June 11, 2015
Well, I received my letter from Rep. Kristi Noem telling me why Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is "the bomb," so to speak. Problem is, it seem she is reading from this playbook Mr. Thompson from the John Birch Society refers to. Take a look at the video then at her her letter. Are you being represented well, or is it more the people who wrote up the talking points, who make the audacious claim that Congress will be in control of the process of making trade agreements (which they are not even allowed to read, copy, or even see in some cases.
Dear Eldon,
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns surrounding ongoing U.S. trade negotiations.
I've heard from a number of folks who have serious concerns about giving the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which has also been incorrectly nicknamed "fast-track authority." TPA is not new; every President since Gerald Ford has utilized it. At its core, this legislation puts meaningful limitations on the President by setting more than 100 parameters – each dictating through law what U.S. negotiators must achieve for a final agreement. Without TPA, the President can still engage in trade negotiations; TPA simply enables Congress to have a say in the product of these negotiations. Additionally, any trade agreement negotiated under TPA must receive a majority vote in both the House and the Senate. So the American people—via their elected representatives—have the final say. Not the President.
TPA also slows down the final approval process, guaranteeing every American will have sixty days to review the agreement before Congress can take a vote on it. That kind of guarantee is rarely codified in law, so it's an important provision to include. In addition, either the House or Senate can "turn off" TPA if the administration doesn't stick to the plan, something that has never been included in previous TPA agreements.
Other folks have reached out to me, wary of expanding U.S. trade altogether. Today, 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States. Many of those consumers have to pay premium rates to get "Made in America" goods because our competitors put sky-high tariffs on our products and put us at a disadvantage. A trade agreement, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would level the playing field for American products and help build a healthy economy that workers, ag producers, and families can benefit from. We sell 11 1/2 times more South Dakota goods to countries we have trade agreements with.
The benefits of trade agreements go beyond our ability to sell goods, however. Trade promotes our security too. Where the U.S. is not building economic partnerships, China is. China has negotiated 48 trade agreements during a time when the U.S. has negotiated just two in the region. That gives China a significant voice that is hard for even our allies to ignore. When we enter into trade agreements, we strengthen our ties with other countries and thereby enhance our national security in the region.
On April 23, I voted to pass TPA out of the Ways and Means Committee, clearing it to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I believe trade agreements must be fair and must include benefits for hardworking South Dakotans. That is what TPA helps ensure.
Thanks again for reaching out to my office. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. I encourage you to visit my website (www.noem.house.gov) for more information on what I'm working on for South Dakota.
