Trade agreements are needed

Our country's economy is -- thankfully -- beginning to show modest signs of recovery, but there are still challenges. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew for the first time in three quarters, yet the jobless rate remains disturbingly high.

Just as has happened in every other economic recovery, American farmers and businesses will be the driver of economic growth. Congress can live up to its responsibility to domestic manufacturers and agriculture producers while at the same time strengthening our recovering economy by working to open markets for U.S. goods and services.

U.S. agriculture exports continue to be one of the bright spots for our country's economy. Every dollar in agricultural exports generates $1.65 in economic activities such as transportation, financing, warehousing and production. Nebraska's $4 billion in agricultural exports translates into $6.7 billion in additional economic activity.

Apart from agriculture, Nebraska's export shipments of merchandise in 2008 totaled $5.4 billion, up 134 percent from $2.3 billion in 2004. This was the sixth-largest percentage change among the 50 states over the same period.

Congress has yet to consider legislation to implement trade agreements negotiated by then-President George W. Bush with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Unfortunately, Congress has delayed these important trade agreements for various reasons.

Opponents of the South Korea agreement, including the U.S. auto industry, argue the U.S. should return to the negotiating table for a "fairer" agreement. However, the current Administration has declined to take the lead, allowing this agreement to languish.

In the meantime, the EU has concluded negotiations with South Korea on its own agreement, which threatens our competitiveness. If implemented, the U.S. deal would add an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion to GDP, according to the Heritage Foundation.

The Colombia agreement has been held up by labor unions in Washington alleging a history of violence against leaders of Colombian trade unions should disqualify Colombia from further consideration for a trade pact with the U.S.

This argument ignores the considerable progress the Colombian government has made in reducing such violence, and the fact the Colombia trade agreement itself would improve labor conditions, boost U.S. exports, and solidify market-based democracy and security in Colombia. By opening lines of communication with countries which pledge to affirmatively and measurably address concerns, we encourage other nations in the region to do likewise.

Nebraska's largest export market in 2008 was Canada, which received exports valued at $1.5 billion. Consider this: Canada's population is 33 million, while Colombia's is 45 million. By our inaction, we are limiting our access to a potentially huge trading partner. Just imagine the opportunities for increased sales of Nebraska and U.S. products if Congress would take steps to approve the agreement.

Serving on the House Agriculture Committee and having visited these nations, I know the potential impact on U.S. competitiveness and job opportunities trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and other nations represent.

Export markets are critically important to America's agricultural and manufacturing industries. We should be pursuing an export strategy to spur economic growth. It is time to make good on our negotiations. It's time to level the playing field for our nation's exporters. It is time for these trade agreements to see the light of day.