In support of Trade Promotion Authority

http://stevedeace.com ^ | June 17, 2015 | Joel Kurtinitis

[Lucky9teen]

Most of the recent discussion surrounding Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) has focused on the overwhelming distrust of the President from, well, pretty much everyone. Many fear that the President plans to use trade agreement back-doors to compromise US sovereignty and ram through environmental and immigration policies that would not have a chance of making it through the GOP-controlled congress. The most consistent critique of those who support TPA (other than the criticisms mistakenly applied to TPA, that were intended for the TPP… read this to clear up that confusion) is that we should not trust this President with more power given his track record of abusing authority and circumventing Congress.

The funny thing is that we completely agree.

And that’s why we support the TPA.

Those who treat TPA as an unprecedented empowerment of the President do so without the support of history – and there is a lot of history to contend with. The narrative goes that according to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the President has no right to negotiate trade deals, his Article II powers of treaty negotiation notwithstanding.

This interpretation is not changing due to this week’s TPA vote – it changed 125 years ago with the McKinley Tariff Act, which empowered the President to unilaterally set tariffs with Congressional authority at his back. This delegation of authority was challenged and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1892. From that time on, Presidents gained more and more unilateral trade negotiation and tariff imposition power, taking a giant leap forward under FDR with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. The idea behind the centralization of negotiating power was similar to that of the Founders with treaty negotiation – it’s almost impossible to negotiate with a foreign nation when subjecting the final agreement to the knuckle-dragging and self-interested amendments of 535 warring legislators. No nation (or individual, for that matter) wants to sign an agreement, only to have a bunch of amendments tacked on post-ratification.

For almost a century, the President had vast authority to negotiate with foreign powers, and little accountability to Congress at all.

That all changed in 1974, when the Democratic congressional majority decided to push back against Republican President Richard Nixon by establishing their own priorities and terms for trade negotiation with the Trade Act of 1974 – the progenitor of and template for the modern TPA.

The Trade Act laid out Congressional trade priorities, and bound the President to abide by them during negotiations. It also set strict reporting requirements on the executive, and placed both houses of Congress in direct oversight before, during, and after trade negotiations. In return, Congress agreed to allow a vote on any negotiated agreements without amendment or filibuster – an insignificant concession given the fact that The Congress hadn’t used its constitutional authority on any trade or tariff negotiation for decades. The guarantee of an up/down vote from Congress gave the President the negotiating leverage by assuring foreign partners that a given agreement would last beyond the end of an administration – the single luxury that Presidents did not have prior to the passage of the ’74 Act.

Many of those discussing the 2015 TPA assume that in its absence, trade deals and foreign negotiations would revert back to the jurisdiction of Congress, and the President would be bound to futility for the duration of his term. But without overturning over a century of trade law and court precedent, that’s not going to happen. The President still has enormous legal authority for the negotiation of trade and tariff agreements, requiring zero Congressional oversight or approval. Whether this should be the case or not is irrelevant – the fact is that there is a strong legal background for such authority, and the courts have upheld challenges against it for over a hundred years. If TPA fails, trade agreements default back to the President – who has already shown that he will not hesitate to act unilaterally.

Consider the irony of Conservatives working to prevent the TPA and thereby returning unchecked negotiating power to a President who is already in the middle of negotiating a deal with Iran in total defiance of both houses of congress.

Who’s the trusting one?

The whole discussion reminds me of a long-forgotten scene from a long-forgotten movie whose franchise got a reboot this very weekend. In the critically-disdained Jurassic Park III, Dr. Grant’s young sidekick has stolen some raptor eggs, hoping that they will help fund a flailing research endeavor back in the states. Knowing the bereft raptors would soon come looking for the eggs, Dr. Grant seems ready to throw the eggs away, before reconsidering . Another character insists he get rid of the eggs, urgently asking “What if they catch us with them?” Dr. Grant, without missing a beat, turns and responds, “What if they catch us without them?”

This is the defining dilemma of the TPA. While there is of course a risk that a lawless executive will disregard some of the limitations set forth, without the limitations and congressional priorities defined in the TPA, President Obama is free to negotiate and sign the United States on to any trade agreement or tariff hike he sees as beneficial. This dangerous lack of congressional oversight is exactly what can breathe life into the corporate global Frankenstein that both conservatives and liberals currently fear. While shockingly few of the internet warriors I’ve encountered have actually read the easily-available text of the TPA, there are a lot of important provisions that they would see if they did. Here are just a few of them.

1) The TPA contains an extensive list of Congressional objectives that the President must pursue and deliver in order to retain trade promotion authority. Among the priorities listed in the current TPA are: protection of intellectual property, ending unfair currency manipulation among member nations, open US markets in other nations by ending access limitations imposed upon US businesses by other governments, and protect Israel against coordinated foreign boycotts.

2) According to the terms of TPA, the promotion of any environmental policies through a trade agreement is limited to partner nations – exempting the US from any such imposition.

3) The President must submit an annual report to Congress on the progress of any trade agreement toward the objective set forth in the TPA – failure to meet Congressional objectives is grounds for revocation of TPA.

4) Any implementing law changes from any trade agreement must go through the normal legislative process.

5) Requires that one member of each house of congress (chosen by that house) be credentialed as a member of the US trade delegation, providing a window for constant oversight by both houses of congress as negotiations progress.

6) Establishes a new transparency officer to assist US Trade Representative in disseminating information about all proposed trade deals to the public. Specifically calls for soliciting public input on proposed trade deals.

7) Requires that the President notify Congress of any new trade agreements he intends to negotiate at least 90 days before initiating talks.

8) The President must submit a complete implementation plan to Congress when he submits the finalized agreement for consideration. Must contain budget, personnel, and all other implementation requirements, upfront.

9) All finalized agreements must be publicly available online at least 60 days prior to a vote of Congress on the agreement.

10) Any agreements which do not follow the terms of the TPA are null.

11) Congress may withdraw TPA at any time if the President fails to follow all terms set forth in TPA – including reporting to Congress at the discretion of at least three different congressional committees.

12) Dispute settlement panel rulings apply only to the terms of the trade agreement in question, and are explicitly stated to be non-binding to the United States. We comply with them if we feel like it.

13) Finally, Section 8 of the TPA, titled “Sovereignty” ensures that no trade agreement trumps standing US law. The opening paragraph reads as follows:

“UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT. — No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.”

Given the restrictive nature of the TPA and its binding effect upon the Executive Branch, one would think that passing the terms would be a no-brainer from a conservative standpoint – particularly when some of the most ardent adversaries of TPA are notorious right-wingers Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Elizabeth Warren. But unfortunately many conservatives have joined with the far-left to torpedo the TPA, thereby exposing America to the unbounded lawlessness of the Obama administration.

Unwilling to trust President Obama on gun rights, immigration, religious liberty, and in negotiating a deal with Iran, conservatives have insisted that their representatives in Congress bring him back within the bounds of the law and Congressional accountability.

It’s too bad that they trust him to negotiate international trade without those bounds.

[Lucky9teen]

A Note to Conservatives on Trade Agreements Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President. Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority. Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power. There have been a lot of questions and concerns about the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let’s unpack the issues one by one. What are TPA and TPP? TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process. TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress. Some Key Facts:  Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.  Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.  TPA gives the Congress more control up-front over free trade agreements.  TPA mandates transparency by requiring all trade agreements (including TPP) to be made public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on them. Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power? No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement. Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP? No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that. Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP? Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either. Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA? Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters. Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs. TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker. Is TPA Constitutional? TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years. Does TPA give the President more authority? No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade. Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance. How can Senator Cruz trust Obama? He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power. Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”? That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect. But isn’t TPA a secret agreement? No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP. Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now. Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote. Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants? No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section. Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws. Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration. And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S.law.

[Billthedrill]

Good heavens - I think you might have lost your formatting there...

[Lucky9teen]

A Note to Conservatives on Trade Agreements

Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President.  Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.

Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.

There have been a lot of questions and concerns about the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations.  Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Let’s unpack the issues one by one.

What are TPA and TPP?

TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”.  TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress.  Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments.  For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.

TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership.  TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.  China is not a negotiating partner.  There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009.  Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.  There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.

Some Key Facts:

      Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.

      Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

      TPA gives the Congress more control up-front over free trade agreements.

      TPA mandates transparency by requiring all trade agreements (including TPP) to be made public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on them.

Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?

No.  Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law:  (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress.  TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done.  It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.

Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?

No.  Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law.  TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law.  Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law.  Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?

Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP.  He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy.  Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.  He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.

Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?

Yes.  Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy.  Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well.  He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.

Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade.  When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.

TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement.  Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.

Is TPA Constitutional?

TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.

Does TPA give the President more authority?

No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.

Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR.  When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it.  History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA.  Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide.  It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.

Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months.  TPA is six-year legislation.  If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA.  With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.

How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?

He doesn’t.  Not at all.  No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama.  However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress.  If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down.  And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal.  That’s a serious check on presidential power.

Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?

That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement.  That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments.  Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.

But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?

No, it is not.  The full text of TPA (fast track) is public.  What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.

Right now, the text of TPP is classified.  That is a mistake.  Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately.  The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it.  Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.

Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days.  Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.

Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?

No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.

Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.

Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation.  Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.

And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S.law.

[cotton1706]

“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.

[tennmountainman]

I done trust Obama and I don’t trust GOP leadership.

Polls show Americans are against Obamatrade...big time.

[tatown]

...and every freeper that supports TPA, because Cruz supports it, will give him a complete pass when TPP passes because he will be ‘against’ it. It’s exactly the same thing as supporting a vote for Obamacare, then suddenly voting ‘no’ since your vote isn’t needed to pass it anyway. The ‘yes’ vote occurred when you vote to allow a vote!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

George W. Bush started a war in Afghanistan, and then he started Gulf War II. After a time, it became obvious that to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, we would have to go to war against them as well.

However, congressional leaders, both Republican and Democrat, told W. Bush that they would not tolerate a third war during his presidency, if there was to be a war, it would be under his successor.

Well, Obama has had his time in office, and though he didn’t start any wars, and badly managed the holdover wars he inherited, he carried out Obamacare, a poorly designed, badly executed disaster inflicted on not just the American economy, but on the people themselves.

Obamacare has *hurt* America, far more than two wars did. And it was wholly a Democrat idea, without any Republican input or support. None. Zero.

So Obama is politically even worse off than was W. Bush after two wars. He and his agenda are exhausted. He has no more, and should have no more grace extended to him from Capitol Hill. And he certainly deserves no more grace from the American people.

Now he and his internationalist socialist Democrat supporters, a part of the Democrat party, but not all of it, seek to join with multinational corporation Chamber of Commerce Republicans, to effectively undermine and harm America even more.

So it is really an existential argument.

Will the union Democrats, who are at least patriotic enough to not to want to destroy America as a nation, if just to keep their jobs, willing to join with conservatives, who love and admire America as a nation, as harmed as it has been by socialism already, to give a resounding “NO!!!!!” to any part of this trade deal?

Can we all agree that America, as an independent nation, is better than life in a socialist district under the rule of the UN, or whatever Frankenstein monster the internationalists come up with, be it a world wide Corporatocracy, Kakistocracy, Kleptocracy, Kratocracy, Plutocracy, or good old fashioned fascist dictatorship?

[tennmountainman]

Have you read the secret bill behind the secret doors?

[FourtySeven]

He offers no explanation as to why Obama has broken so many wrists and arms to get TPA passed. None, Nada, zipo. So I am to believe that Obama is crushing dem heads to rein in his power? Horsesh-t.

That and the following are still giving me pause:

That all changed in 1974, when the Democratic congressional majority decided to push back against Republican President Richard Nixon by establishing their own priorities and terms for trade negotiation with the Trade Act of 1974 – the progenitor of and template for the modern TPA.

Why is the original act no longer good enough? Why is Obama fighting so hard, as you say, to limit his own power? Can anyone answer these questions please?

I'm more than willing to hear a reasonable explanation for these, because to me it's equally mystifying that Cruz is on the "same side" as Obama apparently "fighting to limit his own power". So they are a push as far as I can see.

It seems to me that someone is getting bamboozled without knowing it. I want to believe it's Obama who's getting outsmarted. I just don't see how it is though.

[P-Marlowe]

The narrative goes that according to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the President has no right to negotiate trade deals, his Article II powers of treaty negotiation notwithstanding.

And the narrative is right. A "trade agreement" is a treaty. Any agreement which binds the United States of America and a foreign country is a treaty.

The president alone has the Constitutional Authority to negotiate treaties. He has no authority to negotiate some kind of lesser document that is effectively a treaty and then submit it to congress for a majority vote.

These must be submitted to the Senate for 2/3 approval.

If Congress doesn't like that procedure because it doesn't guarantee swift approval, then they can amend the Constitution to allow for a vote of both houses (a proposal specically rejected by the Founders).

[DugwayDuke]

What five year secrecy clause?

[Theoria]

FDR had a better policy and Constitutional guidance than the Framers for trade?

Was not the point of trade policy would be the input and power of Congress, via amendments and other considerations. TPA takes away such endeavors.

There was nothing wrong with bilateral trade deals, secondly the only enumerated power via the Constitution for a agreement[foreign nation] involving a President is a Treaty.

[RightOnTheBorder]

If the TPA truly checked the powers of the president why wouldn’t Obama simply veto it and return to what this author calls “unchecked power?”

The answer is that he has no intention of following the restrictions of TPA and he knows the republicans won’t do anything about it. He does want the ease of a no-filibuster, no amendment, 51 vote approval and he knows the republicans will give him that as well.

The only check against horrible giveaways of our sovereignty with this president and this senate is a high hurdle for a passing vote and the ability of the (few) conservatives to make enough noise to rouse people against it. TPA removes both those impediments.

[grania]

The other problem is that the courts could negate any of the supposed protections in the bill.

[SoConPubbie]

“Congress may withdraw TPA at any time if the President fails to follow all terms set forth in TPA – including reporting to Congress at the discretion of at least three different congressional committees.”

What nonsense. Congress can only do this BY LAW, which would then be vetoed by the president (if it even got that far). So deceptive!

Myth 4: Once TPA is approved, Congress will be powerless to stop TPP or other FTAs!

Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the “fast-track” rules for various “disapproval” reasons, but—even more importantly—Congress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including “fast track.”

The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as “as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate,” but “with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.” The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: “Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.”

Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the “fast track” procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.

In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the “fast track” rules if it wants to be bound.

[SoConPubbie]

Obama trade is bad for Jobs. Obamatrade allows his communist regime to negociate TPP. Anyone for obamatrade should be ashamed and will be politically damaged. Why are we allowing obama trade? it is RINO madness.

Myth 8: FTAs (and free trade generally) benefit large corporations at the expense of working people!

Mostly false. There is little doubt that FTAs benefit some U.S. corporations and workers, while harming others—that’s kinda free-market competition’s thing.

SHOCK: FTA predicted to reflect/amplify USA's comparative advantages & disadvantages: http://t.co/PUgLrpL3O8 pic.twitter.com/INypfluXSk

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) March 16, 2015

In general, however, the corporate winners (who tend to be in growing, innovative industries) from U.S. FTAs outnumber the losers (who tend to be in archaic, uncompetitive ones). And every legitimate economic analysis of the TPP confirms this general rule. FTAs also contain rules and exceptions for well-connected stakeholders. As I’ve repeatedly discussed, this is a big reason why FTAs are “third best” option for U.S. trade policy.

Nevertheless, there is also little doubt that (i) FTAs are pretty much the only trade liberalization game in town these days; (ii) while unpalatable, the cronyist exceptions in U.S. FTAs, are relatively minor compared to the overall liberalization; and (iii) the biggest winners from such liberalization aren’t corporations or the mega-rich, but consumers, particularly poor ones.

Hey, average American [especially low-income ones], here’s how you benefit from free trade http://t.co/0T2XnveplW pic.twitter.com/sLf8p6p62c

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 20, 2015

(More here.) These gains wouldn’t be possible without FTAs (as much as we free traders wish they would be).

Good oped from NRF's Matt Shay on how US FTAs, made possible by #TPA, benefit US consumers: http://t.co/PLck4zo6dI pic.twitter.com/0IYlQwwV0L

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 11, 2015

Thus, the idea that FTAs like the TPP, or any other reduction in global trade barriers, benefit the 1 percent at the expense of working class is just not true. Indeed, as we at the Cato Institute are constantly pointing out, the real cronyism in trade policy takes place on the anti-trade side of the ledger: corporations and unions lobbying government to shield them from free-market forces, always at consumers’ expense. It’s precisely for this reason that many of the U.S. lobbying dollars spent on TPP aren’t from pro-export mercantilists (although there are plenty of those, too) but from those anti-competitive industries (autos, steel, textiles, sugar, etc.) and unions that are seeking to scuttle the deal or secure their own special exemptions.

[SoConPubbie]

With Maobama, it doesn’t matter what it says. Whatever he says it is is what it will be. I totally reject this deal.

Myth 2: TPA grants the president new and unlimited powers!

Totally false. As already noted above (and reiterated here by Cato’s Dan Ikenson and here by the Congressional Research Service), Congress under TPA retains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Any trade agreement negotiated by the president (which he has constitutional authority to do under Article II) still must be approved by Congress.

As noted by the CRS, “TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branch’s respective authorities over trade policy.” It represents a “gentleman’s agreement” between the legislative branch and the executive branch—with the former promising the latter “fast track” rules for the requisite congressional approval of an FTA, if, and only if, the latter (i) agrees to follow a detailed set of congressional “negotiating objectives” for the agreement’s content; and (ii) engages in a series of consultations with Congress on that content. As discussed more fully below, each branch of government retains its constitutional authority to abandon this gentleman’s agreement, but doing so will essentially kill any hope of signing and implementing new FTAs. So, with limited exceptions, Congress and the executive toe the line.

Because neither branch gets expansive new powers or short-changed, Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority (source):

Pretty boring when you think about it, huh?

[SoConPubbie]

They’re always trying to get around that pesky Consitution.

Now re-read the article. The Supreme Court has already blessed fast-track.

[SoConPubbie]

Apparently, GOP now stands for Give Obama Power. I’m so sick and disgusted with them. I’ll hold my nose to vote for Cruz, but even that is against my better judgement at this point.

Myth 2: TPA grants the president new and unlimited powers!

Totally false. As already noted above (and reiterated here by Cato’s Dan Ikenson and here by the Congressional Research Service), Congress under TPA retains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Any trade agreement negotiated by the president (which he has constitutional authority to do under Article II) still must be approved by Congress.

As noted by the CRS, “TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branch’s respective authorities over trade policy.” It represents a “gentleman’s agreement” between the legislative branch and the executive branch—with the former promising the latter “fast track” rules for the requisite congressional approval of an FTA, if, and only if, the latter (i) agrees to follow a detailed set of congressional “negotiating objectives” for the agreement’s content; and (ii) engages in a series of consultations with Congress on that content. As discussed more fully below, each branch of government retains its constitutional authority to abandon this gentleman’s agreement, but doing so will essentially kill any hope of signing and implementing new FTAs. So, with limited exceptions, Congress and the executive toe the line.

Because neither branch gets expansive new powers or short-changed, Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority (source):

Pretty boring when you think about it, huh?

[SoConPubbie]

You can't unlink them, no matter how hard you try. If TPA passes, then so too will TPP, and then there goes the ship.

B.S.!

Congress still has to pass it.

If by your post you believe that there is enough support for both TPA and TPP, and it will get passed, CONSTITUTIONALLY by a vote of congress, then yes, you are correct.