Thread: Senate Democrats block key plank of Obama trade agenda

Originally Posted by admin

I agree with Imblest on this. A yes vote on Cloture is a yes vote on the bill to proceed and the outcome of most bills in the Senate is based on the cloture votes not the final votes.

It is highly disturbing that every GOP senator voting including Jeff sessions voted YEA on Cloture which was a vote to give Obama more power and pass TPP.

W

I would disagree because some of those that voted for cloture would have actually voted against the bill on a floor vote. It's a tricky situation when you're assuming things based on a cloture vote. Burr, Rand, and Sessions are perfect examples of what I'm talking about because I know for a fact they do not support the actual bill (unless something has changed over the last day or so). Honestly, IMO, the voted 'yea' for cloture because they are trying to show a strong party front but they knew the bill didn't have the votes for cloture. Like I said, that's just my opinion.

I will admit that I could be off base on this. However, I do know from past experience that a cloture vote doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

MAY 12, 2015 @ 11:46 AM
3,390 VIEWS

The Controversy Over Immigration And New Trade Authority

Stuart Anderson

CONTRIBUTOR

I write about globalization, business, technology and immigration. FULL BIO


A controversy has emerged about whether granting the president Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) would result in expanded immigration. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), chair of the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, has written,

“There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law – and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening.”

To negotiate international trade agreements, a U.S. president needs Trade Promotion Authority. TPA allows a president to finalize an agreement and put it before the U.S. Congress for an up-or-down vote. Without such authority, other countries would not conclude trade agreements with the United States, since amendments in Congress could scuttle the terms of previously agreed upon measures. As a recent National Foundation for American Policy analysis points out, both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) would yield significant economic gains to the U.S. economy and enhance American influence in Asia and Europe.

Several holes exist in the theory that granting Trade Promotion Authority will increase immigration. First, Trade Promotion Authority is not the final step in the legislative process. After an international agreement is negotiated, Congress must approve the agreement via implementing legislation. There is no evidence that including immigration provisions in an agreement would gain any votes in Congress. In fact, it appears more likely to lose votes, given at least some members antipathy towards immigration. Given that passage of any trade agreement is not guaranteed it would make no sense for the Obama Administration to attempt to “slip in” immigration provisions.

In other words, one does not need to “trust” the Obama Administration but only trust it will act in its own self-interest. The president wants a trade agreement to pass Congress.

The Obama Administration has made a specific commitment not to include in a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement any provisions to expand immigration to the United States, including via temporary entry. In a letter to Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, U.S. Trade Representative Michael B. G. Froman wrote,

I appreciate your writing to me, and welcome the opportunity to clarify that the United States is not negotiating and will not agree to anything in TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] that would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.

Going back on that commitment would lose votes in Congress.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) wrote a recent Dear Colleague letter to House members affirming that concerns about immigration provisions becoming part of an upcoming trade agreement are misplaced. “Whatever other countries participating in the TPP negotiations agree to regarding temporary entry, the U.S. will not be a signatory,” noted Goodlatte. “There is nothing in the current draft of the TPP that will in any way advance or facilitate this or any other unconstitutional action by the Administration.”

A second factor that would make it unlikely for immigration measures to be included in a future trade agreement is that the Obama Administration has not been especially pro-business in its immigration policies. The denial rate for L-1B petitions to transfer employees with specialized knowledge into the United States reached an all-time high of 35% in FY 2014. Moreover, few observers think the Administration’s recent guidance on L-1B petitions will solve a problem that has grown worse each year during the Administration. On lower-skilled visas, the Obama Administration has promulgated restrictive regulations for H-2B visas, which a court ruled exceeded the authority of the Department of Labor to issue. On immigration, the Obama Administration has not been pro-business in its actions, making it unlikely to suddenly become so and risk a trade agreement in Congress.

President Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently in favor of free trade. He stated,

Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize…the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.

The benefits of free trade have proven themselves over time.

To move forward toward liberalized trade that will improve standards of living in America and elsewhere the president needs Trade Promotion Authority.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartan...ade-authority/

Originally Posted by MW

. . . I will admit that I could be off base on this. However, I do know from past experience that a cloture vote doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

It is confusing but I figure Sessions knows what he's doing and did the right thing. I don't think he would let us down.

As a recent National Foundation for American Policy analysis points out, both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) would yield significant economic gains to the U.S. economy and enhance American influence in Asia and Europe.

Yeah, NAFTA and CAFTA were supposed to provide big gains too, and how did THAT work out for us?!

Just because Pres. Reagan supported something doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. He was a fallible person as are we all. Don't forget, Simpson-Mazzoli!

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

It is confusing but I figure Sessions knows what he's doing and did the right thing. I don't think he would let us down.

I trust Sen Sessions to vote NO when the time comes, but I don't trust Richard Burr any further than I could throw him. He has been a RINO traitor for years! And there are very few if any other senators I would depend on to vote NO.

Originally Posted by imblest

I trust Sen Sessions to vote NO when the time comes, but I don't trust Richard Burr any further than I could throw him. He has been a RINO traitor for years! And there are very few if any other senators I would depend on to vote NO.

Sen. Richard Burr's Immigration-Reduction Report Card (career) with NumbersUSA: B

He did support Lynch's nomination, which was disappointing. Sen. Burr is not perfect, but I don't recall him ever supporting an illegal immigrant amnesty. In the true since of the word, I do not consider Burr to be a RINO, especially not on the same level as folks like Sen. Graham, Sen. McCain, and Sen. McConnell. For the most part, as a NC resident, I support Burr. However, I will agree that he is not infallible.

5/13/15

http://www.alipac.us/f9/senate-leade...hority-319450/