I don’t think it has been voted on yet. I could be wrong. I think cloture has passed but Ted Cruz got his amendment filed this time. McConnell was unable to cut him off like he did on the Iran bill. I don’t think McConnell could cut him off because the dems wanted their amendments in the bill.
My thinking is the Cruz amendment is the ball game. Who is going to vote down the Cruz amendment? If they do it basically is saying they give all immigration power to Obama and the internationalists. Cruz’ amendment puts the kabosh on that scenario.
We need to watch carefully the vote on the Cruz amendment.
The rest of the bill gives authority to Obama to negotiate trade deals. That’s a big item in itself but I am thinking Obama wanted to do an end-run around the injunction against his Executive Amnesty using this trade bill. He wants a 5 million to 11 million new voting bloc for the 2016 elections, or more accurately the hard core left behind Obama want that.
The rest of the bill is to be renewed in 2018 if the then President requests renewal. President Cruz will likely do the right thing then. But Obama gets 2 years to mess with trade. But like I said I think he wants to import that large illegal voting bloc more than anything else.
We’ll see. I’d like to think there is some higher level chess game being played, but given recent history, I doubt it.
I don’t like the idea of any politician being given special exemplary powers. Power has always corrupted.
Also here a passage from this link shows how Obama will go around any
amendment prohibiting change to immigration law :
“Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.”
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/20233
This language, and other language in TPA, offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes “trade in services.”
Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.
The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.
1. Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA. There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees