Replies

There is a clause in the 2015 version of TPA that reinforces the sovereignty of our laws which cannot be undermined by anything in trade agreements.

This is what the bill says on sovereignty...

H.R.1314 - Trade Act of 2015

SEC. 108. Sovereignty.

(a) United States law To prevail in event of conflict.—No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b), nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.
(b) Amendments or modifications of United States law.—No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b) shall prevent the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States, that State, or that locality (as the case may be).
(c) Dispute settlement reports.—Reports, including findings and recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant to any trade agreement entered into under section 103(b) shall have no binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of the United States.

Any comment?

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.

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.