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.









.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

And yet, we still have the constutionally mandated three branches of government that separate the powers of the government and are supposed to keep each branch under control.

You do not start pushing policy positions because you are fearful of who resides either in the POTUS chair or who leads congress or the current members of the Judiciary.

You follow the constitution and fix the problem within the confines of the constitution. You hold your representatives accountable. You hold your Senators accountable. You hold the President Accountable.

Ted Cruz is going at the whole TPA situation from a Constitutional perspective. He's trying to increase the visibility and the accountability and give Congress more power in overseeing the process.

Remember:

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.

Please use in that order." - Larry McDonald

[GOP_Party_Animal]

Apparently. One wonders who they will actually vote for in ‘16. John Birch?

[lquist1]

“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.”

So this is what everyone is so upset about?

With all due respect, the fact that no fast track agreement has ever been turned down in the past doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future.

I would presume they were all agreed upon in the past because they were strictly trade agreements (without added immigration and climate change nonsense) negotiated in good faith by presidents that were acting in the best interests of this nation.

This POTUS is unlike any we’ve ever had, and if the TPP is as bad as Sen Sessions says it is, it is at least possible (though given all the traitors we have in the GOP caucus not as likely as it should be) that TPP could be voted down. At least we would have 60 days to lobby lawmakers, right? Or am I still missing something?

[P-Marlowe]

With all due respect, the fact that no fast track agreement has ever been turned down in the past doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

There is no reason whatsoever to push for TPA right now except to get the TPP passed. None. TPA gives Obama power to sell out the country to foreign and corporate interests all of which basically own this congress.

If TPP is so bad, which it is, then why give it such an easy pathway to passage? The only reason to pass TPA today is so that TPP can sail through congress without any amendments or changes.

Unless you know exactly what is in TPP (which is currently top secret) then you have no business pushing TPA.

I'm pretty sure that Cruz was more influenced by money than principle when he voted for TPA. TPA is just the fast track to getting the top secret TPP through congress and giving Obama basically unlimited power to sell out America until he leaves office (which may be never).

[Gaffer]

I’ve said the same. But they are wrong in supporting this nonetheless.

[RitaOK]

Personally, I believe you are right-on. Without apology, on all counts.

The arguments *for* this monster are coming from those who can’t possibly know what is in the TPP, but are relying solely on the word of Ted Cruz, who himself is evidently not promising it to be the hill he wants to die on. YET.

To see Cruz and Sessions come together on an opinion would go a very long way toward resolving the problem.

[Stentor]

Or am I still missing something?

I think they call your post "Whistling past the graveyard".

[LibertyLA]

There is an easy answer - this is all globalism. Both parties are pushing for ‘global harmony’ - which means ‘global tyranny.’

The big corporate interests are socialists - they are NOT for the free market.

They are not loyal to the USA. (look at Apple, Microsoft, etc. they are progressives ie socialists)

I woke up from this in around 2005 when I realized that the Republicans were not serious about any war on terror when the borders were wide open and they were settling muslims here and calling islam the religion of peace.

I will only vote for the one who is FOR THE CONSTITUTION. And I will not vote for my security - I am not a scared rabbit. The founding fathers didn’t fight for security, or foreign entanglements - they fought for Liberty for this nation, and this nation alone.

[RitaOK]

The future of our country does become more perilous with each passing day. I have often wondered how long we can tempt God, and even expect to last long enough to make it through to the hope of 2016.

Then I remind myself that if our hope and our security is really all in one election, and placed in one man, then we are in ever lasting trouble anyway. If you get my drift.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Cruz, Walker and Rubio will all likely still be in their current positions after the 2016 presidential election. None of them will be President. Well Rubio will be out of job but not to worry he’s going to run for Governor of Fla. He will likely get elected. A much better place for him. Jebbie can run for Marco’s senate seat. We need more RINO’s in the senate. :-)

[Rashputin]

You're right. I notice that the people backing Cruz don't seem the least bit concerned with whether or not Cruz is representing his supporters, just with whether or not people line up to support Cruz.

It's all well and good to talk about Cruz leading but where is this touch of Reagan Conservatism and greatness people claim Cruz has ?

There's no reason in the world to rush the TPA other than to make it possible to pass TPP. If Cruz is convinced the TPA is good, fine, let the thing simmer on the back burner while Cruz sells it to the people he needs if he's going to win the election.

Or, is getting this all now so Barry takes the blame while the next President can benefit from serving the big money interests who know what Barry has in mind without taking the blame for directly serving them when in office?

[fortheDeclaration]

True!

[fortheDeclaration]

Exactly!

[fortheDeclaration]

Agreed!

[fortheDeclaration]

Agreed!

[fortheDeclaration]

No President should have unlimited power.

[RKBA Democrat]

I can summarize this easily: Ted Cruz is a conservative hustler. He doesn’t want you to peek behind the curtain. So please believe the spin.

[fortheDeclaration]

Being against this Bill doesn't make you a 'protectionist'

These aren't 'free trade' bills, they are 'managed trade', that is why they are secret.

[Patton@Bastogne]

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and as a fellow Free Republic colleague, I’m glad to hear you express it ...

My political instinct tells me that fundamentally, Ted Cruz is trying to do the right thing ...

I may be wrong, you may indeed be right ... time will tell ...

I will stand with Ted Cruz otherwise ...

Godspeed ...

.

[Maris Crane]

I have a visceral reaction to giving ANYTHING to Obama.
He has abused every power he has.

If I understand TPA correctly, it inserts Congress into the deal.

Without TPA...OBAMA HAS CARTE BLANCHE.

This is what helped me decide to support.

I know some will say...no trade agreement has ever been stopped. Maybe, TPA will help in the mix.