Posted on 05/12/2015 12:04:31 PM PDT by GIdget2004
Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama’s trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from picking up fast-track legislation.
A motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to the trade bill fell short of a 60-vote hurdle in the 52-45 vote. Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) was the only Democrat to back it.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) switched his vote from yes to no to reserve his ability to return to the measure at a later date.
Fast-track is a top legislative priority for the White House, but it has run into significant Senate opposition that has been led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). It faces even more opposition from Democrats in the House, and the surprise Senate failure will raise doubts about whether the legislation will make its way through Congress.
Labor unions and other left-leaning groups have declared war on the fast-track bill, which they argue has shipped jobs overseas. The Senate is generally a more pro-trade body than the House, and it has been easier to move trade agreements through the upper chamber.
The standoff Tuesday focused on procedure, though there is significant opposition to fast-track itself in the Democratic conference.
Senate Democrats demanded that McConnell combine the fast-track bill with three other pieces of trade legislation, including a customs bill that would address currency manipulation.
The opposition included Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and other pro-trade Democrats who back the fast-track bill.
“The group is concerned about the lack of a commitment to trade enforcement, which is specifically the customs bill,” Wyden told reporters in explaining his opposition.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Thanks!
I understand the opposition to it now. Can you explain why Cruz would be for it and Warren against it? Are we living in mirror world?
Be careful questioning any of Cruz’s votes of late. Some people around here will flip out and start name calling like a 12 year old.
I’m with you though. A few of his votes and a no show are a concern to me. I was ready to hitch my wagon to him for sure. Now I’m not so sure. After the way all of us working Americans have been treated by our elected officials it seems practically impossible to trust any of them. I just keep telling myself put my faith in God not man.
Cruz must not understand that this is a trojan horse meant to destroy America. think I exaggerate? then read a little of what Senator Jeff Sessions says in the quote I put below.
Cruz is wrong on wanting give Obama fast track power on trade.
This power would allow Obama to flood the USA with hundreds of millions of 3rd world immigrants. It’s a trojan horse
The following is a Quote from Senator Jeff Sessions on this :
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20233
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.
I’m confused by your confusion. Don’t you people know Republicans (including conservative Republicans, including Ted Cruz) support free trade? It’s not 1930 anymore. Democrats are the ones for protectionism now, cause the unions say so. This is not a secret.
Republicans have been trying to pass trade promotion authority for years, hell decades now.
Be against it if you want but please be aware that you agree with the democrats and not Ted Cruz and most conservatives outside this website on this.
Any thoughts on this? Obama and the GOP versus FR and the rest of the democratic party. Weird.
Thanks for the warning but I know the truth hurts. Some people don’t want to face the truth.
To pass this to to give Obama fast track authority on trade would mean a destruction of the USA. I put below 2 sources that prove this , 1 from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions. Notice that it is Obama and the media that want this as the media is not covering it.
This power would allow Obama to flood the USA with hundreds of millions of 3rd world immigrants:
I will go instead with what Senator Jeff Sessions has to say on this: Sen. Jeff Sessions: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20233
Well worth reading, Senator Sessions speaks truthfully, as he always does.
This is a trojan horse from the monster Barack Obama, a trojan horse meant to destroy America
I’m glad evil Obama got defeated on this trade deal. It would have allowed UNRESTRICTED immigration into the USA, proof:
This power would allow Obama to flood the USA with hundreds of millions of 3rd world immigrants
I been following this on MSNBC since FNC doesn't cover it.
The Liz Warren libs rebelled against this trade bill,
She called Obama out and demanded he unclassify the details of this bill so WE can read it long before a vote.
This is very ironic considering the Iran deal that libs love, and crap like Obamacare.
Maybe its a good deal for us, maybe its not. I have heard some ugly claims about it
But hearing Liz call out Obama and him smacking her back for it calling her a ‘politician’ ,(yes, he did), was priceless
Chris Matthews in a tizzy that the libs defied his highness.
I’m not interested in you including me in your comments. From now on leave me out of it.
It’s a paleo thing, mostly. They think they’re being patriotic, but when you scratch under the surface they want to raise your taxes.
This shows us who has the real power with the GOP bowing to this. Bought and paid for scumbags just like Obama.
When Obama snaps his fingers the GOP Senate and House leadership jump to attention. We need a Congress that starts representing the Constitution and the sovereignty of the USA and freedom instead of the imperial Presidency-regardless of Party.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Fast Track for amnesty is next.
“Cruz must not understand that this is a trojan horse meant to destroy America.”
I find it hard to believe that we understand what it is and the brilliant Ted Cruz does not. I’m wondering if he’s considering a deeper political calculation. I’m not saying that as a positive - it’s not. I’m just wondering how he comes out on the wrong side on such an obvious ploy.
“I’m confused by your confusion. Don’t you people know Republicans (including conservative Republicans, including Ted Cruz) support free trade? It’s not 1930 anymore. Democrats are the ones for protectionism now, cause the unions say so. This is not a secret.”
It’s the illegal immigration back door hole that has me wondering why Cruz supports this. That’s such an obvious ploy that it makes me ask “if he’s as brilliant as we believe he is how is he falling for this ploy when WE can see it?” A normal Cruz stance on something like this would be to support the agreement on condition that piece was stripped entirely (or something to that effect)
“Patriotic Unions join with Conservatives to deal a setback to Internationalist Socialists and Multinational Corporationists. The latter vow to redouble efforts to impoverish Americans and surrender American sovereignty to undemocratic international agencies.”
The bill was strongly opposed by the progressives on Free Republic
I’m not against fair free trade, but I am against granting fast track authority. There lies the question about Cruz voting yes.
Be aware that the reason for that is because she’s not in charge. She’s a full bowm Communist.
The old lady with a tie? Cross dressing now acceptable during meetings with the Boy King.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.