Guest Blog: Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (Brief Comment By Brianroy at Intro)

If someone were to say that,
"The United States of America is about to effectively cease to exist as a sovereign nation on June 12, 2015", 
I would have to say that may very well be the case if the Congress by any majority so votes to pass off its powers, contrary to the Constitution of the United States, to a hybrid of foreign powers and corporate governance  on Friday, June 12, 2015.  

If Congress so cedes their powers as the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government, Congress will cease to exist as a functioning legal body, and it will be dissolved with the excuse that THEY JUST DISSOLVED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, so dust the two hands together, and mantra along with those who committed high treason and say after them, "That's that." 

  If Congress gives its powers away and gets dissolved, the reaction will be utterly illegal to describe because the new governance will NOT recognize Freedom of Speech or ANY rights granted us as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.  

George Washington lived by a creed that used just 3 words that propelled him in and during the American Revolution, and they were:    "Deeds.  Not words."        

Congress and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government  fears George Washington.  They will yet again fear his words taken up by the living.  -- Brianroy

[[[[[  Update: June 14, 2015  There was a temporary squabble over the relinquishing of Congressional Powers as Democrat Nancy Pelosi plays up to the Unions for political posturing first.  There is only a question of whether enough Democrats will have the sense to abandon Pelosi when she tries to ram through a slightly amended version which Senator Sessions told WND would likely be during the week of June 14, 2015, perhaps by Tuesday June 16th.  

The House held a symbolic vote Friday [June 12, 2015]  in which fast-track authority was approved, 219-211. But according to rules approved by the Senate, the legislation cannot advance unless the House approves both TAA and TPA. Trade Adjustment assistance provides job training and financial aid to workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign-trade agreements like TPP.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/senator-warns-of-another-attempt-to-pass-obamatrade/

See also:  

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/trans-pacific-partnership-fast-track-defeat-now-what

End of Update]]]]]

[[[[[June 15, 2015  video addendum update:  
 The John Birch Society gave an insightful news commentary on the developments of Friday June 12, 2015, 



End of the June 15, 2015 Update]]]]]

On May 18, 2015, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, senator Sessions said:

“It can no longer be denied that wages for American workers have been flat or falling for decades. Real hourly wages today are lower than they were in 1973. At the same time, the share of Americans actually working has steadily declined to its lowest level in four decades. The middle class is shrinking.

CNN recently summarized the results of a Pew study, which found: “Most states saw median incomes fall between 2000 and 2013, an ominous sign for the well-being of the middle class… A separate Pew Research Center study shows that the share of adults in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1970 to 51% in 2013… the erosion over the last four decades has been sure and steady… If past trends continue to hold, there is little reason to believe the recovery from the Great Recession will eventually lead to a rebound in the share of adults in middle-income households.”

Pew finds that while middle-income families earned 62 percent of the nation’s household incomes in 1970, today they earn only 44% of the nation’s household incomes. The sad fact is that the middle class is getting smaller. This has enormous implications—not just economically, but socially. The size and strength of the middle class impacts the health of a community and a nation in many ways. What are we here for if not to address these issues?

So we need to ask some tough questions about why the middle class is shrinking and why pay isn’t rising.

I have no doubt that bigger government, more regulations, more taxes, our huge $18 trillion debt and the interest we pay on it, and lately Obamacare are major factors in weakening American economic growth and reducing Americans’ wages. But, is that all there is? I’m afraid there is more. It appears that there are other factors of significance that are not being sufficiently recognized or seriously discussed by many of our political, corporate, and academic leaders, or the media establishment.

It is time to begin a vigorous analysis of our conduct of trade. Do our policies and TPP concede too much to our mercantilist competitor allies?

Do their actions over the years establish that they have developed trade and non-trade barriers and systems that provide their workers and manufacturers substantial advantages in the world market place?

It is astounding, really, how little serious discussion there has been on these issues. To some trade advocates, even bad trade deals are good. Many advocates are quite open in their belief that as long as the consumer gets a lower price, there should be no concern if American plants close, workers are laid off, and wages fall. I fear we have almost an obsession with trade agreements. This view is so strong in many TPP advocates that they don’t concern themselves with anything but that we admit more, cheaper goods. That lower prices are good for consumers—and we are all consumers—there can be no doubt.

But, is any trade agreement good because it creates more low cost imports? Are trade deficits—which are at historically high levels—immaterial? Is the continued shuttering of American manufacturing of no concern? Fundamentally, can America be strong without a manufacturing base? Can we be secure without a steel industry?

At bottom, we must ask whether or not our aggressive trading partners, using a mercantilist philosophy, may be gaining unfair advantage. These countries—good nations, good allies—are not religious about free trade. In general, while they assert their desire is for expanded free trade, their actual policies seek fewer U.S. exports to them using non-tariff as well as tariff barriers. Our trade competitors use currency manipulation, subsidies, and other actions to expand their exports to us. Their goal is, naturally, to seek full employment in their countries while exporting their unemployment to the United States.

This refusal by many to acknowledge the mercantilist policies of our trading competitors has gone, it seems to me, from promoting healthy trading relationships to an ideology, even to the nature of a religion.

“Cheaper products are good”—that’s what are promoters say; that’s all you need to know. “Don’t ask too many questions about facts, you’re going to get cheaper products and that’s the only thing that counts.” I don’t dismiss the advantage of cheaper products. But, I have my doubts. I have voted for other trade agreements and I am uneasy about this.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It is a cast of mind. It lives in the real world. And certainly the real world is not working so well for Middle America today. Their financial status continues to decline.

The conservative thing to do is to avoid dramatic and sudden changes that destabilize families and communities further—not to accelerate problems that exist.

Capital is mobile. But workers, many times, are not. So when a company closes its plant in the United States, and shifts production to a lower-wage country, the company may make more money but the workers, and their communities—who cannot move overseas—suddenly don’t have jobs. They are hurt.

Of course we cannot stop the effects of globalization. But we can work for trade agreements that create a more level playing field against our good but mercantilist trading partners.

Many have an inflexible ideology that the United States and the American people should allow for the completely unrestricted movement of goods and labor into the United States even when our trading partners manipulate rules for their advantage. Those truest believers are most adamant about passing this fast-track legislation fast as possible, with the least discussion possible.

But, the United States is a country—not an economy. And a country’s job is to protect its citizens—whether from military attacks, or from unfair trade policies that threaten the economic well-being of its own people.

Any trade agreement we enter into should have a mutually beneficial economic impact on all parties to the agreement. It must not have the effect of continuing or furthering the decline of manufacturing in the United States. It should seek to end trade unfairness and to increase, not reduce, wages in the United States. We can no longer afford to lose a single job to an unfair trade deal. Not one.

But the fast-track procedure ensures that any trade deal yet-unseen can pass through Congress with a minimum of actual scrutiny. After years of soaring trade deficits, shouldn’t we apply more scrutiny to trade agreements—not less? Are we afraid to ask tough questions? Take the issue of currency manipulation: this president has refused to confront this practice that provides a clear advantage for certain foreign countries. His negotiators have refused to put any provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Even if Congress were to force it in, I’m not even sure he would enforce it then, and, under fast-track, there would be nothing we can do to amendment or stop it.

...

Once fast-track authority has been granted, no fast-tracked deal has ever been blocked. If we want to confront currency manipulation and other unfair practices, our best bet is to have a trade bills come before the Congress through regular order—not as a fast-tracked deal. Then Congress can properly exercise the responsibilities that have been delegated to us under the Constitution of the United States.”

 Read more at:

http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/5/sessions-for-some-global-trade-pacts-have-become-religion-regardless-of-terms-or-results

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership opens our markets to foreign imports, but allows foreign countries to continue closing their market to ours.

Our country has not been engaged in reciprocal free trade but, as the Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel explained, “the enablement of foreign mercantilism” and “unilateral trade disarmament.” We have allowed state-dominated and mercantilist trading partners to maintain their varied and elaborate non-tariff barriers, exporting their unemployment to our shores.

Stubbornly, our political elites have treated trade as a matter of religion. To them, there is no such thing as a bad deal. They know American workers lose jobs when we allow trading partners to cheat. But they insist it is all for the greater good. This is why the American worker keeps ending up on the losing end.

Fast-track will also lock into passage a new global governance authority known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. Chartered with a “Living Agreement,” this new transnational commission will be able to amend the agreement after its adoption. Among other things, this could empower the President to expand the admission of foreign workers without congressional approval. We are creating another unelectable, unaccountable, unanswerable bureaucracy that can tie down and frustrate American sovereignty.

Congress is forgetting its duty: to improve jobs and wages for Americans.”

Read more at:  http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/5/sessions-announces-no-vote-on-final-passage-of-fast-track

MYTH VS. FACT ON FAST-TRACK EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

Fast Track Would Reduce Congressional Power, Subject U.S. To Global Tribunals, And Pave Way For New Executive Actions

Myth: Trade agreements implemented under fast-track will not supersede existing U.S. law.

Truth: Every trade agreement negotiated by the President and foreign governments is accompanied by implementing legislation which necessarily supersedes existing law. Proponents of fast-track are relying on semantics: the trade agreement itself will not supersede existing law, but the “fast-tracked” legislation implementing the trade agreement will. What’s more, the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which would be fast-tracked by TPA—will give jurisdiction to international tribunals to settle disputes between parties to the agreement.

Myth: Congress will have more control over the trade process under fast-track.

Truth: If Congress gives the Executive six-year fast-track authority, the Senate will cede its ability to amend any future legislation implementing any yet-unseen global trade and regulatory pact; cede its ability to control debate over that pact; and cede its ability to subject that pact to the 67-vote threshold required for treaties, as well as the 60-vote threshold required for important legislation. Proponents of fast-track suggest the negotiating objectives somehow bind the Administration; this is false. The negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership are nearly complete and have been ongoing for years, long before any negotiating objectives will have been suggested. Moreover, the negotiating objectives are vague and lack any meaningful enforcement mechanisms—particularly enforcement from Senators and Representatives not on the revenue committees. Congress will be giving up the only leverage it has: the ability to amend legislation or to refuse to cut-off debate. No fast-tracked deal has ever been defeated, regardless of whether fast-track “objectives” have been ignored, overlooked, or violated by the Executive.

Myth: Congress is ceding no institutional powers under fast-track.

Truth: By eliminating its own powers of review and amendment, Congress would dramatically shift the carefully calibrated balance of power between Congress and the President. Fast-track would ensure that the President has complete discretion over the drafting of international agreements Congress has never even seen.

Myth: If the President ignores the negotiating objectives, Congress can simply block the deal.

Truth: A fast-tracked trade deal has never been blocked. By denying members any opportunity to slow debate, mobilize the public by seeking extra time, amend the deal, or seek a better deal, fast-tracked legislation is always ratified no matter how flawed. The train will have left the station once fast-track is adopted. Without any possibility of a 60-vote, let alone 67-vote, threshold in the Senate, this final check will have been removed. Additionally, the revenues and rules committees have exclusive control over enforcement, eliminating the ability of rank-and-file members to hold the Administration accountable for violations. Those saying Congress can just vote down a bad trade deal ignore the unbroken cycle of history.

Myth: If, for the first time ever, Congress somehow did manage to block a fast-tracked deal, there is no further threat to U.S sovereignty.

Truth: Even if Congress declines to implement a trade agreement, the President’s signature will already be on it, opening the U.S. up to judgments before an international arbitration body known as the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), or perhaps even before the WTO. An offshoot of the World Bank, ICSID exists to hear disputes between international companies and foreign governments, at all levels. Congress ratified a 1965 treaty which stipulated that any ICSID awards will be binding as if awarded by a U.S. court, and the Vienna Convention—which the State Department generally considers “customary international law”—states that the President’s signature on the agreement obligates the U.S. not to “frustrate the purpose” of a trade agreement. As such, the President’s signature alone could put many U.S. industries and localities at risk, not to mention binding Congress’ ability to pass future laws without significant international consequences.

Myth: Fast-track has protections for U.S. sovereignty.

Truth: Fast-track offers no protection against delegations of power or authority to international tribunals should Congress adopt the implementing legislation of any future fast-tracked deal. This is particularly relevant when considering the TPP, which has promised to set up an international commission to make changes to the TPP in the future. The “Living Agreement” section of TPP calls for the creation of this new body, known as the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission,” and TPP’s implementing legislation could well cede important congressional power to this new international body as it did with the WTO. The overview of the TPP provided to members of Congress when they view the TPP’s text states that the amendment and accession processes will be similar to those of the WTO, suggesting that Congress will indeed be removed from the process after the agreement’s initial implementation. The Ministerial Conference of the WTO, for instance, has the power to amend the agreement or to add new countries to the agreement simply with a two-thirds vote (not a unanimous one), and the WTO’s implementing legislation makes these changes binding on the U.S. without any additional congressional approval. At the very least, Congress will not know the truth until it has seen the TPP’s implementing legislation—which will not happen until Congress has already promised to fast-track TPP.

Myth: Trade agreements negotiated under TPA cannot be used to bypass U.S. immigration laws.

Truth: Fast-track includes negotiating objectives to remove barriers to services that could easily be used by the Administration to justify the expansion of foreign worker programs. There is also an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” in TPP, which could be used to facilitate the admission of more temporary foreign workers into the United States. Even if immigration or temporary entry prohibitions were included in fast-track, the negotiating objectives laid out by fast-track are not binding on the Administration. If any future trade deal, TPP or otherwise, contains language that paves the way for more foreign workers, members will be powerless to strike the offending provision. Additionally, the “living agreement” provision allows for subsequent amendments to the trade agreement after its initial implementation, creating an altogether new avenue for changes to foreign worker programs. Finally, the President has refused to foreclose the possibility of using executive actions or side agreements to facilitate foreign worker expansions, as he did with South Korea as part of the recent South Korean trade deal. In short, fast-track creates broad new avenues for the White House to bring in more foreign workers—whether in the light of day, or behind closed doors no one can open—while giving up for six years the meaningful ability of Congress to do anything about it.

Myth: Congress must pass fast-track in order to pass TPP or any other trade agreements.

Truth: Fast-track is a mechanism to effectively pre-approve the speedy movement of global trade pacts through Congress. Congress is more than capable of passing trade agreements without a fast-track and has done so in the past.

Myth: TPP’s “living agreement” provision is not cause for concern.

Truth: The Congressional Research Service has said TPP’s “living agreement” provision is “unprecedented.” In essence, the provision allows the agreement to be subsequently amended after initial implementation by its member states, and also allows new member countries to join. TPP could well cede vast swathes of regulatory authority to a foreign body and expose Americans to the rulings of a new unelected and unaccountable global Commission.

Myth: Any changes in U.S. law or policy negotiated after Congress approves TPP or other fast-tracked global pacts would also have to be approved by Congress.

Truth: TPP legislation fast-tracked through Congress will likely contain a provision pursuant to the “living agreement” clause which would delegate vast regulatory authority to the new TPP Commission. The TPP Commission will be established under TPP with broad powers to oversee the implementation and amendment of the trade agreement. Further, TPP’s implementing legislation would likely mirror the implementing legislation of the World Trade Organization in 1994. Under that legislation, amendments to the WTO or domestic adoption of WTO interpretations or rules only requires the bare minimum of reporting requirements by the Administration—no additional vote from Congress is required. Indeed, as the history of the WTO reflects, countries have been able to join the WTO as a matter of course without any additional input from Congress; more than that, countries have even been able to join WTO without the approval of Executive Branch representatives of the United States, as WTO only requires the consent of two-thirds of member nations to add new countries to the agreement.

Read more at:

 http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/5/myth-vs-fact-on-fast-track-executive-authority