{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f0e6730c-a370-4c1f-800d-f131be784b11", "Sen. Flake Discusses Free Trade, Need for Trade Promotion Authority", "2013-12-19", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "AZ", "Jeff Flake", "F000444", "www.flake.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 United States Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on Wednesday delivered the following remarks at the American Enterprise Institute on the benefits of free trade and the need for trade promotion authority.\r\nVideo of Sen. Flake\u2019s remarks can be seen here.\r\n  Congress & Trade Promotion Authority: A Critical Tool for Critical Gains  U.S. SEN. JEFF FLAKE   DEC. 18, 2013\r\nThank you, Arthur, for that warm welcome, and thanks to AEI for all that you do to promote limited government and economic freedom.   \u00a0  With that in mind, I\u2019m honored to be here this morning to talk about free trade and trade promotion authority.  \u00a0  Let me just say it would be great if legislation reducing trade barriers could seamlessly move through Congress without tailored rules, but let\u2019s get real for a moment: We couldn\u2019t even move a short-term spending resolution without shutting down the government for weeks.  \u00a0  Bilateral and regional trade agreements are both more complex and more essential than ever for economic competitiveness. Trade Promotion Authority is the only way to go.   \u00a0  But before we talk about TPA, let me just say that anyone who has gone from a seat in the House to a seat in the Senate will tell you that the best thing about the move is a six-year term.   \u00a0  That said, the next best thing about being in the Senate is the opportunity to have influence on a host of issues, including those outside the jurisdiction of your committees.   \u00a0  ***  \u00a0  I haven\u2019t served on either the Ways & Means Committee in the House or the Finance Committee in the Senate, but I\u2019ve relished any chance to increase trade opportunities.   \u00a0  I\u2019ve consistently voted for free trade agreements, and I\u2019ve joined with others in trying to expand trade with countries, for example, like Cuba.  \u00a0  I\u2019m often asked what motivates me, a senator from Arizona, to get involved with Cuba. Well, I once took a poll among Cuban Americans in Arizona about my Cuba policy, and both of them said, move right ahead.  \u00a0  In truth, I\u2019ve long been convinced that if we really wanted to shake things up in Cuba, we ought to export something to that island we have an abundance of: college kids on spring break. The Castro brothers may have no choice but to waive the white flag.  \u00a0  I\u2019ve also pushed to hold our feet to the fire on international trade commitments in order to protect the gains we\u2019ve made and ensure the potential for more.   \u00a0  You have to look no further than the Brazilian cotton case to see how wayward and sit-com-esque our trade antics can become.  \u00a0  Like the swallows to Capistrano, around September or October every even year, we tend to see an increase in pandering on trade issues. Let\u2019s face it:\u00a0 There is little chance of positive outcomes when trade decisions are made in the months just before November of an election year.  \u00a0  The best-case scenario is that Congress will turn its attention to trade in the next few months, before we get close to the midterms.\u00a0   \u00a0  ****\r\nIt makes sense now to blow the dust off some of the reasons many of us get excited about reducing barriers to trade.   \u00a0  Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. It increases competition. And it increases access to foreign markets with all the attendant benefits.   \u00a0  This last point is vital. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 80 percent of the purchasing power and 95 percent of the world\u2019s consumers are outside U.S. borders. Ninety-two percent of the world\u2019s economic growth is also outside of U.S. borders.  \u00a0  I am reminded of a comment on agricultural exports that former Congressman Cal Dooley made at an event like this.   \u00a0  He said, in essence, that if we look at the full grocery carts rolling out of supermarkets coast to coast, it is hard to imagine that U.S. agriculture can sell that much more to American consumers.  \u00a0  He\u2019s right. Export markets are our growth markets.  \u00a0  Lowering trade barriers and allowing reciprocal access to our market also provides for lower-cost imports, boosting the purchasing power of U.S. consumers.   \u00a0  While low-cost imported consumer goods are usually the focus, it is estimated that half of U.S. imports are actually inputs for U.S. production.   \u00a0  Imports not only stretch dollars for consumers at the cash register but cheaper inputs also allow U.S. industries to be more globally competitive.  \u00a0  According to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. is \u201cthe world's largest economy and the largest exporter and importer of goods and services,\u201d exporting more than $2.2 trillion in goods and services last year.   \u00a0  A U.S. Chamber official recently noted in Roll Call that nearly half of U.S. exports go to our free trade agreement partners, and that these countries make up just one-tenth of the world\u2019s economy.   \u00a0  Let me repeat that: Half of U.S. exports go to our free trade agreement partners, and these countries make up just one-tenth of the world\u2019s economy.   \u00a0  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. ranks near the top of the list of countries whose exporters face the highest tariffs. There is certainly room to do better here.  \u00a0  A 2010 study prepared by the Business Roundtable found that 38 million jobs \u2013 one in five jobs in the United States \u2013 are supported by trade.   \u00a0  Now, if you are like me, you cringe whenever you hear an elected official talk about \"creating\" jobs. In my view, my job as an elected official is to help provide the private sector with the tools and opportunities needed for job creation.   \u00a0  Free trade is one of those critical tools.\r\n***  \u00a0  To wax parochial for a moment, this issue really hits close to home for those of us representing border states.   \u00a0  In recent years, Mexico has been the U.S.\u2019s third-largest trading partner, and the second-largest export market. According to the Arizona-Mexico Commission, Arizona\u2019s ports of entry serve as gateways for $26 billion in U.S.-Mexican trade annually, and Arizona benefits from more than $13 billion in bilateral trade with Mexico every year.  \u00a0  So, when free trade expands economic freedom, spurs competition, raises productivity, facilitates job creation and increases the standard of living for all countries that embrace it, why is the path forward so difficult?  \u00a0  If this job has taught me anything, it\u2019s that you often have to separate your predictions from your preferences. My preference is that a big, global light bulb will go off and everyone will miraculously see the benefits of removing all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.  \u00a0  However, my prediction is that real gains in trade liberalization will only occur through the approval of bilateral and regional free trade agreements.  \u00a0  Just how unlikely is it that meaningful trade agreements can be concluded without Trade Promotion Authority?  \u00a0  Consider this: It has really only happened once. The implementing legislation for the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was approved by Congress without TPA, but this agreement had more to do with security and geopolitical concerns in the region than commercial significance.  \u00a0  Again, we've got to have TPA.  \u00a0  ***  \u00a0  Looking forward, there are reasons to be optimistic on trade.   \u00a0  In what has been an otherwise-lackluster trade agenda from the administration, the president has committed the U.S. to be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership \u2013 the T-P-P \u2013 negotiations.  \u00a0  Those participating in the talks are shooting for a \u201chigh standard\u201d free trade agreement. Its successful approval would yield the largest regional FTA the U.S. has ever been a part of, and would provide increased access to critical Asia-Pacific markets for U.S. businesses at a crucial time.   \u00a0  In addition, negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership \u2013 the T-T-I-P agreement \u2013 with the European Union have begun.   \u00a0  Simply put, without the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority, it is difficult to foresee a credible scenario where we will be part of these trade agreements when they are concluded.  \u00a0  My time in the Senate has been a lesson in the importance of leverage, and that\u2019s just what TPA provides our negotiators.   \u00a0  We are able to cut better deals when our partner nations have some sense that our negotiators can actually deliver what they put on the table, instead of having to bounce back and forth between Congress and the negotiations to see what will fly.   \u00a0  Just think of your own experience: Even the simplest form of haggling would become laughably cumbersome if the person you were haggling with was just an intermediary for 535 people, all of whom have their own thoughts and opinions.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\r\n***  \u00a0  Those who oppose renewing TPA often offer the canard that it is somehow inconsistent with the Constitution and cedes Congress\u2019 constitutional authority to the executive branch.   \u00a0  Let\u2019s be clear here: The Constitution clearly accords the Executive Branch \u2013 not Congress \u2013 the role of negotiating treaties with foreign countries.   \u00a0  Similarly, there is no dispute that the authority to \u201cregulate commerce\u201d and \u201clay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises\u201d lies with Congress.   \u00a0  Free trade agreements involve a dovetailing of the responsibilities of the Congress and the Executive Branch. TPA makes this possible.  \u00a0  The so-called \u201cfast track\u201d authority that comes with legislation implementing free trade agreements is often in the spotlight in any discussion about TPA. This provides for limited floor debate and no possibility for amendments, essentially allowing Congress an up-or-down vote.   \u00a0  TPA does not force Congress to cede authority to the executive branch. If anything, it provides Congress with a means of setting the parameters for discussions with foreign governments.\u00a0\r\nCongress maintains the ultimate authority to approve any necessary legislation, as well as change its own rules as it sees fit.  \u00a0  Among some congressional Democrats, opposition to TPA renewal \u2013 or anything that advances a pro-trade agenda for that matter \u2013 is predictable. On my side of the aisle, Republicans need to resist the temptation to buy the misleading narrative that TPA would simply give away the store to the Obama administration.   \u00a0  Don\u2019t get me wrong: This administration is not making it easy.\u00a0 But I think a recent Wall Street Journal editorial put it pretty well:  \u00a0  \u201cAs for Republicans, distaste for Mr. Obama isn\u2019t enough to justify opposition to trade pacts that would raise U.S. living standards.\u201d  \u00a0  Frankly, Republicans have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get to a place where opposing Trade Promotion Authority is consistent with our philosophy.   \u00a0  But if we Republicans just can\u2019t resist the temptation to make it an \u201cus versus them, shirts and skins\u201d Beltway game, we ought to be touting the fact that TPA expired in 2007, and it\u2019s taken this administration this long to get serious about renewing it.\u00a0   \u00a0  Let me emphasize that I am in no way advocating that Congress simply rubberstamp whatever Trade Promotion Authority proposal the White House might put forward.  \u00a0  TPA should be carefully considered and thoroughly vetted. It would also be my preference that TPA not become the Christmas tree on which all trade-related or non-trade-related provisions are hung.   \u00a0  ***  \u00a0  Let me stress again that the road to TPA will not be smooth or easy.  \u00a0  Those who traditionally oppose free trade are already lining up to recite the same tired arguments. Some new to Congress \u2013 and this is a large number since TPA was last passed more than a decade ago \u2013may be reluctant to take any action or cast a vote that might be perceived as giving the president undue authority, or giving the other party a victory so close to midterm elections.  \u00a0  But the bottom line is this: Congress cannot sit idly by and watch as America is left by the side of the road while other countries go full speed ahead toward greater market access and opportunity.  \u00a0  According to officials at the U.S. Chamber, almost 400 free trade agreements are in place around the globe. More than 100 agreements are yet to be signed, but are being discussed among other countries.   \u00a0  While many of these agreements lack substance, some of them DO deny U.S. exporters access to valuable markets.  \u00a0  By way of comparison, the U.S. has free trade agreements currently in place with fewer than two-dozen countries. We\u2019ve got some catching up to do.  \u00a0  ***  \u00a0  In closing, it is said that no man is an island. (I know a few things about islands, having marooned myself on a few of them.)\u00a0   \u00a0  This much I can tell you: While there may be island nations, no nation that wants economic growth and prosperity can be an island unto itself when it comes to trade and commerce.  \u00a0  It\u2019s up to those of us who know and understand this axiom \u2013 those who understand the benefits of free trade \u2013 to take advantage of this TPA window before it closes.\u00a0   \u00a0  There\u2019s no time like the present.  \u00a0  Thank you for having me here today.\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f0e6730c-a370-4c1f-800d-f131be784b11"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.853049198165536, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}