Senate republicans give Obama new powers, but they are still classified.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,299
Reaction score
4,218
Location
OKC area
All I know, or need to know, about the TPP is that nothing I do or say about will amount to f-ck all.

Whatever is going to happen has already been bought and paid for at echelons above my reality.
 
Last edited:

Defnestor

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
1
Location
Tulsa
Republicans are so different than democrats. Keep voting for those "conservative freedom lovers".


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b6958e-00c7-11e5-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html

President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.

“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.

If you believe the Rs and the Ds are really two parties, you may be short a bear.
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/17/paul-ryan/fast-track-trade-authority-has-every-president-fdr/


Fast-track trade authority: Has every president since FDR had it?


President Barack Obama has an unusual ally in pursuit of his foreign trade agenda -- Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Ryan believes that Congress should grant Obama trade promotion authority, something many pro-union Democrats oppose.

Trade promotion authority would allow trade agreements (such as the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership) to move through Congress under special rules intended to speed up the process, thus it is known colloquially as "fast-track." Congress would not be able to amend or filibuster a trade agreement, and the deal would only need 51 votes in the Senate to pass, as opposed to the 60 votes otherwise necessary.

"Every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has had this ability," Ryan said on CNN’s State of the Union May 17.

The claim that every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been granted some sort of fast-track authority is a common talking point among supporters, so we decided to look into it. We found that today’s fast-track has a connection to 1930s trade policy, but the particulars have evolved significantly over the past several decades.

First, we’ll go over the broad history of fast-track authority, then we’ll get into whether every single president had it.

Tariff-ic

"Fast-track and (trade promotion authority) trace their origins to the Trade Act of 1934," said Hal Shapiro, an international trade adviser who wrote a book on fast-track authority.

But the trade promotion authority bill currently before Congress has more in common with legislation passed in 1974 than the original 1930s legislation, which was narrower in scope and had more limitations on Congress.

First of all, the fast-track of the 1930s only pertained to tariffs -- taxes imposed on imported goods. For most of the country’s history, Congress set tariffs. But in 1934, they gave that authority to Roosevelt under the the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Congress pre-approved a range of tariffs, and Roosevelt settled on the final rate in negotiations with foreign countries.

Today’s fast-track authority requires Congress to give final approval to trade agreements. But the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act did not. Setting the pre-approved range of tariffs was Congress’ final involvement in the tariff negotiation process. Roosevelt’s signature was the final word.

Congress renewed presidential tariff reduction authority about a dozen times through the 1960s, into President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. So how did it morph into today’s law?

A big shift in international trade talks happened in the 1960s: Tariff reductions became less important in negotiations; instead countries focused on non-tariff barriers, which are aspects of domestic policy that are believed to hinder trade.

Johnson returned from a round of international negotiations having struck a deal that modified tariff policy but also two non-tariff policies that required changes to domestic law. Because the trade agreement went outside the scope of tariff policy changes, many members of Congress felt Johnson had overstepped his bounds, and Congress decided not to implement the parts of the agreement pertaining to non-tariff barriers.

This debate eventually led to the creation of the Trade Act of 1974, which has been renewed periodically since then, and is currently in front of Congress as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.

The idea behind the 1974 legislation was that it would give Congress more oversight than it previously had on trade negotiations -- specifically non-tariff barriers policy -- by increasing review processes and requiring final congressional approval. But by implementing the fast-track procedures, such as prohibiting amendments and filibusters, Congress would not be able to dismantle a long-fought final deal.

Nearly ‘every president’

A 2015 Congressional Research Service report treats both the tariff legislation and today’s fast-track policies as one in the same in comparing trade authority given to each of the 12 presidents since Roosevelt until Obama. (See Appendix A.)

Going by that account, Ryan is close but wrong. Presidents Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Johnson, all had tariff reduction authority at some point in their administrations. And Congress gave Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, trade promotion authority.

But missing from this list is Richard Nixon, who was president during -- and involved with -- the debates that led to the 1974 trade promotion authority law.

"Technically, Nixon never had the authority, but the process was well advanced when he resigned," said Mac Destler, an expert in American trade politics at the University of Maryland. In other words, Nixon would have gotten the authority had he not resigned. (Gerald Ford did get fast-track authority.)

Ian Fergusson, the Congressional Research Service report author, affirmed Ryan’s claim -- saying, "Every president except Nixon" had fast-track trade authority.

Fergusson noted, though, that Clinton only had trade promotion authority in the first two years of his presidency, and Congress denied his 1997 request to renew. (Obama hasn’t had it yet.)

Of course, reasonable people can disagree over whether the 1930s legislation is equivalent to the fast-track authority that’s been around since 1974, affecting interpretation of the list.

"No, FDR did not create fast-track trade authority. And, JFK did not celebrate its renewal," wrote fast-track critic Lori Wallach, director of global trade for advocacy group Public Citizen, in a 2014 blog. Wallach, who wrote a book on fast-track, argued that allowing the president to negotiate non-tariff barriers, not just tariffs, sets modern legislation apart.

Our ruling

Ryan said, "Every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has had" fast-track trade authority.

From the 1930s until today, Every president except Nixon (and Obama) has had the ability to negotiate aspects of foreign trade policy with limited congressional involvement.

But these policies aren’t 100 percent apples to apples. For one, today’s policy involves more congressional oversight than the policy in place through the 1960s. Additionally, the original policy only pertained to tariff reductions, while today’s policy includes non-tariff barriers to trade. (Up until the late 1960s, foreign trade negotiations focused nearly exclusively on tariffs.)

On balance, we rate Ryan’s claim Half True.
 

farmerbyron

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
152
Location
Tuttle
Honestly, I'm surprised that TPA has gotten this much traction. I got the impression from talking to our delegation in DC that there was simply too much distrust between congress and this administration for them to consider giving him TPA. TPA is, as I understand it, giving the president the ability to negotiate multilateral trade agreements without having to go back and let congress make changes to it. Congress still needs to approve or disapprove the deal but they cannot make amendments. This actually allows a trade agreement to take place as you cannot negotiate a deal when the guy you are talking to does not have final authority in the specifics of the trade agreement. If they hash out the details of a trade agreement only to have congress make changes to appease each pet interest, the parties we are negotiating with will reject the amended agreement.

Sure we could go ahead and opt out of a pacific trade agreement but when Asian economies are the fastest growing in the world, it is to our detriment to not seek out favorable trade relations with them. But hey, let the conspiracy theories fly and adopt protectionist policies that let the world pass us by.
 

Coded-Dude

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
2,637
Reaction score
10
Location
Okiehoma
the actual TPA: http://www.finance.senate.gov/legislation/download/?id=0b5a7daa-b442-4790-be92-3ce1f6e4694d

Page 50 is where Congressional oversight language begins. There is nothing in the document that says anything about voting, so I do believe it is a simple up down vote. Amendmets is listed a few times, but does not address allowing congress to make their own. From the looks of it they just want more transparency and oversight during the negotiations. Although there is a sovereignty clause.....

AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITED
12 STATES LAW.-No provision of any trade agreement en-
13 tered into under section 3(b) shall prevent the United
14 States, any State of the United States, or any locality of
15 the United States from amending or modifying any law
16 of the United States, that State, or that locality (as the
17 case may be).
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville
Honestly, I'm surprised that TPA has gotten this much traction. I got the impression from talking to our delegation in DC that there was simply too much distrust between congress and this administration for them to consider giving him TPA. TPA is, as I understand it, giving the president the ability to negotiate multilateral trade agreements without having to go back and let congress make changes to it. Congress still needs to approve or disapprove the deal but they cannot make amendments. This actually allows a trade agreement to take place as you cannot negotiate a deal when the guy you are talking to does not have final authority in the specifics of the trade agreement. If they hash out the details of a trade agreement only to have congress make changes to appease each pet interest, the parties we are negotiating with will reject the amended agreement.

Sure we could go ahead and opt out of a pacific trade agreement but when Asian economies are the fastest growing in the world, it is to our detriment to not seek out favorable trade relations with them. But hey, let the conspiracy theories fly and adopt protectionist policies that let the world pass us by.

I have no issue with fast track tariff authority for POTUS and I have no issue with seeking out favorable trade agreements with Asia. I DO have an issue with all the secrecy and backroom deals. The only reason the RINO's are giving Obama what they want is because powerful special interests (who most likely wrote the TPP themselves) are telling them to. Otherwise they'd be caterwauling about Obama's secrecy like he just shot their dog. You KNOW it's true.

So Obama gets something he wants, the fat cats get something they want and the GOP gets something they want. You know who gets the tab? All the rest of us. I'm not sure how you can say this is good for America, when you don't even know what's in it. :(
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom