Ted Cruz 2016 : TPA Senate Vote Good : TPA is NOT Secret Agrement (TPA & TPP Different) : 2015-06-12

Texas Supporting Senator Ted Cruz ^ | 2015-06-12 | Toby Marie Walker

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


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 2the 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. [LINK to release.]

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.









.

[lquist1]

“There is room to debate. It may be limited, but it’s there.

What isn’t there is the ability to filibuster the thing. Thats the real problem area.”

I’m totally confused about this whole issue and I don’t know who to believe anymore. Cruz and Walker, the only two of the current field I would consider supporting, are both in favor of TPA. But then I heard Sen Sessions on Rush yesterday advocating against it.

What I’m confused about is which deal (TPA or TPP) sets up this dangerous new Pacific council and all that? I assume that’s TPP. If so, and if once TPP is read for 60 days and it’s determined that it’s horrible, can’t Congress vote it down on a majority vote?

I realize we have a lot of traitors in the GOP, so even if the answer to my question is yes, it’s still not very comforting. But at least we would still have an opportunity to lobby Congress to vote down TPP once it is revealed. Is that true or am I missing something?

[P-Marlowe]

Sarah Palin, as usual, is right on target. Anyone supporting fast tracking TPP is effectively voting for it before the American People can see what’s in it.

TPA is like the cloture vote in the Senate. Ted Cruz has always said the the true vote on a controversial measure is the cloture vote. A later vote against the bill merely gives a dishonest politician cover after it passes.

Maybe it’s time to draft Sarah. Ted Cruz has committed political suicide.

[tanknetter]

I’m saying he will not have distinguished himself from the other GOP candidates.

Actually, it makes the others look better. Jeb Bush outright supports amnesty. Cruz doesn’t, but instead thinks it’s ok to fast track a bill that allegedly gives President Obama the executive order to circumvent Congress on the matter?

Who’s worse here? Jeb is greviously wrong, but at least being honest. Cruz ends up looking like he’s giving lip service then hiding behind procedural trickery of the “I was for the bill before I was against it” variety.

It won’t help Bush win votes, but it will diminish Cruz and not help him win votes either.

[RitaOK]

You said it.

A case of who’s on first. No, who’s on second. Well, who’s on third? LOL!

I am following Sessions too. I’ve disagreed with him on occasion, but still I believe him to be sincere and whip smart, one to dot the “i” and cross the “t” along with the best of them, and THE best when it comes to snooping through the under belly of certain legislation.

If truly ALL our candidates turn out to be FOR this dog, then Cruz can’t really be discarded, can he? I really like him, but....... I just wish he would answer Jeff Sessions.

[P-Marlowe]

No fast tracked trade agreement has ever been turned down by congress. A vote for the TPA is a vote for the TPP. It is like the cloture vote in the Senate. It cuts off amendments and cuts off debate.

Anyone voting for TPA is casting a yes vote for the top secret TPP. That includes Ted Cruz who has already voted for it. If he later votes against TPP, then he is a hypocrite of the first order.

[RitaOK]

No, I can not. I don’t follow Duncan Hunter. Am I suppose to? I missed out on last night and ‘am just now able to follow CSpan shortly.

[houeto]

Cruz read the TPP and found nothing wrong with it as a whole. He said that, be also said that if he missed something it would affect his decision.

I have read several times that it is 6700 pages.

[tanknetter]

TPP is the actual trade bill.

TPA/Fast Track is the process by which it will be enacted into law. Elements of the process include public dissemination of the bill ahead of time, debate (with time limits), no ability to submit amendments and a straight majority, no filibuster, up/down vote by both houses to pass.

Most TPA/Fast Track provisions are good things that streamline the process and generally result in a better, more solid, agreement. The big flaw is getting rid of the filibuster.

Which is the issue many of us have with Cruz’s vote and exanation.

[Lakeshark]

Both Cruz and Walker are apparently suppotting this, and it's hard to understand why.

I'm just going to wait for the heat to pass, try to comprehend what's true and what's not rather than get caught up in the heat of the moment. I don't know what's in this thing, but if Barky wants it, I don't. It's simple, he's not to be trusted.

Right now, I hope this gets scuttled in the House, it simply appears to be a bad bill.

[Theoria]

I’m just going on what he has said. Though, I don’t trust any politician.

[Stentor]

Cruz is treating thinking conservatives like children. Like we can’t gather our own facts. Hugely insulting and obamaesque.

I guess he did a focus group that said it was OK to blow off his most ardent supporters. What's the point? Why even run? Does he get to keep all the cash he collected? Premium membership in the Bilderberg Group? A new F150?

[Stentor]

I’m guessing maybe that, but then again it might turn out that the standard unit of currency could be a single 22LR cartridge.

I'm rich. And yes, I am responsible for the shortage. Anybody with brains started buying hand over fist when the American people decided to go full retard.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

Every single candidate will have a position with which you differ. Every single candidate will have a position with which I differ.

This does not mean you have to hold your nose and vote for the most lily livered rino to come down the pike.

It does mean that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

Cruz and Walker are both good enough.

[P-Marlowe]

Duncan Hunter Sr. is against it. His son, the current congresscritter is for it.

[Lil Flower]

> when Jeff Sessions of Alabama sets his hair on fire over something then that is an event that fuels my concern.<

Couldn’t have said it better. Plus anything in secret = something nefarious and unconstitutional is headed our way.

[Stentor]

So, I guess you will go for Hillary then?

Since it is beginning to look like our only hope is Ragnarök, Hillary gets my full support. / 1/2S

[Stentor]

I have a friend that is around him pretty often and will know hiw to get a message directly to him.

So your friend works for Goldman?

[jsanders2001]

> I have a friend that is around him pretty often and will know hiw to get a message directly to him.
So your friend works for Goldman?

No...lol

[Major Matt Mason]

TPA and TPP not only is constitutional and long standing process, only being refused to Richard Nixon

Therein lies the problem. We have someone in the WH far more corrupt than Nixon who has shown a willingness to ignore laws if it doesn't suit his agenda. In addition, he hates this country. Is that someone that should be given even a shred of authority to negotiate a deal of this magnitude? I'm not generally opposed to free trade, but let the next president be the one to negotiate it.

[Stentor]

No...lol

Pity. I was trying to talk my landlord into packaging some of her crappy rentals into a CMO or something and trying to sell it to some Muppets or Norwegian pension fund. Blythe Masters is too busy running a billion spoof bids a second on her own private HFT platform.