releases: https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f0e6730c-a370-4c1f-800d-f131be784b11
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | legacy | Washington, D.C. – 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. Video of Sen. Flake’s remarks can be seen here. Congress & Trade Promotion Authority: A Critical Tool for Critical Gains U.S. SEN. JEFF FLAKE DEC. 18, 2013 Thank you, Arthur, for that warm welcome, and thanks to AEI for all that you do to promote limited government and economic freedom. With that in mind, I’m honored to be here this morning to talk about free trade and trade promotion authority. Let me just say it would be great if legislation reducing trade barriers could seamlessly move through Congress without tailored rules, but let’s get real for a moment: We couldn’t even move a short-term spending resolution without shutting down the government for weeks. 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. 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. 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. *** I haven’t served on either the Ways & Means Committee in the House or the Finance Committee in the Senate, but I’ve relished any chance to increase trade opportunities. I’ve consistently voted for free trade agreements, and I’ve joined with others in trying to expand trade with countries, for example, like Cuba. I’m 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. In truth, I’ve 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. I’ve also pushed to hold our feet to the fire on international trade commitments in order to protect the gains we’ve made and ensure the potential for more. You have to look no further than the Brazilian cotton case to see how wayward and sit-com-esque our trade antics can become. Like the swallows to Capistrano, around September or October every even year, we tend to see an increase in pandering on trade issues. Let’s face it: There is little chance of positive outcomes when trade decisions are made in the months just before November of an election year. 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. **** It makes sense now to blow the dust off some of the reasons many of us get excited about reducing barriers to trade. 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. 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’s consumers are outside U.S. borders. Ninety-two percent of the world’s economic growth is also outside of U.S. borders. I am reminded of a comment on agricultural exports that former Congressman Cal Dooley made at an event like this. 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. He’s right. Export markets are our growth markets. Lowering trade barriers and allowing reciprocal access to our market also provides for lower-cost imports, boosting the purchasing power of U.S. consumers. 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. Imports not only stretch dollars for consumers at the cash register but cheaper inputs also allow U.S. industries to be more globally competitive. According to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. is “the world's largest economy and the largest exporter and importer of goods and services,” exporting more than $2.2 trillion in goods and services last year. 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’s economy. 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’s economy. 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. A 2010 study prepared by the Business Roundtable found that 38 million jobs – one in five jobs in the United States – are supported by trade. 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. Free trade is one of those critical tools. *** To wax parochial for a moment, this issue really hits close to home for those of us representing border states. In recent years, Mexico has been the U.S.’s third-largest trading partner, and the second-largest export market. According to the Arizona-Mexico Commission, Arizona’s 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. 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? If this job has taught me anything, it’s 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. However, my prediction is that real gains in trade liberalization will only occur through the approval of bilateral and regional free trade agreements. Just how unlikely is it that meaningful trade agreements can be concluded without Trade Promotion Authority? 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. Again, we've got to have TPA. *** Looking forward, there are reasons to be optimistic on trade. 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 – the T-P-P – negotiations. Those participating in the talks are shooting for a “high standard” 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. In addition, negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – the T-T-I-P agreement – with the European Union have begun. 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. My time in the Senate has been a lesson in the importance of leverage, and that’s just what TPA provides our negotiators. 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. 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. *** Those who oppose renewing TPA often offer the canard that it is somehow inconsistent with the Constitution and cedes Congress’ constitutional authority to the executive branch. Let’s be clear here: The Constitution clearly accords the Executive Branch – not Congress – the role of negotiating treaties with foreign countries. Similarly, there is no dispute that the authority to “regulate commerce” and “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” lies with Congress. Free trade agreements involve a dovetailing of the responsibilities of the Congress and the Executive Branch. TPA makes this possible. The so-called “fast track” 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. 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. Congress maintains the ultimate authority to approve any necessary legislation, as well as change its own rules as it sees fit. Among some congressional Democrats, opposition to TPA renewal – or anything that advances a pro-trade agenda for that matter – 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. Don’t get me wrong: This administration is not making it easy. But I think a recent Wall Street Journal editorial put it pretty well: “As for Republicans, distaste for Mr. Obama isn’t enough to justify opposition to trade pacts that would raise U.S. living standards.” Frankly, Republicans have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to get to a place where opposing Trade Promotion Authority is consistent with our philosophy. But if we Republicans just can’t resist the temptation to make it an “us versus them, shirts and skins” Beltway game, we ought to be touting the fact that TPA expired in 2007, and it’s taken this administration this long to get serious about renewing it. 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. 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. *** Let me stress again that the road to TPA will not be smooth or easy. Those who traditionally oppose free trade are already lining up to recite the same tired arguments. Some new to Congress – and this is a large number since TPA was last passed more than a decade ago –may 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. 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. 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. While many of these agreements lack substance, some of them DO deny U.S. exporters access to valuable markets. By way of comparison, the U.S. has free trade agreements currently in place with fewer than two-dozen countries. We’ve got some catching up to do. *** 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.) 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. It’s up to those of us who know and understand this axiom – those who understand the benefits of free trade – to take advantage of this TPA window before it closes. There’s no time like the present. Thank you for having me here today. ### | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |