of 

my colleagues, if you have not been to Colombia, you are missing 

something. Go. It is a beautiful country. It is a wonderful place to 

visit. 

4 

As is our usual practice, all of your statements will be automatically included in the record, and I ask each of you to summarize 

your statements for about 5 minutes. 

Ambassador Sapiro, you are first. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIRIAM SAPIRO, DEPUTY U.S. TRADE 

REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you very much, Chairman Baucus, 

members of the committee. It is a great honor to testify before you 

today about the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement. 

The Obama administration is pursuing multiple initiatives to 

open global markets, dismantle barriers to our exports, and vigorously defend America’s trade rights. As part of this comprehensive 

strategy, President Obama directed us to work with Congress and 

other stakeholders to build bipartisan support for the pending 

trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. 

The President firmly believes that our trade agreements must 

advance both our economic interests and our core values. For each 

of the three pending agreements, we have worked intensively to address key issues of concern and to forge broader bipartisan support. 

With South Korea, we succeeded in addressing several issues, including market access for autos. With Panama, we succeeded in addressing labor rights and tax transparency questions. With Colombia, we succeeded in developing an action plan related to labor 

rights to address serious concerns regarding labor protections, violence, and impunity. 

Last week, staff from this committee made history when they 

joined with colleagues from the House Ways and Means Committee 

and USTR to begin informal drafting sessions on three trade agreements simultaneously. There is no question that Colombia has 

made important strides in protecting labor rights and reducing 

threats of violence over the past decade. But it was equally clear 

to the administration that more needed to be done, from preventing 

practices that undermine fundamental labor rights, to enhancing 

protection for union activists, to strengthening the investigation 

and prosecution of labor-related violence. 

We have had a willing partner in President Santos, who has 

shown commitment to protecting the rights of all citizens and promoting social justice. Working together, the Obama and Santos administrations reached agreement, as the chairman indicated, on 

the action plan which we announced on April 7. 

My colleague, Deputy Under Secretary of Labor Sandra Polaski, 

played a key role in developing and negotiating the action plan, 

which she will describe in more depth. Specific improvements that 

have already occurred include expanded eligibility for Colombia’s 

protection program to include not only labor leaders, but also rankand-file activists and those seeking to form a union. More than 95 

judicial police investigators have been assigned exclusively to pursuing cases of labor violence, with early identification of any union 

affiliation now mandatory. 

Ahead of schedule, Colombia enacted legislation to move up the 

effective date of new penalties for misuse of worker cooperatives. 

These and other actions by Colombia to date have enabled USTR 

5 

and Congress to begin the technical discussions now underway regarding the text of the implementing bill for the agreement. Colombia still has important work to do to accomplish the additional elements of the action plan before the President will formally submit 

the agreement to Congress for consideration. 

I am pleased to announce that our work with Colombia on these 

remaining tasks is well underway and that I will meet on Friday 

with a high-level team flying up from Bogota. Once approved, our 

trade agreement will provide significant economic and commercial 

benefits for our exporters. The ITC has estimated that the agreement will expand our goods exports to Colombia by more than 

$1 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion, as well as support 

thousands of additional jobs for our workers. U.S. companies will also enjoy new access to Colombia’s $134- 

billion services market, improved intellectual property rights protection, increased government procurement opportunities, and safeguards against discriminatory or unlawful treatment. 

We must, of course, ensure that U.S. workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers will be able to enjoy these substantial benefits 

as we recognize that Colombia has already negotiated trade agreements with some of our toughest competitors. Even as Colombia 

has been working closely with us, it has nevertheless suffered from 

a loss of preferential access to the U.S. market since the Andean 

Trade Preference Act lapsed earlier this year. The administration 

urges Congress to renew both the ATPA and the GSP programs for 

as long as possible. For Colombia, extension will restore these preferences until our agreement can enter into force. 

We also urge Congress to keep faith with America’s workers by 

renewing a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance program that will 

support Americans who need training and other services when 

their jobs are affected by trade. TAA is a key component of the 

President’s legislative trade agenda, along with renewal of the preference programs I just mentioned and permanent normal trade relations for Russia as that country enters the WTO. 

We are eager to work with this committee and Congress as a 

whole to accomplish all of these objectives this year. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ambassador Sapiro. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Sapiro appears in the 

appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We are joined today by our senior Republican 

member, the ranking member, Senator Hatch. We would be very 

honored, Senator, if you would like to give a statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. We 

welcome all of you to our hearing this morning. This is a very important hearing. 

Today’s hearing provides us with a great opportunity to talk 

about the many benefits of our free trade agreement with Colombia. I think it is important to put our agreement with Colombia in 

context. In the 1990s, Colombia was on the verge of becoming a 

failed state, as drug trafficking fueled urban and rural violence. 

Well-armed insurgents and paramilitary groups battled over terriVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
6 

torial control. Unemployment, corruption, and kidnapping were 

widespread. Today, Colombia is re-awakening. 

Violence is down, employment is up, and the economy is growing. 

Institutional reforms are creating a stronger and more vibrant democracy. Land reform and reparations for victims of violence are 

being undertaken in an unprecedented effort to heal the wounds of 

the past. 

Years of bipartisan cooperation through Plan Colombia and 

through programs such as the Andean Trade Preference Act helped 

to make this transformation possible. But our work is clearly not 

done. Colombia continues to face challenges. Through approval of 

our pending trade agreement with Colombia, we can help meet 

those challenges and take another step toward achieving our 

shared goal of a strong, prosperous, and democratic Colombia. 

We will hear a lot today about the labor action plan recently concluded between President Obama and President Santos. This is a 

good development which has helped bring us to where we are 

today, even though it is not part of our trade agreement. 

But let us be clear. Our trade goes far beyond the action plan. 

It transforms a 1-way preferential trade relationship into a 2-way 

street, giving U.S. exporters fair access to a large and growing consumer market. The agreement will affect the lives of workers 

across the United States in a positive way. 

A good example of the agreement’s effect will be found in my 

home State of Utah, where workers at AC Med, a Salt Lake company that exports hospital beds to Colombia, will see tariffs of 20 

percent eliminated immediately upon implementation of this agreement. 

The agreement also will provide better access for U.S. service 

providers, telecommunication companies, and agricultural exporters. So, while the action plan is important, let us not lose sight of 

the far more significant economic benefits of this agreement. 

The agreement will also benefit Colombia, providing predictability and certainty to many Colombian businesses that export 

flowers and other products to the United States, as well as encouraging partnerships and investments between Colombian and American businesses. Once implemented, the agreement will sustain economic growth, help create jobs, and provide an opportunity to millions of Colombians to get out of poverty. 

Nor can we lose sight of the agreement’s geopolitical significance. 

Colombia sits between Venezuela and Ecuador, two countries 

which seek to distance themselves and others from the United 

States as they pursue radical models of economic development not 

based on free market principles. We ignore this political reality at 

our peril. 

Colombia is also at the forefront in the fight against terrorism 

and drug trafficking. The drug trade directly impacts the lives of 

many Americans and Colombian citizens on a daily basis. Only by 

working together can we stop the tide of illegal drugs. In this critical battle, we cannot afford to turn our back on such a strong 

friend and ally by rejecting our trade agreement. 

Now, this summer I will do all I can to assure that the Congress 

approves our trade agreement with Colombia. I, in particular, have 

appreciated our chairman’s work in this regard. In doing so, we 

7 

will boost U.S. exports by obtaining improved access to the growing 

Colombian market. We will also be standing by a true friend and 

ally, and we will be helping millions of Colombian workers, as well 

as U.S. workers, to live better lives. 

Despite facing many challenges, I believe Colombia is well on its 

way to being one of the most prosperous, stable, and democratic 

countries in our hemisphere. By approving this agreement, we can 

all be proud to play a small part in that success. 

I am sorry I was a little bit late, Mr. Chairman, but I just could 

not get here any earlier. I appreciate your kindness in allowing me 

to give these few remarks. 

I again welcome all of you to be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Polaski? 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA POLASKI, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. POLASKI. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss the action plan on labor that 

President Obama and Colombian President Santos announced on 

April 7. 

President Obama is committed to pursuing an ambitious trade 

agenda that will help our economy grow and create good jobs for 

U.S. workers. An essential component of this agenda is ensuring 

that all of our trading partners respect fundamental labor rights. 

This is consistent with our core values as a Nation, and it is also 

important to level the playing field for U.S. workers and U.S. firms. 

President Obama recognized the need to improve the protection 

of worker rights, the safety of union activists, and the prosecution 

of perpetrators of violence in Colombia before he was ready to move 

forward on the Colombia trade agreement. 

Fortunately, President Juan Manuel Santos has proven to be a 

strong and willing partner in these reforms. President Santos had 

already identified many of the problems that we believe require urgent attention and had started to take important steps in this direction. His administration has continued to work with us in a constructive, problem-solving fashion. 

The action plan that we reached as a result of our efforts and 

our ongoing work to fully implement the action plan can provide 

a path forward to achieve the protection of worker rights, the improvement of workers’ livelihoods, and the civility in economic relations that Colombia needs and that President Santos wants. 

Our work together can help ensure that the benefits of this trade 

agreement are broadly shared in Colombia, as well as here in the 

United States. I would like to highlight, briefly, a few of the many 

significant points and commitments of the action plan and where 

we stand in their implementation. 

An important group of commitments under the action plan addresses the protection of union activists from violence and the prosecution of the perpetrators of violence. Under the plan, the ColomVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
8 

bian government has expanded the scope of its existing protection 

program which previously covered only union leaders. 

The program will now provide protection for threatened labor activists at the local level and workers who are threatened for trying 

to join a union, among others. The protection program has been effective in protecting the leaders, and the expansion of the program 

to local-level activities who are targeted is necessary and timely. 

Members of the teachers’ union have faced particular risks. 

Teachers are often community leaders and may work to shield 

their students from recruitment by criminal gangs. Teachers account for half or more of the union members who have been murdered in recent years. To address this, the action plan calls for 

changes to the Teacher Relocation and Protection Program, which 

have already been implemented by the Santos administration. Our 

governments will now work together going forward to ensure that 

the program effectively protects Colombian teachers. 

When we started our discussions with Colombia, there was a 

backlog of over 300 pending applications for protection by trade 

unionists. As part of the action plan, the Colombian government 

committed to eliminate the backlog of risk assessments by July 30 

this year and to ensure that the national police process all risk assessments within 30 days in the future, as required by Colombian 

law. 

This is essential to ensure that those at risk receive protection 

promptly. I am happy to report that the Colombian government 

launched an emergency plan to reduce the backlog while we were 

still in discussions in March, and the number of pending applications for protection by trade unionists has already been reduced by 

more than half, to 140, and appears on track to being eliminated 

well before the July 30 deadline in the action plan. 

The action plan also addresses the backlog of unresolved cases of 

violence against trade unionists. President Santos has directed the 

national police to assign 100 full-time judicial police investigators 

to handle cases of murder and other crimes against union members 

that have not yet been resolved. This is important because prosecutions serve as an essential deterrent to those who would commit violence in the future. 

The second broad set of commitments in the action plan, beyond 

addressing violence and impunity, addresses worker rights in Colombia. The Colombian government has committed to seek passage 

by June 15 of this year of reforms to the Colombian criminal code 

to criminalize threats and actions that could adversely affect the 

fundamental rights of workers in Colombia. 

This includes threats against workers and activists, which have 

increased in recent years, and actions that interfere with workers’ 

exercise of their fundamental rights. Such activity would be penalized by possible imprisonment under the criminal code reforms, 

and we think this would be a very important component in the actions by the government to change the atmosphere of intimidation 

in Colombia. 

The action plan also addresses the misuse of cooperatives, which 

has proliferated in recent years and denies many Colombian workers their rights under the country’s labor laws. The Santos administration had already proposed, and the Colombia Congress had enVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
9 

acted, significant reforms to the legislation governing the use of cooperatives. 

Under the action plan, the Colombian administration requested, 

and the Colombian Congress agreed, to accelerate the effective date 

of those reforms from July 2013 to June 2011, and the Colombian 

government will issue regulations by June 15, 2011 to implement 

the new law, clarify earlier cooperative laws, and ensure coherence 

among these laws. 

The regulations will include significant fines for companies that 

violate the laws and use methods, including positive incentives, for 

employers that create direct employment relationships with their 

workers. Preventive inspections will begin immediately and will 

put particular focus on several sectors where there have been significant abuse of cooperatives and other irregular forms of contracting labor. They include palm oil, sugar, mines, ports, and flowers. 

Colombia will also create a separate Ministry of Labor in August 

of this year, and double the Labor Inspectorate by hiring 480 new 

labor inspectors over the next 4 years, including 100 new hires 

whose jobs have already been posted. 

In conclusion, let me say that our two nations have much to gain 

from expanding our economic relationship, particularly in a way 

that creates good jobs for workers and guarantees that workers can 

exercise their fundamental rights. 

Here in the U.S., President Obama is committed to provide support for workers who may be adversely affected by trade as we pursue our ambitious trade agenda. That is why the administration is 

urging Congress to support the reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance with the expanded provisions that were enacted in 

2009. As we deepen our involvement in the global economy, we 

need to ensure that our workers are provided the tools needed to 

take advantage of the opportunities and not be left behind. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Polaski. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Polaski appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. General Hill? 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES T. HILL, U.S. ARMY (RET.), 

FORMER COMMANDER OF THE U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND, 

CORAL GABLES, FL 

General HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I served as the commander of the U.S. SouthCom from August 

2002 until November 2004, assuming command within days of 

President Uribe’s inauguration. It is not overstatement or exaggeration to describe Colombia of August 2002 as a failed or failing 

state. At best, it was a dysfunctional state. 

On his inaugural day, only an equipment malfunction stopped 

FARC mortar rockets from raining down on the crowd. Colombians 

could not travel through the countryside. Three armed and very 

deadly insurgent groups vied for control of the country. Colombia 

was the homicide and kidnapping capital of the world. Colombia, 

in August of 2002, was simply one of, if not the, most dangerous 

and violent nations in the world. 

10 

The inability of the government to provide a safe environment for 

its citizens caused the concomitant deterioration of social and economic norms: taxes were not paid; wealthy Colombians abandoned 

the country, taking their money to Miami and other parts of the 

United States; huge tracts of the country were controlled by illegal 

armed groups, causing enormous displacement of the population; 

and coca growth and cocaine production fueled the fire that threatened to destroy the second-oldest democracy in the hemisphere. 

Into that maelstrom stepped President Alvaro Uribe, armed with 

great personal and leadership qualities, backed up by the Colombian people and supported by the United States through Plan Colombia. What has transpired over the last decade under the inspired leadership of President Uribe, and now the continuing great 

leadership of President Santos, is a success story for both Colombia 

and the United States with few historical parallels. U.S. investment through Plan Colombia has been about $8 billion over the last decade. Put into a different perspective, it is 2 

weeks of expenditure in Iraq at the height of the involvement in 

Iraq. The U.S. Government’s funding for Colombia amounts to less 

than 5 percent of what they spend for themselves. 

What have we gotten out of that? Colombia’s military is a fully 

capable force today. It made great strides in respect for human 

rights and the rule of law. They do not tolerate extra-judicial 

killings. The FARC, while still an active terrorist organization, has 

been reduced by approximately 50 percent. The ELN is essentially 

non-existent. The AUC demobilized. Homicide is down 48 percent; 

kidnappings, 91 percent; attacks down 73 percent; attacks against 

infrastructure, down 88 percent; attacks against labor unionists 

have dropped significantly: 194 homicides in 2002, 51 in 2010. 

There is no indication in my view that those murders are statesponsored or state-tolerated. 

Cocaine production continues. We will never stop the drug trade. 

There is simply too much money and too much profit in it for too 

many people. But we did stop cocaine trafficking and narcoterrorists from creating a narco-state in Colombia, and I say that 

was $8 billion well spent. 

Colombia’s success in this area and in the security area enables 

the Santos administration to focus on socio-economic and development issues. Colombia’s national consolidation plan is a comprehensive reexamination of its whole-government approach to reestablishing State presence and the rule of law throughout the 

country. 

President Santos’s transformative legislation agenda, highlighted 

by land restitution, victims’ reparations, and judicial reform initiatives, aims to lay the foundation for lasting peace by tackling the 

root causes of the decades-old Colombian internal conflict. This is 

classic counter-insurgency doctrine that accepts the fact that government cannot succeed without reform, and the support of the 

populace cannot be ensured without meaningful reform. 

Simply put, building upon a foundation of greatly improved security, it is the natural progression of good governance begun in 

2002. In my 27 months of command I visited every country in Central and South America, save Venezuela. If we were discussing our 

personal lives, I would put it this way: we have lots of acquaintVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
11 

ances in the region, but few really good friends. Colombia is one 

of those tried-and-true, lifelong friends we all seek in our personal 

lives. It makes no sense to damage this friendship. 

If we fail to ratify the free trade agreement, we tell our friends 

that we really do not care about them all that much. If we fail to 

ratify, we do so at exactly the time when Colombia is emerging as 

a regional leader and full U.S. partner. Colombia is the only stable 

actor in the Andean ridge. It helps provide political leverage in our 

dealings with quixotic states like Ecuador and helps us counter the 

radical populism of Venezuela. Colombia has become a key partner 

in regional security cooperation, helping countries throughout the 

Americas more effectively confront transnational criminal organizations. 

The U.S.-Colombia relationship begun in August of 2002 as an 

effort to defend democracy in Colombia and to stabilize the failing 

state has paid huge dividends. Ours is a maturing, increasingly sophisticated political relationship based on true partnership and valuable to both sides. Make no mistake, the free trade agreement 

ratification is at the heart of that relationship. Failure to ratify will 

make a strong relation weaker, decreasing our ability to meet our 

security, economic, and political goals in the region. Failure to ratify, using a sports analogy, would be like snatching defeat from the 

jaws of victory. 

I strongly urge the Senate to ratify the agreement. Let us not 

waste a decade’s worth of success. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General, very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Hill appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vogt, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF VOGT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, AFL–CIO, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VOGT. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and esteemed members of the Senate Finance Committee, I thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today regarding the U.S.-Colombia Free 

Trade Agreement. Ever since trade negotiations began between the 

United States and Colombia in 2004, the AFL–CIO has raised serious well-documented concerns with regard to the horrifying levels 

of labor and human rights violations in the country. Since the conclusion of those negotiations, we have consistently opposed consideration of the trade agreement, largely on the basis of these continuing violations. 

As explained in detail in my written testimony and in previous 

reports, we do not believe that conditions for Colombian workers 

have yet changed in any meaningful way. Any move, therefore, to 

ratify the trade agreement or to have it enter into force before 

there are verified, sustained, and meaningful changes on the 

ground will meet our continued and vigorous opposition. 

In Colombia, anti-union violence still reigns at alarming levels. 

In 2010, 52 trade unionists were murdered and 21 were the objects 

of unsuccessful attempts on their lives. This was actually an increase in the level of violence over 2009. Each year, hundreds of 

trade unionists also receive explicit death threats which are often 

effective in chilling trade union activity. 

12 

The 2011 ILO high-level mission to Colombia also observed that 

impunity has prevailed in Colombia for a long period of time and 

has caused immense damage to the country, and suffering to its 

people. The great majority of homicide cases remain unresolved. 

The country’s labor laws also do not meet minimum international 

norms in a number of key areas, also as observed by the International Labor Organization. We also hear regularly from our trade 

union partners that violations of these rights continue unabated. 

However, there is some room for optimism. The Santos administration has abandoned the heated anti-union rhetoric of the Uribe 

administration, which repeatedly equated labor leaders with terrorists or traders. Further, the Santos administration signed, on April 

7, a labor action plan that contained several provisions that the Colombian trade unionists have long fought for. Prior to the launch 

of that action plan on March 31, President Santos met with the 

trade union confederations and made several commitments, including a promise to extend bargaining rights for public sector workers. 

If fully implemented and effectively enforced, the action plan, together with the additional presidential commitments and follow-up 

on the several recommendations of the ILO higher-level mission, 

could help to put Colombia on a new path. 

However, this will not be easy and will no doubt take considerable effort and time by all involved in Colombia and internationally 

to help undo the profound damage done and to build a new labor 

relations system founded on the basis of decent work. Opposition 

to these changes is, and will be, fierce, and we know and we have 

heard from the ground that some employers have already announced a refusal to comply with these proposed changes. 

Again, the labor action plan contains several useful provisions. 

However, we have four fundamental concerns that I will address 

briefly. First, while we hope and expect that the proposed expansion of the protection program and the anticipated increase in the 

quantity and quality of prosecutions, if they occur, will have the effect of reducing anti-union violence, we are concerned by the lack 

of any specific commitments in the labor action plan with regard 

to dismantling the new illegal armed groups, the successors of the 

paramilitaries, which are responsible for much of the continuing 

anti-union violence in Colombia. 

Second, the labor action plan commits the government of Colombia to issue new laws and regulations, create new institutions, 

issue reports, improve processes, and hire additional personnel by 

date certain. It does not, however, require Colombia to actually establish a meaningful record of enforcement of these commitments 

prior to the implementation of the FTA. Indeed, the action plan 

sets no such benchmarks. While it is important to have these new 

tools, we need to make sure that they are being used and are effective in actually reducing drastically murders and death threats, 

bringing down the rate of impunity, and creating a labor relations 

system in which workers can freely exercise their fundamental 

rights. 

Third, the labor action plan is not part of the trade agreement 

and is not subject to any dispute settlement mechanism should the 

government of Colombia fail to fully comply with the plan, espeVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
13 

cially with regard to those commitments that extend years into the 

future. 

Finally, the labor action plan falls short in a number of important substantive areas. The failure to include commitments with 

regard to collective bargaining in the public sector, collective bargaining above the enterprise level, or collective bargaining over 

pension ignores major concerns, both at the trade unions and the 

International Labor Organization. 

Further, the labor action plan contains two provisions, those with 

regard to collective pacts and central public services, which are, on 

their face, inconsistent with the clear and unequivocal observations 

of the International Labor Organization. 

Colombia, thus, will not be in full compliance with its commitments under the labor chapter of the FTA, even if it adopts these 

measures agreed to in the labor action plan. Each of these flaws 

with the action plan—violence, limitation, enforceability, and 

scope—we strongly feel must be addressed. Of course, we also remain deeply concerned about the trade agreement template used in 

the Colombia FTA. 

As we have expressed before, the current trade model, we believe, provides enhanced rights and privileges to corporations at the 

expense of workers, consumers, and the environment. Moreover, we 

believe as a job creation strategy the U.S.-Colombia FTA will do 

nothing to improve the U.S. employment picture, as the U.S. International Trade Commission report on the FTA makes quite clear. 

So, for these reasons set forth in the written testimony, the 

AFL–CIO continues to oppose the Colombia FTA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Vogt, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vogt appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stoner? Why don’t you explain, Mr. Stoner, 

where you are from and why your town is named that way. 

Mr. STONER. Mr. Chairman, I am from Outlook, MT. We are on 

a hill and we can see many, many miles, 50 to 100 miles. That is 

why it is called Outlook. The very northeast corner. 

The CHAIRMAN. The very northeast corner. That is right. 

Mr. STONER. Yes. I am six miles from Canada. I actually flew out 

of Canada to get here, my closest airport. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON STONER, PRESIDENT, MONTANA 

GRAIN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Mr. STONER. Good morning, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, members of the committee. My name is Gordon Stoner. I 

am a 4th-generation farmer/rancher from Outlook located in the 

northeast corner near North Dakota and Canada. I am the owner/ 

operator of Stoner Farms, a diversified dry-land farming operation 

where I raise durum wheat, peas, lentils, and cattle for both domestic consumption and export markets. 

I thank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf of four organizations representing U.S. wheat and barley growers: the National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, the 

National Barley Growers Association, and the Montana Grain 

Growers Association. 

14 

United States wheat and barley producers strongly support the 

pending free trade agreement with Colombia and encourage expeditious approval by Congress. The U.S. is the largest wheat exporting 

country in the world, exporting on average half of our total wheat 

crop every year. Free and open trade with other countries is vital 

to ensuring the financial viability of America’s farmers. 

Timely passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia is particularly critical at this juncture in order to maintain sales and 

market share in an increasingly competitive trade environment. It 

is estimated that U.S. wheat producers will lose $100 million in 

sales to Colombia every year we do not have the FTA in place. 

In 2009–2010, Colombia was the eighth-largest market in the 

world for U.S. wheat, and the second-largest market in South 

America for all U.S. agricultural producets. Colombia imports 97 

percent of the wheat it consumes and will continue to rely on imports to satisfy a steadily increasing demand for milling wheat. 

But U.S. wheat exports to Colombia have suffered from the failure to implement the U.S.-Colombia FTA. The U.S. share of the 

Colombian wheat market has declined from 73 percent in 2008 to 

43 percent in 2010. We risk losing our entire market following implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement later 

this summer. Colombian millers and bakers prefer high-quality 

wheat available from the U.S. 

In fact, Colombian bakers tell us they are unable to make a loaf 

of bread from Argentinean wheat and must blend it up with higher 

quality wheat imported from either the U.S. or Canada. But without the U.S. FTA, Colombia will increasingly look to Canada for its 

high-quality wheat needs. 

U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia face tough competition. In 

the past 2 years, the U.S. has lost $1 billion in agricultural exports 

to Colombia due to regional trade agreements and international 

competition. In 2010, for the first time in U.S.-Colombian agricultural trade history, the U.S. lost to Argentina its position as Colombia’s number-one agricultural supplier. 

Currently, more than 90 percent of Colombian imports enter the 

U.S. marketplace duty-free. By contrast, U.S. exports to Colombia, 

including wheat and barley, face tariffs that often soar into double 

digits. A fully implemented free trade agreement will immediately 

eliminate the country’s price ban system and remove tariffs on U.S. 

wheat imports, leveling the playing field and ensuring that U.S. 

wheat producers can compete in the Colombian market. Without 

the agreement, U.S. wheat and barley producers face an uphill battle in this hard-fought, critical export market, resulting in millions 

of dollars in losses of both exports and jobs. 

U.S. wheat and barley growers were very pleased to hear the announcement from the Obama administration that the United 

States and Colombia have successfully negotiated a path forward. 

We encourage the administration to prepare and submit the FTA 

to Congress for a vote as soon as possible, and we urge House and 

Senate members to support its swift passage. 

I especially want to thank Chairman Baucus today for his strong 

leadership on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement and for your 

support for agriculture, and for the invitation to address you here 

15 

today. Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions at 

the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoner appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Gordon. I appreciate 

that. 

Could you tell us why U.S. exports of wheat and barley to Colombia have declined? What has been going on? 

Mr. STONER. I think, two main reasons. First, the Mercosur 

agreement, of which Argentina is a member. Argentina, since 2005, 

has had duty-free import of wheat to the Colombian wheat market. 

The other factor that is leading millers to buy wheat other than the 

U.S., primarily Canadian wheat, is they are anticipating the Canadian Free Trade Agreement being implemented. They are ramping 

up their purchases of Canadian wheat, knowing it will be duty-free 

within a couple months. 

The CHAIRMAN. So essentially Colombia has entered into agreements with other countries which allow those other countries to export more easily into Colombia—— 

Mr. STONER. Exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. At the expense of the United States. 

Mr. STONER. Exactly. We are on an uneven playing field. They 

have duty-free imports. We are paying anywhere from 10- to 15- 

percent duty at this point. We cannot compete. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Polaski, could you address some of the concerns that Mr. 

Vogt had? I guess to some degree, Mr. Vogt is saying, all this 

sounds good. He is not really sure a lot of this is going to enter 

into force or that these provisions are going to be enforceable and 

action will occur. Your reaction? 

Ms. POLASKI. Yes, Senator. I think probably the most important 

point to note is that the action plan has a number of commitments 

which are on a schedule with benchmarks that mainly occur during 

the course of this year. In fact, the largest group of commitments 

were to be achieved either by April 22 or by June 15, so that we 

will see and we will have the results of the actions of the Colombian government on most of the commitments by June 15. 

An additional large group of commitments will be implemented 

according to the action plan before the end of 2011, so we anticipate that, well before the Congress could take action, the President 

could certify all the requirements for implementing the agreement, 

and actually implement, we will have already passed the deadlines 

and the benchmarks for the vast majority of the commitments in 

the action plan. That provides us with the certainty that they will 

be implemented. 

The CHAIRMAN. Or to state it differently, if I understand it—I do 

not want to put words in your mouth—the administration will not 

submit the agreement unless certain provisions in the action plan 

take effect, and beyond that will not certify, even presumably after 

the FTA is passed, the FTA unless certain provisions we have been 

talking about here have been enacted. Is that correct? 

Ms. POLASKI. Senator Baucus, that is my understanding of the 

administration’s position. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. POLASKI. I think you have stated it correctly. 

16 

Two other points that I would mention. One is that, when the 

agreement actually does come into force after it is implemented, 

the labor chapter in the agreement has very strong commitments 

by both parties to adopt and enforce and practice laws that protect 

the fundamental labor rights and to not fail to effectively enforce 

those laws. 

So, many of the commitments that Colombia has made and is 

currently enacting will in fact be required under the free trade 

agreement itself. The free trade agreement has an enforcement 

mechanism which is the same for labor provisions as it is for all 

of the commercial chapters, and so we are confident that under the 

agreement there is an enforceable mechanism for maintaining 

these protections of fundamental labor rights in law and in practice. 

I think I do have to make a final point, because it would not be 

fair to our interlocutors in Colombia if I did not. We have confidence that the things that the Santos administration has committed to are things that that president and that administration 

want to do. They see them as necessary steps. We have not had a 

difficult negotiation. 

It has been complex because there were many issues to address 

and the issues themselves in many cases are very complex, but it 

has not been a difficult negotiation of adversaries. It has been, 

rather, a problem-solving exercise with an administration that we 

believe wants to move Colombian society forward in very much the 

same ways that we have been asking them to. 

So I think that, between the effective dates of the benchmarks 

and the action plan—occurring mainly before the end of this year 

and before implementation—the commitments in the free trade 

agreement itself with respect to labor rights and enforcement of 

those rights, and finally the relationship that we have established 

with the government of Colombia, leads us to have confidence that 

we will see this very profound change, this sea change as I would 

describe it, in the situation for workers to enjoy their rights in Colombia. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vogt, let me give you a chance to just say 

a word or two in response. Also, it is my understanding that generally the labor unions in Colombia support this agreement. In fact, 

one group says this is the biggest development in labor rights in 

20 years. But just to give you equal time, or not quite equal time 

because my time has expired. If you could be very brief in response 

to Ms. Polaski, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. VOGT. All right. Thank you for the opportunity. I would just 

make a few points. As I note also in the written testimony, yes, I 

believe some of the commitments of the labor action plan, if not implemented, will also be violations of chapter 17. But as Ms. Polaski 

noted in her response, many commitments, but not all of those 

commitments, may be subject to dispute settlement under chapter 

17. 

The fundamental point I think we are trying to make with regard to the action plan is that, while there are, I think, a number 

of very useful provisions with a number of issues—and as we have 

said for a long time—not only do we want to have these new laws, 

regulations, institutions in place, but we feel that, given the horVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
17 

rific history in Colombia, it is essential to see a period of time by 

which we can verify that workers and cooperatives are now actually being hired directly, that the murder rate is actually really 

going down, we see a long-term commitment to combatting impunity, and we see well-grounded sentences being produced by the Attorney General’s Office. That is going to take time. I think it is important—— 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. I have a hunch this question is going to arise in some of the others’ questions, so you will 

get a chance to make that statement. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Sapiro, let me just ask you this question. I am 

pleased that we have started working with your team on drafting 

the implementing bills for the Colombia, Panama, and Korea agreements. Unfortunately, we have no idea when the implementing bill 

for the Colombia agreement will be sent to Congress. In fact, Ambassador Kirk’s letter to the committee stated that Colombia still 

has important work to accomplish to address objectives of the action plan before the President will formally submit this agreement 

to Congress for consideration. 

Now, we feel that the agreement has already been delayed for too 

long. Can you give me your commitment that the administration 

will submit the Colombia agreement to Congress for consideration 

this summer? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Ranking Member Hatch. The 

action plan sets forward a very ambitious, broad, and comprehensive agenda that both we and the Santos administration believe addresses very serious outstanding concerns. Like you, we were very 

pleased to be able to begin the informal walk-through last week, 

and we understand that those discussions are proceeding well. 

Senator HATCH. I understand all that. I just want to know if you 

think we can get this done during the summer. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. As Ambassador Kirk’s letter to the committee noted, there is still important work for Colombia to do. 

There are a number of milestones that we fully expect will be 

achieved by the middle of June, which is in the next few weeks. 

So I am optimistic that Colombia will complete that work, just as 

it has been working hard since the action plan was announced. We 

are also in discussions on our broader trade agenda, which we look 

forward to continuing and concluding with you. 

Senator HATCH. Again, we hope that is so. The Colombian people 

have said they will get this done. I am sure you are aware that the 

administration’s delay on the Colombia agreement hurts U.S. exporters. In fact, between 2008 and 2009, U.S. agricultural exports 

to Colombia dropped almost 50 percent, from $1.6 billion to $906 

million. 

In your testimony today you state that the implementation of the 

Colombia agreement will expand exports of U.S. goods to Colombia 

by more than $1 billion, increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion, and 

support thousands of additional jobs for our workers. 

Now, despite the impact on American workers, you delayed taking any meaningful steps to address your concerns with the Colombia agreement for years. Now, having finally reached an agreement 

18 

on an action plan to address these concerns, in my opinion you appear to be conditioning submission of the agreement on congressional consideration of totally unrelated matters, such as PNTR for 

Russia and extension of TAA. 

So, basically two questions. First, are you conditioning submission of the Colombia agreement on extension of TAA or PNTR for 

Russia? Second, while we understand that you expect Colombia to 

fulfill the action plan before you will agree to submit the Colombia 

agreement to Congress, are there any other issues that must be addressed or conditions that must be met before the administration 

will formally submit the agreement to Congress? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Senator, we share your sense of urgency, 

which is why we have worked expeditiously and intensively for 

quite a long period of time now to find the right path forward with 

Colombia. I am very pleased that we were able to do that. There 

are discussions ongoing about the exact sequencing and scheduling 

of being able to accomplish all of our trade initiatives this year, 

and we look forward to that discussion continuing and concluding 

as soon as possible. I would add also that it is hard to imagine approving trade agreements while at the same time we have not been 

able to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance that benefits American 

workers, particularly those in the services sector and those whose 

jobs might be affected negatively by trade as a result of non-FTA 

partners. 

Senator HATCH. I understand all that. I understand all that. But 

yes or no? Are you conditioning the submission upon extension of 

TAA for Colombia or PNTR to Russia? Is that a precondition? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. As Ambassador Kirk’s letter said, there is 

important work still for Colombia to do. At the same time, we are 

deeply engaged in conversations with your team on exactly what 

the sequencing would be so that we could ensure that Trade Adjustment Assistance, which has always been a bipartisan goal, is 

going to be renewed in a robust fashion since it does relate to the 

question of trade agreements. 

Senator HATCH. So your answer is yes, then, that you are preconditioning this treaty. We are going to have to do TAA as a precondition. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. It is not a question of preconditions, in my 

view. It is a question of being able to decide together, in consultations, as to what the exact sequencing and the exact scheduling 

will be. We know this is an ambitious trade agenda overall, and it 

is one that you and others have been supportive of. So we look forward to continuing those conversations and being able to conclude 

them as early as possible, and then I will be able to answer your 

question more concretely. 

Senator HATCH. My time is up. But the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kirk, said that he would submit these three treaties before August. Is he backing off on that, or are you backing 

off on that? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Our goal has always been to complete work 

on the outstanding issues as soon as possible. 

Senator HATCH. He did not say it was a goal, he said he would 

submit these treaties before August so that we could vote on them. 

19 

Ambassador SAPIRO. That is our goal. We do want to be able to 

submit these formally to you as soon as we are in a position to do 

so. For Colombia, it regards further work, as I mentioned, and as 

Ambassador Kirk’s letter to you mentioned. So we are already engaged with the Colombians in that intensive process of ensuring 

that the action plan is fulfilled, and also we are engaged in discussions with congressional leadership to make sure that the calendar 

will allow us to accomplish all of our trade objectives in a reasonable period of time. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Kerry? 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say to Senator Hatch and to others who are sort of wondering about the schedule, I completely understand and am sympathetic with the administration’s target here. Historically, Senator 

Hatch, I have opposed the Colombia agreement on the basis of 

many of the arguments that Mr. Vogt has made here today. I am 

very sympathetic to the principles and objectives that Mr. Vogt is 

embracing as he articulates his reservations today. But I believe 

the time has come to ratify this treaty. 

I have said that before, and I would say it again. I do think there 

are expectations that many of us have who are prepared to support 

the treaty that we want to see met. Some of those expectations are 

the completion of the action plan. I completely understand the reticence of the Trade Representative to say we are automatically, no 

matter what, going to put it in before we have that report and before we understand to what measure the expectations are going to 

be met. 

I also have an expectation that, if we are going to ask some 

workers—not many—I think most of the advantages in this agreement fall to America, frankly. There are not many products, Mr. 

Vogt, that are going to be exposed where we compete, to be honest 

with you. So I do not see this as a fundamental threat to the interests of many of our workers. 

I also, on the other side of the ledger, want to commend the testimony of General Hill here today. I served on the Banking Committee back in the 1980s and 1990s, and I have been on the Foreign Relations Committee throughout my tenure here. There just 

is no way to describe the level of the state of affairs in Colombia 

back in the 1980s. 

I can remember in 1985 when I first came here, President 

Reagan was in, and there was an attack, a bold attack, on the Supreme Court of Colombia. Ninety-five people were killed by leftwing guerrillas at that moment, including 11 justices who were assassinated in one room at that moment in time. Eleven justices of 

the Supreme Court. Imagine if that happened across the street 

here with our nine, or presidential candidates were assassinated 

after declaring for the presidency and going out and standing up 

and campaigning and appealing to the people, and they were shot 

dead. This was as near to a failed state or narco-state as you can 

get. The journey of President Uribe, and now President Santos, is 

an extraordinary journey of courage, of taking on a massive enterprise, including the drug cartels, Pablo Escobar and all those peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
20 

ple whom we can remember who ruled the streets and terrified 

people. 

If the United States of America were to mouth all of our words 

and have engaged in Plan Colombia and talked about the virtues 

of democracy and turn away from our single most reliable ally at 

this moment in time in that region and turn our back on the benefits, I think, to ourselves of the economic upside of this, I do not 

know. The message, the implications for the rest of Latin America 

and for a lot of other people would be a real serious scratching of 

the head and wondering about whether we had lost our marbles 

and our sense of rectitude of priorities. So I think it is really important for us to ratify at this point in time. 

Fifty-one labor leaders is 51 too many killed. We all understand 

that. But it is not 200, it is not 150, it is not 100. It is moving in 

a direction that we have a vital interest in keeping them moving 

in. 

I think I have suggested—and I hope, Ms. Polaski, maybe you 

can comment on this—that, if the Colombians can appoint a labor 

minister in these next days and sort of follow through on that 

promise, if they could make some progress perhaps on the palm oil 

worker situation and the port situation, where I understand about 

90 percent of the workers are not full-time workers—there is a 

question of their protections and rights—it seems to me that it 

would go even further towards addressing many of the reservations 

that some of our colleagues up here still have, which we all understand. 

I think skepticism is healthy, but I do believe this is the moment. 

I think if one looks at the record—and I really just ask that question, I only have a second left—of Colombian progress here, the annual budget for protection has been increased from $11 million to 

$72 million; 10,000 journalists, labor leaders, human rights defenders, opposition figures are protected by that. Not one participant in 

that program has been killed. I think you can go down a list of 

these kinds of things that are the measures by which we can make 

a judgment as to whether we are moving in the right direction. 

So I hope, Senator Hatch, that we will reach an agreement on 

the Trade Adjustment Assistance, because I think that is important 

for American workers, and fair. I also hope we can get this action 

plan fully reported on with the kinds of add-ons that I have just 

suggested, and then I am confident that we can move forward. I 

think the time has come for this treaty to be ratified. Would you 

just comment quickly on those two sectors? 

Ms. POLASKI. Yes, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Really quickly, because other Senators are waiting here. Very quickly. 

Senator KERRY. Just really quickly. 

Ms. POLASKI. I think the Colombian government has agreed to 

create the separate labor ministry. The legislation has passed the 

Congress. If the Santos administration were able to act very quickly and appoint a new labor minister, that would certainly be a 

confidence-building measure. They have exceeded our expectations 

on deadlines several times already in our work together, and this 

could be another pleasant example of early action. 

21 

On the palm oil and port sectors, among the others that I mentioned that have been problematic—sugar, mines and flowers—it 

certainly is the case that if some high-profile problems were resolved quickly, that would demonstrate, I think, to all that the political resolve exists, not only to adopt changes in law and regulations, not only to hire inspectors, but to actually go out and solve 

the problems for workers. So we would welcome—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A short statement 

to put in the record in addition to my statement before I ask a couple of questions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. A few points of irony about this whole debate. 

Number one is, I listen when they come to my town meetings, to 

labor union people in Iowa, and I always hear the words ‘‘a level 

playing field.’’ 

If there is anything that levels the playing field for American 

workers, it is this agreement, because for decades Colombia has 

had access to our markets with hardly any tariffs whatsoever compared to the massive amounts of tariffs we have going into that 

country. 

It seems to me that there is no doubt about what Senator Kerry 

said, that this is an advantage to Americans because Americans 

have been so fair to the Colombians, and now we are leveling the 

playing field. It is ironic that we have leaders of our union members in my State still saying that they do not want a level playing 

field, in essence. 

The other irony is that I think it was 4 years ago and 1 day, so 

May 10, 2007, there was a great big fanfare made between the 

Bush administration and the new Democratic leadership of the 

Congress that we had reached an agreement, that there had been 

some renegotiation going on and we were ready to move ahead. 

Then we do not move ahead until now because the goal posts keep 

moving. So I hear possibilities of more goal post moving, and when 

will this treaty be submitted to the Congress of the United States 

because there is still some negotiation going on. I hope it is not a 

case of a repeat of the same. 

My first question will be to Ambassador Sapiro. Back in 2009, I 

worked hard to help craft the most recent version of the Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation. While the program was expanded, 

we made significant improvement in the program’s transparency 

and in government accountability and oversight at the State and 

Federal level. We also made the program more responsive to worker needs. 

However, we are now facing a different reality today regarding 

a Federal budget deficit situation that is far different than we 

faced back in 2009. We need to bring financial order to the Federal 

budget situation. Also, all programs are facing the real prospect of 

receiving fewer Federal dollars, not more. 

So my question is, with the condition of the Federal budget and 

most government programs facing the prospect of receiving less 

funding, I would like you to elaborate on your statement that you 

‘‘look forward to working with Congress on a robust TAA program.’’ 

22 

Is there a funding level for the TAA that you have in mind? Because I do not believe the current level is sustainable in today’s environment. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Senator, for that question. You 

and Chairman Baucus have shown tremendous leadership, working 

with the House in particular and on a bipartisan basis, to secure 

the 2009 renewal. What we would like to do now is work with you 

on a robust, strong program that is going to share the goals. 

We recognize we are in a different budget environment, but the 

goals of that program, in particular protecting those in the service 

sectors and also those whose work has been dislocated because of 

trade with non-FTA partners such as India and China, we believe 

those are important bipartisan goals. 

So we very much want to have that conversation with you and 

with the leadership to find the right path forward so that we can 

altogether be justly proud of doing something for the American 

workers who will benefit from such a program. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You do not have a thought in your own mind, 

or for the administration, on a level of funding that you could share 

with us? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. If you have a number, Senator, I would be 

happy to take that back to OMB. But these are ongoing discussions 

that we are having and that we want to have with you and others, 

because we want to work together in light of the new budget environment, but at the same time to make sure that we can further 

the goals of the renewal that you worked so hard on. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Stoner, Senator Hatch discussed with you an issue I was 

going to discuss about agriculture. I just want to compliment you 

for coming and sharing views on the necessity of this agreement for 

agriculture. You represent not only Montana farmers on this point, 

but almost every division of agriculture, and I thank you for doing 

that. 

The more you can come around this town where there is a terrible ignorance of agriculture—you know there are more Ivy 

League people who have never been on a farm who are experts on 

agriculture in this town, and we need working people like you to 

counteract and bring some common sense to this city that is an island surrounded by reality as far as agriculture is concerned. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I agree with you, there are 

a lot of Ivy Leaguers around here who do not know anything about 

agriculture. I find that more and more true with each day that I 

am in this town. It is really true, and I appreciate that statement. 

It is a problem. 

Senator HATCH. It may be broader than not knowing about agriculture, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe. I am not going to go there. [Laughter.] 

I want to take this a step at a time. But I also do think it is appropriate to say that it is kind of in conjunction with the dialogue 

Senator Hatch had with Ms. Sapiro and others. That is, on Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. I think it is clear that we need Trade Adjustment Assistance acting in tandem with this FTA. We are not 

23 

going to get one without the other. It just behooves us to find ways 

just to get both accomplished. 

The 2009 provisions are good. There are ways to pay for the implementation of 2009 TAA, and we just have to roll up our sleeves 

and do it, because that way we, first, get an FTA passed, which is 

extremely important for all the reasons that have been suggested 

here but, second, give some protection to American workers who 

lose their jobs or health insurance on account of trade. It is the 

only fair thing, the only right thing to do. So as far as I am concerned, the two must go together, one way or another. I am not 

saying what the sequence is or is not, but we have to find a way 

to make sure they are both passed this year. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Sapiro and Secretary Polaski, it looks to me that 

American trade policy is teetering on a one-legged stool. In my 

view, there are three pillars to the stool. The first is enforcing the 

trade remedy laws and any commitments our trade partners make. 

The second is protecting our workers in a tough global economy. 

The third is reducing foreign trade barriers. 

Now, with respect to enforcement, the committee heard last 

week, for example, that Customs Commissioner Alan Berson thinks 

that our efforts are ‘‘disgraceful.’’ Those are his words, not mine. 

Last year, critical components of the TAA law were left to expire, 

and, of course, it seems to me we have to focus on all of the pillars 

of our trade policy and not just one. 

Now, the last point that I would want to make deals with the 

question of where we are now. We are going to enforce the trade 

remedy laws, protect our workers in a tough global economy, reduce the barriers. Those are the three pillars. Now the question is, 

where are we today? 

So for you, Secretary Polaski, would you agree that we will not 

have the track record to assess whether many of the substantive 

commitments the Colombians have made to the Obama administration are being implemented until the fall of this year? That would 

just be a yes or no. 

Ms. POLASKI. We will have a lot of experience by the fall of this 

year, Senator. We will have 6 or 8 months of experience. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, my view is that the Congress ought to be 

sure that any legislation that would implement the FTA includes 

a statutory requirement that stipulates the agreement cannot go 

into force unless all of the elements of the Colombian action plan 

have been implemented. 

Chairman Baucus asked you a very important question, and I 

thought you said, well, maybe some of the elements of the Colombian action plan have to be implemented. So I want to make sure 

that all of the elements have to be implemented. My question here 

is, would this be inconsistent with the requirements that the President would insist on before certifying and allowing the agreement 

to enter into force? That is a question for you, Ms. Polaski. 

Ms. POLASKI. Yes. I think that the only commitment, the only 

substantive commitment, in the action plan that would not be 

scheduled for action before the end of this year is the hiring of 

labor inspectors in the second, third, and fourth year out in a hirVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:39 Jan 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\71731.000 TIMD
24 

ing plan. The commitment to the hiring plan has already been 

made, and the implementation which is due is already underway, 

but there would be additional hiring in 2012, 2013, and 2014, 

which depends on those budgets. 

However, the commitment has been made by the Santos administration. That is the only example, Senator, that I can think of of 

a commitment that would not be fulfilled by the end of this year, 

even though it already is committed in principle, and we would not 

consider that to be a failure of commitment. I hope that that is responsive to your question. 

Senator WYDEN. So you have said now it is not going to be that 

all of the elements have to be implemented. There would be one exception to that dealing with the inspection issue, but everything 

else would have to be implemented. It is not just some of the elements of the Colombia action plan. 

Ms. POLASKI. I mean, to be fully responsive to your question, 

Senator, I have been going through, in my mind, the entire action 

plan, which is very long, rich, dense, and complex, but I cannot 

think of any other commitment that would not be implemented by 

the end of 2011. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, my time is about to expire. I 

think you asked the key question, and that is, exactly where are 

we going to be on the Colombia action plan? I think it goes right 

to your point about how we are going to flesh out this kind of stool. 

I mean, we want to make sure that we reduce these trade barriers. 

I am a strong supporter of that, but we have to do a better job of 

enforcing the laws that are on the books. 

Under the chairman’s leadership, we made some headway, I 

think, on that last week. Then we have to get this TAA issue resolved to deal with the rights of our workers in a tough global economy. But I want to see how you respond to that question in writing 

as well. I will ask it that way as well, because I want to make sure 

that all of the elements—all of the elements—are put in place or 

that we have an actual set of dates about when it is going to be 

put in place. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I associate with your comments regarding agriculture. This 

year I am on the Agriculture Committee. We have work to do together. Certainly, I think this is, for me, a complicated issue, because there are many provisions. Obviously, this is positive for agriculture. 

At the same time, I share the concerns of Mr. Vogt in terms of 

the ability to make sure that what has been very good work that 

has been done is actually able to be implemented and that there 

is a concrete sense of confidence that the action plan can actually 

be enforced. 

So I guess my first question would simply be, because I am not 

sure this is clear to me at this point after the questions, but to 

Deputy USTR, Ambassador Sapiro, what recourse do we have if 

Colombia fails to actually follow through on the action plan, or if 

in 2 years they are backtracking on the improvements that have 

25 

been made on labor rights, other than to object through USTR? 

What recourse do we have? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. The action 

plan is quite comprehensive and complex. Most of the commitments 

are front-loaded so that they, in many cases, have already been fulfilled, and in other cases will be fulfilled, in the next few weeks. 

There are, as Secretary Polaski indicated, a number of commitments that will extend throughout this year. There are also some 

commitments, such as the hiring of additional labor inspectors, approximately 380, that will go into future years, as well as reporting 

requirements that continue. 

What we have learned—— 

Senator STABENOW. Let me just back up and say, so what happens if 2 years from now they change their mind and they are no 

longer doing this? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. What we have is a commitment at the highest level that they are taking this very seriously, every word of this 

very comprehensive plan. We front-loaded the commitments so that 

we could see their clear willingness to implement and make these 

difficult decisions already. 

In terms of going down the road the next few years, we have ongoing reporting requirements, we have ongoing monitoring, we 

have ongoing meetings at the technical level and the political level, 

so we have put together what we believe is a very robust package 

that is a process essentially that will continue. 

At the same time, we have the FTA with the labor chapter. Once 

the FTA comes into force, you will have the strongest protections 

available in terms of protecting fundamental labor rights, the right 

of free association, the right to bargain collectively. All of those are 

protected by, if necessary, the dispute settlement provisions of the 

FTA. In other words, on the same basis as any commercial obligation that might be breached. 

So we have every confidence going forward that we will see the 

action plan implemented as I laid forth because of these important 

monitoring mechanisms, and we also, where there is overlap, have 

the FTA there once it enters into force with the strongest remedies 

ever available in terms of being able to see fundamental labor 

rights adopted and maintained in Colombian law in perpetuity. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, I very much appreciate the hard work 

and the focus that has gone into this by the administration. But 

my second question would be, after having Ambassador Kirk speak 

to us about lack of resources for enforcement and having worked 

on that very hard myself, trying to be able to pass an enforcement 

bill that would place somebody at USTR with sole responsibility for 

enforcement of trade agreements, I am wondering just how effective you are going to be able to be in enforcing new trade agreements like this and continuing to monitor labor rights if you do not 

have the resources that you need to do that. Is that an issue? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Well, thank you, Senator, for your concern 

and the concern of many of your colleagues to make sure that 

USTR has resources. Obviously we are all in a situation of belttightening, and we have tightened our belts as we need to to make 

sure that we are doing our part. But we are also fully committed 

to enforcement of existing and future FTAs. This administration, as 

26 

you know better than anyone, has taken a back seat to no one in 

terms of enforcement of these very important provisions, and also 

dismantling trade barriers outside of the FTA. So we are fully committed to this, and Colombia is—— 

Senator STABENOW. I have to interrupt just for one second because I am just about out of time. I wanted to hear from Mr. Vogt, 

but I have to ask you one other thing. That is, what is the timing 

of the reauthorization of TAA related to the trade agreements? Mr. 

Chairman, for me the timing is very important. I want to know 

that TAA, which has expired last week, the first petitions were denied of TAA. This is very serious for a whole generation of workers, 

as you know, and I appreciate your leadership on this. But this is 

critically important that TAA not just be talked about or even 

passed just in committee, but that we actually get it enacted and 

reauthorized. So the timing of these things is very important. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. We agree. Ambassador Kirk has said that 

TAA renewal is critical and it must be part of the package. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

all of our panelists. 

I just want to follow up very quickly on Senator Stabenow’s 

point. TAA reauthorization should have been done by now. I understand people are concerned about the timing of different legislation 

here, but the TAA should have preceded these free trade agreements. 

Let me also point out that there are ways that we can make 

more effective our current enforcement mechanisms, and it seems 

to me that it would have been helpful to have some legislation 

brought forward by the administration dealing with enforcement, 

because, Ambassador Sapiro, I think the issue here is not the good 

intentions of President Santos. President Santos is a reformer. He 

is doing the right thing for Colombia. 

The history of Colombia is so violent and so extreme that it will 

take time to see the type of changes that we expect to take place. 

We all understand that, and we want to move forward to help in 

that regard. I do applaud you for getting the ILO standards in the 

core agreement. That is a very positive accomplishment of this 

trade agreement. 

My question is—and this has been the issue, I think, that is 

raised by labor—why did you not seek to put more into the core 

trade agreement? Why did you use a sidebar agreement? We have 

had inconsistent success in past trade agreements using sidebar 

type of agreements. Why did you not push harder to get more into 

the basic agreement where you have formal dispute resolution procedures with enforcement, whereas in a side agreement you are basically dependent upon the good faith of not just the Santos administration, but future administrations in Colombia? 

Once this agreement is ratified, I understand certain things have 

to take place before this agreement becomes effective. But the 

budget support or the commitment to law enforcement could very 

well change as the political atmosphere in Colombia changes. Yet, 

27 

we are dependent upon the continued efforts to change a longstanding violent history in Colombia. 

So I am just puzzled why you did not do more to put these provisions in that are critically important for the development of Colombia, making it, I think, more likely that there would be long-term 

commitments to the type of reforms that President Santos is seeking. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Senator, the agreement was opened to include the fundamental labor rights that I mentioned and the commitment of Colombia to adopt and maintain them in perpetuity. 

We are very proud of what is in the FTA chapter. Once that enters 

into force, we will have a range of remedies, including, as I mentioned, if necessary, dispute settlement. We negotiated the action—— 

Senator CARDIN. And that is good. I applaud you for that. The 

problem is, if they back off their commitments on going after the 

violence against activists within the labor movement, that is not 

necessarily actionable under the ILO standards. It would be a 

stretch to say because you did not have enough inspectors out 

there, that you have violated the ILO standards. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There are very strong protections on the 

freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, basic fundamental worker rights that Colombia must enforce in its law. It 

must have tribunals available to enforce those laws, and there are 

a series of mechanisms set up so that we will have, for example, 

a Labor Affairs Council that we will bring any concerns to—any 

member of the public here or in Colombia can bring concerns to the 

attention of the Labor Affairs Council—and then, if necessary, dispute settlement provisions. So I am comfortable that this is a broad 

labor chapter that will fundamentally change the nature of the 

game. Today we have no such ability to enforce these labor rights. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that for today, and you have a 

right to be proud about that. My point is, if you were to put the 

labor action plan specifics into the core agreement, there would be 

a lot more confidence that the enforcement mechanisms are available. It is ambiguous to us whether we have enforcement for the 

provisions in the labor action plan that do not fall under the ILO 

internationally recognized standards. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Do I have time to respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you. I will be brief. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you do. Go ahead. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There is overlap between the action plan 

provisions and the FTA chapter. Also, the action plan is actionoriented. There are very specific commitments, as well as more 

general ones. For example, we talk about the number of inspectors 

that need to be hired, when they need to be hired, how they need 

to be trained. 

Those are commitments that reflect where we are today. They 

are not necessarily the kinds of long-term legal obligations one 

would put in an FTA, so we work very hard to be responsive to the 

situation on the ground and to craft an action plan that is both 

comprehensive, but also takes account of fast changes that the 

Santos administration has already engaged in. So it is more of a 

28 

rapid reaction response to what are fundamental problems that we 

believe both will deal with in a comprehensive manner. They complement each other. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator. 

It is my understanding—and I do not want to take too much time 

here from other Senators—that there are some provisions that are 

really core labor provisions which are part of the core agreement, 

but there are some that really do not belong in an FTA because 

they are not trade-related. 

Let us say enforcement of criminal penalties of some of the labor 

laws, for example. I can think of some things that really are not 

directly trade-related, so it would raise the question whether that 

would be properly part of a core labor provision that would be enforceable under the labor provisions. This is not perfect, but it is 

progress. In my judgment, it is great progress. The old phrase— 

which I agree with here—is, you cannot let perfection be the enemy 

of the good. This is very good. It is not just good, it is, in my judgment, very good. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, it is 41⁄2 years now since this agreement was approved. Colombia has passed it twice. October of 2007 was the last 

time they passed it, and that was after the U.S. insisted on 

changes to the agreement. So we have been sitting on this thing 

now for a really long time. In the meantime, we continue to lose 

market share. The folks I represent in farm country are very concerned about the lack of action on this agreement, and we still do 

not have it submitted to the Congress. We still do not have an 

agreement that has been brought up here. One of the major costs 

of not passing it is the lost market share, as I said, for agricultural 

exporters. 

In January of 2009, Colombia’s trade agreement with Argentina 

went into effect, giving Argentinean agricultural producers a competitive advantage over American farmers. As a result, U.S. exports of corn, wheat, and soybeans, three crops that we grow in my 

home State of South Dakota, have declined dramatically. U.S. market share for these products has plunged from 71 percent in 2008 

to 27 percent in 2010. 

At the same time, the market share of Argentina’s exports of 

these crops has increased by 37 percentage points. So I think it is 

fairly clear—the numbers are pretty hard to dispute here—that 

during the time that this thing has been kicking around here, $3.5 

billion in tariffs have been imposed on U.S. exports to Colombia, 

and U.S. businesses and farmers have been steadily losing market 

share. So it is just, in farm country, a no-brainer. 

But I wanted to ask the question of Mr. Stoner, if I could, about 

the implementation of this agreement and whether or not it will 

put our farmers on a level playing field in Colombia with our competitors, and do you expect that we can regain some, or hopefully 

much, of the lost market share for corn, wheat, and soybeans once 

this agreement has gone into effect. 

Mr. STONER. Senator, I believe, with this agreement, we are on 

a level playing field. I have told my farm friends, I tell my urban 

29 

friends, that I am willing to compete on any level playing field. The 

U.S. raises the highest quality grains in the world. They are in demand worldwide. So, yes, I believe we can compete. 

Senator THUNE. Do you think we can gain back some of the market share that we have lost? 

Mr. STONER. That is going to be, I believe, a long-term effort. The 

mills, once they adjust to another country’s wheat—because every 

country’s wheat varies some—once they become accustomed to a 

product, they are reluctant to shift. So we will have to win back 

the markets we have lost these past few years. 

Senator THUNE. Let me, if I could, direct this question to you, 

Ambassador, and to General Hill, whomever would care to comment. But, as you may know, China is quickly becoming a major 

player in Latin America, both a large export market for these nations, but also an exporter that increasingly competes with United 

States companies in that region. China’s share of trade with South 

America has grown from 1 percent in 1995 to roughly 10 percent 

as of 2009. 

China recently replaced the United States as the top trade partner of Brazil and Chile. There have been discussions between 

China and Colombia regarding a dry Panama Canal, a rail link 

connecting Colombia’s Atlantic and Pacific Coast with a spur that 

would tie to Venezuela, thus providing a route for the Chinese to 

get Colombian coal and Venezuelan minerals to Far East ports. 

Can you discuss the importance of approving this trade agreement in terms of how this could reinforce America’s role in Latin 

America, and especially with respect to China’s ambitions in the region? General, do you want to comment on that? Ambassador? 

General HILL. Thank you, Senator. Every place I went throughout Latin America, the Chinese are there. They are everywhere, 

and many in every forum—economic, military, you name it. Colombia has free trade agreements with a host of nations, as Mr. Stoner 

brought out. If in fact you have a free trade agreement with China, 

it has to affect us. Simply has to. We begin to lose whatever leverage we have with Colombia because, if I am doing business with 

you, I have a monetary gain from you. I have political and other 

kind of leverage with you. So I think that it is an important issue. 

That is not a very good answer, but it is heartfelt. 

Senator THUNE. Gives them more leverage. 

General HILL. I think so. 

Senator THUNE. Ambassador Sapiro, TPA expired in 2007 and 

has not been renewed. Given the administration’s stated goal of 

doubling exports and its intention to bring TPA to a successful conclusion this year, would the administration support a renewal of 

TPA, and are the TPA procedures important to the passage of Colombia, Panama, and South Korea in terms of the agreements? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you very much, Senator. We are 

hard at work on TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because Asia 

is such a dynamic and growing region. We would welcome having 

a conversation with you regarding TPA renewal as we get closer to 

the end game on TPP. So, thank you very much for raising that 

question. 

With respect to the Colombia agreement, that agreement was 

completed before the expiration of fast track, so we would expect 

30 

that that agreement would still benefit from the provisions of the 

pre-existing fast track legislation. 

Senator THUNE. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

General Hill, you have already touched on it. In your judgment, 

what would be the result if the United States failed to reach this 

free trade agreement with Colombia? 

General HILL. Can I build, Senator, on yours, Senator Hatch’s, 

and Senator Grassley’s comments about agriculture? 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Any way you want to answer the 

question. 

General HILL. In my 27 months of command of SouthCom, I visited Colombia 33 times. Since I retired, I have been in Colombia 

at least 5 times—and I think it is 6, I have to check on that a little 

bit. I have talked to military people, business people, dissidents, 

anti-government people, union leaders, all of that. We helped them 

save their nation, but the reality is, they saved it themselves. It 

was their blood, not ours. It was their help in the cocaine traffic 

that has kept us where we are today with making that more of a 

nuisance than making a narco-state. They did that. 

For us now not to ratify this free trade agreement when they 

have other people whom they can do it with says to them that, 

well, we really appreciate your efforts, but not all that much. I 

think that Senator Kerry’s comments are right on the mark. We 

become not a very good ally. We have done that over time in other 

places. We have not shown ourselves as good allies. I think this is 

absolutely critical to the relationship on a broad range of areas 

with Colombia. 

The Colombian people—I wish Senator Cardin were still here— 

I believe will move forward, not backtrack, in every respect, just as 

they have done over the last 10 years. They know where they were, 

they know where they are, and they know where they are going. 

Democracy and human rights will help them achieve all those 

goals. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General. Frankly, I think it would be 

a near travesty if we were to reject this agreement. 

General HILL. I agree with you completely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Given all the effort that Colombia has undertaken, given all the time to work with us, with you as General and 

Commander in that area, and just with a sense of the other things 

they are doing, their working of the land, the reformation programs, for example—I have forgotten the name of the program 

where people lay down their arms and come on in, how well that 

is working as well. It would be, as I said, a near travesty if we 

were to reject this. 

General HILL. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we can work out some of the issues that still 

exist, but that is the case with all relationships. This is one we 

need to definitely cement, lock it in, because it will help us in so 

many ways—geographically, politically, economically, geopolitically—and I just thank you for your answers. I very much agree with 

you. 

Senator Hatch? 

31 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I really personally appreciate the great service that you 

have given to our country and just want to compliment you for all 

that you have done. You have a big supporter here. 

Let me just ask you this last question, and I will end it at this. 

You have traveled extensively in this hemisphere, so I assume you 

have an impression—some strong impressions—of the views of people in this region. What do you think would be the reaction of people in other countries in Latin America if the United States fails 

to implement the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement? Second, how would their reactions impact the standing of the United 

States in Latin America? 

General HILL. It would show us a very fickle ally, that we will 

help you when it only serves us. That has been, in my opinion, one 

of the great things of Plan Colombia—we have stood by the Colombians and shown ourselves as a very strong ally. We all gain from 

the relationship. 

Just this past Tuesday, in the New York Times there was this 

article: ‘‘Venezuela Asks Colombian Rebels to Kill Opposition Figures, Analysts Show.’’ This is an important piece, because it came 

out of the Rau ́l Reyes tapes. President Uribe went into Ecuador to 

capture or kill Rau ́l Reyes, much as we all applaud President 

Obama doing in Pakistan. This is important. Chavez and the 

thought process that comes out of radical populism is gaining 

ground in Latin America. We have to continue to battle that. 

The most dangerous region in the world to the United States and 

Latin America is Central America, and it has to do with gangs and 

the dysfunctionality they can bring to governments. The Colombians are working in Central America and Mexico, showing them 

how to do better training and counter-insurgency operations, doing 

all those things, because they have grown as a military. It is important. It is very important. We just have to stand by really the best 

friend we have in the region. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks to all 

of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do, too. That concludes the hearing. I want to 

thank you again, Gordon, for flying all the way from Outlook. Get 

back home, get that crop in the ground. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


71731001.eps
34 


71731.002
35 


71731.003
36 


71731.004
37 


71731.005
38 


71731.006
39 


71731.007
40 


71731.008
41 


71731.009
42 


71731.010
43 


71731.011
44 


71731.012
45 


71731.013
46 


71731.014
47 


71731.015
48 


71731.016
49 


71731.017
50 


71731.018
51 


71731.019
52 


71731.020
53 


71731.021
54 


71731.022
55 


71731.023
56 


71731.024
57 


71731.025
58 


71731.026
59 


71731.027
60 


71731.028
61 


71731.029
62 


71731.030
63 


71731.031
64 


71731.032
65 


71731.033
66 


71731.034
67 


71731.020
68 


71731.021
69 


71731.022
70 


71731.035
71 


71731.036
72 


71731.037
73 


71731.038
74 


71731.039
75 


71731.040
76 


71731.041
77 


71731.042
78 


71731.043
79 


71731.044
80 


71731.045
81 


71731.046
82 


71731.047
83 


71731.048
84 


71731.049
85 


71731.050
86 


71731.051
87 


71731.052
88 


71731.053
89 


71731.054
90 


71731.055
91 


71731056.eps
92 


71731.057
(93) 

COMMUNICATIONS


71731058.eps
94 


71731.059
95 


71731.060
96 


71731.061
97 


71731.062
98 


71731.063
99 


71731.064
100 


71731.065
101 


71731.066
102 


71731.067
103 


71731.068
104 


71731.069
105 


71731.070
106 


71731.071
107 


71731.072
108 


71731.073
109 


71731.074
110 


71731.075
111 


71731.076
112 


71731.077
113 

Æ 


71731078.eps