May 12,2008

Grassley Remarks at the Brookings Institution on the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement

Prepared Remarks of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance
U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement
The Brookings Institution – Monday, May 12, 2008

Good afternoon. I'm glad to be here to discuss the merits of the U.S.-Colombia tradepromotion agreement.

It's an appropriate day to hold this event. Saturday marked the one-year anniversary ofthe May 10th bipartisan trade deal between the Administration and the Democratic leadership inCongress. The May 10th deal was supposed to have paved the way for votes on our pendingtrade agreements at the time, including Colombia.

It hasn't worked out that way. An entire year has gone by. Congress has managed tovote on only one of our four pending trade agreements. That was Peru, passed last December.

Our agreement with Colombia remains in limbo. The Finance Committee and the Waysand Means Committee have yet to even hold hearings on the Colombia trade agreement.Given this total absence of progress, and with time running out to ensure a vote this yearunder statutory trade promotion authority procedures, the Administration concluded that therewas no other option but to submit the Colombia trade agreement for congressional approval.Which the Administration did on April 8th.

Instead of engaging the Administration under the ample time lines of trade promotionauthority, the House of Representatives voted to strip the statutory deadline for a vote on theimplementing legislation.

If the Colombia agreement was in limbo before the President submitted it to Congress,the action taken by the House has put it into cold storage.

That vote was a big mistake.

It was a mistake from a global standpoint. It sends a negative message to our tradingpartners. They'll question whether the United States can be trusted to deliver on its promises.

We may find it harder to negotiate new trade agreements in the future.

The House vote was also a big mistake from the standpoint of our bilateral relationshipwith Colombia, an important ally that deserves better.

It was a big mistake from the standpoint of our exporters and workers, who were lookingforward to the chance to compete on a level playing field.

If you don't want to take my word for it, just open a newspaper. Thirty-nine of the top 50newspapers in the United States have published editorials in favor of the Colombia agreement.

The other 11 haven't expressed an opinion. Not a single editorial said the House did the rightthing.

The Colombia trade agreement deserves an up-or-down vote.

The challenge I face as the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as asupporter of this trade agreement, is to figure out how to remove it from cold storage, so that itsees the light of day in Congress.

To start, I think we need to remind ourselves of the significance of this trade agreementto our economic and national security interests.

I'll discuss the economic reasons for supporting the Colombia trade agreement and deferto Senator Bond, who is the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on thenational security interests at stake.

The economic case for implementing the Colombia trade agreement is straightforward.

Colombia is a beneficiary of two of our unilateral trade preference programs: the Andean TradePreference Act, and the Generalized System of Preferences. That has translated into decades ofduty-free access to the U.S. market for the vast majority of Colombia's exports.

Meanwhile, less than three percent of our exports to Colombia -- and not a single U.S.agriculture export -- get the benefit of duty free treatment. U.S. exporters face Colombian tariffsas high as 35 percent for non-agricultural goods, and even higher tariffs for many agriculturalproducts.

The Colombia trade agreement would eliminate this disparity. It would level the playingfield for American workers. This agreement is all about being fair.

The United States International Trade Commission has estimated that leveling theplaying field will increase our exports to Colombia by $1.1 billion per year. That's just as aresult of eliminating duties on goods. That’s good for American farmers, manufacturers, andservice suppliers. We only get those benefits if we act. If we don't act, the benefits will go toEurope and Canada instead, because Colombia is negotiating trade agreements with them, too.

Their exporters will get a leg up in the Colombian market at our expense.

Last year, U.S. exports accounted for more than 40 percent of our total economic growth.We should be doing everything we can to grow our exports even more, particularly in light of therecent slowdown in our domestic economy.

That's what we did last December, when the Senate voted by the wide margin of 77 to18in favor of the Peru trade agreement. The Colombia trade agreement is very much like the Peruagreement, and the Colombian market is bigger than Peru's. If it made sense, as it did, toapprove the Peru agreement, it makes even more economic sense to approve our agreement withColombia.

It also makes sense from the standpoint of our national security interests. Too often, weonly measure trade in economic terms. But there's more value to an agreement than just thedollars and cents.

One concern about the pending agreement is violence within Colombia against laborunionists. Violence has been a serious problem in Colombia, including violence against unionleaders. Colombia and President Uribe are not ignoring this issue. Colombia has made massivestrides in its fight against anti-union violence.

I've yet to hear a convincing reason why voting down the Colombia agreement, orrefusing to vote on it, will help to reduce violence against labor leaders. The opposite is morelikely the case. To help Colombia reduce violence, we should help economic growth and newopportunities in the legitimate economy with a trade agreement.

Another concern is that we shouldn't vote on the Colombia trade agreement until we'vereformed our trade adjustment assistance program. I support that goal, and I'm engaged indiscussions with the Chairman Baucus to do just that. I've agreed to work with him to advancehis priority, which I also have an interest in advancing.

But my top priority is implementing the Colombia trade agreement, and I expect to see avote on that legislation as well. I think Congress can address both priorities this year. I thinkCongress can meet both responsibilities this year. It may surprise some people, but Congresscan walk and chew gum at the same time.

The only way we'll accomplish these important objectives is if we work together in abipartisan manner. That's the example that Chairman Baucus and I are trying to set. That's whatthe House and Senate leadership need to do, as well, if any progress is to be made this year onthese economic and national security interests.

Colombia is too important an ally. The U.S. relationship with Colombia is important.

Colombia is a friend. Congressional leaders, especially in the House, should rethink how wetreat our friends. Thank you.