May 14, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement blasting the Senate for proceeding to legislation granting President Obama trade promotion authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Americans for Limited Government has always believed that giving President Obama fast track trade authority will be decided by the House of Representatives.  The fact that it has taken months for the Senate to begin this debate shows the deep political concerns in the Republican Party on this issue.  This opposition is even more apparent in the House, and as the issue heats up on the presidential campaign trail, five Presidential aspirants have already come out opposed including: Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee. Additionally, Representative Jeff Duncan’s just released opposition to fast track is just one more domino to fall that blocks a pathway to passage in the House.

“In the meantime, without enforceable currency provisions in the trade authority itself, these votes risk Senate Republican seats in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to name just a few, putting the Senate majority in real jeopardy in 2016. Rather than continuing down this politically ruinous course, Republican leaders should promote solutions that unite the Party, instead of those that deepen the divide between the big business wing and the voters Republicans need to win.”

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.

###

May 13, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement blasting Senate Democrats for abandoning their opposition to granting trade promotion authority to President Barack Obama and ceding their demands for enforceable currency provisions in fast track bill itself:

“Senate Democrats are abandoning American workers concerned that their jobs may be shifted overseas due to unfair trade related to currency manipulating nations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Doing a trade bill without monetary policy—the primary mechanism nations use to make their exports cheaper—ensures that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is neither free nor fair. The house of cards gamesmanship that was played yesterday to fool constituencies about the Democrat stance on fast track is exposed by this latest capitulation on currency manipulation.

“No one can vote for fast track and claim with a straight face they opposed currency manipulation. It is time for Senate Majority Leader McConnell to end the charade of fast track and return to the politically viable business of the Senate.”

Attachments:

“Fast-Track Bill Needs Enforceable Currency Provision,” By Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2015 at http://www.wsj.com/articles/fast-track-bill-needs-enforceable-currency-provision-1431470983

“Path to Pacific Trade Deal May Open in Senate After All,” By Jonathan Weisman, May 13, 2015 at www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us/path-to-pacific-trade-deal-may-open-in-senate-after-all.html?smid=nytpolitics&_r=0

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.

###

May 12, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement responding to the Senate blocking trade authority to President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should permanently shelve attempts to grant trade authority to President Obama. With five Republican presidential aspirants all opposed including Rand Paul, there is no reason for McConnell to waste any more of the Senate’s time on this issue. This is particularly true given the almost impossible odds fast track now faces in the House of Representatives. It’s time to say buh-bye to fast track.”

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.

###

May 12, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging the U.S. Senate to reject granting trade promotion authority to President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

“Fast tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership that includes language making it a ‘living’ agreement is dangerous as it could lead to a permanent ceding of the Senate’s authority to ratify treaties. The push to pass fast track is not about free trade, it is about power. It is about whether Congress trusts President Obama to rewrite the regulatory rules for the world. If you don’t trust Obama, or if you believe the Senate’s two-thirds treaty ratification power should be preserved, you should vote no.”

Attachments:

Republican/Conservative Leaders Lining up against Fast Track

Senator Jeff Sessions – “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?”

Carly Fiorina, former CEO and current candidate for President – “The devil is usually in the details. That’s particularly true with this president. We don’t know what’s in this deal. We know we have trading partners who have violated agreements in trade deals, China being one of them. I think it’s important to understand some of the fine print of this deal. for example, is China allowed to join this pacific trading agreement later on in a couple of years, yes or no? This is being sold as an opportunity for America to strengthen its lead and partnerships in the Asia Pacific region. I agree with that goal. On the other hand, if the truth is in these details China gets to join later, what are we doing here? I think the point is not free trade is bad. Free trade is good for this nation. I think the point is, what exactly is in this agreement? This administration, unfortunately, has a track record of burying things in fine print, whether it’s the Iran nuclear deal or Obamacare or maybe this agreement that turn out to be very different from their selling points.”

Donald Trump, real estate CEO- “Yet again, the politicians are allowing our president to reinforce the lack of respect countries like China and Japan now have for the United States. They will devalue their currency, exploit our trade agreements, continue to destroy our economy and put Americans out of work. Politicians are all talk and no action. Instead of fast tracking TPP, Congress should pass legislation that holds China and Japan accountable for currency manipulation. This would send a message to the world that there are consequences for cheating the United States. It’s time for action. It’s time to Make America Great Again!”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal – “I’m for free trade. I’m for free trade agreements. Also:   I’m for presidents in both parties having fast track authority on free trade agreements. But I am not for giving more authority to a president who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers, and will of the American people. This particular President must not be given any more power to do anything else to harm this country. He cannot be trusted. That’s why Congress needs to find a way to maintain oversight of the Obama Administration – the current deal doesn’t do that.”

Senator Rand Paul – “I’ve told leadership I’m a ‘no’ vote on trade promotion authority, I’m hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven’t seen.”

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee – ”We don’t create good jobs for Americans by entering into unbalanced trade deals that forego congressional scrutiny, and then looking the other way as the law is ignored so that we can import low-wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the Dead Sea.”

Brent Bozell – “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.”

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.

###

May 8, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today urged every Senator to read the current version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership prior to voting on granting President Barack Obama trade promotion authority on it, in light of reports that most members have not read it yet:

“Breitbart’s Matt Boyle story about the failure of most of the Republican Senators who are considering voting on fast tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to take the time to read the treaty is eye opening and disheartening. The same political party that ridiculed former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ‘you have to pass it to find out what’s in it’ Obamacare statement is now ignorantly plunging ahead with legislation that will expedite passage of a treaty that the president calls the “most progressive trade deal” in history.

“These ‘read the bill’ Republicans apparently would prefer to remain clueless. This failure to do their basic job of getting informed about a treaty that contains ‘living agreement’ language which could finish Obama’s intended fundamental transformation of America is startling. Only members of Congress can read the Trans-Pacific Partnership prior to Obama’s signature on fast track. Given the Senate’s scheduled vote on cloture on Tuesday, it is irresponsibly dangerous for any Senator to vote for fast tracking a treaty they have failed to read and understand.”

Attachments:

“Only Two Republicans Admit They Actually Read Secret Obama Trade Deal—Both Unsupportive,” By Matthew Boyle, May 8, 2015 at http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/only-two-republicans-admit-they-actually-read-secret-obama-trade-deal-both-unsupportive/

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

###

May 7, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement praising presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for stating she is “uncomfortable with this deal and giving him trade authority” to Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on the Laura Ingraham Show:

“Carly Fiorina’s questioning the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a big deal. Joining Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Donald Trump in opposition to granting trade promotion authority to President Obama to negotiate the deal now nationalizes the debate. Fiorina’s experience as a multinational corporation CEO who has dealt with countries who cheat on trade makes her voice particularly important as Congress considers fast track.

“More broadly, moving the discussion out of the beltway and into the heartland makes it increasingly unlikely that fast track will be granted on a secret trade deal that everything we know about it screams vote no. Giving President Obama this enormous grant of power now requires a great deal of faith and trust that the final treaty will be in America’s interests. When the details of the treaty become public, those who now vote to fast track it better be darned certain that they are not embarrassed by what it contains, including its characterization as a living agreement.”

Attachments:

Laura Ingraham Show, May 7, 2015, transcript at http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/07/fiorina-comes-out-against-tpp-i-am-very-uncomfortable-with-this-deal-video/

INGRAHAM: I gotta ask you about fast track trade, because you know for me, I believe a populist approach is the way to win and build the Republican Party both among minorities and grassroot supporters. And for me, this fast track deal, the way its being negotiated, the way congressional authority is being eroded, is a terrible idea, especially with Obama doing the negotiations.

What’s your take on giving President Obama trade promotion authority?

FIORINA: Well, I believe that free and fair trade advantages the U.S.. But I am very uncomfortable with this deal, and I’m uncomfortable with this deal and giving him trade authority.

Because first of all, I know from personal experience that the Chinese have not lived up to their agreements when they entered the WTO. In other words, partners can cheat on these deals, and we have evidence of partners cheating on these deals.

Secondly to your point, this is an extremely complicated deal, a multilateral deal with a lot of details that we don’t know about. And Obama and his administration has demonstrated their inability to negotiate a good deal. And so look, I think the devil’s in the details, and we better understand what these details are before we just assume it’s a good deal. I don’t assume it’s a good deal and I do think we need the details.

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.

###

Americans for Limited Government to air national ad campaign featuring Trump.

May 6, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Today Americans for Limited Government announced a series of brand new radio advertisements featuring Donald J. Trump that will air nationally with an initial emphasis on New Hampshire and South Carolina. The ad, in which Mr. Trump calls on Republican leaders to stop passage of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), will be broadcast statewide in New Hampshire and South Carolina followed next week by a national rollout. The ad will educate Americans on the detrimental ramifications of these proposed agreements and the combined determination of Americans for Limited Government and Mr. Trump to defeat any deal that harms the protection and creation of American jobs.

Donald J. Trump said, “Yet again, the politicians are allowing our president to reinforce the lack of respect countries like China and Japan now have for the United States. They will devalue their currency, exploit our trade agreements, continue to destroy our economy and put Americans out of work. Politicians are all talk and no action. Instead of fast tracking TPP, Congress should pass legislation that holds China and Japan accountable for currency manipulation. This would send a message to the world that there are consequences for cheating the United States. It’s time for action. It’s time to Make America Great Again!”

ALG’s Rick Manning commented on the ad campaign saying, “This is a game changer in the debate over fast track trade authority. Mr. Trump’s business acumen and expertise makes him a unique and powerful voice whom America trusts to tell them the truth.”

Mr. Trump’s opposition to TPP is consistent with his long criticism of trade practices that negatively impact the American worker and manufacturing sector. He has been a consistent vocal critic of TPP and TPA tweeting his opposition for the last year. Mr. Trump’s opposition to TPP is based on his extensive knowledge of currency manipulation and trade agreements that he has accumulated through The Trump Organization’s international dealings. He also criticized leaders for continuing to allow such antics, stating his disapproval of the TPA fast track legislation, which Mr. Trump says is designed to allow the president to enter such an agreement without the support of a supermajority in the Senate.

Americans for Limited Government has led the charge against fast track over the past four months being featured and quoted on FoxNews.com, The Hill, the Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today among many outlets.

Attachments:

Donald Trump joins ALG in fight against Pacific trade deal, radio ad, May 6, 2015, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0wX7CqfAA

Availablity: To reach Mr. Trump, please contact Hope Hicks at 203-273-0226. To arrange an interview with ALG experts including ALG President Rick Manning, please contact Americans for Limited Government at (703) 383-0880 ext. 106 or at media@limitgov.org.

###

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.

###

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.

###