[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 20 (Monday, May 26, 2008)]
[Pages 743-747]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks on World Trade Week

May 23, 2008

    Thanks for coming. Please be seated. Welcome to the White House and 
the South Lawn. It's a joy to welcome entrepreneurs and business leaders 
and folks who understand the importance of this country being confident 
enough to work to open up markets for our goods and products and 
services. I'm--obviously, some of the exporters are pretty good sales 
men and women. After all, they let you drive a tractor here on the South 
Lawn. [Laughter] Imagine what the Secret Service was saying.
    I'm really pleased to welcome Members of the Congress; Congressmen 
Petri and Herger are here. Thanks for coming. Petri is here because he's 
a--he believes in--the Harley Davidson is a product that people around 
the world ought to be able to drive by making it more affordable--I 
suspect that's why you're here--as well as some other trucks made in 
your State.
    I want to thank the members of the Cabinet. Thank you all for being 
such strong advocates of free and fair trade. We've got the Secretary of 
Agriculture here, Secretary Schafer. His being here sends a message that 
the American farmer and rancher expects us to work hard to open up 
markets for the products they grow. So if you're a farmer out there in 
the heartland, it seems like you'd want somebody working on your behalf 
here in Washington to be able to make it easier for you to sell your 
crops. And that's exactly what we're doing in this administration. Mr. 
Secretary, thanks for coming.
    Carlos Gutierrez is the Secretary of Commerce. Trade means commerce. 
Elaine Chao is here from the Department of Labor. Madam Secretary, thank 
you. Your presence here is clear recognition that the more products we 
sell overseas, the more likely it is somebody's going to work.
    And today I'm going to spend some time so our fellow citizens 
understand the importance of trade by connecting trade with products 
with jobs. Good jobs policy is a good trade policy.
    I appreciate very much Sue Schwab here. She's the U.S. Trade 
Representative. Her job is to open up markets. And I'm going to talk 
about three trade agreements that she's worked hard to put in place that 
open up markets for U.S. goods and services. I really appreciate John 
Veroneau joining us as well. He's the deputy. His job is to also work 
with the Ambassador to open up markets.
    I want to thank Federico Humbert, the Ambassador de Panama. I want 
to thank Lee Tae-sik, Ambassador from South Korea. I want to thank 
Mariana Pacheco, who is the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy of 
Colombia. These are three nations I'm going to be talking about. I want 
to thank you all for coming. It's a--I really appreciate you giving me a 
chance to talk about your countries in your presence, because I want 
your leaders to understand the Bush administration and a lot of Members 
of Congress believe it's in our national interest that we have free and 
fair trade with your nations.
    I thank the representatives of the companies whose products are 
here. I want to thank the members of the business community.

[[Page 744]]

And thanks for your caring about your country.
    But first of all, the--you know, it's a rough economic times. Small-
business owners know what I'm talking about; large-business owners know 
what I'm talking about. It's a period of uncertainty. And one way to 
deal with uncertainty in the economy is to work from your strengths. One 
strength, of course, is to trust the American people. And the best way 
to trust them is to keep your taxes low. I mean, we really don't need to 
be sending--[applause]. If there's uncertain times, there's no worse 
signal to send, that, you know, we may be raising your taxes. That 
creates even more uncertainty. There's got to be consistency in the Tax 
Code so people can plan, so individuals can plan and small business can 
plan and large businesses can plan. Congress needs to make the tax 
relief we passed permanent in order to deal with the uncertainty in the 
economy.
    Of course, they got a huge appetite for spending your money, so it 
shouldn't surprise you that some up there really do want to raise your 
taxes. And we'll do everything we can and--that--we're not going to let 
them raise your taxes. But the best signal that Congress could send, for 
the sake of economic growth and vitality, is that we're going to keep 
your taxes low by making the tax cuts permanent.
    Another thing Congress can do is pass trade agreements that open up 
markets. You know, 40 percent of our growth last year--during a time of 
economic uncertainty, 40 percent of the growth came as a result of 
exports. So when I say, play to our strength, one of the strengths 
during this period of time is to continue to export products. If the 
growth that we had during some quarters, recent quarters was as a result 
of exports, it seems like we ought to be working to create more exports 
to be able to sell our goods and services into more markets.
    And we have an opportunity to do that by opening up markets with 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. You know, we trust you to create 
jobs. The Government ought to trust you by opening up more markets, by 
making sure the playing field is level for our producers. That's all we 
want. We just want to be treated fairly in the world.
    For some in Washington, trade is a good political issue. In other 
words, people think it makes good politics to say, ``We're not going to 
let you trade.'' But what they've got to understand--those voices of 
pessimism and voices of protectionism must understand that oftentimes, 
opening up markets means the difference between giving employees a pay 
raise or a pay cut. The politicians in Washington who use trade as an 
issue to frighten voters must understand that opening up markets can 
mean the difference between expanding the number of workers, as opposed 
to shrinking the number of workers.
    And our fellow citizens, I understand, you know, have got concerns 
about trade. And the reason why we've asked you to bring some of your 
products here is to remind people that that motorcycle is made by 
American workers, and that if we're able to more likely sell those 
motorcycles into Colombia, for example, or Panama or South Korea, that 
the worker who made that is more likely to get a pay raise or have 
somebody else join him or her on the floor. That's the practicality of 
trade.
    The interesting thing about trade as an issue, if you really study 
the issue of free and fair trade, leaders from both parties have been 
strong advocates for opening up markets. They really have been. I mean, 
generally this has been a--not nearly as bitter an issue in the past as 
it is today. You know, I remember reading about John F. Kennedy's stand 
on trade. He was a strong believer in free and fair trade. My 
predecessor, President Clinton, worked hard to open up markets. It's 
interesting that a lot of the people that worked with the President have 
been here to the White House to, I guess, first, test my temperature to 
determine whether I really was willing to strongly advocate opening up 
markets. And then when they realized that they had a steady ally, were 
willing to go out and declare publicly that they believed that we ought 
to open up markets.
    And yet today, there's just a different attitude evidently. But I 
want to thank you for helping to try to change that attitude by bringing 
a practical--some practical thoughts to this debate, kind of fight 
through all the rhetoric and remind our fellow citizens that--of some of 
the facts. One, our economy

[[Page 745]]

grows better when we export. Two, there are jobs. When we talk about 
trade, we're talking about helping people keep work. And it turns out, 
if you're working for a company that exports goods and services, you 
make better money. Isn't that an interesting fact? If you're working for 
a company that sells goods and services overseas, you're going to make 
more money than your neighbor in a comparable industry.
    If you're a farmer--we got some products here, grown right here in 
the United States of America. If you're a farmer, it seems like you want 
people to work hard to make it easier for you to sell that orange 
somewhere else. Increased demand means it's more likely you'll be able 
to sell your crop.
    Trade is in the interests of the working people here in America, 
pure and simple. Trade is in the interests of small-business owners and 
farmers and ranchers, pure and simple. And that's why I'm a strong 
believer that the United States Congress needs to pass trade agreements 
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
    Now let me give you some of the practical lessons of why. Take dairy 
products. There's a 20-percent tariff on dairy products from the United 
States into Colombia; 36 percent into Korea. That means that the cost of 
that dairy product--chunk of cheese--you know something about cheese, 
Petri, in Wisconsin--a chunk of cheese is going to be 20 percent more 
expensive, which makes it harder to sell that product.
    When you say, level the playing field, what I'm talking about is 
reducing tariffs on goods and services, which makes it easier to sell. 
In other words, it's less expensive. The quality is the same. We're 
really good at what we make and what we grow. The quality is the same, 
but the price is less, which makes it more likely something is going to 
be purchased.
    Fruits, oranges--these oranges right here are taxed at 15 percent 
going into Colombia--they're 15 percent more expensive, 30 percent more 
in South Korea, and 15 percent more in Panama. Broccoli--they got a 
really high tariff on broccoli at my father's house. [Laughter] But 
there also happens to be one--15 percent in Colombia, 27 percent in 
South Korea, and 15 percent in Panama.
    So those are percentages, but you need to think about the percentage 
in terms of, it's that much more expensive to buy. And sometimes if 
you're shopping for an orange, that 15-percent differential means you're 
not going to buy it. Motorcycle--that motorcycle right there is 20 
percent more expensive in Colombia, 8 percent more in Korea, and 15 
percent more in Panama.
    And so the purpose of a trade agreement is to reduce those tariffs, 
is to make the products less expensive. So if we get the deal done with 
Colombia, that motorcycle will be $4,000 less expensive. The great 
quality of Harley will be the same. There will be no diminution of how 
cool one is when they drive a Harley. [Laughter] But it's going to be 
easier for somebody to buy it.
    This Case tractor--by the way, manufactured in Fargo, North Dakota--
called a Case IH, will be $15,500 cheaper in Colombia. That could be a 
significant difference when it comes to somebody buying that tractor. 
And I hope the Case workers hear me loud and clear: The cheaper that is 
for somebody to buy in Colombia, the more work you're going to have.
    The reason I brought these products here is, it means somebody is 
making them today and is going to be able to make them tomorrow if we'd 
level that playing field. And let me tell you why I talk about leveling 
the playing field. The first vote coming up is Colombia. I say, the 
first vote coming up is Colombia--you might remember, the vote has never 
been allowed to come up. The Speaker of the House pulled a parliamentary 
maneuver that sent a bad signal, and so it hasn't come up yet.
    Our job is to say, let the people vote, let the Members of Congress 
vote. I like our chances if they let the Members of Congress vote. 
Congress has a way of sorting through all the noise and all the 
pessimism and oftentimes reaches the right conclusion.
    Most of the goods coming from Colombia enter America duty free--
isn't that interesting--as a result of actions of Congress in the past. 
Most goods that Colombia makes comes to our country without any tax. And 
I've just described to you, the goods and services we send to Colombia 
are taxed. And that, frankly, doesn't seem very fair to me. It didn't

[[Page 746]]

seem fair to the Colombian Government either. They all--they agree with 
me: Let's just treat each other fairly.
    Their goods are not taxed; our goods are. It seems unfair to me. And 
people of Congress should understand how unfair it is to the workers in 
their districts or the farmers in their districts or the people who are 
working hard for a living in their districts that count upon selling 
goods overseas.
    So the agreement we reached basically says that those oranges will 
go in duty free. Some of the products will go in duty free immediately; 
some of them will be phased in over time; but nevertheless, the playing 
field will be level. So here you hear, free and fair trade; that's the 
definition of free and fair trade. Colombia treats us just like we treat 
them. That's fair.
    Secondly, the Colombia free trade vote, like these other free trade 
votes, have got national security implications. Colombia has got a very 
bold leader named President Uribe, who is a reformist. Panama has got a 
strong leader, who, by the way, went to Texas A&M University. He's a 
reformist. I had the honor of meeting the South Korean President at Camp 
David--first South Korean President to have come to Camp David--and I 
did so for a reason. Because I wanted to send a strong signal about our 
friendship with the people of South Korea. He's a strong, strong leader. 
All these leaders have got a clear vision about enhanced prosperity in 
their country. They care deeply about their people.
    President Uribe has got a unique challenge in Colombia. He's facing 
a group of narcotraffickers who are violent, who use force to achieve 
political objectives, who are supported by some of the countries in the 
neighborhood. They're a threat to peace inside Colombia, and they 
provide a threat to the United States, in the sense that they--to the 
extent that they facilitate drug trafficking. It makes it here. And yet 
the President has stood strong in dealing with these folks. He is a 
clear example of a leader who has set the--an agenda that is bold, and 
he's following through with that agenda.
    If we were to turn our back on Colombia by rejecting the free trade 
agreement, it would send a terrible signal to leaders willing to be 
courageous. It would send a bad signal to our friends. And in the case 
of Colombia, it would send a bad signal to the voices of false populism 
in South America. It's in our economic interest that we pass trade 
agreements. Oh, I know there's great debate about that. But I hope that 
people listen to the facts and understand the practical consequences of 
opening up markets for the products made here in the United States. Then 
they'll understand why all of us are so passionate about making sure 
we're treated fairly.
    There's also a significant national security concern when it comes 
to America turning its back on friends. The region needs democracy; the 
region needs rule of law; the region needs stability; and the region 
needs strong leaders like President Uribe. And a rejection of the free 
trade agreement with Colombia will undermine that which the leader--the 
region needs.
    It's interesting, I've been--you know, I constantly talk to fellow 
leaders on the telephone, and as you know, I've been traveling as well. 
And the--I've been asked quite frequently, ``Why is it that your 
Congress won't pass a free trade agreement with Colombia, for 
starters?'' And they ask that question first with amazement. They can't 
believe the great United States of America is not confident enough or 
wise enough to level the playing field when it comes to U.S. goods and 
services.
    And once the tone of amazement passes, then there's this serious 
tone of concern--concerned about the United States becoming 
protectionist, concern about the United States losing its confidence 
when it comes to the entrepreneurial spirit that has made us great, 
concerned that we really don't seem to care about the plight of others. 
Because trade helps lift people out of poverty. Trade is a powerful 
engine for change.
    And all I can tell them is, is that politics is too strong right 
now. But I also tell them, I haven't given up hope. I haven't given up 
hope that that Colombia free trade agreement is going to make it to the 
floor of the Congress, and with your help, I hope you get it there. I 
haven't given up hope that the people will recognize that obstructionism 
is not leadership, that obstructing an important piece of legislation, 
not even allowing it to

[[Page 747]]

come to the floor for a vote, is not what the people expect.
    And so my call on the leadership in the House is to let this trade 
agreement get to the floor; let the representatives of the people 
decide; let there be an open and honest debate about the merits of this 
piece of legislation--the merits from an economic perspective and the 
merits from a national security perspective. And then when you pass a 
Colombia free trade bill, we go to South Korea and Panama and get those 
bills passed. And then we can go to the people who are making these 
products here and say, we did the job you expected us to do.
    Thank you all for coming. May God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 10:54 a.m. on the South Lawn at the White 
House. In his remarks, he referred to President Martin Torrijos Espino 
of Panama; and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. The Office of the 
Press Secretary also released a Spanish language transcript of these 
remarks.