CRITICAL ALERT
Promoters of fast-track executive authority have relied on
semantic obfuscation in an effort to deny the obvious: the President's top
priority is obtaining fast-track authority because he knows it will expand his
powers and allow him to cement his legacy through the formation of a new
political and economic union. If, as promoters amazingly suggest, the President
had more powers without fast-track, he would veto it. The authority granted in
"Trade Promotion Authority" is authority transferred from Congress to
the Executive and, ultimately, to international bureaucrats.
The entire purpose of fast-track is for Congress to
surrender its power to the Executive for six years. Legislative concessions
include: control over the content of legislation, the power to fully consider
that legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate
cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a
two-thirds vote. Legislation cannot even be amended.
By contrast, without fast-track, Congress retains all of its
legislative powers, individual members retain all of their procedural tools,
and every single line, jot, and tittle of trade text is publicly available
before any congressional action is taken.
Another obfuscation is the suggestion that TPP doesn't yet
exist. To the contrary, it has been under negotiation for six years and
lawmakers can enter a closed-door, walled-off chamber to review it. A vote for
fast-track is a vote to authorize the President to ink the secret deal
contained in these pages-to affix his name on the Union and to therefore enter
the United States into it.
Nucor Steel Chairman Emeritus, Daniel DiMicco, warned:
"The so-called negotiating objectives in the fast-track bill are merely
for show... The President can and does sign the agreement before Congress views
or votes on it." Fast-track is the action that empowers the President to
put America's name on the deal sitting in that walled-off room-before a page of
it has been shared with the public.
In a Ways and Means document on the new Pacific Union being
formed by Obama, the Committee hints at some of this union's powers: "if a
proposed change to a trade agreement is contemplated [by the TPP Commission]
that would require a change in U.S. law, all of TPA's congressional
notification, consultation, and transparency requirements would apply." In
other words, Ways and Means is intimating that this new secret Pacific Union
would function like a third house of Congress, with legislative primacy,
sending changes to the House and Senate under fast-track procedures (receiving
less legislative procedure than, for instance, Post Office reform). Moreover,
this legislative fast-track, Ways and Means implies, is limited to that which
requires a "change in U.S. law"-meaning if this President (or the
next) argues it is simply an executive action, not a legal action, the
Executive could have a free hand to implement the Commission's decrees without
Congress. This is not merely a loophole; this is purposeful delegation of
congressional authority to the Executive and to an international body. The
fast-tracked implementing legislation would have the ability to make these
delegations binding as a matter of law.
Amendments to specify that Congress retains exclusive
legislative authority, and to actively prohibit foreign worker increases, were
blocked by fast-track backers.
Fast-track supporters have tried to temper concerns about
the formation of this transnational union, and the subsequent Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)
that would also be pre-approved through fast-track, by adding additional
"negotiating objectives" via a separate customs bill. The negotiating
objectives are not binding, are not meaningfully enforceable, and no individual
lawmaker can strike any provision which violates them. Fast-track keeps what
congressional authority is left in the hands of the revenues and Rules
committees.
Under the Ways and Means "solution," TPP, TTIP,
and TiSA could establish broad goals for labor mobility (allowing Ways and
Means to say the negotiating objectives about "requiring" or
"obligating" certain changes has not been violated) and the President
would then implement those changes through executive action, or change our laws
through fast-track.
Negotiating objectives are, by design, not explicit or
realistically enforceable. They include such bromides as saying it must be the
goal of the White House "to ensure that trade agreements reflect and
facilitate the increasingly interrelated, multi-sectoral nature of trade and
investment activity," and "to recognize the growing significance of
the Internet as a trading platform in international commerce."
It stretches the outer bounds of logic to contend that a
President who happily disregards the Constitution will be bound to obey a
series of broad "negotiating objectives"-especially when those
objectives come with a promised surrender of congressional power.
Finally, it must be observed that this is not a "free
trade" deal. It is, as Daniel DiMicco explained, a "unilateral trade
disarmament" and "the enablement of foreign mercantilism,"
whereby we open our markets to new foreign imports and they keep their
non-tariff barriers that close their markets to ours. President Obama refuses
to answer questions about the impact on unemployment, wage stagnation, and
trade deficits. He refuses because the answer is all three will get worse. For
instance, a study published in the Wall Street Journal showed that-due to
barriers to U.S. auto exports-the deal would increase foreign transportation
imports over our exports by nearly four-fold.
Americans have seen their sovereignty, economic position,
and political power erode. They have seen that power transferred to an elite
set who dream of writing rules in foreign capitals, unburdened by the concerns
of the ordinary citizen.
To read the trade agreement is to know that, if Congress
adopts the fast-track, it will have preapproved a vast delegation of sovereign
authority to an international union, with growing powers over the lives of
ordinary Americans.
Like the Gang of Eight, like Obamacare, and so much else-the
goal is to get it approved before the American people know what's in it.
[NOTE: To view this document as a PDF, please click
here<http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/78fadf33-818e-4305-a40c-5870c947c2fa/critical-alert---fast-track-would-pre-approve-formation-of-sweeping-transnational-union.pdf>.
To view this release online, please click
here<http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=D4EAFDCD-455C-45F0-8F24-0158AB0D2F9B>.]
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) serves on four Senate
committees: Armed Services, Budget, Environment and Public Works, and
Judiciary, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the
National Interest. Visit Sessions online at his
website<http://sessions.senate.gov/public/> or via
YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorSessions>,
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Sessions/23444159584?ref=search>,
and Twitter<http://twitter.com/SenatorSessions>. Note: Please do not
reply to this email. For further information, contact Sen. Sessions' Press
Office at (202) 224-4124.
No comments:
Post a Comment