It will take more than Hillary Clinton to pass bad trade deal

May 5, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement responding to White House spokesperson Josh Earnest calling House Speaker John Boehner’s attempt to enlist Hillary’s Clinton’s aid in passing trade promotion authority authorizing President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership “a pretty desperate act”:

“Speaker Boehner has reason to desperately seek Hillary Clinton’s help in passing trade promotion authority, as the more people learn about Obama’s Pacific trade deal, the less they like it. Senator Jeff Sessions’ recently published five concerns with the trade pact unravels any pretense that granting President Obama fast track trade authority is in America’s interests.

“Speaker Boehner should ask himself why he continues to carry water for President Obama on an issue that has such broad bipartisan opposition that it has united the likes of Republican leaders Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Donald Trump, joining Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and nearly all House Democrats. It will take more than Hillary Clinton to pass a bad trade deal.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Sen. Sessions eviscerates fast track Pacific trade deal

May 4, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement praising Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for his statement raising critical concerns with granting President Barack Obama trade promotion authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Senator Sessions’ resistance to granting additional trade authority to Obama to negotiate the Pacific trade deal is a game changer in this debate as his statement deals with substantive problems with the Treaty. The TPP will subvert the treaty clause of the Constitution, increase immigration, and cede sovereignty to international powers, allowing nations like China to dock into the treaty without any congressional say so. Meanwhile it fails to address monetary policy, the primary means that nations price goods and services on a competitive basis.

“The president does not need congressional authority to negotiate a treaty. Period. Case closed. End of story. The argument that fast track provides the “advice” from Congress on this negotiation on a Treaty that is 99 percent completed makes a joke of Congress’ proper Constitutional role in this process, and using that last second “advice” as justification for lowering the ratification threshold is an affront to those who still believe in meaningful separation of powers.

“As Senator Sessions notes, ‘perhaps we don’t need a ‘fast-track’ but a regular track: where the President sends us any proposal he deems worthy and we review it on its own merits.’ If Obama wants this Pacific trade pact, he ought to finish negotiating it and submit it to the Senate for two-thirds ratification.”

Attachments:

CRITICAL ALERT: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) statement, May 4, 2015, at http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/5/critical-alert

Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority

CRITICAL ALERT

Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret. It must improve the quality of life, the earnings, and the per-capita wealth of everyday working Americans. The sustained long-term loss of middle class jobs and incomes should compel all lawmakers to apply added scrutiny to a “fast-track” procedure wherein Congress would yield its legislative powers and allow the White House to implement one of largest global financial agreements in our history—comprising at least 12 nations and nearly 40 percent of the world’s GDP. The request for fast-track also comes at a time when the Administration has established a recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the Congress, and the Constitution in order to repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers in deference to favored financial and political allies.

With that in mind, here are the top five concerns about the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that must be fully understood and addressed before passage:

1. Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA. There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees.

Moreover, while the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from this report, limiting its value to Congress.

Is TPA designed to protect congressional responsibilities, or to limit Congress’ ability to do its duty?

2. Increased Trade Deficits. Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent. History suggests that trade deals set into motion under the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven trade imbalances. And in a recent column for Reuters, a former chief executive officer at AT&T notes that “since the [NAFTA and South Korea free trade] pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free-trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free-trade partners… Obama’s 2011 trade deal with South Korea, which serves as the template for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, has resulted in a 50 percent jump in the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea in its first two years. This equates to 50,000 U.S. jobs lost.”

Job loss by U.S. workers means reduced consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing into the Treasury, and greater reliance on government assistance programs. It is important that Congress fully understand the impact of this very large trade agreement and to use caution to ensure the interests of the people are protected.

Furthermore, the lack of protections in TPA against foreign subsidies could accelerate our shrinking domestic manufacturing base. We have been getting out-negotiated by our mercantilist trading partners for years, failing to aggressively advance legitimate U.S. interests, but the proponents of TPA have apparently not sought to rectify this problem.

TPA proponents must answer this simple question: will your plan shrink the trade deficit or will it grow it even wider?

3.  Ceding Sovereign Authority To International Powers. A USTR outline of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement “as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.” The “living agreement” provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.

This has far-reaching implications: the Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement (as a law passed later in time) would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S. workers may be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S.

Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the Administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements, or add new members to those agreements, without congressional approval. Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?

4. Currency Manipulation. The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact. A 2014 biannual report from the Treasury Department concluded that the yuan, or renminbi, remained significantly undervalued, yet the Treasury Department failed to designate China as a “currency manipulator.” History suggests this Administration, like those before it, will not stand up to improper currency practices. Currency protections are currently absent from TPA, indicating again that those involved in pushing these trade deals do not wish to see these currency abuses corrected. Therefore, even if currency protections are somehow added into TPA, it is still entirely possible that the Administration could ignore those guidelines and send Congress unamendable trade deals that expose U.S. workers to a surge of underpriced foreign imports. President Obama’s longstanding resistance to meaningful currency legislation is proof he intends to take no action.

The President has repeatedly failed to stand up to currency manipulators. Why should we believe this time will be any different?

5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011, the United States entered into an agreement with South Korea—never brought before Congress—to increase the duration of L-1 visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S. workers).

Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade deals. However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.—including visitor visas that are used as worker visas. The TPA reads:

“The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services… Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade.”

This language, and other language in TPA, offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes “trade in services.”

Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.

The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.

The President has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions. This runs contrary to our Founders’ belief, as stated in the Constitution, that immigration should be in the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy. For instance, the Court ruled in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), that “the formulation of policies [pertaining to the entry of immigrants and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress… [This principle] has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial issues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.” Granting the President TPA could enable controversial changes or increases to a wide variety of visas—such as the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1—including visas that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to a green card and thus citizenship.

Future trade deals could also have the possible effect of preventing Congress from reforming abuses in our guest worker programs, as countries could complain that limitations on foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier requiring adjudication by an international body.

The TPP also includes an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” that applies to all parties and that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the Temporary Entry chapter creates a separate negotiating group, explicitly contemplating that the parties to the TPP will revisit temporary entry at some point in the future for the specific purpose of making changes to this chapter—after Congress would have already approved the TPP. This possibility grows more acute given that TPP is a “living agreement” that can be altered without Congress.

Proponents of TPA should be required to answer this question: if you are confident that TPA would not enable any immigration actions between now and its 2021 expiration, why not include ironclad enforcement language to reverse any such presidential action?

CONCLUSION

Our government must defend the legitimate interests of American workers and American manufacturing on the world stage. The time when this nation can suffer the loss of a single job as a result of a poor trade agreement is over.

The American people want us to slow down a bit. The rapid pace of immigration and globalization has placed enormous pressures on working Americans. Lower-cost labor and lower-cost goods from countries with less per-person wealth have rushed into our marketplace, lowering American wages and employment. The public has grown increasingly skeptical of these elaborate proposals, stitched together in secret, and rushed to passage on the solemn promises of their promoters. Too often, these schemes collapse under their own weight. Our job is to raise our own standard of living here in America, not to lower our standard of living to achieve greater parity with the rest of the world. If we want an international trade deal that advances the interests of our own people, then perhaps we don’t need a “fast-track” but a regular track: where the President sends us any proposal he deems worthy and we review it on its own merits.

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

No act of Congress needed to unwind Ex-Im Bank

April 30, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement responding to House Speaker Rep. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) statement that “I support any plan that the chairman [Hensarling] can get through his committee, whether it would reform the bank, wind it down. But there are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear. So I have told the chairman he needs to come up with a plan, because the risk is that if he does nothing the Senate is likely to act, and then what?”:

“Congress need take no action to unwind the Ex-Im bank, because existing law already provides for the orderly liquidation of the bank. A lapse of authority will simply mean the bank’s operations continue until all existing obligations are settled. It will continue collecting interest payments to maintain those operations. Why would the House pass such a redundant piece of legislation?

“We urge Chairman Hensarling to do all that is necessary to unwind the bank in an orderly manner, which is absolutely nothing.”

Attachments:

12 U.S.C. §635f – Termination date of Bank’s functions; exceptions; liquidation at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/635f :  “Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue to exercise its functions in connection with and in furtherance of its objects and purposes until the close of business on September 30, 2014, but the provisions of this section shall not be construed as preventing the bank from acquiring obligations prior to such date which mature subsequent to such date or from assuming prior to such date liability as guarantor, endorser, or acceptor of obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from issuing, either prior or subsequent to such date, for purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury or any other purchasers, its notes, debentures, bonds, or other obligations which mature subsequent to such date or from continuing as a corporate agency of the United States and exercising any of its functions subsequent to such date for purposes of orderly liquidation, including the administration of its assets and the collection of any obligations held by the bank.

“Export-Import Bank: Overview and Reauthorization Issues,” By Shayerah Ilias Akhtar , Congressional Research Service, March 25, 2015 at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43581.pdf: “[A]ccording to Ex-Im Bank, if its authority were to lapse, no new commitments (including new loan, guarantee, or insurance transactions) could be approved by its Board of Directors or under delegated authority, but prior obligations (including disbursements on already-approved final commitments) could continue. The Bank could continue to make expenditures in its operations (including salary, rent, etc.), while developing a plan for orderly liquidation.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Manning: ‘It’s not the weather, stupid, it’s the economy’

April 29, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement on the poor first quarter GDP numbers in recent years:

“It’s not the weather, stupid, it’s the economy. From 1996 to 2005, first quarter economic growth averaged 2.55 percent, whereas from 2006 to 2015, first quarter economic growth averaged just 0.03 percent. The common denominator here is not the weather, but the fact that the economy started to turn downward in the second half of the 2000s and still has not recovered. We didn’t suddenly start having winters when the Great Recession occurred. Dispense with the bull market spin.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Japan Prime Minister urges Congress to adopt treaty

April 29, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement responding to the Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s address to a joint session of Congress:

“Monetary policy is the primary mechanism for pricing goods and services by nations, and any trade agreement that ignores this fact is no trade agreement at all. John Boehner has chosen to highlight this great flaw of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by inviting the key opponent of a monetary accord to speak in favor of an agreement — that primarily benefits Japan. The U.S. Congress is not a venue for foreign powers to influence the outcome of a treaty to which they are a party, and particularly one which ignores the two-thirds Senate majority necessary for constitutional ratification.

“Anyone who has driven on the roads the past thirty years knows that trade with Japan is already robust, with about $300 billion of total trade between our two nations every year. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not necessary for there to be trade with Japan. Yet, any commercial treaty could and should include monetary policy. Monetary policy is trade policy, and should Congress and the president continue to ignore the elephant in the room, Americans who work for a living will continue to pay the price.

“The failure to include monetary policy in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is yet one more reason we urge members to oppose granting trade promotion authority to the president.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

New Attorney General should investigate Clinton, Uranium One

April 24, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging the new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s ties to the Russian company, Uranium One, which donated millions to the foundation, seemingly in exchange for a lucrative U.S. uranium contract:

“Loretta Lynch’s first act as Attorney General should be to launch a full-scale investigation of the Clinton Foundation’s ties to the Russian company, Uranium One. The appearance that Hillary Clinton sold approvals to foreign governments puts a stain on every foreign policy decision she made as Secretary of State. The national security team had to know about this, and went along with it, and the notion that President Obama knew nothing is simply unbelievable. Our national security is now for sale.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Dear Senator Cruz, Trade promotion authority is an unconstitutional fabrication

April 22, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement blasting a Wall Street Journal oped by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in favor of granting trade promotion authority to President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“It is more than disappointing that a man who made his career in Washington, D.C. arguing against the abuse of power by the executive branch would now choose to cede power to that very branch of government which he seeks to lead.

“Trade promotion authority via an executive-legislative branch agreement is an unconstitutional fabrication of the modern administrative state, something Senator Ted Cruz is well aware of. Prior to the Trade Act of 1974 and the New Deal before that, nothing like trade promotion authority can be found anywhere in the constitutional framework surrounding the treaty making process. Cruz has naïvely bought into the idea that Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution can be averted by simple majorities of both houses to adopt an international trade treaty.

“Meanwhile, real trade treaties, such as the United Kingdom Commerce and Navigation Treaty of 1815, which was a free trade agreement, required a two-thirds Senate majority to be ratified. The only thing that has changed between then and now is the modern Senate’s reckless disregard for constitutional, limited government and the rule of law. Ted Cruz should know better.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Opposition to fast track is the only position for constitutional conservatives

April 21, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in opposition to trade promotion authority for President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Proponents of the Pacific trade deal face irreconcilable problems that on one hand, they bemoan Obama’s executive regulatory overreach in areas like amnesty, Obamacare, and Net Neutrality, yet, they claim that Congress should cede to the same president an enormous grant of power that eviscerates the advice and consent treaty ratification process. You can’t be pro-Constitution with one press release and in favor of shredding it in the next and call yourself a constitutional conservative.

“It is also almost become a standard talking point for conservative groups that President Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster, with the China climate deal treaty, the Iran nuclear treaty, and the opening of Cuba serving as prime examples of this president’s failure to stand up as the leader of the free world. Yet, some conservative groups are willing to trust this same failed president to negotiate the rules for the world economy without even the ability to read the treaty that he’s negotiating. This is either abject naiveté or willful blindness of the goals of Obama’s multinational, corporate partners who helped him make the deal.

“What’s more, the big lie that fast track legislation allows Congress to have input in the treaty-making process should never be repeated again. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is 99 percent completed after almost 5 years of negotiations. The time for a fast track bill might have been at the beginning of that process, not at its conclusion.

“Finally, Obama is under no legal compunction to do anything that Congress requests. The proof lies in the rejection by his of a demand by the majority of the Senate and House to include currency manipulation language in the trade deal, creating an avenue for China to dock into the trade agreement at a later date without ever reconciling their supposed currency manipulation. The key trade issue between the U.S. and China and other nations is currency and price competition.”

Attachments:

Americans for Limited Government letter to Rep. Tom Emmer opposing fast track, Feb. 25, 2015 at http://getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LettertoEmmerandHouseGOP2-25-15.pdf

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

Hatch, Ryan capitulate to big labor to move trade authority

April 16, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement to the announcement that trade promotion authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be tied to passage of trade adjustment assistance for the same deal:

“Orrin Hatch and Paul Ryan have just agreed to passing trade adjustment authority as precondition to getting Democrat votes for fast track trade promotion authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Congressional Republicans should reject this big labor giveaway, which puts the GOP in the untenable position of funding organized labor in order to get to 60 votes in the Senate on the trade deal. It is time to put a stake through the heart of Obama’s fast track dreams, and deny him the opportunity to rewrite the economic rules of the world.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###

GOP’s managed trade death wish poised to advance

April 13, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to the imminent introduction of legislation in the Senate that would grant Obama fast track trade promotion authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“It is hard to imagine that a political party could have more of a death wish than Senate Republicans are exhibiting as they plummet forward with consideration of giving President Obama fast track trade authority for a managed trade agreement.

Here is what Brent Bozell, conservative leader from ForAmerica says about fast track, ‘There is no way that Congress should trust President Obama with the enormous grant of constitutional authority that Trade Promotion Authority or ‘fast track’ represents, and it would be the height of insanity to reward Obama’s abuse of power over the past six years by giving him the pathway to rewrite the economic rules for the world. Any treaty Obama signs should be subjected to the full scrutiny demanded by the U.S. Constitution, that is why Congress should reject giving this President fast track trade authority.’

“The irony of fast track is that President Obama will gain the ability to rewrite the rules for the world’s economy through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Republicans are united in opposition to the way President Obama has been using his pen and phone to expand the size and scope of government, yet Senator Hatch seems intent on allowing him to rewrite regulatory rules of the world overriding existing law.

“One example is the President’s inclusion of immigration law changes in the law in spite of the bi-partisan opposition to that approach. Passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership which is assured should fast track legislation become law, legally opens the doors for increased numbers of foreign white collar workers over Congress’ previous objections. This is why NumbersUSA has recently announced that it is urging a no vote on fast track legislation.

“What is most frustrating is that Hatch clings to the past notions and talking points about free trade in justifying handing this power over to Obama ignoring the obvious, the TransPacific Partnership is a regulatory deal, not a free trade deal. At best it is a managed trade deal where those multi-nationals who played ball with Obama politically in America got a seat at the table so their international interests were moved forward.

“This type of crony capitalism is resisted by Republicans in their rhetoric, but rubber stamped by anyone who supports giving this President fast track.

“Should Republicans make the mistake of passing fast track and then the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they will have handed Obama the pen to fundamentally change America, be attacked by labor unions and the Democratic Party for killing American jobs, and their corporate buddies will fund those ads with the dollars they push into the Democratic Party coffers to hedge their bets against a change in leadership.”

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org to arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning.

###