Hon. Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa

¶ 01 I wish to make a brief point. At minimum, the Government should listen carefully to the following.

¶ 02 Sri Lanka’s annual total exports are USD 12.78 billion. The largest share goes to the United States—22.8%—which is USD 2,911 million. Of that, apparel alone accounts for USD 1,885 million, or 64%. Rubber is USD 328 million; coconut products USD 73 million; activated carbon USD 49 million; tea USD 48 million; iron/steel USD 48 million; cinnamon USD 29 million, etc. Between 38% and 40% of our apparel exports go to the United States; 28% to the European Union; about 13% to the United Kingdom. In total, roughly 37%–39% of all apparel exports go to the U.S. These are the data. I do not know whether the Government has any understanding of these facts. When we ask whether a delegation will be sent, and by whom, there are no answers. There is no clear plan.

¶ 03 Hon. Deputy Speaker, I also asked whether there is a Sri Lanka Caucus in the United States Senate and in the United States House of Representatives. This is important because both the Senate and the House can influence U.S. trade policy. Please read Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: that is constitutional authority. The Senate and the House have law-making power: they can approve trade laws and agreements; they can alter tariff schedules. If the Government is unaware, let it understand that the Trade Act of 1974 is the governing law. The President’s authority to impose responsive tariffs is a delegated power—under Section 232 (national security-related tariffs) and Section 301 (retaliation against unfair trade practices). While the President can act unilaterally, Congress can influence and even terminate those measures. That is why I asked whether there are Sri Lanka Caucuses in the Senate and the House—groups of Senators and Representatives who stand for Sri Lanka.

¶ 04 Congress also has oversight and hearing powers. Committees can summon and question officials. The Senate Finance Committee can; the House Ways and Means Committee can; they can also summon the U.S. Trade Representative. Congress controls appropriations for implementing trade policy, customs, border protection, and trade enforcement, so it can exert influence through the budget as well as in ratifying treaties. Therefore, our proposal is this: a delegation should not go for a short, token visit. A knowledgeable team should go and remain engaged until this problem is resolved.

¶ 05 Recall the Multi-Fiber Agreement era, when global quotas applied. To implement the Garment 200 program, Sri Lanka needed additional quotas. Despite many challenges and even hostile lobbying by various parties, we succeeded because a Sri Lankan team continuously negotiated with the U.S. Trade Representative and won quota increases.

¶ 06 We now face a critical moment. In the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats are coming together to introduce the Trade Review Act. Republican Senators Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins, and Todd Young, together with Democrats, are seeking a new law requiring congressional approval for tariff actions rather than allowing the President to act alone. Therefore, our delegations must go speak to these Senators and House members. Under such a law, even if the President imposes a unilateral retaliatory tariff, he must report within 48 hours on its impact, and Congress could pass a Joint Resolution within 60 days to halt it. The Government should study the 2025 Trade Review Act and leverage it to influence outcomes.

¶ 07 I also note that Senator Mike Crapo is the current Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Our foreign policy should actively engage him. In the House, Jason Smith chairs Ways and Means and represents Missouri; Michael McCaul chairs Foreign Affairs. We must pursue statecraft with them.

¶ 08 We have learned that a letter has been sent to President Donald Trump. Good—but not sufficient. There is currently no USTR in place; Jamieson Greer is undergoing Senate confirmation. Review their responses to understand the evolving path. We should also engage the U.S. Secretary of State—Marco Rubio. While we write letters and form committees, Japan and South Korea have already sent delegations; Vietnam and Cambodia are sending letters and building ties.

¶ 09 Within the U.S. administration there are differing views. Elon Musk says such retaliatory tariffs are bad; the President’s Special Counsel Peter Navarro says they are right. Even within the President’s party, Senators Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, and Chuck Grassley have opposed the tariffs. What should we do? Conduct effective diplomacy, meet these groups physically, and pursue a productive, successful diplomatic strategy. A 44% retaliatory tariff would be a deadly blow to Sri Lanka’s export sector—apparel, rubber, coconut-activated carbon, tea, iron/steel, cinnamon—all will be seriously affected. We hope this will not happen, but the information suggests President Donald Trump is determined to impose these tariffs. Then what of our exports? There will be a severe contraction, reduced production due to lower demand and lost price competitiveness, job losses, damage to livelihoods and incomes, and increased poverty.

¶ 10 Next, about the IMF program: we expected the Government to negotiate a new Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA). The IMF proposed commencing debt service from 2033, but the previous Government agreed to start in 2028—apparently to claim a deal before elections. Starting debt service in 2028 requires maintaining high growth and high revenue ratios. If a 44% retaliatory tariff hits our exports, demand and production fall, jobs decline, and social distress worsens. Yesterday, there was a major issue at a Weligama apparel factory: they could not pay bonuses. The U.S. is scheduled to implement these tariffs on the 9th. What then for our country?

¶ 11 Consider apparel: 40% of our apparel output goes to the U.S. After the New Year holidays, will our workers supplying the U.S. market have jobs to return to? In this severe crisis the Government has not even responded to our minimum proposal. We asked for 30 seconds; still no delegation has been sent; no active diplomatic plan is in place—only Zoom calls. I do not say this is easy—it is hard, because many countries face these tariffs. Our grievance is that when we raised this, we were dismissed. When we asked where the delegation is, when they went, and who was in it—no answers.

¶ 12 Two final points. First, when we met the Prime Minister of India, we proposed that India temporarily lift quotas and restrictions on Sri Lankan apparel and other exports. The current apparel quota is 8 million pieces; we asked to remove it, and to lift other sectoral limits as well. We love this country and its people; this is above party, ethnicity, religion, caste or class. When the country rises, all benefit; when it falls, all suffer.

¶ 13 Second, before it is too late, summon an all-party meeting and establish a plan to confront this challenge collectively. This is a grave national economic issue. We must act with unity. We proposed steps on export diversification, boosting FDI, acting as a united country, and building coalitions of similarly affected nations. We offered these in good faith and ask that you listen. We must lift the country from this difficult situation.

¶ 14 Let me state figures the Government seems unaware of: the apparel sector has over 350,000 direct jobs and 1.0–1.2 million indirect beneficiaries. Given the looming hardship, out of concern for the country and its people, please discuss with the IMF and international bond creditors to revise the current debt service profile starting in 2028. The IMF suggested 2033—therefore begin new talks. If this goes wrong, we will face severe difficulties because we are expected to maintain high growth in 2025–2027. In this difficult period, we will support any progressive step taken in good faith for the country and the people.

¶ 15 Thank you.