P. 1
TPA Disad

TPA Disad

|Views: 33|Likes:
Published by Sarah Spring
HUDL Institute - UH Debate
HUDL Institute - UH Debate

More info:

Published by: Sarah Spring on Aug 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





TPA Disadvantage

1NC – Trade Promotion Authority ........................................................................................................................ 2

Yes pass ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Obama Push .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 A2: Not on Agenda .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Political Capital Key ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Bipart Key ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Trade With Mexico Unpopular ........................................................................................................................... 14 Economic Engagement Unpopular ..................................................................................................................... 15 Border Infrastructure Unpopular ........................................................................................................................ 16 Answers To: Link Turns ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Answers To: Winners Win................................................................................................................................... 18

TPA key to Global Trade...................................................................................................................................... 19 Trade Leadership Key.......................................................................................................................................... 20 A2: Trade Inevitable ............................................................................................................................................ 21

A2: Uniqueness
No pass................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Not on Obama’s agenda ..................................................................................................................................... 25

A2: Links
PC Not True ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 No Link – Not Unpopular .................................................................................................................................... 27 Link Turn – Plan Popular ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Link turn – winners win....................................................................................................................................... 29

A2: Impacts
No Impact............................................................................................................................................................ 30


TPA Disadvantage Trade Promotion Authority

Trade Promotion Authority
A. Congress will pass trade promotion authority for Obama now, despite partisanship on other issues. Barfield 7/3/13 Claude Barfield is a Resident Scholar at AEI and a former consultant to the office of the US
Trade Representative, July 3, 2013, “On trade, Republicans have Speaker Boehner’s back” http://www.aeiideas.org/2013/07/on-trade-republicans-have-speaker-boehners-back/
John Boehner still has

much to fear from the rambunctious younger cohorts of his Republican caucus: they may well ignore Lindsey Graham’s warning about a Republican “demographic death spiral” and torpedo any plausible immigration reform; and they may well balk at raising the debt ceiling in the fall. But on one issue — trade policy — the Speaker can rest easy: his Republican majority will stand almost completely united. This means within the next several months ( assuming the Obama administration doesn’t overreach
in attempting to placate its union and environmental group allies),

the Speaker will

be able to deliver a sizable Republican majority in favor of granting the president new trade promotion authority; and down the road in 2014, should the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement be concluded, Boehner will also not face the embarrassment of scrambling for votes, as was the case recently with the agriculture bill.

B. Economic engagement with Mexico is politically divisive Wilson 13 – Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International. Center for Scholars
(Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make: sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given

that job creation and economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.Mexico economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.

Neg- 1NC Trade Promotion Authority


TPA Disadvantage Trade Promotion Authority

C. Internal Link - Obama’s political capital is critical to passing Trade promotion authority. Politi, 5/20/13 James. Financial Times [London (UK)] 20 May 2013 Financial Times US economics and trade
correspondent “US business keen to promote 'fast track' trade deals: Political debate” Proquest
A campaign has been launched to 'educate' legislators on the benefits involved, writes, James Politi The

first big political clash is looming over the US's planned trade deals with the EU and eleven Pacific nations, as lawmakers debate whether to grant President Barack Obama sweeping authority to pass the pacts swiftly through Congress. Members and staff of the Senate finance committee and the House ways and
means committee have been discussing a bill that would for the first time since 2007 provide so-called "fast track" status to trade agreements reached by the White House. Such legislation, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) , prevents lawmakers from delaying or amending trade deals, setting them on course for an up-and-down vote in both the House and the Senate within a defined time period. This aggressive second-term trade agenda, which

would be a particularly important win for Mr Obama as he presses ahead with his just this year has included launching talks with the EU and accepting Japan's entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. But securing TPA will not be easy - and the debate on Capitol Hill will be an early test of US political appetite for the EU-US and TPP deals themselves, as well as a sign of the popularity of Mr Obama's new push for trade liberalisation. One Senate aide familiar with the talks says staff and members have been meeting frequently on TPA recently and hope a bipartisan bill covering all trade deals "for as long as possible" can be introduced next month . "We haven't covered every single topic but we
haven't come across too much that really divides us", the aide says. An aide to Max Baucus, chair of the Senate finance committee, says the talks have been "productive and cordial". But others are expecting a clash, as was the case when the last fast track bill was passed in the House with a very slim margin in 2002 under George W. Bush, allowing him to complete a slew of trade deals. US business groups which support "fast track" are preparing for a fight - and today will launch a new coalition to "educate" lawmakers and the US public about its benefits - most notably that it removes much of the uncertainty surrounding passage of trade deals through Congress. "We're

gearing up for this," says Christopher Wenk, senior director of i nternational policy at the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest US business lobby group. "The reality is that there is a very ambitious trade agenda now taking shape but it will never be able to come to fruition if the president doesn't have this authority." David Thomas, vice-president of trade policy at the Business Roundtable , which represents
the biggest US blue-chip companies, is another proponent. "It's not an end to itself but it's a tool to getting these trade deals done to support the US economy," he says. That view is shared by some on Capitol Hill. "I'm encouraged with the level of discussion that's going on", says Johnny Isakson of Georgia , the top Republican on the Senate finance trade subcommittee. "There are those who are more isolationists but there's a strong pro-trade element in both the House and the Senate and in the end they will prevail," he adds. But others, particularly members of Mr Obama's own Democratic party who are sceptical of further trade liberalisation, are likely to make demands that Republicans may find unpalatable, or that the White House worries would impose too many restrictions on its negotiators. Sherrod Brown, the Democratic senator from Ohio, says he has spoken to about half the members of the finance committee about the importance of attaching certain conditions to TPA to secure a "more balanced approach on trade", such as ways to protect the currency and workers. "We want to make sure that we practise trade according to our national interest, when in the past we've practised trade according to some economic textbook that is 20 years out of date," Mr Brown says. The big challenge in crafting TPA this year will be successfully reflecting the dramatic shift in the global economy since it was last passed in 2002. This means US lawmakers will have to decide how far they want to go in imposing "negotiating objectives" on Mr Obama with respect to the role of state-owned enterprises, cross-border data flows, intellectual property rights, and currency levels. " I

would expect a lot of issues to get

aired," says Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. "There is still general unhappiness with the administration's unwillingness to be aggressive with other countries on exchange rates," he says, which could affect the talks with Japan on the TPP. " It's going to take an extraordinary amount of political capital on the part of the administration to get this done. There are going to be a lot of battles," Mr Paul adds. Obama administration officials have so far said they are "ready to work" on TPA with Congress but have not presented their own legislation to jump-start the process, drawing criticism from Republicans who say it is a sign they are not fully committed to it. But others say the White House skittishness has been purely tactical - that officials simply want to wait for the most politically advantageous moment to step into the debate. The next clue on the administration's position is expected when Mike Froman, the nominee for US trade representative, appears before Congress for his confirmation hearing in the next few weeks. The more optimistic supporters of TPA in Washington argue that trade has actually bucked the trend of fierce political divisions and dysfunction in recent years, with the passage on a bipartisan basis of three trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, as well as permanent
normal trade relations with Russia. There also has not been a rush of opposition to the EU-US trade deal announcement, though TPP is more contentious especially after the announcement that Japan would accede.

Neg- 1NC Trade Promotion Authority


TPA Disadvantage Trade Promotion Authority

D. – Impact - Passing TPA is critical to the future viability of the WTO – which will collapse now. Jeffrey Schott 6/14/13 Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics Payoff from the World
Trade Agenda Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC June 14, 2013 http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/transcript-20130614.pdf
Now, what are the prospects for Bali? Well, they’re not so good. Trade ministers are prone to accentuate the positive. But when APEC trade leaders met in Surabaya, Indonesia in April of this year, they admitted, and I need to quote this. This is what they said: “The negotiation as it stands now is not on course to lead to a successful outcome at the Ministerial Conference 9 in Bali.” And then even more ominously they said: “

The continued viability of the WTO’s

negotiating function is at serious risk. ” So that’s what our trade leaders, our optimistic trade leaders are saying about the prospects for moving forward later this year in Bali. And it underscores the task that Terry and others have. And it has to be more
than the business community, but as Fred said it has to be certainly pushed hard by the business community to just get the of ficials and the negotiators to recognize that there’s a lot at stake and a big window of opportunity to make progress, bu t a big cost if they don’t. Now, what are the reasons for the impasse? And this is something that goes beyond what we put in our study. It’s more of a postscript to our study to look at the task going forward. And there are a number of problems that beset the preparations for the Bali Ministerial. You can call them Bali aches if you like. Oh, yeah, I was wondering whether to say that, and obviously I shouldn ’t have. The first is issue with linkages. These are tactical gambits that risk blocking agreement like similar moves blocked agreement on the overall DOHA agenda over the past 10 years. And the key problem going forward for Bali is linking what is called food security subsidies with the trade facilitation agreement. There are important issues with regard to food security. There are important issues with regard to agricultural subsidies. But they should not be used in a way that blocks the ability to get the big deliverable out of Bali. And negotiators are still tied up in knots on how to do that. The second problem regards imbalances. Each country has a different idea of what is a balanced accord. Now, the terminology is important. In the past, we talked in trade negotiations about reciprocity. Reciprocity is an ambiguous term, but it’s a lot clearer than talking about balanced because each country hastheir own idea of what balanced is and there’s no consistent standard to set it on. So the first imbalance derives from differences in how countries value the benefit of policy change, basically taking what’s going on now and changing what countries do in order to open up more opportunities from trade and investment and how they value the increase in policy predictability that comes when new obligations constrain the ability of governments to reverse liberalization and to add new protectionism. So those are important. How do you value those things? In fact, the appreciation of the value of those two aspects is sometimes not well understood. The second imbalance comes between the level of progress that is needed on market access across agriculture and manufacturing and services, and the progress on commitments to new rule-making obligations, which often also encompass reforms that result in improved market access. This is part of the problem with the duty-free, quota-free issue and the resistance to going to a 100 percent coverage of tariff lines in a number of countries. There needs to be progress both on the coverage of the tariff preferences for the least developed countries. But there also needs to be progress on the eligibility rules for qualifying for the preferential rates. I mean, there are some countries that provide a 100 percent duty-free, quota-free treatment for least developed countries, but those countries don’t get access to that market because the eligibility rules, the content requirements and the like, basically block them from access to those markets. So those two things have to be done. There has to be a greater liberalization of the eligibility requirements to make those LDC preferences meaningful. And third, there

are leadership lapses. And this has been throughout the DOHA Round, so this is nothing new. The big players, developed and developing, need to put their chips on the table. For the U.S. and the EU, this means real constraints on farm supports and real new access for the exports of the least developed
countries. These countries should be more responsive with regards to cuts of agricultural export subsidies —that’s one of our initiatives in our study. And indeed, there has been suggestions for 16 Bali that developing countries want the U.S. and Europe to commit to a 50 percent down payment on reductions of agricu ltural export subsidies, but that’s actually doable given the current climate of high commodity prices and should be acceptable if the deal included a snapback clause. But it seems to be resisted so far. And this is one area where the negotiators are being a bit too risk-averse. For China, it means dropping the charade that they are recently a ceded member to the WTO, and therefore, don’t have to do anymore. They need to do more. They need to commit to broader liberalization than other developing countries. And they have the ability to do that. For all the BRICs, it means advancing services negotiations as a means to unblock the negotiating impasse on agriculture and on NAMA. Now, this audience probably is focusing on, well,


the heck is the United States going to do in any of this.

And it leads to the question of what about trade promotion authority

. For the

U.S., passage of new trade promotion authority would send a very positive signal that we were willing and able to make these commitments and follow through on them, and it should be done soon . And I was pleased that Mike
Froman in these confirmation hearings gave the committee assurances that he would work closely with the Finance and Ways and Means Committee that are already doing preparatory work on new legislation. Now, soon

in this context given legislative realities means that a bill should be either passed or at least well advanced before Bali. I think if there’s a clear sign that the Congress is moving forward and will enact trade promotion authority that this will make it easier for the U.S. negotiators to put together the type of deal that serves our broad interest and those of the trading system. But, passage of the farm bill could send exactly the
opposite signal, at least the way it is being considered right now and if key Senate provisions are enacted. It’s interesting that legislators hardly take into consideration at all international trade negotiations when they put together a farm bill. And while they should deal with the concerns of their constituents, their constituents are operating in global markets. And it’s interesting that while there’s interesting cutting subsidies in the Congress, the subsidies that they’re considering cutting are the only ones that are actually legal under the WTO system. So they’re cutting the legal subsidies and proposing new subsidies that would, if not be illegal, would be actionable and considered trade distorting under the WTO. So this is a problem and for Bali, if

Congress doesn’t act on the farm bill, that may be a positive thing. So in sum, I think what has come out of our study is that there are a lot of important things that should and can be done. A Bali deal is critical to rebuilding confidence in WTO negotiations. And simply put, officials need to demonstrate that WTO talks can produce results. That used to be why everyone went to Geneva during the GATT era. But there has been a great deal of skepticism in recent years that negotiators recognized the urgency of getting something done. And second, Bali needs to produce Neg- 1NC Trade Promotion Authority


TPA Disadvantage Trade Promotion Authority a solid down payment on a bigger WTO package that would be pulled together and accelerated negotiations post Bali.

E. The WTO is critical to prevent nuclear extinction. Copley News Service 1999 [December 1, 1999, lexis]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past.
But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As

long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so
important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.

Neg- 1NC Trade Promotion Authority


TPA Disadvantage Yes pass

Yes pass
TPA will pass now because of strong support from Republicans. DePillis 7/17/13 Lydia DePillis is a reporter for the Washington Post focusing on business policy, including lobbying, government contracting, and
international trade. She was previously a staff writer at The New Republic. “How Congress might have already tied Obama’s hands in trade negotiations” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/how-congress-might-have-already-tied-obamas-hands-in-trade-negotiations/

Business, Obama, and…GOP Leadership? On the other side, however, lies all the force of American industry: An array of business lobby groups, from the Farm Bureau to the National Association of Manufacturers , have been pushing for trade promotion authority all year. The Chamber of Commerce says it’s the organization’s top legislative priority; its officials have even started running ads on the issue, have already met with all the House freshmen, and are planning meetings with the sophomores. “It’s really urgent to get this done, because the U.S. is engaged in a lot of negotiations right now,” says Chris Wenk, the
Chamber’s point person on trade issues. ”I think it’s safe to say that if there’s not some clarity about trade promotion authority, some of our trade partners might not put their best feet forward.” Unlike

the filibuster fight, this is a rare instance where top Republicans are actually willing to grant the Obama administration more authority, because modern trade deals typically involve less regulation, rather than more. And granting fast track authority is usually understood as a signal to trade partners that the U.S. is serious.

There’s momentum for trade now in Congress despite partisanship – the only question is Obama’s political capital, its necessary to close a deal and pass TPA. Robert Zoellick 6/14/13 eleventh president of the World Bank, US trade representative 2001-2005 Payoff
from the World Trade Agenda Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC June 14, 2013 http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/transcript-20130614.pdf
So I’ll conclude by observing that I think the

Obama administration also has a political opportunity on trade. A couple of weeks

ago I was asked to talk to the republicans on the ways and means committee at their regular lunch and they were all busy with the IRS, I think was the current issue of the day, but as I talked about the trade liberalization agenda, you could just tell people from small business, other backgrounds, they got

energized. They weren’t focused yet, because frankly the administration hasn’t focused their attention. I mean Dave Camp, Max want to move TPA. Well, Carl and I would’ve liked an environment where the chairman of the key ways and means and finance committees came up and said to the administration, “Please, we want to move forward, trade promotion authority.” This is an opportunity to flush out some of the issues, build support, get the business community to recognize that this isn’t just talk, that there’s some reality behind,so in an environment where it’s a little hard to get republicans and democrats to work
[Inaudible 00:26:39.1] have also talked to they

together, this is a chance to create some momentum.
close to the president. He’s certainly a smart guy.

If immigration gets done, and I hope it will, another big structural change, this

could be a nice sort of follow up effort and I think it’s wonderful the president’s appointed or nominated Mike Froman. He certainly knows the issues. He’s

whether he and the college

The challenge frankly for him, and this is what we’re going to have to see, is administration have the political will to decide and to close. I’ve been through a lot of these.

There’s a lot of talk out there. A lot about you can have this concept, that concept. I like concepts and strategies too, but in this area, you eventually have to close. And within the government, much less within the larger country and working

with the congress, believe you me, there’s always somebody who wants something else or feels you couldn’t do this. So that interest that Mike will have to drive about having the willpower to close will be critical.

Neg- Uniqueness Yes pass


TPA Disadvantage Yes pass

Strong GOP support, even from the tea party means that TPA will pass now. Barfield 7/3/13 Claude Barfield is a Resident Scholar at AEI and a former consultant to the office of the US Trade Representative,
trade, Republicans have Speaker Boehner’s back” http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/on-trade-republicans-have-speaker-boehners-back/ The point is that on

July 3, 2013, “On

trade, unlike other major legislative issues, the Tea Party and the Chamber of Commerce wings of the Republican Party are in agreement. After the 2010 midterm elections, many trade experts and some in the press predicted that the alleged insularity and isolationism of new House Tea Party-backed members would lead to major change in Republican trade policy. Not so: it turned out that the Tea Party Republicans viewed removing barriers to trade and investment as an extension of their goal of downsizing government and freeing up the economy
from onerous government regulations. Thus, in March 2011, 65 Republican freshmen (more than three-quarters of the class) signed a letter calling on the Obama administration to send up, and Congress to pass, the then-pending free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. This

stance has now been duplicated by the 2012 House Republican freshmen. On June 27, all but one of this new class (35) signed a letter to USTR Michael Froman pledging to work with him and the president to pass TPA and to move
forward on a “free and fair trade” agenda. Yes, I know for us purists adding “fair” to “free trade” can cause heartburn: it is often a copout for protectionists. But hey, from the record thus far, it

is “fair” to give these newer House Republicans, Tea Party-backed or not, the benefit of the doubt. So it looks as if on trade Speaker Boehner can still count on solid backing.

TPA will pass now, TPP negotiations create momentum. Inside U.S. Trade July 5, 2013 Short Of Completing TPP This Year, Countries Could Seek 'Early Harvest' Lexis
TPP countries are roughly halfway toward substantially concluding the text, judging by the Malaysian government's public
assessment last month that 14 of the 29 chapters have been substantially closed. At the same time, the Malaysian government stressed that sensitive issues remain in these 14 chapters that will have to be taken up at a later stage of the negotiations (Inside U.S. Trade, June 28). An

"early harvest"

announcement could serve as a political signal that the negotiations are not adrift and could be one way to put pressure on Japan not to hold up the negotiations, according to observers. 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.

Congress is ready to passTPA – they know that they have to Palmer 5/22 (Doug Palmer,(Trade Correspondent at Thomson Reuters “Amid rancor, a chance for U.S. action on trade bill”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-22/news/sns-rt-us-usa-congress-tradebre94l0u7-20130522_1_trade-bill-trade-deals-trade-promotion-authority) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Major trade legislation appears increasingly likely to clear Congress this year despite an intensely partisan atmosphere made worse by scandals plaguing President Barack Obama's administration. Business

groups are preparing to push for the bill, which would give the White House enhanced ability to negotiate trade deals and set out U.S. negotiating goals on issues ranging from crossborder electronic data flows to global supply chains and potentially even foreign currency practices. "I really think Congress is about ready to do something on trade," said Scott Miller, a trade policy specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to a bill known as trade promotion authority, or TPA. Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents major exporters like Boeing and Caterpillar, said he was optimistic that Congress could pass a bipartisan TPA bill by the end of the year. "They all know they have to do it. You can't be a modern country in today's trading system and not have authority to negotiate these things," Reinsch said. Bipartisan legislation could emerge soon from talks between the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee and the House of Representatives
Ways and Means Committee, which have jurisdiction over trade laws. The action is driven by White House efforts to strike major trade deals with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the 27 nations of the European Union. The legislation would allow Obama to submit trade agreements to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without amendments, giving other countries the assurance that any deal they reach with the United States will not be changed by the House or Senate.

Neg- Uniqueness Yes pass


TPA Disadvantage Yes pass

Will pass by the end of the year. Inside U.S. Trade 5/24/13 Business Groups Form New Coalition Aimed At Securing Renewal Of TPA Lexis
The coalition cites the administration's ambitious negotiating agenda -- including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks and the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations -- as the impetus for enacting TPA renewal legislation this year. "Since TPA and its negotiating objectives were written more than a decade ago, many new issues and challenges to doing business in the global marketplace have emerged," the coalition wrote on its website. "By reenacting TPA with updated negotiating objectives, Congress can help strategically address such issues across the range of U.S. trade negotiations being pursued." A business source this week said the coalition envisions "a realistic window" to pass TPA sometime late this year and that the movement on TPP and launch of TTIP negotiations can serve as the impetus for that. "I think there are enough negotiations in the legislative pipeline that when members see how these agreements are progressing, the interest in having TPA will be all the greater," this business source said. Following the launch of the website this week the coalition will next focus on state-by-state outreach, focusing on lawmakers and industries.

Neg- Uniqueness Yes pass


TPA Disadvantage Obama Push

Obama Push
Obama is working with Congress on TPA Now. US News & World Report 7/18/13 Trade chief says Pacific trade pact deal not easy
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/07/18/trade-chief-says-pacific-trade-pact-deal-not-easy Froman also pledged that the administration will work with Congress to craft a new trade promotion authority bill that would give the administration the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress can accept or reject but cannot alter. The last trade promotion authority act, also known as "fast track," expired in 2007, making negotiating partners less willing to proceed with trade deals because of concerns that Congress will tamper with them. Republicans have pushed for renewal of trade promotion authority, but some Democrats, who see trade agreements as a source of environmental damage and labor rights violations, have resisted. Froman said that it was important to have the authority in place before the TPP is sent to Congress, noting that there had only been one free trade agreement in history, with Jordan, considered without the authority in place.

Obama’s new trade representative confirms Obama pushing TPA. Reuters 6/22/13 New US Trade Chief Focused On India, Striking Deals Reuters 971 words 22 June 2013 06:05
PM Business World Factiva
When asked if the pact would make it easier for US farmers to sell genetically modified crops in Europe, Froman said: "We think the prospect of a broad and comprehensive agreement gives us our best opportunity for achieving something that has eluded us before." He repeated

his intention to work with lawmakers to pass a "trade promotion authority" bill, which would allow the White House to submit trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments. Many lawmakers want the bill to include a provision requiring the administration to negotiate rules against currency manipulation in trade pacts. Asked about that, Froman said that was an issue that needed to be worked out during discussions.

Obama is seeking TPA, their ev is out of date. Wall Street Journal 6/6/13 Obama Trade Rep Pick Faces Little Senate Heat Factiva
Mr. Froman

also said he would work to renew the president's so-called trade promotion authority, which expired in promotion authority, which has also been called "fast track," allows the administration to clinch trade deals with other countries that are subject only to an upor-down vote in Congress and can't be amended by lawmakers. The tool improves the chances of concluding complicated negotiations without facing isolated objections by members to Congress, but it also reduces lawmakers influence in trade deals. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the committee, blamed Senate Democrats for delaying the renewal of the authority, but committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said Thursday he would support legislation to renew the authority. Mr. Obama has faced criticism for not actively pursuing trade promotion authority, but Mr. Froman confirmed that the president is indeed seeking its renewal.
2007, something committee leaders from both parties also backed on Thursday. Trade

Neg- Uniqueness Obama Push


TPA Disadvantage A2: Not on Agenda

A2: Not on Agenda
Congress is moving towards approving TPA. Hoffa 7/18/13 James P. General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters “Congress Shouldn't
Outsource Its Trade Negotiating Authority” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-p-hoffa/congress-shouldntoutsour_b_3618561.html The looming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is potentially the biggest so-called "free trade" agreement in the world. And you've
probably never heard about it. TPP negotiations are being held in secret. Right now. Behind closed doors. Even the U.S. Congress, which is granted sole authority under the Constitution to debate and approve trade deals, has been cut out. But big business has a giant seat at the negotiating table. And

Congress is inching toward considering approval of the trade deal on a straight, up-or-down vote. If that happens, lawmakers would be giving away their ability to amend the agreement once negotiators, with the heavy-handed influence of corporations, agree to it. Approval of "fast-track" authority would also limit debate on the deal and keep many of its details shrouded in secrecy until it is
too late.

TPA will come up in the next few months. Europolitics Environment 6/28 (English) June 28, 2013 TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT
The system for doing trade deals differs significantly between the EU and the US. Thus, while the European Parliament has already weighed in on the TTIP in a non-binding resolution and EU member states have played a pivotal role in setting the Commission's negotiating mandate, at

this point the US Congress has given the US administration a free rein. But that will change in the coming months as House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (Republican, Michigan) has made clear. Camp, who heads the leading full committee in the House responsible for trade policy, noted that Obama would have to obtain, in a bipartisan way, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from Congress. That is the mechanism that will let Obama send the TTIP to Capitol Hill for a single yea' or nay' vote, rather than letting lawmakers vote on individual articles. When Obama seeks TPA, Congress will spell out in detail what it wants in return for granting him this.

Neg- Uniqueness A2: Not on Agenda


TPA Disadvantage Political Capital Key

Political Capital Key
Obama’s Engagement is Critical to pass TPA. Inside US Trade 7/24/13 “Staff Efforts On Fast-Track Bill Slow Down Over Negotiating Objectives” Lexis
Despite intensive work, efforts

by the staff of the congressional trade committees to develop a new fast-track bill have slowed down due to substantive disagreements over the negotiating objectives that the executive branch should pursue in free trade agreements.
Significant differences have emerged in particular over provisions relating to intellectual property protections, according to informed sources. But these sources said that the work has not slowed so much that staff for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has let go of its hopes to introduce a bill before the August recess. They also said that not all staff members engaged in the fast-track rewrite are convinced that releasing a bill before the recess is a good strategy since it would likely make the legislation the target of fast-track opponents' criticism during the recess. Following the July 18 trade policy hearing of the Ways and Means Committee (see related stories), Chairman

Dave Camp (R-MI) declined to say whether he believed a bill could be ready for introduction before the recess. "Clearly, there is bipartisan work in the House and the Senate, and we are working together to try and conclude that," he said. He also stressed that engagement from the administration on any new legislation is "critical" to move the process along , but sources
following the staff effort said it is unclear to what extent the administration has provided input so far.

TPA will be a Big Fight, Obama will need all his resources. DePillis 7/17/13 Lydia DePillis is a reporter for the Washington Post focusing on business policy, including lobbying, government contracting, and
international trade. She was previously a staff writer at The New Republic. “How Congress might have already tied Obama’s hands in trade negotiations” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/how-congress-might-have-already-tied-obamas-hands-in-trade-negotiations/

Nailing down complicated international trade agreements, with a zillion different interests and moving parts, is no easy feat. The Obama administration is trying to do two at once, one with the European Union and another with nine countries in Asia , both of which will be monumental feats when they’re finally signed. But that’s not the half of it: Obama’s emissaries also have to wrangle with Congress. In order for the agreements to be signed, the administration says it needs the power to put them to a vote without legislators being able to make amendments as they would with normal legislation–a “fast track” to approval. And guess who has to grant the president that power? That’s right– Congress itself. This year, it’s shaping up to be just as big a fight over checks and balances as the filibuster brinksmanship, only with different battle lines, and the rest of the world watching closely.

TPA will be a Tough fight, Obama’s support is critical. Financial Times 6/21/13 Congress and trade; Confirming Mike Froman as US trade chief is good start 21 June
2013 Financial Times Factiva
The US Senate did what was expected on Wednesday in confirming Michael Froman as the next US trade representative . With only four senators against and 93 in favour, it was unusually smooth by Capitol Hill's standards. And rightly so. As a veteran of the Obama and Clinton administrations, Mr Froman is well known to counterparts and has the ear of the Oval Office. And for

the first time in years, Washington is pursuing a big trade agenda in the Asia Pacific and across the Atlantic. It will be a far tougher battle to convince Congress to pass fast-track negotiating authority - an essential tool since Congress guarantees an "up or down" vote on any deal. Passing it should be a priority. Having so strongly endorsed Mr Froman, it would be a travesty were Congress to send him half-naked into negotiations. The strongest objections to
renewing fast-track, which elapsed in 2007, come from the left of the Democratic party. In opposing Mr Froman for the job, Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator, called for the declassification of documents from any US trade talks, including those in the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), which are gathering pace, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which are about to start. She also blamed globalisation and the impact of trade deals, such as Nafta, for the hollowing out of the US middle class. On both counts, Ms Warren is misguided. Transparency is usually a good thing. But it is impossible to negotiate well under the klieg lights. Confidentiality builds trust. By linking secretive trade negotiations to the recent scandal over the National Security Agency , Ms Warren

is implicitly signalling she will play hardball on "trade promotion authority". Given the Senate's filibuster rule, a small group of opponents could effectively kill it. Equally serious is the tendency to blame trade for the woes of the US middle classes. American median income has fallen sharply over the past 12 years. But the US decline is
much sharper than that experienced by more trade-penetrated economies in Europe and Asia. Democrats are right to worry about the health of the US labour market. But they should not scapegoat trade for a problem with multiple causes, including widening US income inequality and an education system that is turning out too many with outdated skills.

Neg- Links Political Capital Key


TPA Disadvantage Political Capital Key Democrats need to shake off this habit of blaming globalisation for the challenges facing the US middle class. And Mr Obama needs to be far more vocal in its defence.

Neg- Links Political Capital Key


TPA Disadvantage Bipartisanship Key

Bipartisanship Key
Obama must create bipartisan agreement to pass TPA Palmer 7/18/13 Doug Trade Policy Reporter at Thomson Reuters “Lawmakers press U.S. trade representative
on currency” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-usa-congress-froman-idUSBRE96H1AU20130718
(Reuters) -

Lawmakers urged the White House on Thursday to step up efforts to win approval of "trade promotion authority," which is needed to wrap up trade deals and to respond to congressional concerns about foreign currency practices. "While we are making progress (on crafting a trade promotion authority bill), we will not be able to do that without the administration's full involvement and engagement," House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp told U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman during a hearing. "We really do need to be full partners in this venture if it's to succeed." Trade promotion authority, or TPA, allows the White House to submit trade agreements to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without amendments. It is

considered vital to encouraging other countries to put their best offers on the table in talks with the United States. TPA expired in 2007 and Camp has been working on a bill to renew it with Representative Sandy Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, the Democratic chairman and top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The bipartisan effort is seen as the best chance to pass the legislation, which many Democrats have opposed in the past because they believe trade agreements cause U.S. job losses rather
than create them.

Bipartisanship is critical to passing TPA. Inside U.S. Trade 6/21/13 June 21, 2013 Freshmen House Dems Express Opposition To TPA Bill, Staff Efforts
Slow, Lexis
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."

Neg- Links Bipartisanship Key


TPA Disadvantage Trade With Mexico Unpopular

Trade With Mexico Unpopular
NAFTA proves economic engagement sparks divisive debates over job losses Villarreal and Fergusson 13 – Specialists in International Trade and Finance (M. Angeles, Ian F., 02/21,
“NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf) NAFTA was controversial when first proposed , mostly because it was the first FTA involving two wealthy, developed countries and a developing country. The political debate surrounding the agreement was divisive with proponents arguing that the agreement would help generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparit y in the region, while opponents warned that the agreement would cause huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to Mexico to lower costs. In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the
critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico account for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies.

Congressional opposition to Mexico infrastructure legislation—Bush Administration proves Farah, founder, editor, and CEO of Creators News Service, 06
*Joseph, July 13, 2006, “Cornyn wants U.S. taxpayers to fund Mexican development”, http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/36998/, accessed 7-8-13 BLE]
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has quietly introduced a bill to create a “North American Investment Fund” that would tap U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico. Despite assurances this week from White House press secretary Tony Snow that President Bush opposes the idea of a European Union superstate for North America, the effort, by one

of the president’s loyal supporters in the Senate, is sure to spark new questions about negotiations between the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on issues ranging from security to the economy. “Currently, a significant development gap exists
between Mexico and the United States and Canada,” Cornyn said. “I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap.”

Cornyn introduced the bill just before the July 4 holiday – admitting in his introductory comments that Congress is not likely to adopt his plan quickly. In fact, Cornyn previously attempted to create the new international fund in legislation he introduced in 2004. It soon thereafter died in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the latest version is headed. Senate Bill 3622, co-sponsored by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., specifically authorizes the president to “negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the U.S. to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy. ” The fund, if it is ever created, won’t just cost U.S. and Candian taxpayers more, it will also cost Mexican taxpayers a lot more. Cornyn’s
bill requires the government of Mexico to raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross national product. The current tax rate is approximately 9 percent. “The

purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already under way in Mexico to ensure their (sic) own economic development,” Cornyn said. “The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico, to facilitate trade, to develop and
expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries.” As

WND reported recently, opposition is mounting to similar programs, including President Bush’s North American Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Neg- Links Trade With Mexico Unpopular


TPA Disadvantage Economic Engagement Unpopular

Economic Engagement Unpopular
Substantial changes in engagement drain political capital Oppenheimer 5/9 – Latin- America correspondent for the Miami Herald (Andres, “Andres Oppenheimer: Boost
ties with Latin America”, 2013, http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/05/09/3293617/andres-oppenheimer-boostties.html#storylink=cpy, CMR)
I've read with great attention President Barack Obama's article in The Miami Herald earlier this week on how to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. It was pretty disappointing.¶ The article, headlined "Improving our Partnership" and published after Obama's

return from a trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, says that "this is a moment of great promise for our hemisphere" and is full of feel-good talk about the future of the Americas.¶ But, sadly, it showed the absence of any U.S. plans to drastically expand trade ties with Latin America -- like the Obama administration has done with Asia and Europe -- or any sign that, in his second term, Obama will pay greater attention to this hemisphere.¶ Before we get
into what Obama should do, let's take a quick look at the facts. In his article, Obama stated that about 40% of U.S. exports are currently going to Latin America, and that these exports are growing at a faster pace than U.S. shipments to the rest of the world.¶ Obama also celebrated that the U.S. Congress is finally close to approving comprehensive immigration reform. While that's a U.S. domestic issue, it would have a positive economic impact on Mexico and Central America, since millions of newly legalized immigrants would be able to visit their native countries, and most likely would be sending more money to their families back home.¶ But here are some of the facts that Obama failed to mention in his article: ¶ U.S. total trade with Latin America has actually fallen as a percentage of our total trade over the past decade. While 39% of the nation's overall trade was with the Western Hemisphere in 2000, that percentage fell to 38% in 2012, according to U.S. Department of Commerce data.¶ Despite

Obama's May 23, 2008, campaign promise to launch "a new alliance of the Americas," he has not started any major hemispheric free-trade initiative. By comparison, every
recent U.S. president had started -- or at least tried to start -- a hemisphere-wide trade deal.¶ Obama has launched the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade talks with mostly Asian countries, and a similar Trans-Atlantic Partnership free-trade negotiation with the 27-member European Union, but has not announced any plans for a Trans-American Partnership.¶ Granted, he has helped ratify free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which had been signed by his predecessor. And, sure, the Trans-Pacific Partnership plan includes a few Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Peru and Chile, but they are a minority within the proposed new bloc.¶ In his May 2 trip to Mexico, Obama failed to meet Mexico's request to be included in the U.S.-proposed TransAtlantic partnership free-trade talks with the European Union. The Mexican governments had asked that Mexico and Canada be included in the TransAtlantic Partnership plan so that the proposed deal could become a North American-European Union deal. But the White House response was not yet.¶ Despite Obama's 2011 announcement of a plan to increase to 100,000 the number of Latin -American students in U.S. colleges and to 100,000 the number of U.S. students in Latin-American universities -- his most ambitious initiative for the region -- progress on the project has been slow.¶ The plan calls for significant private-sector funding, but Obama

has invested little time or political capital

in it. Fund-raising has been left in charge of

the State Department, whose boss -- Secretary of State John Kerry -- has shown scant interest in Latin America.¶ Kerry did not travel with Obama to Mexico and Costa Rica last week, and his April 18 remark at a congressional hearing about Latin America being "our backyard" had the rare effect of antagonizing friends and foes alike in the region.¶ My opinion: As regular readers of this column know well, I much prefer Obama over his Republican critics on most issues. But I

find it unfortunate that, as Obama's recent trade initiatives with Asia and Europe show, he looks East and West, but very little toward the South. Neither he, nor Kerry, nor any Cabinet-level official is focused on the region.¶ Perhaps it's too late to expect any changes. But the least Obama could do is get personally involved in the projects he has already launched. For instance, he should pick up the phone and ask CEO's of top multinationals to chip in funds for his plan to raise student exchanges with Latin America to 100,000 in both directions. If Obama doesn't get personally involved , not even that will happen .

Neg- Links Economic Engagement Unpopular


TPA Disadvantage Border Infrastructure Unpopular

Border Infrastructure Unpopular
The plan ensures huge conservative backlash Pastor ‘8 – Prof and founding director of the Center for North American Studies
Robert, The Future of North America, July/August, http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/upload/ForeignAffairs_Pastor_On_NA_072008.pdf, CMR The immigration debate has added insult to injury by antagonizing¶ Mexico without accomplishing anything. Only Senator John Cornyn¶ (R-Tex.) dared to propose a North American investment fund to help¶ close the income gap (and thus slow immigration), but he withdrew¶ his proposal after being criticized by conservatives . That would¶ have
helped Mexican workers much more than the eight core labor¶ conventions proposed for inclusion in the nafta agreement.

Economic engagement with Mexico is politically divisive Wilson 13 – Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International. Center for Scholars
(Christopher E., January, “A U.S.-Mexico Economic Alliance: Policy Options for a Competitive Region,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_us_mexico_relations.pdf)
At a time when Mexico is poised to experience robust economic growth, a manufacturing renaissance is underway in North America and bilateral trade is booming, the United States and Mexico have an important choice to make: sit back and reap the moderate and perhaps temporal benefits coming naturally from the evolving global context , or implement a robust agenda to improve the competitiveness of North America for the long term . Given

that job creation and economic growth in both the United States and Mexico are at stake, t he choice should be simple, but a limited understanding about the magnitude, nature and depth of the U.S.Mexico economic relationship among the public and many policymakers has made serious action to support regional exporters more politically divisive than it ought to be.

Neg- Links Border Infrastructure Unpopular


TPA Disadvantage Answers To: Link Turns

Answers To: Link Turns
Link turns are hype – plan guarantees partisanship Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford,
and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.gigahamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
Modest Achievements, Lost Opportunities ¶ While acknowledging the domestic constraints ¶ on the administration, many observers and analysts still hold a critical view on US–Latin America policy during the Obama presidency. Indeed, ¶ some ask whether there has been a foreign policy ¶ for Latin America at all. A 2011 article in the Americas Quarterly by Moisés Naim is illustrative: “U.S.

policy toward Latin America is lethargic , unimaginative and surprisingly irrelevant *…+ The fact ¶ that Latin America does not figure in the calculations or conversations of top U.S. decision makers does not preclude some of them from giving ¶ speeches about U.S. policy towards the region

that ¶ are as disconnected from reality

as those given by ¶ Fidel Castro in Cuba.” One contributing factor is ¶ that foreign policy and Latin foreign policy initiatives

America policy became the victims of partisan political polarization ¶ and ideology-driven in ¶ Congress.

Zero link turns – lack of perceived benefits Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford,
and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.gigahamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)
A fair assessment of President Obama’s Latin ¶ America record needs to recognize that the region ¶ is not central in US foreign policy. Candidates do ¶ not expect to win elections with topics related to ¶ Latin America, but they know they could lose elections with topics like illegal migration, drug trafficking, organized crime, or weakness in the face ¶ of anti-American stances. So while it is correct that ¶ there are many so-called intermestic topics linking the US with Latin America, most of these topics have a negative connotation. To make things ¶ even more complicated , in some of these areas ¶ Latin American countries are now

demanding a ¶ policy shift on the part of the US government, as ¶ a report from the Inter-American Dialogue from ¶ April 2012
states: “The US position on these troublesome issues – immigration, drug policy, and ¶ Cuba – has set Washington against the consensus ¶ view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments. ¶ These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas. The United States and the ¶ nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need ¶ to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships.” For the moment it is quite difficult to foresee major progress with regard to any ¶ of these topics in the near future given the apparent distribution of US electoral preferences in the ¶ 6 November contest.

Neg- Links Answers To: Link Turns


TPA Disadvantage Answers To: Winners Win

Answers To: Winners Win
Even legislative victories burn capital and harden opposition to the president Eberly 13 --- coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at
St. Mary's College of Maryland (Todd, “The presidential power trap; Barack Obama is discovering that modern presidents have difficulty amassing political capital, which hinders their ability to enact a robust agenda,” 1/21, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-partysupport-public-opinion, CMR)
Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially

enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned . His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains
in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.

Winners-win theory is wrong --- Obama’s first term proves Calmes 12 (Jackie, International Herald Tribune, “Obama looks to budget talks as an opportunity to take
control of agenda; News Analysis,” 11/13/2012, Factiva, CMR)
Whether Mr. Obama succeeds will reveal much about what kind of president he intends to be in his second term. Beyond the specifics of any accord, perhaps the

bigger question hanging over the negotiations is whether Mr. Obama will go to his second inaugural in January with an achievement that starts to rewrite the unflattering leadership narrative that, fairly or not, came to define his first term for many people.¶ That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naïf who does little to nurture personal relationships with potential allies — in short, not a particularly
strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney.¶ George C. Edwards University, dismissed

III, a leading scholar of the presidency at Texas A&M University who is currently teaching at Oxford such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr. Obama’s presidency is titled ‘‘Overreach,’’ said, ‘‘He didn’t understand the limits of what he could do.’’ ¶ ‘‘They thought they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more success and more success, and we’d build this advancing-tide theory of legislation,’’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘‘And that was very naïve, very silly . Well, they’ve learned a lot, I think.’’¶ ‘‘Effective leaders,’’ he added, ‘‘exploit opportunities rather than create them.’’

Neg- Links Answers To: Winners Win


TPA Disadvantage TPA key to Global Trade

TPA key to Global Trade
Passing TPA would be a crucial signal of revitalized US trade leadership. Robert Zoellick 6/14/13 eleventh president of the World Bank, US trade representative 2001-2005 Payoff
from the World Trade Agenda Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC June 14, 2013 http://www.piie.com/publications/papers/transcript-20130614.pdf
Robert Zoellick: Yeah. Well, I guess I’ll expand on some of the remarks I made at the close. Well sometimes people like big bang concepts; that it all gets done at once. My

experience is that you try to get some wins, you kind of start to build momentum; you show that it’s real, but you need to combine it with, particularly in representing the United States, a broader strategy where you’re trying to go. You need to try to explain the types of interconnections that I was describing today. So I hope that Mike or his counterparts, as they pursue the elements the president has set out, include a global agenda as well as the TTIP and the TPP and frankly look for bilateral
steps that they can use. As I’ve said, the strategic economic dialogue with China could have some opportunities here. But then they explain what they’re doing and explain to the world and frankly, this

will require a little diplomacy, you could start to make some early moves that show that it’s real. So again, to give you sort of a historical comparison, after the breakdown in Cancun, those of you that are the
scholars of this will recall that—I kind of use the story of the FT, a letter to all of the WTO people and a trip around the world, as sort of a symbolic way of trying to reframe the issue. So it’s a combination of substance and positioning, which you have to be in international politics. So

the challenge is not just to get lost in the negotiating details, you have to know that, but you have to frame this. And then what I would look for ways on the agenda where I could show that we’re getting something done. Now one possibility is the trade promotion authority. That would show a great sense of momentum . Now it’ll be messy and everybody will want to throw everything into it and so on and so forth.But that’s in some ways a signaling system and if you get it done, it show—and I believe you can get it done. You’ve got more interest on this than a bipartisan fashion than the other items—that would show momentum. The points in this paper about the Bali meeting. People are skeptical but if the United States set out this strategy and then you started to get a couple of these things done in Bali, that would show that things can be done. What
I’ve encountered is the world has lots of critics and analysts and naysayers and so and so forth, and that’s the way in which we have a live debate and they’re always going to be out there and most vocal and those who are a little bit wary of following, those that are a little cautious, those who don’t quite have the same political will, they’re going to step back until they see something happening, but I

think if you start to move some of these issues

globally, you can start to get some other allies.

Neg- Impacts TPA key to Global Trade


TPA Disadvantage Trade Leadership Key

Trade Leadership Key
US trade Leadership is critical to prevent the collapse of the global trading system. THIRLWELL June 2013 MARK Program Director The International Economy and Fellow G20 Studies Centre
“Saving Multilateralism: The G20, the WTO, and Global Trade” http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/thirlwell_saving_multilateralism_web.pdf The multilateral trading system is in trouble . Symptoms of its difficulties include: the repeated failure to complete the Doha Round; the absence of many of the world’s most pressing trade policy issues from the current negotiating agenda; the spread of PTAs including the recent emergence of ‘megaregional’ deals; and the rise in post-crisis state intervention in trade flows along with a gradual, cumulative increase in trade distortions. Optimists might respond that there is nothing fundamental to worry about. The forces of technology and the logic of global supply chains will continue to bind the world economy together and
undermine the case for protectionism. After all, they could point out, hasn’t the world economy just successfully neg otiated the biggest slump in global trade since the Great Depression, and done so while avoiding the protectionist excesses of the 1930s? And

hasn’t global trade continued to

expand for getting on for two hundred years now? If the WTO doesn’t deliver the kind of deep economic integration the global economy wants, other alternatives will. The optimists may yet prove to be right. But opting to stand by while the multilateral system unravels is precisely the kind of risky, highstakes gamble that world leaders should be working hard to avoid. In that context, as the world’s premier international economic forum, the G20 should have a keen interest in supporting a robust multilateral trading system. It is time, therefore, for G20 leaders to reemphasise the crucial role played by both the WTO and the international trade it supports, and use their collective political influence to help restore the flagging health of the multilateral trading system.

Neg- Impacts Trade Leadership Key


TPA Disadvantage A2: Trade Inevitable

A2: Trade Inevitable
The WTO and global trade are not inevitable, there’s risk of epic collapse. THIRLWELL June 2013 MARK Program Director The International Economy and Fellow G20 Studies Centre
“Saving Multilateralism: The G20, the WTO, and Global Trade” http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/thirlwell_saving_multilateralism_web.pdf For more than two centuries, international trade has been a spur to productivity growth and innovation and an important enabler for catch-up growth. As such, it has helped transform living standards across the globe.1 Since the second half of the twentieth century, the expansion of world trade has been facilitated by a multilateral system that has helped set and police the rules of the game. As such, the multilateral trading system has made a major contribution to global prosperity. That system is now in trouble. The most obvious symptom is the repeated failure to complete the Doha Development Round of world trade
talks. But there are other problems too. Critics rightly complain that many of the world’s most pressing trade policy issues are not even on the negotiating agenda, and deride the World Trade Organization

Others judge the current system as no longer fit for purpose in a world of international supply chains and emerging new trade powers. And while the global financial crisis and the subsequent collapse in international trade did not trigger a retreat into protectionism, recent years have nevertheless seen growing state intervention in trade flows and a gradual, cumulative rise in trade distortions. Meanwhile, members have been voting with their feet, stepping outside the WTO to negotiate bilateral and regional trade agreements and, more recently, prospective ‘mega-regional’ deals. If this trend continues, the rules of the game for twenty-first century global trade will increasingly be set outside the multilateral system. That might work out but it represents a risk. After all, the current system has its origins in the chaos of the interwar period and the clear lesson that the world would do well to avoid the fragmentation and competing trade blocs that characterised that earlier period. A world economy that found itself splintering into, for example, competing Chinese- and US-based trading arrangements would not be a world conducive to international security and stability. It would also be a deeply uncomfortable place for
(WTO)’s ‘medieval’ processes.2 countries like Australia that have close economic ties with China and strong security ties with the United States.

The WTO is at risk of collapse now. Harbinson 2012 The WTO Must Bounce Back Stuart Harbinson, Senior Fellow at ECIPE. POLICY BRIEFS European Center for
International Political Economy September http://www.ecipe.org/media/publication_pdfs/PB201209.pdf
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE WTO? However these initiatives ultimately work out, the

effect on the WTO in the short to medium term is seriously debilitating. In the long term, there is no guarantee that this will all somehow re-converge in a strengthened multilateral trading system. Indeed there must be a danger that we are witnessing a gradual balkanization of the trading system - which would be highly inimical to international business and highly undesirable in a geopolitical sense. It may be argued that this view is alarmist. There is after all much more to the WTO than trade negotiations. The dispute settlement system continues to function well and the WTO’s network of committees overseeing the existing set of trade rules does much good, albeit largely unheralded, work. These points are valid, but they do nothing to alter the perception in the international trade community that the Organization is in a state of paralysis. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, the benchmark of the WTO’s credibility is success in the Doha Round and trade negotiations more generally. There are now some signs that the international business community is cognisant of the need to revitalise the WTO Notably, the
International Chamber of Commerce’s World Trade Agenda initiative is seeking to mobilise international business in favour of a Doha outcome and a forward-looking multilateral trade agenda. There is recognition of the

danger that the multilateral trading system might be eroded, giving way to a more fragmented and less favourable environment for cross-border trade and investment. THE NEED FOR A RECOVERY PHASE There is now a real danger that the WTO will continue to drift away from the centre of international trade policy and that its relevance will be further eroded. International organisations seldom die, but they do have tipping points beyond which recovery is an extremely arduous and difficult process. That point may be imminent in the WTO and it is now the urgent responsibility of policy makers to ensure that it is never reached. What can be done? Recognising the political reality that an immediate Doha deal is off the political agenda for the time being , WTO Members must lay the groundwork for an agreement when the time is ripe. Such an agreement may be across the board based on the current Doha mandate or, perhaps more likely, consist in a partial agreement with other elements being rolled into a forward-looking work programme. The WTO cannot afford to bury its head in the sand when many new issues are clamouring for attention. Neg- Impacts A2: Trade Inevitable


TPA Disadvantage No pass

No pass
TPA won’t pass – too much opposition from Democrats and the Tea Party. DePillis 7/17/13 Lydia DePillis is a reporter for the Washington Post focusing on business policy, including lobbying, government contracting, and
international trade. She was previously a staff writer at The New Republic. “How Congress might have already tied Obama’s hands in trade negotiations” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/how-congress-might-have-already-tied-obamas-hands-in-trade-negotiations/
That’s a lot of faith. Congress

is already expressing reservations: A collection of Democratic House freshmen sent a letter opposing fast track authority on the grounds that today’s trade agreements involve changing vast swaths of domestic policy, and they’d like to
maintain a hold on the process, especially since the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have been kept so secret . Sen. Sherrod Brown wants to see all sorts of requirements built in , like language around Chinese currency manipulation. Then

there are the tea party Republicans and isolationists who worry about the political consequences of yielding so much power to a president they don’t trust –especially when fast track would allow him to slip unrelated provisions into enabling legislation that would have to be voted up or down. “There are a lot of members who’re saying, ‘you’ve treated me abysmally, why would I give myself handcuffs involuntarily? ’” says Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, which opposes
fast track . ”It means the president can dictate domestic policy on a whole ra nge of issues. And they can implement all sorts of unpopular provisions, and superglue them into a trade agreement.” Stanford professor Judith Goldstein calls this emerging dynamic a “Baptist -bootlegger coalition,” referring to the Prohibition-era partnership of temperance crusaders and the moonshine makers who wanted to keep prices high. It’s a loose analogy, but in this case, historically labor-aligned groups are the bootlegger, and the Ron Paul-style conservatives are the Baptists. “If consumer groups th ink that they have a better deal picking up individual

“My guess is it’s just another way of saying they don’t want a trade deal.” And Goldstein doesn’t give fast track good odds of passing this year. “I would be pleased, but shocked.”
congressmen, they’re not going to want any deal that makes it harder for them to get access,” she says.

TPA won’t pass – Congress is too partisan. Washington Post 7/23/13 “Levin urges crackdown on Japanese currency manipulation”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/levin-urges-crackdown-on-japanesecurrency/2013/07/23/8839f95c-f3a1-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html The Obama administration's push to complete two major free-trade deals got more difficult Tuesday when a key House Democrat said the agreements should be tied to a broader discussion of U.S. economic competitiveness. Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich.), an auto-state lawmaker and the ranking Democrat on the committee that oversees trade policy, said the United States
had "failed" in prior talks to open important markets such as Japan's automobile sector and should use ongoing negotiations with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union to put in place tough new regulations on currency, trade finance and other policies. Absent that, he said in a Tuesday speech at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, it would be difficult to convince Congress that any free-trade deal would be good for the U.S. economy. The discussion should also include increasing loans for exporters and other strategies to counter the methods used by China to boost its overseas sales. "I want the administration to face up" and address long-standing congressional complaints that the United States has been lax in countering other countries' use of exchange-rate and related policies to gain a trade advantage, Levin said. While the administration has set a tight timetable to conclude the two agreements, "the train has to be slow enough to handle all the major issues, and if it isn't, there will just be immense conflict" in Congress. His

comments set up a fight on Capitol Hill that will have to be waged before either trade deal is completed. It is assumed that for either pact to be enacted, Congress will first have to renew “fast track” trade prom otion authority. Fast track limits Congress to a quick up-or-down vote on any free-trade treaty. Officials and analysts agree that U.S. trade partners are unlikely to sign any treaty unless TPA is in place, guaranteeing quick consideration by Congress and no opportunity for amendments that would send everyone back to the bargaining table. But its renewal is likely to prove controversial in a Congress that has found it difficult to reach consensus on even non-contentious matters.

Aff- A2: Uniqueness No pass


TPA Disadvantage No pass

Trade Adjustment controversy will block TPA. Reuters 7/18/13 “U.S. lawmaker sees busy legislative trade agenda in coming months”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-usa-trade-congress-idUSBRE96H03320130718 Trade promotion authority, or TPA, allows the White House to submit trade agreements to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without amendments. It is considered vital to encouraging other countries to put their best offers on the table in talks with the United States. TPA expired in 2007 and Camp has been working on a bill to renew it with Representative Sandy Levin, the top
Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, the Democratic chairman and top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Democrats

want the bill to include an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, a government program to help retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of import competition or factories moving overseas. That bill is unpopular with many free market-minded Republicans though.

GOP opposition will block TPA. Harar 7/4/13 The Business Times Singapore leon hadar; Washington Correspondent July 4, 2013 Thursday 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
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 . 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.

TPA won’t pass – Democratic opposition and NSA scandals. USNEWS.com 7/8/13 July 8, 2013 Monday The Big Problems in Obama's Big Trade Deals Lexis
Recall that Obama was against this a few years ago: According to Barack Obama on the campaign trail, "We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications." U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman

will be asking Congress for fast-track authority to move forward these investor-state provisions within any forthcoming trade agreements. Two-thirds of the Democratic freshman class in the House of Representative came out opposing it. Fast-track means little Congressional oversight, hardly the appropriate pursuit for a president who's already having transparency problems on the National Security Agency and Internal Revenue Service fronts. What's needed going forward, then, on both TPP and TTIP, is more oversight and accountability by both Congress and the constituents they represent.

No pass – the GOP will join with democrats opposing trade. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 6/22/13 June 22, 2013 Saturday SOONER EDITION GO SLOWER ON FREE TRADE Lexis
Should the administration ask Congress to restore fast-track authority, Republicans will face a fascinating conundrum. GOP legislators frequently, and falsely, accuse the president of usurping all manner of powers. If enacted, however, fast-track would be a genuine usurpation of powers, as the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall have the power "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations." Despite the Founders' pronouncement, U.S. big business -- the GOP's main funding source -- has overwhelmingly preferred to vest that power in the president.

A vote on fast-track would force the GOP to choose between the fundamental interests of its funding base and its own irresistible impulse to thwart the president at every turn. Whatever their motivation, enough Republicans may join Democrats like Mr. Brown who want to open up trade negotiations to a wider range of interests than
multinational corporations, to create a trade regime in which the American people actually matter.

Aff- A2: Uniqueness No pass


TPA Disadvantage No pass

Partisanship will block TPA. Washingtonpost.com June 22, 2013 Saturday 8:13 PM EST Inheriting a complex trade agenda Lexis
Making it happen, however, means landing those agreements not just with trading partners but with a U.S. Congress that has become fractured to the point of stalemate and in an environment where extended high unemployment has produced skepticism about whether free trade produces more jobs than it destroys. Froman's nomination to the trade post was widely applauded in the business community and easily cleared the Senate. But a coalition of new House Democrats said this month it would oppose giving Obama new "fast track" authority to amend trade agreements - instead approved only by a yes-or-no congressional vote - because of concerns about "jobs sent offshore because of unfair trade agreements ."
Approval of fast-track legislation is considered necessary for future trade agreements to get through Congress since it insulates them from delaying tactics or amendments that would have to be negotiated with other nations. Froman

said the administration has "no particular deadline in mind" for introducing a fast-track law. But he said it remains committed to finishing the transpacific partnership talks by the end of this year and concluding a trans-atlantic agreement in 2014.

Aff- A2: Uniqueness No pass


TPA Disadvantage Not on Obama’s agenda

Not on Obama’s agenda
Obama is not pushing for TPA now. Inside US Trade 7/24/13 “Staff Efforts On Fast-Track Bill Slow Down Over Negotiating Objectives” Lexis
Camp, in his opening statement, said he looked forward to hearing "about how the administration plans to engage" on this issue, although USTR Michael Froman did not respond specifically. Instead, he noted that committees in Congress were working on a bill and said the administration stands ready to engage in that process "as requested." Similarly, Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) told Froman that there is a perception that the administration may not be as "aggressively involved" as it could be in pointing out the need for a new fast-track bill . When pressed by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Froman also declined to give a specific timetable for when the administration would like Congress to pass a new fast-track bill. He was only willing to say that it would be "very
important" to have new legislation in place before the administration is ready to submit implementing legislation for a final Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement to Congress.

Obama isn’t pushing for TPA – there’s no bill. IBEC 7/5/13 The Irish Business and Employers Confederation “Renewal of the Trade Promotion Authority is still
awaited” IBEC Quarterly US monitor https://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Publications.nsf/vPages/US_Quarterly_Monitor~us-quarterly-monitor---july-2013-0507-2013/$File/IBEC%20US%20Quarterly%20Monitor%20Jul%202013.pdf
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman

said President Obama is asking that TPA be renewed “as soon as possible.” Committee leaders appeared to take that statement as a formal request, but no TPA bill has yet been introduced. In the House, Republican leaders on trade issues also support a TPA renewal but according to an Inside US Trade article there is growing opposition among Democrats concerned about delegating to the president the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate foreign trade

Aff- A2: Uniqueness Not on Obama’s agenda


TPA Disadvantage PC Not True

PC Not True
Political capital isn’t relevant in the current Congress – both Obama and the Republican House majority are too weak to muscle anything through – only compromise and horse trades matter Berman 7/15 (Russell Berman, Staff, the Hill, “Weak vs. weaker: Obama, Boehner struggle for leverage,” 7/15/13
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/310895-weak-vs-weaker-both-obama-boehner-struggle-to-gain-leverage#ixzz2ZEBJQ0XN )
President Obama

and the House GOP will fight over immigration, spending and debt this fall, but it will be a battle of the weak versus the weak.¶ Obama’s post-election momentum is gone and the deeply divided Republican majority has struggled to pass any consequential legislation.¶ In Washington, a place obsessed by who is up and who is down, today’s answer is that everyone is down. Both sides are searching desperately and in vain for leverage .¶ Lawmakers say this equal feebleness will tighten the legislative gridlock that has gripped the Capitol since early in Obama’s first term. The president’s approval ratings have dipped into the 40s and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has proved unable to control his majority, which is dominated by conservatives with few incentives to compromise.¶ “You’ve got to have strength to bargain, and we’re
better served, no question, by a strong Speaker,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior Boehner ally. “Our conference is, but I think the process is, too. I think the same thing is true with the president.”¶ The dynamic represents a new twist on familiar fiscal fights. When House Republicans and Obama jousted over the budget in 2011, the GOP was ascendant, having just captured the House majority. But Obama regained the upper hand a year-and-a-half later with a reelection win that allowed him to dictate the terms of the fiscal cliff showdown.¶ His

failure to win tighter gun controls and a series of controversies undermining public trust in his administration have ended Obama’s honeymoon, however, and threaten the only major agenda item that had momentum: immigration reform.¶ “You have a Congress that has different ideas and clearly a very weakened and sometimes an even confused president,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), a House Republican pushing for an immigration overhaul. “So how can we get major things done?¶ “I ultimately think and am hopeful that the things that really have to get done will get done, that there will be a majority that can still work together, even across party lines,” he said. “But that remains to be seen.”

Aff- A2: Links PC Not True


TPA Disadvantage No Link – Not Unpopular

No Link – Not Unpopular
Plan avoids partisanship CSIS 4 (U.S.-Mexico Border¶ Security and the¶ Evolving Security¶ Relationship¶ Recommendations for¶
Policymakers, April, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0404_bordersecurity.pdf, CMR) There can be no doubt that the future of Mexico-U.S. relations will for the ¶ indefinite future be shaped to a large degree by how the two countries work ¶ together to manage, selectively inspect, and regulate cross-border traffic. One ¶ objective, which will perhaps be of equal
importance in both countries, is that no ¶ attack on the United States be perpetrated from terrorist bases in Mexico or that no ¶ terrorists easily cross the border on their way to attacking U.S. targets. In the ¶ United States, it

is highly unlikely that there will be any significant partisan political ¶ disagreements about these and related imperatives of border security.

Aff- A2: Links No Link – Not Unpopular


TPA Disadvantage Link Turn – Plan Popular

Link Turn – Plan Popular
Expanding ports of entry will get bipartisan support. IMPERIAL VALLEY PRESS STAFF March 29, 2013 Our View: Senators' support could bring funding to port
The Cross-Border

Trade Enhancement Act, sponsored by Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, would allow for P3 financing of port of entry projects. The bill was reintroduced to the Senate in January but has no cosponsors. In their letter to the senators, Imperial County officials encourage Boxer and Feinstein to sign on as cosponsors. A House bill on the P3 financing, sponsored by Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, has seven cosponsors, including Rep. Juan Vargas, who represents Imperial County. Unfortunately, funding for the Calexico West port expansion project has been frozen for years and likely won’t be unfrozen before 2015, according to those connecte d with the project. If the Calexico West port is expanded and thereby made more efficient, Imperial County’s safety, economy and air quality would improve. A more efficient port would mean cuts in border wait times, which often top two hours. If cars are idling at the port for shorter amounts of time, air quality in Imperial County (and Mexicali) likely would improve. In a country with a truly functioning Congress, P3 financing to improve our nation’s ports of entry would get bipartisan support and sail through both houses. As Congress works now, though, Imperial County leaders can only do their part and hope for the best. They’ve done that. Now the hoping begins.

Improving POE’s has bipartisan agreement Ramos 2013
Kristian Ramos is New Democracy Network’s Policy Director of the 21st Century Border Initiative, “Realizing the Strategic National Value of our Trade, Tourism and Ports of Entry with Mexico” The New Policy Institute is the educational affiliate of the NDN, a think tank based in Washington, DC. May 2013 http://ndn.org/sites/default/files/blog_files/NPI%20U%20S%20Mexico%20Trade%20Tourism%20POE%20Report_0.pdf
Key policies and infrastructure can either help or hinder this enormous economic exchange. Forty-seven

U.S.-Mexico land ports of entry

facilitate several hundreds of billions dollars in U.S.-Mexico trade every year. Ideally, ports of entry should act as membranes,
facilitating healthy interactions (such as legitimate trade and travel) and preventing unhealthy ones (such as illicit drugs, firearms and human smuggling).

Broad bipartisan agreement has developed on the need to improve our land ports of entry with Mexico. This is because over seventy percent of NAFTA trade flows through these ports of entry as well as an enormous flow of visitors who have a major economic impact on the United States. Twenty-three states have Mexico as their number one or number two trading partner, multiplying
And ideally much of the actual inspection and clearance should occur “upstream” from the ports. jobs in both countries.

Plan is supported by bipartisan groups- this letter proves Brownsville Herald Oct 02 2010 “Senators: U.S. Must Invest in Infrastructure, Personnel at International
Bridges” <http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&ContentRecord_id=8fca6ad8-c12f-4b0682fe-fad0ccbc76c4> The state’s members of the U.S. House of Representatives have lobbied unsuccessfully in the past for increased funding at the ports of entry. But the letter supported by a bipartisan group of senators represents the first time that a push has been made in the Senate, where previous legislation stalled. Franz said the United States has invested billions in border security, such as the controversial border fence and an ineffective technology program. But trade between the U.S. and Mexico has increased by 41 percent in the past year, overwhelming federal agents who must combat the illegal flow of drugs, money and weapons at the ports. “In the rush to secure the border, the focus was on areas between the ports of entry,” Franz said. “Everybody thought we were fine at the ports, but that was a false assumption.” Aff- A2: Links Link Turn – Plan Popular


TPA Disadvantage Link turn – winners win

Link turn – winners win
Political capital isn’t key – the plan is a win that spills over to future victories Hirsh 2/7 – chief correspondent of National Journal (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital”,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207, CMR)

Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much “political capital” Obama possesses to push his program through .¶ Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years.¶ Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.) In his fi rst term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didn’t dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “political capital”—chances are fair that both will now happen.¶ What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the 20 first -graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in midDecember. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.”¶ As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibiliti es exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.¶ Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self -deport.” But this turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence—his political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Party’s recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minori ty. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. ¶ The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a

the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens . In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary . It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the everelusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital —that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.¶ Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the
concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” ¶ The real problem is that economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. ¶ But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as

the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “ Winning wins .” In theory,
suddenly. Indeed,

depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time , he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote.¶ Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the
and in practice,

calculation for the next issue ; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect .”¶ ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ¶ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the
outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more do ne than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table *said that+ the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?”¶

Aff- A2: Links Link turn – winners win


TPA Disadvantage No Impact

No Impact
No impact to WTO – Bellow 2000 (Walden, PhD, executive director of Focus on the Global South, professor of sociology and public
administration at the University of the Philippines, attended all three WTO Ministerials as an NGO delegate, author of multiple works on the WTO, January, Food First, “Why Reform of the WTO is the Wrong Agenda,” http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wbello.html) The alternative to a powerful WTO is not a Hobbesian state of nature. It is always the powerful that have stoked this fear. The reality of international economic relations in a world marked by a multiplicity of international and regional institutions that check one another is a far cry from the propaganda image of a “nasty” and “brutish” world. Of course, the threat of unilateral action by the powerful is ever present in such a system, but it is one that even the powerful hesitate to take for fear of its consequences on their legitimacy as well as the reaction it would provoke in the
form of opposing coalitions.

The WTO can’t solve anything – can’t induce compliance. Marco Bronckers* and Naboth van den Broek 2005 (Professor of Law, University of
Leiden; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Brussels, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Brussels. Journal of int’l economic law, http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/8/1/101) We would add that any retaliatory measures taken by Ecuador against EU goods or services, even if they could have captured the full amount of nullification or impairment suffered by Ecuador, would have offered no relief to Ecuador’s exporters of bananas. The damages these exporters suffered as a result of the EU’s regime were not, and under the WTO’s current system, could not be repaired. There was also no incentive for the EC to bring its Bananas regime into compliance with WTO rules promptly, as any remedies Ecuador would have imposed could only have been prospective in nature. The problems encountered by developing countries are well illustrated by the case Ecuador brought against the EC’s Bananas regime. Contrary to the United States, which also successfully challenged the Bananas regime, and which was authorized to impose retaliatory tariff increases on annual imports covering USD 191.4 million of European goods,7 Ecuador did not see any realistic way to retaliate in the areas (GATT and GATS) where the WTO violations of the EU were found to have taken place. There was simply not enough trade in non-essential goods and services between the EU and Ecuador. Ultimately, Ecuador was given the authority to cross-retaliate in the area of TRIPS. It could allow local wine producers to sell their red wine as ‘Bordeaux’, and it could permit local music pirates to sell unauthorized copies of some European hit recordings, though only for the Ecuadorian domestic market. Whereas such retaliation might have created annoyance amongst French wine producers and certain European hit artists particularly popular in Ecuador, it was unlikely to result in much political pressure on the EC. This case aptly illustrates that it may be hard for a country like Ecuador to effectively put in place retaliatory measures.

Global trade is resilient – no impact to WTO collapse. Paul Blustein, 2008 Journalist in Residence, Global Economy and Development – The Brookings Institution,
“Doha Trade Talks Collapse: What’s Next for Global Trade?”, 8-202008,http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0820_trade_blustein.aspx Both responses were apt. Wall Street is notoriously short-term oriented, and investors rightly see little chance that this setback in the WTO negotiations will have much impact on global commerce during the time horizon that they care about. Trade has been expanding robustly for the past decade, and all signs suggest it will continue to do so in the next few years. A Doha pact wouldn’t have reduced current trade barriers by much; the deal on the table would have mainly required member countries to lower their “bound” tariffs—that is, the legal maximums—to levels that are still above the “applied,” or actual
rates. This is not to say that the deal was devoid of substance; a reduction in bound tariffs would have been highly desirable, by constraining the ability of

Aff- A2: Impacts No Impact


TPA Disadvantage No Impact
governments to raise barriers in the future. But that is hardly the sort of thing that causes heart palpitations on Wall Street . The serious ramifications of the events of July 29 are long-term—and this is why I think the quaver in Susan Schwab’s voice that day was warranted.

Aff- A2: Impacts No Impact


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->