Posted on 06/17/2015 2:40:05 PM PDT by familyop
Oh, and NAFTA has stopped us from labeling the country of origin on our meat, but TPP is supposed to be much more proactively restrictive.
I read a timeline that claimed that. Doing a search showed that the claim that TPP is almost complete has been said going back to 2013. I don’t know when it will be complete, but when it is, if we have TPA, we will get to review it for 60 days before the President can sign it. Once he signs it, Congress has another 30 days to study it and vote.
Yeah, but with TPA we took away Congress’s real power over it—a two-thirds senate vote. And, they wouldn’t have pushed TPA through if TPP weren’t ready. I fully expect them now to ram through TiSA and TiPS, or whatever it is called now, sooner rather than later as well.
Please see Post “TPP Trade Deal Could Br Pushed Into 2017”.
An old article that still put the odds at better than 50/50, based on concern that the TPA wouldn’t pass the House—which it still did.
The article was updated 3 days ago.
Where?
The very thing many on FR have been railing against!
This is what the bill says on sovereignty...
SEC. 108. Sovereignty.
Any comment?
See 69 for reference.
I knew that language had been included. I would like to read the Cruz/Sessions immigration language.
I think that in addition to what was already in previous TPA bills, this should reassure those concerned about our sovereignty being compromised. Thank you for posting this.
Why is TPP secret? Bush released the text of his trade agreement before requesting a TPA.
Given that recent history, why did the GOP Congress not demand release of a final TPP before approving TPA?
Obama and the GOP were deliberately hiding the facts from the American people and you are supporting those actions?
It’s shameful that the GOP isenabling and standing with Barack Obama but it is what it is. History will note this abdication by the GOP in the face of a lawless POTUS.
I read a timeline that claimed that. Doing a search showed that the claim that TPP is almost complete has been said going back to 2013. I don’t know when it will be complete, but when it is, if we have TPA, we will get to review it for 60 days before the President can sign it.
The Australian trade minister said TPP is basically done and only one week of negotiations are left.
“We are literally one week of negotiation away from completing this extraordinary deal across 12 countries and 40 per cent of the world’s GDP,” said Andrew Robb, Australia’s trade minister.
FReeper conservativejoy is just trying to minimize the impact of Cruz’s TPA support and enabling of Obamatrade. Gather you own facts before analyzing what the Cruz campaign says because their statements are full of half truths and dissembling.
Sounds good. The agreement, of course, would submit new laws on the US. Don’t know, but I’d expect there’d be other terms of the agree established by international mechanisms on a continuing basis, and section (c) only pertains to dispute mechanisms.
Doesn’t really matter if the “living” agreement language is still in there, since that was simply descriptive of what the nature of these deals is.
And, a larger issue of passage is there. Any of these deals would very much be treaties, so they should require a direct two-thirds vote by the senate. (If we somehow bundle taxes in there, then it should also originate in the house—but still it shouldn’t reduce any vote requirements of the senate.
I’m all for free trade, but I am not in an way for this move toward overlapping, EU-like regional quasi-governments—so I’m not sure what language could be added to TPA to make me favor it.
I’m curious—how can it be Cruz/Sessions language, since Sessions still opposes TPA? (Jeff Sessions, that is.)
Thanks.
And I agree, Cruz and his campaign insulting our intelligence with bogus arguments on this is even more problematic than his support of it.
Cruz and Sessions conferred together in the writing of it.
Can you steer me to an article on that?
It was in a speech Cruz gave and I’m trying to determine which one. He said that he had conferred with Sessions on the Amendment to the Senate bill. That Amendment did not get voted on, but he said that the language would likely be included in the House bill, which is what happened.
S.Amdt.1384 to S.Amdt.1221 (a little over 1/2 way down) [Page S3081/2]
SA 1384. Mr. HATCH (for Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Inhofe)) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1221 proposed by Mr. Hatch to the bill H.R. 1314, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 102(a), add the following:
As you can see from the bill text link I gave section 102(a) ends at (13). There is no (14).
Keep in mind the dates...
06/12/2015 On motion to concur in portion of Senate amendment preceding title II Agreed to by recorded vote: 219 - 211
I can't find anything more current, even on Thomas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.