President Bush and senior administration officials said March 12 that legislation to implement the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will likely be submitted to Congress as early as March 31. Democratic leaders responded that any effort to push the bill through without their approval would risk not only the Colombia FTA but future trade initiatives as well.
In an address to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington, Bush said the Colombia trade deal is “pivotal to America’s national security and economic interests right now, and it is too important to be held up by politics.” He emphasized that Colombia has responded to every concern raised by members of Congress, taking decisive steps to reduce violence, protect labor activists and improve labor and environmental standards. “If this isn’t enough to earn America’s support, then what is?” he queried. He also stressed that the agreement would give U.S. exporters the preferential treatment in Colombia that Colombian exporters have enjoyed in the U.S. for 16 years, saying “I can’t understand a mentality that doesn’t recognize that causing America to be treated equally is … in our interests.”
As a result, Bush said, “members of Congress must be ready to move forward with the agreement when they return from the Easter recess.” U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said later that this means the White House plans to submit the implementing legislation “very shortly” after the break in order to ensure a vote on the agreement this year. Once the bill is sent up, Congress will have a total of 90 legislative days to approve or reject it.
Administration officials said they are still working with Democratic leaders to reach an agreement on how to move the FTA forward but that a bill will ultimately be submitted with or without their assent. “We’ve been at the table waiting to engage with congressional leadership to find a path forward on Colombia,” said Deputy USTR John Veroneau. “We have left and will continue to leave no stone unturned in terms of trying to find a way forward that is bipartisan.” But the president has made clear that “there will be a vote on this agreement -- that is, this year, this Congress … And that is a critical message I think for Congress to hear.” As one unnamed trade official quoted by The New York Times put it, “We’re telling the Democrats that we’re still going to work with you, but if you back us up against the wall, we have no choice but to submit the agreement to Congress.”
Officials added that they are unsure what else could be done to secure the approval of Democratic leaders. “We heard the concerns that were raised last summer and we have addressed those,” Veroneau said. “We have done everything that we have been asked to do. We were asked to change the agreement by creating enforceable and stronger labor and environment provisions, and we were asked to demonstrate that there’s been tangible progress in the areas of violence and impunity. We’ve done that.” Asked in a press conference what other issues might need to be addressed, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Christopher Padilla said “we don’t have an answer for you.” One such issue has been a demand by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus that a bill expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program be passed before the Colombia FTA is considered. According to Inside US Trade, however, Schwab “dismissed” that position as “another prerequisite” and said it is “now time for Congress to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Senior Democratic leaders responded by warning of the effects a unilateral decision to submit the Colombia FTA bill could have. This agreement “is already controversial due to unresolved concerns about the high level of violence and intimidation against union members in Colombia,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “An attempt by President Bush to try to bully Congress would just add to the problems facing that FTA, and could have profound repercussions for the next President’s trade agenda.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the White House to “follow the established protocol of Congressional consultation relating to the submission of any FTA” and said that “any deviation from this normal procedure for the Colombia FTA could prove to be counterproductive and would work against both countries’ long-term interests.” Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., a member of the House Trade Working Group, added that in light of the administration’s stance “it is imperative that the Democratic leadership uses all the tools in its power to ensure the flawed Colombia FTA is not enacted.”
Although none of these lawmakers mentioned the idea specifically, one such tool is for Pelosi to strip the legislation of its protections under trade promotion authority, a maneuver that would require the approval of a majority of House members. But administration officials used strong terms to caution against such a move. Schwab said it would be “the ultimate betrayal of trust” by Congress and would affect U.S. trade policy priorities far beyond the Colombia FTA. Veroneau added that a TPA-type agreement “has never been broken before” and that the administration “would be surprised if that agreement were not honored.” Schwab also implied that it would be hypocritical for lawmakers to punish the administration for a perceived violation of TPA because Congress itself “has yet to even begin to meet its obligations under TPA.”
World Trade/Interactive
