From Reuters, reporting on remarks by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer after his speech today at the National Press Club. “We ought to pass them,” he said of the still-pending Free Trade Agreements with Colombia and Panama. The deal with South Korea needs more work.

“Basically, however, I believe that America can compete with the rest of the world if we have a level and fair trading field. So I’m one of those that believes that trade is helpful and creates jobs over the long run.”

Yes, Hoyer said pretty much the same thing when he spoke to the National Association of Manufacturers last September, but he was right then and he’s right now.

Reporters asked NAM President John Engler about trade today on a conference call about the Milken Institute study, “Jobs for America.” Engler said any discussion about jobs in the President’s State of the Union should embrace trade expansion: “We think if they’re serious on the jobs front, they have to look at trade. We’ve got a lot of companies that send a big amount of their production abroad for sale.”

More on Hoyer’s remarks, with a strangely inclusive lead, from AFP.

Earlier today, Bloomberg moved a larger piece about the Obama Administration’s pallid trade agenda, reporting the disappointment of major exporters like Caterpillar. Also, the following seems like a fair assessment:

[Obama’s] trade agenda remains modest, said William Reinsch, president of the Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council, which represents exporters such as Boeing Co.

There’s a split in the administration between economic advisers who support more trade pacts and political operatives who say doing so would enrage Democratic lawmakers and their union supporters, Reinsch said in an interview.

“So far the political people are winning,” he said.

Yeah. Jobs or politics, politics or jobs.

From AFP, “Uribe pide a congresistas demócratas de EEUU la aprobación del TLC.” That’s “Uribe asks U.S. Democratic Members of Congress to Pass FTA”:

CARTAGENA, Colombia — El presidente colombiano, Álvaro Uribe, pidió el sábado a legisladores demócratas de Estados Unidos aprobar un Tratado de Libre Comercio crucial para Bogotá, sin obtener sin embargo de éstos promesas de que sea firmado este año.

Uribe se reunió en su finca de la ciudad de Montería (norte) con una delegación del Congreso liderada por Eliot Engel, demócrata por el estado de Nueva York, y que llegó a Colombia luego de visitar Argentina y Perú.

Which is to say: Colombia President Alvaro Uribe on Saturday asked Democratic lawmakers from the United States to approve the free trade agreement crucial to Bogota, without obtaining, however, any promises of action this year. Uribe met at his estate in the city of Monteria with a congressional delegation led by Eliot Engel, Democrat of New York, which arrived in Colombia after visiting Argentina and Peru.

Engel is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

See also the Spanish-language account from AP, “Uribe y delegación legislativa de EEUU hablan de TLC.” The trip has attracted little English-language media notice that we can find here in the United States. The Buenos Aires Herald did have a piece on the delegation’s stop in Argentina:

At the reception Engel largely confined himself to allowing his second visit here in two years to speak for itself as indicating his enthusiasm and to presenting the other members of the delegation (all Democrats, thus breaking with a bipartisan tradition): Lynn Woolsey (California), Shelley Berkley (Nevada) and Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rico), along with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Christopher McMullen, the right-hand man of Arturo Valenzuela who paid a controversial visit here last month. Engel joked as to who had more Puerto Ricans in his constituency - he or Pierluisi.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office on Monday released a report assessing the impact of the U.S. free trade agreements that were negotiated and went into effect with Singapore, Chile, Jordan and Morocco, “International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and Environment Remain.”

While varying in details, the FTAs have all eliminated import taxes, lowered obstacles to U.S. services such as banking, increased protection of U.S. intellectual property rights abroad, and strengthened rules to ensure government fairness and transparency. Overall merchandise trade between the United States and partner countries has substantially grown, with increases ranging from 42 percent to 259 percent. Services trade, foreign direct investment, and U.S. affiliate sales in the largest partners also rose.

The U.S. trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea will also eliminate import taxes, lower obstacles to U.S. services, increase protection for U.S. intellectual property rights abroad and strengthen rules to ensure government fairness and transparency. History, in the form of a GAO report, tells us those changes bring substantial economic benefits.

Oh, but challenges remain!

Challenges always remain. That’s their nature. Members of Congress who always point to remaining challenges do so to support continued inaction. And as the GAO study proves, inaction is bad for the United States. FTAs have accomplished what they were meant to accomplish: improved access for U.S. products, more exports and economic growth for the United States.

The United States is in a recession, free trade agreements stimulate economic growth and jobs, and yet Congress refuses to act on the Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Challenges remain, but here’s one that Congress can speedily overcome: Enact the agreements.

The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady cites recently captured documents from Colombia’s FARC guerillas  to demonstrate what was already clear to any dispassionate observer of South American politics: Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, is no friend of the United States — or of freedom, for that matter. From “The FARC’s Ecuadorean Friends“:

Previously undisclosed documents, fruits of the Colombian military’s raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (a.k.a. FARC) camp in Ecuador in 2008, came into my hands last week.

The FARC’s second in command, Raúl Reyes, was killed in that raid. But he left behind laptop computers containing correspondence detailing a cozy relationship not only with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez but also — the fresh documents reveal — with the government of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa.

Someone should tell the White House. Ten days ago, President Obama called Mr. Correa to, according to a spokesman, “congratulate him on his recent re-election.” Mr. Obama also wanted to “express his desire to deepen our bilateral relationship and to maintain an ongoing dialogue that can ensure a productive relationship based on mutual respect.”

Mr. Correa is anything but respectful of U.S. interests in the region. He’s more like Fidel Castro — albeit with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois. Under his rule, liberty has been evaporating faster than you can say bolivariano. Now the Reyes letters provide strong evidence that he has been actively supporting the Marxist FARC guerrillas, who see the U.S. as a major enemy.

For some reason, Correa’s radicalism has escaped the same sort of media scrutiny in the United States that Chavez and to a lesser extent Bolivia’s Evo Morales have received. But like the other two, he’s debased the rule of law and governs an an explicitly anti-American leader.

Ecuador’s policies have flown in the face of the mutually beneficial trade relationships that the United States seeks to engage in. Major U.S. business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, recently wrote U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk highlighting the country’s growing disrespect for the law and asking for a review of Ecuador’s continued eligibility for U.S. trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).

From the letter, which was signed by the NAM, Business Roundtable, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, United States Council for International Business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

While both Peru and Colombia have successfully used this program to promote economic diversification and new opportunities, while also strengthening their own legal systems and respect for the rule of law, the same cannot be said of Ecuador.

In particular, there are serious concerns within the U.S. business community about breaches of the basic rule of law that are occurring in Ecuador, contrary to the basic eligibility requirements of section 203(c). As found by the State Department in its annual human rights report on Ecuador released in February 2009, there are concerns with “corruption and the denial of due process within [Ecuador’s] judicial system.” U.S. businesses have also continued to see Ecuador’s repudiation of its legal obligations to U.S. investors and a politicization of the judicial system.

Given these basic gaps in the rule of law, we believe that the automatic renewal of Andean preferences for Ecuador would send the wrong message to other developing countries in the hemisphere and throughout the world that have worked to meet the basic eligibility criteria to qualify for U.S. trade preferences. We note that Bolivia has already lost its ATPA benefits as a result of its failure to meet the ATPA eligibility criteria and that Bolivia’s actions continue to worsen.

O’Grady notes that Colombia’s President Uribe visits Washington next week. Indeed, Colombia has built on APTA to broaden and strengthen its economy and expand democratic liberties in the country. If Congress is serious about expanding U.S. exports, creating more jobs in the U.S. export sector, and supporting a democratic ally in a troubled region, it would immediately pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It’s that clear.

The wall poster of Cuban murderer Che Guevera is on the side of a building on the major route from downtown Quito to the international airport. I shot it during a recent trip to Ecuador as a guest of Chevron, a U.S. company being attacked by a coalition of U.S. trial lawyers, environmental activists and political forces in Ecuador.

KMEG: Johanns: US needs to approve trade agreement with Colombia

KCAU: Johanns: Obama needs to ask for trade authority

From VOA, “Venezuela Seizes Assets of 60 Oil Services Companies“:

The Venezuelan government has seized the assets of 60 local and foreign-owned oil services firms.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the seizures Friday, saying they were authorized under a law passed Thursday by the National Assembly.

Among the firms whose assets were taken is Oklahoma-based Williams Companies, which said the government took control of two natural gas facilities. The company said it is seeking repayment of millions of dollars in services fees owed by state-run companies in Venezuela.

More on the attack on Williams’ property rights in the Tulsa World here.
Wouldn’t it be a good time for the White House and Congress to move forward on a trade agreement that supports a democratic ally in the troubled region of socialist caudillos? That is, Colombia?

The Administration is planning meetings soon with Colombia on the FTA. From Reuters, May 5, “U.S. presses on Panama, Colombia deals”

From Ambassador Kirk’s hometown newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, “In first speech since taking post, Ron Kirk again pushes for expanded global trade“:

WASHINGTON –The Obama administration’s embrace of free trade is angering some Democratic allies, and even trade ambassador Ron Kirk’s emphasis on “leveling the playing field” for U.S. workers and exporters isn’t enough to satisfy critics.

Kirk, the former Dallas mayor, offered a full-throated pitch for expanding global trade today, in his first speech since joining the Cabinet a month ago as U.S. trade representative.

The Hill, “Obama pushing Colombia, S. Korea trade”
New York Times, “U.S. Trade Chief Says Obama Will Push Ahead on Pacts”
CanWest News Service, “Harper delighted Obama won’t open NAFTA”

Wall Street Journal editorial, “Austan Goolsbee’s Vindication,” giving President Obama three cheers and then cuffing him around.

Perhaps we should call this Austan Goolsbee’s revenge. Recall that last year the Obama economic adviser had told a Canadian diplomat to ignore Mr. Obama’s Nafta campaign rhetoric; the candidate was merely pandering to Big Labor. When that disclosure became news, Mr. Goolsbee was banished to the campaign’s isolation ward for imperfect spinners. Now we know Mr. Goolsbee — not the candidate — was the one telling the truth.

Mr. Obama got an earful on trade from his counterparts at the Summit of the Americas over the weekend and that might have something to do with his Nafta walkback. But three other trade issues to watch are the unilateral U.S. ban on Mexican long-haul trucks, which has sparked a trade war with that country, the U.S. failure to ratify a free trade agreement with Colombia, and the 54-cent per gallon U.S. import duty on Brazilian ethanol. Mr. Obama has promised to discuss each one. But the real test will be his willingness to spend political capital to defeat protectionists in Congress.

Ambassador Kirk’s actions this week suggest the President is indeed willing to spend that capital. The Trade Rep held a conference call with reporters on Monday, laying out a very pro-trade message. Between Monday and Kirk’s speech Thursday at Georgetown Law there was more than enough time to back away from trade, but the Administration did not.

Now, about those Mexican trucks…

From the Wall Street Journal (subscription), “Trade Official Says No Need To Redo Nafta“:

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. trade official said it isn’t necessary to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite a campaign promise by President Barack Obama to strengthen the pact’s labor and environmental provisions.

“The president has said we will look at all options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement,” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told reporters Monday in a conference call.

From CQ Politics, “Free Trade Returns to the Table“:

On the heels of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said Monday that a delegation from Panama will visit Washington this week to try to resolve disputes over the U.S.-Panama trade deal. Kirk added that President Obama hopes to clear remaining obstacles to a separate pact with Colombia.

Ultimately, Obama — who met with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe during the summit — believes that “a resolution of the Colombia trade agreement would be a good thing for both economies,” Kirk said.

And Bloomberg, “Obama works to bolster NAFTA.”
Very positive developments, and Ambassador Kirk is doing a fine representing the pro-growth, pro-trade arguments. When the February trade data come out earlier this month, Kirk issued a news release making the case for more trade and trade agreements, “Ambassador Kirk Says Trade Data Underscores Need to Open Markets to U.S. Goods.” There were ways to spin the data into an anti-trade message, but Kirk — and the Obama Administration — chose the pro-trade angle. Which is, of course, the pro-jobs angle, too.

With all the fuss about Venezuela’s caudillo Hugo Chavez greeting to President Obama at the Summit of the Americas, it’s worth noting that Colombia’s president, a believer in democracy and free markets, also met with President Obama. From Bloomberg:

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said he talked with Obama at the summit about a U.S. trade agreement that has been stalled by Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress and the future of Plan Colombia, the country’s anti-narcotics program funded with more than $600 million a year in U.S. aid.

“We found a great willingness to advance our bilateral agenda,” Uribe said April 18.

And President Obama mentioned Presidente Uribe in passing in his statement and news conference.

So that was good. Was there more? Not that we saw in an admittedly undisciplined weekend review of the news, at least in the U.S.-based media.

This Colombian English-language website, Colombian Reports, offered more detail in the column, “Uribe’s unplanned power lunch with Obama,” which notes that President Obama eschewed all bilateral meetings.

Uribe seemed to have lost his chance for a one-on-one and rather ended up scheduled to meet with Obama at the same time as the other South American presidents. Once again, Chávez took the spotlight while Uribe sat calmly.

But Colombia and the United States had a thing or two to discuss (think Plan Colombia, Free Trade Agreement, still being BFFs). Uribe, in what only seems to be the most overt foreign policy expression of his paisa drive, ended up sitting right next to Obama during a lunch amongst all of the nations’ leaders.

By the end of a 45-minute one-on-one conversation, Uribe had gotten what he wanted. He received his first invitation to Washington, effective immediately, and as if that weren’t enough, he got Obama to promise to visit Colombia.

Now we’re talking.

One hopes more than even talking.

UPDATE (11:45 a.m.): Yes, indeed. After the NAM’s international folks reported the weekend saw significant developments vis a vis Colombia, we went back and found this report: “Obama Tells Official to Resolve Colombian Trade-Pact Obstacles“: “President Barack Obama has ordered his top trade official to work with Colombia to resolve obstacles preventing completion a U.S. free-trade agreement with the South American country.” So that’s good and good.

So the passionate concern in Congress about violence against labor activists in Colombia was always feigned, really intended just as political positioning?

You could be forgiven for thinking that after reading accounts about the second round of economic stimulus being pushed by congressional Democratic leadership.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comments supporting more stimulus raised the possibility of a stimulus package coming to a post-election session of the 110th Congress. According to news accounts, the Democratic leadership might be willing to offer the Administration a quid pro quo to get a stimulus passed and signed into law.

Colombia would be the quid. From The New York Times, “Fed chairman backs second dose of stimulus“:

To draw in the White House as well as Republican lawmakers, Democrats are casting around for measures that Bush has wanted. One possible inducement could be passing a long-stalled free-trade agreement with Colombia. Republicans are also pushing for additional tax cuts.

But the opposition to Colombia was supposedly based on the horrible record of human rights violations in the country, the failure of the Uribe government to stop the violent attacks against labor leaders and activists. It was a matter of principle.

That’s how U.S. organized labor cast its opposition: “Our focus on Colombia is the continuing violence against trade unionists,” said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO’s legislative director, back in April, when the House leadership broke longstanding practice and shelved consideration of the agreement.

We’ve seen no reports that Colombia’s record of protecting union activists has changed much since April. Colombia’s human rights record was already dramatically improving, with special efforts made to ensure the safety of labor activists. So the same political opposition should exist here even today, right? If the opposition were a matter of principle.

UPDATE (2:30 p.m.): Elsewhere on the stimulus front, Rep. Barney Frank calls for a dose of Keynesian economics (dose? Heck it’s a regimen), stimulating the economy through spending and then raising taxes on wealthy people to pay for it.