FORMER U.S. OFFICIALS
Bipartisan Letter from All Living Former U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury, 4/21/2015: “We write to express support for Congressional renewal of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Our support for open trade agreements is based on a simple premise: expanding the size of the market where American goods and services can compete on a level playing field is good for American workers and their families. Expanded international trade means more American jobs and higher American incomes. It means greater access for American businesses to markets and consumers around the world, and it means lower prices for American families here at home. International trade, and the trade agreements that enable it, is happening and will continue to happen whether or not the United States participates. Our choice is to give American businesses and innovators the opportunity to share in the advantages those agreements provide or to remain outside the agreements and allow our competitors to benefit alone….We support the TPA legislation introduced by Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, which includes a strong negotiating objective on currency.”
- George P. Shultz
- W. Michael Blumenthal
- James A. Baker, III
- Nicholas F. Brady
- Robert E. Rubin
- Lawrence H. Summers
- Paul H. O'Neill
- John W. Snow
- Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
- Timothy F. Geithner
Bipartisan Letter from Former Chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, 3/5/2015: “Expanded trade through these agreements will contribute to higher incomes and stronger productivity growth over time in both the United States and other countries. U.S. businesses will enjoy improved access to overseas markets, while the greater variety of choices and lower prices trade brings will allow household budgets to go further to the benefit of American families…We believe that agreements to foster greater international trade are in our national economic and security interests, and support a renewal of Trade Promotion Authority.”
- Alan Greenspan
- Charles L. Schultze
- Martin Feldstein
- Michael J. Boskin
- Laura D’Andrea Tyson
- Martin N. Baily
- R. Glenn Hubbard
- N. Gregory Mankiw
- Harvey S. Rosen
- Ben S. Bernanke
- Edward P. Lazear
- Christina D. Romer
- Austan D. Goolsbee
- Alan B. Krueger
Bipartisan Letter from Former U.S. Trade Representatives, 4/22/15: “We represent diverse backgrounds and political persuasions. Between us, we have spent many decades in government, the private sector, and civil society. We have served as Members of Congress and staff, and in over a half dozen executive agencies. We certainly do not agree on everything. We do, however, agree strongly, that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is in the best interests of the United States of America – whether defined as economic health and the wellbeing of our citizens, or as America’s geopolitical standing in the world.”
- William Brock
- Carla Hills
- Charlene Barshefsky
- Clayton Yeutter
- Mickey Kantor
- Robert Zoellick
- Susan Schwab
- Ron Kirk
Bipartisan Letter from Former U.S. Secretaries of Commerce, 3/25/15 – Former Secretaries of Commerce Urge Congress to Pass Trade Promotion Authority: “As former Secretaries of Commerce, we strongly support Trade Promotion Authority for President Obama. From our experience, it is critically important for American businesses to access new customer markets while staying competitive in the world economy. American companies grow and succeed in the global market place through high-quality high-standard trade agreements that help our firms gain access to new overseas markets. With 95 percent of the world’s consumers living outside the United States, we must not allow opportunities to pass us by.”
- John Bryson
- Gary Locke
- Carlos Gutierrez
- Donald Evans
- Norman Mineta
- William Daley
- Mickey Kantor
- Barbara Franklin
- Frederick Dent
- Pete Peterson
Bipartisan Letter from Former Small Business Administration Administrators, 3/19/15: “We come from different political parties, and we have led the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) at different junctures, but on this point we all agree: Congressional approval of trade promotion authority (TPA) and completing the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP) sought by President Barack Obama would constitute a significant victory for America's small businesses… Trade promotion opens doors for small businesses that would otherwise remain closed. TPP would be our first trade agreement with a specific chapter dedicated to growing our small business exports. The significance of this cannot be overstated; the barriers to accessing new markets are often more daunting for small business owners who have less resources than their larger counterparts.”
- Maria Contreras-Sweet
- Karen G. Mills
- Steve Preston
- Hector Barreto
- Aida Alvarez
Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman and President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas, 4/3/2015: “The benefits of the TPP are many. It would further open the 12-nation region to trade in services and agriculture, two sectors in which the United States historically runs large trade surpluses. Better protection of American intellectual property will help industries, from high-tech manufacturing to Hollywood, in which Asian piracy has been rampant….The real choice is between supporting a trade accord that would help most Americans and serve the country’s strategic aims, and defeating it, which would leave the country poorer and the world less stable.”
THINK TANK AND ACADEMIC ECONOMISTS
Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 5/22/2015: “Liberal, Democrat, conservative, Republican — overwhelmingly [economists] agree on the benefits of free trade…There's always some people that will lose their jobs from [a large trade deal.] Just like from technology or any other source of growth and change, there's always winners and losers, no question about that…But I do believe that it's good for Americans as a whole, and I even believe that it's good for working-class Americans….There used to be this routine practice that the US negotiators get their best deal — and they tend to get a lot — and then the president brings it back to Congress for approval and Congress says, 'Well, no, now we're gonna require some amendments or otherwise we won't agree…We did that enough times that other countries said, 'Well, no, we're not playing that game anymore.' So ever since Nixon, we've had to have fast track authority.”
- Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 4/6/2015: “Every U.S. president for the last 40 years has been given TPA or fast-track authority except President Barack Obama. There is a good reason for that. Other countries had learned previously not to negotiate with the United States if Congress could take away concessions that the executive had offered as part of a deal.”
Robert Lawrence, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 5/15/2015: “Consider what rejection of this agreement by the United States would mean. Would it stop those interested in establishing rules that govern global supply chains in their tracks? Not likely. Instead, it would mean they will write these rules without US participation. Are we better off playing a leadership role when the rules are written, or should we just leave it up to others and allow them to discriminate against us? Yes, it may not mean the end of the Republic but it would mean the end of U.S. leadership in the trading system.”
Adam Posen, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 5/14/2015: “A major part of TPP is potentially orienting, if not anchoring, important developing markets on a market-friendly outwards-facing, and yes pro-US and pro-democracy, path…We have seen what the US orientation and anchor has meant to Mexico, Columbia, and Chile. We saw what happened for Japan then Korea after the war. For Peru, Vietnam, and perhaps Malaysia (admittedly a harder case) — and as importantly, likely Indonesia and the Philippines in the not-too-distant future — TPP represents the positive inducement to that path.”
Jay Chittooran, Third Way, 4/20/2015: “There is simply no path to middle-class prosperity without expanding U.S. exports. As President Obama has said: ‘95% of the world’s customers live outside our borders, and we can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities.’ By the end of this decade, the Asia-Pacific middle class will expand by more than 1.2 billion people and will make up half of the world’s middle-class consumers. Meanwhile, of the 40 largest economies, the U.S. ranks 39th in exports as a share of GDP. We need a renewed effort to make sure a growing, wealthier world is buying Made in the USA products and using Made in the USA services. To make that happen, the most important step to take by far is supporting the bipartisan, bicameral trade promotion authority (TPA) deal.”
Derek Scissors, American Enterprise Institute, 4/17/2015: “A bill was put forward yesterday and hits the right notes on commerce and American leadership, while promoting transparency….In the past, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) focused on priorities – Congress indicating what it wants in a trade treaty. This bill gives equal time to accountability, with much of the text devoted to how the president must consult Congress throughout the negotiation process. Even better, it requires the administration to inform the public. Negotiating objectives must be made public during the process and the treaty itself must be public for 60 days before the president can sign it….A more subtle benefit of TPA involves American leadership. It lets our partners know the US is committed to trade liberalization and can act accordingly. It provides additional policy tools, most appealing to those focused on economic development. The US can be the country to turn to for long-term prosperity, not only in times of crisis.”
C. Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 4/10/2015: “TPA is essential to permit satisfactory conclusion and subsequent Congressional approval of TPP and (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which represent the most ambitious U.S. trade negotiating agenda ever and will transform the global economic system.”
Joshua Meltzer, Brookings Institution, 4/9/2015: “Globalization is here to stay, and failure to pass TPA or to conclude the TPP will not change this. However, TPP is a key opportunity for the U.S. to continue to determine the terms of globalization and to ensure that its development supports U.S. growth and welfare. The TPP is an agreement that will support a U.S. economic future that is geared towards innovation in high-end manufacturing and services. The TPP will also underpin a global economic system that is rules-based, consistent with U.S. values, and strengthens the ability of U.S. businesses to compete in TPP markets. Such a system will ensure that the U.S. benefits more fully from the global economy—and the opportunities here are significant. Currently, 95 percent of the world’s population lives outside the United States. Global middle-class consumption is projected to grow from $21 trillion in 2009 to over $56 trillion in 2030, with most of the growth happening outside the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region.”
Edward Alden, Council on Foreign Relations, 4/6/2015: “I agree with many of the substantive criticisms of the TPP as it currently stands, but none of them is an argument for the United States to turn its back on the deal. The negotiating process should be more transparent, the agreement should include provisions to curb government intervention in currency markets, and the investor–state dispute resolution procedures should be reformed. Representative Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways & Means Committee, has produced a sensible list of improvements to the pending deal. But there is no question that concluding TPP is in the U.S. national interest. It will strengthen U.S. ties to Asia, boost U.S. exports, and encourage economic reform in China by setting high trade and governance standards for much of the region.”
C. Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 4/6/2015: “TPA is essential to permit satisfactory conclusion and subsequent Congressional approval of TPP and (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which represent the most ambitious U.S. trade negotiating agenda ever and will transform the global economic system.”
Richard Cooper, Harvard University, 4/6/2015: “Congress should give the president TPA for other trade negotiations as well, not just the TPP. And my view does not imply support for TPP, the content of which we do not yet know. That would be a different question.”
David Autor (Associate Head of the Economics Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), David Dorn (University of Zurich), Gordon H. Hanson (University of California, San Diego), 3/12/2015: “Why Obama’s key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers… There is indeed substantial evidence that import competition from low-wage countries has contributed to the momentous decline in U.S. manufacturing employment in the last two decades. We even researched and published some of that empirical evidence. Still, we believe blocking the TPP on fears of globalization would be a mistake. There are several reasons to support the TPP despite globalization concerns. First, the TPP — which seeks to govern exchange of not only traditional goods and services, but also intellectual property and foreign investment — would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage. Second, killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America. Third, and perhaps most important, although China is not part of the TPP, enacting the agreement would raise regulatory rules and standards for several of China’s key trading partners. That would pressure China to meet some of those standards and cease its attempts to game global trade to impede foreign multinational companies.”
Jeffrey Schott, Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2/18/2015: “Simply put, TPA will set US negotiating objectives for international trade initiatives, requirements for notification and consultation with Congress before and during trade negotiations, and reinstitute ‘fast-track’ procedures that allow for expeditious ratification of trade pacts once talks conclude. With the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on the horizon and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation in process, TPA is needed now to help bring those deals to fruition.”
