Mr. Chairman I am an avid supporter of free trade and the expansion of markets with open lines of movement for goods and services between our country and our trading partners. I have supported "Fast Track" and now support "Trade Promotion Authority," as well as voting in favor of the various trade agreements that now define our larger commercial relationship with the world, particularly the Uruguay Round agreements that formed the WTO and our partnerships with Canada and Mexico, which are embodied in NAFTA and other bilateral agreements in this hemisphere.

I support free trade because I understand how it benefits both the consumers and the producers in our own economy to modernize and advance our ability to make the most of our own comparative advantages and our trading partners’ competencies. In addition, many of us are fully aware of the strategic role expanded trade plays in building diplomatic bridges and common purpose with other nations, sometimes more effectively than direct foreign aid or technical assistance. Even as some countries resent yet strive to emulate U.S. success, recent events underscore how some of the most thorny international security and internal political challenges can be subordinated to the desire for stronger economic and commercial ties, when cooler heads prevail.

I have also heard the legitimate grumblings of parties in this country who do not feel that they got the best deal possible in recent agreements. Even worse, some have rightly observed that not all the commitments they received for their concessions have been squarely met. Some in these industries have communicated to me that they have reasonably concluded that further expansion of free trade in our hemisphere is not in their own best interest.

Today, rather than argue apples and oranges, I want to give voice to citrus and tomatoes. I remain committed to free trade, but I acknowledge that unless we forthrightly address the issues that hold back some individuals and certain industries from wholeheartedly supporting expanded trade in our hemisphere, we miss an important opportunity to assure that we are doing right by our own citizens in all four corners of the U.S. If now is the time for debate, then let us meet that debate head-on with facts, understanding various parties’ positions and prepared to continue improving in the future how we do business in international trade negotiations. This way, the people we represent can have confidence we are doing, for them, the best job possible of protecting their interests.

In particular, many fruit and vegetable growers in Florida have expressed frustration to me in recent years. At previous hearings and in personal discussions with many in this room, including Ambassador Zoellick, I have mentioned "seasonality" as an important element of assuring fairness to certain farmers in competing with Latin America during certain limited growing seasons. I raise it again today, asking for some specifics, so that we may move the debate forward.

A number of U.S. agricultural commodities, including fresh and processed citrus, have been found import-sensitive in the past, and been required to compete with unfairly traded or subsidized imports both in domestic and foreign markets. In addition, foreign advantages gained through looser antitrust laws and differing environmental standards and labor conditions, have permitted many foreign producers of horticultural products to overcome superior U.S. product quality. Trade relief laws alone have not fully satisfied these industries in offsetting the very advantages that have launched and nurtured some of these foreign competitors.

Thank you for your attentiveness to these issues. I look forward to discussing them with you in more detail as we move forward on TPA and in negotiations with our trading partners.