Pete Sessions: “I have been inclined to be supportive of these two treaties with Singapore and Chile. I was very surprised to see we…”

“I have been inclined to be supportive of these two treaties with Singapore and Chile. I was very surprised to see we will be amending immigration law. As I listened to the debate from other members of the committee, I concluded at that point I could not support the treaties. I voted no. I don't think there were a large number of people in the committee who voted no. But I did not like the fact that the first fast-track treaty had come up with amended immigration law which is under the plenary power of the Congress, and it is not capable of being amended. It is not capable of being changed. I think it is a bad mistake to do that. Subsequent to that, we have worked hard to put in as part of the passage of this treaty a sense of the Senate. That sense of the Senate says: Trade agreements are not the appropriate vehicle for enacting immigration-related laws or modifying the current immigration policy; and future trade agreements to which the United States is a party and the legislation implementing the agreements should not contain immigration-related provisions. This is really an important issue.”