Jenks: Fast-Track Would Lead To Passage Of Trade Deal That Could ‘Open Up’ Immigration Laws

Breitbart.com ^ | June 15, 2015 | Ian Hanchett

[Jane Long]

NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks stated that if fast-track passed, Congress would not reject the Trade in Services Agreement, which could make the US “open up it’s immigration laws” on Monday’s “Laura Ingraham Show.”

Jenks said, “We have had Ambassador Froman, the US Trade Rep., go to Congress on multiple occasions and assure members of Congress that the United States is not negotiating immigration in TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Well, we know that there is in fact an immigration chapter in TPP, but it looks relatively harmless. What he failed to tell us, and members of Congress, is this whole other agreement, that is largely about immigration, the TiSA, the Trade in Services Agreement, it’s about the movement of people across borders to perform services. And, it’s all services....

In other words, take jobs from Americans....

Jenks added that Ryan’s argument that fast-track would put Congress “in the driver’s seat,” and that “you cannot put any immigration in here, you can’t put any climate change in a trade agreement” wasn’t true, although she pointed out that Ryan could think that “temporary entrance guest workers are not immigrants.”

[Jane Long]

Jenks and NumbersUSA have been at the forefront of research, on all things immigration and border security.

[SoConPubbie]

Myth 7: TPP is a secret backdoor for a parade of horribles (and TPA lets that happen)!

Totally false. Various politicians and pundits have sought to arouse suspicions by claiming, among other things, that TPA will permit President Obama to bypass Congress and use the TPP as a backdoor to, among other things, lawlessly expand immigration, curtail gun rights, or restrict Internet freedom. At this point, however, I hope you can see just how ridiculous these claims are. Regardless of the issue, the fact will always remain that nothing can be implemented via the TPP unless Congress agrees to implement it via a formal vote.

This would include things like new work visas (something that U.S. FTAs haven’t actually done for years now) or Internet regulations or gun rules or minimum wages or whatever: it all has to become law before it has any legal force, and the only people making law are Congress (and, again, according to their own procedural rules). So, if in the TPP the president committed the United States to toss every AR-15 into the Atlantic Ocean, those guns aren’t going anywhere unless Congress formally agrees, subject to all of the constitutional, procedural, and transparency rules already discussed.

And, really, do you think this Congress is going to do anything of the sort? Really? (For more specific debunking of these crazy ideas, go here, here, here and here.)

We still don’t know precisely what’s in the TPP, and final judgment—by Congress and the public—should therefore be withheld until we do. But the idea that TPP, empowered by TPA, will grant President Obama any new legal authority to ignore or change U.S. immigration or gun or whatever laws without Congress is simply ludicrous.

[Resolute Conservative]

“to toss every AR-15 into the Atlantic Ocean, those guns aren’t going anywhere unless Congress formally agrees”...

“and lots of liberals die trying to take them.”

[Jane Long]

LOL...NumbersUSA must be wrong, too...if the “Myth Charts” disagree.

So, let’s see...here are just a few, who are against TPA/TPA/Fast Track...

Sen Jeff Sessions
Gov Sarah Palin
Gov Rick Perry (I know, he’s the finger in the wind candidate)
Mark Levin
Breitbart
NumbersUSA

Misled researchers and/or faux conservatives, all?

[molson209]

ObamaTrade is Obama’s Bucket List for the United States

[erkelly]

It is my understanding that Obama’s pen and Obama’s phone enable him to bypass the constitution, congress, and the will of the people.

[Jane Long]

From the article...

...Jenks later argued that the chances of a trade deal being rejected due to an immigration provision is “Zero. The history is that no trade agreement has ever been stopped once fast-track authority has been given, and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.”

[silverleaf]

We have immigration laws?

Who knew...

[Theoria]

Myth????...Cruz is wrong?

Sen. Cruz: Congress Must Prohibit Obama From Abusing TPA to Change Immigration Law (Files Amend.)

[Georgia Girl 2]

I trust Numbers USA more than any Congressman or Senator.

[fortheDeclaration]

I never thought a GOP Congress would give Obama the ability to negotiate a 'free trade' deal.

I didn't think they were that stupid.

[Jane Long]

NumbersUSA has been a long respected organization for border security and illegal immigrant information, on this forum, for many years.

[setha]

If it’s so much a “myth”, then let the draft phase of TPP/TISA/TTIP be opened.

[justa-hairyape]

The point is TiSA. You missed it.

[SoConPubbie]

If it’s so much a “myth”, then let the draft phase of TPP/TISA/TTIP be opened.

Myth 5: TPP is being negotiated via a dangerous and unprecedented level of secrecy!

Totally false. Probably the most-repeated myth right now isn’t even related to TPA but instead to the TPP, which is still being negotiated. According to the anti-TPA script, the TPP is so secret that nobody knows what’s in it, and—much like Obamacare legislation—nobody, not even Congress, will know what’s in it until the agreement is passed into law. Once again, however, nothing could be further from the truth:

• First, Obama’s USTR and Congress have been consulting on the TPP since December 14, 2009, when then-USTR Kirk notified Congress that President Obama intended to enter into TPP negotiations. USTR then held initial consultations with Congress in 2010 and, according to a January 2015 fact-sheet, has since held almost 1,700 congressional briefings on TPP alone. USTR also previewed various TPP proposals with key congressional committees before taking them to our trading partners. (Odd that the TPP talks have been going on for six years, but the vast majority of these “secrecy” complaints have only emerged in the last few months, huh?)
• Second, USTR has provided “access to the full negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.” This access began in 2012, and several House members and senators—both supportive of TPA (like Mike Lee) and opposed (like Sens. Jeff Sessions and Elizabeth Warren, as well as Rep. Rosa DeLauro)—have reviewed the draft negotiating texts. Moreover, the level of security surrounding these TPP texts isn’t part of some scary Obama administration plot; it’s set by Congress (which, as you’ll recall, is controlled by Republicans these days). A U.S. government official confirmed to me that “the Senate and House security offices determine the procedures for viewing classified material in the Capitol reading room where the TPP text is kept for Members—not the administration… some people claim that it’s more difficult to view military or intelligence information, but it’s all subject to the same rules that are set and enforced by Capitol security.”
• Third, USTR has engaged the public on the TPP via published reports and “stakeholder meetings” with groups like labor unions, consumer groups, and, of course, corporations and trade associations. Some of these stakeholders have even reviewed the negotiating texts and US proposals. Admittedly, the official texts aren’t available to the general public, but this is common practice for all FTAs (as a quick Google search reveals) and for good reason: just like other high-value negotiations among private parties or governments, revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens the opposition, undermines the parties’ negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal. Publishing draft FTA texts would make completing a deal difficult, if not impossible, and it’s thus no coincidence the most vocal advocates for “full transparency” in free trade negotiations are actually those most opposed to free trade.It’s also important to understand just how unoriginal this “secrecy” canard is:
  

  Today's history lesson: Nutty ol' Perot on NAFTA's scary secrecy. Sound familiar? #TPP #TPA https://t.co/YLjlJfusUr pic.twitter.com/l1LGWPftzV
  
  — Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 5, 2015

Yes, protectionists have been using the same “secrecy” lines for over 20 years. In fact, if you replaced “NAFTA” with “TPP” in those old Ross Perot commercials, they’d be almost indistinguishable from the ones on our TVs today.

• Finally, unlike the oft-analogized Obamacare legislation, the actual text of any final TPP deal will be required by law to be publicly available (online) for months—yes, months—before Congress votes on it. As you can see from the table below (source), under TPA the president must make the entire text of any trade agreement, including TPP, available to the public for 60 days before he can even sign it.Once it’s signed, Congress will have weeks, maybe months, to scour the deal, hold “mock markups” in various committees, and suggest changes to the agreement before the president sends Congress legislation implementing the FTA for a final vote. Also, within 105 days of the FTA’s signing, the U.S. International Trade Commission must issue a report on the deal’s economic impact—again prior those bills being submitted to Congress. And once the bills finally are submitted, Congress will then have up to 90 legislative days (which is like five months in normal human days) to review the bills and hold final votes.

Bottom line: when or if TPA is passed, the general public will have months—and if the presidential elections interfere, maybe years—to review the TPP before Congress acts on it. Think that’s crazy? Well, it’s precisely what happened to U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, which were signed by President Bush but sat around (online) for years before they were submitted to, and passed by, Congress in 2011.

[SoConPubbie]

and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.”

Myth 4: Once TPA is approved, Congress will be powerless to stop TPP or other FTAs!

Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the “fast-track” rules for various “disapproval” reasons, but—even more importantly—Congress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including “fast track.”

The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as “as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate,” but “with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.” The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: “Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.”

Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the “fast track” procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.

In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the “fast track” rules if it wants to be bound.

Sensing a theme here yet?

[SoConPubbie]

and this fast-track authority, in particular, specifically limits the way that a trade agreement can be stopped by saying that the disapproval or the action to stop it has to come from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Now, those two get to decide whether the TPP and TiSA, and whatever comes next abide by the terms of the fast-track deal. Those two, no other member of Congress can decide that.”

Myth 3: TPA sets legally binding congressional rules for USTR and U.S. trade negotiations!

Mostly false. As already noted, TPA sets congressional negotiating objectives on a range of issues (some more palatable than others), but, contrary to the statements of TPA antagonists and even some supporters, these objectives are not legally binding on the executive branch. Instead, the president retains his authority to negotiate with foreign governments, and, as Meese notes, that’s a good thing: “under well-established constitutional rulings, it would raise serious constitutional concerns for Congress to try to mandate the President’s negotiating positions.”

The president and his U.S. trade representative thus technically have discretion to ignore these objectives, but doing so would obviously jeopardize any final congressional vote. As the CRS explains:

To take the fullest advantage of these benefits, Congress, drawing on its constitutional authority and historical precedent, defined the objectives that the President is to pursue in trade negotiations. Although the executive branch has some discretion over implementing these goals, they are definitive statements of U.S. trade policy that the Administration is expected to honor, if it expects trade agreement implementing legislation to be considered under expedited rules [i.e., ‘fast track’].

The negotiating objectives constitute one part of the gentleman’s agreement between Congress and the president: “follow our wishes when you negotiate, and we’ll limit our meddling when a final deal is struck.” If the president doesn’t follow them, then the deal is off.

Which brings us to…

[SoConPubbie]

Do both of you trust ALL of the Democrats(excluding Obama), ALL of the unions, ALL of the progressive groups, including the Communists?

Because that is who you have aligned yourselves with.

When you find yourself on the side of EVERY Democrat EXCEPT Obama, the Unions, and every other progressive group, you'd better take a step back and figure out where you have been misinformed.

[SoConPubbie]

I trust Numbers USA more than any Congressman or Senator.

Do both of you trust ALL of the Democrats(excluding Obama), ALL of the unions, ALL of the progressive groups, including the Communists?

Because that is who you have aligned yourselves with.

When you find yourself on the side of EVERY Democrat EXCEPT Obama, the Unions, and every other progressive group, you'd better take a step back and figure out where you have been misinformed.

[DeweyCA]

In a situation where the details are hidden, I don’t know who to trust. That is why the details should be shown, so that we can KNOW what is going on.