Posted on 06/23/2015 5:43:39 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has penned a column for Breitbart explaining his shift from support to opposition on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the “fast track” legislation that would enable the current president and his successor to negotiate trade deals that Congress would then be able to vote up or down, but not amend.
Senator Cruz, a contender for the GOP presidential nomination, still supports free trade and, in principle, sees fast-track as helpful to that end. Nevertheless, he says GOP leadership’s sleight-of-hand has convinced him that, if not amended, the current TPA bill will become a scheme for passing bad legislation having little to do with trade — namely, immigration “reform” and reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
In his initial vote in favor of TPA, the senator intimates that he was misled by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who, when pressed on the matter, testily represented to him that there were no side-deals on Ex-Im. Cruz opposes reauthorization of the bank, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. He describes Ex-Im as “a classic example of corporate welfare” and cronyism at its worst” — a position Veronique de Rugy has repeatedly and (in my view) compellingly argued here on the Corner. (See archive, here.)
Because a bipartisan group of senators who support Ex-Im — led by Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) and presidential hopeful Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) — blocked TPA when it first came up for a vote in the Senate, Cruz suspects a deal was being pushed to obtain their support for TPA in exchange for a vote to reauthorize the bank.
Though McConnell promised him there was no such understanding, Cruz suggests that this flies in the face of what happened in the House. There, several Republicans proposed to Speaker John Boehner that they would support TPA if he agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats to reauthorize Ex-Im. Cruz writes, “Boehner declined. Instead, it appears he made the deal with Democrats, presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.” Moreover, Cruz observes, Boehner is punishing conservatives who opposed him, “wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.”
Add to this the specter of TPA as the fast track to immigration amnesty that President Obama and bipartisan “reform” advocates have been unable to pass through the normal legislative process. Senator Cruz notes that he and Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) were blocked by Republican leadership from votes on amendments they proposed to bar fast-track treatment for any trade deals that attempt to impact U.S. immigration law.
Cruz recalls that he and Senator Sessions were told their fears about the abuse of trade legislation to remake immigration law were “unfounded.” At this point, however, he says he is done with such oral assurances — he wants commitments that are written expressly into the laws:
Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.
Cruz further castigates GOP leadership for consistently caving in to Democrats and “disregard[ing] promises made to the conservative grassroots.” The full column is worth reading.
I have argued here against the meritless contention that TPA is unconstitutional. Furthermore, if you think trade agreements are good for the country, the chance of getting good trade agreements without fast-track authority is unlikely. From a strategic standpoint, I continue to believe we are more likely to get bad legislation if Congress can amend these agreements to make them marginally more palatable (but not materially better); a bad deal is more likely to lose in a straight up-or-down vote.
That said, while trade agreements are (or can be) very beneficial, they do not come in a vacuum. Like everything else, the authority for making them in a fast-track mode has to be weighed against other considerations — and trust is a big part of that equation.
If I were convinced, as Senator Cruz appears to be, that TPA — regardless of its legal and policy soundness — had become a smokescreen for slamming through non-trade legislation that would be worse for the country than trade is good for the country, I would not support it either.
Didn’t know you had a cat.
Ted Cruz was interviewed just now by Mark Levin. During the interview, Cruz stated that he and Sessions tried unsuccessfully to get added to TPA a clause that placed immigration forever off of trade agreements. Note that.
Trey Gowdy released this last week in defense of his vote for TPA:
“Finally, this new and modernized version of TPA in no way endangers U.S. sovereignty; rather, it empowers Congress and the American people, not the president or the executive branch. The TPA bill specifically says that any provision of a trade agreement that conflicts with U.S. law, be it immigration, environmental regulations or labor rules, will have no effect, and that U.S. law will supersede any foreign law in a dispute.”
Gowdy lied.
Trade law myths - you posted this in defense of Cruz’s first vote:
“Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.”
According to what Cruz just said, that there were no immigration restrictions placed in TPA, the above quote is not true and is the reason he voted against it today. Now there are some talking points Cruz released to justify his first vote wherein he stated that immigration restrictions were in fact contained in the TPA he voted for. He was not telling the truth then. I will find it when I have the time.
NO, he is not the same old same old. Everything he does, everything he says is well thought out and based in logic. He does not cowtow to emotions..the beginning of TPA was all emotion...he explained, very articulately why he supported it..and now he articulated why he voted no. He is a breath of fresh air.
I don’t know either...I did not get to hear him on Levin though.
One poster said TPA constricts the executive... Not that I agree... But if that were true, why did Cruz then vote against such additional restrictions?
The explanations here do not make sense. I get the impression that true believers simply cannot explain it and so they’re calling names and belittling in an attempt to shut down the questions.
They’re not helping Cruz, they’re solidifying opposition. Jmo
It is clear in the above paragraph that Cruz is saying that BOTH TPAs were bad. He would not admit to being misled by McConnell on the first, if there wasn't something wrong with it. And, apparently, the wheeling/dealing continued, and the 2nd TPA was also bad.
My concern isn't proving anyone wrong. My concern is ensuring that Congress vote TPP down when it comes up for a vote.
The corruption in Washington DC is so bad that new senators are being intentionally misled by the leadership.
He should have opposed it from the start based on the last 6 years of 0bama administration transparency and fundamental change. Soon to be followed by the Rule of H!
You’re damn right it’s a CPUSA effin’ conspiracy
I hear ya’......& now remember this- & this is what so angers me even more-
Before all those elections last yrs & intro of new repubs (not like they count anymore-they are all paid for as far as I am concerned)..........remember, remember, in the background there had been talk about impeachment ?
All you ever heard was the meme “There’s not enough people to support the action (referring to the american public)- “The American public doesn’t want this.......& on & on & on &, & then it was dropped like a lead ballon.......
You left out where “Fast Track” Cruz insulted Sen. Sessions,
and where Cruz LIED to his voters and supporters for
his King Obama, for SECRECY,
and for his wife’s Goldmann Sachs.
Very true. But there are some folks here that are blindly loyal and agree with one person on both sides of the issue.
It’s inexplicable, but they will rationalize all day about how it’s SO easy to explain.
"This just in, from the home a vocal Cruz supporter."
I for one welcome our new Overlord.
It’s dizzying to watch McCarthy and Levin spin as they try to square their support of free trade with their nominal opposition to TPA and support of Cruz - and in the case of Levin his financial support by the unabashedly protectionist American Jobs Alliance.
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.