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.
Which failed!
SA 1384. Mr. HATCH (for Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Inhofe)) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
[[Page S3081]]
to amendment SA 1221 proposed by Mr. Hatch to the bill H.R. 1314, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 102(a), add the following: (14) to ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to the immigration laws of the United States.
Amendment SA 1221 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 37. Record Vote Number: 191. (05/22/2015)
H.R.1314 passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 37.
Seriously, Cruz needs to stop digging himself into a hole here. He’s hemorrhaging credibility with a LOT of people whose support he’s going to need in the coming months.
Exactly. This is infuriating to me because this is all quite calculated on Cruz’s part. An Op ed with Ryan, one duplicitous press release after another, etc., etc.
He didn’t just quietly vote for TPA and hit the campaign trail. There is some real intention here in these political chess moves. As a former strong supporter of Cruz it is shocking to me to see him enable the kenyan and throw Main Street under the bus. His behavior here makes me reassess his entire beltway career now.
I was reminded of an excuse prepared by the staff of the current white hut.
So chatty, so well crafted, so condescending, so 8th grade.
No, I didn’t like the Cruz team argument in favor of their boss.
Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right more than 40 years ago. Using that logic, then it was a correct decision.
The constitution requires a 2/3 approval by the senate for all treaties and all trade agreements are, by definition, treaties.
But Ted Cruz doesn't seem to care about what the constitution says, he's more interested in what the Supreme Court says.
I hope they get overtime pay during weekends?
TPA is available to read by anyone on Earth with a computer.
Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly, but what about this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3299726/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3299380/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3299013/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3296654/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296363/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296350/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3295837/posts
All of the above links are articles about the trade agreement details released by Wikileaks from 6/1 through 6/12. Some are quite frightening, especially the last one.
I am a hugh fan the Ted, but his stance here is giving me pause.
I have read this and I am still not swayed. We don’t need legislation that allows a simple majority to approve trade agreements without debate.... that is what I understand TPA does.
One line is glaring for me [actually many are glaring but let’s stick to this one].
“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.”
If there is a full text the Cruz org needs to provide a link or publish the text. I can’t find it though I have looked.
I won’t dissect the Cruz team’s note but it has several points that need to be discussed. I also find it in the same tone as something that comes from the staff of the current white hut... chatty, condescending, written on the 8th grade level and a little superficial.
Harry Reid killed the last TPA sometime in the past... I don’t know when.
We seem to have a lot of free trade already and most of it does not seem to favor US. I’d like to see some that does for a change but it isn’t TPP or TiPA or that other one with the Euros. They are all obammy creations and therefore full of turds for US.
Ted’s team did not convince me that Ted has a good reason to support this mess. It is complicated and anything this complex needs to go back to the drawing board. The people deserve a complete explanation. That is the people who want to know.
I clipped and commented on several articles on the subject starting about here and from Post 135: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3299838/posts?page=133#133
I still find Ted and Heidi to have the appearance of a conflict of interest on this subject.
“It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.”
I found the above line interesting, relating to your question the other day where you asked why TPP was not considered a treaty. Still seems a little sketchy to me, but interesting nonetheless.
I expected a real fight between Walker and Cruz.
Never, never, did I expect Cruz to insist he be allowed to commit political suicide first.
You do know that Walker supports TPA as well, don’t you?
Cruz did not commit suicide. He is a US senator that was elected to make decisions many voters are incapable of making
I don’t question Cruz’sincerity and honesty on this s ubject. But the Evil Demon in the Oval Office is so vile and so mendacious and so inventive that I oppose ant collaboration with him on ANY subject WHATSOEVER.
If you have the answer to the question, how about answering it instead of telling people to RTFM?
Agreeing to any system of international law is tantamount to a treaty. Treaties require two thirds of the Senators for ratification. That’s why a “trade agreement” meant to force its members to change their laws to meet common standards as enacted by mere Congressional majority must be unconstitutional.
You want me to explain a 600 page bill to you? How much are you going to pay me? LOL
No, simply the answer to my question.
Or aren’t you capable of it?
“Cruz has jumped the shark on this and is not a credible candidate.”
Then the same goes for Walker, Rubio and countless others. So who does that leave us with?
LOL! Good one!
I was looking up some of these trade deals earlier, and found with the notation that under international law they were considered treaties, but that they weren’t in the US because our Congress chose to use the standard of passage by House and Senate rather than 2/3 majority to succeed.
Just a curiosity I ran across. In other words, they look like a treaty, walk like a treaty, quack like a treaty, but our Congress has blatantly ignored our Constitution.
Gives me a warm fuzzy deep inside.
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.