U.S Trade Representative Ron Kirk appeared before the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday to formally present the President’s 2010 Trade Policy Agenda, and as expected, express support for passage of the three long-pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia, Korea and Panama were high on the agenda for Senators.

“The FTA’s are a priority,” Kirk told the lawmakers. “We have not given up on any of those.” (Kirk’s statement.)

The ambassador was challenged by both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, who warned him that the United States will lose out to our competitors in Europe and other nations if we don’t advance the pending FTAs with Colombia, Korea and Panama. The goal of doubling exports in five years will be strongly aided by passing these pending FTAs, Kirk heard more than once.

As far as that competition from Europe and other countries, the European Union is certainly not letting any grass grow under its feet. On Tuesday, the EU announced the start of FTA negotiations with Vietnam. On Wednesday, the EU announced the start of FTA negotiations with Singapore. And, of course, the EU is looking to enact its FTA with Korea in the next few months.

The U.S. has an FTA with Singapore, and Vietnam would be included in the Obama Administration’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) FTA –- the first round of negotiations for the TPP begins in mid-March.

This news all comes on the heels of the announcement by the EU Tuesday that it has concluded its FTA negotiations with Colombia and Peru, and is looking to a May 2010 signing with entry into force by 2012.

Colombia is also nearly finished negotiating an FTA with Canada.

Canada, by the way, is negotiating an FTA with the European Union. And, of course, Canada and Korea are negotiating an FTA too.

There seems to be a trend here: Strong manufacturing countries, whose industries compete with manufacturing in America for exports to these markets, are all fiercely pursuing trade deals with the same group of nations. If past trends continue, once they conclude negotiations, Europe and Canada will move quickly to enact these agreements. So will Peru, Colombia, and Korea.

The White House today released the President’s 2010 Trade Policy Agenda. The report is here and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk issued a statement,”President’s 2010 Trade Policy Agenda Focuses on Growing American Jobs Through New Market Access and Enforcing Trade Rules.” The USTR bold-faced this paragraph in Ambassador Kirk’s statement:

“Ninety-five percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, and the President’s trade agenda will help to get American workers and businesses access to as many of those customers as possible - in ways that affirm our rights in the global trading system and that reflect American values on worker rights, the environment, and open dialogue here at home,” said Ambassador Kirk. “The priorities in this Agenda can work to strengthen the rules-based global trading system on which the nations of the world depend, while opening markets and ensuring that American businesses and workers receive the economic benefits of trade.”

Agreed.

The President’s Trade Policy Agenda is part one of the report. On the pending Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, the report again offers the Administration’s general, but non-committal support that might lead to enacting the agreements, perhaps.

If these outstanding issues can be successfully resolved, we will work with Congress on a timeframe to submit them for Congressional consideration so our producers can take full advantage of the opportunities presented by these agreements.

Nothing new there, really.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m.): CQ Politics reports, “Little Indication of Movement on Stalled Trade Deals.” Unfortunately so.

The results are in, the judges have made their decision, and the results are final.  U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) for the second year in a row have turned in a trade surplus for U.S. manufactured goods.  U.S. manufactured goods exports to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other FTAs exceeded imports by $21 billion in 2008 and extended their surplus to $26 billion in 2009 –- starkly visible in the graph below.

This two-year surplus of nearly $50 billion is pure gold when viewed against the distressing $1.4 trillion dollar deficit for U.S. overall trade in goods and services during that period.  What a great record for U.S. Free Trade Agreements – the brightest spot in the U.S. trade picture!

This reality stands in sharp contrast to what the trade naysayers have been telling Congress, blaming trade agreements as the reason for the trade deficit.  Well, the score is in, the facts are now known, and the deficit is with the countries that DON’T have trade agreements with the United States.

Hopefully winning the “Trade Olympics” gold medal will catch Congress’ attention so they will focus on reality rather than the mythology that has been handed to them for years – and will take up and pass the three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama.

Thousands of Americans are out of work today rather than being employed by America’s manufacturers who would have expanded sales, production, and employment opportunities if Congress stopped insisting that we should continue to have to pay high tariffs to sell in those countries.

Frank Vargo is NAM’s vice president, international economic affairs.

President Obama on Wednesday spoke to the Business Roundtable, the trade association that represents the largest corporations in the United States (and with which the NAM shares many members). In his remarks, the President expressed support for the pending free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.

Now, I know that trade policy has been one of those longstanding divides between business and labor, between Democrats and Republicans. To those who would reflexively support every and any trade deal, I would say that our competitors have to play fair and our agreements have to be enforced. We can’t simply cede more jobs or markets to unfair trade practices. At the same time, to those who would reflexively oppose every trade agreement, they need to know that if America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. In other countries, whether China or Germany or Brazil, they’ve been able to align the interests of business, workers, and government around trade agreements that open up new markets for them and create new jobs for them. We must do the same. And I’m committed to making that happen.

That’s why we launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership to strengthen our trade relations with Asia, the fastest-growing market in the world. That’s why we will work to resolve outstanding issues so that we can move forward on trade agreements with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. And that’s why we will try to conclude a Doha trade agreement –- not just any agreement, but one that creates real access to key global markets.

Reuters reported on the speech and reaction, “Obama trade talk cheers business groups,” citing one of the NAM’s specialists in the area:

Doug Goudie, director of international trade policy with the National Association of Manufacturers, said he took seriously the Obama administration’s new focus on trade and much appreciated the goal of doubling exports.

“Moving forward on those three FTAS as soon as possible is going to be the best way to jumpstart the rest of their plan,” such as increasing the number of small- and medium-sized U.S. companies that export, he said.

The Business Roundtable issued a statement summarizing the meeting, with President John Castellani also highlighting trade issues:

We agreed with the President that the United States cannot sit on the sidelines while our competitors negotiate trade agreements that benefit their companies and workers over ours; we discussed the need for Congress to pass the pending free trade agreements as a first step toward the enhanced international trade and investment that is essential to growing the U.S. economy and creating more and better-paying jobs.

The next step for the President is to stop talking about “moving forward” on the FTAs and instead say, “Congress should now enact the pending Free Trade Agreements.”

From the President’s State of the Union:

[We] need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

That’s a welcome target to achieve export-driven growth, and it’s notable that the President regards the export controls issue important enough to warrant a mention.

Correctly so, the NAM believes. The new Milken Institute study, “Jobs for America,” concludes “modernizing U.S. export controls could increase exports in high-value areas. By 2019, these policy adjustments could enhance real GDP by $64.2 billion (0.4 percent), create 160,000 manufacturing jobs, and heighten total employment by 340,000.” The in-depth analysis is here.

The President also reaffirmed the Administration’s oft-stated belief in the value of trade agreements.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that’s why we’ll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

But let’s do more than “strengthen” — let’s ENACT. The President would have helped achieve the goal he had just set by calling on Congress to enact the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

As NAM President John Engler said in a press briefing Monday, “”We believe we absolutely have the votes for the Panama and Colombia agreements.” And… “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.”

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.

ABC News’ “This Week” featured a pundit panel discussion this morning on the President’s jobs forum and his upcoming speech on the economy. Notable passage from Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

HAASS: But there’s also an area where working Americans — in some cases, represented by organized labor — are not on the side of working Americans, because what’s missing from this entire jobs debate is trade. The single biggest engine of American job creation is trade policy, is export promotion, and where are we? We don’t have a positive trade policy. This is the best way to have non-inflationary stimulus that doesn’t break the budget, it doesn’t cost us a dollar. Let’s start negotiating in earnest a global free trade agreement…

Or at least by enacting the pending U.S. free trade ageements with Colombia, Panama and Korea.

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has an op-ed marking the third anniversary of the signing of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. From The Bradenton Herald, “U.S.-Colombia free trade pact will boost employment, if passed“:

Three years ago, the President of the United States and the President of Colombia signed a bilateral free trade agreement. That agreement has yet to be sent to the U.S. Congress for approval. As a result of this long and fruitless delay, American manufacturers continue to face tariffs averaging 14 percent on our exports to Colombia. American manufacturers could be benefiting from increased exports to one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America - in fact, they could be in their second or third straight year of benefiting from increased exports. Colombia’s economy has grown at an average rate of 8.5 percent over the last 15 years, according to the IMF. That’s a big increase in demand for the products we make and ship beyond our borders. Still, Congress refuses to consider the agreement.

You could ask, why is this such a big deal? There are bigger export markets to focus on, right? Like, South Korea, for example, another nation we have a stalled trade agreement with . . . but we’ll get to that in a later blog.

Colombia is a big trading partner. In addition to the $11.4 billion worth of exports we shipped to Colombia last year — $9.7 billion of which were manufactured goods - Colombia is a staunch and strong ally of the United States in a region where it is very important for us to have a close friend. While other nations in Latin America have reneged on commitments to U.S. drug interdiction efforts, Colombia has recently made additional strong commitments that will further help secure our national security. And what was their reward for this? Venezuela’s President Chavez has shut his borders with Colombia in a fit of pique, bringing Colombia’s trade with its No. 1 partner to a virtual standstill. Colombia has been there for us as a strong ally against the drug trade - we need to be there for Colombia.

For three years, Congress has refused to consider the U.S.-Colombia FTA. In 2008, Speaker Pelosi even moved to strip Colombia of its Trade Promotion Agreement protections, leaving its passage in the House further in doubt. This, despite the May 10, 2007 Bipartisan Agreement on Trade, which for the first time included enforceable provisions on labor and environment in trade agreements, including the one with Colombia. That’s right - the U.S.-Colombia Agreement is groundbreaking in its enforcement of labor rights.

President Obama gave a speech in Tokyo Saturday announcing the Administration’s plans to engage with the Trans Pacific Partnership countries to shape a regional agreement, an engagement that could produce real benefits for U.S. exporters and manufacturers. The Asia-Pacific region is the world’s fastest growing both in terms of trade and in the number of trade agreements being negotiated.  The NAM has long called for a trans-pacific trade agreement that would open up the region to U.S. exports.  America’s manufacturers cannot afford to be on the outside of an Asian trade wall looking in.

Reacting to the President in a statement, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk made the case that a high-standard regional trade agreement under the Trans Pacific Partnership could help generate American jobs and economic prosperity.  (USTR fact sheet.) Exports will be the driver of U.S. economic recovery, but only if they have open access to world markets.

Strong U.S. leadership will be necessary to achieve a regional Pacific agreement that includes the highest standards already incorporated in U.S. bilateral agreements.  The United States currently has bilateral agreements with four of the seven Trans Pacific partners – Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore. (The others are New Zealand, Brunei, and Vietnam.) None of the gains for American manufacturers that were negotiated in those agreements should be abridged in any way, including intellectual property and investment protections and market access commitments. 

We were also pleased to see President Obama’s urging other nations to join the United States in demanding an ambitious and balanced Doha agreement, “not any agreement, but an agreement that will open up markets and increase exports around the world.”  This is the only road to success for the Doha Round.

The President’s focus on trade and trade agreements highlighted in his Asian trip should not, however, push other trade priorities off the table. On the contrary, they should produce a concerted effort to resolve any last issues with the three pending trade agreements – Colombia, Korea, and Panama – so these can be sent to Congress for approval.

News coverage…

• Associated Press, “APEC urges new growth model, climate pact progress“
• Reuters, “Obama pledges greater US engagement in Asia“
• Radio New Zealand, “Free trade deal may be in place in two years, says PM“

Frank Vargo is Vice President, International Economic Affairs, National Association of Manufacturers