Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act -- Continued

Floor Speech

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was under the impression that we would
be able to have discussion and debate on the legislation before us. My
two amendments would deal with two very serious issues. I am
disappointed that we have an objection.

My first amendment, 1233, would ensure that any changes to U.S. law
or policy are passed by Congress. Specifically, if implementing
legislation allowed future changes to be made to a trade agreement that
could affect or overrule existing U.S. law without Congressional
approval, then that legislation could not be fast-tracked. The
implementing legislation would have to guarantee that all future
changes would have to be approved by Congress. I think that is
perfectly appropriate, and it is an absolute responsibility of Congress
to ensure its own authority in matters of these kind.

Indeed, the Constitution gives plenary authority to Congress over
immigration law and trade. Under this amendment that I have offered,
Congress cannot delegate the power to change U.S. law to the
Executive--Congress cannot do that and must not do that--or to some
international body that would be created if this trade agreement--the
Trans-Pacific Partnership--enters into force. This is not made clear
under the current bill.

Colleagues, we need to think about this commission--an international
commission--that will be created with 11 trading partners in the TPP.
This commission will be given power, and our trading partners will be
given powers if Congress approves this, presumably. Under the TPP, that
commission is given the authority to amend the trade agreement that is
initially passed if they find that circumstances have changed and they
desire to change it.

This is called the `living agreement' provision. The `living
agreement' provision explicitly states these things in this trade
agreement. The term `living agreement' should make our hair stand up on
the backs of our necks because this is a dangerous thing. What it means
is that the commission can alter the agreement. We want to be sure that
if this commission alters the agreement--assuming the TPP enters into
force--that it is not given the power to change U.S. law, even if the
President agrees.

There is another question. Senator Brown, I think, has offered an
amendment on this question, and my amendment would also fix it. It
deals with the admission of new countries into the 11 party--12,
counting the United States--TPP trade agreement. It is pretty clear.
This commission has the power to admit new members. It says: With
regard to the amendment process of the commission, that the process
will look similar to that of the World Trade Organization. We have
shared this with Senator Hatch and his fine staff. I think they
understand what we are talking about here.

This suggests that TPP procedures are likely to mirror WTO
procedures. Well, the United States has had a long-term problem with
the World Trade Organization because we approved the World Trade
Organization and passed legislation implementing that agreement, and we
did not realize it allowed new members to be admitted without a vote of
Congress. So under TPP, if it mirrors the WTO rules for amendments and
accessions, the new members--it appears quite plain to me--could be
admitted by just 8 of the 12 TPP members--not a unanimous vote as NATO
requires or the European Union requires.

At one point, the TPP says there must be ``consensus,'' but then it
talks about WTO. WTO does not require consensus on everything. So I
have to say, colleagues, that, first and foremost, I do not know why we
have to create a new commission--a transnational commission that has
the ability to discipline the United States, to impose penalties on the
United States by what might be a two-thirds vote under a number of
circumstances, and create additional constraints on the ability of this
great Nation to function.

I do not know why we would not be better off dealing--as we have done
with other countries--with bilateral trade agreements between the two
of us, not creating some international body such as the United Nations,
the WTO, or as Europe has done with the European Union.

So I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to have my
amendment to address this called up now, because if they can block this
amendment from being called up, this amendment can be shut out
altogether. That is the fact. The train would be advancing without real
debate and without a real opportunity for this concept to be addressed
and voted on by Members of Congress. I am sure people would rather not
have it come up--would rather not have questions about this agreement
be raised. I think it is a legitimate question. I would urge my
colleagues to continue to evaluate the amendment and to see if we
cannot get it up pending. Let's have a vote on it, and let's adopt it.

Now, I also have offered amendment No. 1234. First, my previous
amendment was No. 1233. This would be 1234. It would hold the Obama
administration and the United States Trade Representative to their
assurances that no trade agreement will be used to change U.S.
immigration law or policy. This has been done in the past to a
significant degree. It resulted in Chairman Sensenbrenner and ranking
member Conyers writing a letter saying: Never again should any trade
agreement amend immigration law.

That is the province of the Congress, according to the Constitution.
In 2003, I offered a resolution after a past trade agreement did just
that--bypassed Congress' authority over immigration law. The resolution
passed unanimously. Senator Feinstein and other Democrats signed on. It
said: Never again will immigration law be amended as part of a trade
agreement. Trade agreements are not the way to change law of the United
States, especially when you have a President who is rewriting
immigration law, enforcing immigration law that Congress explicitly
rejected through his Executive amnesty.

So my amendment is modeled after the Congressional Responsibility for
Immigration Act of 2003, a bill sponsored by our Democratic colleagues,
Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Kennedy--former Senator Kennedy, our
former colleague. It would prohibit the application of fast-track
authority procedures to any implementing bill that affects U.S.
immigration law or policy or the entry of aliens, if an implementing
bill or trade agreement violates those terms.

Then, any Member could raise a point of order against the
implementing bill, ensuring that the bill is considered under regular
Senate procedures allowing amendment and debate. Look, now they tell us
that we should not be concerned. Colleagues, we have heard it said that
this will not happen--no future trade agreements will affect U.S.
immigration law. All right, but I am a little nervous about that. I
have been watching the language on this. Senator Grassley, at the
Finance Committee hearing a few weeks ago, asked the Trade
Representative, Mr. Froman, this:

My question: Could you assure the committee that the TPP
agreement or any side agreement does not and will not contain
any provision relating to immigration, visa processing or
temporary entries of persons?

That is a good question--simple question. They have been indicating
not. His answer sounds good at first blush.

Thank you, Senator Grassley. And the answer is yes, I can
assure you that we are not negotiating anything in TPP that
would require any modifications of the U.S. immigration laws
or system, any changes of our existing visa system, and in
fact the TPP explicitly states that it will not require any
changes in any party's immigration law or procedures. Now the
11 other TPP countries are making offers to each other in the
area of temporary entry, but we have decided not to do so. So
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

So we have decided not to do so--now, at this moment, before the
trade agreement is up for approval by Congress, knowing it would be
controversial if the implementing bill included immigration changes.
But that does not mean we are not party to any immigration provisions
in the TPP that could be used to make changes later. One of the
chapters in the agreement deals with immigration and temporary entry. I
do not see anything that would prohibit the current administration or
a new administration from trying to use this trade agreement to advance
an immigration agenda.

So if the Trade Representative really means it when he assures us
there will be no changes in the future, then I would suggest my
amendment would be something that Ambassador Froman would be delighted
to support to keep us from having this problem and to remove this
potential controversy from the legislation. I think it would also--for
those who want to see it passed--enhance the opportunity to pass the
legislation.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source