*** Action Alert *** VETO HR.3009

Petition Online ^ | 16 May 2002 | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

Click here to Sign Petition....

We the undersigned ENCOURAGE President Bush to VETO HR.3009 - "Trade Bill"

The REAL conservatives in the Senate have made a great number of "concessions" to the liberals in this bill, however their failure to strike down the Amdt.3408 (Dayton Amdmt,Senate Vote #110, On 14 May 2002) actually kills REAL "fast track trade promotion authority" which is the reason so many concessions were made in the first place.

This ammendment has several "unintended consequences", it would actully give the President NO credibility at the "bargaining table" because it would allow the U.S. congress to strike down portions of the agreement, and no country in the world would want to negotiate under these terms.

Under "Fast Track" congress would retain the authority to APPROVE or REJECT the agreement in its ENTIRETY not "ammend" it as provided in this Amdmt.

We the undersigned are asking congress to remove this languge from the bill, and if they don't we are asking the President to VETO this bill in otder to preserve the INTEGRITY of the President of the United States.

SUPPORTERS of this Ammendment claim that they would be under "too much pressure to rubber stamp the trade agreements even if they think disagree portions of it".... to which David Osborne has said, "If you can't stand the heat.... Get out of the KITCHEN and go get a real job with less pressure".

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Sign Petition....

[davidosborne]

Passing it on.. Please freepmail me if you want ON or OFF my ping list...

[davidosborne]

Link to senate vote #110 - see how YOUR senators voted on this "U.S. President Credibility Damaging Ammendment..."

ATTN Florida Voters - Note that our two liberal Senators voted.. surprise.. surprise..surprise..

[E.G.C.]

Glad to see FR back up. It was down for much of yesterday.
BTTT!!!!!

[Lion's Cub]

Sorry. I believe Fox would put provisions allowing Mexicans unrestricted access into the US into any agreement with Mexico. And Bush would accept it.

[meenie]

How revolting! Allowing Congress to have a Constitutional say in trade negotiations versus giving the President unlimited authority. Now if Congress would just exercise its perogative in the area of war making powers and insist on a vote before authorizing any new military ventures.

[mafree]

Signed- thanks for flagging me to it.

[davidosborne]

With fast track authority CONGRESS would have final say... the proponents of this ammendment want to take away the Presidents CREDIBILITY at the negotiating table... that is the issue here... congress would still have the authority to NOT approve the plan... the senators just don't want the "pressure" of having to reject something they don't like....

[davidosborne]

AGAIN ... 51 senators don't like the plan they can vote it down... if congress does not like ANY part of the plan they can vote it down... the problem here is that other countries will NOT negotiate if they know that the congress could change the agreement therefore taking away the credibility of the negotiators... that IMHO is not right.. And I would ask the President to VETO...

David

[davidosborne]

That may be true.... but if CONGRESS did not like it than can REJECT any deal in its entirety!!.... what are the proponents of this amdmt so scared to vote against something they think is NOT in the best interest of America ??? That would send a CLEAR message to the President what congress will accept and what they not.. WITHOUT taking away the President's credibility at the negotiating table...

[davidosborne]

See related thread...