By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s been nearly three years since Congress and former President George W. Bush approved the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, but whether Congress will vote soon on bilateral agreements with three other countries is anyone’s guess.

Last week, eight U.S. House members co-sponsored House Resolution 1562, which calls for the immediate adoption of trade agreements the U.S. has already signed with Colombia (November 2006; amended June 2007, according to the Emergency Committee for American Trade, or ECAT), South Korea and Panama (both June 2007).

Among these are Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who said the agreements should expand ag exports and lower or remove related tariffs on American goods. After all, he said, these countries already have low- to no-tariff access to sell their goods in the U.S.

Kind cited President Obama’s goal to double American exports within five years and said without opening more markets like this, it won’t be possible. Doing so would improve the U.S. economy, he said, and be a diplomatic tool.

“When goods and products cross borders, armies don’t,” he said, paraphrasing a principle put forth by 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat.

Kind pointed to the Canadian Parlia-ment’s ratification of a bilateral trade agreement with Colombia in early July, which will allow wheat to enter the South American country duty-free. “Other countries aren’t sitting around waiting to see what the U.S. is doing on a trade agenda,” he said. “We’ve been stalemated.”

Since Wisconsin is a big dairy state, Kind said he’s aware there has been a “substantial reduction” of dairy exports going into South Korea lately. A trade agreement would reduce those export tariffs, he said, as well as on beef and corn, two other big markets for U.S. farmers; to Colombia, an agreement would have similar effect on the U.S. beef, dairy and specialty crops the country seems to like.

There are U.S. agricultural organizations pushing for ratification of these three agreements. Earlier in July, American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) First Vice President Alan Kemper, a farmer in Lafayette, Ind., and others in ag met in Washington with delegations from Colombia and South Korea on free trade. South Korea is the fifth-largest market for our soybeans, Kemper said, and is definitely opening its markets to biotech beans. Exports to Colombia have dropped off over the last few years, he added, as the country is buying its soybeans from fellow South Americans (he said there’s also a good market for poultry and pork in Colombia).

According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service and Economic Research Service (FAS/ERS), from 2002-08, Colombia was one of our top 15 ag export markets each year, steadily increasing since 2003; in 2008, it imported $1.68 billion in ag goods.

Last year, however, it dropped off the top 15 (to compare, Venezuela was 15th, at $956 million). But Colombian ag imports into the U.S. remained strong – the country ranked ninth in 2009 – at a value of $1.77 billion, up slightly from 2008.

Kind said Colombia has been “a strong friend and ally” to the U.S., but many legislators are hesitant to ratify an agreement without a positive update on the state of human and labor rights in the country. He does not think opinions are divided along party lines.

“Just as a farmer out here,” Kemper said, referring to himself and not just as an ASA representative, “(I think) we need a Colombia free trade agreement because they are the only democracy in South America.”

Republican Rep. John Boozman from Arkansas, who supports all three agreements, explained tariffs for more than 50 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Columbia would be eliminated. The rest of these tariffs would be phased out over 15 years for agricultural goods. Ninety percent of Colombian imports enter our country duty-free, he added.

In Panama, Boozman said an agreement would immediately eliminate 88 percent of tariffs on U.S. exports and phase out the rest over time. In South Korea, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, an agreement would mean an increase in total gross domestic product for the U.S. of up to nearly $12 billion, including agriculture.

What’s holding up the South Korea agreement, Kind said, is auto trade. We import “a flood” of vehicles to sell in the U.S. each year, he explained, compared to the handful American manufacturers can sell there because of high tariffs.

Kemper said Congress can pass each agreement with a majority vote, but if it makes any changes to one without the approval of that partner country, a vote won’t matter since the agreement would be invalidated.

Congress begins a month-long recess next week. Neither Kind nor Kemper think a vote on these trade agreements is likely before the November election, let alone in the next few days. Kemper mentioned the ASA may be working with ECAT – whose members are business leaders – this fall, since ECAT also supports adoption of these three agreements.

“I think it would pass,” Kemper said, if put to a Congressional vote right after Labor Day, instead of Obama not putting it on Congress’ docket until November. “I think it’s bipartisan. Both parties recognize the need for trade,” given the state of our economy.

Cuba
Another country under consideration for ag trade changes is Cuba. In 1962 the U.S. enacted a general trade embargo against Cuba; earlier this year, House Ag Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) proposed a bill that would lift restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba, and make ag trade easier with the country.

On June 30, the committee voted 25-20 to approve the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act. The bill is still being considered by the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services committees before it can go to the full House.

Right now, Cuba must pay “cash in advance” for ag goods before they leave the U.S., but cannot do business with U.S. banks – which means the country must obtain credit through a third-party foreign bank, which then pays the American supplier. Cuba is also the only country required to pay before goods leave the U.S., rather than at the time of delivery.

Congressional passage of H.R. 4645 as-is would allow American banks to do business with Cuba so other nations don’t have to be involved; it would also eliminate fees for those transactions. Also, it would make it possible for U.S. ag shippers to collect payment upon delivery of goods.