Posted on 05/27/2015 8:22:18 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Since there is so much confusion about the recent trade bills and the similar titles of the proposed legislation, I am going to do my best to explain the difference between TPA (Trade Promotion Authority, which is a Congressional Act) and TPP (Trans-pacific Partnership, which is a multi-national agreement). I will also provide a brief explanation between U.S. Treaties, and Congressional-Executive Acts which is the basis of confusion over the recent vote on TPA.
Before explaining TPA, it is helpful to understand the difference between a U.S.Treaty and a Congressional-Executive Act. Throughout our history America has entered into many treaties covering everything from war to trade. Typically treaties are reserved for negotiating foreign policy agreements between individual countries.
Treaties are negotiated by the President without input from Congress. Once a treaty is completed and signed, the President submits the proposed treaty to the Senate only, for a 2/3 majority vote. There is no vote in the House of Representatives to approve a treaty. Also, there is no guarantee that the Senate will even take up the treaty negotiated by the President.
President George Washington found this to be the case when he submitted his first treaty to the Senate. As he waited outside the chamber for them to consider his treaty with the American Indians, the Senate instead refused to acknowledge it and left without considering it.
The use of treaties for trade has been almost nonexistent after 1890 when the Congress gave the President authority to negotiate tariffs and suspend duty free tariffs. That decision was challenged and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld that Congress did not usurp their constitutional powers to the President. This decision would serve as the basis for legislation that would give and restrict the President’s power over the years.
This later became known as the Congressional-Executive Act, which differentiated itself from a treaty which requires the 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. It is this Congressional-Executive Act that has been used for almost every American trade deal since the 1890’s.
Forty-Four years later, the Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 granting the President the authority to enter into agreements with foreign nations, without the approval of Congress. This vastly expanded the President’s power from the previous legislation passed in 1890. Given the expanded role granted to the President, the legislation was challenged and once again upheld by the courts and was upheld as constitutional.
With emerging markets around the world and new opportunities for trade with multiple nations, the Congress, citing limitations within the 1934 agreement, sought to establish new legislation that would allow for multinational negotiations. The 1974 Trade Act gave the President new powers to negotiate with multiple nations, but this time they built in provisions limiting the Presidents power to enter into agreements alone.
The Trade Act would require the President to seek Congressional approval from both houses, as well as follow a strict set of guidelines set forth by Congress in section 151 of the legislation. In return the President is guaranteed a vote by the Congress within a set period of time. It also would remove the amendment process.
These provisions are important in the negotiations for the following reasons:
1). Any foreign countries negotiating with the United States can be confident that any agreement they enter into will receive a vote in the Congress.
2). The terms of any trade agreement are clearly set forth by Congress.
3). There is no concern of last minute changes to the trade agreement.
4). It eliminates the corruption of vote buying and cronyism.
The Congress used the Congressional-Executive Act in 1984 to institute a free trade deal with our ally Israel. It was also used during the Clinton administration to negotiate NAFTA, and again under the Bush administration to negotiate 11 different trade agreements. While the name of the legislation has changed over the years, along with the criteria contained with its pages, it can still be referred to as what we know today as TPA or “fast track”.
The last court challenge to the process of using the Congressional-Executive Act to pass trade agreements was in 1999. At that time Made in USA Foundation sued the United States in Alabama federal district court. The court ruled that “fast track” was constitutional and that NAFTA was binding law. The case was challenged to the eleventh circuit which refused to hear the case citing its unwillingness to interfere in the United front projected by the executive and legislative branches. It further stated that the courts was not willing or in a position to decipher the technicalities between the definition of a treaty and a Congressional-Executive Act.
Since that last ruling in 1999 “fast track” has been commonly accepted as law and used by both republican and democratic Presidents and Congresses. Since the Bush administration this legislation has been known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or Fast Track.
In 2009 President Obama informed Congress that he was negotiating with the Asian Pacific Countries on a new multinational trade deal called Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and requested “fast track” status. This status would help to show America’s commitment to trade negotiations and would guarantee a vote by the Congress as required under section 151. After failing to get the democratic controlled Congress to grant him TPA status, President Obama was able to work with the republican’s in a rare moment of bipartisanship.
The TPA legislation granting the same authority to President Obama, as the previous Congress granted to President Bush, was passed into law and the full text of the TPA may be read here.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is currently being negotiated by the United States Trade Representative Michael Froman. It is expected to take 18 – 24 months to complete the negotiations and submit a final trade proposal to Congress.
During the negotiation period the Congress has access to the terms of the negotiations to date, may request briefings by the trade representative’s office, witnesses the negotiation process, and ask questions during the monthly committee meetings. In addition the final proposal must be made public for 60 days prior to Congress voting.
I have attached a link to the bases of this article here and a link to the TPA legislation here.
David Serenda
May 24,2015
|
 |
Ted Cruz Ping! Ping!
Any “Free Trade” Agreement that has to be negotiated in more secrecy than most wartime peace treaties bodes poorly for “freedom”....
bump
This is my problem with it, which I notice the author does not address.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
/Declaration grievance
FUBO
FUCONgre$$
Isn’t the secrecy of “representative” government GRRRRRREAT?
/sarc
The only numerated power a Pres has is with Treaties. Not even States can enter into any agreement with a foreign power without the consent of Congress.
[ Any “Free Trade” Agreement that has to be negotiated in more secrecy than most wartime peace treaties bodes poorly for “freedom”....
And yet, that same “treaty” has to be approved by Congress. Which effectively trumps the secrecy issue. ]
until Recently it took a 2/3 Vote from the Senate to pass such a treaty....
Now it will only take a “Simple majority of 51 votes”...
Everyone thank Mitch McConnell...
And if Mitch gave away the horse for this, no doubt they may just “Fast track it without reading it” “We have to pass if before we don’t find out what is in it”....
Call me paranoid, call me cynical, but I don’t trust either fool who runs the house or the senate...
“
These provisions are important in the negotiations for the following reasons:
1). Any foreign countries negotiating with the United States can be confident that any agreement they enter into will receive a vote in the Congress.
2). The terms of any trade agreement are clearly set forth by Congress.
3). There is no concern of last minute changes to the trade agreement.
4). It eliminates the corruption of vote buying and cronyism.
“
I got a bridge to nowhere to sell the people who actually believe this. No doubt the weasel language in the “bill” will have the opposite intended effects....
Just like how a BIG Giant company will pass a measure to penalize “big Business” that actually destroys their mid-level competition...
'Forty-Four years later, the Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 granting the President the authority to enter into agreements with foreign nations, without the approval of Congress.'
More FDR BS. Executive agreements are BS. You know better.
[ until Recently it took a 2/3 Vote from the Senate to pass such a treaty....
Now it will only take a “Simple majority of 51 votes”...
Now try reading the full article Grace. ]
” The Trade Act would require the President to seek Congressional approval from both houses, as well as follow a strict set of guidelines set forth by Congress in section 151 of the legislation. In return the President is guaranteed a vote by the Congress within a set period of time. It also would remove the amendment process. “
All we have it this article to go off of, as plebe citizens we cannot be allowed to read “section 151” of the proposed bill...
For all we know “article 152” has the opposite effect. The MAIN POINT IS, WE DON’T KNOW AND THE PEOPLE IN POWER DON’T WANT US TO KNOW!
The use of treaties for trade has been almost nonexistent after 1890 when the Congress gave the President authority to negotiate tariffs and suspend duty free tariffs. That decision was challenged and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld that Congress did not usurp their constitutional powers to the President. This decision would serve as the basis for legislation that would give and restrict the President’s power over the years.
This later became known as the Congressional-Executive Act, which differentiated itself from a treaty which requires the 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. It is this Congressional-Executive Act that has been used for almost every American trade deal since the 1890’s.
Does it, or does it not take 2/3rds majority vote by Congress TODAY to pass a Trade treaty?
SCOTUS also sided with Obamacare and other unconstitutional actions.
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.