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

65–304PDF 2011

THE COLOMBIA AND PANAMA FREE TRADE

AGREEMENTS: NATIONAL SECURITY AND

FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 17, 2011

Serial No. 112–17

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CONNIE MACK, Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher A. Padilla, vice president, Governmental Programs, IBM Corporation (former Under Secretary for International Trade, 

U.S. Department of Commerce) .......................................................................... 4

The Honorable James R. Jones, U.S. Congressman (retired), partner, 

ManattJones (former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico) ........................................... 12

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher A. Padilla: Prepared statement ............................... 7

The Honorable James R. Jones: Prepared statement ........................................... 14

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 28

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 29

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: Prepared statement ................................................................................................... 30

The Honorable David Rivera, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 32

The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey: Prepared statement .................................................................... 34

(1)

THE COLOMBIA AND PANAMA FREE TRADE 

AGREEMENTS: NATIONAL SECURITY AND 

FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Connie Mack (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. MACK. The subcommittee will come to order. First I would 

just like to say that I appreciate so much those that are in attendance, the witnesses, the members who are here. Obviously, it is a 

third day. We have votes today coming up. Members will be leaving 

tonight and tomorrow, so we are going to try to move quickly 

through the hearing, although I think this is such an important 

hearing that it is my intention to find another time when we can 

also maybe continue this hearing or have another hearing on the 

same set of issues. 

After recognizing myself and the ranking member, or Mr. Sires 

in this case, for opening statements, I will recognize each member 

of the subcommittee for 2 minutes. I would ask the members that 

if they wish to forego their opening statements or shorten them, 

that would be greatly appreciated so we can get to our witnesses, 

but it is your choice. I don’t want to take away your opportunity 

to be heard on this as well. 

We will then proceed directly to hearing testimony from our distinguished witnesses. The full text of the written testimony will be 

inserted in the record. Without objection, members may have 5 

days to submit statements and questions for the record. 

After we hear from our witnesses, individual members will be 

recognized for 5 minutes each to question our witnesses. The chair 

now recognizes himself 5 minutes, and following my own direction, 

I will forego my opening statement, will place it into the record, 

but I just would like to say that the free trade agreements in Panama and Colombia represent much more than just trade agreements. 

These agreements represent in my opinion, or the lack of agreements to this point, represent in my opinion a failed foreign policy 

by this administration, that we are missing opportunities to lead, 

we are missing opportunities to create alliances with allies who 

count on the United States’ friendship to help in their countries, 

2

which has a direct impact on our own economy and our national 

security. 

And so I am very concerned that the administration in its trip 

to Latin America has decided to forego Panama and Colombia. I 

think there is nothing more important that the administration can 

do right now than to show its support to our allies in Latin America. And the best thing the President could do is, either on the way 

to Latin America or when he gets back, to announce that he is 

going to send the free trade agreements to the Congress for passage. 

The old tired excuses about we are not sure if we have the votes 

in the House are wrong. The votes are here. We can pass the free 

trade agreements. And I think that it is time that the President, 

the administration, gets serious about foreign policy and recognizes 

that you can’t lead or be a leader if you don’t know what it is you 

stand for. And I am not sure that the administration knows what 

it stands for when it comes to foreign policy. 

Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As someone who has since 

I got here promoted the trade agreement with Colombia, I agree 

that we are missing an opportunity that is very important. I was 

one of the co-sponsors of a letter last year to the President with 

Congressman Dreier in trying to get the administration to put forward the Colombia trade agreement. I certainly think it is an important step for this country. 

I think that Colombia has been more than a friend to this country, and we need friends in that region. I felt that they have 

worked tirelessly with this country, including when we wanted to 

put the Iranians on notice about their nuclear program. 

So I am truly supportive of this agreement. I will be very brief 

so we can get this hearing, and I appreciate the chairman holding 

this hearing. We share a lot of opinions together in terms of Colombia and Panama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 

2 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be brief. I 

echo your sentiments that it is failed foreign policy, failed economic 

policy, and failure with our friends down in Latin America. I can 

only echo that Colombia under President Uribe was stable, he 

turned the country around. Santos is following in his footsteps. 

In Panama, it is not only stable, but the widening of the canal 

is only going to open up economic opportunities for the U.S. When 

you look at the benefits that we would get under Colombia, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia, 90 percent to Panama, this is a no-brainer. We really need to 

get on with these free trade agreements, and I hope that the President does that when he enters this trip at the end of this month. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. And Mr. Meeks is recognized for 2 minutes if he has a wish to make some comments. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you also 

for conducting this hearing. And I think that unlike some other 

issues that we have to deal with here in the United States Congress, you will find that this is an issue where we can have some 

3

bipartisanship, that it just simply means that we just got to sit 

down and think rationally. And when you do then you really begin 

to understand the benefits of us making sure that Panama and Colombia are passed. Because truly it is beneficial for both sides and 

our entire hemisphere. Truly, it just makes sense when you look 

at Colombia and Panama, great friends and allies of the United 

States and who have each made tremendous strides on their own 

governments in trying to make sure that they have turned a corner 

there. And for us, you know, it is simple to me that they have access to our markets and we don’t have access to theirs. And so it 

just seems to me it would help us create jobs and should be a part 

of the President’s export initiative. And I am hopeful for the first 

time in a very long time that in short order we will be able to get 

a bipartisan free trade agreement with Colombia and Panama 

passed. 

And I thank you, gentlemen. I wait to hear from you. And again, 

I thank the chairman for conducting this hearing. I think it is beneficial and will help us get down the road. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, sir, very much. Mr. Rivera from Miami 

is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. And thank you to the witnesses who are going 

to be presenting. I think it is important as we go forward to discuss 

every opportunity possible to make sure that Colombia and Panama are linked to the greatest extent that we can with the South 

Korea Free Trade Agreement. It is important that if you support 

free trade that the world know that we support all free trade, not 

just South Korea, but also Colombia and Panama, and that these 

free trade agreements be seen as a package. I think it is unfortunate that in the upcoming trip that President Obama is taking to 

Latin America he is not including stops in Colombia and Panama, 

two of our best allies in the region, two allies where not only there 

are mutual economic security interests, but national security interests. And I would hope as the President is embarking on his trip 

and conducting his trip while he is in Latin America that he makes 

sure not to shun them, at least in his public pronouncements on 

free trade. Because passing the Colombia free trade agreement, for 

example, is of utmost importance to moving our economy forward, 

creating jobs. It will eliminate trade barriers and immediately 

boost U.S. exports. In fact, U.S. GDP would increase by roughly 

$2.5 billion and exports would increase by over $1 billion, which 

would create thousands of jobs in the United States. 

While we are languishing in our commitment and dedication to 

free trade with these countries, the European Union and Canada 

have been promoting it quite vigorously and they are doubling and 

tripling their business with Colombia in the region. And I think 

this administration should take note of those movements. This 

would be important to make positive policy gestures toward our allies and making sure that Latin America knows we are enthusiastic about doing business with our allies. 

So I would just close by saying it is important to make sure that 

the message is sent that we approve all three trade agreements as 

a package; South Korea, Colombia and Panama. 

4

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. I would now like to introduce 

our witnesses. And again thank you so much for your patience in 

being here. First, the Honorable Christopher Padilla. Mr. Padilla 

served as Under Secretary for International Trade at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Prior to serving as Under Secretary, 

Padilla was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Export Administration, where he oversaw U.S. regulations governing the exports of items controlled for national security reasons. Currently 

Mr. Padilla serves as vice president of IBM, where he leads the 

company’s Global Government Affairs Program and manages a 

team of professionals in more than 30 countries. Thank you so 

much for being here. 

And second, the Honorable James Jones, a former Congressman, 

a former Ambassador to Mexico. During his service in Mexico, Ambassador Jones was very successful in his leadership during the 

Mexican peso crisis, the passage and implementation of NAFTA, 

and in developing new cooperative efforts to combat drug trafficking. He also assisted U.S. businesses with commercial ventures 

in Mexico. Ambassador Jones provides business development advice and consulting for clients primarily in Mexico and Latin America. 

Thank you both for being here. Mr. Padilla, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. PADILLA, 

VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS, IBM CORPORATION (FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE) 

Mr. PADILLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing. I am honored to be here and 

honored to be on a panel with Ambassador Jones. In 2007, Mr. 

Chairman, I was serving as Under Secretary of Commerce, and I 

traveled with then Secretary Gutierrez and a bipartisan congressional delegation, including Mr. Meeks, to Medellin, Colombia. And 

as we got off the plane at the airport in Medellin I saw a line of 

armored SUVs waiting on the tarmac to take us into the city, and 

I confess, all I could think of was the scene from the movie, ‘‘Clear 

and Present Danger,’’ where Harrison Ford’s convoy of U.S. Government officials in white SUVs gets ambushed in the streets of a 

Colombian city. I was a little nervous. And in my SUV, I don’t 

know about yours, Mr. Meeks, I had a couple of Members of Congress who shall remain nameless, it was a bipartisan group, and 

they weren’t saying anything either, so I think maybe we were all 

nervous. 

But as we drove into town at dusk we saw people crowding into 

busy sidewalk cafes, we saw excellent infrastructure, we saw families walking through parks with their children, and it was not the 

Colombia of the movies, nor the caricature that at least I had in 

my mind. What I was seeing was a country transformed. And in 

Colombia today terrorism and violence are being replaced by the 

rule of law, a huge investment in education and free markets. Colombia has strengthened its labor laws, it has cracked down on violence against unionists, and last year it was removed from the 

ILO’s list of countries subject to labor rights monitoring. The inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:48 Jun 16, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031711\65304 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

crease in security has been so dramatic that today, a resident of 

the District of Columbia is eight times more likely to be murdered 

than a trade unionist in the country of Colombia. And far from 

being persecuted, Colombian labor unions are growing and they are 

growing fast, faster than any other country in the hemisphere with 

labor union membership, growing by 75 percent in the last 7 years. 

But our dialogue here in Washington seems stuck in the past. 

We seem not to recognize this progress. Most notably in recent 

months the White House has stated it wants to move forward, but 

it has also said that there are further unspecified labor concessions 

from Colombia that will be needed. I am frankly not sure what 

more we can ask from this good friend and ally. 

The second point I want to make is that the United States already has free trade with Colombia and Panama, but it is one-way 

free trade, or at least it was until the ATPA recently expired. A can 

of Colombian coffee comes into this country duty free, and it did 

for 19 years under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. But a computer server made by IBM in the U.S. pays a 5 percent tariff when 

we sell it in Colombia. Even Lou Dobbs I think could love this 

trade agreement, Mr. Chairman, because it rectifies what is an unbalanced, one-way free trade relationship, and it is all good for the 

United States. 

The third point I would make is that Colombia and Panama both 

stand out as shining examples of the success of U.S. foreign policy. 

In 1999, then Speaker Hastert and then President Clinton worked 

together on a bipartisan basis to create Plan Colombia, and since 

then Colombia has leveraged more than $7 billion in U.S. assistance to fight terrorism and drugs and to protect human rights. As 

a result, the FARC terrorists have been largely defeated. Coca production is down by 40 percent. Just a few weeks ago Colombia 

came off the U.N. Drugs Watch List. Who would have thought a 

decade ago that we would see such progress? All done while maintaining a vibrant commitment to free markets and democracy. 

Surely, this is the model that we hope other countries, including 

in the Middle East, will follow to maintain a commitment to democracy in free markets even as they defeat a terrorist insurgency and 

deal with insecurity on their own borders. 

What message does it send to the region if we turn our back on 

these allies despite their commitment to democracy, security and 

free markets? I fear, Mr. Chairman, that any continued delay 

would only embolden those who have a different and darker and 

non-democratic vision for this hemisphere. 

Mr. Chairman, America is falling behind in its economic engagement in this hemisphere. As Mr. Rivera and Mr. Sires both noted, 

Chinese investment in the region is increasing. The EU and Canada both have free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. 

When Mercosur signed an agreement with Colombia recently, U.S. 

exports of agricultural products to Colombia dropped by half because they were replaced by Argentine and Brazilian exports. 

There is no more time to waste. Mr. Chairman, these countries 

are not the same countries they were even back in 2007, or certainly the ones they were at the end of the 1990s. Their progress 

should be recognized. The economic case for a close relationship 

with these neighbors is compelling, and it is immediate. In enhancVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:48 Jun 16, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\WH\031711\65304 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

ing or embracing a fuller partnership with Colombia and Panama, 

we serve not only our own foreign policy interests, but we set an 

example for others in the Western Hemisphere and the world to 

follow. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Padilla follows:]

7


65304a_1.eps
8


65304a_2.eps
9


65304a_3.eps
10


65304a_4.eps
11


65304a_5.eps
12

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Padilla. Ambassador Jones, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES R. JONES, U.S. CONGRESSMAN (RETIRED), PARTNER, MANATTJONES (FORMER 

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MEXICO) 

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a particular honor to testify here today. Your father, back when I was 

House Budget Committee chairman, was a valuable member of 

that committee and a friend, and I am delighted that you would 

invite me to testify here. 

My experience in trade goes back to 1973 when I first came to 

Congress. And during my 14 years in Congress I was on the Trade 

Subcommittee of Ways and Means that whole time. Then going to 

New York as CEO of the American Stock Exchange and developing 

both for our companies and for the relationships with the developing markets of Latin America, Asia and Africa. And then as Ambassador to Mexico before, after and in the implementation of 

NAFTA. And most recently the 12 years I have been CEO of 

ManattJones Global Strategies, our firm takes companies based in 

the United States into developing markets of Latin America and 

opens the markets, et cetera. And I found where trade can be helpful and trade can be unhelpful in doing business for American 

firms. 

Now, I don’t believe that free trade agreements solve all the 

problems, and I must admit that many of us who have testified on 

behalf of NAFTA, et cetera, perhaps overstated the benefits to be 

projected. But I think it is indisputable that the free trade agreements the United States has made has been to the benefit both in 

the United States and our trading partners. 

The common benefits are that (A) we, U.S. exports increase in 

every instance. For example, Mexico was sort of an afterthought as 

a trading partner before NAFTA and now it is the second largest 

market for U.S. goods and services. The net job increases both in 

the United States and in our trading partner is indisputable. And 

what is also interesting, particularly in NAFTA, is that the jobs 

that are NAFTA-related in the United States pay on average almost 20 percent more in wages than non-NAFTA or nontrade international jobs in the United States. 

The intangible benefits are also very important to the United 

States and to United States business, and I particularly found this 

true in NAFTA. Doing business in Mexico for a U.S. company before and after NAFTA is the difference of night and day. The 

NAFTA regulations, the NAFTA requirements, are such that you 

rarely, if ever, are approached with something that would be a 

crime in the United States when you are doing business for a 

NAFTA country. 

So I think those are all common things that free trade agreements bring to our country. Not all trade agreements are alike and 

not all of them should require the same kind—some of them should 

require much more scrutiny, but I don’t believe that these two 

trade agreements with Colombia and Panama fit that concern for 

several reasons. 

13

Number one, as has been mentioned, we currently have great 

trade advantages, and those advantages are being eroded because 

the United States has dallied while other countries have made free 

trade agreements throughout Latin America and have cut into our 

market share. 

Secondly, the exports and the imports with both Colombia and 

Panama are complementary and not competitive with the United 

States economic interest. For example, the U.S. has trade surplus 

in manufactured merchandise with both countries. Now, that is 

something that is very unusual. We have always had a services 

component surplus, but always a manufacture component deficit. 

We have surpluses with both Colombia and Panama. Neither Colombia nor Panama exports to the United States items that diminish job creation in the United States. 

In fact, it is just the opposite. The vast majority of imports to the 

United States from Colombia and Panama are oil, coffee, precious 

stones, cut flowers, fruits, prepared goods, seafood and gold. Those 

are not competitive with what we are producing in the United 

States. 

And fourth, the major U.S. exports to Colombia and Panama are 

machinery, aircraft, yarn, fabric and such agricultural products as 

wheat, corn, rice, and to a lesser extent pork and beef. So the U.S. 

has many advantages, but those are being diminished as we dilly 

and the other countries establish free trade agreements. The 

United States in the late 1990s and in the first decade of this century lost some very big opportunities to strengthen our ties with 

our Western Hemisphere neighbors. After the fall of communism, 

Latin America embraced free market economics and honest, competitive, open democracy, as well as making small strides toward 

the improvement of the rule of law. Nearly every nation in Latin 

America except Cuba admired and wanted to emulate the United 

States. But we became, as a nation, distracted elsewhere and we 

neglected attending to the needs and aspirations of our friends in 

the hemisphere. 

Now, these countries did not ask for foreign aid. What they wanted was more trade and to be more a part of the economic system 

of the United States. But both Democrats and Republicans, here it 

is bipartisan, dropped the ball, and as a result the perception 

throughout Latin America is one of neglect and disinterest by the 

United States. 

These two FTAs (free trade agreements), I think, can strengthen 

our foreign relations in the hemisphere while at the same time 

open new market opportunities for U.S. firms and can add U.S. 

jobs. Rarely does Congress ever come up with a proposal, that you 

have to study, that would be called a no-brainer, as Mrs. Schmidt 

said. But these two free trade agreements come as close to being 

no-brainers and should be approved. They will have economic foreign policy and security benefits for the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

14


65304b_1.eps
15


65304b_2.eps
16


65304b_3.eps
17


65304b_4.eps
18


65304b_5.eps
19


65304b_6.eps
20

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. We appreciate both testimonies. And I am going to begin with the questions. 

Mr. Rivera from Miami, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try and drill 

down on this issue of unresolved issues that I keep hearing about 

with respect to Colombia. It was quite disconcerting a few weeks 

ago when we had Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Arturo Valenzuela here testifying, and he was asked specifically what are these unresolved issues, and he was not able to respond. In another meeting subsequent to that hearing with Trade 

Secretary Kirk, I asked him the exact same question, and there 

were several Congressmen present in that meeting, and he was unable to respond. But I keep hearing this specter of the term ‘‘unresolved issues.’’ And I think that is just a code word, those are code 

words for labor concerns, as I talk to some of my colleagues here 

now. 

My understanding is that the Vice President of Colombia is a 

former union leader, is that correct, Mr. Padilla. 

Mr. PADILLA. Yes, that is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. RIVERA. It is also my understanding that he is very supportive of this free trade agreement between the United States and 

Colombia. So let’s talk about some of these issues of, drill down 

even further, labor concerns. I have heard issues about death with 

labor leaders and labor members in Colombia. But I was given 

some statistics recently that said homicides against unions have 

declined by 83 percent since 2002, from 196 to 33 cases. 

Can you speak a little bit to this issue of violence with union 

leaders? 

Mr. PADILLA. Certainly. Maybe I can start. There is no question 

that violence against labor leaders has declined dramatically in Colombia. The homicide rate in that country overall has dropped by 

half, kidnappings have dropped by 90 percent, and the country has 

made a special effort to protect trade unionists. In fact, the country 

has a program on which it spends about $360 million to provide 

protection details for anyone who asks for them and can make the 

case that they need it. And about 2,000 labor union leaders and 

about 10,000 judges are under that program. 

There is no question, Congressman, that in the past Colombia 

has been a dangerous place. It is a place with a violent history, it 

was subject to a violent terrorist insurgency. But I think the evidence is clear that there has not been, particularly in recent years, 

some sort of an effort to target labor union leaders. In fact, I think 

just the opposite; they have received more protection, and as a result, the level of violence has declined quite dramatically. 

Mr. RIVERA. Go ahead, Mr. Jones, Ambassador Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Just two comments. Number one, one of the advantages of being around a long time is you get to see things ebb and 

flow, and both political parties have to work out the political issues 

of their own base, and so I think that is what is going on ultimately. And I think before too long they will come to the realization that the fact is, Colombia has made great strides in protecting 

the unions. There is no question. In fact, I was on the board of a 

major U.S. company and we had an opportunity to buy the major 

beer company in Colombia not too long ago. And the CEO said 

21

there is no way he would send any of his people into Colombia because everybody was targeted, and now a few years later it is much 

more improved. 

So I would say, based upon an anecdotal from my time in business primarily, that 10 or so years ago union leaders were targeted. 

I don’t think that is the case now, and I think the Colombian Government actually is going the other way to prosecute and to protect 

union people. 

Mr. RIVERA. It is also my understanding that the Colombia Free 

Trade Agreement and its labor provisions are identical to the Peru 

Free Trade Agreement, which had broad bipartisan support, is that 

correct? 

Mr. PADILLA. Yes, it is correct, Congressman. It reflects the May 

10th agreement, so-called May 10th agreement, made on a bipartisan basis between the then Bush administration and Democratic 

leaders of Congress, and the language on labor and environment in 

Colombia and Peru is identical. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, I think that pretty much makes the case that 

Colombia, and perhaps Panama as well, are being targeted and tarnished unjustifiably by this administration and the detractors of 

the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which I think just makes the 

argument even more forcefully that all three trade agreements 

need to be treated as a package, because I don’t think Latin American countries, particularly strong allies like Colombia and Panama, should be discriminated against, which is why I think if they 

are not brought forward as a package then South Korea should not 

go forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Jones, I 

couldn’t agree with you more. I have seen myself a change in Colombia the last few years. I travel just about every year to Colombia with a group that raises money for an orphanage, and every 

year that I go there I am amazed of the changes that go on in the 

country. I also had a very interesting dinner with one of the presidents of the colleges in Bogota, where during the dinner he stated 

to me that the second most studied language in Colombia today is 

Mandarin. 

So to me that raised a red flag. Obviously China is a big presence 

now in Colombia and increasing every year. So if we don’t move 

forward with this trade agreement as Colombia has moved forward 

with the EU, Brazil, Canada and China, how would this further neglect of this agreement affect the American industries? 

Mr. JONES. First of all, let me comment on your issue of learning 

Mandarin. A very short time ago, just a few years, China was the 

19th or 20th trade partner of Colombia’s and now they are the second. And the projections show they will surpass the United States 

as the largest trade partner unless we are able to pass a free trade 

agreement. 

But that is not the only one we are losing business to. We are 

losing business to Argentina, Brazil, and the Mercosur countries in 

agricultural products. And ADM has lost a significant amount of 

business, for example, in wheat and corn into Colombia. 

22

So I think that, as I tried to point out in my testimony, our trade 

with Colombia is very complementary. What they sell to the United 

States are things that are not integral to the United States and 

what we sell to Colombia is integral to the United States and not 

to Colombia. So I think it is one of those hand-in-glove type agreements that we ought to be pursuing are passing. 

Mr. SIRES. I think last year Colombia signed a trade agreement with Canada worth about $1,700,000,000 that we probably lost out 

on. 

Mr. Padilla, in your estimation, what is the roadblock, other than 

obviously the unions? Because I am trying to find out myself to see 

if I can unblock it. 

Mr. PADILLA. Well, I would associate myself with Ambassador 

Jones’ comments on this. I don’t really think it is about labor issues 

in Colombia. I think great progress has been made. I think this is 

about the difficult domestic politics of trade in the United States, 

candidly. And what I hope will happen is that President Obama 

will take ownership of these two agreements, as he did with the 

Korea agreement, to his credit, in which he embraced that agreement, is prepared to submit it to Congress, and I think it will get 

a very strong bipartisan vote. There is no reason in my view that 

he couldn’t and shouldn’t do the same with Colombia and Panama, 

and I hope that he will. 

I think that really is the issue. The reason that I think Ambassador Valenzuela and Ambassador Kirk were not able to answer 

your question is we have not told the Colombians what we want. 

They have been asking for years and we have not told them, and 

the reason is because of the political challenges of dealing with this 

agreement in our own domestic politics. 

Mr. JONES. I would just add to my friends on my side of your 

aisle, and that is the reason I ticked off the products that Colombia 

sells to us and the products that we sell to them, it is in organized 

labor of the United States’ best interest to promote this because the 

jobs are in manufacturing, in aircraft and various things, machinery and things like that. And those are the products we are selling 

to Colombia and can sell more of if indeed this free trade agreement passes. 

Mr. SIRES. Just to comment, I also attended the swearing in of 

the new President, and to me it was disappointing there were not 

people from the State Department there in support of the President, of one of our friends getting sworn in. If it wasn’t for a delegation—and, you know, I mentioned this to the Secretary of State 

when she was here—it was kind of disappointing that we did not 

have a good strong delegation in support of the new President in 

the direction that he is going to follow, as he said, he is going to 

follow in the same direction as Uribe. So it was disappointing. But 

we were there though. 

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MACK. If I may, I just want to say publicly that I appreciate 

you being here. I know that you are no longer on the subcommittee. 

Mr. MEEKS. Unfortunately. 

23

Mr. MACK. Unfortunately for all of us. But your voice is important, and so I appreciate you taking the time to be here. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Western Hemisphere is, though unfortunately the numbers do not prevail so that 

I could be back on the subcommittee, but the work of the subcommittee is important and your leadership is vital. And even 

though my name is not on the official roster I think that you will 

see me as a frequent visitor to this subcommittee and the hearings 

that it has because the Western Hemisphere is deeply embedded 

in my heart. So I will be participating as often as I possibly can 

and as often as you will be willing to put up with me. 

Let me say that, first of all, I can’t—there is not one single thing 

that I have heard from either one of you that I disagree with you. 

I think that we are all in lockstep in that regards. And I think that 

even with my colleagues here we all feel that we need to get this 

free trade agreement done, we need to talk about and pass South 

Korea, but these two trade agreements need not be left behind. I 

do think though that part of what is challenging is the internal politics and in trying to make sure that we pay attention to concerns 

that individuals have. And I will tell you, politics says that trade 

is only approved by 34 percent of the American public. 

So we all have our work cut out, so that we can really tell the 

American people the truth about trade, that basically our trade 

agreements balances our trade deficits, doesn’t cause trade deficits. 

And when you look at the country that we have trade deficits, it 

is generally around oil and those areas and/or with China, who we 

really don’t have a—we have an agreement, but not the kind of 

trade agreement that we are talking about here that makes sure 

that we have the opportunity to go into other markets. 

And so some of the fear that I believe that the vast majority of 

Americans have with reference to trade agreements is that we will 

lose jobs, and that is not true. We clearly know that that is not 

true. If you just look statistically we can get around the fear. People sometimes confuse trade agreements with outsourcing. Those 

are two completely different things. Trade agreements helps bring 

jobs. And I think that the President is on the right track when he 

starts talking about his export initiative. I think that we need to 

fix what we do here also and give the American people the right 

perspective. I think that we do need to pass TAA, for example, because psychologically that helps the country, and puts them in a 

better position to understand trade. And those who may lose out, 

lose their job, and it might not even be from trade, but lose their 

job, we are concerned about them working. So if we pass TAA, I 

think that helps our argument and helps us move forward in trying 

to remedy this. 

And I also think that you know I have had a number of Latin 

America countries come to me concerned that we haven’t extended 

the preference agreement. I think that is important. That sends a 

message also. And I think that people should graduate from the 

preference agreement to a trade agreement. That should be the 

natural flow of things. That is the way—especially on our hemisphere. They are our neighbors, and we need to change policies. I 

don’t care whether it is a democratic administration or a republic 

administration. We are in the post-Cold War era, so we need to 

24

think of Latin America in a different way than we did when it was 

a Cold War. 

And the best way to think of it differently is to make sure that 

we begin to pass trade agreements where we become interdependent upon one another; whether we can begin to share and 

show respect to one other. And I think that as we look at the countries that we have entered into trade agreements with, that has 

happened. And I think that we miss a golden opportunity if we do 

a trade agreement, and I am a big time supporter of what we did 

with Peru, I was one of the major proponents there, but then it becomes a slap in the face that Colombia, who is just as big an ally 

to us, for us to pick and choose and say, okay, we will do one with 

this one but not with that one. 

And so I think that is the frustration that is beginning to set in 

with our Colombian allies. Why are we being picked on, why are 

we different, you know, when we can do one with Chile, how come 

you can’t do one with us, you can do one with Peru, how come you 

can’t do one with us? And so I think that we have got to get it 

done. I also think that there is times, and here is where I think 

the challenge is for the current administration. Every administration likes to put his or her, we have only had he’s, we would like 

to have a she sometime soon also, but every administration likes 

to put their own stamp on it so it looks like it reflects something 

they did or didn’t do. And I think that we are getting there. 

I think that Ambassador Jones was absolutely right, that now 

there is conversation that has taken place, and I am hopeful that 

just as soon as we can do South Korea, that immediately thereafter 

or right there at the same time, we will be able to pull through 

with Colombia. 

So I really don’t have much of a question because I agree with 

everything that has been said. But all I want to do is to work with 

everyone in a bipartisan manner. Let’s get this thing done because 

it is good for America and it is good for Colombia and Panama. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Meeks, and thank you for bringing 

your passion to the hearing, and you are welcome at the subcommittee hearing any time, even if I disagree with you. I think 

that the frustration is that everything points to a reason why these 

free trade agreements should be passed. The President should send 

them to the Congress immediately and they should be passed. 

Every hoop that the countries have been asked to jump through 

they have jumped through, to the point now where when you ask 

those who should know what else is it that you are looking for, 

they can’t answer. I mean, I think we have exhausted every legitimate policy discussion on this, and now it is just politics. 

I would like, if you could, one of the things that I don’t know is 

focused enough upon on these trade agreements is, what does it 

say about our foreign policy as it relates in Latin America for these 

two trade agreements? We have spent so much money over the 

years in Colombia to help with the drug cartels and the terrorist 

organizations, they are allies of ours. In your opinion, what does 

it mean if we continue to sit on the sidelines and have an almost 

nonexistent foreign policy in Latin America? What do you think it 

means to Colombia and Panama and how do you think that relates 

to our security? 

25

Mr. PADILLA. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me first, if I could, just say 

to Mr. Meeks, I want to thank you for your leadership on this 

issue. You have been on this issue for a lot of years, and when 

these agreements pass with a strong bipartisan vote, as they will, 

we will owe you a debt of gratitude as a country. So thank you for 

your leadership. I know it is a difficult issue, particularly with 

some of your colleagues. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that what this says is that our Latin 

American friends cannot be sure that we are with them and we are 

falling behind. I think that is what it says. I would contrast this 

with our experience in Central America where we passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement, which was a very difficult free 

trade agreement to pass, also done by Mr. Meeks’ leadership. Exports exploded to those countries. Our economic relationships deepened. And what we are seeing, for example, in El Salvador, where 

the President is going to visit, is a peaceful transfer of power from 

the right to the left, and yet that country has remained committed 

to democracy and free markets. I wish the same were true in Nicaragua. We need to show our engagement. And we get into trouble 

in Latin America; over the years, we have gotten into trouble, 

when we ignore the region, as we too often do. And I fear if we continue to delay these agreements for basically domestic political reasons, that it sends a message to our allies that they are better off 

dealing with themselves, with Brazil or with other countries in the 

region, and I don’t think that serves our long-term interests. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to remind ourselves 

that Colombia chairs the U.N. Committee, United Nations committee implementing sanctions against Iran, that it has partnered, 

and I know this quite deeply—they are training the new Mexican 

Federal police force to combat the narcotrafficking and the criminal 

organizations in Mexico that threaten our borders. They are working in Afghanistan at our request on the counternarcotics trafficking and growing situation. So they have been a staunch partner 

of the United States. 

I think regrettably, both in terms of reporting and in terms of 

foreign policy, the United States has ignored Latin America all too 

often. We will have a spurt of interest in Latin America, and then 

it dies down. And right now we are in a position where they perceive us as not interested in them, ignoring their interests and they 

are getting frustrated, Colombia, specifically. And that is why they 

have so aggressively gone after these other free trade agreements 

with the European Union, with Canada, China, and the Mercosur 

countries. 

So I think our whole foreign policy, and this is true of Democrat 

and Republican administrations, need to focus more on our own 

neighborhood. Because if we are going to have a problem it is going 

to—and it could be exacerbated—by losing friends in our own 

neighborhood in the Western Hemisphere. So I would say that this 

is just a step forward in trying to combat that perception that we 

are not interested in the Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. MACK. Would you agree with me and others on this committee? I don’t want to put words into all the committee member’s 

mouths, that the fact that the President has chosen not to go to 

Panama and Colombia on this trip isn’t something else that could 

26

be frustrating to Colombia and Panama—that as the President 

takes his trip, that once again they are being overlooked? 

Mr. JONES. I am generally a glass half full kind of guy, and what 

I am thinking this is going to show—his trip, the President’s trip—

will show the importance in a very personal way of the Western 

Hemisphere to the United States, and hopefully the trips to Panama and Colombia will come after we have reached the political 

agreements here in the United States and pass these two free trade 

agreements and it will be much more of a celebration at that time 

than it would be right now. 

Mr. PADILLA. I think it is a little unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. 

One thing I observed in my time in government is that personal 

relationships between leaders really matter, and I think one of the 

reasons we have moved forward on Korea is because of the excellent personal relationship between President Obama and President 

Lee in Korea. And there is only so many times you can go to a G–

20 meeting and meet the President of Korea and not have something to say about a trade agreement. 

That is not the case with President Santos or President 

Martinelli. So I think it is unfortunate, it is a missed opportunity, 

but I, like Ambassador Jones, am very hopeful that we will soon 

have reason for another trip and that trip will be a celebratory one. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. And I want to take this opportunity again 

to thank you both for being here and to share your insights. I wish 

we had more time. Like I said, I hope that we will have another 

opportunity to have a hearing on this topic because I do think it 

is important. 

And I just want to leave with this: That I am deeply concerned 

about what all of this means to the world as it relates to our foreign policy. And as I stated in my opening, that you can’t lead if 

you don’t know what you stand for. And I think that the United 

States needs to get back on a track of knowing what we stand for 

and trying to lead in that direction. 

So thank you so much for being here, and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(27)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

28


65304n.eps
29


65304m.eps
30


65304c-1.eps
31


65304c-2.eps
32


65304e-1.eps
33


65304e-2.eps
34


65304d-1.eps
35


65304d-2.eps
36

Æ


65304d-3.eps