The American trade agenda is at a crossroads. In just 10 days, trade promotion authority (TPA) will expire, meaning that we will no longer be able to conclude trade agreements. As the number-one trading nation in the world, our choice is obvious:
Reauthorize TPA or allow the trade agenda to flounder. Along one path, our families can depend on plentiful, inexpensive imports, and increased export-supported job creation — at firms that pay 13 to 18 percent higher than average wages. U.S. manufacturers will gain access to internationally sourced inputs that reduce production costs and help maintain competitiveness. In the other direction, we merely stand by and watch as other countries strike trade agreements with each other that limit access to our products and services.

TPA has helped bring down trade barriers, leveling the playing field for America’s growers, manufacturers and service providers. It is an essential tool that allows the agreements the president negotiates with our trading partners to receive an up-or-down vote in Congress.  Without TPA, other countries are less willing to come to the negotiating table. Last granted in 2002, TPA has been authorized in some form for many years. At some points it has lapsed, during which we’ve generally lost market share to foreign competitors.

Through our free trade agreements (FTAs) signed since 2002, we’ve reduced our trade deficit by $5.5 billion. Although the economies of our FTA partners make up only 7.3 percent of world GDP, our exports to these countries comprise more than 42 percent of our total U.S. exports to the world. As TPA has opened markets to U.S. producers, our trading partners have shared the benefits of increased transparency and rule of law, a strengthened investment environment and a strong alliance with the United States. Recently we have implemented agreements with Chile, the nations of Central America, the Dominican Republic, Australia, Singapore, Morocco, Bahrain and Oman.

This year Republicans, Democrats and the administration have wrestled with how to change our pending FTAs to increase bipartisan support. We’ve agreed to a new bipartisan template for these pacts, paving the way for Congress to approve negotiated agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea as soon as possible. Our continued strong economic ties to these nations, not to mention our strong national security interest, demand such an outcome.

Thanks to TPA and its predecessors, the United States has also participated in an important multi-country effort to improve commercial ties through the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since 1995, this 150-country body has facilitated global negotiations to reduce tariffs and other barriers to trade and has provided a forum for resolution of trade disputes between countries.

Failure to renew TPA would adversely impact America’s future growth and trade liberalization efforts around the world, including at the WTO. Countries will seek to lock out American producers from lucrative markets. Both China and the European Union, for example, are already negotiating agreements with several trading partners. Meanwhile, if the larger WTO negotiations falter because we do not have negotiating authority, we would miss an important opportunity to open markets for U.S. interests.

The benefits of free trade are diffuse, lowering prices for all consumers, offering access to a wider array of products and creating a robust economy with an enviable unemployment rate of only 4.5 percent. But while we are debating the benefits of trade, we cannot forget that the costs of trade tend to be acute, affecting some workers on the individual level. And of course, globalization, technology advances, and changes in our economy are responsible for most job loss, not trade. In fact, the president’s Council of Economic Advisors estimates that only 3 percent of long-term job loss is due to trade. We must help individuals who are displaced get back to work quickly. Considering TPA together with a plan to improve and modernize our programs to put people back to work, regardless of the reason for job loss, is a sensible and sensitive approach.

Fundamentally, we know that far more people would lose their jobs if we stayed away from the negotiating table. As Alan Blinder, an economics professor at Princeton University, stated recently, “Protectionism is a loser’s game.” In our upcoming debate over whether and how to extend TPA, we have a clear choice. If we embrace free trade by reauthorizing TPA, America’s families, farmers and manufacturers will continue to prosper. Otherwise, we become the losers as other nations thrive from enhanced trade, and U.S. producers and consumers are left behind.


Herger is the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee.