With the House of Representatives likely to vote today to kill the Colombia trade deal, it's worthwhile to look at what the deal would do for our trade with that nation. The U.S. Trade Representative sends the following data:
...Since 1991, Congress has given Colombian products almost complete duty-free access to the US market while US products going into the Colombian market place still face stiff tariffs. The Colombia agreement finally allows American workers to compete on a level playing field. Eighty percent of all tariffs on US goods will go to ZERO on day one of the agreement entering into force (the tariff on cars is 35%, furniture is 20%, high quality US beef is 80%, etc).
Since 1991, U.S. workers and businesses have paid over a BILLION in tariffs to sell their wares in the Colombian market. Colombian workers and businesses have paid close to zero to sell in the U.S. Every day we delay enactment of the Colombia FTA we hurt U.S. workers, farmers and entrepreneurs who will benefit from opening the Colombian market to U.S. exports in manufactured goods like tractors from Illinois, TVs from Pennsylvania, washers from Ohio and agricultural goods like beef, pears and rice - all the time while the U.S. market is almost totally open to theirs.
Is the Colombia deal a good one for U.S. workers and consumers? Listen to Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez of California, who opposes it because it is too effective in expanding markets for U.S. goods:
The safety of Colombian workers is too important to risk. We need to see results.
I am also concerned that the FTA will gut Colombia's legitimate agricultural industry. Colombian farmers will be forced to compete with subsidized crops in the United States.
Here's a crazy idea: let the Colombian government worry about their agricultural sector. If you honestly believe the accord will significantly increase sales of U.S. exports -- as it clearly will -- then you ought to approve it as quickly as possible, not kill it.
Speaker Pelosi's arrogant and unilateral move is a stick in the eye of America's staunchest allies in the hemisphere. By demonstrating that America is willing to break its word even to its best friends, it empowers Hugo Chavez just when it seemed that his influence was on the wane in the region. It also takes away from future presidents one of their most important 'soft' foreign policy tools: improved trade relations with the U.S.
That's a lot of damage done in one quick stroke. And for what?
