Gonzaga Debate Institute 1
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Politics Impact Supplement
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
1NC
Gonzaga Debate Institute 3
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Politics – 1NC Shell
A. Obama will win Trade Promotion Authority now – momentum
Needham, The Hill, 6-26-13
[Vicki, The Hill, “Trade agenda pushed by leading business group”, http://thehill.com/blogs/on-themoney/1005-trade/307937-trade-agenda-pushed-by-leading-business-group, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
A leading business group is urging the Obama administration and Congress to ride a wave of
recent momentum toward pursuing and completing a vast array of trade agreements that could
boost U.S. jobs and economic growth.
The Business Roundtable on Wednesday specifically pushed for the completion trade promotion
authority (TPA) as the United States embarks on trade talks with the European Union and continues
discussions on the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), in a letter to newly confirmed U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman.
"For its part, Business Roundtable is working to educate leaders in Washington and people around the
country on the importance of trade, U.S. trade agreements and TPA to enhancing U.S. growth and jobs,"
said Doug Oberhelman, chairman of BRT's International Engagement Committee.
"Reflecting this, a key trade priority is passing updated TPA legislation," he said.
He said BRT recently launched the Trade Benefits America coalition with other business groups, which
represent the manufacturing, services and agricultural sectors.
Froman told The Hill earlier this week that the White House is ready to engage with Congress on
fast-track authority legislation, of which a mix of Republican and Democratic lawmakers have also
expressed support.
"With passage of the three FTAs, Russia PNTR, and several other trade measures during the last
Congress, we see solid bipartisan support and momentum for promoting additional trade initiatives
during this Congress," Oberhelman wrote.
B. Plan spends political capital
[INSERT LINK]
C. Internal link – Political capital key to Trade Promotion Authority – failure
collapses trade liberalization
Hadar, Business Times Singapore Washington Correspondent, 7-4-13
[Leon T., The Business Times Singapore, “TPP opponents in US gain momentum; The Tea-Party
contingency among GOP lawmakers in House may spell trouble for Obama's trade liberalisation agenda”,
Lexis, accessed 7-13-13]
Indeed, during his last State of the Union address, Mr Obama was promoting an ambitious agenda some would even describe it as "historic" - to advance trade liberalisation, pledging to launch
negotiations to form two huge free-trade areas, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with America's
trade partners in the Pacific region and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), a free-trade agreement with the European Union.
The TPP negotiations consist of Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei,
Peru, Chile, Mexico (and hopefully Japan), that altogether have a combined gross domestic product
(GDP) of around US$11 trillion. And, according to estimates, the TPP could help grow the American
Gonzaga Debate Institute 4
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
economy by US$76 billion annually, while the TTIP could help increase the US GDP by US$1 trillion
per year.
The problem is that between these two major trade deals and Mr Obama's signature stands the US
Congress where the balance of power between the two parties could create obstacles for him on the road
to the TPP and the TTIP.
And here lies the political-legislative paradox: Many of the Democrats who love the president also hate
the two trade deals; and vice versa: Many of the Republicans who hate the Democratic president also love
the free trade agreements he is proposing.
In order to start getting things moving on Capitol Hill, Mr Obama would need to have this same
lawmakers grant him the so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) aka "fast-track". Under
"fast-track", Congress agrees to give up some of its authority to conclude trade agreements and
allows the president to be the chief player in the process.
Hence, lawmakers hold a straight up or down vote on a trade agreement the president concludes
and are not allowed to offer amendments. That basically ensures that Congress has to approve or
reject the trade deal that the White House negotiates with another government and makes it
impossible for the lawmakers to make any changes in the final agreement.
But there is a catch. The TPA legislation provides for a framework under which the president
negotiates an agreement. And the proponents of "fair trade" have insisted that they would not
support granting the president a TPA unless he agrees to press for such goals as labour and
environmental rules as well as commitments to help retrain workers whose jobs are lost as a result of
free-trade deals, while Republican free traders tend to oppose including such requirements in the
TPA.
The Senate and the House of Representatives are scheduled to debate TPA legislation this month,
and there are already some signs that "fair trade" proponents are not in a rush to support it. Even in the
Senate where a large number of Republicans and Democrats are in favour of granting Mr Obama a "fasttrack" authority, two leading Democrats, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts, have expressed reservations about the president's trade agenda, and especially about the
negotiations over the TPP.
Mr Brown and Ms Warren and other critics have pointed out to the secrecy under which the TPP talks
have been taking place, and allege that corporate interests - as opposed to public interest groups - would
have more influence on the negotiations.
"I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the US Trade Representative and with one
ongoing trade agreement, in particular the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Ms Warren said on the Senate floor
last week. "I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative's
policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant," Ms Warren
explained.
"In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly
backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that
trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States."
In fact, Ms Warren was one of the three Democratic senators (Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl
Levin of Michigan, and one independent senator, Bernie Sanders of Vermont) who voted "no" during the
confirmation of Michael Froman as the new US Trade Representative.
But the main battles over the TPA legislation and over trade policy, in general, are expected to take
place in the Republican-controlled House where lawmakers from both parties tend to project more
populist and protectionist sentiment than their colleagues in the Senate.
Free-market positions
While Republicans in the House tended to be more inclined support free-market positions and, by
extension, free trade policies, than Democratic lawmakers, the large Tea-Party contingency among
GOP lawmakers in the House may spell trouble for Obama's plan. More specifically, many of the
anti-Obama Republicans may not be willing to cede to the hated White House their authority on trade
policy for the TPA.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 5
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
That could hurt the liberalisation agenda that many of them support by sabotaging the chances of
getting the TPP and the TTIP approved. It would also prevent President Obama from becoming
one of the nation's great trade policy presidents. Be warned: it's going to be a rough road for trade
deals.
D. Impact – Trans-Pacific Partnership
1. TPP key to US leadership – that checks protectionism
Suominen, German Marshall Fund of the United States resident fellow, 12
(Kati, 7-6-12, Foreign Policy, “America the Absent,”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/06/america_the_absent?page=full, accessed 7-7-12)
In the 20th century, beginning with the creation of the Bretton Woods system in 1944, America's great
contribution was to champion an economic paradigm and set of institutions that promoted open
markets and economic stability around the world. The successive Groups of Five, Seven, and Eight,
first formed in the early 1970s, helped coordinate macroeconomic policies among the world's leading
economies and combat global financial imbalances that burdened U.S. trade politics. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) spread the Washington Consensus across Asia and Latin America, and
shepherded economies in transition toward capitalism. Eight multilateral trade rounds brought down
barriers to global commerce, culminating in the establishment of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 1995.¶ Meanwhile, a wave of bank deregulation and financial liberalization began in the
United States and proliferated around the world, making credit more available and affordable while
propelling consumption and entrepreneurship the world over. The U.S. dollar, the world's venerable
reserve currency, economized global transactions and fueled international trade. Central bank
independence spread from Washington to the world and helped usher in the Great Moderation,
which has produced a quarter-century of low and steady inflation around the world.¶ Globalization
was not wished into being: It was the U.S.-led order that generated prosperity unimaginable only a
few decades ago. Since 1980, global GDP has quadrupled, world trade has grown more than sixfold,
the stock of foreign direct investment has shot up by 20 times, and portfolio capital flows have
surged to almost $200 trillion annually, roughly four times the size of the global economy. Economic
reforms and global economic integration helped vibrant emerging markets emerge: The "Asian Tigers"
(Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) that boomed in the 1980s were joined in the 1990s by
the awakening giants of Brazil, China, and India.¶ It was the United States that quarterbacked the
play, brokering differences among nations and providing the right mix of global public goods: a
universal reserve currency, an open-trade regime, deep financial markets, and vigorous economic
growth. Trade liberalization alone paid off handsomely, adding $1 trillion annually to the postwar
U.S. economy.¶ Talk about American decline notwithstanding, the economic order created by the
United States persists. In fact, at first blush, it appears to have only been reinforced in the past few
years. New institutions such as the G-20, a forum for the world's leading economies, and the Financial
Stability Board, a watchdog for the international financial system, are but sequels to U.S.-created
entities: the Group of Five and the Financial Stability Forum. Investors still view America as a
financial safe haven, and the dollar remains the world's lead currency. Open markets have
survived, and 1930s-style protectionism has not materialized. The WTO continues to resolve trade
disputes and recently welcomed Russia as its 154th member, while the mission and resources of the
Bretton Woods twins -- the World Bank and IMF -- have only expanded. No country has pulled out of
these institutions; instead, emerging nations such as China and India are demanding greater power at the
table. Countries have opted in, not out, of the American-led order, reflecting a reality of global
governance: There are no rival orders that can yet match this one's promise of mutual economic
gains.¶ Still, while the American order is peerless, it is also imperiled. The deepening European debt
Gonzaga Debate Institute 6
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
crisis, discord over national policies to restore growth, and the all-but-dead Doha Development
Round of WTO negotiations speak to the failures of the global economy's existing instruments to
manage 21st-century challenges. Instead of coordinating policies, leading countries are trapped in a
prisoner's dilemma, elbowing for an edge in world trade and jockeying for power on the world
stage. Tensions simmer over issues such as exchange-rate manipulation, capital controls, creeping
protectionism, and financial nationalism.¶ Right at the moment when we most need to shore up the
troubled global economic order, America -- the architect of this very order -- is failing to lead. Even as
the United States remains pivotal to global growth, U.S. corporations -- the engines of the American
economy -- are stifled by taxes, regulations, and policy uncertainty. Gaping fiscal deficits in the United
States are undermining the dollar, exacerbating trade deficits, and undercutting U.S. economic dynamism
and credibility in world affairs, but political posturing has obstructed the country's path to solvency.
Earlier this week, the IMF warned that if political deadlock takes America to the so-called fiscal cliff of
automatic tax hikes and spending cuts in January 2013, it could have a devastating impact on the U.S. and
world economies. No wonder America's image as the global economic superpower is receding around the
world.¶ Europe's travails, meanwhile, are reducing U.S. companies' exports and overseas profits,
threatening America's recovery. And yet Congress has balked at boosting the IMF's resources to fight the
eurozone crisis while the Obama administration has deflected responsibility, framing the crisis as
Europe's to manage. It has fallen to countries such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Russia to instead
build the firewall that will shield the rest of the world from Europe.¶ The welcome momentum in
negotiations between the United States and Pacific Rim countries on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
free trade agreement does not undo over three years of drift in U.S. trade policy that has
jeopardized the very global trading system that the United States built and powered in the postwar
era. The only trade deals that the Obama administration has passed -- with Colombia, Panama, and
South Korea -- were launched and negotiated by the Bush administration.¶ The world is now facing
a triple threat of global economic instability, divisions among top powers, and a global leadership
vacuum. This perfect storm could produce a world disorder of mercurial financial markets,
widening global imbalances, spreading state capitalism, and beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism -- a
scenario with a sorry past and few safe exits.¶ In the late 1940s, a new world order arose because of
American strength, vision, and leadership, not because global governance was in vogue. Leadership
was never easy: Resistance from allies, protectionist pressures at home, and resource-draining wars all
stood in the way. But capitalism spread, trade and financial markets were liberalized, and emergingmarket crises were defeated. Global economic integration forged ahead.¶ Today, American leadership is
again essential. China prioritizes mercantilism over multilateralism, and emerging nations have yet to
fully step up to the plate when it comes to global governance, while Europe and Japan are neither able nor
willing to lead. In placing their faith in multilateralism, liberal institutionalists often fail to realize that
the world economic order is built on American primacy and power, and Washington's willingness to
project it.¶ To lead abroad, the United States must reform at home by imposing ironclad fiscal discipline,
cutting taxes and red tape for businesses, and locking in long-term policies -- summoning the private
sector to reform schools and rebuild infrastructure, for instance -- that harness the productivity of
America's future generations.¶ Abroad, the United States needs to focus on pre-empting instability and
integrating the global economy. It should push the IMF to address financial risks before they mushroom
into catastrophes, revise the multilateral trade regime to allow for fast deals among a critical mass of
members rather than agonizing, decade-long talks requiring the consent of the full membership, and work
toward unfettered global financial markets -- all the while deepening access to U.S. goods, services, and
investment around the world. A Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and a transatlantic free trade
pact are low-hanging fruits that can jump-start global growth without any new stimulus dollars.¶
The quintessential challenge facing U.S. policymakers is to convince other nations to buy into a
rules-based order rather than respond to the siren calls of currency wars and capital controls. For
example, with most emerging economies uneasy about Beijing's trade and foreign policies,
Washington must incentivize others to take the high ground and strengthen investor protections,
enforce intellectual property rights, and adhere to trade rules. With others playing by the rules of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 7
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
the game, a misbehaving China would be turned into a pariah.¶ A stable, integrated, and growing
world economy serves our national interests. But such a world is America's to make.
2. Protectionism escalates to global war
Cho, Professor Chicago-Kent law professor, 7
[Sungjoon, Illinois Institute of Technology "Doha's Development," 25 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 165]
Second, the mercantilist nature of the current competitive regionalism tends to evoke the
strikingly similar phenomenon of the interwar period, which precipitated economic
balkanization and led to the outbreak of the Second World War. n182 Highly preferential
regional trading blocs instituted worldwide during this period eliminated the political space
needed for multilateral economic cooperation and instead nurtured the Hobbesean struggle
among major economic powers. n183 The interwar regionalist competition is a textbook [*195]
example of the prisoners' dilemma. Beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies entailed a global
economic crisis that eventually exacerbated, not reduced, the evils of the Great Depression. Out
of this history comes an undeniable historical lesson: the fragmented global trading system is
vulnerable to a chain of unfortunate events such as tension, hostility, and violence. Considering
that recent trade policies are inextricably linked to security and other foreign affairs concerns,
n184 this lesson should be taken seriously lest we repeat the same historical errors and are
punished for them.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 8
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Uniqueness
Gonzaga Debate Institute 9
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Pass Now
Will pass – bipartisan support now
Murphy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce International Affairs vice president, 6-14-13
[John G., He is responsible for representing the Chamber before the administration, Congress, and foreign
officials as he directs advocacy efforts to open international markets for U.S. exports and investment, Free
Enterprise, “Solve the Trade Puzzle with Trade Promotion Authority”,
http://www.freeenterprise.com/international/solve-trade-puzzle-trade-promotionauthority?utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sitewide_feed&utm_source=0, accessed 7-14-13, AFB]
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) wants a bipartisan bill introduced as
soon as possible. His colleague, Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has called it a top priority for
years. Staff to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Ranking
Member Sander Levin (D-MI) have been working with their Senate counterparts for weeks to
produce such a bill.
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) may be the sleeper bipartisan priority of the 113th Congress.
Driving home this point, Roll Call on June 13 published an insightful column by Senators Rob Portman
(R-OH) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) calling TPA “A Bipartisan Opportunity for Jobs”:
From the Buckeye State to the Evergreen State, Americans want their elected officials to focus on
supporting economic growth. And, wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats and Republicans worked
together for a change?
Trade Promotion Authority offers us exactly this opportunity: a bipartisan economic initiative that
will support American job creation and keep our nation competitive in the global economy while
not costing taxpayers any money.
We were pleased to hear the president’s recent nominee to the post of U.S. trade representative,
Mike Froman, embrace TPA, a power requested by every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt,
in his Finance Committee confirmation hearing. It seems that the president — who included a
request for TPA in his 2013 trade agenda — is serious about pursuing new trade agreements.
That’s good news for our economy.
TPA has bipartisan support
Senators Portman & Cantwell, 6-13-13
[Rob, R-Ohio, Maria, D-Washington, Roll Call, “A Bipartisan Opportunity for Jobs”,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/a_bipartisan_opportunity_for_jobs_commentary-225603-1.html, accessed
7-13-13, AFB]
From the Buckeye State to the Evergreen State, Americans want their elected officials to focus on
supporting economic growth. And, wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats and Republicans worked together
for a change?
Trade Promotion Authority offers us exactly this opportunity: a bipartisan economic initiative that
will support American job creation and keep our nation competitive in the global economy while
not costing taxpayers any money.
We were pleased to hear the president’s recent nominee to the post of U.S. trade representative,
Mike Froman, embrace TPA, a power requested by every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his
Finance Committee confirmation hearing. It seems that the president — who included a request for
Gonzaga Debate Institute 10
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
TPA in his 2013 trade agenda — is serious about pursuing new trade agreements. That’s good news
for our economy.
House GOP support now
Inside U.S. Trade, 7-5-13
[“Majority Of House Republican Freshmen Back TPA, Trade Initiatives”, Lexis, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
All but one of the House Republican freshmen last week expressed their strong support for the
Obama administration's "free and fair trade agenda" aimed at opening markets around the world,
including passage of a new fast-track negotiating authority bill.
The 35 freshmen, led by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), wrote in a letter to new U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman that they "stand ready" to work with the Obama administration
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the
plurilateral services agreement being negotiated by selected World Trade Organization members,
among other trade initiatives.
"These negotiations provide an opportunity to include strong, ambitious, and enforceable provisions that
would eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers for U.S. exports of goods, services and agricultural products,
as well as ensure strong intellectual property (IP) protections," they said in the letter.
"Lastly, we look forward to moving Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which clarifies the
executive-legislative partnership on trade negotiations," the letter said. The freshmen pledge to
work with Froman to "continue building upon the bipartisan support for trade that we have seen in
Congress over the past few years," according to the letter.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 11
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Vote Coming
Tough vote coming
Heritage Foundation press release, 7-13-13
[US Official News, “Washington: An Investment Treaty with China: Don’t Hold Your Breath”, Lexis,
accessed 7-13-13]
Problem #3 with a BIT is American politics. The main China issues that the U.S. Congress focuses on—
the bilateral trade deficit, currency “manipulation,” and other trade distortions—are not likely to be
addressed in an investment treaty. Further, Congress does not trust China to implement its pledges. China
is not just any economic partner. A U.S.–China BIT is going to be debated—hotly.
The Senate already faces politically painful votes on Trade Promotion Authority (probably this
year), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (probably next year), and, the Trans-Atlantic Partnership
(possibly 2015). It would be very dubious politics to jump China ahead of American friends in the trade
queue. But multiple political bloodlettings in a single year is almost as difficult to see as a pro-China vote
during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Vote soon
Riley, Heritage Foundation Trade Policy senior policy analyst, 7-12-13
[Bryan, Heritage Blogs, “Trade Promotion Authority Should Mean Authority to Promote Trade—Period”,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/12/trade-promotion-authority-should-mean-authority-to-promote-tradeperiod/, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
There’s a good chance Congress will consider legislation this summer to extend trade promotion
authority (TPA) to President Obama. If it does, lawmakers should pay especially close attention to the
wording of the bill.
TPA is the legislative vehicle that allows the President to negotiate with other countries on
beneficial trade agreements. The purpose of trade promotion authority is, obviously, to promote trade. If
properly designed, TPA is an effective way to expand trade and economic freedom. However, a poorly
worded TPA bill could allow implementing legislation for future trade agreements to be used for other
purposes.
For example, under the last extension of TPA, Congress agreed to consider legislation that implemented
trade agreements negotiated by the President on an up-or-down vote. This implementing legislation could
include changes in laws that were “necessary or appropriate to implement such trade agreement or
agreements, either repealing or amending existing laws or providing new statutory authority.”
When the South Korea–U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) came up for a vote two years ago, the Obama
Administration used this language as justification to try to attach Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)—
which provides federal aid to those supposedly hurt by trade—to the implementing legislation for
KORUS. At the time, TAA supporters argued that such assistance was “necessary and appropriate.”
Trade expert Phil Levy observed at the time that TPA “was hard to come by even in the best of
circumstances. What chance would it have now, if it is interpreted as giving any White House the
right to attach controversial and unrelated spending measures in a protected way?”
This is exactly why it is important to clarify how TPA works. Every U.S. President should have the
authority to negotiate beneficial trade agreements. However, TPA was never intended to be a blank check.
Congress should make it clear that future trade agreements submitted for implementation under TPA
cannot be hijacked as a vehicle on which to attach extraneous provisions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 12
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Hearings on TPA coming
U.S House Committee of Ways and Means press release, 7-12-13
[US Official News, “Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on President Obama’s Trade Policy Agenda
with U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman”, Lexis, AFB]
Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on President Obama’s Trade Policy Agenda with U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman
1100 Longworth House Office Building at 9:00 AM
Jul 18, 2013
Focus Of The Hearing
The hearing will provide an opportunity to explore with Ambassador Froman current and future
trade issues such as: (1) developing and passing of Trade Promotion Authority legislation; (2)
seeking to conclude a successful Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement this year; (3) negotiating with the
European Union for a comprehensive and ambitious trade and investment agreement; (4) negotiating a
Trade in International Services Agreement that increases access for all sectors of our economy; (5)
improving our important trade relationship with major emerging economies like China, India and Brazil,
and addressing their trade barriers; (6) ensuring appropriate trade enforcement efforts; (7) advancing
WTO negotiations, including “post-Doha” issues at the WTO such as Information Technology Agreement
(ITA) expansion, a trade facilitation agreement and an agreement for trade in environmental goods and
services; (8) negotiating Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with China and India and exploring new
BITs and investment opportunities; and (9) establishing long-term, closer ties with important trading
partners.
Hearing Advisory
Chairman Camp Announces Hearing on President Obama’s Trade Policy Agenda with U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman
For more information please visit: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
Gonzaga Debate Institute 13
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – No Obama Push
Obama making serious push on trade – new USTR proves
Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record, 7-1-13
[Tom, “New USTR Froman Has Busy Agenda Ahead”, p. 1, Lexis, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
As former White House aide Michael Froman begins his new job as U.S. trade representative, he
faces a full agenda, including two major multilateral trade negotiations that will have an impact on
U.S. construction-equipment makers and companies in a wide range of other industries.
Froman, who was sworn in as U.S. trade representative (USTR) on June 21, had been assistant to the
president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. The Senate confirmed
him two days earlier, by a strong 93-4 vote.
Bill Lane, Caterpillar Inc. senior director for global government affairs, says, We may be about to
embark on the most ambitious trade agenda since the early 1990s, when we did the [General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] Uruguay Round and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Among the priorities facing Froman and his USTR team are trade talks with the European Union
that are set to begin on July 8 in Washington, D.C.
Nick Yaksich, Association of Equipment Manufacturers vice president for government and industry
relations, says the EU negotiations will be critical for U.S. heavy-equipment manufacturers.
Yaksich says technical issues will be particularly important topics, such as the harmonization of
equipment standards and the development of common certification benchmarks between the two sides.
Lane says U.S. trade barriers in Europe tend to be low, but the trade is so large that even removing low
trade barriers ? will have an important impact on both economies. Overall U.S. exports to the EU last year
totaled $458 billion, making it the country’s largest export market, according to the White House.
Tariffs could be an important topic in trade talks. Lane notes that many European countries’ tariffs on
U.S.-made heavy construction equipment are zero, but tariffs are imposed on U.S.-produced engines and
other components, such as bearings. Those factors combine to make U.S. heavy-equipment makers’
average tariffs in Europe about 2%, he says.
Though 2% may seem small, Lane says Caterpillar has a long-standing goal that, worldwide, we would
like to be in a situation where none of our customers have to pay an extra tax to buy our products. In this
case, an extra tax is tariffs.
The other important negotiations are the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks among the
U.S., other North American countries and Asian nations. The U.S. joined the TPP negotiations in
2009, and, so far, the talks have gone through 17 rounds.
Lane says many countries involved in the TPP talks have eliminated tariffs on heavy equipment. He says
that, for Caterpillar, one of the biggest benefits of those negotiations is it gives us a chance to modernize
NAFTA.
He says that, for example, NAFTA has a very arcane rule of origin, which is a yardstick for determining
whether a product, including components that may be produced in other countries, can be classified for
trade-regulation purposes as made in the U.S.
More broadly, Lane says, for U.S. trade officials, the key to everything that lies ahead is having
Congress provide the president with trade promotion authority (TPA). That mechanism, formerly
called fast track authority, gives the administration the ability to negotiate trade deals and have Congress
review them quickly.
TPA expired in 2007. Froman said in testimony prepared for his June 6 confirmation hearing before the
Senate Finance Committee that he would engage with Congress to renew TPA. He added, TPA is a
critical tool. I look forward to working with you to craft a bill that achieves our shared goals.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 14
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Architectural and engineering firms are monitoring negotiations the Obama administration proposed in
January with the EU and 18 other countries. U.S. firms in services industries hope the negotiations will
expand their overseas markets. A USTR official says that the negotiations are under way and progressing
positively.
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called Froman the right man for the job at just
the right time. Industry officials also are happy to see Froman as USTR. Yaksich says AEM is
pleased that he has experience with past free-trade agreements and, therefore, understands the
benefits of [those] agreements that take place.
Lane notes that Caterpillar worked with Froman on U.S. free-trade agreements all of which went
into force in 2012 with Panama, Colombia and South Korea as well as last year’s measure
establishing permanent normal trade relations with Russia.
Lane says, What we quickly learned is, if Mike Froman is involved in the effort, the White House is
serious and is making the issue a priority.
Obama is starting talks over TPA
Leigh, ExecutiveGov, 6/25/13
[Elizabeth, ExecutiveGov.com, “Michael Froman Speaks on Fast Track, Upcoming Trade Talks”,
http://www.executivegov.com/2013/06/froman-speaks-on-fast-track-upcoming-trade-talksexports/#sthash.mNDhrgch.dpuf, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman revealed that the Obama administration is ready to discuss
with lawmakers a tool to fast track trade negotiations, The Hill newspaper reported Monday.
Vicki Needham writes there was a negotiating authority that allowed trade deals to move through
without congressional amendment but this lapsed during President George W. Bush’s reign.
Talks focused on resurrecting the authority have surfaced as the U.S. prepares to broker a $5
trillion trade deal with the European Union in two weeks.
Obama administration looking to negotiate over TPA
Needham, The Hill, 6/24/13
[Vicki, The Hill “Froman: Obama ‘ready to engage’ with Congress on fast track”
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/307503-president-ready-to-engage-with-congress-onfast-track#ixzz2YUeTgxhy, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
President Obama is ready to work with Congress to win fast-track trade negotiating authority, U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman told The Hill on Monday in an exclusive interview.
Froman said the negotiating authority “is a critical tool” but doesn’t need to be in place when the U.S.
begins talks with the European Union on a $5 trillion trade deal in two weeks.
Still, he said the Obama administration is “ready to engage” with lawmakers to hash out the
authority, which lapsed during former President George W. Bush’s administration and would allow trade
deals to move through Congress without amendments
It will be tougher for Froman to negotiate the EU deal, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) with Japan and 11 other countries, without fast-track authority.
Trading partners are more reluctant to make concessions if they believe a trade deal negotiated by
the administration will later be changed by Congress.
EU leaders have said they are not concerned about the lack of trade promotion authority because they
expect it to get done soon.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 15
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Froman said Obama is committed to working with Congress on trade and suggested several times in
the interview that one of his focuses will be on improving the office’s working relationship with
lawmakers.
“I think the one thing we can do a better job of is explaining what we are doing in terms of briefing
members of Congress so that they, representing their constituents, can reflect the views of the
American public,” he told The Hill in his one of his first interviews since he was sworn in on Friday.
Obama wants TPA – Froman confirmed
Inside US-China Trade, 6/12/13
[“Froman Says Obama Wants TPA Renewal; Pledges To Work With Congress”, Lexis, accessed: 7/8/13,
ML]
U.S. Trade Representative nominee Michael Froman on June 6 testified at his confirmation hearing that
President Obama wants to extend Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and is requesting its renewal. But
he stopped short of saying that the administration would develop a specific proposal laying out its
priorities for a TPA bill.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and other committee members said they
consider Froman's remarks to be a formal request for TPA, also known as "fast-track" authority, by
the president.
After the confirmation hearing, Baucus said he had not received an official written request from Obama
for fast-track. But he said the fact that Froman testified that the president wants fast-track authority
"is good enough" to be considered a presidential request.
Asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) if there would be a TPA proposal from the administration, Froman
responded: "I think we'll have to work through what format [the administration's] engagement [on
the fast-track bill] takes."
He added that the administration's intention is "to engage with this committee and engage with the House
Ways and Means Committee as you work through TPA issues."
Froman, however, also did not commit to a specific timetable for when the administration wants action on
a fast-track bill, even after he was asked by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) whether he wants to work to get a
new TPA bill approved before the end of the year.
"We'd like to get the TPA done as soon as possible," Froman responded. "We are ready to engage; we
are ready to work with the committee."
US Trade Rep will work with Congress on TPA
Reuters, 6-6-13
[“USTR nominee Froman promises push for trade promotion authority”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/06/us-usa-trade-nominee-idUSBRE9550WL20130606, accessed
7-14-13, AFB]
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nominee to be U.S. trade representative on Thursday pledged
to work with leaders of the Senate Finance Committee to craft major trade legislation needed by
the White House to win approval of trade deals.
"If confirmed, I will engage with you to renew Trade Promotion Authority. TPA is a critical tool. I
look forward to working with you to craft a bill that achieves our shared goals," Mike Froman,
currently the White House international economic affairs adviser, said at his confirmation hearing.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 16
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Uniqueness Overwhelms – Business Support
Democratic support isn’t locked-it
Dadush, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Economics
Program Director, 13
(Uri, 3-18-13, “Don’t Buy the Hype on the Transatlantic Trade Deal,”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/18/don-t-buy-hype-on-transatlantic-trade-deal/frd5,
accessed 6-25-13)
Are there political drivers of the negotiations?
Certainly. On the American side, this is a key initiative for the new Obama administration. With the
United States emerging from a recession, the time is ripe for talking about trade and how it can
generate more growth. Obama is looking for issues that he can work with the Republicans on, and
this fits the bill. Now, whether the Democrats in Congress will end up supporting the deal is another
matter.
Obama’s push is key
Needham, The Hill, 13
(Vicki, 2-24-13, The Hill, “Support builds for renewing Obama’s trade-agreement fast-track authority,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/284463-support-builds-for-renewing-fast-trackauthority, accessed 6-27-13)
Despite the stronger push from business groups, Engler said the effort needs the clear backing of
Obama — the president usually asks Congress to grant him the authority — and that means
nominating a replacement for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who is heading into his final week on
the job.¶ Engler, who said recently that he thought a nomination was imminent — is sticking with his
prediction that Obama will choose top White House official Jeffery Zients, who has headed up the Office
of Management and Budget.¶ He is still hoping a nomination will happen soon.¶ “We need the person in
place and they need to get busy.”
[Note – Engler - John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable and a former Michigan Republican
governor]
Passage isn’t guaranteed – tough sell
Schroeder, MarketWatch, 13
(Robert, 2-21-13, “CEO group pushes for renewed U.S. trade authority,”
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/02/21/ceo-group-pushes-for-renewed-u-s-trade-authority/,
accessed 7-10-13)
Baucus’s and Camp’s backing doesn’t guarantee a smooth ride in Congress, however. Trade
Promotion Authority would allow the president to send trade deals to Congress for votes without
amendments, and that could make for another tough sell to lawmakers.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 17
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Immigration
Sequencing solves – no immigration reform until the fall
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A dramatic tax-raising deal last New Year's looked like it might be a
breakthrough, signaling improved second-term relations between newly re-elected President Barack
Obama and a divided Congress. At least that's what the White House hoped.
But six months later, growing uncertainty over a sweeping immigration overhaul measure has
dimmed expectations for a big summertime achievement and left Obama still in search of a
marquee legislative accomplishment to mark his second four years.
His advisers now concede that their best shot at changing the immigration system might come in
the fall, after lawmakers return from their August recess. But that could be a long shot during a period
already crowded with other issues.
Obama treading carefully – not alienating GOP on immigration
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
Others are still upbeat.
"It's an important moment that could help him if something gets done, if not in his timeline, in the
near future," said Patrick Griffin, who handled legislative relations for former President Bill
Clinton.
As significant as the immigration legislation may be, Obama is treading carefully, wary of
alienating Republicans. He has faced some pressure to speak out more forcefully and to use the
power of his office to give immigration the visibility he has given to past clashes with Congress over
taxes and student loans.
"Every situation is different," David Plouffe, Obama's former top political adviser, said after
visiting the White House this week. "Some have called for more of an approach that is geared to the
outside. I think you have to wait and see how this develops."
While White House aides and advisers believe Republicans will inflict long-lasting political damage on
their own party if they continue to block a comprehensive immigration bill, those advisers say Obama is
not ready to hit the road and wage a full-throated partisan fight.
Immigration reform inevitable – centrist GOP
Alter, Bloomberg View columnist,
[Jonathan, 4-12-13, Bloomberg: Surveillance Show, “Bloomberg`s Jonathan Alter Talks Politics on
Bloomberg Radio”, BYLINE: Tom Keene; Mike McKee, Lexis, accessed 7-13-13[
Gonzaga Debate Institute 18
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
KEENE: Well, that's the history of Jonathan Alter. There is a lot of hope and a lot of optimism. And what
I love about it Jonathan is - and you have it in your new Bloomberg View column - something I've
noticed as the amateur is this president is finally going for the center to pull over a select group of
Republicans instead of going head on with the Republican Party.
ALTER: Yes, there were plenty of signs of his trying to do that earlier in his first term. But the last
two years were almost complete gridlock for a lot of different reasons we can talk about.
But elections have consequences and the consequences of this one were that on immigration reform,
for instance, we are going to get it because the Republican Party understands that they got
clobbered among Latinos who are a rapidly expanding part of the population. And they have to do
something about it, or they are going to be in big trouble as a political party so I think you are
going to see movement there.
You saw him calling the bluff of the Republicans and actually moving towards some entitlement reform.
We'll see what that ends up being, whether it is changed CPI or something else. But I think you will see
some kind of progress there.
And then on guns with the agreement between Senators Manchin and Toomey, they have taken a path
forward on background checks. So it could be a surprisingly productive legislative year for President
Obama.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 19
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Gridlock
Not “all gridlock, all the time”
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
To be sure, the legislative gridlock has occasionally eased. In February, Republican leaders allowed
an expansion to the Violence Against Women Act by extending domestic violence protections to gays,
lesbians and transsexuals. And Republicans and Democrats are still trying to strike a deal that would
lower interest rates on student loans.
Gridlock won’t stop Obama – he’s ready to handle obstruction
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
"He has a Herculean task ahead of him," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the past chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, said hours after he and other black lawmakers met with the president
this week. "I am convinced he is fully aware of the difficulties in his path, difficulties that could
reduce his legacy."
Gridlock won’t be easy – but administration is prepared
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
White House aides say they're not surprised by the difficulties Obama faces.
"No one expected that postelection everything would be easy, that all the historic, huge differences
between the parties on the big issues would all go away," said senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
"We're six months into our term," he added. "We've already fulfilled one of our biggest campaign
pledges in preserving tax cuts for the middle class and having the rates of the wealthy go back to
what they were under President Clinton." On immigration, he says that "there are some serious
challenges in the way, but six months in and having a bill through the Senate with a bipartisan
majority is historically rapid progress."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 20
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Food Stamps
Food stamps fight will backfire on GOP
Parker, Washington Post columnist, 7-14-13
[Kathleen, Washington Post, “Principled self-destruction”, p. A19, Lexis, accessed 7-15-13, AFB]
Republicans seem to be adopting the self-immolation tactics of principled martyrs.
Of course, principled or not, you're still dead in the end.
At this stage in the second term of the president they couldn't defeat, Republicans seem more like
stubborn children refusing to come out of their rooms for supper, even though the alternative is
going to bed hungry.
This simile is unavoidable in light of the House's passage of a farm bill without any provision for
food stamps - the first in 40 years. The move prompted fantastic outrage from Democrats, notably
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.), who shrieked: "Mitt Romney was right: You all do not care about the 47
percent. Shame on you!"
Histrionics aside, whether the fact that something has been done a certain way for 40 years is an argument
for repeating the same bears a bit of scrutiny. Republicans argued that they'd prefer to deal with
agricultural issues in one bill without the leverage of a welfare program.
These two programs historically were tied together in the spirit of - watch out now - compromise. And,
though food stamps certainly will be funded, probably at current levels, through some other vehicle,
Republicans managed to create yet another partisan problem where none existed and opened themselves
up for gratuitous criticism.
Was this really the right fight at the right time?
The wrong time would be in the midst of the politically life-altering debate on immigration reform.
Again, congressional Republicans want to parse reform in pieces, excluding the 11 million or so
immigrants here illegally, instead of dealing with reform comprehensively, as the Senate has done - and
as most Americans think necessary.
Republicans do have a point, in theory. Comprehensive bills are cumbersome and difficult to enforce.
Democrats love great big lumbering programs because they (a) often do great good, at least in the short
term; and (b) create great big self-sustaining bureaucracies that are, by nature, self-propagating and attract
large constituencies of voters. This latter is Republicans' chief objection.
But 90 percent of life is picking your battles, and congressional Republicans keep picking the wrong ones.
This is not true of all. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has joined Luis
V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) to push comprehensive immigration reform.
This is also not to say that Democrats have it all right. Both sides are often dishonest and usually selfserving. Democrats are maddeningly disingenuous when they say Republicans are anti- immigrant - and
then lecture us about how this country was built by immigrants.
True, because the entire planet was "built" by immigrants. But why do immigrants want to come
specifically to the United States? Not only for jobs, education and opportunity but also because we are a
nation of laws. Playing by the rules and waiting one's turn are also part of our immigrant legacy.
Likewise, Republicans are not shooting straight when they insist that the Senate bill's path to citizenship
is de facto amnesty. As paths go, it's a 13-year pilgrimage along a precipice lined with bramble bushes taxes, fines and various burning hoops through which one must leap in order to stand in line. Hardly rosepetal strewn.
To the real point, many Republicans fear that allowing 11 million immigrants to become citizens
essentially means 11 million more Democrats. This outcome wasn't preordained, but given the tenor of
recent debate, their fears are probably justified.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 21
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Republican intransigence is further compounded by the echo chamber of the Tinker Bell Coalition - the
Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol and National Review's Rich Lowry, who recently co-authored an editorial
urging Republicans to drive a stake through the heart of immigration reform.
These are the same two who thought Sarah Palin would be the perfect running mate for John McCain.
Kristol was the first to advance her name, and Lowry famously reported seeing starbursts ricocheting
around the living room as he watched Palin wink during her vice presidential debate - and imagined that
she was winking at him.
One lapse in judgment doesn't condemn a man to a lifetime of errancy - and a winking Alaskan beauty is
perhaps a test too far - but fairy dust has a way of contaminating the Republican Way of Thinking.
Before you can govern, you have to win. And before you can win, you have to offer something
people want to buy.
What Republicans are selling appeals to an ever-diminishing market that doesn't even include their
erstwhile allies in business and industry. And their self-immolation may prove to have been nothing
more than a bonfire of vanities.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 22
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Internal Link
Gonzaga Debate Institute 23
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Political Capital Key
Obama will push and political capital is key
Riley, Heritage Foundation Trade Policy senior policy analyst, & Kim, Heritage
Foundation Senior Policy Analyst, 13
[Bryan and Anthony B, Heritage Foundation, “Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of Trade
Promotion Authority Renewal”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-tradefreedom-key-objective-of-trade-promotion-authority-renewal, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Both House Ways and Means Committee chairman David Camp (R–MI) and Senate Finance Committee
chairman Max Baucus (D–MT) have announced plans to pursue TPA legislation. However, many
lawmakers have correctly pointed out that a proactive push from President Obama is critical ,
given that trade bills have been a thorny issue for many Democrats in recent years.
Historically, it has been common practice, although not formally required, to have the President request
that Congress provide renewed TPA. In fact, except for President Obama, every President since Franklin
Roosevelt has either requested or received trade negotiating authority.[1]
After four years of informing Congress it would seek TPA at “the appropriate time,” early this year
the Obama Administration finally indicated its interest in working with Congress to get TPA done.
The President’s 2013 trade agenda offered the Administration’s most forward-leaning language yet,
specifying that “to facilitate the conclusion, approval, and implementation of market-opening negotiating
efforts , we will also work with Congress on T rade P romotion A uthority.”[2]
Obama push key
Inside US Trade, 6-14-13
[Inside U.S. Trade, “Nunes Says Congress Unlikely To Renew GSP Before July Expiration”, Lexis, AFB]
Nunes said the hesitancy of the House to move forward on legislation without an agreement with
the Senate applies to a range of trade bills, including legislation to renew fast-track negotiating
authority and a customs modernization bill. But he stressed that there are also other factors at play when
it comes to moving those bills.
On fast-track, which is also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Nunes put the onus
squarely on the White House to ensure passage of the bill, even as he acknowledged that House and
Senate committees of jurisdiction have begun discussions on renewing TPA.
"I think we're having a productive dialogue [in the committees], but still at the end of the day it's going
to take the White House pushing this over the top," he said, referring to TPA.
[Nunes = House Ways and Means trade subcommittee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA)]
Obama pushing - political capital is key
Abrams, AP, 3-11-13
[Jim, Associated Press, “Congress wants role as Obama pushes trade agenda,” Lexis, accessed 7-13-13]
The Obama administration has embarked on an aggressive trade agenda that could lower barriers
and increase U.S. exports to many of the economic giants of Asia and Europe. To make that a
Gonzaga Debate Institute 24
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
reality, though, it may first have to negotiate future trade policy a little closer to home with
Congress.¶ The administration hopes to complete talks by October on the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which would reduce duties on a wide range of goods and services in the world's most vibrant trading area.
Eleven countries, including Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, Mexico and Canada, are participating,
and Japan has expressed interest in joining.¶ In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama
announced plans for a second deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would link
the United States and the European Union, the world's two largest economies.¶ Departing U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk added to the agenda in January when he notified Congress of plans to start
negotiations for a new trade agreement on international trade in services. The talks will include a group of
20 trading partners representing nearly two-thirds of global trade in services.¶ Obama has set a goal of
doubling exports by the end of next year, after drawing criticism from free-trade advocates during his first
term for moving too slowly on trade issues.¶ "The Obama administration suddenly has this highly
ambitious trade agenda that they've laid out," said John Murphy, vice president for international
affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Now the challenge is going to be executing."¶ First, Obama
must nominate a successor to Kirk, who in January announced plans to step down. Then, he has to work
with lawmakers to restore a procedure called trade promotion authority that is regarded as key to
getting trade treaties finalized and approved by Congress.¶ TPA, also known as "fast track," has a
history going back to the 1930s and was formalized in a 1974 trade law. Under TPA, Congress and the
White House agree on the objectives of trade negotiations, and Congress affirms that it will vote on any
trade treaty without offering amendments that would force the administration to go back to the
negotiating table.¶ The last TPA law expired in 2007, and up to now, the Obama White House hasn't
pushed for its renewal. Without TPA on the books, trade partners are reluctant to sign off on deals that
could later be amended.¶ That could be fatal to some complex trade deals, such as the future talks with the
EU where success hinges on reaching delicate compromises on such issues as European agriculture
subsidies and Europe's restrictions on genetically engineered crops.¶ A strong trade agenda, said Sen.
Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, requires close cooperation
and consultation with Congress, and "trade promotion authority is the linchpin that brings these
elements together."¶ Members of Obama's Democratic Party tend to oppose TPA, arguing that
trade pacts negotiated by past administrations have resulted in job losses in America and given
short shrift to environmental and labor and human rights issues. The last TPA law was passed in
2002 by the slimmest of margins, with House votes of 215-214 and 215-212.¶ More than 300 labor and
environmental groups, in a letter last week opposing the Trans-Pacific talks, said no TPA legislation
should be considered without a thorough assessment of how a trade deal will affect job creation,
environmental and labor rights, food sovereignty, access to medicine and other issues.¶ The
administration is coming off a good two years on trade. In 2011, it succeeded in getting Congress to
approve three bilateral free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama and extend a law
that helps workers hurt by foreign competition. Last December, Congress sent the president legislation
that removed Cold War restrictions standing in the way of permanent normal trade relations with Russia.¶
The three free trade bills, negotiated by the George W. Bush administration and reworked after Obama
took office, were all covered by the TPA law in effect before 2007.¶ The administration, in its trade
policy agenda report released last week, pledged to work with Congress on TPA "to facilitate the
conclusion, approval and implementation of market-opening negotiating efforts."
Obama’s push is necessary
Palmer, Reuters, 13
(Doug, 3-1-13, Chicago Tribune, “White House says it will seek "fast-track" trade authority,”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-01/news/sns-rt-us-obama-tradebre9200pk-20130301_1_transpacific-partnership-trade-promotion-authority-trade-talks, accessed 6-17-13)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 25
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said on Friday he
was pleased the White House was "finally" asking for renewal of the legislation.¶ But "making TPA a
reality requires more than talk, it demands real leadership and action from the president," Hatch
said, calling the legislation an essential "lynchpin" for Obama's trade agenda.¶ Senator Rob
Portman, an Ohio Republican and former U.S. trade representative under President George W.
Bush, welcomed the statement but said it was critical the administration "focus needed resources to
developing and passing TPA."¶ The U.S. business community has made passage of TPA one of its
top priorities this year.¶ "We think it's a critical tool to effectively negotiate agreements and get
them passed by Congress," said John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable and a former
Michigan Republican governor.¶ Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said his group welcomed the administration's acknowledgement that
"TPA needs to be on the agenda" as it pursues an expanding list of trade initiatives.
Obama political capital is necessary
Hadar, Business Times Singapore Washington Bureau Chief, 13
(Leon, former research fellow with the Cato Institute, 2-19-13, Business Times Singapore, “Obama must
show free trade is high on his plans; His rhetorical skills will come in handy to market an energetic trade
agenda to Americans,” lexis, accessed 6-14-13)
“Obama must show free trade is high on his plans; His rhetorical skills will come in handy to
market an energetic trade agenda to Americans”
PRESIDENT Barack Obama delivered a rousing and detailed State Of the Union Address before
Congress last week. In the speech, he urged the lawmakers and the American people to unite behind
his proposed policy agenda that aims at accelerating the economic recovery and creating new jobs
through the revitalisation of the nation's middle class.¶ Among other things, he called on Congress to raise
government assistance to pre-school programmes and R&D projects, to finance repairing the country's
crumbling infrastructure and to increase the minimum wage.¶ And while Mr Obama reiterated his
commitment to lower the federal deficit and put America's fiscal house in order, it is doubtful that the
Republicans who control the House of Representatives will support his proposal to close tax loopholes for
corporations and wealthy Americans which would take the form of new tax increases. The political
deadlock between the White House and the Republicans over budgetary priorities will continue to
dominate legislation and policymaking for much of the president's second term.¶ In fact, it is unlikely
that Mr Obama would even be able to win support from Republicans on Capitol Hill for his plans to
reform the current immigration system and to place modest restrictions on gun ownership, and certainly
not for his business-friendly ideas in dealing with the issue of climate change.¶ But there is one policy
arena that could help produce bipartisanship consensus and help Mr Obama and even make
history in the next for years: International trade.¶ Indeed, during his address last week, Mr Obama
insisted that promoting free trade would be the central component of his plans to create new jobs
and grow the economy, which was one of the few times in which he won applause from both
Democrats and Republicans in the chamber.¶ More specifically, Mr Obama promised not only to
conclude a free trade accord with the economies in the trans-Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), but also to launch new negotiations over a similar accord with the economies of the European
Union (EU), the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).¶ Mr Obama's record
on free trade during his first term was mediocre at best, concluding and winning Congressional support
for trade accords with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that had been signed by his Republican
predecessor, and continuing negotiations over the TPP.¶ In a way, notwithstanding his declared
commitment to multilateral strategy, Mr Obama has relegated global trade liberalisation to the
bottom of his policy agenda in the past four years, when other economies were much more active in
advancing new trade initiatives.¶ In part, the White House may have been reluctant to embrace
Gonzaga Debate Institute 26
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
globalisation at a time of slow economic growth and high unemployment, especially in key electoral
states such as Ohio and Michigan. And Mr Obama was not interested in picking-up fights with key
Democratic Party constituencies such as the trade unions and environmental groups.¶ Now that the
presidential election is behind him and he is not worried about running again for office, but wants to
ensure his historical legacy, the time has come for Mr Obama to demonstrate whether he is a genuine
free-trader who recognises that liberalising trade and investment are an integral part of his
broader agenda of advancing global peace and prosperity in multilateral settings.¶ He should start
by asking that Congress renew the White House's Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), This would allow
him to start negotiating new trade agreements without Congress and interest groups that
manipulate it looking over his shoulder all the time, and well as by selecting a new US Trade
Representative (USTR) and get him confirmed by Congress.¶ He should also try to use his rhetorical
skills as part of an effort to market an energetic trade agenda to the American public which has
been exhibiting protectionist sentiments in recent years.¶ Helping to facilitate the trade and investment
ties between the United States and the EU is a good idea. But trade in goods and services between the two
economies already approaches US$1 trillion, while bilateral investment between the sides is about US$4
trillion. Tariffs on imports on both sides are quite low, and negotiating to lower them further will
probably take several years. In any case, the trans-Atlantic strategic and economic ties will remain very
strong with or without a TIIP.¶ Hence it makes more sense for the Obama administration to invest
most of its time and energy in the coming months in trying to conclude the TPP and sign it ASAP
after the White House's TPA is extended by Congress.¶ With the 16th round of the TPP negotiations
starting next month in Singapore, the White House and its new USTR need to draw the outlines of a
strategy of winning support for a TPP in Congress, where several leading Democratic lawmakers have
reservations about some of its provisions, especially those relating to the protection of Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR).¶ Getting the TPP signed and approved by Congress should be seen as critical to
promoting US economic and strategic interests at a time when Washington is promoting its "pivot" to
East Asia, strengthening its ties with the Asean and other partners in the region, and managing its
complex relationship with Beijing.¶ Moreover, the TPP as part of an activist US global trade agenda is, in
a way, a "no-brainer" when its comes to strengthening American economic interests, a win-win strategy
that enjoys the support of a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, a
very rare event in Washington these days.
TPA requires political capital
Levy, Foreign Policy, 12
(Philip, 1-17-12, “A tricked-out trade bureaucracy,”
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/17/a_tricked_out_trade_bureaucracy, accessed 6-13-13)
2. Is this trade process politics in lieu of actual trade progress?¶ This is not the first trade process
reform advocated by the administration. In August 2009, President Obama launched a review to
reform the U.S. export control system. Over two years later, progress has been minimal. It is the
same sort of issue that requires Congressional action and threatens committee jurisdictions.¶ To
avoid lengthy delays with his latest reform, the president is seeking a version of "fast track"
authority from Congress to conduct the reorganization. This request comes just months after refusing
to seek new "fast track" authority to pursue actual trade liberalization. When Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to attach such authority (Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA)
to the September trade package, opponents argued that the issue was too complicated and needed a
more thorough rethink. Yet, years after TPA lapsed, no rethink or request has been forthcoming
from the White House. TPA not only paves the way for a trade agreement to move through Congress, it
also provides crucial signals in the negotiating stage about whether any given White House trade stance
will have Congressional backing.¶ This choice of agency reorganization over trade negotiating authority
Gonzaga Debate Institute 27
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
may sound hopelessly arcane to any but the most devoted Beltway trade devotee. There are some serious
foreign policy implications, however.¶ If history is any guide, the president will devote limited political
capital to pushing trade matters through Congress in the foreseeable future (he devoted none over
his first two years). He has just declared that his priority will be a contentious organization chart
reshuffle. If this is in lieu of TPA, then the president will have no hope of getting trade agreements
through Congress in the near future. If that's the case, his vaunted Trans-Pacific Partnership will
be little more than endless talk. And, if that's the case, his trumpeted pivot to Asia will have lost its
economic pillar.¶ The president just asked for the wrong fast track. He must hope independent voters don't
notice.
Capital is key – Clinton proves
Williams, Washington Times, 11
(Armstrong, 10-3-11, Washington Times, “Righteous Indignation: Obama would do well to emulate
Clinton,” lexis, accessed 6-6-13)
Trade policy¶ I lead with this because it's easily the quickest thing President Obama could accomplish to
help set the economy on the right footing again. Mr. Clinton bucked the powerful labor unions and
even some of the most liberal wings in his party to push through Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
during his tenure. For the first time, the administration had the power to negotiate trade deals and
send them to the Congress for an up-or-down vote. TPA was a signature legislative jewel in the
crown of the Clinton presidency, and it took none other than Mr. Clinton himself to put his own
political capital on the line to marshal it through the Congress.¶ Mr. Clinton was a master of
acknowledging the concerns of labor rights yet channeling them into meaningful legislation. It was
not enough to just fight and lose the battles. Mr. Clinton needed to win. And when it came to trade,
and the United States' continued dominance on the world commercial scene, he was one of the best trade
envoys for the nation.¶ Mr. Obama would do well to emulate Mr. Clinton's behavior in this regard,
especially since many in Congress have teed up three free-trade agreements (South Korea, Panama
and Colombia) for him to carry over the finish line.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 28
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Political Capital Key to Win Democrats
Political capital key to win Democrats
Palmer, Reuters, 13
(Doug, 3-1-13, Chicago Tribune, “White House says it will seek "fast-track" trade authority,”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-01/news/sns-rt-us-obama-tradebre9200pk-20130301_1_transpacific-partnership-trade-promotion-authority-trade-talks, accessed 6-17-13)
Both Camp and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, have
announced plans to pursue TPA legislation. But many lawmakers believe a strong push from
Obama is needed because trade bills are unpopular with many Democrats.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 29
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Political Capital Key to Agenda
Presidential strength key to agenda
Horowitz, Washington Post, 6-13-13
[Jason, Washingtonpost.com, “The man guarding Obama's legacy”, Lexis, p. C2, accessed 7-13-13]
Pfeiffer said his communications experience has made him more mindful above all of projecting the
president's strength. The 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations, he said, showed him the importance of
Obama not being perceived as weak or taking the base for granted.
"The greatest danger zone a president can be in is when he is being attacked on the left and the
right," Pfeiffer said, recalling the negative reaction to the debt deal. "When they are reading off the
same talking points, that's when presidencies fall apart."
[Note – Dan Pfeiffer = Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President
for Strategy and Communications]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 30
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Trade Promotion Authority Impacts
Gonzaga Debate Institute 31
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key – Laundry List
TPA key to exports, global model for agreements, and trade leadership
Senators Portman & Cantwell, 6-13-13
[Rob, R-Ohio, Maria, D-Washington, Roll Call, “A Bipartisan Opportunity for Jobs”,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/a_bipartisan_opportunity_for_jobs_commentary-225603-1.html, accessed
7-13-13, AFB]
This expedited authority, which expired in 2007, would allow the president to negotiate and submit
export agreements to Congress for a clean up-or-down vote without amendments. TPA also would
outline principles and framework for trade negotiations, while ensuring continued congressional
consultation. TPA principles have guided U.S. bilateral negotiations with countless countries from
Chile to Australia, helping us knock down barriers to exports.
Although all of our trade agreement partners combined only make up about 10 percent of global
gross domestic product, America sends more than 45 percent of our exports to them.
Exports are vital to our economy, supporting nearly 10 million American jobs. More than 1 in 3
jobs in Washington state is dependent on international trade. And in Ohio, more than one-quarter
of manufacturing jobs are dependent on exports. Exports support American-made products and jobs,
from soybean farmers and auto manufacturers in the Midwest to cherry growers and airplane
manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest.
But we need to ensure that these jobs continue to grow under a 21st-century trade-negotiating framework.
By creating a comprehensive, high-standard model for trade, we can establish new trade disciplines
and structure agreements that include enforceable provisions on issues important to our domestic
workforce and businesses
Passing TPA is crucial to asserting America’s leadership in the global economy. With competitors
such as China creating alliances around the world daily, we must proactively engage our trading
partners to improve access for American goods and to knock down unfair barriers. Equally
important, these agreements allow us to hold our competitors’ feet to the fire when they don’t play
by the rules.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 32
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Trade
TPA’s key to growth and trade, and completing trade agreements
US Chamber of Commerce 13
[2013, “Why Does America Need Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)?”,
http://www.uschamber.com/international/why-does-america-need-trade-promotion-authority-tpa,
accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
Why Does America Need Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)?
Reason 1: Trade Supports Growth and Jobs
 Outside our borders are markets that represent 80% of the world’s purchasing power, 92% of its
economic growth, and 95% of its consumers.
 Trade already supports 38 million American jobs
 One in three manufacturing jobs depends on exports, and one in three acres on American
farms is planted for export.
 U.S. services exports top $600 billion, leading the world rankings.
Reason 2: Trade is Vital to Small Business
 More than 97% of the 300,000 U.S. companies that export their products are small and
medium-sized companies.
 Small firms account for more than one-third of all U.S. merchandise exports.
Reason 3: Trade Agreements Level the Playing Field
 Many countries slap tariffs on U.S. exports that are ten or twenty times as high as our own,
and a web of non-tariff barriers overseas often shut out U.S. goods and services.
 Trade agreements can tear down those barriers. That’s why U.S. exports to new free-trade
agreement (FTA) partners have grown on average four times as rapidly in the period
following an agreement’s entry-into-force as U.S. exports globally.
 The expansion in trade spurred by FTAs sustains more than five million American jobs.
 While they represent just 10% of global GDP, America’s 20 FTA partners buy nearly half of
U.S. exports.
 The U.S. has a trade surplus with its 20 FTA partners in manufactures, services, and
agricultural products.
Reason 4: We Can Do More to Seize the Benefits of Trade
 To extend these benefits, the U.S. has embarked on a bold new trade agenda that includes
negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with 11 other Asia-Pacific nations;
 The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with the European Union; and
 The Trade in Services Agreement, with nearly 50 other countries.
Reason 5: To Do Any of the Above, America Needs TPA
 But to finalize any of these agreements, Congress must approve Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA).
 The Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate international trade, but it gives the
President authority to negotiate with foreign governments.
 TPA builds on this constitutional partnership by requiring the executive branch to consult
extensively with Congress during negotiations while assuring U.S. trading partners that
agreements will receive an up-or-down vote.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 33
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Jobs
TPA renewal increases imports – critical to jobs and the manufacturing industry
Riley, Heritage Foundation Trade Policy senior policy analyst, & Kim, Heritage
Foundation Senior Policy Analyst, 13
[Bryan and Anthony B, Heritage Foundation, 4/16/13, “Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of
Trade Promotion Authority Renewal”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-tradefreedom-key-objective-of-trade-promotion-authority-renewal, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
The TPA renewal debate in Congress should reflect the fact that both exports and imports are jobsupporting activities. In other words, the debate should focus on how to deliver greater trade
freedom to Americans that advances the benefits of trade in both directions.
It is a common misperception that importing goods to America comes at the cost of American jobs.
In fact, imports contribute to job creation on a large scale. The increased economic activity associated
with every stage of the import process helps support millions of jobs in the U.S. As shown by a recent
Heritage Foundation study, for instance, over half a million American jobs—in fields such as
transportation, wholesale, retail, construction, and finance—are supported by imports of clothes and
toys from China alone.[4]
Highlighting the dynamic and value-adding role played by imports in the U.S. economy, an empirical
analysis published in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review presents strong evidence that
“policies to bolster exports at the expense of imports would significantly harm U.S. manufacturing,”
adding that “imports have played a critical positive role in boosting manufacturing output in the
United States—much more so, in fact, than exports.”[5] Indeed, intermediate goods imports and
capital goods imports are the lifeblood of U.S. manufacturing. Without them, manufacturing
output is impossible.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 34
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Trade Leadership
TPA is crucial to US trade leadership, competitiveness, job growth and more
exports
Murphy, International Affairs at the Chamber of Commerce vice president, 6/14/13
[John, Free Enterprise, “Solve the Trade Puzzle with Trade Promotion Authority”,
http://www.freeenterprise.com/international/solve-trade-puzzle-trade-promotion-authority, accessed:
7/7/13, ML]
Trade Promotion Authority offers us exactly this opportunity: a bipartisan economic initiative that
will support American job creation and keep our nation competitive in the global economy while
not costing taxpayers any money.
We were pleased to hear the president’s recent nominee to the post of U.S. trade representative, Mike
Froman, embrace TPA, a power requested by every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his Finance
Committee confirmation hearing. It seems that the president — who included a request for TPA in his
2013 trade agenda — is serious about pursuing new trade agreements. That’s good news for our economy.
Passing TPA is crucial to asserting America’s leadership in the global economy. With competitors
such as China creating alliances around the world daily, we must proactively engage our trading
partners to improve access for American goods and to knock down unfair barriers.
One of the agreements the United States is negotiating is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United
States and Japan recently announced an agreement for Japan’s entry into Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations. Japan’s inclusion would open the world’s third-largest market for American-made
goods and force Japan to address unfair barriers that hurt American auto exports. With Japan
included, trade among the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries would equal about one-third of all
global trade, accounting for nearly 40 percent of global GDP.
At the same time, the U.S. is negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,
which would expand access to the European Union.
Europe is currently America’s largest export market, purchasing $459 billion in American-made goods
that support 2.4 million jobs in the United States. We believe this agreement, if properly constructed,
could be a catalyst for greater economic growth on both continents.
Through TPA, Congress can ensure that future trade agreements reflect the best interests of Americans. In
short, Trade Promotion Authority is a symbol of the partnership that exists between the executive and
legislative branches of government in developing and facilitating global exports to support
American jobs.
Now is the time for Congress to push forward and lead, giving American exporters — and American
jobs — the edge in the global economy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 35
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Trade Agreement Negotiation
TPA is key to effective trade agreement negotiations
Soltas, Bloomberg Ticker blog, 13
[Evan, 6/12/13, Bloomberg, “A Fairer Way to Fast-Track Trade Deals”,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/a-fairer-way-to-fast-track-trade-deals.html, accessed:
7/7/13, ML]
The Obama administration wants a renewal of its congressionally granted authority to get fast-track
legislative treatment of trade agreements. Michael Froman, the president’s nominee for U.S. trade
representative, said in confirmation testimony that he'll be back to ask for it soon.
That power, known officially as trade-promotion authority, began in 1974 when the U.S. joined the
Tokyo Round of multilateral trade talks -- but it expired in 2007. It allowed the executive branch to
negotiate trade deals and prevented Congress from filibustering or amending them, requiring an up-ordown vote after no more than 20 hours of debate.
The U.S. is now working on two trade deals of historic size -- one with the European Union, another
with an assortment of Pacific-Rim nations. The Obama administration says it needs the authority to
strike good bargains.
Is that right? The case for trade-promotion authority should be considered separately from the case for
liberal trade. Free traders and trade skeptics alike are apt to bundle the two issues together. Whatever you
views on liberal trade, the case for fast-track deserves consideration on its merits.
The best argument is that breakthrough deals -- ones with sensitive concessions on both sides -become all but impossible without it. Imagine you’re a negotiator from a foreign country. You
might be prepared to yield on some issues, such as a tariff that enjoys wide popular support at
home, but only if you get something significant in return. What you won’t do is make concessions
and then let the other guy back out of his side of the bargain. That's the risk when Congress is
allowed to amend negotiated agreements.
TPA is key to new trade agreements – increases jobs and exports
Senate Finance Committee press release, 13
[Sean Neary and Meaghan Smith, 6/6/13, The US Senate Committee on Finance, “Baucus Secures
Administration's Commitment to Renewing Trade Promotion Authority”,
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=0021bd8e-4ecd-438d-a9eb23fe596320a5, ACCESSED: 7/7/13, ml]
WASHINGTON – At a Senate Finance Committee hearing today on Mike Froman’s nomination to be
U.S. trade representative (USTR), Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) urged him to aggressively pursue
an ambitious trade agenda that will boost U.S. exports and create U.S. jobs. Senator Baucus noted that
Froman has key experience in recent negotiations and at forums of G8 and G20 members that make him
the right choice for USTR. Froman also said the President is formally requesting trade promotion
authority and pledged to Senator Baucus to work with him and the committee on the legislation.
“With Trans-Pacific Partnership talks nearing completion and trade negotiations with the EU
getting off the ground, USTR must have nimble, effective leadership. These trade deals will make a
real difference here at home, boosting our exports and creating jobs. And we need to renew trade
promotion authority and critical worker training and assistance to help move the ball forward on these
trade agreements. I’ve been working to renew fast-track authority for a long time, and I’m pleased that the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 36
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
President is putting the rubber to the road and formally requesting TPA,” Senator Baucus said. “Mike
Froman is the right person for this job. I am confident that with him at the helm, USTR will meet the
ambitious trade goals the President has set.”
Senator Baucus said the U.S. needs a strong trade representative as Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
negotiations continue and free trade agreement talks with the E.U. ramp up. The two trade deals offer the
U.S. landmark opportunities to boost exports.
The TPP countries – which represent many of the fastest-growing economies in the world – accounted
for 40 percent of total U.S. goods exports last year. And the EU purchased close to $460 billion in
U.S. goods and services last year, supporting 2.4 million American jobs.
TPA is key assuring other countries in negotiations
Palmer, Reuters, 3-1-13
(Doug, “White House says it will seek "fast-track" trade authority,”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-01/news/sns-rt-us-obama-tradebre9200pk-20130301_1_transpacific-partnership-trade-promotion-authority-trade-talks, accessed 3-6-13)
Trade promotion authority, also known as TPA or "fast track," allows the White House to submit
deals to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments.¶ It is considered essential
to assuring other countries that any deal they reach with the United States will not be picked apart
by U.S. lawmakers during the approval process.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 37
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Trade Agreement Passage
TPA is key getting Congressional support for trade deals
Needham, The Hill, 13
(Vicki, 2-24-13, The Hill, “Support builds for renewing Obama’s trade-agreement fast-track authority,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/284463-support-builds-for-renewing-fast-trackauthority, accessed 6-14-13)
Engler said the authority is imperative in showing potential trading partners that the United States
is serious about not only forging new agreements but moving them quickly through Congress.¶
Whilte the authority isn't technically needed to begin or end trade talks, it does give Congress a way
of framing the debate and influencing the agenda in conjunction with the White House while,
usually, signaling support for a particular agreement.¶
[Note – Engler = John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable (BRT)]
TPA is key to quick negotiations
Palacio, Business Day, 13
(Ana, 3-6-13, Business Day, “Winning the transatlantic trade challenge,”
http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/analysis/commentary/52571-winning-the-transatlantictrade-challenge, accessed 6-21-13)
Moreover, a bipartisan approach might ease authorization for so-called T rade P romotion
A uthority, allowing the president to present an agreement for an up-or-down vote without
possibility of amendment – which will be essential for the completion of negotiations. We have
already seen qualified US congressional support from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max
Baucus and ranking Republican Orrin Hatch who, while calling the potential agreement “an enticing
opportunity,” specifically noted the need to address “unwarranted agricultural barriers” in the EU,
including policies on GM organisms and hormones.
That creates support for passage
Palacio, Business Day, 13
(Ana, 3-6-13, Business Day, “Winning the transatlantic trade challenge,”
http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/analysis/commentary/52571-winning-the-transatlantictrade-challenge, accessed 6-21-13)
A working summit would demonstrate a willingness at the highest echelons to resolve in principle
the major obstacles standing in the way of an agreement. If successful, such a meeting would lay a
foundation of genuine political support for efficient and effective technical negotiations. An
agreement that rejuvenates the transatlantic relationship will require nothing less.
TPA is key to passage
Politi and McGregor, Financial Times, 13
Gonzaga Debate Institute 38
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
(James and Richard, 2-13-13, Financial Times, “Obama injects fresh trade optimism,”
http://www.zawya.com/story/Obama_injects_fresh_trade_optimism-20130213_3896_15432/, accessed 614-13)
The Obama administration's pursuit of a trade deal with the EU received key endorsements in
Congress on Tuesday. Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, respectively the Democratic chairman and the
top Republican on the Senate finance committee, which oversees trade, issued a joint statement that
was largely upbeat, saying such a deal would have "a multiplier effect and would be certain to generate
much needed economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic".¶ But Mr Baucus and Mr Hatch also warned
that trade barriers between the US and the EU were "long standing and difficult to overcome" as they laid
out their priorities for any deal - including access for US beef and pork exports, strong intellectual
property protections, regulatory compliance, a dispute settlement mechanism and more access for US
services providers.¶ The pair also said they would seek to renew Trade Promotion Authority, which
expired in 2007 and is critical to the passage of trade deals through Congress because it allows the
agreements to advance under "fast track" rules with no amendments.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 39
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Key to Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
TPA is key to effective TPP negotiations
Fergusson, Congressional Research Service International Trade and Finance
Specialist, et al. 6/17/13
[Ian F, William H. Cooper - Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Remy Jurenas - Specialist in
Agricultural Policy, Brock R. Williams - Analyst in International Trade and Finance, Congressional
Budget Office, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress”,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42694.pdf, p. 53, accessed: 7/7/13, ML]
Any trade agreement that the United States reaches with TPP partners would have to be approved¶ by
Congress through the passage of implementing legislation, presumably under TPA procedures.¶ (see
text box on TPA). The latest TPA expired on July 1, 2007, although the Obama¶ Administration has
proceeded to negotiate the prop¶ osed TPP as if TPA were in effect. It has¶ consulted with Congress and
followed TPA’s procedural steps. For example, U.S. Trade¶ Representative Ron Kirk formally notified
Congress of the Administration’s intention to enter¶ into negotiations with the TPP countries on December
14, 2009, 90 days prior to beginning the¶ negotiations, as stipulated under the expired TPA. Nevertheless,
some observers, including¶ Members of Congress, have asserted that TPP partners will not engage in
serious negotiations on¶ sensitive issues without the assurance that U.S. commitments are credible
and cannot be amended¶ by Congress, although negotiators have not experienced this problem to date.¶
148
In addition, even though the Administration has¶ been consulting Members and congressional¶ staff,
Congress, as a whole, formally has yet to weigh in on the form of negotiating objectives¶ embedded in
TPA authorizing statutes. In the past, these objectives have included reducing¶ barriers to various types
of trade (e.g., goods, services, agriculture, electronic commerce); protecting foreign investment and
intellectual property rights; encouraging transparency, fair¶ regulatory practices, and anticorruption; ensuring that countries protect environment and worker¶ rights; providing for an effective
dispute settlement process; and protecting the U.S. right to¶ enforce its trade remedy laws. However, over
the years, Congress has revised and expanded the¶ negotiating objectives as policy issues have evolved
and the global trading system has become¶ more complex. In any renewal of TPP, Congress may wish to
establish new negotiating objectives¶ to reflect 21¶ st¶ Century trade policy including issues cu¶ rrently
under negotiation such as state-¶ owned enterprises, regulatory coherence, digital technology, and trade in
green technologies,¶ among other areas. At the same time, the objectives would likely have to be flexible
enough to¶ allow the Administration to negotiate a “living agreement” that can change and be kept current¶
with an evolving international trading system. It is unclear at this time if and when the¶ Administration
and Congress will take up the issue of TPA renewal.
TPA is key to negotiating TPP
Palmer, Reuters, 3-1-13
(Doug, “White House says it will seek "fast-track" trade authority,”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-01/news/sns-rt-us-obama-tradebre9200pk-20130301_1_transpacific-partnership-trade-promotion-authority-trade-talks, accessed 7-13-13)
ASIA-PACIFIC TRADE PUSH¶ The Obama administration, even without the authority, has pursued
the proposed Trans-Pacific accord between the United States and 10 other countries in the AsiaPacific region.¶ But negotiators hope to finish those talks this year, possibly as early as the annual
meeting of leaders from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations in October in Bali.¶ That could be
Gonzaga Debate Institute 40
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
hard if the White House does not have TPA.¶ "Whether you're talking about the Trans-Pacific
Partnership or a U.S.-EU FTA, they're both going to be complicated and having them subject to
amendment will make it tough to get them through the Senate," said Timothy Punke, a former
Senate aide who is now a partner at Monument Policy Group.¶ Congress last approved TPA
legislation in 2002, following a bitter fight. Republicans, who generally favor free trade, passed the bill
over the objections of Democrats, many of whom blame past trade agreements for U.S. job losses.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 41
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
TPP Impact – Asia Pivot
TPP key to Asia pivot
Tandon, Agence France Presse, 6-11-13
[Shaun, Agence France Presse, “Obama base voices concern on Pacific trade pact”,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWDxKm5d-iUWExTZXTwuBVHYBCA?docId=CNG.b972a6177ab8474e09319ee67e5fb6c0.111
The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico,
New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam, with Japan virtually certain to join
negotiations this year.
Obama has billed the pact -- which would cover 40 percent of the world economy -- as a "21st-century"
type of trade deal that would ensure labor and environmental standards while creating US jobs by opening
up markets within the dynamic Asia-Pacific region.
Obama discussed negotiations during a White House meeting Tuesday with Peruvian President Ollanta
Humala, after similar talks last week with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera.
"For both the United States and Peru, growth is also dependent on our continued expansion in the global
marketplace," Obama said.
The trade agreement has become part of Obama's so-called "pivot" strategy of boosting the US
presence in Asia, in part by establishing rules and standards in a region marked by the rise of
China -- which is not in the negotiations.
TPA is key to the Asia Pivot
Green, Center for Strategic and International Studies Japan chair & Georgetown
international relations professor, 12
(Michael, 10-3-12, “Is the Asia pivot coming apart on trade?,”
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/03/is_the_asia_pivot_coming_apart_on_trade, accessed
5-6-13)
There has been a lot of commentary on the Obama administration's "pivot" (or "rebalance") to Asia
here at Shadow Government. Most commentators have praised Secretary Clinton's activism towards
Southeast Asia, but pointed out that the rhetoric of the pivot will look hollow without a real trade
strategy and adequate resourcing for our forward military forces. This past month it looks like the
wheels may have started coming off on the trade strategy axle.¶ In early September regional leaders
met at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders meeting in Vladivostok, sans Barack
Obama who was unwilling to skip town in election season, and courtesy of Vladmir Putin who was
unwilling to schedule the meeting at a time the U.S. President could attend. President Obama's absence
was not the end of the world: Bill Clinton skipped two APEC summits and managed to compensate the
next year (for the record, George W. Bush missed none...but that was before we were "back in Asia" as
the current White House likes to say). The real problem at Vladivostok was the hallway banter by the
other delegates about TPP -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- that forms the core of the
administration's strategy for building a regional economic architecture that includes us and strives
for WTO-consistent trade liberalization and rule-making. The overall critique in Vladivostok was
that the U.S. side is playing small ball on TPP, to the frustration of multiple stakeholders. The U.S.
business community is worried at the lack of market access in the negotiations; the Australians and
Singaporeans are hedging with Asian-only negotiations because of what they see as incrementalism
by USTR; and Japanese officials are dismayed by administration signals discouraging Tokyo from
Gonzaga Debate Institute 42
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
expressing readiness to join TPP.¶ This all matters because of the other summitry gossip that is
coming out of Asia. On November 18-20, the Cambodians will be hosting the East Asia Summit,
which President Obama joined with great fanfare last year and which the president will be able to
attend this year because it is after the U.S. elections. The main deliverable on economics at that
summit will be a decision within the region to proceed with the RCEP -- an Asian "Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership" that includes the ten ASEAN states, Japan, China, Korea,
India, Australia and New Zealand -- and does not include the United States. The Cambodians' current
plan for the November summit is to hold an RCEP inaugural meeting while President Obama waits
outside the room cooling his heels with Vladmir Putin (since Russia is also not included in the regional
trade deal). Stunningly, our allies Japan, Australia ,and Korea all appear to be on board with this
scenario.¶ At one level this resembles the silliness of a junior high school prom, but at another level it
could be the moment people start writing the obituary for the "pivot." To prevent that, a returning
Obama administration or a new Romney administration has to put more oomph into the current
anemic U.S. trade strategy. The RCEP launch will be embarrassing, but since those talks have no
prospect of hitting a WTO-compliant level of trade liberalization, the United States can retake
center stage again by showing that it can form an even more impressive coalition of trade
liberalizing states. This means getting Japan in to TPP; leveraging Canada and Mexico in the TPP
process (which will also help us counter Brazilian efforts to separate South America from us); and
beginning to move on a complementary trans-Atlantic FTA process. The "pivot" was never sustainable
without like-minded allies in our hemisphere and Europe and now is the time to recognize that and
develop a strategy accordingly.¶ The next administration will also have to demonstrate credibility by
moving to secure trade promotion authority (TPA) from the Congress (just can't get around Article
One Section Eight of the Constitution). Finally, the administration had better start thinking about new
ways to engage on economic issues within the EAS that keep us in the regional dialogue without
requiring a high-standard FTA with countries like Laos or Burma. Bob Zoellick was a master of that art at
USTR when he pioneered the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative -- a flexible framework that allowed a la
carte participation by countries ranging from an FTA (Singapore) to establishing very basic economic
dialogues (Cambodia).¶ In short, for trade to continue underpinning U.S. leadership in Asia, we will
have to go global, be agile within the region, and give a shot of adrenaline to USTR. Otherwise, the
"pivot" will be a minor footnote in the textbooks.
TPP is key to US hegemony in Asia
Gordon, University of New Hampshire Political Science Professor Emeritus, 12
(Bernard, July/Aug, Foreign Affairs, “Trading Up in Asia: Why the United States Needs the TransPacific Partnership,” http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ha/default.aspx, accessed 9-17-12)
If the tpp negotiations bear fruit, the United States will become far stronger, economically and
politically, over the next generation. A deal that included Japan would essentially result in a freetrade
agreement between Washington and Tokyo, representing the long-sought "third opening" of Japan
and the affirmation of U.S. power in the Pacific region. More broadly, the United States hopes that the
tpp will cement a system of open, interconnected trade based on mutually-agreed-on rules.
TPP is key to the Asia Pivot
Stratfor, 11-2-11
(“APEC, EAS Meetings a Test of the U.S. Re-Engagement in Asia,”
http://www.stratfor.com/print/204156, accessed 11-4-11)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 43
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation APEC was established in 1989 in Canberra, Australia,
with the purpose of bringing together several dynamic economies from across the Pacific Rim.
Gradually, the group grew to include 21 member states, including the United States, and became
the region’s premier economic organization. APEC’s member countries are vital to U.S. trade
interests — together, they represent 60 percent of U.S. goods exports — as well as to the global
economy, and Washington has thus used the bloc to exercise greater economic influence in
the region. However, the rise of a number of other regional economic blocs in the past decade
that were largely led independently by Asian countries — or dominated by China — have
caused APEC to wane in significance, and the United States thus has been looking for other
avenues to shape Asian trade policy. To this end, the United States announced in 2008 that it
would enter negotiations in a multilateral free trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific
Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP). The original TPP went into effect in 2006 and included
just Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. Soon after the 2008 U.S. announcement, Australia,
Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam all joined talks. Countries such as Canada, Japan, the Philippines,
South Korea and Taiwan have since also shown interest. The United States’ engagement has
significantly accelerated the negotiations, and Washington is in the process of finalizing
bilateral free trade agreements with participant countries. The Obama administration hopes to
announce a framework for the TPP at this year’s APEC forum, though this may be delayed.
Despite domestic deadlock over the issue in Vietnam and Japan, Washington hopes the agreement
will improve trans-Pacific trade relations, lay the foundation for a U.S-led free trade agenda,
and improve Asian perceptions of the U.S. commitment to the region. Conspicuously absent
from TPP discussions is China. Beijing expressed an interest in joining the partnership, given the
involvement of so many important trade partners. However, a U.S.-led trade agenda would mean
China would only be able to participate by opening its economy in ways shaped by the United
States. China’s exclusion is receiving some resistance from smaller players in the negotiations, who
are concerned that such a move would undermine their economic relations with Beijing. China may
become involved in the TPP in the long term, but absent an ability to shape the institution’s agenda,
Beijing perceives it as counter to its economic interest.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 44
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Asian Heg Good – Proliferation
US Asian primacy is key to prevent allied rearm – impact is Armageddon
Blumenthal et al, current commissioner and former vice chairman of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission, 9-6-11
(Dan, member of the Project 2049 Institute’s Board of Advisors, was senior director for China, Taiwan,
and Mongolia in the Secretary of Defense's Office of International Security Affairs; Mark Stokes is
executive director of the Project 2049 Institute; Michael Mazza is a senior research associate in foreign
and defense policy studies at AEI; Foreign Policy, “Avoiding Armageddon with China,”
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/06/avoiding_armageddon_with_china, accessed 9-7-11)
The paper argues that it is time for the United States to offer more serious assistance so that
matters do not get out of hand. A strong U.S. presence and commitment to the region's
security can help avoid a regional nuclear arms race, for example. The United States can be a
force multiplier by providing the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that only
Washington possesses, and by training, and equipping our allies and friends. This strategy is
one way of beginning to put Asia back in balance as China changes the status quo. Not doing
so, we fear, would lead to Armageddon.
Arms race leads to global nuclear war
Cimbala, Penn State Political Science Professor, 10
(Steven, Nuclear weapons and cooperative security in the 21st century: the new disorder, p. 117-118, ES)
Failure to contain proliferation in Pyongyang could spread nuclear fever throughout Asia.
Japan and South Korea might seek nuclear weapons and missile defenses. A pentagonal
configuration of nuclear powers in the Pacific basin (Russia, China, Japan, and the two
Koreas—not including the United States, with its own Pacific interests) could put deterrence
at risk an create enormous temptation toward nuclear preemtion. Apart from actual use or
threat of use, North Korea could exploit the mere existence of an assumed nuclear capability in
order to support its coercive diplomacy. As George H. Quester has noted: If the Pyongyang regime
plays its cards sensibly and well, therefore, the world will not see its nuclear weapons used against
Japan or South Korea or anyone else, but will rather see this new nuclear arsenal held in reserve
(just as the putative Isreali nuclear arsenal has been held in reserve), as a deterrent against the
outside world’s applying maximal pressure on Pyongyang and as a bargaining chip to extract the
economic and political concessions that the DPRK needs if it wishes to avoid giving up its peculiar
approach to social engineering A five-sided nuclear competition in the Pacific would be linked,
in geopolitical deterrence and proliferation space, to the emerging nuclear instability from
Tehran to Tokyo could place U.S. proliferation strategies into the ash heap of history and call
for more drastic military options, not excluding preemptive war, defenses, and counterdetterent special operations. In addition, an eight-sided nuclear arms race in Asia would
increase the likelihood of accidental or inadvertent nuclear war. It would do so because: (1)
some of these states already have histories of protracted conflict; (2) states may have politically
unreliable or immature command and control systems, especially during a crisis involving a
decision for nuclear first strike or retaliation; unreliable or immature systems might permit a
technical malfunction that caused an unintended launch, or a deliberate but unauthorized launch by
rogue commanders; (3) faulty intelligence and warning systems might cause one side to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 45
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
misinterpret the other’s defensive moves to forestall attack as offensive preparations for attack,
thus triggering a mistaken preemption.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 46
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
TPA Key to EU Trade Agreement
Transatlantic deal key to relations and the global economy – now is key
Solana, ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics president & Brookings
Distinguished Fellow, 12
[Javier, 12-28-12, “Transatlantic Free Trade?”, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-theus-and-the-eu-need-a-free-trade-agreement-by-javier-solana, accessed 7-12-13]
MADRID – This month, the United States National Intelligence Council released a sobering report
entitled Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. Most important, according to the authors, if current
trends continue, Asia could soon surpass North America and Europe in global power. It will have a
higher GDP, larger population, higher military spending, and more technological investment. In this
geopolitical context, Europe and the US need each other more than ever, making greater
transatlantic cooperation crucial.¶ This seems to be the approach that inspired outgoing US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton’s recent speech at the Brookings Institution on US-European relations. Given the
shift in global power and the prospect of US energy self-sufficiency as domestic hydrocarbon output
booms, America is trying to adapt its foreign policy to the new multi-polar international order. And,
although Asia is now America’s strategic priority, Europe is still the partner with which Americans
have the most in common. “I want to be clear,” Clinton noted. “Our reorientation toward Asia is not a
withdrawal from Europe.Ӧ The US, according to Clinton, hopes that Europe will follow suit, so that Asia
is seen not only as a market, but also as a focus of common strategic action. But, beyond that, as the US
and Europe seek to ensure their global roles, cooperation between them is more important than
ever. So now is the time for a bold initiative: the launch of a US-European Union free-trade
agreement.¶ Clinton has already hinted at America’s readiness for this, mentioning the possibility of
negotiating a complete agreement that would increase trade and stimulate growth on both sides of the
Atlantic. The journalist David Ignatius even dared to give it a name in a recent article in The Washington
Post: TAFTA (Transatlantic Free-Trade Agreement). Edward Luce, writing in the Financial Times,
preferred “Transatlantic Partnership.”¶ The US and the EU (taken as a whole) are not only the world’s
two largest economies and typically the largest commercial partners for other major economies; they also
maintain the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship. American investment in Europe is three times
higher than it is in Asia. European investment in the US is eight times larger than its investments in China
and India combined. So transatlantic trade is crucial for both economies, particularly for job
creation. Indeed, it is estimated that one-third of all bilateral US-EU trade consists of internal transfers by
companies that operate in both markets.¶ Although US and EU tariffs on each other’s marketed
manufactured goods are already low (below 3%, on average), a free-trade agreement would be
enormously beneficial in promoting further investment, thereby boosting economic growth and
creating more jobs. Such an agreement could include trade in goods, services, financial instruments, and
agriculture, and would necessitate greater compatibility of European and American regulations and legal
norms, implying substantial savings.¶ Moreover, the effects of such an agreement would be felt far
beyond the US and Europe. For example, both have already signed free-trade treaties with various
Latin American countries, implying the creation of a geographically enormous free-trade area,
which should boost economic resilience in the face of global crisis.¶ Indeed, regional free-trade
agreements are gaining momentum worldwide. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement
spearheaded by the US, is set to be a game-changer in the Asia-Pacific region, with decisive advances this
year putting it on course to be concluded in 2015. Potential signatories include the US, Australia,
Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, and perhaps Japan
and South Korea. The result will be trade liberalization in an area that produces 40% of global GDP.¶
Isn’t it time to consider something similar for Europe and the US? The EU, now confronting a wave of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 47
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
populism and Euro-skepticism, could revive its sense of purpose by committing itself to closer
transatlantic cooperation and coordination on trade, to be carried out by the European Commission. Such
a project has worked before in bringing Europe together; it can do so again. The most precious asset
today is confidence, and the mere fact of launching negotiations would generate it in abundance.¶
Protectionism is no solution to the crisis, whereas a transatlantic free-trade agreement would favor
multilateralism and openness. In this sense, it is important to stress the work of the World Trade
Organization, the best multilateral forum that the world has for resolving trade disputes. Signing a
transatlantic trade treaty would be irrefutable proof that the political case for open trade can be
made – and won.¶ The only way to achieve this is through the clear commitment of political leaders
on both sides of the Atlantic, together with private-sector involvement, which is fundamental to
sustaining urgently needed economic growth. But let’s not wait: faced with predictions of the West’s
relative decline, the US and the EU must commit themselves to more union, more cooperation, and more
prosperity. Today, that means a transatlantic free-trade agreement.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 48
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
EU Trade Agreement Key to the Economy
This is the key to the global economy
Hamilton, Center for Transatlantic Relations executive director, 12
[Daniel S., Executive Director of the American Consortium on EU Studies; Austrian Marshall Plan
Foundation Research Professor. Hamilton leads the international policy work of The Johns Hopkins
Center for the Study of High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response; former deputy assistant
secretary of State for European Affairs; US special coordinator for Southeast European Stabilization,
January, “A Transatlantic Free Trade Area – A Boost to Economic Growth?” http://transatlantic.saisjhu.edu/publications/articles/TAP_op_ed_Jan_2012_final.pdf, p. 2, accessed 7-14-13, AFB]
The stakes are high. Although rapidly rising economies have gained much attention, the US and
Europe remain the anchor of the global economy. The transatlantic economy generates $5 trillion in
total commercial sales a year and employs up to 15 million workers. It is the largest and wealthiest market
in the world, accounting for three-quarters of global financial markets and over half of world trade and
world GDP. No other commercial artery is as integrated. Every day roughly $1.7 billion in goods and
services crosses the Atlantic, representing about one-third of total global trade in goods and more than 40
percent of world trade in services. Americans sold three times as many merchandise exports to Europe
than to China and 15 times more than to India. The European Union sold the United States nearly twice
the goods it sold China and nearly 7 times what it sold India.¶ The US and the EU are each other's
most important investment partners, and transatlantic investment flows of nearly $2.7 trillion dwarf
those among any other continents. In addition, US and European companies account for 60 percent of
the top R&D companies and 69 percent of private R&D spending in the world. The US and Europe
are allies in NATO, partners in addressing global political and economic problems, and account for
80 percent of all development assistance around the world. We are democracies, market economies,
and leading supporters of the rules-based international economic order.¶ Recent economic troubles
have only underscored the deep integration of the transatlantic economy and the importance of healthy
transatlantic economic ties for millions of US and European workers, consumers and companies. Our
companies are deeply engaged on both sides of the Atlantic. We are literally in each other's business.
European companies employ more Americans than any other foreign nationality and are by far the most
important source of onshored jobs in the United States. American companies employ more Europeans
than anyone else and are by far the largest source of onshored jobs in Europe. We have never had a
greater stake in each other’s economic success. The notion that we can “decouple” from each other's
economic fortunes is mistaken and can lead to serious policy errors. The North Atlantic economic
and financial crisis compels us to develop an integrated transatlantic strategy to bring debt and
deficits back to sustainable levels, to meet the budgetary challenges of demographic change, and
ensure sufficient room for fiscal maneuver in the future. Substantial gains in terms of jobs and
growth would result from initiatives designed to boost flows of goods, services, capital and
knowledge between the US and the EU.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 49
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
EU Trade Agreement Key to Eurozone
EU trade deal solves the euro crisis
Hamilton, Center for Transatlantic Relations executive director, 12
[Daniel S., Executive Director of the American Consortium on EU Studies; Austrian Marshall Plan
Foundation Research Professor. Hamilton leads the international policy work of The Johns Hopkins
Center for the Study of High Consequence Event Preparedness and Response; former deputy assistant
secretary of State for European Affairs; US special coordinator for Southeast European Stabilization,
January, “A Transatlantic Free Trade Area – A Boost to Economic Growth?” http://transatlantic.saisjhu.edu/publications/articles/TAP_op_ed_Jan_2012_final.pdf, p. 1-2, accessed 7-14-13, AFB]
European leaders continue to squabble about efforts needed to end the euro crisis, but they have
coalesced around calls in late January 2012 by German Chancellor Merkel, French President Sarkozy
and British Prime Minister Cameron to open transatlantic markets. US President Obama has also
endorsed the bid. At the US-EU Summit last fall, leaders created a bilateral High Level Working
Group on Jobs and Growth to consider the full range of measures that could be taken to deepen and
expand the transatlantic economic relationship. The benefits could be substantial in terms of creating jobs,
boosting innovation, improving our competitiveness, and ensuring long-term growth and prosperity. It is
a moment of opportunity – to use or to lose. To win the moment, business and other economic
stakeholders must unite with political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to advance a shared
vision, built on underlying values, to harness the potential of our partnership to create jobs, stimulate
growth, and strengthen the multilateral system.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 50
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Eurozone Collapse Impact
Euro failure collapses Europe
Wright, Brookings Managing Global Order fellow, 12
[Thomas, Summer 2012, Washington Quarterly, "What if Europe Fails?"
csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerWright.pdf, p. 23-24, accessed 7-14-13]
The European Union is engaged in a ferocious political, diplomatic,¶ and economic struggle to
preserve the future of the single currency, the Euro, and¶ the viability of what has become known
simply as ‘‘the project,’’ namely the¶ process of integration that has been the bedrock of Western
European politics for¶ over half a century. It is distinctly possible that its members’ efforts may fail,¶
either in the short or long term, and give way to an era of disintegration. Some¶ have sounded the alarm:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel famously remarked,¶ ‘‘If the Euro fails, Europe fails.’’1 Former
president Nicolas Sarkozy of France¶ predicted, ‘‘If the euro explodes, Europe would explode. It’s the
guarantee of¶ peace in a continent where there were terrible wars.’’2 Polish Foreign Minister¶ Radek
Sikorski warned the Euro’s collapse could cause an ‘‘apocalyptic’’ crisis.3¶ Harvard economist
Dani Rodrik cautioned ‘‘the nightmare scenario would . . . be¶ a 1930’s-style victory for political
extremism.’’ After all, ‘‘fascism, Nazism, and¶ communism were children of a backlash against
globalization.’’4 The erosion of¶ democracy in Hungary and the rise in support for populist parties in
Greece, the¶ Netherlands, Finland, and France appears to some to be the beginning of¶ the end.¶ Yet,
verbal warnings from nervous leaders and economists aside, there has¶ been remarkably little analysis of
what the end of European integration might¶ mean for Europe and the rest of the world. This article does
not predict that¶ failure will occurit only seeks to explain the geopolitical implications if it¶ does. The
severity and trajectory of the crisis since 2008 suggest that failure is a¶ high-impact event with a
non-trivial probability. It may not occur, but it¶ certainly merits serious analysis.
Collapse risks WWIII
Gommes, Periscope Post founder, 11
[Thomas D., 12-9-11, “Eurozone in crisis: The death of the euro could trigger World War III,” 12-9,
http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/12/eurozone-in-crisis-the-death-of-the-euro-could-trigger-worldwar-iii/, accessed 7-10-13]
At the risk of being accused of scaremongering, I’ll state my point simply and up front: Things in
Europe are not as bad as they seem – they’re worse.¶ And though the commentariat is queuing up to
predict the imminent demise of the euro currency and to lament the ongoing recession, that’s not even the
half of it: We’re looking at World War III.¶ As major corporations start drawing up contingency plans
for a world without the euro and as weaknesses in government finances become ever more glaring, the
end of the euro currency becomes an increasingly realistic prospect. Related, the total absence of business
growth, or trading among European nations raises the question of what benefits a unified trading block
offers. The driving motive behind the original Coal and Steel alliance that ultimately became
today’s European Union was a desire among nations, traumatised by the worst war in their
collective history, to provide a deterrent against another war. My concern is that that trauma has
faded, and that the fear of war has been replaced by the fear of recession.¶ As anyone with even a
fleeting familiarity with European history can confirm, ours is not exactly a history of love and peace. In
fact, the period since the end of World War II has been probably the longest period of relative peace the
region has ever known. Arguably, it’s no coincidence that that period of peace has coincided exactly with
Gonzaga Debate Institute 51
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
the ever strengthening ties that have been forged between European nations over these past 60 years.¶ If
the bonds that tie European nations together are weakened, the incentives to avoid total war
dwindle. And its not as dramatic or far fetched a theory as it may at first sound. The end of the euro
currency and a reversion to national currencies could quite possibly provide the impetus for a
further dissolution of the union. The unraveling of painstakingly negotiated ties becomes easier and
easier as each strand frays and breaks. Combine this unraveling with an ongoing or even deepening
recession, and it all makes for a combustible atmosphere.¶ Unfortunately, it is human nature to blame
others for our woes. In an environment of unemployment, austerity, and general resentment, it is not
difficult to imagine nations starting to point the finger at their neighbours. And without the unifying effect
of a common currency, thriving trading relations, free movement of peoples, and common interests,
Europe would find itself increasingly susceptible to war. Moreover, as so few Europeans in my
generation, let alone subsequent generations, have even the slightest inkling about how horrific war is,
it may be tempting to consider it as a solution to problems, or at minimum an acceptable response
to perceived slights.¶ Look around us today: Britain standing alone and isolated in Europe; France and a
united Germany standing together and more powerful than the rest of the nations of a Europe mired in
recession; strengthening nationalist political parties; unelected technocrats running nations; and quite
possibly in the not too distant future, each nation with their own currency.¶ Sound familiar?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 52
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Eurozone Crisis – Hegemony Impact
Eurozone crisis undermines US global leadership
Dobriansky, Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs senior
fellow, & Saunders, executive director of the Center for the National Interest
executive director, 12
[Paula and Paul, 7-8-12, Wall Street Journal, How About a Free-Trade Deal With Europe?”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577510700096660154.html]
Europe's ongoing economic crisis and the evident discord among its key leaders have profound
implications for the United States. Despite a new agreement during the most recent European Union
summit last month, the crisis will likely endure for some time, with unpredictable political and
economic consequences. Visionary and determined American leadership is essential both to help some
of our closest and oldest allies and to protect our national interests, domestically and internationally.¶
The deep links between the American and European economies are not always fully appreciated.
According to a recent study by the German Marshall Fund, European investment amounted to 72% of
total foreign direct investment in the U.S. in 2010. U.S.-EU merchandise trade reached $632 billion in
2011.¶ The same study found that affiliates of European majority-owned companies employed 3.5 million
Americans in 2010. Europe's economic health has a clear, direct and unparalleled impact on America's
economy and American jobs.¶ The danger posed by Europe's crisis to American interests is not solely
economic. Even before the euro crisis, our European allies were contributing less and less to sustaining
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with the U.S. share of the costs rising to 70.5% in 2011, up from
63.6% in 2000. The crisis is sure to put further downward pressure on European defense spending.
NATO was wholly unsuccessful in addressing this problem at its May summit.¶ The real-world
consequences were apparent during NATO's operations in Libya last year, when some allies nearly
ran out of precision bombs. Looking ahead, though NATO members have formally committed to
supporting Afghanistan's government as most foreign military forces withdraw, their ability to do
so is increasingly in question.¶ More broadly, a Europe compelled to focus inward to preserve the
euro and the EU—already topics of heated debate within and among European nations—will be less
capable of leading globally. It will also have trouble serving as an essential partner to the U.S. This
challenge will exist at the EU, NATO, and individual-country levels; all will be preoccupied.¶
Tellingly, when France's new president, François Hollande, declared last May that "it is not possible to
allow Bashar Assad to massacre his own people," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle promptly
retorted that "there is no cause for speculation over military options." The message from Berlin was clear:
A European-led military intervention in Syria will remain off the agenda. These are not new divisions, but
they seem set to widen.¶ In this environment, U.S. leadership is simultaneously harder and more
important. The Obama administration's approach to Libya—waiting for and then hiding behind France
and the United Kingdom—simply will not work in dealing with current challenges and those that may
emerge in the next three to five years.¶ Historically, only the U.S. and Europe have had the ability to
mobilize sufficiently broad international support to address major problems. Today, without
leadership by one, the other or both, issues like Iran's nuclear ambitions and Syria's civil war will
fester. This in turn will do more harm to U.S. interests and to regional and international security—not to
mention our shared values.¶ Unfortunately, President Obama seems to be handling the euro crisis in the
same manner that his administration dealt with Libya and so many other major issues. Asked about the
impact of Europe's troubles on the U.S. at the G-20 summit in Mexico, the president acknowledged the
danger to the American economy but failed to report any action other than financial and regulatory
reforms that do little to reduce the risk to the U.S.—and then called on the Congress to pass his domestic
jobs bill.¶ Of course, only Europe can ultimately solve its crisis, and the U.S. must concentrate its
Gonzaga Debate Institute 53
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
resources at home. But we have too much at stake to sit on the sidelines.¶ One bold policy option
would be to conclude a trans-Atlantic free-trade agreement between the U.S. and Europe, something
the EU has already welcomed in principle. Mr. Obama has called for greater trade with Europe, but his
administration has pursued a free-trade agreement without a sense of urgency or clear leadership from
the top.¶ An immediate and vocal commitment to free trade with Europe—followed by prompt action
to make it happen—would send a powerful signal of America's enduring confidence in its closest and
deepest economic relationship. While not a panacea, reducing the costs of trans-Atlantic trade can
contribute importantly over the longer term to creating new jobs and fueling sustained economic growth
on both sides of the ocean. This is sure to strengthen American and European leadership for decades to
come.
Leadership solves nuclear conflict
Zhang & Shi, Researcher @ The Carnegie Endowment, & Eurasia Group
consultant, 11
[Yuhan Zhang, Researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Lin Shi, Columbia
University, Independent consultant for the Eurasia Group, Consultant for the World Bank, “America’s
decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,” January 22nd 2011,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/]
Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military.
Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned
with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan,
South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo
that has tended to mute great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers
together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an
international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more
readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline
and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century America’s
emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn
of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American
Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see
the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the ordercreating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this UScentred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the
actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad
segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible
financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter
this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations. However, what will happen to these advances
as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s authority, although sullied at times, has
benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts
of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a
profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a posthegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and
strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO
might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step
forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their own visions of
regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised — and, well,
less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have
historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power declined
Gonzaga Debate Institute 54
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming
less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods
System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge,
the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism
devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast
in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 55
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Economic Decline Impact
Economic collapse leads to global war
Lind, New America Foundation Economic Growth Program Policy Director, 10
[Michael, 5-11-10, Salon, "Will the great recession lead to World War IV?,"
http://www.salon.com/news/economics/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/05/11/great_recession_w
orld_war_iv]
If history is any guide, an era of global economic stagnation will help the nationalist and
populist right, at the expense of the neoliberal and cosmopolitan/multicultural left. During the
Long Depression of the late 19th century, which some historians claim lasted from 1873 to 1896,
the nations of the West adopted protectionist measures to promote their industries. Beginning
with Bismarck’s Germany, many countries also adopted social reforms like government pensions
and health insurance. These reforms were often favored by the nationalist right, as a way of luring
the working class away from the temptations of Marxism and left-liberalism. By and large the
strategy worked. When World War I broke out, the working classes and farmers in most
countries rallied enthusiastically around their respective flags. The Great Depression of the
1930s similarly led to the rise of one or another version of the authoritarian, nationalist right
in Europe. Only in a few societies with deeply established liberal traditions, like the Englishspeaking countries and Scandinavia, did liberals or liberal conservatives hold on. And Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal Democratic Party, a coalition that included racist Southerners and
traditionalist Catholic immigrants, was not particularly liberal by today’s standards. In both eras
of depression, great-power rivalry for resources and markets intensified and ultimately led to
a world war. Following World War II, the U.S. sought to avert a repetition of that pattern, by
creating a global market secured by a global great-power concert in the form of the Security
Council. But the project of economic disarmament and security cooperation broke down almost
immediately after 1945 and the split between the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans produced the
Cold War. The second attempt at a global market that began after the Cold War may be breaking
down now, as the most important economic powers pursue their conflicting national interests. A
functioning global market system can work only if its members abandon mercantilism -- the policy
of trying to enjoy perpetual trade surpluses, by fair means or foul. However, the nations with the
three largest economies after the U.S. -- China, Japan and Germany -- all want to enjoy neverending merchandise trade surpluses. All three have used "currency mercantilism" to help their
export industries, to the detriment of the global economic system. China and Japan, by different
methods, have deliberately undervalued their currencies, to help their exports and keep imports out
of their markets. Germany accomplished something similar, by persuading its trade partners to give
up independent currencies that they were able to revalue for the crippling straitjacket of the euro.
The system worked only as long as Americans borrowed to pay for imports from Japan and China,
while southern Europeans borrowed to pay for imports from Germany. But the consumers are
tapped out and neither Americans nor southern Europeans are in a mood for austerity measures in
the middle of a near-depression. Unless the Chinese, Japanese and Germans turn into credit-happy
consumer societies the global economy may be in for prolonged stagnation. Instead of changing
their ways, however, the surplus countries are denouncing their own customers for their profligacy
in buying their goods and insisting that the same customers be penalized by austerity programs.
This will not end happily. As the oversold promise of free-market globalization fades, countries
large and small may turn increasingly toward state capitalism. At home, this would mean
permanent state support of troubled industries like banking and the automobile industries, which all
of the major industrial countries have bailed out. In trade, this would mean a retreat from global
Gonzaga Debate Institute 56
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
trade areas toward regional blocs and bilateral deals. Examples include agreements between
energy-hungry governments like those of China and Japan and the state-owned oil or natural gas
companies of Saudi Arabia and Russia. In a world of diplomatic rivalries among great powers to
win contracts with state-owned corporations, the distinctions between geoeconomics and
geopolitics would erode, with potentially dangerous consequences. Direct war between great
powers seems unlikely, but if the Cold War was World War III, then a cold World War IV
resembling Orwell’s shifting coalitions of Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania in 1984 is all too
easy to imagine.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 57
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Now Key – Negotiations
Now key – delay risks agreements
Senators Portman & Cantwell, 6-13-13
[Rob, R-Ohio, Maria, D-Washington, Roll Call, “A Bipartisan Opportunity for Jobs”,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/a_bipartisan_opportunity_for_jobs_commentary-225603-1.html, accessed
7-13-13, AFB]
Time is of the essence. The European Union has nine trade agreements under negotiation, and the
number of trade agreements between Asian countries has also soared, from three in 2000 to more
than 50 in 2011.
One of the agreements the United States is negotiating is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United
States and Japan recently announced an agreement for Japan’s entry into Trans- Pacific
Partnership negotiations. Japan’s inclusion would open the world’s third-largest market for
American-made goods and force Japan to address unfair barriers that hurt American auto exports.
With Japan included, trade among the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries would equal about onethird of all global trade, accounting for nearly 40 percent of global GDP.
The Asia-Pacific region represents a tremendous opportunity to sell American-made products
abroad. According to the U.S. trade representative, in 2010, 69 percent of Washington state exports and
68 percent of Ohio exports went to the Asia-Pacific region. By removing trade barriers such as high
tariffs or regulatory hurdles, the TPP will only serve to increase exports further.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 58
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Pass Later
Delay bad – risks failure to pass, risking negotiations
Inside U.S. Trade, 6-21-13
[“Freshmen House Dems Express Opposition To TPA Bill, Staff Efforts Slow”, Lexis, AFB]
The longer it takes to develop the bill, the harder it may be to move. In the fall, Congress will likely
be preoccupied with extending the debt ceiling and reducing the budget deficit. The two are not
formally linked but congressional Republicans will almost certainly link them politically.
Following the June 19 Senate confirmation of U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, Finance
Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said in a statement he is "looking forward to working with
[Froman] to get Trade Promotion Authority done." He said it will "lay the groundwork for a successful
trade agenda," along with Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also stressed the need for White House
engagement on fast-track in a June 17 press release praising the launch of trade talks between the U.S.
and the EU.
"While I am pleased the President is formally launching negotiations today, it ultimately won't matter
unless these negotiations can be concluded and enacted into law," Hatch argued. "That is why it is
imperative that the President show some real leadership on trade and begin working with Congress
in earnest to renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Without TPA, it is very hard to see how we
can negotiate a strong trade agreement with Europe, and with the Pacific Rim nations through the
Trans-Pacific Partnership."
In response to the announcement on the launch of the U.S.-EU trade agreement, Ways and Means
Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) issued a strong statement of support, and linked the ability of U.S.
negotiators to get a good deal to renewing fast-track negotiating authority.
In a June 17 press release with Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), he
noted the importance of removing tariff, non-tariff and regulatory barriers to U.S. exports and investment.
"Tackling these barriers requires clear and effective negotiating objectives, and therefore I welcome the
President's request for Trade Promotion Authority," Camp said. "Developing bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority is a vital and necessary tool to ensuring the success of these negotiations."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 59
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Clean Trade Promotion Authority Impacts
Gonzaga Debate Institute 60
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Baucus Will Push Linkage to Trade Adjustment Assistance
Baucus wants TPA linked with Trade Adjustment Assistance
Reuters, 6/6/13
[“USTR nominee Froman promises push for trade promotion authority”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/06/us-usa-trade-nominee-idUSBRE9550WL20130606, accessed:
7/8/13, ML]
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nominee to be U.S. trade representative on Thursday pledged to
work with leaders of the Senate Finance Committee to craft major trade legislation needed by the White
House to win approval of trade deals.
"If confirmed, I will engage with you to renew Trade Promotion Authority. TPA is a critical tool. I look
forward to working with you to craft a bill that achieves our shared goals," Mike Froman, currently
the White House international economic affairs adviser, said at his confirmation hearing.
Froman, a long-time friend of Obama, won the endorsement of the panel's top Republican, Senator
Orrin Hatch, at the hearing and appeared headed for easy Senate approval.
"I intend to support you," Hatch said, although he did chide Froman over an account he holds in an
offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands.
Hatch said that investment was at odds with Obama's "unequivocal condemnation of these types of
activities during the campaign."
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he hoped for quick action
on Froman's nomination.
"Mike Froman is the right person for this job," Baucus said.
Trade promotion authority, also known as "fast track" trade legislation, allows the White House to
submit trade deals to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments. It was last
passed by Congress in 2002 and expired in 2007.
The White House is already negotiating one of biggest trade deals in history with 11 other countries,
including Japan, in the Asia Pacific region and plans to start talks in July on an another huge deal.
Trade promotion authority would also allow lawmakers to set negotiating objectives for those two
agreements, although the White House is pushing to finish talks on the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership talks by the end of the year.
Obama did not ask for renewal of TPA during his first four years in office. Froman, under questioning
from Baucus, clarified that Obama was asking for renewal now.
Baucus said he hoped to win congressional approval of a bill combining trade promotion authority
with Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in coming months.
TAA provides retraining assistance for workers that have lost jobs because of imports or factories moving
overseas.
"With so many trade initiatives moving to completion and getting off the ground, we need TPA now to
guide and support USTR. And we need TAA to ensure that our workforce remains ready to compete with
anyone, anywhere in the world," Baucus said.
Baucus wants Trade Adjustment Assistance linked to TPA
Reuters, 6-6-13
[“USTR nominee Froman promises push for trade promotion authority”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/06/us-usa-trade-nominee-idUSBRE9550WL20130606, accessed
7-14-13, AFB]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 61
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Obama did not ask for renewal of TPA during his first four years in office. Froman, under questioning
from Baucus, clarified that Obama was asking for renewal now.
Baucus said he hoped to win congressional approval of a bill combining trade promotion authority
with Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in coming months. TAA provides retraining assistance for
workers that have lost jobs because of imports or factories moving overseas.
"With so many trade initiatives moving to completion and getting off the ground, we need TPA now
to guide and support USTR. And we need TAA to ensure that our workforce remains ready to
compete with anyone, anywhere in the world," Baucus said.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 62
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Clean TPA Key to Free Trade
Clean TPA key to avoiding free trade agreements aren’t hijacked by other measures
Riley, Heritage Foundation Trade Policy senior policy analyst, 7-12-13
[Bryan, Heritage Blogs, “Trade Promotion Authority Should Mean Authority to Promote Trade—Period”,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/12/trade-promotion-authority-should-mean-authority-to-promote-tradeperiod/, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
There’s a good chance Congress will consider legislation this summer to extend trade promotion
authority (TPA) to President Obama. If it does, lawmakers should pay especially close attention to
the wording of the bill.
TPA is the legislative vehicle that allows the President to negotiate with other countries on
beneficial trade agreements. The purpose of trade promotion authority is, obviously, to promote
trade. If properly designed, TPA is an effective way to expand trade and economic freedom.
However, a poorly worded TPA bill could allow implementing legislation for future trade
agreements to be used for other purposes.
For example, under the last extension of TPA, Congress agreed to consider legislation that
implemented trade agreements negotiated by the President on an up-or-down vote. This
implementing legislation could include changes in laws that were “necessary or appropriate to
implement such trade agreement or agreements, either repealing or amending existing laws or
providing new statutory authority.”
When the South Korea–U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) came up for a vote two years ago, the
Obama Administration used this language as justification to try to attach Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA)—which provides federal aid to those supposedly hurt by trade—to the
implementing legislation for KORUS. At the time, TAA supporters argued that such assistance was
“necessary and appropriate.”
Trade expert Phil Levy observed at the time that TPA “was hard to come by even in the best of
circumstances. What chance would it have now, if it is interpreted as giving any White House the
right to attach controversial and unrelated spending measures in a protected way?”
This is exactly why it is important to clarify how TPA works. Every U.S. President should have the
authority to negotiate beneficial trade agreements. However, TPA was never intended to be a blank
check. Congress should make it clear that future trade agreements submitted for implementation
under TPA cannot be hijacked as a vehicle on which to attach extraneous provisions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 63
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Clean TPA Key to Prevent Protectionism
TPA solves foreign and domestic protectionism which is currently in place
Riley, Heritage Foundation Trade Policy senior policy analyst, & Kim, Heritage
Foundation Senior Policy Analyst, 13
[Bryan and Anthony B, Heritage Foundation, 4/16/13, “Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of
Trade Promotion Authority Renewal”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-tradefreedom-key-objective-of-trade-promotion-authority-renewal, accessed: 7/8/13, ML]
The Obama Administration often seems to regard trade as a zero-sum game of capturing value that would
otherwise go elsewhere. However, trade liberalization is about creating and adding value,
capitalizing on competitive advantages, and further harnessing the power of freedom and choice.
Trade has been an integral part of America’s extraordinary economic progress over the past
decades. Since 1929, trade volume has increased from less than 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic
product (GDP) to around 30 percent, while real U.S. GDP per person increased from $8,000 to more
than $43,000.
This progress faces continuing threats, mainly from special-interest groups that malign free trade
in an attempt to seek protection from competition at the expense of everyone else. Some lawmakers
have even viewed TPA legislation as a vehicle to address the perceived costs of free trade for the
U.S. economy. However, using TPA renewal to redress the suspected costs of trade is an ill-advised
idea.
TPA is an instrument that not only enables America to secure increased access to overseas markets
but also provides the unique opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its own barriers and advance
economic freedom. Congress and the President can help the American economy by removing barriers
that limit its competitiveness. With open trade and investment ensured, the interplay of low tax rates and
efficient regulations could effectively enhance America’s economic freedom. Entangling TPA with a
protectionist agenda, on the other hand, would not serve America’s interests in the global market.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 64
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Aff Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 65
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Uniqueness Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 66
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Won’t Pass Now
Won’t pass now – not persuaded of benefits yet
Inside U.S. Trade, 7-5-13
[“Short Of Completing TPP This Year, Countries Could Seek 'Early Harvest'”, Lexis, accessed 7-13-13,
AFB]
It could also be used as a way to inject some urgency into a possible congressional debate about renewing
fast-track negotiating authority, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), one observer said. This
source noted that some members of Congress are reluctant to support TPA legislation because it
does not entail concrete economic benefits like an actual trade agreement.
But a TPP text that could be portrayed as an agreement in principle by supporters could be used as
an argument to persuade skeptical members of Congress that they need to support a fast-track bill in
order to allow the Obama administration to complete the deal, this source said.
Won’t pass now – multiple issues
Inside U.S. Trade, 6-21-13
[“Freshmen House Dems Express Opposition To TPA Bill, Staff Efforts Slow”, Lexis, AFB]
Thirty-six freshman House Democrats -- or roughly one-fifth of the House Democratic caucus -have expressed strong opposition to a renewal of "fast-track" negotiating authority as an
inappropriate delegation of congressional authority over trade, particularly in light of the secrecy
surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
That secrecy makes it hard to assess whether TPP negotiations will preempt domestic policy prerogatives,
according to the June 7 letter to Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI). A copy of the
letter was also sent to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
"We do not believe that a broad delegation of Congress's constitutional trade authority is generally
appropriate," the letter said. "Negotiations on the [Trans-Pacific Partnership] delve deeply into many nontrade matters under the authority of Congress and state legislatures."
The signatories make up two-thirds of the 48 freshmen Democrats in the House, but less than a fifth of the
overall Democratic caucus, which consists of 201 members. None of the signatories serve on the House
Ways and Means Committee, nor do any of the freshmen who did not sign the letter.
In a related development, congressional staff working on developing legislation that would renew
the 2002 fast-track bill over the past few weeks have made clear that their efforts are slowing down.
This raises the prospect that a bill may not emerge until after the August recess, sources said.
The slowdown is partially due to the fact that staff has done "pretty well" on non-controversial
negotiating objectives, but faces more difficulties on controversial issues, sources said. There seems
to be disagreement among staff how much to update the negotiating objectives of a 2002 fast-track
law, which is now expired.
Controversial issues also include how to deal with the May 10, 2007, obligations on labor,
environment and drug patents as well as how to address currency issues, state-owned enterprises
and indigenous innovation, they said. One congressional aide also said that the procedures by which
the administration has to consult with Congress is also a point of contention.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 67
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Passage not certain – Democratic opposition
Tandon, Agence France Presse, 6-11-13
[Shaun, Agence France Presse, “Obama base voices concern on Pacific trade pact”,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWDxKm5d-iUWExTZXTwuBVHYBCA?docId=CNG.b972a6177ab8474e09319ee67e5fb6c0.111
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from President Barack Obama's Democratic Party voiced alarm
Tuesday over a proposed trans-Pacific trade pact, saying negotiations were too secretive and could
lead to US job losses.
A letter signed by a majority of first-term Democrats in the House of Representatives said that talks
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama has billed as a signature priority, have progressed
in "extreme secrecy."
The lawmakers vowed to resist efforts to give Obama "fast-track" trade promotion authority -which would let his team negotiate a deal, with Congress then voting up or down without the opportunity
to make changes.
"Congress needs to work together to get American trade policy back on track -- not give away its
authority to do so," said the letter spearheaded by Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.
"Reducing our authority to ensure our trade agreements serve the public interest will undermine our
efforts to create American jobs and to reform a misguided trade policy that has devastated our
manufacturing base through the offshoring of American production and American jobs," the letter said.
Lawmakers from the rival Republican Party have sought a renewal of fast-track authority, which
ended in 2007, as a way to speed up work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements.
Passage not certain – Democratic opposition
Mauldin, Wall Street Journal Washington Wire, 6-19-13
[William, Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog, “Warren Opposes Nominee for Trade Rep”,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/19/elizabeth-warren-opposes-obamas-nominee-for-trade-rep/,
accessed 7-12-13, AFB]
A group of Democratic freshmen in the House of Representatives this month expressed reservations
about granting the administration trade promotion authority, also known as “fast track,” since it
weakens the influence of lawmakers. The ability to finalize deals without congressional input can help
the U.S. finish trade deals more quickly, experts say.
Ms. Warren said Wednesday she is “deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. trade
representative” and wants the office to release “composite bracketed text” showing the latest direction of
the talks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“I am voting against Mr. Froman’s nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from
the trade representative, a direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American people
have the right to know more about our negotiations that will have a dramatic impact on our working men
and women.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 68
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Non-Unique – Agenda Won’t Pass Now
No uniqueness – majors losses, budget fights, international turmoil
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A dramatic tax-raising deal last New Year's looked like it might be a
breakthrough, signaling improved second-term relations between newly re-elected President Barack
Obama and a divided Congress. At least that's what the White House hoped.
But six months later, growing uncertainty over a sweeping immigration overhaul measure has
dimmed expectations for a big summertime achievement and left Obama still in search of a
marquee legislative accomplishment to mark his second four years.
His advisers now concede that their best shot at changing the immigration system might come in the fall,
after lawmakers return from their August recess. But that could be a long shot during a period already
crowded with other issues.
During the autumn months, Obama's administration will be dealing with one of the most
challenging aspects of the historic health care overhaul - signing up millions of Americans for
insurance coverage. And if that's not enough, Obama also will be locked in an unexpected battle over
domestic food aid - while working through budget disputes with Congress as the new fiscal year
looms in October and the government approaches its borrowing limit. Then there's overseas
turmoil in Egypt and Syria.
Already shadowing the president are two major letdowns earlier this year - a gun control measure
that Republicans blocked in the Democratic-controlled Senate and the failure to avoid automatic
spending cuts that further trimmed the government's budget.
No agenda – gridlock checks
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
Before his re-election, Obama liked to tell supporters that a second term would "break the fever"
with Republicans, arguing that they no longer would need to routinely block his agenda because he
wouldn't be seeking election again. By last month, that optimism was gone.
"When it comes to doing the things that need to get done, we're just not getting a lot of cooperation
from the other side," he grumbled to donors at a June fundraiser in Palo Alto, Calif.
Republicans maintain that Obama's initiatives simply go further than they are willing to go. Many
refused to support expanded background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows and online.
They rejected Obama's efforts to combine spending cuts with more tax increases. And now, on
immigration, many oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the United States - a key
provision in the overhaul Obama seeks.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 69
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Non-Unique – Food Stamps
Gonzaga Debate Institute 70
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Gonzaga Debate Institute 71
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Non-unique – food stamps fight
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
But another trouble spot for Obama emerged just recently on what historically has been a
guaranteed bipartisan achievement: approval of legislation that includes money for agricultural
subsidies and food stamps. The Senate passed a single measure. The House defeated its version.
And Republican leaders this week divided that measure into two. Obama, who opposes proposed
cuts to food stamps in the House bill, has threatened a veto, signaling the food fight could consume
the coming weeks.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 72
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Non-Unique – Immigration
Immigration crushes Obama’s agenda
Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, 7-13-13
[Jim, Real Clear Politics, “Immigration Mired, Political Wins Elude Obama in 2nd Term”,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/13/immigration_mired_political_wins_elude_obama_in
_2nd_term_119201.html, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
Still, White House aides had argued that a solid bipartisan vote on immigration in the Senate would
give the legislation momentum through the House. Two weeks ago, at a news conference in South
Africa, Obama called on the House to act before the August recess. "Now is the time," he declared.
House Republicans ignored him, saying they would not take up the Senate bill and would instead
tackle immigration in a piecemeal way. "I'm much more concerned about doing it right than I am
in meeting some deadline," House Speaker John Boehner said.
That decision put a sizable question mark over one of Obama's biggest second-term priorities.
"This is going to be a tougher fight than people had anticipated," said Simon Rosenberg, president
of NDN, a Democratic-leaning Washington think tank and a longtime advocate of overhauling
immigration laws. "It could go on for six months; it could go on for the next couple of years."
Some Obama allies fear that failure to win on immigration - an issue many believed was ripe for
change after last year's elections - will simply embolden his opponents. Cleaver, a Missouri
Democrat, said it "could conceivably wound the president in a way that would make the next three
years move very, very slowly and painfully."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 73
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Impact Answers
Gonzaga Debate Institute 74
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Transpacific Partnership Impact
No rush – negotiations won’t be complete any time soon
Scissors, Heritage Foundation Asian Studies Center Asian Economic Policy research
fellow, 6-5-13
[Derek, Heritage Foundation, “Trade Promotion Authority: Make the Case”,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/05/trade-promotion-authority-make-the-case/, accessed 7-12-13, AFB]
Trade promotion authority (TPA) does several positive things. For one, it gives the President a window
where Congress agrees to an up-or-down vote on trade agreements, without the possibility of
amendments. It therefore raises the chances of a vote in favor of a deal and is generally welcomed by free
traders. It’s not clear, however, that TPA should be moving forward right now.
TPA wisely institutionalizes the need for the President to keep Congress informed during the trade
negotiation process. The binding negotiating objectives Congress provides to the President in TPA
can seek to promote competition or to limit it, where more competition should certainly be the goal for
international services negotiations and imminent EU–U.S. talks. If, for some reason, now is the time
that the best, competition-promoting TPA can be written and passed, so be it.
Such a reason is not apparent. The first agreement that would come up for a vote under TPA is
almost surely the Trans–Pacific Partnership (TPP). In the past, TPA has been sought near the start
of negotiations, so Congress could provide a policy benchmark and instill political confidence. The
Obama Administration has still not made a formal request for TPA, after negotiating the TPP
throughout the President’s first term. Congressional guidance was not sought and Congress is not
obligated to support anything.
While it would be foolish to oppose a sound TPP on those grounds, we have no indication a sound TPP
is forthcoming. The Administration has imposed such stringent limits on information concerning
the talks that it is difficult for most interested observers to say what is settled, what is nearly settled,
and what is quite unsettled.
One implication is unclear timing. When will the TPP be ready for a vote? The answers range from
late this year to early 2015. The TPP includes 12 members of very different sizes and stages of
development. It must address difficult issues involving intellectual property and state-owned
enterprises. From what little information is available, it will be a serious challenge to conclude
discussion of these issues this year.
And 2014 is an election year, when trade votes are traditionally put off to protect incumbents against
protectionist challengers. Further, the TPP will likely be more sensitive for the party that controls the
Senate, as Democrats’ union supporters may be unhappy at the thought of expanded economic ties with
Asian and Latin American partners.
Trade promotion authority is desirable because it heralds something positive. If TPA can improve the
TPP even this late in the game, that case should be made explicitly and in detail. Otherwise, there is
little reason to see the TPP as imminent and there is not especially much reason to see it as
necessarily wonderful—too many core issues at least appear to be unresolved.
That makes it hard to be particularly enthusiastic about TPA right now, either.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 75
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – TPA Key to EU Trade Agreement
TPA not key – can negotiate without it
Needham, The Hill, 6-24-13
[Vicki, The Hill, “Froman: Obama ‘ready to engage’ with Congress on fast track”
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/307503-president-ready-to-engage-with-congress-onfast-track, accessed 7-13-13, AFB]
President Obama is ready to work with Congress to win fast-track trade negotiating authority, U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman told The Hill on Monday in an exclusive interview.
Froman said the negotiating authority “is a critical tool” but doesn’t need to be in place when the
U.S. begins talks with the European Union on a $5 trillion trade deal in two weeks.
Still, he said the Obama administration is “ready to engage” with lawmakers to hash out the authority,
which lapsed during former President George W. Bush’s administration and would allow trade deals to
move through Congress without amendments.
It will be tougher for Froman to negotiate the EU deal, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
with Japan and 11 other countries, without fast-track authority.
Trading partners are more reluctant to make concessions if they believe a trade deal negotiated by
the administration will later be changed by Congress.
EU leaders have said they are not concerned about the lack of trade promotion authority because
they expect it to get done soon.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 76
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – EU Trade Agreement
Double bind – either it won’t pass or if it does there’s no real impact
Dadush, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Economics
Program Director, 13
(Uri, 3-18-13, “Don’t Buy the Hype on the Transatlantic Trade Deal,”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/18/don-t-buy-hype-on-transatlantic-trade-deal/frd5,
accessed 6-25-13)
But in a QandA, Uri Dadush, former director of international trade at the World Bank, warns that
expectations are dangerously high. Reaching an agreement is likely to take much longer and
produce significantly smaller gains than the optimistic calculations currently suggest. Beyond
dashed expectations, the launch of these negotiations probably marks the final blow against the
moribund Doha round of global trade talks.
Won’t pass – key issues haven’t been addressed
Dadush, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Economics
Program Director, 13
(Uri, 3-18-13, “Don’t Buy the Hype on the Transatlantic Trade Deal,”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/18/don-t-buy-hype-on-transatlantic-trade-deal/frd5,
accessed 6-25-13)
What complications could derail or stall the negotiations?¶ Despite conventional wisdom, the
potential deal is not as comprehensive as people think. The negotiations may not cover subsidies for
the agricultural industry and aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. Nor has there been
mention so far at least of the movement of temporary workers. These are important issues and their
omission could result in a big lost opportunity or cause problems as the parties most interested in
them may block the deal.¶ There are several other complicating factors that could hold up
negotiations.¶ Tariffs will be harder to reduce than imagined. The reason the tariff peaks have
existed for so long is that there are powerful vested interests involved that will not easily forgo their
domestic advantages. Anything to do with agriculture is particularly sensitive, as special interest
groups have strong organizational foundations and sway in their own regional political
environments making them unusually powerful. For example, French farmers and the U.S. sugar
and cotton industries exhibit a remarkable track record of victory over the general interest.¶ And
these negotiations are going to wade into some of the thorniest issues imaginable. Regulations are
even more challenging than tariffs to negotiate. Regulations are highly technical and exist for a reason,
often to protect health, the environment, or safety. Tariffs are clearly protectionism. But it is usually
entirely possible to argue over the merits of the regulations and there can be genuine differences of
opinion among experts over what a change will do.¶ Moreover, agreements on modifications to
regulations cannot just be made between trade negotiators. It quickly becomes much more
complicated because it involves other government agencies, such as the Food and Drug
Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, and agencies from all
EU countries. Each of these agencies and national authorities will be relentlessly lobbied.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 77
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Won’t pass anytime soon
Dadush, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Economics
Program Director, 13
(Uri, 3-18-13, “Don’t Buy the Hype on the Transatlantic Trade Deal,”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/18/don-t-buy-hype-on-transatlantic-trade-deal/frd5,
accessed 6-25-13)
Will a deal be reached?
Im skeptical. On paper there is a great deal the United States and Europe can do, and these prospects can
help propel negotiations forward. But everything that needs to be addressed is complicated and, for
very different reasons, political forces on both sides are more divided than ever.
Given all the obstacles, if a deal is reached it will almost certainly not happen before the end of
Obamas term and will deliver a lot less than is promised. And there is a significant possibility that
the deal wont happen at all. Much simpler trade deals than this have faltered and fallen apart in the
past.
No economy impact – can’t predict outcome
Dadush, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Economics
Program Director, 13
(Uri, 3-18-13, “Don’t Buy the Hype on the Transatlantic Trade Deal,”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/18/don-t-buy-hype-on-transatlantic-trade-deal/frd5,
accessed 6-25-13)
Will a deal impact global trade talks and benefit the world economy?
If it works, the deal will lead to significant gains, just not to the degree currently touted by
supporters. While estimates of 1 percent gains in GDP in both the United States and the EU are
tossed around, its actually extraordinarily difficult to make those calculations. Because the EU
accounts for a larger part of U.S. trade than the United States does for the EU, the United States
may gain more proportionally.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 78
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
AT – Clean TPA Key to Trade Agreements
Linking TPA to Trade Adjustment Assistance key to bolstering support for
agreements
Soltas, Bloomberg’s Ticker blog, 6-12-13
[Evan, Bloomberg, “A Fairer Way to Fast-Track Trade Deals”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201306-12/a-fairer-way-to-fast-track-trade-deals.html, accessed 7-14-13, AFB]
There are arguments against fast-track authority, too. It limits congressional input on the content
of trade agreements, and it tilts the balance of legislative power in favor of those who gain from
liberal trade and away from those who might be injured by it. These are fair points, but both can be
addressed while restoring authority.
Congress isn't looking to negotiate the agreements themselves -- what its members want is a voice
early in the process. Under the old authority, congressional hearings about the treaty happened late and
outside the legislative process. In a new authority, relevant committees could be given automatic
hearings whenever the president notifies Congress of his intention to begin negotiations, with
regular meetings to follow.
To encourage policies that mitigate the impact of trade agreements, a new trade-promotion
authority could provide for a similar up-or-down vote on an associated domestic-policy bill. This
would have to exclude tariff or other trade measures but could include, for instance, an expanded
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which provides aid, re-training and career counseling to
displaced workers. The package would equalize the leverage of trade and labor interests.
Trade promotion authority is an essential tool -- there's no other way to get round the commitment
problem it addresses. But linking fast-track authority to trade-adjustment policies would give even
better results.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 79
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
TPA Bad – Environment
TPA bad – eliminates opportunity to revise bad agreements – allows agreements like
the TPP that destroy the environment
Nash-Hoff, Huffington Post contributor, 7-10-13
[Huffington Post, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Would Harm Our Environment”,
Lexis, accessed 7-12-13]
Jul 10, 2013 (The Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Delivered by Newstex)
Proponents say that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement would be a platform for
economic integration and government deregulation for nations surrounding the Pacific Rim and
facilitate free trade to counter China's financial influence in Asia and the Pacific. The negotiating
parties include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,
Vietnam, and the United States. Japan also announced its intention to join the agreement last spring.
Because the TPP is intended as a "docking agreement," other Pacific Rim countries could join over time,
and the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and others are already expressing interest.
The TPP is poised to become the largest Free Trade Agreement in the world. According to
CitizensTrade.org[1], "The ongoing, multi-year negotiations over the TPP are supposed to conclude this
year, so the window of opportunity for preventing this free trade agreement is rapidly closing."
Among other reasons about which I have written previously[2], opponents of the TPP say it would harm
our planet's environment, subverting climate change measures and regulation of mining, land use, and
biotechnology. The Pacific Rim is an area of great significance from an environmental perspective.
It includes Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef system, home to more than
11,000 species. It includes Peru and its Amazon Rainforest -- one of the most biologically diverse
areas on Earth.
In May 2007, citizen-led advocacy groups including the http://sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPPLNG%20Factsheet%20FINAL.pdfSierra Club forged a bipartisan consensus that set the minimum
standards for environment, labor and other provisions to be included in future trade agreements.
According to sections of the TPP that have been leaked, it appears that these minimum standards
are being ignored.
It is essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build on the environmental protection progress that
has been made:
"At the minimum, the chapter should be binding and subject to the same dispute settlement provisions as
commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold and strengthen their domestic environmental laws and
policies and their obligations under agreed multilateral environmental agreements; and include biding
provisions to address the core environment and conservation challenges of the Pacific Rim region, such as
efforts to combat illegal trade in wood, wood products, and wildlife and to strengthen fisheries
management."
If you "Google" TPP and the environment, you come up with more than 20 pages of articles by one
organization after another and one author after another expressing reasons why the TPP would
harm the environment. The opposition to the TPP began as early as 2011 when the first drafts were
leaked and intensified in 2012. These organizations include the
http://sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPP-LNG%20Factsheet%20FINAL.pdfSierra Club,
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5411frcrld=Public Citizen group (founded by Ralph Nader), the
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/trade-policies/tpp-potential-trade-policy-problems/Citizens Trade
Campaign, and http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-will-cause-continuedharm-to-u-s-economy-manufacturingEconomy in Crisis, among many others. A common thread of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 80
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
articles is either a subtle or overt accusation that President Obama has "sold out" to Wall Street/big banks
and multinational/transnational corporations.
On their website, Union-backed http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2012/12/03/the-trans-pacific-partershipsinternational-tribunals-will-take-corporate-personhood-to-the-level-of-corporate-super-humanism/We
Party Patriots states, "...the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being put together in extreme secrecy. This
secrecy comes complete with a total lack of mainstream media coverage despite serious potential longterm effects. Leaked documents show that the TPP will have a chilling effect on the ability of the
United States government to take legal action against multi-national corporations for their abuses
of environmental, agricultural, and labor laws."
The Fair World Project's website http://fairworldproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/FWP_Spring_publication_2013_page12.pdfstates that in late 2012, "a group of
labor leaders, trade justice advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, food sovereignty groups and
others from the U.S., Canada and Mexico created a 'North American Unity Statement Opposing NAFTA
Expansion through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),' with the goal of uniting 1,000 organizations in
opposition to the TPP."
On March 7, 2013,http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2013-03-new-video-peril-in-the-pacific Friends of
the Earth announced that it had released a new video, "Peril in the Pacific: Trans Pacific trade
agreement threatens people and the planet." The video illustrates these threats by telling the story of
"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/09/120109fa_fact_keefe?currentPage=allChevron v.
Ecuador" international investment suit brought under an existing U.S. treaty. The video raises questions
like: "Who should pay to clean up what has been called the "http://www.foe.org/news/blog/2012-02-therainforest-chernobyl--will-us-investment-treatyRainforest Chernobyl" in the Ecuadorian Amazon? Why
are the people of the rainforest who suffered the most not represented at the international tribunal hearing
the case? Is it U.S. policy to favor the financial interests of multi-national corporations over people and
the environment in such disputes?"
The video also asks why the negotiating framework for the TPP favors Wall Street and
multinational corporations at the expense of current U. S. environmental and climate policy and
why does it allow multinational corporations to challenge laws that protect our air, land and water.
Because the Asia-Pacific region accounts for about one third of all the threatened species in the
world, Friends of the Earth is concerned that the TPP trade agreement potentially checkmates
many of our country's past environmental victories and would block new initiatives. The natural
environment and rich biodiversity of the Pacific Rim are threatened by illegal and/or unsustainable
commercial exploitation of the ocean, natural resources, and forests.
Friends of the Earth recommends that the TPP negotiators must address the following issues to avoid
the most serious environmental harms by: Including an environment chapter that would obligate countries
to enforce domestic environmental protections and abide by global environmental agreements that are
enforceable through international lawsuits. Rejecting the proposed TPP investment chapter that would
authorize foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and bring suit before special international tribunals
biased in favor of multinationals to seek awards of unlimited monetary damages in compensation for the
cost of complying with environmental and other public interest regulations. Rejecting "provisions of the
TPP intellectual property chapter that would provide international legal protections for corporate patents
on plant and animal life, granting companies ownership and sole access to these building blocks of life."
Rejecting the regulatory coherence chapter that could hamstring environmental regulation and
"encourage cost-benefit analysis that exaggerates financial costs and minimizes the intrinsic value
of protecting living things, wild places, and the stability of the ecosystem." Friends of the Earth
urges that the TPP "must serve to strengthen environmental protection and support the
biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a race to the bottom in environmental
deregulation."
What surprises me is that all of the above organizations supported President Obama in his bid for
reelection last year despite the fact that he had gone back on his pledge[3] "to oppose Bush-style free
trade agreements that lead to thousands of lost American jobs" and his word [4]to "not support NAFTA-
Gonzaga Debate Institute 81
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
type trade agreements" in his 2008 campaign. Now that he is elected for his second and last term, what
incentive does he have to listen to the opinions of these organizations that oppose the Trans-Pacific
Partnership agreement? None!
A few conservative news outlets such as WorldNet Daily began to recognize the dangers of the TPP early
this year, beginning with the article[5], "Obama skirting Congress in globalist plan?" in which Jerome
Corsi warn that "the administration apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an
up-or-down vote" utilizing the "fast-track authority," a provision under the Trade Promotion
Authority that requires Congress to review a FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame
subject to a yes-or-no vote. Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the
agreement by submitting amendments to ensure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be
changed during the legislative process.
In a more recent article[6], "Obama's 2-ocean globalist plan," Jerome Corsi writes, "Quietly, the Obama
administration is systematically putting into place a two-ocean globalist plan that will dwarf all prior trade
agreements, including NAFTA, with the goal of establishing the global sovereignty envisioned by New
World Order enthusiasts. The two agreements are the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TIPP. WND has learned the Obama administration
plans to jam the TPP through Congress no later than Dec. 31."
We certainly cannot expect to influence the President to oppose the TPP near the end of three-years of
negotiations that took place under his direction. With the virtual black out of coverage about the TPP in
the mainstream media, the best we can do is make our opinions heard loud and clear to our Senators and
Congressional representatives and urge our family, friends, and members of our personal and business
network to do the same. We must urge our elected representatives to vote against granting President
Obama "fast track authority" under the Trade Promotion Authority. There is no time to waste. Contact
your congressional representative and tell them we cannot afford another damaging "free trade"
agreement that would destroy our national sovereignty, hurt American manufacturers, and harm
our environment. Tell them to vote "no" to granting the President "fast track authority."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 82
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
TPA Bad – Oversight
TPA undermines Congressional oversight – facilitating trade provisions that flout
sovereignty and environmental protections
Shank, Friends Committee on National Legislation Foreign Policy director, 7-11-13
[Michael, The Hill, “Congress needs to be involved in trade talks”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/foreign-policy/310205-congress-needs-to-be-involved-in-trade-talksaccessed 7-13-13, AFB]
By Michael Shank, Ph.D.
- 07/11/13 09:00 AM ET
With 150 negotiators in 24 working groups descending on Washington D.C. this week to take part in the
first round of US-EU trade talks, and with the joint EU-US High Level Working Group saying that
“ambitious outcomes” should be sought for the areas of “market access,” “regulatory issues and non-tariff
barriers,” and “rules, principles, and new modes of cooperation to address shared global trade challenges
and opportunities,” Congress is about to witness a complete overhaul on trade. From a transpacific
agreement to a transatlantic one. Congress will be sidelined from the conversations unless it asserts
itself. It should because the impact on America will be profound. The US-EU Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) make up the majority of
the world’s global domestic product and are already plagued with serious accountability issues.
As a way of circumventing oversight, Congress will be asked for fast-track authority to move
forward trade agreements. Thankfully, two-thirds of the Democratic freshman class in the House of
Representatives came out opposing it.
Why is there such concern in Congress? One might think it’s the disembowelment of environmental
and labor standards, but there’s a larger issue. It is the creation of extrajudicial ‘investor-state’
tribunals as the final arbiter on trade disputes. The operative word here is extrajudicial.
Congress should be united in opposition as it undermines American sovereignty. As Huffington
Post’s Zach Carter explained, “Foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to
appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international
tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law.”
The tribunals can order taxpayer compensation for health and environmental policies that inhibit
foreign investors’ “expected future profits”. This is hardly good for America and why there should be
bipartisan concern. Let’s say a Japanese company wants to do business in California but state law
puts limits on parts of the firm’s operations due to environmental standards. (A company needs
only to be operating in, not based in, a TPP country to use the regime.) In response, California, a leader
on environmental protection, sticks to its standards. The Japanese firm counters by taking
California to these extrajudicial TPP trade “courts”.
These court “judges,” however, are not part of a reputable international tribunal based in an international
institution. The judges are often private sector lawyers that “rotate between acting as ‘judges’ and as
advocates for the investors suing the governments.” If the company wins the suit, the “losing”
country’s taxpayers pay the settlement, which is often in the tens of millions and occasionally in the
billions of dollars.
Companies won these lawsuits 70 percent of the time last year. Even when governments win, they have to
shell out $8 million on average per case just to defend existing public interest policies. The three cases
below are exemplary of what we’ll see more of:
Under US-Ecuador’s Bilateral Investment Treaty, which mimics the investor-state system enshrined in
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the largest-ever reward from one of these tribunals
hit the poor country of Ecuador hard. In a decision by a World Bank tribunal last year, Ecuador lost to
Occidental Petroleum and now is forced to pay a penalty of $2.4 billion for ending their oil contract.
Ecuador, reeling from decades of environmental pollution by Chevron/Texaco in the Ecuadorean
Gonzaga Debate Institute 83
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
Amazon, had concerns with Occidental illegally selling off portions of the agreed-upon oil contract
without government authorization, a move that abrogated the contract. Now the country is billions in debt.
The story of Peru and the Renco Group Inc. and its subsidiary Doe Run Peru, owned by US billionaire Ira
Rennert, is equally disconcerting. Pollution from the company’s lead and zinc smelters, which are
operated in the mountain town of La Oroya, was linked with high lead levels in the town’s children. After
myriad cases emerged of mental retardation, convulsions, anemia, and stunted growth, Peru ordered an
environmental cleanup, to which Renco responded by launching an $800 million claim against the
government under the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The company claimed that the cleanup ran Doe
Run Peru into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the children get sicker and the town poorer.
After Quebec passed a moratorium on fracking two years ago because it wanted to conduct an
environmental impact assessment on the impacts of leached chemicals and gases from fracking, US-based
company Lone Pine Resources demanded $250 million saying Canada violated its NAFTA obligations.
The company had planned to frack 30,000 acres near the St. Lawrence River, injecting toxic chemicals
into a critical watershed.
These cases, where extrajudicial tribunals usurp national law, are becoming common. Oversight
by Congress, then, is needed now more than ever. The majority of the trade advisory boards are
stacked with private sector representatives with little nongovernmental participation. If these trade
deals are the “win” the White House claims there should be no reservations in opening up the
process for participation by stakeholders at the receiving end of these trade agreements, for which
Congress must now advocate. That would make it truly trans-pacific and transatlantic. And that would
make it a real partnership.
No agreement – Japan literally is only just joining the talks, and they have an
agenda
Miyazaki, Japan News, 7-9-13
[Takao, “Govt to form strategy after July TPP talks”
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000379732, accessed 7-15-13, AFB]
The government plans to send a team of about 100 people to this month’s 18th round of TransPacific Partnership negotiations, but with only three days for Japan to take part in the talks, its
primary objective is understanding the lay of the land.
The talks will begin Monday in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and wrap up July 25. U.S. government
procedures to approve Japan’s participation are set to end on the afternoon of July 23.
The government has decided not to introduce concrete arguments on maintaining tariffs for rice
and other agricultural products during these three days, when it would be allowed to join the
discussions.
Hoping to expand exports of automobiles and other goods through the TPP negotiations, the government
intends to demand tariffs be repealed for industrial products.
The Liberal Democratic Party and other players have designated five important agricultural
products for which they particularly want to preserve tariffs: rice, wheat, beef and pork, dairy
products, and sweetener crops such as sugar cane. But without information on the progress of
negotiations, the government will not know what bargaining chips it holds. It has therefore decided
to focus this time on gathering information that has not yet been disclosed to parties besides the United
States, Australia and the other nine nations taking part in the talks.
July 23 will be the first time for Japan to lay eyes on a summary of the negotiations that is several
thousand pages long. The nation is scheduled to be the focus of the final day of talks, at which time the
other countries will explain the state of negotiations so far.
In addition to the government team, the LDP is planning to send four representatives, including Diet
member Koya Nishikawa, head of the party’s TPP committee.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 84
Brovero-Lundeen – Politics Impact Supplement
After the Malaysia meeting, the government plans to quickly analyze the text so it can understand
other parties’ interests and make plans for the 19th round of negotiations, which is scheduled for
late August. It intends to present concrete proposals on the five important agricultural products at
this meeting.
Up to this point, the TPP talks have been focused on achieving a “liberalization rate”--the proportion of
products whose tariffs are to be eliminated within 10 years--of at least 98 percent.
If Japan were to maintain tariffs on all of the above-mentioned products, it would only achieve a
liberalization rate of about 94 percent, indicating the government has tough choices to make as it
formulates its game plan.
No agreement – talks won’t even be concluded this year
Miyazaki, Japan News, 7-9-13
[Takao, “Govt to form strategy after July TPP talks”
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000379732, accessed 7-15-13, AFB]
No end to talks this year
Despite a stated goal to conclude the TPP talks this year, unresolved issues over tariffs and other
matters have made it nearly certain they will stretch into at least 2014. The focus of a meeting
between the leaders of participating countries scheduled for October is quickly shifting to figuring out if
a conclusion can be reached next year.
The TPP talks cover 29 areas, including “commodity market access,” which covers discussions on
tariffs, and “intellectual property,” which covers formulation of rules to control counterfeiting.
For this month’s meeting, host country Malaysia has stated that 14 areas have essentially been settled,
with only small disagreements remaining, which means that talks on the remaining 15 areas have not
gone as planned.
This is particularly true with tariffs. “Conflicting interests, such as the United States’ desire to keep
tariffs on sugar and Australia’s goal to get rid of them, have not been resolved,” a Japanese
government source said.
The government is also expected to hold talks with the United States in August alongside the TPP
negotiations.
As the United States is clearly the toughest negotiating partner in the talks, the government plans to
dispatch Cabinet members and other officials across the Pacific this summer to sound out the
United States’ “true motives” for opening up agricultural markets and other issues.