Posted on 06/13/2015 4:07:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
LOL, Jeff Sessions “True Patriot” That title will last for what, an hour before someone finds a contradictory vote or two.
Oh wait, look at this...
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Jeff_Sessions_Free_Trade.htm
Then why did he vote this:
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.
Vote to give permanent Normal Trade Relations [NTR] status to China. Currently, NTR status for China is debated and voted on annually.
Adios Ted—You talked yourself out of my vote.
Well this whole trade dust up seems to be of benefit to democrats as another great distraction. In fact I’m not sure its failure isn’t exactly what Obama wanted. Now he’s got the opportunity to pass out goodies to the democrats who voted no with conservatives happily blaming republicans like a bunch of morons.
So which Democrat conspired with Cruz to write an op ed with Ryan in support of granting the kenyan usurper vast powers? Do tell.
This is all of Ted’s doing and no amount of dissembling and insults will change that fact. Ted made his bed and now he has to lie in it.
All of the Republican candidates support the trade agreement and until you children are man enough to accept that fact, you can kiss my ass. I’ll waste no further time on cowards like you.
All of the Republican candidates support the trade agreement...
Actually, Rick Perry no longer supports...
I believe Huckabee, Fiorina and Carson don’t support, either.
All of the Republican candidates support the trade agreement and until you children are man enough to accept that fact, you can kiss my ass. I’ll waste no further time on cowards like you.
Which other candidate wrote an op ed with Ryan in support of giving obama this blank check? None
Which other candidate put out long press releases filled with half truths and disembling on this topic? None.
Actually, my first post on this topic was in support of Cruz. But then Ted’s actions, behavior and attitude shattered his credibility. That’s why he lost my support. Your insults just confirm I made the correct decision.
Rick Perry supported it till it became an issue then he tucked his tail between his legs and retreated.
Huckabee is a liberal doing a bad conservative imitation.
As far as Fiorina is concerned I haven’t looked to see where she stands and stood on the issue but again, she’s not a conservative.
The Cruzers are going Alinsky on us. First they give us half truth BS CYA, then distractions (”they all did it”), then bullying, then insults. If all that doesn’t get us back on the Cruz plantation, it’s ignore list.
Really, really sad to see what I thought was a great man and his dead end supporters crash and burn so badly.
I was just offering facts to the incorrect (profanity laced) statement you made.
You’re not entitled to your own set of facts.
(Oh, and please watch your language. This is a family site.)
Walker giving an interview is hardly akin to Cruz penning an op ed with Ryan. Then sending these long talking point filled CYA press releases filled with half truths when he gets called out for his hypocrisy.
Ted Cruz was the last person I would ever have expected to pull a McConnell two step: yes on cloture (TPA), no on the bill (TPP). But here it is developing. Sad.
Sen Cruz is my Senator...who I’ve campaigned for, donated to, etc. I have the yard signs and bumper stickers plastered in my garage.
I am disappointed in his trade bill push...and, as I’ve stated before...if it’s so great then why not wait til he’s president and go at it, again...out in the open (as he says he prefers)?
I’m also disappointed in the tactics (name calling, profanity) being used towards those who are not in support of TPP/Cruz’ support of TPP. That shouldn’t be happening, on EITHER side. We should agree to disagree...with the debate and with the facts.
Spamming (on both sides) has gotten ridiculous, as well.
Perry obliviously has his finger in the air on this issue. Also Paul voted against TPA in the Senate as did Sessions, Lee, Collins and Shelby. Strange to have Paul, Sessions and Lee on one side of an issue and Cruz on the other. Very strange.
$25 an hour?
I don’t have enough money (Grin)!
After all, you’d be searching for something that doesn’t exist.
Perry obliviously has his finger in the air on this issue.
As usual ;-)
Actually, Governor Perry, Huckabee, and Fiorina and weather vane politicians. They stick their wet finger in the air and see which way the wind blows.
Moreover, none of the three have read the evolving text of TPP.
Rick Perry —
NAFTA is largest job stimulus of the decade. (Sep 2011)
Welcome market of united Europe & ever-growing China & India. (Nov 2010)
Milk price controls are egregiously interventionist. (Nov 2010)
Enforce trade law against subsidized Canadian lumber imports. (Sep 2001)
Bound under state commitment to CAFTA. (Aug 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rick_Perry.htm
Carly —
When at H-P, if her Government Department was hammering out a trade agreement with China, would she have wanted the Chinese to see all the details in the trade file from H-P side before a final agreement? NO
Governor Huckabee —
Free AND fair trade: globalize, but help those whom it harms. (Nov 2008)
Diplomacy hasn’t worked; impose sanctions on China. (Nov 2008)
Supports NAFTA & CAFTA, if partners “hafta” abide by rules. (Jan 2008)
Fair trade includes lead-free products & playing by rules. (Jan 2008)
A free country must feed, fuel, & fight for itself. (Dec 2007)
We need fair trade because we’re losing jobs. (Oct 2007)
This country can never yield its sovereignty for any reason. (Sep 2007)
Trade sanctions on Saudi Arabia for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
China trade contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Marketplace pushes innovation to top & prices to bottom. (Jan 2007)
Farm subsidies ok because Europe & Asia do same. (Jan 2007)
Enforce trade law against subsidized Canadian lumber imports. (Sep 2001)
There are respectable and honorable people on both sides of this debate.
Referring to those who disagree with you as approaching Alinsky, BSers etc is a race to the bottom.
Washington (CNN) Carly Fiorina says she supports free trade -- yet she doesn't want President Barack Obama to have the congressional green light to finalize a massive Pacific Rim deal.
....”(cruz)...he is supporting Obama”....
Well...as I see it you’re interest in what Cruz said is muddled by the fact you even could remotely assume he’s supporting Obama......the difficulty you’re apparently having in grasping what Cruz has ‘clearly’ stated could likely be you don’t want to know rather than you can’t understand.
As others have also sought to assist you and still you’ve not understood as you say...then I think we’re done here.
AMEN to that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.