Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

AUMF Answers.......................................................................................................................2

General Thumpers....................................................................................................................5

TPA – Obama Pushing.............................................................................................................7

TPA – TTP Good Impact.........................................................................................................8

TPA – U.................................................................................................................................10

TPA Answers.........................................................................................................................12

TPP Answers..........................................................................................................................17

TTIP Answers........................................................................................................................19

Immigration Reform..............................................................................................................21

1

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

AUMF Answers

Infighting blocks the AUMFAustin Wright & Ryan Bender, March 18, 2015, Politico, Authorization for Military Force Stalls, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/authorization-for-military-force-stalls-116201.html DOA: 3-19-15

If anyone wanted further evidence that Congress is stalled in its effort to pass a separate resolution authorizing military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a House hearing Wednesday provided plenty of signs. The House Armed Services Committee advertised its testimony with Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey as a discussion of the so-called Authorization for the Use of Military Force, but the issue hardly came up. Instead, lawmakers discussed Pentagon budget details for three hours. More than a month after the White House sought Congress’ blessing for the expanding war against the terrorist group, congressional action has gotten bogged down in partisan rancor and divergent viewpoints over what the war should try to accomplish, how long the administration should be authorized to wage it, and what level of force will be required. Some say that the liberals who insisted the White House include extra conditions, such as a deadline and limits on ground troops, overplayed their hand, undercutting potential Republican support. “I just don’t hear many people standing up for what the president has proposed, so I think we’re kind of moving beyond that,” the panel’s chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), told reporters Wednesday. Failure to pass a resolution would be a major victory for the hawkish members of Congress who believe the president already has the authority to wage the conflict and have been reluctant to place any limits on the fight. But for more progressive voices and their allies in the GOP caucus who want to rein in White House war-making authority, the dim prospects for the AUMF constitute a major setback. The Senate doesn’t appear to be in any greater hurry to resolve the issue than the House. In a hearing on the proposed war resolution before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) played down any chance that a vote is in the offing. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, which shares lead jurisdiction over the issue, has no plans to hold more hearings on the proposal, an aide said Wednesday. “I am increasingly concerned that Congress will take the path of least resistance and least responsibility and let the resolution die,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, told POLITICO. “The cause has lost momentum. The reality is there is strong bipartisan majority here that supports talking action against ISIL and it would be a terrible abdication of our responsibility for this to die of apathy.” Part of the problem stems from the Obama proposal itself, which sought to placate all sides, according to close observers. “The particular proposal they put forward is so divisive it does not satisfy anyone — with good reason,” said Jennifer Daskal, a constitutional law professor at American University. She explained that while Obama’s war proposal would expire in three years, by not replacing the AUMF passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — which the president has continued to cite as giving him the authority to fight ISIL — the proposed war resolution essentially has no deadline. “The three-year limit is useless because future administrations could revert back to 2001” and continue the war without congressional input, she said. There are also divisions over the geographic scope of the military use of force — and exactly which groups could be targeted. The administration insists it needs the flexibility to confront ISIL wherever it may exist, along with “associated” groups, raising concerns among Democrats and some Republicans that the war could be expanded to other countries. And while Obama has repeatedly insisted he will not reintroduce large numbers of ground troops into Iraq or Syria, the proposed language is murky, prohibiting only “enduring” combat operations. “They were nervous they were going to lose Republicans if they tried to address the 2001 AUMF, and they knew they had to do something about ground troops because Democrats were concerned about that,” said Heather Brandon, associate attorney for national security at Human Rights First, which has advocated a very narrow authorization in both scope and duration. When the issue of the war authorization came up at Wednesday’s hearing, Republicans voiced

2

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

a number of concerns about the president’s proposal, putting on full display the sharp divide that would have to be overcome to forge a bipartisan agreement.

Obama not investing capital in the AUMFAustin Wright & Ryan Bender, March 18, 2015, Politico, Authorization for Military Force Stalls, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/authorization-for-military-force-stalls-116201.html DOA: 3-19-15

“It is frustrating as hell to watch,” added Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a leading antiwar voice, in an interview. He said “last year [House Speaker John] Boehner said, ‘We have to wait for a new Congress.’ Then they said ‘We have to wait for the White House to send something.’ It just seems like Boehner and [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell can’t get their majority to produce anything. All the excuses are gone.” Not everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle agrees that it is just GOP reluctance that is responsible for the lack of action. For instance, Schiff said he believes a primary impediment has been the White House’s continued insistence that it does not need the authorization and that it already has the legal authority necessary, even as it says it would welcome congressional backing. The “biggest obstacle,” Schiff said, is the administration position “that they don’t need it.” “That has given Congress an excuse to shirk its responsibility,” he added. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he expected more lobbying from the White House. Obama administration officials “have invested no political capital in this whatsoever,” he said in an interview. “We never heard hide nor hair. [The president] thinks he can give a press conference at the White House and it all falls into place. There are a lot of questions about strategy. Questions that need to be answered.” Ultimately, however, the ball is still in Congress’ court, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Partisan conflict means no AUMFThe Daily Iowan, March 13, 2015, Authorization of force against ISIS in danger, http://www.dailyiowan.com/2015/03/13/Opinions/41366.html DOA: 3-19-15

In previous months, the Daily Iowan Editorial Board has advocated for a new Authorization for Military Force specifically tailored to the fight against ISIS. This seemed to be in the congressional cards, with the idea gaining widespread bipartisan support. Yet now, it’s in danger. A number of recent showdowns involving the U.S. Congress have redrawn party stances on the issue. First, Republicans have deliberately stoked tensions with President Obama and congressional Democrats through their recent actions. When Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Israel Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress, it was perceived as a snub to Obama, and many Democrats chose to sit out on the event. Then, a group of 47 Republican senators sent an open letter to Iran’s leaders about the nuclear talks with the United States, saying any agreement could be in danger under a new president in 2016. It’s not an entirely unprecedented move by an opposition party to try to undercut the foreign policy of a sitting president, but the stunt has left a bad taste in the mouths of Democrats, who were previously willing to negotiate for a deal on an authorization of force against ISIS. The latest indication from Congress on President Obama’s formal request for an authorization is that Democrats think it goes too far (risking embroiling the United States once more in an unwinnable conflict in the Middle East), and Republicans think it doesn’t go far enough to stop the threat of the terrorist group. Regardless of where one stands on this issue, it is clear that disagreements over policy are not the only thing holding Congress back. Previous interactions between these two parties have poisoned the well of good faith, and neither seems willing to give any ground for the sake of negotiation. If Congress is unable to move on this authorization, the president nonetheless will act on his own. Obama believes he has legal precedent to utilize a 2001 authorization against Al Qaeda and one in 2002 authorizing war in Iraq for the current conflict with ISIS. As his previous executive actions on immigration and the use of force against other groups have shown, Obama will not be hesitant to go this route. Congress knows this. Yet, neither side is currently willing to budge on its agenda, leading to a stalemate with the president as the only winning party.

3

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

No support for the AUMFFelicia Schwarz, Wall Street Journal Online, March 11, 2015,

While many lawmakers believe a new war authorization measure is necessary, Mr. Obama's proposal has received little support from either party.Democrats feared it wasn't limited enough and many Republicans hoped Mr. Obama would receive more leeway. “What it didn't do, and what I think Democrats are not willing to do is to give this or any other president an open-ended authority for war, a blank check," Mr. Menendez said.

4

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

General Thumpers

Republican-Democrat clash on foreign policy

Carl Huse, March 13, 2015, Struggling in Congress, Republicans Unite on Foreign Policy

Congressional Republicans, struggling in their first months of controlling Congress, have struck upon one unifying force: challenging President Obama on Iran and other aspects of his foreign policy. Republican lawmakers have vigorously defended their invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address Congress as well as a Senate letter to leaders of Iran despite criticism that they were undermining Mr. Obama and essentially operating a rogue State Department from Capitol Hill.

Massive partisan conflict over Iran

Scott Lehigh, 3-17-15, Boston Globe, “The GOP Takes Partisanship International,” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/03/17/senators-letter-iran-just-part-gop-efforts-take-partisanship-international/NCcWjy7ME3AGi79F1f5m6K/story.html DOA: 3-18-15

Back in November, an exultant GOP seemed blessed with fair winds and following seas. Although a president’s party almost always suffers losses in midterm elections, the Democrats’ setbacks had cost them the Senate, unifying Congress under Republican control. Republicans could now move from a posture of opposition to winning public approval by demonstrating the serious, substantive alternative they offered. That, at least, was the hope. So how are things going so far? Well, certainly not according to that optimistic script. The nation has become so inured to brinksmanship over budgetary matters that those battles are dismissed as so much background noise, even when the agency under threat is as vital as the Department of Homeland Security. Both the stare-downs and the elaborate political maneuvers required to end them are rituals made necessary by the combination of a weak speaker and a rambunctious right-wing caucus. But Republicans have now extended their attempts to thwart the president into the realm of foreign affairs — and unlike the fiscal skirmishes, this has played out under unforgiving flood lights on the international stage. Nor is this new thrust one where the GOP’s congressional leadership has had its hand forced by its members. Speaker John Boehner’s decision to let Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu use Congress as an electioneering prop exuded disdain not just for President Obama but for diplomatic protocol as well. No amount of spin could disguise that. Those senators who signed the letter have entered into dangerous new territory. Further, there’s really no plausible explanation for the Senate Republicans’ open letter to Iranian leaders that doesn’t make it look as though their primary concern is winning their power struggle with Obama. In their letter, they warn that any agreement the president strikes could be revoked by the next chief executive or modified by a future Congress. It’s hard to interpret that warning as anything other than an attempt to scuttle, prospectively, any pact that Obama won’t agree to submit for their approval. It’s one thing to see a brash young partisan like Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton make such an ill-considered move. It’s quite another to have 46 other senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain, add their names. (McCain obviously realizes he made a serious mistake here, but rather than concede as much, he’s blaming it on the rush to leave

5

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

Washington before a snowstorm.) Now, the rhetoric about that letter somehow being treasonous is badly overblown. Yet it does reveal a party driven to such distraction by Obama that it’s in an oppose-first, think-later mode.

Partisan conflict over the Iran letter

Charlie Rose, March 11, 2015, America`s potential nuclear deal with Iran continues to spark political heat in Washington.

America`s potential nuclear deal with Iran continues to sparke political heat in Washington. Democrats called the letter from Senate Republicans to Iranian leaders unprecedented and reckless. The letter warns Iran that any deal with President Obama will not last. We spoke with former White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. It is his first television interview since leaving the administration last week. He considers the letter an attempt to undercut the President`s authority.

GOP infighting over defense spending

John Bressan, March 19, 2015 “Budget talks break down amid GOP rancor over defense spending,” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/budget-gop-defense-spending-116216.html?hp=l1_3 DOA: 3-19-15

House Republican leaders suffered an embarrassing setback Wednesday night as their 2016 budget was temporarily derailed amid tensions between fiscal conservatives and defense hawks. The leadership was maneuvering to boost defense spending by $20 billion — without offsetting it by other reductions — to appease a bloc of defense hawks who could vote against the budget on the House floor. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made a personal visit to the Budget Committee late in the night to try to break the impasse but was rebuffed. That came after Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) had assured his fellow GOP leaders that the amendment would succeed. Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) had warned House leaders that the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but leadership went ahead with the amendment anyway, Republicans sources said. GOP Reps. Dave Brat of Virginia, Gary Palmer of Alabama, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Alex Mooney of West Virginia, Tom McClintock of California and Mark Sanford of South Carolina were among the members who raised concerns about the leadership plan, the sources said The budget breakdown is indicative of the Republican Party’s deep internal fissures: The GOP is torn between fiscal hawks and defense hawks, and seemingly unable to reconcile the differences between the two. Failing to pass a budget would be cataclysmic for Republicans. It would again prove they have difficulty with the basic functions of governing. It is unclear how long the stalemate will last. Party leaders vowed to continue moving forward with the 2016 spending resolution on Thursday and planned to complete the markup in the Budget Committee as soon as possible, leadership aides said. McCarthy — who is overseeing the debate on the budget resolution on the leadership’s behalf — wants it on the floor next week, before Congress adjourns for the Easter recess But senior GOP lawmakers and aides say House leaders are nowhere near the 217 votes they need to pass the budget. With no support likely from Democrats, McCarthy and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) must walk a narrow line between defense hawks who want to boost spending far beyond what is called for in the 2011 Budget Control Act and fiscal hard-liners who don’t want to do anything to increase the deficit.

6

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TPA – Obama Pushing

Obama pushing TPA

Vicki Needham, 3-18-15, “Democratic critics rebuff latest White House trade adventure,” http://thehill.com/policy/finance/236226-democratic-critics-rebuff-latest-white-house-trade-overture DOA:: 3-19-15

Obama administration officials are putting on a full-court press trying to convince lawmakers to support legislation handing Obama fast-track power, also known as trade promotion authority (TPA).  The measure would allow the trade deals to go through Congress without amendment. Wednesday’s announcement was meant to assuage lawmakers who have complained that they’ve been left in the dark about what’s in the proposed agreement.

Obama working to resolve the Wyden-Hatch disputeInside US Trade Daily Report, March 18, 2015

President Obama has personally reached out to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) to encourage them to reach an agreement on a bill to renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Hatch said Tuesday (March 17). Speaking to reporters after the Senate's weekly caucus lunches, Hatch acknowledged that he and the president had spoken by phone about TPA. "Well, basically [he] encouraged met to try and get it done, and he had some questions about É working with Senator Wyden on this," he said. Separately, Wyden said he met with the president on TPA last week in the Oval Office, but declined to provide any details about the conversation. "We had a very good discussion, but I don't get into what I talk about with the president privately," he said. Obama told Hatch in the phone call that he has also encouraged Wyden to strike a deal on a TPA bill, Hatch said. A White House spokeswoman said the president and his staff "have engaged directly with members and their staffs" as the negotiations on TPA progress. "The Administration is committed to working with leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress to finalize negotiations on new trade agreements that represent the best possible deal for America's workers and businesses," she said. Amid the president's effort, Hatch indicated that his talks with Wyden on a TPA bill were making progress. "I think we're getting there," he said, when asked whether the two senators were any closer to a deal. But Hatch reiterated that he is not willing to back off his current position in the talks, where the main sticking point has been Wyden's demand for language that would make it easier to strip a completed trade agreement of fast-track protection. "Am I going to be flexible, are you kidding? We've given them all kinds of changes. But we've reached the point where I'm not going to diminish the workability of TPA," Hatch said. Wyden declined to comment on his discussions with Hatch. "You negotiate with senators face to face, not in the press," he said. The interventions by the president represent somewhat of an about-face for the White House, which had previously indicated that it preferred to stay out of the Hatch-Wyden dispute, according to private-sector sources. Hatch last month called on President Obama to put pressure on Wyden to compromise on TPA, and business representatives had similarly urged the White House to step in and help resolve the dispute.

7

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TPA – TTP Good Impact

TTP critical to reassure allies, blunt the perception of US militarism, and prevent Asia war

Patrick Cronin, March 18, 2015, Straits Times, “Why the Pacific Trade Pact is in the US National Interest, Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington DC-based think tank, http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/asia-report/opinion/story/why-the-pacific-trade-pact-the-us-national-interest-20150318#sthash.a138WYhx.dpuf DOA: 3-19-15

Some business analysts are stressing that the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and 11 other countries promises smaller rewards - if also fewer risks - than previous multilateral efforts to liberalise trade. But such a judgment omits altogether the national security reasons for finalising both the trade pact and the Trade Promotion Authority that would strengthen the role of the US President in advancing regional commerce. First, the TPP would help to reverse the impression that the US is a declining and one-dimensional military power. Whatever the image of US power in North America, Asia-Pacific countries continue to harbour considerable doubt about American staying power and strength relative to a rising China. Even our closest allies in the region are enhancing their economic and development ties with China. At the same time, they and others fear what continued US military dominance could bring to the region in dealing with the increasing tension among major powers. A multilateral trade pact accentuates the dimension of US power and interest that appeals to all actors in the Asia-Pacific region. In Asia, trade is the coin of the realm. The TPP rebrands America as a leading market power, rather than just a security guarantor that brings big guns to settle local disputes. In addition, the TPP bolsters a model of sustainable economic growth that is essential to maintaining our long-term security posture, both with respect to defence spending and forward military presence. Second, the Pacific trade pact would do more to reassure our key allies than simply tinkering on the margins of our military presence. Our presence is vital. But if we want to signal that we are serious about being a permanent Pacific power, then long-term trade frameworks are more compelling. Despite our military activity, Japan and Australia remain anxious about our future intentions. That is not good, given how important these allies are. Indeed, Australia is becoming increasingly important for rotational presence and exercising, and the only other country beyond Japan and South Korea where we can imagine being prepared to conduct "Phase 2" combined operations designed to "seize the initiative". The converse of reassurance would be an action - or in this case, inaction - that would sow great doubt on American credibility. The failure to complete this trade pact would strike a serious blow to our reputation, and one from which it would be difficult to recover. The TPP anchors our future interests in the region that speaks to Tokyo, Seoul, Canberra and others worried about US power and purpose in the wake of events such as the protracted post-9/11 diversion or the impact of the 2008 Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy on regional calculations. A third and related national interest in completing the TPP is that it would allow the US to entrench itself in the world's most dynamic world and thereby reach out to new partners in non-military ways. This simultaneously enables such new engagement and lowers the transaction costs on our security cooperation throughout the region. Importantly, among the other initial stakeholders in the TPP are three of the four South-east Asian countries with disputed claims in the South China Sea. The fourth, the Philippines, is already a treaty ally of the US. But with this trade pact, the US would be able to tighten cooperation with Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei without having to focus exclusively on maritime defence issues. In addition, the TPP would also solidify US ties with Chile and Peru, two key South American economies with a Pacific orientation. Thus, we can expand our regional partners while underscoring our broad Pacific role. Fourth, the TPP gives us leverage in the

8

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

decade ahead as we begin negotiations on second-round entrants. This could be a major tool for engaging China, given that our clear objective is to integrate a rising China, not to contain it. It also gives us a potential tool for managing Taiwan, whose growing dependence on the mainland is leaving it little international space for avoiding coercion. Other allies, notably South Korea, would like to join, and ought to be at the front of the queue. The US-Thai alliance has been undermined by political instability in Thailand, and trade may provide a path toward alliance renewal. Finally, other key regional actors, especially Indonesia, could be prepared for admission in a second round, making the TPP a dominant trade framework for the region. Fifth, a regional trade pact would preserve and adapt a largely US-created regional architecture as we compete to shape the 21st century global order. What we want is what all nations in the region should want: namely, unfettered access to trade and the global commons. The TPP would reinforce a regional coalition around common high-standard trade norms and rules, and thereby balance against alternative rule sets that, for instance, favour state-owned enterprises. The aim is not US primacy so much as the primacy of a rules-based system. For all of these reasons, beyond the obvious economic ones of expanding trade in relatively new sectors as

No TPP undermines US leadership in Asia

Japan Times, 3-16-15, DOA: 3-19-15, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/16/business/tpp-clock-ticks-congress-dallies-trade-authority/#.VQq-zWaiCTA

Mireya Solis, head of Japan studies at The Brookings Institution think tank, urged Congress to redouble its efforts to enact the TPA bill, saying the Obama administration’s key policy of focusing on Asia will stall if the TPP fails. Failure to sign the TPP would demonstrate that the United States and Japan cannot move past friction “to work in areas such as internationalization of financial services, protection of intellectual property and governance of the Internet economy that are central to the 21st century economy,” Solis said.

9

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TPA – U

Pelosi will rally TPA votes now

Zach Carter, March 16, 2015, “What’s Going on In Obama’s Trade Meeting With Democrats?, “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/obama-trade-meeting_n_6881058.html DOA: 3-19-15

To pass TPP, Obama will likely need Congressional approval for Trade Promotion Authority -- a power that denies Congress the ability to amend the final agreement and bars it from being filibustered. Neither chamber has introduced TPA legislation, however, as the administration presses for additional Democratic votes. Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress support both TPA and the trade deal, although many tea party groups do not. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she would like to find a "path to yes" for the Democrats on the deal, including more meetings with administration staff.

Enough votes to pass

Brian Mahoney, March 14, 2015, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/does-labor-have-the-oomph-to-halt-fast-track-116071.html DOA: 3-19-15

But whether they do or not, it might not matter all that much: The House GOP may have enough votes to pass fast track on its own.

When Congress last passed trade promotion authority in 2002, when Bush was president, only 25 Democrats in the House voted for the bill, which squeaked by 215-212. But 13 years later, Republicans control the House by a 57-vote margin.

Granted, an unusual alliance with conservatives gives trade-skeptic Democrats and labor unions a bit of hope: Some conservative Republicans have pledged to oppose the bill out of concerns over giving Obama more authority.

“I think that between those Republicans who don’t want to give the president any more authority to do anything, and Democrats who are very concerned about issue of jobs, I think it’s going to be hard, despite the support by the administration,” said Schakowsky, who opposes giving Obama fast-track authority.

But as some Republicans move toward a “no” vote, some Democrats are likely to move toward “yes.” The 46 members of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition likely won’t all vote for the trade bill, but they may provide enough “yes” votes to nullify conservative opposition. Twenty-two tea party-aligned Republicans vowed to oppose TPA in a letter to Obama in late 2013; 17 of them are still in the House.

10

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

In the Senate, the GOP holds a 54-vote majority, putting it a handful of votes away from the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. That means Senate Republican leadership will need support from at least six Democrats, and possibly more, if some Republican lawmakers decide to oppose the bill.

So far, labor’s threat isn’t likely to have a direct impact on Democratic campaign spending, coming so soon after the 2014 elections — something International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger acknowledged.

“Is it early in the cycle? Well, yes, it’s early in the cycle, but this isn’t about where it is in the cycle,” said Schaitberger, who introduced the motion to freeze the donations.

11

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TPA AnswersNo votes for TPA now

Vicki Needham, 3-18-15, “Democratic critics rebuff latest White House trade adventure,” http://thehill.com/policy/finance/236226-democratic-critics-rebuff-latest-white-house-trade-overture DOA:: 3-19-15

The announcement comes at a crucial stage. Many House Democrats are at odds with the White House over President Obama’s trade agenda and in particular his bid for expanded “fast-track” powers to negotiate trade deals. Opponents of the proposal didn’t waver following the meeting with Froman. “I believe we will defeat fast-track … the votes are not there for fast-track,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said.

Four barriers to TPA, won’t pass

Shawn Donnan, March 19, 2015, Financial Times, “Five reasons to fret about Obama’s trade agend,” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/102d56f2-cdf2-11e4-8760-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UpWFdgSC DOA: 3-19-15

Support is there, but opposition too is fierce. Here are five reasons why Mr Obama will have his work cut out:

Congress is looking increasingly messy At the start of January, when Republicans assumed a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in eight years, party leaders said trade and tax reform would be at the top of an economic agenda that had at least some bipartisan support.

Less than three months later, Congress remains gripped by the same dysfunction that has crippled GOP efforts to move forward with key legislative priorities, and has cast doubt as to whether the next two years will be any different to the past six.

Add in the manoeuvring prompted by the 2016 presidential cycle and looming battles on everything from infrastructure spending to immigration, getting anything done seems more difficult by the day.

Trade remains a tough sell in the US Mr Obama has touted trade as a means of creating jobs and lifting wages, but even he knows it’s a tough sell in the US.

Part of the difficulty is that since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect two decades ago the debate has morphed into panic about jobs migrating to China.

That noise drowns out the improvement to American standards of living courtesy of low-cost imports, grumble proponents of free trade, or how disruption in manufacturing has unleashed innovation elsewhere in the economy.

12

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

The result is a jaded US population: a Pew survey last year found that half of them believed trade destroyed jobs.

The left is fighting Obama hard on trade It is not just the populace: Mr Obama faces opposition from within his own party and the labour unions who have long had close ties to it.

The AFL-CIO, the biggest union in the country, is flexing its muscle, threatening to pull campaign donations from any member of Congress who votes for the Trade Promotion Authority or the TPP.

Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator who made her name after the 2008 crisis by targeting Wall Street, is now opposing the TPP and the granting of fast-track authority to Mr Obama.

Republicans in Congress want at least some Democratic backing for the Trade Promotion Authority and the opponents are fighting hard to prevent that happening. Pro-trade Democrats speak with awe of the pressure being applied by unions in their home districts.

Opponents on the right may also be mobilising Republicans have healthy majorities in both houses of Congress. But they have little control over the Tea party right, particularly in the House of Representatives.

Some prominent Tea party figures such as Senator Ted Cruz have backed the TPP and granting the president the powers he needs. But equally there are some Republicans who will be voting against granting Mr Obama’s fast-track authority purely on the basis that they oppose giving him anything.

The question is, how many?

Republicans won 247 of the 435 seats in Congress in last November’s elections. Some estimates have as many as one in five of those Republicans preparing to vote against the Trade Promotion Authority. Were that to happen the president would need 20-30 Democrats to back him — not necessarily easy.

New concessions not workingEdward Garcia, 3-18-15, National Journal, “Obama Team Reaches out to Dems on Trade Pact, but the party’s split remains,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/obama-team-reaches-out-to-dems-on-trade-pact-but-the-party-s-split-remains-20150318 DOA: 3-19-15

The Obama administration on Wednesday offered new concessions in a bid for Democratic support for new trade deals, but in-person meetings from high-ranking officials—and promises of more access to inside information on the negotiations—were not enough to win over some of the president's fellow Democrats. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman had two meetings with House Democrats Wednesday, one accompanied by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and the other by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, among others. Both were related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement among 12 Asia-Pacific countries, including the United States, Australia, Japan, and Mexico. The meetings were first

13

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

reported by The Hill newspaper. As a part of the meeting, the officials also granted members of Congress more access to documents related to the negotiations—a response to criticism from members that they've lacked information about the negotiations. Froman told reporters after the meeting with House Democrats that Perez said the Obama administration had worked with committees to make certain changes to increase accessibility. "We decided today to move forward with some early actions in this area by making the text available in the security office, having plain language summaries of each chapter to help facilitate members' understanding and access to the text," Froman said, adding that members will be allowed to bring staff with appropriate security clearances. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas, welcomed accessibility, as well as the ability to see the positions of foreign governments on disputed points of the deal. "It's of particular importance to see the positions that countries are taking," Doggett told National Journal. But even as the administration attempted to boost transparency, there were reminders of the talks' secrecy. "They handed me the documents, wouldn't allow me to take any notes when I was reading the documents, wouldn't allow me to keep any notes, wouldn't allow me to have my staff in the office, actually told me I couldn't discuss it with other members," Rep. Alan Grayson told National Journal after one of the meetings. And the intraparty rift over trade policy clearly remains open. One particular point of contention is trade-promotion authority, a "fast-track" power the administration has requested that would give the executive branch more leverage to negotiate trade deals. Any deals reached would still but subject to congressional approval, but the legislative input would be limited to an up-or-down vote in Congress, and lawmakers would not have the ability to amend the deals. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said there are still not the votes for providing that power. "There are a lot of unanswered questions that we would have and before we would begin to think about providing trade promotion authority," she said.

Fighting over TPA now

Alex Lawson, March 18, 2015, “Senate GOP, Labor Chiefs Clash over Fast-Track Bill,” http://www.law360.com/articles/632944/senate-gop-labor-chief-clash-over-fast-track-trade-bill DOA: 3-18-15

The discord over legislation to provide trade pacts with fast-track protection grew more acrimonious on Wednesday as the head of the AFL-CIO vowed to kill the “rotten” policy just as a key Republican tabbed the bill as his top legislative priority and called for the White House to join the fight.

Any deal that would include Wyden changes weakens US trade leadership

Bloomberg Politics, March 17, 2015, “Senator Hatch Seeks Obama’s Help in Negotiations Over Trade,” http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-17/senator-hatch-seeks-obama-s-aid-in-negotiations-over-trade-bill DOA: 3-19-15

To defuse criticism that fast track subverts the role of Congress, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the finance panel, is seeking to include a mechanism that would permit Congress to revoke the quick-approval process. The mechanism would kick in if the trade accord fails to meet congressional objectives. “My efforts are based on the proposition that if a president -- of whatever party -- doesn’t consult with Congress on an ongoing basis it will be harder to produce better trade agreements and win support for them,” Wyden said Wednesday in a statement. “I find it ironic that my friends who have complained for years that this president has too much power now argue that modest checks and balances go too far.” Hatch says that the procedure sought by Wyden would undermine U.S. credibility in the negotiations by raising the chances that Congress would nix a final deal. “We do not need new, untested changes to established TPA procedures that can hamper the process and make it harder

14

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

both for our negotiators to reach a good deal and for Congress to be able to vote an agreement up or down,” Hatch said on the Senate floor.

No TPA debate until next month, political infighting blocks

Leith van Onselen, 3-17-15, Trade Negotiations Stall, http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/03/tpp-trade-negotiations-stall/ DOA: 3-19-15

Negotiations are also being held-up by the US political system, which is yet to approve the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, which is required so that US President Obama can sign the agreement and then have it ratified by Congress in its entirety with a “yes” or “no” vote. Without TPA, Congress would be able to force amendments to the negotiated TPP, effectively rendering the agreement void. With US Congress deliberations on the TPA expected to begin next month, and uncertainty over the outcome, a proposal has been made to put off negotiations for the TPP until a late-May ministerial meeting. Meanwhile, resistance from within the US remains a hurdle for granting the President TPA, with the TPP-skeptic American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the largest U.S. federation of labor unions, last week saying that it would suspend financial contributions to federal lawmakers as a form of resistance to the pact: Members of Congress involved in the TPP negotiations are facing “a significant amount of pressure” from opponents of the initiative, including the AFL-CIO, Sasae suggested Former Rep. Jane Harman said that despite what many pundits believe, it won’t be easy for the Republican-controlled Congress to pass a TPA bill. “I do think that the anti-trade wing of the Republican Party and the anti-trade wing of the Democratic Party are going to band together,” said Harman, now president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars think tank.

Japan Times, 3-16-15, DOA: 3-19-15, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/16/business/tpp-clock-ticks-congress-dallies-trade-authority/#.VQq-zWaiCTA

Orrin Hatch, head of the Senate Finance Committee, which handles trade issues, indicated in January that his panel could begin debate on a TPA bill in February. But the Republican chairman of the panel admitted recently that members of his party have had difficulties narrowing gaps with Democrats over the bill and that debate is unlikely before April.

Democrats don’t support TPA

Bloomberg News, 3-13-15, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/fast-track-trade-measure-won-t-pass-u-s-congress-delauro-says DOA: 3-19-15

A U.S. House Democrat who opposes President Barack Obama’s push for a process allowing for speedy approval of trade agreements predicted the proposal will fail in Congress, saying she wants lawmakers to have a stronger role. “We’ve seen a loss of jobs and a depression of wages” resulting from prior trade agreements, said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut during a meeting with Bloomberg News editors and reporters Friday in New York. “Those issues affect not just Democrats, but the nation broadly.” DeLauro said “an overwhelming” number of House Democrats would oppose Obama’s request for fast-track authority, which would limit Congress to an up-or-down vote on trade agreements with no amendments. She said she didn’t know how many House Republicans might support the proposal, and said she is encouraging members of both parties to oppose it. “I believe it will not pass,” DeLauro said.

15

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

Obama losing Republicans now

Business Times Singapore, 3-19-15, US Republicans Should show leadership on Trade Issue

The current conventional wisdom on this issue goes something like this: while the majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate oppose the passage of the TPP and would probably also vote against granting President Obama the TPA, the Republicans who now control both the House and the Senate (and who tend to subscribe to business-friendly, pro-free trade policies) would provide the White House with the "fast-track" authority. But it appears now that things may not be as simple as free traders in Washington are hoping. Many Republicans have been critical of what they consider Mr Obama's aggressive aggrandizement of executive power through unilateral action on such critical policy and legislative issues as the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare", and the White House's plan to allow illegal immigrants to take the path towards citizenship ("Amnesty"). More recently, President Obama and congressional Republicans have been engaged in an acrimonious debate on the controversial proposed agreement with Iran aimed at curtailing the Islamic republic's nuclear programme. Mr Obama and his aides insist he can reach such a deal without bringing it before Congress for a vote. The Republicans, who do not think highly of this deal also, contend that an Iran agreement would have to be approved by Congress. This debate on the US president's authority versus Congressional prerogative may explain why even Republicans who are predisposed to support free-trade policies but who accuse the president of taking steps to divert power to the executive branch that are unprecedented in their sweep (and may reflect Mr Obama's disdain for Congress) are less than enthusiastic about granting him even more authority in the form of the TPA. It's quite possible that the Republicans on Capitol Hill may have legitimate concerns about what they regard as President Obama's grab for power.

16

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TPP AnswersTPP negotiations stalled

Leith van Onselen, 3-17-15, Trade Negotiations Stall, http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/03/tpp-trade-negotiations-stall/ DOA: 3-19-15

Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appear to have hit a snag, with negotiators at last week’s meeting in Hawaii still at loggerheads over certain contentious areas, most notably intellectual property, with developing countries most at odds with the US. From The Japan Times: In the meeting from March 9, they tried to reach compromises in seven contentious areas but remained apart on intellectual property protection periods for data on medicines. They also differed on an accord for environmental protection, with Latin American participants opposing U.S. efforts to introduce strict rules, the sources said.

Democrats blocking trade deals

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

President Barack Obama’s enthusiasm to seal free trade pacts with Pacific rim countries and Europe is under a cloud after his own party Senator started going hammer and tongs against the deals. The Trans Pacific Pact Agreement is already facing huge protests in many Pacific rim countries. The pact, covering 12 countries, has let off fears that it would make drug prices unaffordable for common man and push up the cost of many essential services. What is creating more headache for Obama is the stand of Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren, who has started an all out   campaign against TPP and other pacts. This is despite the president himself trying to project the trade treaties as jewels of his legacy. Warren is a first-time senator and is already famous for her attempts to take on Wall Street and has been a force behind the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The vehemence with which Warrens is lambasting the trade efforts is likely to become a roadblock to Obama's efforts at rallying more support for the trade deals.

Unions block

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

However, Obama is still trying to hard-sell TPP as an important counterweight against China. The TPP, showcased by the president, promises lower tariffs and some new rules in governing intellectual property rights with unique procedures for resolving disputes between countries and multinational corporations. Lending more muscle to Warren's anti-trade stand is the threat held out by a few trade unions to stop funding the Democratic candidates. That means, union money will only flow to those lawmakers who are ready to work against the party president’s position on the trade deals issue.

Opposition blocks TTIP

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

Meanwhile, Reuters reported the concern raised by a British minister over the tardy progress on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP.  David Lidington, Britain's Minister for Europe,

17

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

told an event on EU reform that the long delay in a transatlantic free trade deal would be damaging to the European Union and diminish the bloc’s international importance. The deal was supposed to be sealed before U.S. President Barack Obama demits office. But so far nothing has been agreed upon and both sides are blaming each other of trying to protect specific industry interests. While Free-trade advocates welcome the pact, saying it will reduce trade barriers and create a market of 800 million people and create millions of jobs, opponents say TTIP will undermine European laws and pave way for the free run of U.S. multinationals, who may try to bully EU governments to do their bidding.

18

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

TTIP Answers

TTIP can’t solve their impact for two years

Tom Karst, 3-18-15, The Packer, “United Fresh expresses support for trade authority,” http://www.thepacker.com/news/united-fresh-expresses-support-trade-authority DOA: 3-19-15

Bob Schramm, industry lobbyist and principal with Schramm Williams and Associates, Washington, D.C., said he believes Congress will be able to pass Trade Promotion Authority this year.  “We’re going to eventually get it,” he said. Even with favorable trade deals, the current strength of the U.S. dollar is making export sales more difficult, he said. Schramm said the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be ready to move this year, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may be 18 months to two years behind that pace.

Democrats blocking trade deals

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

President Barack Obama’s enthusiasm to seal free trade pacts with Pacific rim countries and Europe is under a cloud after his own party Senator started going hammer and tongs against the deals. The Trans Pacific Pact Agreement is already facing huge protests in many Pacific rim countries. The pact, covering 12 countries, has let off fears that it would make drug prices unaffordable for common man and push up the cost of many essential services. What is creating more headache for Obama is the stand of Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren, who has started an all out   campaign against TPP and other pacts. This is despite the president himself trying to project the trade treaties as jewels of his legacy. Warren is a first-time senator and is already famous for her attempts to take on Wall Street and has been a force behind the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The vehemence with which Warrens is lambasting the trade efforts is likely to become a roadblock to Obama's efforts at rallying more support for the trade deals.

Unions block

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

However, Obama is still trying to hard-sell TPP as an important counterweight against China. The TPP, showcased by the president, promises lower tariffs and some new rules in governing intellectual property rights with unique procedures for resolving disputes between countries and multinational corporations. Lending more muscle to Warren's anti-trade stand is the threat held out by a few trade unions to stop funding the Democratic candidates. That means, union money will only flow to those lawmakers who are ready to work against the party president’s position on the trade deals issue.

19

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

Opposition blocks TTIP

Australia Business Times, 3-17-15 http://au.ibtimes.com/obamas-trade-deals-under-threat-democrat-senator-elizabeth-warren-spearheads-anti-trade-deal-1429859 DOA: 3-19-15

Meanwhile, Reuters reported the concern raised by a British minister over the tardy progress on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP.  David Lidington, Britain's Minister for Europe, told an event on EU reform that the long delay in a transatlantic free trade deal would be damaging to the European Union and diminish the bloc’s international importance. The deal was supposed to be sealed before U.S. President Barack Obama demits office. But so far nothing has been agreed upon and both sides are blaming each other of trying to protect specific industry interests. While Free-trade advocates welcome the pact, saying it will reduce trade barriers and create a market of 800 million people and create millions of jobs, opponents say TTIP will undermine European laws and pave way for the free run of U.S. multinationals, who may try to bully EU governments to do their bidding.

20

Stefan Bauschard Politics Updates – AUMF & TPA

Immigration Reform

No immigration reform

National Law Review, 3-16-15, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/immigration-reform-unlikely-to-move-foreseeable-future-administration-appeals-federa DOA: 3-19-15

After weeks of back and forth, the House and Senate successfully passed legislation funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year. The final bill did not include controversial provisions blocking implementation of the President’s recent executive actions on immigration. Despite Republican attempts to include these policy riders, immigration reform will likely not return to the top of the agenda in the foreseeable future. Senate Republicans are expected to focus instead on the budget, several trade initiatives – including two major trade deals and renewal of Trade Promotion Authority – and potential tax reform. In the House, several immigration bills are working through the committee process, though House leadership has provided no information on if or when they may be given floor time.

21