You fail to understand that this is written into the TPA bill, so it WILL BE able to be withdrawn if terms aren’t met.
Hence the need FOR the TPA, to begin with.
“You fail to understand that this is written into the TPA bill, so it WILL BE able to be withdrawn if terms aren’t met.
Hence the need FOR the TPA, to begin with.”
And how exaclty is that done?? By joint resolution?? That is not binding. The Congress can only do things BY LAW, which requires the executives signature.
This is all smoke an mirrors and outright lies.
The article says we need the TPA so that the president doesn’t have the sole power to negotiate agreements, but the president is saying he needs TPA to finish the negotiations. Well which is it?
The Congress should have more than just an up or down vote. Any trade bill should go through committee, be scrutinized, and revised and amended if necessary. But foreign governments apparently do not like the American people through their representatives being involved, and neither do business or the president.
Why do you think they call it “fast track”? In other words, rush through with no debate (and no amendments). Negotiate (alone), sign, then strong-arm it through. We’ve seen this dance many times before.