Johanns: Bipartisan TPA is Needed to Expand Exports and Create Jobs

Floor Speech

U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today spoke on the Senate Floor in support of bipartisan, bicameral Trade Promotion Authority legislation that would expand markets for U.S. goods abroad and fuel job creation at home.

"This bill would resurrect the partnership between Congress and the Administration to promote a robust trade agenda," Johanns said in his remarks. "Trade agreements knock down barriers and open doors for U.S. producers and manufacturers to get our economic engine going again … Economists would agree that countries should move toward more free trade, not less.

"The benefit of trade is especially clear for agricultural products -- big drivers of the economy in my state."

Transcript of prepared remarks:

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill my colleagues and I introduced to reestablish trade promotion authority, or T-P-A.

Senators Baucus and Hatch, along with Congressman Camp in the House, introduced the Congressional Trade Priorities Act last week.

The Senate Finance Committee is holding a hearing on it today.

This bill would resurrect the partnership between Congress and the Administration to promote a robust trade agenda.

That partnership, known as T-P-A, came about as a way to pragmatically exercise Congress's constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce.

TPA effectively combines this authority with the President's authority to negotiate treaties.

Congress provides the marching orders to the President, and the President in turn gets an up or down vote on the agreement he negotiates.

So why do this?

Why should Congress set rules for itself to consider trade agreements through a special legislative process?

Simply, negotiating modern trade agreements would be almost impossible without providing some assurance that agreed upon provisions won't be picked apart after negotiators shake hands.

Trade agreements span a multitude of issues affecting international commerce.

To reach these agreements, there need to be extensive negotiations by representatives of each country.

But Congress is hardly equipped to engage in multilateral negotiations with foreign countries.

We can hardly negotiate with each other.

TPA allows Congress to set priorities for trade agreements and engage with the President throughout the process.

During floor consideration, amendments cannot be offered because it would undermine our Trade Representative's hand in negotiations.

Imagine our negotiators signing a deal, shaking hands with their counterparts, and bringing the deal to Congress.

Then after five hundred and thirty-five people offer a plethora of amendments they have to go back to the other countries and try to reopen negotiations because everything has changed.

No one would ever negotiate a trade deal with us again.

So why is that a bad thing?

Should we negotiate trade agreements at all?

Unquestionably the answer is yes.

White Houses from Reagan to Obama would agree.
Furthermore, the overall benefit of free trade is nearly undisputed by economists.

A free, rules-based trading system is much better for America than a system where the government picks winners and losers.

And it's better for American jobs when the playing field is level.

Just take the example of Colombia.

In 2011, Congress passed a trade agreement with Colombia -- already one of our most important allies in Latin America.

Now that trade relationship is thriving.

Consider this: between 2011 and 2013, U.S. goods exports to Colombia have increased by 18 percent.

At the same time, U.S. goods exports to the rest of the world have actually decreased by 2 percent.

Trade agreements are a great benefit to Americans, as well as in corners of the world where we need strong allies.

Unfortunately, that message doesn't always make it through.

Instead, we hear a chorus of scare tactics about job losses and environmental concerns.

Critics ignore the proven power of trade to expand job opportunities and improve our standard of living.

At the same time, the lives of millions of people around the world improve.

Almost all economists would agree that countries should move towards more free trade, not less.

One need only examine tariff rates to understand why it is in our best interest to pursue trade agreements.

U.S. barriers to trade are already very low by global standards.

Our average tariff rate is 3-point-5 percent.

Compare that to our current trade negotiating partners.

Vietnam has an average tariff rate of 10 percent.

Malaysia's average is 6 percent.

Japan and the EU both have average tariff rates of 5- point-3 percent.

Only New Zealand has a lower rate than we do.

So trade agreements help to level the playing field by bringing down the tariffs imposed by our competitors.

Put simply, trade agreements knock down barriers and open doors for U.S. producers and manufacturers to get our economic engine going again.

Critics falsely claim we're going to experience a flood of cheap imports as a result of new agreements.

My friends, that simply doesn't make sense when our tariffs are already low.

Trade agreements bring down our competitors' higher tariffs.

The benefit to trade is especially clear for agricultural products -- big drivers of the economy in my state.

Our average tariff on these imported products is 5 percent.

Malaysia's average tariff is 11 percent.

The European Union's is 14 percent.

In Vietnam, it is 17 percent.

Japan has an average agricultural tariff rate of 23 percent.

And these countries all already have a number of trade agreements in place with other countries.

That means we face restrictions while our competitors reap the benefits of open market access.

We're on the sidelines while other countries are filling those orders and creating new jobs.

Trade promotion authority paves the way to lowering these barriers or eliminating them altogether.

Of course, tariffs are not the only barriers our exporters face, and TPA would help us address the others too.

Countries also impose non-tariff barriers, often claiming some illegitimate basis in science.

They have brought industries to their knees.

Modern trade agreements address those barriers as well. And we can't get good trade agreements inked without TPA.

In general, the U.S. abides by true science-based trade standards.

That is less common in the rest of the world, to say the least.

Trade agreements help bring export markets in line with the same kind of science-based standards that we apply to our imports.

So if you're concerned about foreign countries blocking American exports, you should support TPA.

Without TPA, it becomes much, much harder to open up those markets for American workers.

We should all get behind this TPA bill and get it across the finish line so that new trade agreements can clear the way for more Americans to be hired as export demand increases.

I am pleased that the President now recognizes the immense benefits that trade provides to this country.

Despite being all talk and no action on trade early on, his administration is currently negotiating the two largest trade agreements in history.

In my opinion, it's time for the partisan bickering about trade to end.

There are clear job-creating benefits to our country, and it's time for the President to make that case to the American people and to his allies in Congress.

In a couple weeks, the President will have an opportunity to do so in his State of the Union address… but this time he must follow through.

Given the ambition of potential agreements across the Pacific and the Atlantic, the President must lay the groundwork for their passage.

Creating jobs is too important to leave at the mercy of election year politics.

It's time to act.

Let's pass this TPA bill quickly so we can get Americans back to work.

Source