Back in 2002, I joined in a bipartisan effort to authorize the president to negotiate trade agreements that would be subject to straight up-or-down votes in Congress, if such agreements met congressional negotiating objectives. That effort culminated in the enactment of the Trade Act of 2002. It had been over eight years since our president had such authority. Eight years, during which time we were left on the sidelines while other nations partnered in trade agreements to the benefit of their producers and consumers and to the detriment of producers and consumers here in the United States.

Before the Trade Act of 2002, trade promotion authority was known as “fast track” authority. It had been enacted as part of the Trade Act of 1974. That authority, which was renewed several times, paved the way for implementation of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, bilateral trade agreements with Israel and Canada, NAFTA, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. When it expired in April 1994, our ability to open new markets for U.S. exporters and expand choices for U.S. consumers was sharply curtailed.

The implementation of trade promotion authority (TPA) in 2002 changed that. First, it established a realistic window for the successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization. And second, it established a framework for the successful conclusion of trade, liberalizing agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bahrain, Oman, Peru and Colombia. Soon, we’ll be able to add Panama and South Korea to this list.

These bilateral trade agreements serve a number of objectives. First, they help to cement our ties with important allies around the world. Better than any governmental interaction, international trade between individuals is the best way to foster increased understanding and appreciation of Americans by foreigners, and of foreigners by Americans, particularly when it’s duplicated on a large scale. Second, these agreements serve as a clear example of what ambitious trade liberalization looks like. That’s particularly helpful as we try to get the Doha Development Round negotiations on track. Third, they help to foster increased respect for the rule of law. And fourth, these agreements level the playing field.

The United States has one of the most open economies in the world. Our barriers to imports are, for the most part, minimal. But that’s not the case for many of our trading partners. For example, while most of our imports from the countries with which we’ve negotiated trade agreements enter the United States free of duty, our exports to those countries are subject to significant tariffs. Our trade agreements change that. Upon full implementation, our exports will receive the same duty-free treatment. And that will sustain more jobs for U.S. firms that export. Last year our exports comprised over 11 percent of our gross domestic product, up from 9.6 percent in 2002. That’s where our potential for more economic growth lies. We need to continue breaking down barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services in order to reach the 95 percent of global consumers who don’t live in the United States.

Recently, Democratic leadership in the House and Senate reached a compromise with the Bush administration, paving the way for implementation of our trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, and eventually Panama and South Korea. This compromise also provides the momentum for extending TPA in order to afford a renewed opportunity to successfully conclude the Doha Development Round negotiations.

No one should be under any illusion. The likelihood that our trading partners will table the significant concessions necessary to conclude the Doha negotiations is just about nil unless we extend TPA. Why would they without the guarantee of an up-or-down vote in Congress?

Fortunately, we have a forum for extending TPA. The current authorization for our trade adjustment assistance programs expires on Oct. 1 this year. That authorization was included in the Trade Act of 2002. In fact, the Democrats linked the authorization of trade adjustment assistance to the authorization of TPA in 2002. I see no reason why the two should be de-linked this time around.

Congress is beginning the process of reauthorizing trade adjustment assistance. We’ll consider ways to improve those programs, to make them more flexible to better meet the needs of trade-affected workers. As part of that effort, we should include an extension of TPA, at the very least to ensure an up-or-down vote in Congress on any legislation to implement a trade agreement resulting from the Doha Development Round negotiations.


Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.