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

70–876 2011

THE PENDING TRADE AGREEMENT WITH 

COLOMBIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 17, 2011 

Serial No. 112–TR03 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas,Chairman 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVE REICHERT, Washington 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 17, 2011 announcing the hearing ........................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

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

United States Trade Representative .................................................................. 7 

The Honorable Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary for Economic, Energy 

& Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................. 15 

The Honorable Thomas C. Dorr, President & Chief Executive Officer, U.S. 

Grains Council, Former Under Secretary for Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 40 

William D. Marsh, Vice President Legal, Western Hemisphere, Baker Hughes, 

Inc., on behalf of Baker Hughes, Inc. and the National Association of 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 48 

Ambassador Peter F. Romero, President and Chief Executive Officer, Experior 

Advisory LLC, Former Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador .................... 52 

Adam Isaacson, Director, Regional Security Policy Program, Washington Office on Latin America ........................................................................................... 57 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Retired), President, BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC, Former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Former Commander of the U.S. Southern Command ....................................... 68 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
(1) 

THE PENDING TRADE AGREEMENT WITH 

COLOMBIA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Kevin 

Brady [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Brady Announces First in a Series of 

Three Hearings on the Pending, 

Job-Creating Trade Agreements 

Thursday, March 10, 2011 

Congressman Kevin Brady (R–TX), Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade of the 

Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold 

a series of hearings on the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and 

South Korea. According to the President’s own statements, these agreements have 

the ability to create over 250,000 American jobs. The first hearing will address the 

agreement with Colombia. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 17, 

2011, in the main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, 

beginning at 10 a.m. The Subcommittee will soon advise regarding hearings on the 

trade agreements with Panama and South Korea. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A 

list of invited witnesses will follow. 

BACKGROUND 

In 2007, the United States concluded a trade agreement with Colombia, which is 

still awaiting Congressional consideration. On January 25, 2011, the Ways and 

Means Committee held its first hearing on this agreement, along with the pending 

trade agreements with Panama and South Korea. 

The Colombia trade agreement was also discussed at the Ways and Means Committee hearing with Ambassador Kirk, on February 9, 2011. At that hearing, in response to Chairman Camp’s request that Ambassador Kirk set forth a concrete 

timeline for Congressional consideration of the Colombia trade agreement within 

the first six months of the year, Ambassador Kirk said that he would be sending 

a delegation to Colombia and would then develop ‘‘a workable plan’’ for moving the 

Colombia agreement forward. Ambassador Kirk stated that, prior to the submission 

of the FTA, ‘‘it will be imperative to resolve issues regarding laws and practices impacting the protection of internationally-recognized labor rights, as well as issues 

concerning violence against labor leaders and the prosecution of the perpetrators.’’ 

He further noted that the President had ‘‘directed us to intensify our engagement 

with Colombia so that we can resolve these outstanding issues this year.’’ The delegation sent by Ambassador Kirk was in Colombia the week of February 15. 

The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement would open new markets to U.S. 

exports and, in turn, benefit American businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. 

The independent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has estimated that implementing the agreement would increase U.S. exports by $1.1 billion and add $2.5 

billion per year to U.S. GDP. The benefits of trade agreements are also long-lasting. 

Since 2000, U.S. exports to the 13 countries with which the United States has implemented trade agreements have grown almost twice as fast as our worldwide exports. 

Colombia has concluded trade agreements with major trading partners and export 

competitors of the United States, so U.S. failure to implement our own trade agreement with Colombia could severely disadvantage U.S. exporters and jeopardize U.S. 

job creation. The Canada-Colombia trade agreement is expected to enter into force 

around July 1 of this year, removing significant Colombian tariffs for Canadian agriculture exporters while similar tariffs remain in place against U.S. agriculture exports. In 2008, Colombia implemented a trade agreement with the MERCOSUR 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
3 

countries, including Argentina and Brazil. Subsequent to implementation of that 

agreement, key U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia have decreased significantly. 

Over the years, several objections have been raised to our trade agreement with 

Colombia. Some have argued that sustained progress to address concerns about Colombian labor law and violence against workers in Colombia must occur before it 

is appropriate to consider the agreement. However, supporters of the agreement 

argue that passing the agreement will improve labor protections and express frustration the Administration has not identified concrete steps for Colombia to take to 

address concerns. 

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Brady said, ‘‘Failure to move forward 

with the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement is undermining U.S. influence and 

leadership in our own hemisphere and putting at risk both good U.S. jobs 

and the competitiveness of U.S. exporters. The United States cannot afford 

to sit on the sidelines while Colombia implements trade agreements with 

other major countries, putting American workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, service providers, and other exporters at a competitive disadvantage. We need a concrete plan now from the Administration for moving forward with the Colombia agreement, to allow Congressional consideration 

of all three pending trade agreements by July 1.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The focus of the hearing is on Congressional consideration of the pending trade 

agreement with Colombia. The hearing will address the economic benefits this 

agreement will bring to American businesses, farmers, workers, consumers, and the 

U.S. economy. In addition, the hearing will examine the national security and geopolitical implications of the agreement and will explore developments within Colombia that have occurred since the trade agreement was concluded. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of 

business on Thursday, March 31, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change 

in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries 

to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, 

please call (202) 225–6649. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or 

WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted 

for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:19 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
4 

phrased. All exhibit material not meeting these specifications will be maintained in 

the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations 

on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each 

submission listing the name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each 

witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available at http:// 

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Well, good morning. I would like to welcome 

all of you, especially Colombian Ambassador Silva, to our first 

Trade Subcommittee hearing of the 112th Congress. Today’s hearing is the first in a series of three hearings we will hold on the 

pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South 

Korea. This continues the examination the full committee began in 

its hearings on January 25th and February 9th. 

In this first of our hearings, we examine the U.S.-Colombia trade 

promotion agreement. It is important to understand today’s hearing in the context of the full series of hearings we will be holding. 

I strongly believe that we should consider all three agreements by 

July 1st. I hope that the President has heard the repeated bipartisan calls from Congress to move forward promptly with all three 

of these agreements, rather than leaving one or another to lag behind. These are all good agreements. The time to move forward 

with all three is now. 

Why the sense of urgency? The answer is simple. America is 

being left behind. Take the case of Colombia. We concluded our 

trade agreement with Colombia in June 2007, going on 4 years ago. 

Other countries have taken advantage of our delay. They have 

moved aggressively to sign trade agreements with Colombia. And, 

as a result, many U.S. exporters now operate at a competitive disadvantage. They are forced to pay higher tariffs on exports to Colombia, and the exporters from some of our key competitors. 

The U.S. share of Colombia’s ag imports plummeted from 71 percent to 27 percent in just the 2 years since the agricultural provisions of the Colombia Mercosur trade agreement went into effect. 

Direct cause of that dramatic decline is our failure to implement 

our trade agreement. 

It will only get worse if we delay further. The Canada Colombia 

trade agreement is expected to enter into force by July 1st. Colombia’s agreement with the EU is also expected to enter into force 

this year. Colombia is rapidly concluding its negotiations with 

South Korea. Implementation of agreements by these other countries, and continued inaction on our agreement, will result in further missed opportunities to create U.S. jobs. In fact, it will result 

in a decline in existing U.S. jobs. We either move forward or we 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
5 

move backward; the choice is ours. Staying still is just not an option. 

I have stressed repeatedly how troubled I am by the failure to 

advance a Latin trade agenda. I am holding out hope that the 

President’s departure this Saturday for Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador, his first trip to South and Central America as President, 

will mark the beginning of re-engagement with the region. 

But the key is, where is Colombia on this agenda, and where is 

Panama? We cannot afford foot-dragging on these agreements, nor 

shabby treatment of these two important friends and trading partners. It is noticed by all our neighbors, threatens to undermine 

U.S. leadership in our hemisphere. And in the face of our inattention, our neighbors are forced to look elsewhere for dependable economic and geopolitical alliances. 

The consequences of such a plunge in our influence would extend 

not only the economic losses, but also the national security. Colombia is a strategic ally in the war on drugs. It’s a steadfast democratic friend and a reason to include several increasingly undemocratic and anti-American leaders, like Venezuela and President 

Hugo Chavez. We need to stand with our friends, and we should 

start by moving forward with the Colombia trade agreement and 

our other two pending trade agreements by July 1st. 

I respect the views of our ranking member and the Administration about labor violence and labor rights, although I believe that 

Colombia’s dramatic improvements justify congressional consideration. However, to the extent that some believe that more progress 

is necessary, it’s only fair that they identify specifically what they 

would like to see, an action plan for achieving that goal, and a time 

table for completing it promptly. We need to do this to keep the— 

rather than keep the agreement in limbo forever. 

I would like to welcome all of our witnesses today, who—I appreciate their leadership and their advice and efforts in this effort. I 

want to thank them for being with us. I look forward to hearing 

the testimony of both panels. And at this time I would like to yield 

to Ranking Member McDermott for the purpose of an opening 

statement. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased 

to see the witnesses here today. 

I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I heard about 

this hearing. I hoped this would be the mark-up for the Korean 

free trade agreement. That agreement is done. The Korean free 

trade agreement creates incredible new export opportunities for 

American goods. It has the support of business, it has the support 

of labor. It has the support of Democrats, Republicans. The Administration says it is ready to submit the implementing legislation. 

Really, no obstacles remain. We should be moving on the Korea 

FTA now. 

But, for whatever reason, House and Senate Republicans have 

decided they can’t do anything on trade until the Colombia FTA is 

ready. I simply don’t get that. For years, Republicans have cried 

that passing the Korea free trade agreement puts American workers in businesses at risk of falling behind their European counterparts. In a September 2009 letter, Republican leadership argued 

that unless we approve the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement before 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
6 

the EU–Korean pact goes into effect, ‘‘U.S. workers will lose $1.1 

billion in exports to Korea, injuring industries vital to the U.S. 

economy, including machinery, auto parts, chemicals, plastic, food, 

meat, and the dairy sectors.’’ 

Well, the Obama Administration fixed the Korea free trade 

agreement and the EU free trade agreement is going into effect on 

July 1st. So why are we not dealing with Korea? Why aren’t we 

working on the implementing legislation, is really my question 

today. 

No one is saying we should forget about Colombia. Just the opposite. Colombia has been a strong and critical ally. This agreement 

will strengthen the U.S.-Colombia relationship even further. But it 

makes no sense to hold up Korea while the concerns of the Colombian FTA are being addressed—badly needed fixes that the Administration is working on very actively now. 

We have a partner in this process, President Santos, who, unlike 

his predecessor, wants to work with us. In terms of what needs to 

be done in Colombia, here are some specifics that I believe we 

ought to be considering. 

Basic human rights are a big problem. Workers and labor rights 

are killed every day by the dozen. The rampage goes on year after 

year, and there is no justice. Between 2005 and 2009, there were 

more union workers murdered in Colombia than in the rest of the 

world combined. And the workers who are not killed are intimidated to prevent them from exercising the basic human right to organize. 

Let me give you a real world example taken from the Colombian 

flower sector. This is an export sector. Seventy-nine percent of Colombian flowers come to the United States. Mothers Day is just 

around the corner and the flowers are coming. And almost all the 

flower workers are women. They are single moms. When flower 

section unions have attempted to assert their rights, they have 

been met with threats and violence. 

For instance, last year, workers at the Guacari plantation struck 

over unpaid wages and benefits. The company brought in thugs 

who beat the workers and intimidated them into resigning. Then 

the company replaced them with temporary workers. Not one perpetrator was arrested. 

The Republicans are obsessed with the Colombia FTA, but none 

of them would volunteer their wives or daughters to go to work for 

a Colombian flower company. 

And even if workers survive the violence, they can’t exercise the 

basic right to organize, because of loopholes in Colombian labor 

law. One example is the use of cooperatives, which are shell entities employers use to hire workers precisely so that workers cannot 

form a union. And the use of cooperatives is rampant in export sectors like the ports, sugar cane industry, and the flower sector. For 

workers that can form a union, employers use another loophole, 

known as collective pacts, to effectively break the union. 

If there is the political will, Colombia can address these issues 

in months, not years. They can change their laws to prevent union 

busting. They could implement a work plan to significantly increase the size of its labor inspection force, train the inspectors, 

and improve enforcement. Colombia can make concrete, measurVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:19 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
7 

able progress on investigating and prosecuting violence against 

union workers. Until Colombia makes concrete progress, the rest of 

the trade agenda that will get Americans the jobs they desperately 

need should move forward. 

So, let’s move the Korea FTA. It is ten times more valuable to 

the American economy than the Colombian FTA. Let’s move the 

MTB. It’s worth two-and-a-half Colombian FTAs. Let’s move China 

currency. Fixing that would be worth about 100 Colombian FTAs. 

And we can extend our expired preference program in GSP and 

ATP. There are a lot of things we should be doing. 

There was broad bipartisan support for all these initiatives in 

the last congress. The question is, what happened? My fear is that 

it really isn’t about trade. My fear is that a decision has been taken 

that the whole trade agenda will be held hostage, and that millions 

of jobs that come with it, for purely political reasons, will be held 

up. They want the Administration to fail, no matter what the cost 

to the American people. 

On Monday, the Senate Republicans announced they were blocking the nomination of the new Commerce Secretary and any other 

trade-related nominees until Colombia FTA is passed. That’s 

throwing down the gauntlet. This is absurd at a time when we 

need jobs in this country. It is time for the Republicans to end their 

Colombia obsession, and for the first time since they took over the 

House 11 weeks ago, get to work creating jobs for the American 

people, starting with the Korean free trade agreement. 

My friend, Mr. Brady, and I have discussed this already in private. And I think everybody knows it is ready to be sent up. What 

is necessary is for the House to say, ‘‘We are ready to have the 

mock-up.’’ They will send it up, and they will start. And I hope that 

happens rather soon. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. For the Members in the audience, 

we expect to have votes called around 10:15. So right now we will 

move ahead with our witnesses. And then, if the votes are called, 

we will recess for a brief period. 

And today we will have two panels of witnesses. The first is composed of two witnesses from the Administration whom we hope succeed in moving an aggressive trade agenda forward. 

Our first witness will be Ambassador Miriam Sapiro, deputy U.S. 

trade representative from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. We will also hear from the Honorable Robert Hormats, under 

secretary for economic, energy, and agricultural affairs at the U.S. 

Department of State. And we welcome both of you, and we look forward to your testimony. I would also ask our witnesses to keep 

their testimony to five minutes. 

Ambassador Sapiro, your written statement, like those of all the 

witnesses, will be made part of the record, and you are recognized 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MIRIAM SAPIRO, DEPUTY U.S. 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member McDermott, Members of the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:19 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
8 

mittee. It is an honor and a pleasure to testify today about the 

U.S.-Colombia trade promotion agreement. 

The Obama Administration is committed to a comprehensive 

trade agenda that opens global markets, dismantles barriers, and 

vigorously enforces America’s trade rights. Central to these efforts 

are the three pending free trade agreements. Our goal is to have 

all three agreements, with their outstanding issues addressed, approved by Congress as soon as possible. 

Last week we notified the Ways and Means Committee that we 

are ready to begin collaborative work on the text of the implementing bill for Korea. We are working hard so that we can also 

move the Panama and Colombia agreements forward with the 

broadest possible support. 

With respect to Panama, our governments have agreed upon 

steps needed to resolve outstanding issues relating to labor laws 

and tax transparency that, when taken by Panama, will ready that 

agreement for congressional consideration. 

Today I want to discuss the Colombia FTA and its importance to 

the United States. Colombia is a key trading partner. It has a dynamic and growing economy, which is the third largest in South 

America. Colombia is also a vital partner of the United States more 

broadly, both in the region and globally. 

The Colombia FTA holds the prospect of substantial trade benefits for U.S. workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers by eliminating tariffs on U.S. exports, in my cases, upon entry into force. 

The International Trade Commission has estimated that the FTA 

would expand exports of U.S. goods to Colombia by more than $1.1 

billion, and increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion. 

The agreement’s benefits go beyond elimination of tariffs on 

goods. It will also provide significant new access to Colombia’s services market, improve standards for intellectual property rights protection, open government procurement opportunities, and safeguard 

U.S. companies operating in Colombia against discriminatory or 

unlawful treatment. 

This agreement will also help U.S. products remain competitive 

as Colombia forges new relationships with the EU, Canada, and 

other trading partners. 

Finally, it will help strengthen the Colombian economy, bolstering a steadfast partner in the hemisphere. 

As important as these benefits are, President Obama has made 

it clear that any trade agreement we send to Congress must be in 

the interest of Americans, and also be consistent with our values. 

The Administration has heard from a broad range of stakeholders, 

and has subsequently made clear to Colombia that three areas of 

concern must be addressed: first, the protection of internationally 

recognized labor rights; second, prevention of violence against labor 

leaders; and third, the prosecution of the perpetrators of such violence. 

We understand these concerns are shared by the Santos Administration, and we are encouraged by their recent actions. But more 

needs to be done. We now have a window of opportunity to work 

on securing important improvements, and we are not losing a moment to do so. I am pleased to announce that shortly after my testiVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:19 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
9 

mony today, I will meet with senior officials from the Colombian 

Government who have flown in to continue our discussions. 

As you know, on February 9th, Ambassador Kirk announced that 

the President had directed him to intensify our engagement with 

Colombia to resolve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible 

this year, and submit the Colombia FTA to Congress immediately 

thereafter. Less than a week later, I met with Colombia Ambassador Silva. Shortly thereafter, during the week of February 14th, 

USTR led an interagency team composed of State Department, 

Labor Department, and White House officials to Bogota to obtain 

up-to-date information. 

Last week, I met in Washington with a high-level delegation 

from the Santos Administration to discuss how best to promote our 

shared goals of protecting worker rights and addressing violence 

and impunity. 

We are also intensifying consultations with key stakeholders and 

Members of Congress, including House and Senate leadership. We 

are working quickly, but thoughtfully. The Obama Administration 

shares both the sense of urgency and the concern for worker rights 

that we have heard from many Members of Congress, as we seek 

to advance the Colombia FTA. 

In the meantime, Congress can immediately support the United 

States’ economic and strategic partnership with Colombia by renewing the Andean Trade Preference Act for as long as possible. 

We also call on you to keep faith with America’s workers by renewing trade adjustment assistance as soon as possible. 

We look forward to working with you on both the Colombia FTA 

and our broader trade agenda in a manner that builds bipartisan 

support. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ambassador Sapiro follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
10 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro1
11 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro2
12 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro3
13 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro4
14 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro5
15 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Under Secretary Hormats, thank you for joining us today. And 

you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT HORMATS, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC, ENERGY, AND AGRICULTURAL 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. HORMATS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

McDermott—and Happy Saint Patrick’s Day—and member of the 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert sapiro6
16 

committee. It’s a great honor for me to testify before you today. I 

have testified before this committee numerous times in the past, 

and always look forward to doing that. I do so today with particular enthusiasm, because of the importance of this topic for the 

American people, and for our strategic relations with Colombia and 

the hemisphere. 

With your permission, I will briefly summarize my remarks and 

submit a full statement for the record. Ambassador Sapiro has 

noted our concerns related to the protection of internationally recognized labor rights, violence against labor leaders, and the prosecution of perpetrators. 

Congressional approval of our trade agreement with Colombia, 

once our concerns have been met, will be important for both the 

economic and the national security interests of the United States 

for several reasons. 

Colombia has been a steadfast partner. This agreement, in addition to providing considerable economic benefits here at home, will 

strengthen our relationship with this key friend, and increase our 

influence in the entire region. This agreement will also enhance 

Colombia’s gains over the past decade in key areas, such as human 

rights and the rule of law. It will help consolidate and strengthen 

the Santos Administration’s labor rights reforms, and allow Colombia to make progress on the social inclusion issues that President 

Santos has identified as his principal challenge. 

Finally, the agreement is key to regaining our competitive edge 

in an important market where we are increasingly losing market 

share, as you have indicated in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. We believe strong bipartisan U.S. support has helped Colombia to make historic progress, improving security for its citizens, 

and stemming the flow of drugs to the United States. 

Since 2002, homicides are down 45 percent, kidnapping is down 

92 percent, and terrorist attacks down 71 percent. Since 2001, cocaine production potential has fallen 46 percent, and the area 

under cultivation has decreased by roughly 20 percent. 

Since 2002, Colombia has extradited over 1,149 criminals, including major drug traffickers, to face justice in the United States. Columbia is a valued partner, sharing its expertise and confronting 

transnational crime throughout the hemisphere and beyond. 

Since 2007, Colombia has trained approximately 6,000 Mexican 

police and judicial officials, and provided security assistance to 

Mexico, Haiti, Central America, Afghanistan, among others. 

Colombia is also an emerging global leader. It sits on the UN Security Council and chairs the Iran and the Sudan sanctions committees. It participates in peacekeeping operations in many other 

parts of the world. 

This is a decisive moment in our hemisphere. Moving ahead with 

the Colombia agreement is key to restoring our regional leadership 

and credibility. The agreement will help Colombia consolidate its 

success in putting its democracy and economy on a sound footing 

by adopting additional market reforms and strengthening effective 

social policies. It will silence critics who claim we are ceding leadership in the region and unable to deliver for our closest partners. 

The Santos Administration has denounced threats to labor and 

human rights leaders, increased penalties for violence against 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
17 

human rights defenders, made it clear it respects the role of labor 

and human rights groups, and increased funding for its protection 

program, which now cover over 11,000 at-risk individuals. Colombia’s prosecutor general’s office reports that it is investigating more 

than 1,300 labor-related cases, and has obtained 344 convictions. 

There is, of course, more to be done, and we are working with 

the Santos Administration to build on these achievements. 

This winter Colombia also suffered major flooding. As a close 

friend and partner, Colombia deserves our assistance in that respect, as well. 

I also join Ambassador Sapiro in urging Congress to re-authorize 

the Andean Trade Preference Act, as well as GSP and TAA at the 

earliest opportunity and for the longest possible period. These programs will support U.S. jobs and promote economic development 

overseas and provide greater certainty for American businesses and 

investors. 

Colombia is a growing market of 46 million customers. In 2010 

Colombia bought $12 billion in U.S. goods, more than Russia, 

Spain, or Turkey. It plans to invest over $15 billion in infrastructure projects over the next 5 years. Without an agreement, U.S. exporters could miss out on these promising commercial possibilities, 

and that would cost us jobs at home. And therefore, that export element is particularly important to a lot of American workers in a 

lot of industries. 

Colombia is currently pursuing FTAs with our toughest competitors, including the EU, Japan, and South Korea. China is now Colombia’s second-largest trading partner, and we are losing market 

share to Brazil, Canada, and the EU. We are no longer Colombia’s 

leading agricultural supplier, either. The Colombia-Canada FTA 

enters into force in July, further jeopardizing our wheat exports. 

In closing, I would just like to emphasize that securing approval 

of a high-standard agreement with Colombia is paramount for both 

our bilateral partnership and for our regional influence. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

[The statement of Mr. Hormats follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
18 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert hormats1
19 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert hormats2
20 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert hormats3
21 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you both. Ambassador Sapiro, I want 

to thank you about the timetable and the status of a concrete, 

workable action plan, and, Under Secretary Hormats, about China’s rising influence in Colombia. 

Ambassador Sapiro, first, please let Ambassador Kirk know I appreciate the work, very good work, that was done to close out 

Korea. I understand technical discussions are underway on that 

agreement. And since Colombia and Panama will not have changes 

in text, I see no reason we shouldn’t move forward with those technical discussions on those two, either. And I appreciate AmbasVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert hormats4
22 

sador Kirk’s engagement in the Asia-Pacific region, through the 

Trans-Pacific partnership. I think that’s important, as well. 

Part of the goal of moving these three pending agreements is not 

just new sales for U.S. businesses and workers, but also to clear 

the way for further trade engagement throughout the world. 

Ambassador Sapiro, when Ambassador Kirk appeared here before the committee and before the Senate committee, he talked 

about the intensifying efforts on closing out these pending trade 

agreements. And he heard at the time a lot of frustration on both 

sides of the aisle about how long the agreement has taken place. 

So, at this point, have you now given the Colombians a workable, 

concrete action plan, and schedule for resolving any outstanding 

concerns? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question, and also for your kind words that I will certainly relay to Ambassador Kirk. He is fully engaged, as we all are, in moving ahead 

on multiple fronts, including TPP and other important trade issues 

that we believe have market opening opportunities for American 

workers, farmers, and ranchers. 

Just as we took the time to get a good Korea agreement, we are 

taking our time, although moving fairly rapidly, as I indicated, to 

ensure that we are in a position to advance the Colombia agreement to you. To do that, we have sat down intensively with the Colombian Government to discuss our concerns and develop what are 

clearly shared goals. 

The Colombian Government is now considering what initiatives 

they can take in order to show clearly that we are advancing towards our shared goals. We have an opportunity, a terrific opportunity, working closely with the Santos Government, to achieve 

these goals. As Ambassador Kirk has said, we are pushing on an 

open door. The government is dedicated and ready to work with us, 

and we are working intensively. We are working quickly, and we 

are working thoughtfully. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Let me reiterate the need for that 

concrete, workable plan. Colombia has responded positively to 

every request we have made. Now, we promised a working team 

and benchmarks 18 months ago, and didn’t provide it. It’s critical 

that they understand what is expected of them, so that they can 

respond accordingly. 

So, again, reiterate the need to tell them what is expected of 

them, to work together with them to create those benchmarks now, 

in days—in your meeting this afternoon, for example—in order to 

be in the close-out stage of this agreement. 

And, Under Secretary Hormats, a couple of weeks ago, 11 former 

assistant secretaries of state who served both Democratic and Republican presidents, strongly endorse this trade agreement and our 

other two pending agreements, calling on the present congress to 

work together to ensure passage by July 1st of this year. In this 

letter they express serious concerns about the harm caused by our 

delay, both economically and with regard to our influence in the 

hemisphere. And I very much share that concern, and would like 

to ask you about whether you do, too. 

And, specifically, I would appreciate your views on China’s rising 

influence in Latin America. I am concerned that China may step 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
23 

in and assert its own leadership in our own hemisphere, because 

of the vacuum created by the inability to lead on trade and other 

issues in Latin America. Would you comment? 

Mr. Hormats. Sure. First, just let me underscore what Ambassador Sapiro said. That is, they are working very hard to put together a good agreement. And I can tell you she has been working, 

and Ambassador Kirk, and their colleagues have been working very 

hard, and with as much speed as they possibly can to move forward. This is a very high priority for them, for USTR, and for everyone in the government associated with this. 

With respect to the China issue, I’m very glad you underscored 

this. It does illustrate a point that I mentioned in my testimony, 

and that is we are in a more competitive world than we were 5 or 

10 years ago. And the competition is coming from places not just 

within our hemisphere, and not just Europe, but we are getting 

competition from countries in Asia—like China, as you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman. 

And, therefore, one of the reasons that USTR is working so hard 

on this is to put together a really good agreement that does defend 

America’s trading interests, that advances America’s trading interests, so that we will be able to be more competitive, and we will 

not lose competitive share to countries such as China. 

China is making a move throughout the hemisphere. They’re a 

big trading partner with Brazil. They are big trading partners with 

other countries in the region. And one of the reasons we consider 

progress on this agreement, and coming up with a really good 

agreement to be so important to strengthen our ability to compete 

vis a vis the Chinese in Colombia. And we aim to do that in as 

many ways as we possibly can. 

As I also pointed out, it’s not just from China. An agreement like 

this will help us to compete on wheat sales with Canada, for instance. So we are very cognizant of the fact that there is competition. President Obama said that this was a Sputnik moment. We 

are seeing Sputniks coming from all over the world, which means 

we are seeing more competitive pressures from all over the world, 

which is why we regard progress on this as so important, and why 

so much work is being done to make progress as quickly as possible. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Ranking Member McDermott is recognized. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. To both of you I have a question. 

And I understand that you are in negotiation—— 

Chairman BRADY. If I may, we have about two minutes left in 

the vote. I would like Mr. McDermott to lead off the questioning 

when we return. We will recess until just immediately after the 

last vote is taken. Thanks. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BRADY. The subcommittee will reconvene. Again, I 

apologize to Mr. McDermott for the interruption of votes, and yield 

to lead off questioning. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize, Ambassador, that you do not want to negotiate in public, or talk about 

the specifics of what is on the table with the Colombians at this 

point, but I would appreciate anything you can do to help us underVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
24 

stand a time line. I know the Chairman has asked for a time line, 

and you do not want to give a time line, because with negotiations, 

it is over when it is over. But I would like to hear from you if there 

are any issues that you think are particularly problematic in the 

process. 

I hear the question about whether we get it done or we are going 

to fall behind. And I notice from your testimony that, actually, exports have increased by 27 percent to Colombia in the last year. So 

I would like to understand what we are falling behind on. Explain 

to me how that develops, or why people say that. They can say it 

but I want to know if there is any basis for it. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Congressman. I am pleased to 

be able to report to you that exports are increasing. Our concern 

about competitiveness is that our share of the market in many key 

sectors is shrinking. And, as both I mentioned and Under Secretary 

Hormats, Colombia is understandably forging ahead to develop new 

trading partnerships with the European Union, with Canada, with 

Japan, with Korea, and with other partners. 

So, we do not want to be in the position of ceding market share, 

if we can help it. And so, for that reason, we would like to advance 

this agreement, provided that the core concerns that we have identified are addressed. And we believe that the Santos Government 

shares the goals that we have set forth on labor rights and on violence and on impunity. And, together, we are working as quickly 

and thoughtfully as possible to finish this process and to be able 

to submit the agreement immediately thereafter to the congress for 

its consideration. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Could you give us a little bit of details about 

how quickly it’s worked? Because I understand that you went down 

there and they came back and there has been almost a continuous 

flow of people between here and Bogota around this agreement. So 

it sounds like you are working a little bit faster than bureaucracies 

sometimes move on things. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. We are working faster than intensively, 

perhaps. We are being responsive to those that have asked us to 

work more quickly, and we’re also being responsive to those who 

have asked us to be sure to identify concrete steps that the Colombian Government can take to address the serious concerns that we 

have identified. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do you see anything that cannot be resolved? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I am optimistic that we will be able to 

reach a good resolution fairly quickly. And that is why we have 

worked so intensively over the past several weeks, both in Washington and in Bogota, to try and achieve such a result. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. One of the things that is a question for me 

in thinking about these agreements is that trade is good. I mean, 

okay, we will accept that. Then we get to the question of why people are working for $1 an hour, and why poverty still exists and 

has not changed in these countries. It seems to me that that is the 

seed bed for the Hugo Chavezes and others to spring up, if there 

is no advancement for the ordinary citizen. 

And I would like to hear either of you. It seems to me that it is 

counterproductive just to have trade if you, in fact, are continuing 

the repression of workers and so forth. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
25 

Ambassador SAPIRO. We believe that trade is one way that we 

can help develop a growing middle class in our trading partners. 

I had the good fortune of representing the United States at the 

CAFTA–DR ministerial in San Salvador last month. And that 

agreement, for example, is one where we have seen tremendous 

growth in our partner countries, and we continue to see such 

growth, which serves both their economies, as well as ours, and 

stability in the region. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORMATS. May I just comment very briefly on that, just to 

underscore what Ambassador Sapiro has said. And that is your 

point about trade and its link to development is a very important 

one. One of the things we find when we look around the world is 

that trade does open up new opportunities for what one might call 

inclusive growth. And the more opportunities there are for trade, 

the more opportunities there are for growth in these countries. 

And one of the things that the Santos Administration has been 

focusing on very directly, and is a very high priority of the president and his vice president, who, as you know, is a former labor 

union leader, is to expand opportunities in Colombia for more and 

more people to participate productively in the economy, for just the 

reasons you’ve mentioned. Because, as you know, the country has 

a history of difficulties with FARC and other groups. 

They are not focusing entirely on trade, but they’re using a lot 

of internal measures, as well, to strengthen their development programs, and to give more people opportunities to participate in productive sectors of the economy. And we think that this agreement 

can complement and reinforce and help them to consolidate some 

of those broader efforts that they are making to give more people 

more opportunity. So, it’s a very important element of this overall 

equation. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Under Secretary. Mr. Davis is 

recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it ironic that Ambassador Sapiro is citing the Central America free trade agreement 

as an example of lifting people up, economically, when, in fact, the 

same opponents of the Colombia free trade agreement were using 

the exact same false arguments during the CAFTA negotiations, 

and moving to pass that through the House, which—Mr. Brady and 

I were actively working behind the scenes to move that bill. 

What we see is economic opportunity opening up if this agreement which the Colombians desperately want to see pass passed, 

and it has languished for four years now. This is not a question of 

getting more information, it is a question of domestic politics, and 

one party intruding upon what is not only good for the country economically, but more importantly, from a security standpoint, which 

leads to my question. 

Under Secretary Hormats, our economic relationship with Colombia is, in fact, very important in its own right in so many ways. 

We gain a dramatic amount of benefit by that agreement passing. 

However, it is also a key ally in South America. 

You mentioned FARC. Hugo Chavez is actively helping them. He 

is helping them to destabilize this democracy. More than that, he 

is working with narcoterrorists. He has ties all over the world with, 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
26 

frankly, evil groups that stand against every value that we have 

when we talk about propagating American values. Colombia has 

been a light in its movement towards liberty down there. 

And I see our interests being sorely hurt, not only by this fouryear delay over domestic politics that, really, are going to hurt the 

very workers that say they want this in the long run, but it is also 

a key link in the inter-American drug trade, north and south. If we 

do not implement the agreement, I think we are allowing people in 

Latin America to question our commitment to the region. We have 

lagged. The EU, China, other areas are moving in. We are seeing 

a drop off in our exports significantly, a drop off in our trade, a 

drop off in our influence. And the security concern is growing. 

I am not alone in this belief. In fact, in May of 2008, 5 former 

commanders in chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Generals 

James Hill, Peter Pace, George Wilhelm, George Jowan, and Barry 

McCaffrey, who we are going to hear from later, who is here today, 

he wrote an open letter to Congress, urging the support for the Colombia free trade agreement. 

We will be hearing General McCaffrey’s testimony a little later. 

But in light of the significant U.S. strategic interest in this area, 

what is the importance of this agreement in avoiding a setback in 

U.S. influence? 

As we have been dallying through the years with the back-andforth same-old political arguments that were used against the Central America free trade agreement, I know there is a great concern 

in the military that if Chavez can completely destabilize the region, 

as I have heard from other chiefs of staff in Latin American countries—CAFTA country military chiefs of staff have asked me very 

candidly, ‘‘What have you not gotten this agreement ratified?’’ It is 

so important to us in dealing with our security threats?’’ Could you 

comment on that? 

Mr. HORMATS. Yes, I would be glad to. As I mentioned in my 

testimony in a very short sentence—but I think it makes the 

point—one of the reasons we want to have a good agreement, one 

of the reasons that Ambassador Sapiro and her colleagues are 

working so hard to get one—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Why does it take four years to get a good agreement? 

Mr. HORMATS. Well, I cannot comment on the past, but all I 

can tell you is that they are working very hard at the moment to 

get a good agreement as soon as they possibly can. 

And one of the reasons is the fact that we think it will help promote jobs and growth in the United States. But another reason is 

exactly the reason that you have mentioned, and that is as I said 

in my statement, that we want to demonstrate in the region that 

we can deliver for our closest partners. And Colombia is a very 

close partner in dealing with issues that you have mentioned. 

While others in the region who are intent on destabilizing, rather 

than stabilizing the region. 

Mr. DAVIS. Wouldn’t it be in our compelling interest to expedite 

this agreement, rather than a game going on for years? 

Mr. HORMATS. I think that is what the USTR is trying to do. 

They are trying to make as much progress as they can to get a 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
27 

good agreement, and—as soon as they can. And one of the reasons 

is we recognize fully your point on the security element. 

They are a very important security partner for the United States, 

both in terms of dealing with their neighbors, and they have been 

very helpful in a lot of UN peacekeeping operations. And as a provider of assistance, technical assistance, they are helping other 

countries—including Mexico—to deal with drug issues—— 

Mr. DAVIS. If I could reclaim my time, sir. 

Mr. HORMATS. Sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate that. I served with the Colombian military in the Middle East, running flight operations in an international peacekeeping force. As a soldier, I have an intimate interest in seeing the changes that have taken in place from when we 

were providing direct technical military assistance just to maintain 

law and order. 

Mr. HORMATS. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. When I see where we are now, and the dallying 

over—yes, we are expediting. Expedite means to move quickly. 

Again, it is four years. The Speaker of the House dropped this 

down. Then, when the new Administration came in, the ambassador said that this issue was in our court here. We are continuing 

to delay. It needs to move. And frankly, I believe we are rubbing 

the Colombian Government in the mud if we do not move this 

agreement in an expedited fashion. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Mr. Reichert is recognized. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to both of 

you. And I want to add to the chairman’s comments, earlier comments. I appreciate all the hard work that you both have done, and 

Ambassador Kirk included, and the President, on the Korean 

agreement. And it is a privilege to serve with you both on the economic council, as we look for ways to double our exports. 

And I think all of us in the room recognize that one of the ways 

that we do that is to pass trade agreements. And one of the figures 

that keeps being repeated, especially by myself lately, is the fact 

that the last time we did double exports was from 1995 to 2007, 

when we passed 9 trade agreements. 

So, I think all of us recognize how critical this is, and that we 

are all working for the same purpose, and that is really to create 

jobs here in the United States and turn this economy around. 

So, you are right to push for a swift movement on Korea. But the 

questions remain, certainly, around Colombia. It has been sitting 

here since 2007, as has been mentioned. So we are looking at July 

1st? At least that has been the date that has been given to us, as 

a possible arrival date of a Korean agreement for consideration by 

the House. But there are some similarities, I think, in these agreements as we look at Korea and Colombia. And so I think some of 

us get a little confused as to the delay, the reasons for the delay. 

So, I really like yes or no answers, it speeds the process up a little bit. So, Mr. Secretary, like Korea, doesn’t the same argument 

hold true for Colombia, when you look at the loss of market share? 

That is a true statement. We are losing market share—I think you 

just mentioned that in your testimony—in both Korea and Colombia, correct? 

Mr. HORMATS. Yes, we are losing market share. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
28 

Mr. REICHERT. Especially concerned about Canada, because 

they are moving forward with a July 1st date also. 

Mr. HORMATS. Yes, and that will cause us to lose market share 

in wheat, in particular. 

Mr. REICHERT. Especially important to the eastern side of 

Washington State. 

Also, like Korea, doesn’t the Colombian agreement contain some 

of the same strong language surrounding labor protections? 

Mr. HORMATS. I will leave the details of the agreement to Ambassador Sapiro. 

Mr. REICHERT. But essentially it is the same language, is it 

not, Ambassador? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Congressman. We do have a 

strong labor chapter in our FTA with Colombia. We want to make 

sure that the provisions in that agreement with respect to internationally recognized labor rights—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Could I interrupt, just for a second? I am sorry. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Certainly. 

Mr. REICHERT. But isn’t the language in the Korean agreement 

and the Colombian agreement essentially the same? We are looking 

at passing Korea. It is essentially the same language, right? So the 

Korean agreement must meet the same standard, internationally, 

as the Colombian language does. Yes or no? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Congressman, our goal is to present to you 

high-standard agreements—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes, ma’am. No, I understand that. But isn’t— 

and my question is, isn’t the language the same in the—— 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There are strong—— 

Mr. REICHERT. In the Korean agreement and the Colombian 

agreement, when it comes to labor? And, matter of fact, we can 

throw in the environmental language also. Is that not the same as 

the Korean agreement? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There are strong—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes or no, ma’am, please. I hate to—you know, 

I know you are trying to answer in a politically correct way, but 

we all have—we know what the language says. So is it the same 

language, or not? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There are strong provisions in the Colombia agreement and there are strong provisions in the Korean agreement—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Does the Korean agreement meet the international standards on labor and the environment? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. The Korean agreement? Yes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes. So, if the same language exists in the Colombian agreement, then does that not also meet the international 

standards? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I have not had an opportunity to do a sideby-side comparison. So what I can say is that we have high standards in both agreements. There are, however, serious concerns with 

respect to the situation on the ground in Colombia that does not 

exist with respect to Korea. We did—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Okay. I would like to just say that my time is 

about to expire—excuse me for interrupting again—but we know 

that the arguments are the same. We have got to bring the ColomVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
29 

bian agreement, along with the Panama agreement and the Korean 

agreement. Hopefully, looking for that July 1st. And there is no 

reason, really, to delay any further. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Mr. Herger is recognized. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Sapiro, 

you stated in your testimony that the Obama Administration 

shares our sense of urgency to advance the Colombia free trade 

agreement and that ‘‘it is this sense of urgency that we are bringing to our intensified efforts to resolve outstanding issues.’’ 

I must say that I am, frankly, disappointed that it took the Administration over two years to develop this newfound sense of urgency, since the Administration has been saying all along, starting 

with the President’s first trade agenda in 2009, that it was in the 

process of developing a plan of action and establishing benchmarks 

for progress on Colombia. 

Yet all this time we have been waiting for this leadership from 

the Administration. We have seen our agricultural exports to Colombia plummet as the Mercosur agreement went into effect, and 

watched Argentina’s share of the Colombian market climb from 7 

percent to 30 percent, taking away exports from American farmers 

and ranchers. 

The Administration has made clear that it wants to see the 

agreement passed by Congress by July 1, demonstrating a sense of 

urgency because that is the date of implementation of the EU– 

Korea free trade agreement, which the Administration recognizes 

as a threat to U.S. exports. 

Yet there has been no sense of urgency demonstrated by the Administration to Colombia, despite the fact that we are already facing the competitive disadvantage in that market, which will only 

worsen as Canada, one of our strong competitors, will implement 

a new free trade agreement with Colombia on the exact same date, 

July 1st. This will further decimate our agricultural exports to 

what has traditionally been our number one agricultural market in 

Latin America. 

Ambassador SAPIRO, I hope that this new sense of urgency you 

are expressing turns out to be more than the rhetoric coming out 

of the Administration in the last two years, because Americans deserve better. They deserve action on this important agreement, and 

all the benefits to our economy that comes with it. 

Now, Secretary Hormats, in your testimony, you state that the 

agreement with Colombia will consolidate and strengthen Colombia’s gains in such areas as human rights, the rule of law, and 

labor rights reforms. Would you expand on how the implementation 

of the Colombia FTA will help the U.S. further engage Colombia 

in these areas, and build on the progress that has been made thus 

far, Mr. Hormats? 

Mr. HORMATS. Well, yes. Very briefly, I think that the kind of 

points that Ambassador Sapiro was making in her testimony and 

in her comments to the committee underscore the fact that we are 

asking for a number of measures in the areas that you have just 

described that will be included in the agreement. And we cannot 

go into detail at this point, because it is under negotiation. But the 

fact is that, by including particularly important areas in the agreeVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
30 

ment that she is working on, it will help to consolidate the progress 

that is already made. 

Moreover, to the extent that we can strengthen ties between our 

two countries, it will strengthen the dialogue between Washington 

and Bogota. And we have a number of ongoing discussions with the 

Colombians on a variety of issues, human rights being one of them, 

and a number of the others, as well. So, to the extent a good agreement can be reached, it will, within the agreement, contain areas 

that will help them to consolidate their gains. But it will also 

strengthen the relationship which will broaden the dialogue about 

the kind of issues that you and others are concerned about. 

So, it is a double benefit within the agreement and also strengthening the dialogue in a broader sense. 

Mr. HERGER. Well, Mr. Ambassador [sic] and Mr. Secretary, let 

me express to you the overwhelming frustration that the constituents I represent—which is one of the largest agricultural areas in 

the world, the northern Sacramento Valley—have with—that we 

have fallen from number one exporter to number two, because this 

agreement has not gone through. And I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Gentleman. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses today. You may already know that this week is National 

Agriculture Week. And a lot of my constituents in rural Nebraska 

are very anxious to see this trade agreement passed. 

Ambassador SAPIRO, I understand that Colombia maintains 

what is known as a price band system, which imposes additional 

duties on top of the regular tariffs on U.S. ag imports, based on 

price. Could you tell us if the Colombia agreement addresses this 

barrier? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I can tell you, Congressman, that the 

agreement would reduce a great deal of both tariff and non-tariff 

barriers. I am happy to look into that specific question. I know that 

the agreement, once in force, will provide great relief to our farmers, our ranchers, as well as our manufacturers and our service 

providers. 

I would also like to say that it is—we do share the sense of urgency behind your question, and that is precisely why we are working so intensively and so thoughtfully to address the serious concerns that we have identified in the right way, and to be able to 

move ahead as soon as we have done so. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you. And I appreciate your getting 

back to me. If you could perhaps advise what I should tell constituents when they inquire what a time line is, can you give us any 

sort of a time line? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Let me go back to last summer, when we 

started working intensively on the Korea agreement, and we were 

able, through hard work, close consultation with Congress and our 

stakeholders, particularly those with a vested interest in that 

agreement, to improve the agreement, and to be able to advance it 

in a way that is very consistent with American interests and American values. 

We are working very, very hard with that same template in mind 

to approach this issue, so that the serious concerns that we have 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
31 

on the labor code, to be able to ensure that the labor laws and their 

enforcement protect and promote worker rights, so that they are 

not undermined, and they are not denied, that we can reach those 

goals together, so we are working quickly and. 

And, as I mentioned, we are going to be fortunate to resume our 

high-level discussions with senior officials from the Santos Government when we conclude our testimony here today. To show you just 

how concerned we are, and that we do share the sense of urgency, 

we are working rapidly in a thoughtful way in the right direction. 

Given the fact that we share common goals—it is clear to me 

that we do share common goals with the Santos Administration. 

Under Secretary Hormats indicated they are already doing a lot on 

their own initiative to address the labor concerns, as well as broader human rights concerns. So I am confident that we will be able 

to report back to you in the near future on progress. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Would you agree that perhaps our ag producers, among other producers here in our country, remain at a 

competitive disadvantage, as long as the agreement languishes? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. We do not want to see any export opportunity or any job left on the table. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. So we will work very hard to ensure that 

that does not happen. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for joining us. 

Ambassador SAPIRO, with near six-and-a-half million cattle on 

ranches and in feed yards in my home state of Kansas, we rank 

second in the nation in beef production. At home, the cattle outnumber the people by more than two-to-one. And the beef industry 

generated more than $5.5 billion in cash receipts in 2009. And with 

all due respect to the chairman, I think in Kansas we have the best 

beef in the world, we just cannot eat it all ourselves. 

There is no doubt that lowering Colombian tariffs on U.S. agriculture products will greatly help our farmers and ranchers. However, the Colombian agreement would also address sanitary and 

phytosanitary barriers to agriculture trade. So it appears that this 

will make it easier to sell Kansas beef to our friends in Colombia. 

But could you please explain for us, first, how the agreement addresses these barriers, and second, how resolving these barriers in 

other agreements have helped America’s farmers and ranchers? 

And then, finally, do you expect similar results in this case? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Congresswoman. The simple 

answer is yes. We are confident that this agreement will be of 

great value to our farmers and our ranchers. It does address SPS 

issues. It does address the tariff question. 

And just as our other trade agreements have benefitted U.S. exporters across the board, including agricultural commodities, and 

especially beef, we do believe that this agreement, once it is in 

force—in other words, once we have been able to address the issues 

that I outlined earlier, and—we will be able to present it to you imVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
32 

mediately thereafter, and look forward to your positive consideration of it. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield 

back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Happy Saint 

Patrick’s Day to you, my friend from Texas. No Saint Patrick’s Day 

back to me? 

Chairman BRADY. Absolutely. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you very much. I was, like, a little concerned here. 

Chairman BRADY. Singing out of my heart, Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. What has happened to comedy around here? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CROWLEY. Let me thank you, the witnesses, for being here 

today. 

Let me just go back to what my friend and colleague, Mr. 

Reichert, was alluding to. Ambassador Sapiro, is it—the language 

is virtually the same, in terms of the agreement between the U.S. 

and Colombia and the U.S. and Korea as it pertains to labor, 

human rights, and the environment. Correct? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. The language. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I have not done a side comparison. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Virtually. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. But I believe that they are similar. 

Mr. CROWLEY. But the real question here is whether or not the 

parties have met the standards of the agreement, in terms of labor. 

I point that out because the ILO has indicated on a recent mission to Colombia the need for the Colombians to still address the 

issue of reforms, as it pertains to the abuse of cooperatives, as well 

as the use of collective pacts to prevent, in essence, the ability of 

workers to organize within Colombia. 

Is that correct, in terms of what the ILO is saying? Not what you 

are saying, what the ILO is saying. Is that correct? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I know that there are concerns regarding 

the situation in Colombia, in terms of the enforcement and the full 

protection of worker rights. And those concerns include ways to 

avoid creating a direct employment relationship. Those are concerns that we have, and that I know the Colombian Government 

shares. And they are looking at different ways to address them in 

a concrete way—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. So would you agree that there is a difference between the standards that are set within the agreement and maybe 

the country’s having fulfilled those standards? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There are certainly different situations on 

the ground in both countries. With respect to Colombia, we do have 

serious concerns about the question of worker rights and their full 

enforcement, the question of violence against workers for exercising 

those rights, and the question of impunity, and the importance to 

punish those perpetrators of such violence. We did not have those 

concerns with respect to—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. Korea. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
33 

Ambassador SAPIRO.—Korea. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank you for your comments on that, just to 

clarify that point of my friend, Mr. Reichert. 

Given that the Korean agreement is completed, and there is 

some level of concern that we are waiting too long to move, could 

this disadvantage—for either one of you—could this disadvantage 

our service industries? 

And I am interested to hear, because I hear a lot from my friends 

on the other side of the aisle about the need for speed on two deals 

which we are still working on which have not yet fully been completed by this Administration, make the argument that the former 

Administration had finished the deal. The new president and our 

new Administration are still working on these deals. And while I 

do have some sympathy, and I do have—Kevin, you know this sympathy that I have about these concerns—I think we have also lost 

the sense of urgency about Korea. 

And I just want to point out on beef and cattle, my in-laws are 

from Montana. And I would only question whether or not the beef 

in Montana may be a little bit better than the beef from Kansas. 

But having said that, under this provision with Korea, 775 million, 

compared to 12.5 million with Colombia, the difference is in terms 

of the scale of these agreements. 

I mean it has been compared that the Korean deal is 10 times 

the Colombia deal. Is there some concern here, in terms of—I mean 

you talk about the impact of waiting. Are you concerned that Korea 

is being held hostage by Colombia at this point? Is there any concern here by either one of you? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. We notified the full committee earlier this 

week that we are ready to proceed to discuss the implementing legislation for Korea. We worked very hard last year to improve the 

Korea agreement, to make sure that it met U.S. interests. And it 

does. And so we are indeed ready, Congressman, to move on that 

agreement as soon as the committee can schedule a session. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Well, I thank you very much, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRADY. Thanks to my Irish friend. And let me weigh 

in that Texas beef, indeed, is the greatest in the world. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I have a beef with that. 

Chairman BRADY. It actually makes you smarter and better 

looking. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BRADY. Let me just say that for the record. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And since I am looking more and more like you, 

I tend to agree with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman BRADY. I may need to eat more. 

Mr. Buchanan is recognized. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador, I 

wanted just to—being a Member here for four years, and many of 

my colleagues have been here four years or less—but being here for 

four years—and the gentleman said the need for speed—this has 

been an issue that we have been dealing with for four years. Where 

is the good faith negotiation? 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
34 

I represent Florida, happen to be the only member of Ways and 

Means in Florida. This is a big issue to Florida. And it is just— 

it just seems like a complete lack of good faith, in terms of its negotiation. It is one hoop after another, moving the goal post constantly. I have been in business for 30-some years. At some point, 

just—if you are not going to do it, tell me you are not going to do 

it, and we will give the business to China. 

But the bottom line, enough is enough. It has just gone on way 

too long. And I think the gentleman mentioned—the Secretary 

mentioned $15 billion in exports. Is that right, Secretary, is that 

what you mentioned, the U.S. exports into Colombia? 

Mr. HORMATS. Something like that, yes. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. So I am looking at what has been the lost 

opportunities, the lost jobs in the U.S., and what is the lost opportunities going forward if we do not deal with this? 

Because you have other countries—you mentioned you are losing 

market share—but after four years, if we do not get this done, in 

my opinion, in the next three or four months, you end up in the 

political season after the summer. It is not going to get done. And 

there is always issues for not doing a deal. 

I mean, again, if we do not want to do the deal, the Administration or someone else, then we should just tell our friends in Colombia that we do not want to do the deal. 

So I guess I bring that up to you in my frustration, what I hear 

from constituents all over Florida. Enough is enough. That is why 

we are trying to get a time line on this. I am excited about Korea, 

but we would like to see these other trade agreements get done. 

And I will say just the same thing about Panama. It has just 

gone on and on and on. 

So, I guess I would like to ask the Secretary, was that your num- ber, the $15 billion? I think that was what you quoted, that exports—we export into Colombia. Is that your figure? 

Mr. HORMATS. I will check—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think that was in your opening statement. 

Mr. HORMATS. $12 billion. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. $12 billion. 

Mr. HORMATS. Colombia bought $12 billion in U.S. goods. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you have any estimate of what, in the last 

four years we have been negotiating this and not having an agreement, what does that cost us in exports? Or maybe, going forward, 

what is this going to cost us as China and other folks are coming 

in there and—— 

Mr. HORMATS. I do not have a precise estimate on that. It 

would be hard to make an estimate—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you have some thoughts on it? 

Mr. HORMATS [continuing]. that would be credible. Well, let me 

just make one broad point in answer to the point you have made 

on this, and that is I have worked for Republican administrations 

and Democratic administrations. And I am a strong believer—as I 

mentioned in my testimony—in the strategic importance of our relationship with Colombia for a variety of reasons that I have indicated. 

And I just want to say that I have had a chance to work very 

closely with Ambassador Sapiro, Ambassador Kirk, and the people 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
35 

who are working on this. And I can assure you they are working 

very hard, as expeditiously as possible, to make real progress on 

this, because they regard it as important, as well. 

And I understand the points that have been made about the 

past. But if we are talking about the present, and we are talking 

about the level of commitment, and we are talking about the level 

of expedition that is going in to fulfilling this commitment, they are 

working very, very hard to come up with something that serves the 

interests of the American people, that is a good agreement, and 

that can be done as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the kind 

of results that Ambassador Sapiro and Ambassador Kirk have indicated. 

And I can assure you this is given enormously high priority at 

all levels of the Administration, and they are working very expeditiously. When she gets out of this meeting she is going to meet 

with Colombians right away. These are senior, credible Colombians. There will be a very senior—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Secretary, let me just—I want to—because 

we got a limited time—what—how long, best to your knowledge, 

have we been working on this agreement? 

Mr. HORMATS. We have been working—— 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I mean when did this agreement—and it is not 

just this Administration. A couple of years, but—I mean, how many 

years—because I remember in the last two years of the Bush administration, there must have been 50 Members of Congress that 

went down to Colombia in a good faith effort to try to get something done. Have we been working on this for six years? I have 

been here four, and I know it has been front and center for four 

years. I mean how long does something like this take? I think they 

are good partners. There is a lot of issues. We need to do something 

about it. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Congressman. 

Chairman BRADY. All time has expired in this witness, and I 

would encourage you to answer in writing, if you would. 

Mr. HORMATS. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing today. I think it is very important that we, 

as a committee, explore what remaining obstacles remain to move 

these three bilaterals forward. But, obviously, the focus is on Colombia today. 

Madam Ambassador and Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for 

the intense focus that you have placed on this issue. 

Obviously, if we are going to meet the President’s goal of doubling exports in the next five years, these bilaterals are going to 

be an important step to achieving that. And they are important in 

their own right for geopolitical considerations, for economic considerations. I mean we are celebrating National Agriculture Week 

back home in Wisconsin this week. 

And I am just looking at some of the analysis done with South 

Korea: 6.5 billion in additional ag exports to the South Korean 

market, when we can finalize that agreement. And we are looking 

at roughly 2.2 billion, just in the Colombia market alone. That is 

nothing to sneeze at. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
36 

But, having said that, there are some legitimate concerns that 

are ongoing with Colombia. I commend the Obama Administration 

for hitting the pause button when it related to South Korea, because I thought there was a better deal to be had. And, quite 

frankly, given the additional time that they went and negotiated 

some of the remaining items dealing with auto, making progress on 

beef, we were able to achieve a better deal with South Korea, one 

that I think will garner greater bipartisan support now in congress, 

once it is submitted for our consideration. 

But in Colombia specifically, there are still some lingering concerns about worker rights and the violence against labor in that 

country. The previous Administration, either they chose to ignore 

it or didn’t press this issue, but I am glad to see that this Administration has renewed focus on that. 

And the question I have for you now—and to help us analyze 

whether progress is being made on that—are the obstacles in Colombia that many people are raising in regards to the ILO, worker 

rights, the violence against labor, in particular, is it a question of 

will in the country, or is it a question of institutional capacity or 

capability of doing something significant to crack down on some of 

these measures? Maybe we can start with you, Madam Ambassador. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Congressman. I think those 

questions are related. We have a terrific opportunity here. Since 

the Santos Administration came in last August, they have been 

clear about their own commitment to making progress. 

In our discussions with them over the last couple of months more 

publicly, and I would say before that more privately, they have 

made clear that they want to address these concerns. They share 

our goals. And so, we are now in the process of determining what 

specific concrete initiatives could be clear indication that these 

issues are being and will be addressed. 

Just as we took the time last year to get the Korea right, with 

a lot of support from Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, and 

many others, we are taking the time to get this right. But we share 

the sense of urgency that we have heard from all of you. And so 

we are doing it expeditiously, we are doing it intensively, we are 

doing it thoughtfully. We want to be in a position where we can 

advance this agreement; I am optimistic that we will get there, and 

we will get there in the near future with your continued support 

from all of you. 

Mr. KIND. Let me ask you—and to get back to my friend from 

Florida’s concern in regards to moving the goal post sense that 

some folks have around here—is there a way that we can proceed 

with the agreement with Colombia by establishing some metrics 

that will not end just at the signing of the agreement, but will require or call for a remaining engagement on our part to help them 

with the institution-building or the capacity in order to make 

progress, especially in the area of the ILO provisions and worker 

rights in that country? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. I would add that it is good indication of 

the Santos Administration’s commitment to these questions that it 

has invited the ILO back into Colombia. I think that is a very positive step—again, one of many that they are taking, and one of 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
37 

many reasons why we see eye to eye, and it is truly a joint partnership, in terms of addressing these serious problems, so that we can 

immediately thereafter advance this agreement to you for your consideration. 

We do share the sense of urgency that has been expressed here 

today. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you. Has there been a sense 

of moving of the goal posts in our negotiations with Colombia, or 

have we been up front with them from the beginning, as far as 

what we are hoping to see in any final agreement? 

Mr. HORMATS. I think the Administration and USTR have 

clearly laid out a number of very specific points. I think the Colombians are very clear on those points, and the points that we have 

laid out are under discussion as we speak. And I think there is a 

lot of clarity in this current environment that enables us and the 

Colombians to focus on the same issues, and to make progress on 

those issues. 

A lot of work went into making sure that there was clarity. 

There were interagency meetings to discuss this, to be sure that we 

were giving clear signals to them, and that we were getting clear 

signals from them. And I think that has proved to be the basis for 

the kind of potential for progress that Ambassador Sapiro has laid 

out. 

And let me also address, while I am speaking, the agricultural 

issue. You know, the people of Chico and the people of Nebraska, 

and many other parts of the country, I think do have a very strong 

interest in the agricultural aspects of this agreement. And those 

are one of the very important elements that USTR is pursuing. 

And that will, to the extent that they can make progress in the 

areas that they are now working on, will be very beneficial to the 

kinds of constituencies that you represent. 

So, we look at this as a broad agreement that has a lot of things 

in it. And we have met—I have met, Ambassador Sapiro has met, 

Ambassador Kirk has met—with representatives of the farm community—— 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. HORMATS [continuing]. And we understand these points 

very well, and the interest—— 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Under Secretary. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Schock is recognized. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, there seems to 

be some confusion over the amount of clarity. So let me review 

some history. 

Last June at the G–20 summit in Toronto, the President announced his intention to resolve the outstanding issues with the 

South Korea trade agreement by the time the G–20 met in Seoul 

less than 6 months later. The Administration promptly identified 

a finite set of issues that were made public: improved market access for U.S. exports of autos and beef, and a clear and achievable 

time frame. 

In setting the deadline, the Administration did not say that it 

would conclude the deal on that date, no matter what. Instead, the 

Administration took an extra couple of weeks to, in their words, 

‘‘cut the right deal.’’ 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
38 

I think that was the right approach. And I commend them for 

being open and transparent about it. We should not be afraid of 

deadlines. In fact, they are action-forcing events. And they do not 

give away our leverage, as evidenced by the South Korean agreement. The Administration used a deadline and an action plan successfully in the Korea deal. I believe we need this type of leadership now for the Colombia agreement. 

Yet, despite committing, as was evidenced by the remarks by my 

colleagues to ‘‘established benchmarks for progress,’’ as the Administration has said more than two years ago, the Administration still 

has not identified clear and definite issues, and also identified an 

achievable time line for resolution. 

It is clear, however, we must recognize that the President can 

lead on trade when he wants to. 

So, my first question would be: When will the President lay out 

a specific time table, specific action steps, as he did successfully to 

achieve an agreement with South Korea, but this time with Colombia? Ambassador. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We have laid out very clear concerns that we have. With respect to the labor code, we want to ensure that those labor laws 

are fully protecting worker rights and implementing those rights. 

With respect to violence, we want to ensure that the government 

is taking adequate steps to prevent violence against those Colombians seeking to exercise their worker rights. And on the question 

of impunity from justice, we want to ensure that sufficient efforts 

are being made to prosecute perpetrators of such violence. 

These are very clear goals. We are happy that the Colombian 

Government shares them and understands the seriousness of them. 

We are not moving any goal posts. These have been our consistent 

goals. 

We now have, I think, a unique opportunity, because the Santos 

Administration is so dedicated to working with us to achieve these 

goals, to lay down more specific actions. We are working with them 

intensively, possibly around the clock over the next few days, to be 

able to reach that kind of consensus on initiatives that they are either already taking, but may not be publicizing as they are working on them, or—— 

Mr. SCHOCK. Ambassador, forgive me for interrupting. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Certainly. 

Mr. SCHOCK. I appreciate what you are saying, and I genuinely 

trust what you are saying to be true. The problem for us is that 

when we hear, ‘‘in the matter of a couple of days, reaching consensus,’’ I don’t know whether that means conclusion. Is consensus 

resolution to those issues? And, more importantly, what is the 

date? What is the time frame? 

I mean the Administration did not dodge the question, was not 

shy about laying out a time frame and a date certain by which they 

were going to reach the deal with South Korea. What is the apprehension with Colombia? 

Ambassador SAPIRO. There is no apprehension. We are engaged—— 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
39 

Mr. SCHOCK. But why don’t we have a date certain? Why don’t 

we say, ‘‘By the end of April, our goal is to bring—is to have resolution on this agreement?’’ 

Ambassador SAPIRO. What I can say, with definiteness, is that 

we are working very hard, we have been, intensively, rapidly, and 

thoughtfully, to address these concerns with the Colombian Government. These are sensitive issues. These are complex issues. 

These are not the kind of issues that lend themselves, in my view, 

to a deadline. 

I share your sense of urgency. We all do. That is why we are 

working so intensively. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. But I cannot say if it would be a few days 

or longer. I can promise to work very hard to report back to you 

soon. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Time has expired. I want to 

thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony and thank the 

Members for their thoughtful questions. 

Clearly, closing out the remaining issues on Colombia and Panama, presenting them for congressional consideration by July 1st 

is crucial. And I still see no reason, since the texts on all three are 

done, that we cannot start technical discussions on them to continue this pace, moving forward. 

I want to thank you both very much for being here today. 

Mr. HORMATS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Thank you, and Happy Saint Patrick’s 

Day. 

Chairman BRADY. Same to you. And I did notice the green on 

you, Ambassador Sapiro. 

Ambassador SAPIRO. Subtle. 

Chairman BRADY. There is a hint of it. 

I would like to welcome our second panel to step forward at this 

time. Today we are joined by five witnesses. Our first witness will 

be the Honorable Thomas Dorr, president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Grains Council, formerly the under secretary for 

rural development at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

We will then hear from William Marsh, who is vice president of 

legal for the western hemisphere, Baker Hughes. He is also testifying on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. 

Our third witness will be Ambassador Peter Romero, currently 

president and CEO of Experior Advisory LLC, and formerly our 

ambassador to Ecuador and assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs at the Department of State. 

Fourth, we will hear from Adam Isaacson, director of the regional security policy program at the Washington office on Latin 

America. 

And we will conclude with General Barry McCaffrey, who is currently president of BR McCaffrey Associates, and formerly director 

of the office of national drug control policy and commander of the 

U.S. Southern Command. 

We welcome all of you, and look forward to your testimony. I 

would also ask that their witnesses keep their testimony to five 

minutes. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
40 

Mr. DORR, good to see you. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. DORR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. GRAINS COUNCIL, FORMER UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. DORR. Thank you, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member 

McDermott, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on 

Trade. My name is Thomas Dorr. I am president and CEO of the 

U.S. Grains Council. The U.S. Grains Council appreciates the efforts of the subcommittee in holding hearings regarding the importance of ratifying the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. I will confine my remarks to the 

significant challenges we face in Colombia. 

Colombia is a strategic market with economic growth projected 

to exceed four percent annually over the next five years. Colombia’s 

per capita income is projected to increase from $9,000 to nearly 

$12,000 by 2015, and this income growth will result in substantive 

increased consumption of animal proteins. 

While Colombia is a net exporter of agricultural commodities, it 

imports over 80 percent of the corn it uses domestically. It imports 

over 95 percent of the wheat and soybean products it consumes. In 

2008, total U.S. agriculture exports to Colombia reached 50 percent 

market share, and exceeded $1.6 billion. 

Since 2008, U.S. market share has declined rapidly to only 21 

percent, or approximately 800 million. For U.S. coarse grains, the 

decline has been more dramatic. In 2008, U.S. agricultural exports 

of coarse grains approached $635 million, and accounted for 83 percent of the total Colombian coarse grains import. By 2010, U.S. 

coarse grain exports had declined to $118 million, and market 

share fell to 18 percent. 

Conversely, in 2008, Argentina held just an 11 percent share of 

coarse grain imports, primarily corn. By 2010, Argentina’s market 

share was 66 percent. Over the same time period, Brazil’s market 

share of coarse grain imports to Colombia increased from 5 to 16 

percent. 

Colombia protects its local production with common external 

duty of 15 percent. This includes corn and other agricultural commodities. Colombia is also member to the Mercosur Andean community agreement. This agreement includes a price band mechanism that levies additional duties. Colombia’s trade agreement 

with Mercosur allows member countries to receive a preferential 

duty. 

Argentina and Brazil receive an annual duty reduction on corn 

imports to Colombia, which completely phases out the basic duty 

by 2018. Beginning in 2006, the duty preference granted Brazil and 

Argentinian corn provided a nearly 5 percent advantage over corn 

imports from the U.S. In 2011, the duty preference of 6 percent will 

give a 9 percent advantage over U.S. corn imports. And this approximates a $20-a-ton advantage. 

Even with these duty preferences, the U.S. remained competitive 

until 2008, due in large part to our close proximity to Colombia. 

However, the increased duty preference to corn imports for 

Mercosur has virtually eliminated this advantage. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
41 

Equally disconcerting as the grain flow to Colombia shifts from 

the U.S. to Brazil and Argentina, their shipments to Colombia now 

include tonnages of corn over and above those required for their 

Colombian contracts. These added quantities are shipped in split 

shipments to Colombia, and then on to Latin American countries 

such as Panama and the Dominican Republic. This has further 

eroded U.S. market share, despite our clear freight advantage. 

Once trade flows become established and relationships are 

formed with other trading partners, it is very difficult to win back 

these markets. The Council has established a strong partnership 

with the Colombian feed, livestock, and poultry industries, to build 

capacity and increase sufficiency utilizing U.S. coarse grain products. As a result of these ongoing efforts, we have gained their 

trust as a consistent, reliable supplier of quality products. Without 

ratification of the FTA, we will lose this relationship. 

The Colombian feed and livestock industries wish to retain and 

build on this relationship. Representatives of the Colombian feed 

milling, swine, and wheat industries were in Washington earlier 

this year. They provided briefings to this committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and both the House and Senate Agriculture 

Committee. Their message was clear. Although the U.S. has been 

a reliable, preferred supplier, Colombia has no choice but to import 

corn and other commodities from Argentina and Brazil because of 

the lower duties. They stated that the U.S.-Colombia FTA would 

allow them the opportunity to acquire more U.S. commodities. 

However, price is paramount, and the competition is fierce. 

[The statement of Mr. Dorr follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
42 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr1
43 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr2
44 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr3
45 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr4
46 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr5
47 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Under Secretary Dorr. I apologize. Our five minutes has expired. But we had the opportunity to 

read the testimony that you supplied to us. We appreciate it very 

much. Thank you. 

Mr. Marsh, you are recognized. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert dorr6
48 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MARSH, VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL, 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE, BAKER HUGHES, INC. ON BEHALF 

OF BAKER HUGHES, INC. AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. MARSH. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member McDermott, members of this subcommittee. I am William Marsh, vice president legal, western hemisphere, for Baker 

Hughes Incorporated. I am pleased to testify today as a member of 

the National Association of Manufacturers. I have been practicing 

law for 22 years, with 13 years exclusively in the oil and gas industry, and substantial experience working in Latin America, including Colombia. 

Hughes Baker is a top-tier oil field service company with a century-long track record. We deliver technology solutions that help oil 

and gas operators maximize their reservoirs through high-performance drilling and evaluation, completions and productions, fluids 

and chemicals, and reservoir analysis. We work side by side with 

our customers to engineer reliable, application-specific products 

and services. 

While we operate globally, Baker Hughes is headquartered in 

Houston, Texas, and is a United States employer and manufacturer. We have a diverse workforce of more than 21,000 highly 

skilled professionals in science, engineering, manufacturing, and 

operations support in the United States, and we are located in 28 

states. 

In addition to providing services globally, Baker Hughes manufactures products in the United States, like pumps, motors, and 

valves, and exports them to countries worldwide, including Colombia. Roughly 75 percent of Baker Hughes Colombia’s total global 

imports are from Baker Hughes facilities in the United States. We 

employ 450 workers in our Colombian operations, and Baker 

Hughes offers a multitude of products and services in Colombia, 

ranging from reservoir development services, to intelligent production systems, to integrated operations. 

As you have heard today, the U.S.-Colombia trade promotion 

agreement will replace a one-way preferential agreement with one 

that is mutually beneficial and reciprocal. Because of trade preferences, Colombia’s exports have been entering the United States 

duty free, though that has been temporarily. 

By contrast, Colombia’s average duty on our imports from the 

United States averages 5 percent, with some tariff peaks at 10 to 

20 percent. Eliminating that duty would allow Baker Hughes to 

more effectively compete in Colombia, increase our exports to serve 

Colombia’s expanded plans for oil and gas projects, and create more 

highly-skilled jobs here at home. 

Colombia is a significant market for the United States, second 

only to Brazil and South America. The United States exports to Colombia exceeded $12 billion in 2010, and over 90 percent of that 

total was in manufactured goods. According to the United States 

Department of Commerce, those exports supported nearly 90,000 

United States jobs and 10,000 U.S. small and medium-sized businesses. 

More specifically, Colombia is a major prospect for new oil and 

gas development. According to media reports, the Colombian GovVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
49 

ernment plans to increase oil production up to one million barrels 

per day by the end of 2012, and activity is likely to remain high 

for the next decade. As a market leader in oil-field services, Baker 

Hughes intends to be a substantial part of that market. The United 

States trade policy should facilitate our participation in that responsible development. 

From a security perspective, there are advantages to developing 

western hemisphere energy sources like those in Colombia. Colombia is considered a U.S. ally with a relatively stable government 

and economy. Oil and gas from Colombia could displace oil from 

less secure foreign sources of supply. 

Helping Colombia maintain a strong economy is also in our national interest. Therefore, adopting this reciprocal treaty is a win 

for both countries. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Marsh follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert marsh1
50 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert marsh2
51 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. 

Under Secretary Romero? 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert marsh3
52 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR PETER F. ROMERO, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EXPERIOR ADVISORY LLC, 

FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FORMER 

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ECUADOR 

Mr. ROMERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

promotion. I was assistant secretary and retired a couple years ago, 

but—— 

Chairman BRADY. It is Saint Patrick’s Day, we are doing—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROMERO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation, ranking senior Member and others, thank you for the invitation. 

I think I would like to start out with some good news. And the 

good news is that, through almost 10 years of U.S. investment in 

Colombia, that investment, through Plan Colombia and other support, is paying off. Colombia is more democratic, it is safer, it has 

got a strengthened rule of law, it is more prosperous. And, according to most of your surveys, is the second most business-friendly 

country, after Chile, in the hemisphere. 

The bad news is that, after having spent this taxpayer money, 

and having results that were probably beyond our expectations 

early on, literally the Chinese, the Koreans, the Canadians, and 

the European Unions are the ones that are cashing in on this. This, 

at a moment when the Chinese—and there has been a lot of discussion about the Chinese and their investment in Latin America—but 

it has gone up tenfold over the last couple of years. Their FDI over 

the period has increased to 17 percent of all Chinese FDI. And, at 

the same time, the U.S. share of all exports to the region fell from 

48 percent to 37 percent. We are losing ground, Mr. Chairman. 

If these numbers are not bad enough, the other downside is that 

when the Chinese cut deals in Latin America, they do not particularly care about the rule of law. They do not particularly care about 

human rights, labor rights, and foreign corrupt practices, or the environment. And that is basically what is happening, in terms of the 

reality of Latin America. Certainly the sanctity of their contracts 

is important to them. But the rest of it really is of little or no importance when it comes to political or ethical practices. 

I think it is useful to just take a minute to go back to where we 

were in the year 2000, when we started Plan Colombia. Colombia 

was on the verge of ceding swatches of its country to bad guys: 

paramilitaries, gangs, narcos, guerillas, you name it. You could not 

travel from one city to the other without taking an airplane. The 

line around the consulate to leave, to get visas to come to the 

United States to leave, went around the block. You could not get 

a visa interview for six months. 

This has changed dramatically. President Uribe first turned it 

around. President Santos is continuing it through his process of 

democratic security, which is empowerment at the local level. This 

has worked, this whole of government approach has worked so 

well, that we have versions of it going on in Afghanistan and Iraq 

today. We have put a lot of stock behind using it, okay? So it has 

worked. Colombia is not perfect. It is not Sweden. It will not be, 

for some time to come. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
53 

I have spent 35 years, both in the public sector and the private 

sector, railing against the double standard towards Latin America. 

Latin America has a different set of standards that we apply, with 

respect to foreign policy, than we do the rest of the world. There 

is not one person in this room that has talked about our negotiations with Vietnam, that has a history of repression against labor 

and organized labor in that country, and yet that is not even a discussion. And in Colombia, Colombia has to wait for five years, even 

to get a response. 

I would also argue with the Administration that was here. Colombia has not gotten clear guidelines, in terms of what would satisfy the U.S. Government, in terms of whatever change to the laws 

and reform, that the Administration appeared to suggest when 

they were here. 

Just a few words on labor. Mr. Chairman, I belong to four labor 

unions in my professional life. I joined them gladly. I was a teacher 

for a number of years. A lot of the labor issues that are of concern 

to this committee are, indeed, legitimate issues. But there has been 

a significant improvement across the board, whether it be assassinations of labor leaders or organizers or even members out in the 

field, there has been labor reform. There is a robust dialogue at the 

national and local level labor reform which puts management and 

labor continually together. 

There have been increasing reforms and efforts to address this 

issue, including special prosecutors and $13 million spent last year 

to protect labor leaders and labor organizers and labor members in 

the field. Colombians have done their part. 

[The statement of Mr. Romero follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
54 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert romero1
55 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert romero2
56 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Ambassador, thank you, and we will submit 

your testimony for the—full testimony for the record. 

Mr. ROMERO. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Mr. Isaacson. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert romero3
57 

STATEMENT OF ADAM ISAACSON, DIRECTOR, REGIONAL SECURITY POLICY PROGRAM, WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN 

AMERICA 

Mr. ISAACSON. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member McDermott, 

thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing. 

I have a very deep affection for Colombia. I spend most of my 

adult life visiting it. I have been there about 50 times. I have met 

some of the bravest people in the world there, labor leaders high 

among them. And, after all these years, to be honest, I still do not 

always get it. I cannot fathom how you can carry on, day to day, 

knowing that, at any time, you could be murdered because you 

want to improve your workplace or you want to find out who killed 

your spouse, or you want to recover land that was stolen from you. 

And you know that your killer has no reason to fear being sent to 

prison, and could go on to victimize someone else. 

It takes a special person to keep believing in her country, or to 

keep defending his fellow citizens. But Colombia has an amazing 

number of these people. When I ask them how they keep going, it 

is also amazing how often they just sort of shrug their shoulders, 

as though the answer should just be obvious. 

I want my country to be on these people’s side. I also want Colombia to take off economically, and put its conflict behind it. I 

want the United States to contribute to that through its aid and 

trade policies. That is why my colleagues at the Washington Office 

on Latin America and I believe that, instead of jumping in, we 

need to work with the Colombian Government on some clear, 

achievable benchmarks for progress, and see meaningful results before considering the FTA. 

Over the four-and-a-half years since the FTA was signed, there 

are four areas where this progress has not been sufficient. They are 

labor law, protection, impunity, and land. On labor law, we hope 

to see Colombia align its laws with ILO core labor rights. The FTA 

itself requires this. This means doing away with cooperative trade 

associations, collective pacts, an expansive definition of ‘‘essential 

workers,’’ and other obstacles to the right to bargain collectively. 

These labor laws should have to be enforced, too. So Colombia 

would need to increase funding and political backing for the parts 

of the government that are supposed to be doing that. 

Second is protection. It’s crucial that there be a sharp drop, 

ideally to zero, in homicides, attacks, and threats against trade 

unionists, human rights defenders, victims’ advocates, and Afro-Colombian and indigenous leaders. Colombia is different from the 

United States’ other free trade debates. This time we have signed 

an agreement with a country that is in conflict. Elsewhere, the discussion focused on labor laws, wages, and work conditions. 

Those are important. But in Colombia, there is a more immediate 

life-or-death issue. Trade unionists and other people fighting for 

justice continue to be murdered in shockingly high numbers. These 

killings have to stop. This stoppage should result from the government’s own rapid response to threats when they occur, its dismantling of new paramilitary groups who are growing quite quickly 

right now, its protection of the population from the leftist guerillas, 

and its effective investigations and prosecutions of homicides. And 

that last one is important. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
58 

Third, impunity. This is so critical that, in my view, it is the 

chief reason for waiting a bit on the FTA. Colombia has got to get 

the killers behind bars to dissuade future killings. This is where 

the least progress has been made. After four-and-a-half years we 

have seen the impunity rate for labor killers only move from 98 

percent to 94 percent. That is a tragedy. Progress on impunity 

takes a while to measure, but there is no substitute. If you do not 

address impunity you have no guarantee that this will not flare up 

again. 

So, Colombia needs to sharply increase its prosecutions, investigations, and verdicts on labor killings. The same goes for other 

recent abuses, like the 3,000 civilians that the armed forces are alleged to have murdered in the past 10 years. 

Finally, the fourth point, land and victims. Land is at the core 

of Colombia’s long conflict. The violence has forced more than 5 

million—mostly rural Colombians—from their homes and farms in 

a country of 45 million. The FTA must neither lock in this injustice 

nor knock thousands of small farmers out of business. If it does, 

we could feel the consequences right here, as more cocaine coming 

to the United States. 

On land, the government of President Juan Manuel Santos has 

a plan that deserves our support. A land and victims law is nearing 

final approval in Colombia’s congress. This is a decent law, but its 

test will be its implementation, not just its passage. 

These four areas I lay out here are not a recipe for a perfect society, or a Sweden. These are minimal standards to keep the FTA 

from having unintended consequences that could undermine U.S. 

interests and values. They are reasonable. 

Although I am impressed by the Santos Administration’s policy 

proposals, we cannot settle just for promises. A new policy or strategy, a new task force or working group or commission, a new directive, order, even a new law, these are great. They are welcome. But 

they are no substitute for measurable results. And as we measure 

progress toward these minimal standards, my advice is, to quote 

Ronald Reagan, ‘‘Let us trust, but verify.’’ And verifying will take 

some time. That is why we advise engaging Colombia in a constructive discussion of how to get this done right, and verifying that 

meaningful progress happens. 

I look forward to your questions, and to discussing this with you 

at any time. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Isaacson follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
59 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac1
60 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac2
61 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac3
62 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac4
63 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac5
64 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac6
65 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac7
66 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac8
67 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac9
68 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Isaacson. 

General McCaffrey? 

STATEMENT OF BARRY R. MCCAFFREY, USA (RETIRED), PRESIDENT, BR MCCAFFREY ASSOCIATES, LLC, FORMER DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, 

FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND 

General MCCAFFREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you and Congressman McDermott for the opportunity to be here. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert Isac10
69 

And, by the way, I share the remarks that Adam just made. He 

had a tutorial for me yesterday. I think many of his conclusions are 

right, although I am here to strongly urge passage of the FTA with 

Colombia almost immediately, certainly by this summer. 

I have spent much of my adult life working with the Colombians 

in one aspect or another. I worked with Presidents Pastrana, 

Uribe, and now Santos. I think these issues have been discussed 

at great length, and I would offer a set of facts for you to consider. 

Number one, let us remind ourselves that Colombia is one of the 

most important allies we have, democratic regimes, law-based regimes, on the face of the earth. In the 200-year history, much of 

it has been democratically-elected governments. 

Secondly, I would remind us that Colombian National Police, arguably one of the best in the Americas, and the Colombian Army, 

have had 5,500 killed in action, and 17,000 wounded since 2002. 

There was a war going on in Colombia, which is largely entering 

its end phase. Thanks to their courage and their determination, Colombia is still free. 

Third, drug production is down by 60 percent. It is phenomenal. 

This is a commitment not just by the CNP and the armed forces 

and the political leadership, but also by the Colombian people, who 

essentially do not wish to be involved in criminal activity. 

Fourth, the major security problem in Colombia for the last 25 

years has been the FARC, ELN, and the AUC. They are badly 

wounded. The AUC is largely dismantled, although, as Adam correctly says, many of them have gone to criminal activity. The 

FARC are down about 8,000 people and 2,500 in ELN. 

The war does go on. There may be as many as 6,000-plus hardened criminals in so-called ‘‘buckram’’ organizations, and many of 

them are in collusion with the FARC and the ELN. This is now becoming a law enforcement issue, and it is also one based correctly, 

as one of the congressmen previously said, on poverty. It is moving 

into a different phase. 

The Santos Administration, as I look at them, is—has enormous 

focus on improving governance, reform of the judicial system, 

which is going to be the hardest 20-year task they face, poverty action, drug criminal gangs, and refugees. They have got maybe a 

million internal refugees and maybe 400,000 pushed out into Ecuador or Venezuela. But I think that is the commitment of the Administration we are looking at in Colombia today. 

Finally, I think we ought to take into account the enormous reduction of violence in Colombia. It is simply unbelievable. I was 

down there in 2001, just before I left office. There were 2,000 people in my security detachment. When I went back again a couple 

of years ago, I had a dozen CNP officers. There were no violent incidents in Bogota the week I was there. It is astonishing. 

And, by the way, the most trusted, respected institution in Colombia today is the Colombian armed forces, with a 79 percent approval rate in the latest poll numbers. Colombian people understood their determination, their commitment, their courage, and 

their change, rapid change—I have been listening to the Colombians brief me on comprehensive human rights policies and training. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
70 

They are trying to understand how you deal with something that, 

on one hand, was multi-battalion attacks by the FARC, using indirect fire weapons systems, and now a war that is changing into one 

in which these young soldiers have to carry two cards, one red, one 

white—blue, excuse me—to understand what nature of violent incident they are now confronting, and what the different rules of engagement are. It is a magnificent change in the short period of 

time that I have observed them. 

Final one, and a point that I would offer—and a lot of others 

have already addressed this—this is a huge economic problem in 

the United States. We have lost massive amounts of market share 

in agricultural products and other areas. 

And, oh, by the way, the Colombians are now a major energyproducing nation. Coal number one, oil up to—pushing a million 

barrels a day. And I will bet you in two or three years they outproduce Venezuela. 

I personally consider the way we have dealt with Colombia an 

embarrassment, a nation that is a democratic regime under the 

rule of law coming out of an era of enormous violence. And I urge 

congressional action in support of the FTA. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of General McCaffrey follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
71 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert mcc1
72 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert mcc2
73 

f 

Chairman BRADY. General, thank you. This has been very useful and interesting testimony, and I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. Dorr, your testimony shows exactly how American agriculture is being harmed and will be harmed further if we delay this 

pact. 

Mr. Isaacson, I read your testimony at length last night. And, in 

my view, Colombia is making extraordinary improvement. I agree 

with you, the new Santos Administration is committed to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert mcc3
74 

tinuing that progress. And I agree with you, any violence and any 

impunity associated with that is condemnable. That is why we 

push so hard to lay out these points. We have pushed the Administration to step forward with an action plan so that Colombia can 

address this. Now, the longer we are stuck in limbo, unfortunately, 

I think the less we can lock in both the progress and continued improvement. 

Ambassador Romero and General McCaffrey, I am struck both by 

your expertise, sense of experience in the region. Your points about 

the loss of national security and the consequences of our failure to 

act, I think that is an important part of this debate and of this 

agreement. 

Finally, Mr. Marsh, you talk about the consequences of further 

delay on a company like yours. You mentioned Colombia is a major 

prospect for new oil and gas development, and may more than double its oil production in two years. I know the infrastructure effort 

in Colombia is impressive, as well, as they rebuild their ports and 

their airports and roads. 

And I want to ask you—in fact, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to introduce for the record a paper by the Ways and Means 

Committee outlining the infrastructure opportunities in Colombia 

that could create jobs here in the United States. 

[No response.] 

Chairman BRADY. Without objection. 

[The information follows: Brady Insert] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
75 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brady1
76 

f 

Chairman BRADY. Could you talk a minute about the impact of 

these longer-term contracts? You are not selling copy paper that 

gets replenished every quarter. You are selling major equipment. 

And when you are at a disadvantage to other countries, you know, 

it is not a matter of a loss of six months or a year. You are losing 

the life of this equipment, of the services, of the accessories that 

go with you. 

So, can you talk about for us, so we understand exactly the consequences of delaying this agreement further? 

Mr. MARSH. Certainly you are correct, Chairman Brady. As we 

bid on projects—and these are long-term projects—if we are not 

able to be competitive and win those projects, we lose not only that 

project, which may be a long-term project in and of itself, we lose 

the opportunity to build the infrastructure that goes along with 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert brady2
77 

those projects, which puts us at a further competitive disadvantage 

by not having that infrastructure to support future projects. 

At the same time, competitors from other countries are developing infrastructure because they were successful in bids that we 

were disadvantaged and not successful in obtaining. So it is not 

just the life of the equipment, but it is also building that infrastructure within the country that will impact our future work and 

our ability to export from the United States into Colombia in the 

future, because we do not have that infrastructure in-country to 

support the jobs in the U.S. 

Chairman BRADY. So these are longer-term consequences and 

losses. 

Mr. MARSH. Absolutely. Not only are our contracts long-term 

contracts, but along with those contracts come infrastructure that 

we will build in-country that will support future contracts. 

Chairman BRADY. Do you believe we should delay any further 

on this agreement? 

Mr. MARSH. Any further delay continues to put us at a competitive disadvantage. So, no, we would not delay any further and we 

should support immediate action with respect to the agreement. 

Chairman BRADY. General McCaffrey, you finished your testimony very strongly, saying that this was an embarrassment that 

we have not moved forward on this four years later on a key ally. 

Do you feel Colombia feels that same way, that an ally of that 

strength in that region—can they even understand why their 

strongest partner would delay an agreement for so many years? 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, you know, I would remind all of us 

the media and the political attention of all three of these nations— 

Korea, Panama, and Colombia—is fixed on this hearing today. And 

so, tonight on TV, the Colombian people are going to try to sort out 

in their mind how they can be one of the predominant allies of the 

United States—they are working with us now in Mexico, and training people in Afghanistan, they are a democratically-elected regime, they produce dramatic changes and results, and yet we are 

diddling them for over four years on an economic trade deal. 

I say that recognizing—and I really mean this—that Adam’s concerns are valid. And yet, in the same note, Pete Romero pointed out 

you do not hear that kind of conversation about the outrages going 

on in Bolivia and Venezuela, with Mr. Chavez. So it has been a selective focus on Colombia that sometimes escapes me. They are a 

remarkable group of sophisticated people who are mystified by our 

behavior. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, General. Mr. McDermott is recognized. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 

consent to introduce the recent ILO mission report regarding Colombia. It really notes continuing problems with labor and violence. 

Chairman BRADY. Without objection. 

[The information follows: ILO High Level Mission] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
78 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo1
79 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo2
80 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo3
81 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo4
82 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo5
83 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo6
84 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo7
85 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo8
86 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo9
87 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo10
88 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo11
89 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I just want to correct one thing here. I hear 

a lot of talk about, the Chinese this and the Chinese that. This is 

not going to change. If we pass this agreement with Colombia, it 

is not going to change the fact that the Chinese are the biggest 

trading partner. We have free trade agreements with Chile, and 

the Chinese are outdoing us there. And we have got free trade 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert ilo12
90 

agreements with Peru, and the Chinese are outdoing us there, as 

well. 

So, to hold it up as an answer to this whole issue that is going 

to stop the Chinese—I think we need a hearing on what is going 

on with Chinese. That is a legitimate question. But I do not think 

that one should portray this as being something that is going to 

deal with China. 

What I would like to ask Mr. Isaacson is the question, when General McCaffrey says, ‘‘Put this thing in right now,’’ what does that 

do to labor violence? What does that do to impunity? What does 

that do to labor conditions? How would you spin out the effect of 

that? 

Because what we are arguing here whether this glass is half full 

or is it half empty. That is what we are arguing about. And some 

of us are saying we want more in the pitcher, and others are saying there is already enough, and that we should move forward. So 

I would like to hear your suggestions about what you think would 

happen. 

Mr. ISAACSON. Sure. If the agreement was to be approved right 

now, the conversations—and there are some, actually, constructive 

conversations going on, as we heard in the last panel, between the 

U.S. and Colombian officials about benchmarks, about improvements, about reducing killings, about punishing—those conversations would stop. Why continue them? You have got an agreement 

now. 

If those conversations stopped, sure, there are people in Colombia’s government who, out of their own good will and their belief 

in what is right, would probably try to continue some of these prosecutions, and would probably try to continue pushing funding into 

some of the right categories to keep these going. 

But, you know, these good people in the Colombian Government 

face some very powerful opposition who do not exactly share their 

view of the necessity of not circling the wagons and actually—and 

seeing these things reformed. They could lose. I think we give them 

a lot of leverage right now, as they try to push for these reforms. 

And we could, in fact, in just a relatively short time, bring some 

major historic institutional change that benefits both of our countries. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would like to characterize why it has taken 

four years, because that is the issue. Why has it been here four 

years, and have people not been paying attention? Is it fair to say 

that the Uribe government talked a good game, but it was the implementation of the game of what they talked that was minimal, 

at best? Is that a fair characterization of why we are still hung up 

on this point? 

Mr. ISAACSON. Sure. The Uribe government, on a lot of things, 

was not even talking a good game. President Uribe, on many occasions in public, often flanked by the high command of the armed 

forces, would get up and call reformers, labor leaders, independent 

journalists, ‘‘terrorists,’’ or ‘‘friends of the guerrillas,’’ without producing any evidence to that. 

At the same time, in 2008, an enormous scandal, which I alluded 

to in my testimony, exploded. And we suddenly learned that thousands of civilians had been killed on his watch, and with impunity 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
91 

there. That certainly, while not directly related to labor, cast a 

shadow over this whole thing. 

A further scandal where we found out that the Uribe government’s presidential intelligence agency was spying on judges, on reporters, on opposition politicians, listening to their phone conversations, following them around, and even issuing threats, cast a further shadow over this. 

So, you know, any time you had momentum, something would 

happen that slowed it down. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Let me just say one thing. I have also heard 

some suggestions here that we are not paying any attention to 

what is going on in Vietnam, and we are talking about the transPacific partnership and so forth. 

The fact is that those are some of the sticking points about 

whether or not the Vietnamese will be included in a TPP. I am personally one of those people who thinks that is maybe more important than Colombia. And I think that we will have to work hard 

to bring in both Malaysia and Vietnam, because of these kinds of 

issues. 

And I think—I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, sir. Ms. Jenkins is recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Dorr, you talked extensively about the horrific loss in U.S. ag exports to Colombia because of our failure to pass this trade agreement. We have fallen 

from 71 percent to 27 percent in market share for Colombia imports of key ag products just since 2008. 

So, looking ahead, first of all, what happens to our market share 

in wheat, for example, if we do not ratify this agreement, and Canada’s agreement goes into force on July 1st, as expected? 

And secondly, what happens if we are able to implement the 

trade agreement? Will the U.S. market share jump right back to 

where it was, or how long would that be expected to take? 

And then, finally, is there any difference between getting it past 

by July 1st and, say, getting it past by the end of the year? 

Mr. DORR. Well, certainly, I think the numbers on the Canadian 

FTA versus the pending FTA with the U.S. are well known. And 

while the Colombians clearly prefer the U.S.-quality wheat, markets dictate. And, as a result of the price differentials, it is clear 

that we are losing market share to Canada, and would continue. 

I would presume, unless there was some other extraordinary 

events, to do so, as well. 

However, if you look at time lines for successful conclusion of 

these agreements, there are differing harvest periods in both hemispheres. And, for example, in the case of corn, if an FTA were concluded earlier than later, when there is a period of time in which 

there are no supplies available from the southern hemisphere, it 

gives U.S. producers an opportunity to get back into that market. 

And, based on the relationships, the historical relationships that 

we have had, it is clearly a large market, one that we anticipate 

could be as much as two million tons of corn. And in today’s environment, that could be anywhere from $3.5 billion to $4 billion 

worth of business, as opposed to what we are seeing this year, at 

about $118 million. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
92 

So, obviously, timing is of the essence. And when these things 

are delayed, what you end up with is development of market relationships with other suppliers that, once you are able to get back 

in the market, you have to displace. And that is always more difficult. 

Ms. JENKINS. So, how long does it take, if they were signed, for 

us to regain our market share? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. DORR. Well, I—in the case of corn, which is something—and 

sorghum DDGs, which I am more familiar with, and wheat, we are 

fairly comfortable that if there was a successful conclusion to the 

agreements, we would be able to re-engage our customers and 

begin to recapture those markets, because there are innate advantages, logistical advantages, and the ability—and the quality systems and the way in which we deal with our customers, we think, 

would make us a preferred supplier. And we believe we could reestablish those relationships. 

The longer we go, because of price differentials, it will be more 

difficult. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Well, there is some urgency among, I 

think, Kansas producers that if we delay this beyond the summer, 

that we will miss an entire year, based on the growing season. And 

the buying—would you agree with that? 

Mr. DORR. Absolutely. And that is what I was alluding to. Because if you have a market coming—or if you have a crop coming 

on stream in the next two to three months, and you are in a position to capture that market, to delay it for a longer period of time 

gets you into the following year, sets up your competitor to capture 

the market, and clearly you have been displaced for at least another period of time that will make it quite difficult to recapture. 

Ms. JENKINS. If we want to begin to replace and recapture our 

percentage of the market, we really need to get this ratified within 

the next few weeks, as opposed to the next few months. 

Mr. DORR. It is clear that, as a market developer—and I want 

to make sure that this is clear, we are not lobbying this issue. But 

we clearly understand what the timing issues are, relative to when 

crops are produced and when markets are available. And the 

longer these sorts of things are in an abeyant state, the more difficult it is to capture those markets. And that is very obvious. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dorr. Mr. Chairman, I 

would yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General McCaffrey, it is 

a delight to have you here. My first battalion commander is your 

classmate from the Military Academy, and my best friend at Fort 

Bragg was your IG in the 24th Division in Desert Storm. So it is 

great to have an opportunity to reconnect in a less formal environment than the one you ran as a general officer. But I appreciate 

your insight very much. 

Energy security is a very important component of our national 

security in so many ways. As gas prices are spiking, developments 

in Libya, the Middle East, some of the bluster of Hugo Chavez, 

with his rabid anti-Americanism is making it very clear to me that 

we are too reliant on foreign energy sources and, in particular, creating a dependency relationship on countries that are not necVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
93 

essarily our friends, and seeing large amounts of our capital leaving the country. 

I appreciated yours and Mr. Marsh’s comments about Colombia 

as an energy provider that is seeking to expand its capacity. And 

I was wondering if you would elaborate some on your thoughts 

today on how this trade agreement will contribute long-term to the 

United States energy security. 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, certainly it is not a central area of 

my expertise, but you know, I spend a lot of time on TV, nonetheless, talking about it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Most of Congress has a tradition of speaking on 

things that are not their expertise, too. 

General MCCAFFREY. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. We will definitely consider you at a higher category—— 

General MCCAFFREY. I think there is some central facts. One 

is—the biggest fact is the U.S. has no national energy strategy, 

which is shameful, and particularly in terms of reducing use of energy. 

The second reality is that, when we look at our imports, thankfully, the majority of our external imports come out of Canada and 

Mexico, thank God. 

The next reality is Venezuela is our next supplier. And there has 

been a continuing unbelievable confrontation with Mr. Chavez with 

the Chinese in the wings, with their voracious appetite for energy 

and mineral deposits in the global context, putting that at some 

risk. 

Thankfully, Colombia is now becoming a major energy supplier, 

both coal and oil—and natural gas, potentially, along with Ecuador. 

And I think it is going to grow in the future. It would be hard 

pressed for us to ignore the reality—and, by the way, to underscore, Bogota is a three-hour flight from Miami. This is not the 

eastern Pacific. These are our friends, our allies, and our next-door 

neighbors. And they are an important potential source of energy for 

the United States, and we ought to exploit that. 

Mr. DAVIS. I remember back in the summer of 2001 you shared 

with a group of us that Hugo Chavez was probably the greatest 

emerging threat in the western hemisphere, particularly to American and democratic interests. 

Do you feel that moving towards a strategy of energy independence, and particularly embracing the Colombian agreement, and 

working closely with them as they develop their energy, will be— 

help to neutralize that, or mitigate that threat? 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I think it is. You know, Chavez is 

a different problem. This giant, beautiful country of Venezuela, it 

has been traditionally an ally of the United States, has increasingly slipped into what essentially is one-man rule, where Chavez 

is now—clearly dominates all the institutions of the state: The 

armed forces, the congress, the media. The Catholic Church has 

been intimidated, he is wrecking his own oil industry. At some 

point we will have to develop a notion on what are we supposed 

to do about Chavez, in conjunction with our Latin American allies. 

But in the short run, I think the argument on the FTA stands 

on its own merits with Colombia. These people are a democratic reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:40 Dec 05, 2011 Jkt 070876 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70876.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70876

wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
94 

gime, they are implementing the rule of law, violence has decreased dramatically since 2002—and, by the way, a lot of that 

through the Uribe Administration. I am a little bit uneasy about 

the comments that imply that only now that Santos is in office we 

can start moving forward. The Colombian people think Uribe is a 

national hero. They will study him for the next 100 years because 

of what he did to turn the situation around. 

But, nonetheless, the group we are dealing with now, the Santos 

regime, as Adam correctly points out, he is focused on land reform, 

he is focused on reducing violence against labor leaders, better governance. These people are moving in the right direction. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Thank you very much, General. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Mr. Reichert? 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for anyone 

on the panel. Colombia is promising—is a promising market for 

U.S. exports of green technology. Colombia’s traditional industries 

have increasingly become committed to energy cogeneration in 

their plants, creating the opportunity for U.S. firms to export engines, generators, spoilers, and heat recovery systems across a lot 

of sectors. 

Colombia is also very big for hydro-power, solar, thermal, and 

wind markets. They are small, but they are all growing. And, unfortunately, Colombia’s tariffs on clean energy technology and other 

green tech imports are very high, ranging from 5 to 15 percent. The 

World Bank has identified these tariffs as tariff barriers to Colombia’s adequate development of clean technology. This is good news 

for the environment and for U.S. exporters. And the Colombian 

trade agreement would eliminate these tariffs for U.S. products 

that touch all of these energy-efficient technologies. 

So, I understand that several of you have experience with new 

energy technology. I would like to ask anyone on the panel whether 

you believe this trade agreement will help expand the markets for 

clean energy technology, and thereby incentivizing American innovation and global competitiveness of our American companies in 

this sector. So, anyone wish to address that question? 

Mr. ROMERO. In the vein of not being an expert on this, as 

Barry alluded to with his question, let me just say that the Colombian Government has set objectives for the use of clean technology 

in the years ahead. 

I do know that they have completed mapping of the country, in 

terms of wind power, and where the best places to install wind 

power would be. They are heavily involved already in the African 

palm oil industry. And I think that there is all kinds of opportunities for solar there. 

This would be a particularly good captive moment, if you will, to 

pass the FTA, because our equipment, our expertise, our services, 

would be able to enter into the country duty-free. And it is a particularly good moment because President Santos has put a high 

priority on alternative energy and green technology in his Administration. So it would be a particularly good moment for U.S. exporters. 

Mr. REICHERT. All right, thank you. 

General MCCAFFREY. I wonder if I might add one comment. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
95 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes, sir. 

General MCCAFFREY. Just the business platform in Colombia— 

I always have to remind people 60,000 Americans live in Colombia; 

250-plus American businesses are on the ground in Colombia. They 

are the easiest people in Latin America to do business with. They 

are smart, they are tough, many of them are educated here. They 

are committed to the rule of law. So this is another opportunity, 

I think, Mr. Congressman, you have accurately pointed out. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, sir. Mr. Dorr? 

Mr. DORR. I would just make one very quick comment, in that 

in a collaborative manner, they make an excellent market for distiller’s dry grains that are an outgrowth of the ethanol industry in 

this country. And it is a short market hop down there. It is a great 

feed product that is very, very well priced. And it mitigates a lot 

of food cost issues, particularly when you look at the number of 

very poor people in Colombia that, right now, with the tariffs in 

place, are dependent upon white corn, for example, with a high tariff level. 

And so, these are opportunities to blend the use of green technologies throughout the hemisphere. And this is one that I think 

makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. One real quick question. General 

McCaffrey, during Ambassador Kirk’s testimony before the full 

committee on February 9th, he said that he could not move forward 

with the Colombian trade agreement because of ‘‘labor-related concerns that go to the core American values.’’ 

I agree that the importance of our core values does—like keeping 

drugs and drug violence off our streets and away from our children. 

What do you think about that comment, that this goes right to the 

core American values—and we all recognize keeping drugs and 

drug violence off our streets—help a country raise their children 

with those values? 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I actually—you know, I strongly endorse his remarks. I think these are core American values. And I 

say that as someone whose family, you know, in the Depression 

era, was strongly pro-union. 

I think what we need to underscore, though, is the astonishing 

commitment over the last—certainly since 2002, to making Colombia safer, to lowering violence, to increasing the rule of law, to 

transferring thousands of cases from military courts to civilian 

courts, to include cases that are already in front of military justice, 

to locking up rogue army or police officers—a general—for 40 years 

behind bars. 

So, there have been significant changes for the better in Colombia. 

Chairman BRADY. General, thank you—— 

General MCCAFFREY. I personally believe the FTA will contribute to that, and add leverage. A point of disagreement, 

though—— 

Chairman BRADY. General, if I may, thank you so much for 

your testimony today. And I would encourage any written response—this is a great dialogue—for all the witnesses, by the way. 

Mr. Herger. 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
96 

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding 

this hearing on this incredibly important issue. Trade is so important, certain important in my district, important to our nation, important to growing jobs, establishing jobs in our country. 

Mr. Isaacson, you testified that WOLA supports expanding trade, 

but that WOLA does not support moving forward with this trade 

agreement until concerns regarding Colombian labor and human 

rights have first been resolved. I believe the opposite, that with the 

tremendous progress that Colombia has already made in this area, 

that we should be moving forward, and engage Colombia through 

this trade agreement which will, in turn, be a benefit to the Colombian workers. 

WOLA’s position also appears to be inconsistent with the approach espoused in this April 2008 WOLA special report, which is 

entitled, ‘‘Opting for Engagement.’’ One of the report’s principal arguments is that increased commercial engagement, increased trade, 

is a promising way of exerting a positive influence on a country’s 

policies and practices with regard to human rights. 

In fact, the report recommends that the United States take that 

approach, but towards Cuba. It does not mention Colombia. Now, 

everyone agrees that implementation of our agreement with Colombia would result in increased trade with the United States. But in 

my view, increased trade with the United States also helps us exert 

a positive influence on another country’s labor and human rights 

conditions. 

Now, I would like to ask—and with my time, Mr. Isaacson, I 

think I know what your opinions are—but I would like to ask of 

our other panelists, please describe how they have seen labor conditions in developing world impacted by expanded trade with the 

United States. Mr.—yes, Mr. Romero? 

Mr. ROMERO. Free trade does not resolve all outstanding conflicts between labor and management. And it does not lift all boats 

in the way that we would like to see those boats lifted. But it does 

force local entrepreneurs and owners and managers to compete 

with U.S. entrepreneurs and owners and managers that have best 

practices, that practice the kind of respect for labor law that we 

have in this country in their own countries. 

I have seen this on the ground, in places like El Salvador, and 

even in Guatemala, where the entrance of U.S. entrepreneurs into 

these areas has lifted up not just wage scales, but also respect and 

benefits for workers in that area. And I think it would do the same 

thing in Colombia. 

Just one thing to add to that, and that is that passing a free 

trade agreement with Colombia now—which I strongly believe is 

long overdue—would also provide us not only the mechanism of 

raising standards, but it would also give us the opportunity to employ mechanisms when the Colombians failed. There is all kinds of 

mechanisms that—the special trade representative having to do 

with labor—that you can register complaints. There are hearings, 

et cetera. It is not like we have one bite at this apple, and then 

forever and ever we are subject to whatever happens in Colombia. 

We have a lot of control after we pass a free trade agreement. 

Mr. MARSH. I would just add to what the ambassador said, that 

within Colombia we hire a very highly-specialized workforce, and 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
97 

we have a strong commitment and track record of treating employees fairly in the United States and worldwide. We apply our labor 

standards worldwide. We view the immediate passage of the agreement as essential so that we can continue to create jobs not only 

in the U.S., but jobs in Colombia, where we can hire those people 

and apply the same ethical labor standards to our employees in Colombia. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. General? 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I would add, having spent hours 

listening to the two Castro brothers at close range, that I strongly 

endorse engagement with Cuba, lifting the trade embargo, getting 

our people in there, and trying to improve the miserable lot of the 

Cuban workforce, as well as opening them to U.S. agricultural 

products, pharmaceuticals, et cetera. 

So I think that argument is correct, and it applies to Colombia 

in a very different sense, since Colombia is at the top of the heap 

of democracies in South and Central America. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. I thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. I want to thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony, for the Members, for their thoughtful questions. 

And let me note that Members may submit questions to our witnesses for the record. And if they do, I hope you will respond 

promptly. I know you will. 

And our witnesses today made clear that the pending trade 

agreement with Colombia offers significant economic and 

geostrategic benefits. A continued delay will only harm American 

interests in the region and the ability of American workers, businesses, and farmers to compete in these markets, as our competitors move ahead. 

Witnesses have made clear moving forward to show—to allow 

congressional consideration of this agreement by July 1st is in the 

national security interests of the United States, and will help us 

re-engage as leaders within our hemisphere. 

I hope the Administration will lay out a clear strategy and action 

plan for—and time table for considering the Colombia agreement. 

I strongly believe that we should consider all these agreements by 

July 1st. I hope that we can work together to make that happen. 

But for now, this committee is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANS
98 

[SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD] 

Statement of The Council of the Americas 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s1-1
99 

Statement of Colombian American Chamber of Commerce 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s2-1
100 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s2-2
101 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s2-3
102 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s2-4
103 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s2-5
104 

Statement of U.S. Labor Education in the Americas Project (USLEAP) 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-1
105 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-2
106 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-3
107 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-4
108 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-5
109 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-6
110 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-7
111 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-8
112 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-9
113 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-10
114 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s3-11
115 

Statement of International Labor Rights Forum 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-1
116 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-2
117 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-3
118 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-4
119 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-5
120 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-6
121 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s4-7
122 

Statement of United Auto Workers Local 879 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s5-1
123 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s5-2
124 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s5-3
125 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s5-4
126 

Statement of John I. Laun, President CSN 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s6-1
127 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s6-2
128 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s6-3
129 

Statement of The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s7-1
130 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s7-2
131 

Statement of Whirlpool Corporation 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-1
132 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-2
133 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-3
134 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-4
135 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-5
136 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-6
137 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s8-7
138 

Statement of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s9-1
139 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s9-2
140 

Statement of Mingas FTA 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s10-1
141 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s10-2
142 

Statement of Consumer Electronics Association 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s11
143 

Statement of California Cut Flower Commission 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-1
144 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-2
145 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-3
146 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-4
147 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-5
148 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-6
149 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s12-7
150 

Statement of Department of International Relations, Boston University 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-1
151 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-2
152 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-3
153 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-4
154 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-5
155 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-6
156 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-7
157 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-8
158 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s13-9
159 

Statement of Human Rights Watch 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-1
160 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-2
161 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-3
162 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-4
163 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-5
164 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-6
165 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-7
166 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-8
167 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-9
168 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s14-10
f 

169 

Statement of Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s15-1
170 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s15-2
171 

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

Chambers of Commerce in Latin America 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-1
172 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-2
173 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-3
174 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-4
175 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-5
176 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-6
177 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-7
178 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-8
179 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-9
180 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-10
181 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s16-11
182 

Statement of American Association of Exporters and Importers 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s17-1
183 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s17-2
184 

f 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s17-3
185 

Statement of BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s18-1
186 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with WAYS & MEANSInsert s18-2