The Today's quote is from on op-ed on Trade Promotion Authority by the Executive Vice President and head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Myron Brilliant.  The argument is in the headline: "By voting yes on TPA, Congress can jumpstart a sluggish economy."   And the article itself is a useful recapitulation of the case for Trade Promotion Authority legislation.  Mr. Brilliant notes, for example, that one in four U.S. manufacturing jobs are devoted to exports as is one-third of America's farm acreage.  And those who work for exporting companies generally earn more than their counterparts with only domestic customers - some 18 percent more.

These and the observations that "95 percent of the world's customers [live] outside the U.S." or that the U.S. has a trade surplus with its trade agreement partners as a group are all part of the standard pro-TPA argument.  They are no less compelling for that.

For us, however, Mr. Brilliant's warning that, without TPA, the U.S. might find itself "stuck on the outside looking in" was particularly salient.  One might ask, on the outside of what and looking into what?  Our concern is that the United States will find itself on the outside of opportunity looking into other people's prosperity. 

One question that should be asked of TPA's opponents is, Why do other countries see such an attraction in free trade agreements if they are so harmful?  Certainly, they are aggressive about pursuing them. The European Union has some 50 agreements in place, 10 that have been complete but have not yet entered into force, and another 14 that are in progress.* By our count, Canada has free-trade agreements with 14 countries and has begun negotiations with more than 60 countries.  

If America drops out of the trade agreement game - if it fails to pass Trade Promotion Authority - you can expect the cries of  "Foul!" and "Un-level playing field!" to grow louder and louder.  And you can just as easily hear the loud (if unspoken) response: "So?"

Finally, there is another aspect of Trade Promotion Authority that is not emphasized enough.  By spelling out in legislative language just what America's trade objectives are, TPA should begin to peel away the secrecy that is now doing TPP and other trade talks more harm than good.  No, TPA and TPP are not the same.  And no one should expect every U.S. objective in TPA to be met in TPP.   On the other hand, a TPA bill that is drafted so near the end of the TPP negotiations should meaningfully anticipate the final Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.  If it does not, it will be hard to ask Congress - the same Congress that hopefully will soon say yes to TPA - to approve an unanticipated or unduly disappointing TPP.

Mr. Brilliant's op-ed has appeared in newspapers from coast-to-coast.  We found it in The Bellingham Herald of Bellingham, Washington, and in The Providence Journal of Providence, Rhode Island.  One can only hope that those who read it will have seen not only how solid it is but how important.