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.









.

[Timber Rattler]

What Cruz is doing is running for POTUS. Obviously the big donors have told him TPP is the price of their support. Cruz doesn’t want his fingerprints on it so he supports TPA which lowers the vote required to 50 for passage.

Yep.

[TNMOUTH]

But, according to many, Cruz is finished now. He has lost 95% of his vote. Look at his FB page. How could you still like him? How could I?

Oh no! The sky is falling!

[Lil Flower]

>I’m pretty sure that Cruz was more influenced by money than principle when he voted for TPA<

Which is a massive problem and not with just Cruz. Just when I think there are at least a handful of Republicans who are not bought and paid for by the global buisnesses something like this happens. You can’t sell out our sovereignty, our jobs, and give that tyrant occupying the WH more power and expect to get my support.

[Lil Flower]

>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.<

Exactly what I’m trying to say. But as you can see, I’m a “troll” for saying it.

With these playground antics I’m waiting to be accused of having “cooties.”

[American Constitutionalist]

Would you want those fickled voters in the fox holes when we go up against Hillary in the late summer and fall of 2016 ?

[jpsb]

"There is an easy answer - this is all globalism."

Bingo, the goal, it to make the entire globe safe for the globalist elites. All those voting yea either think they are part of that elite group or are working on behave of the ruling elite. And oh by the way if the globalists succeed in creating a NWO it will not be a fun place for ordinary folks. It will resemble a feudal cast system with us being the serfs and them being the lords.

[jpsb]

Paul is right on this issue and deserves credit for being right. Does that mean I support him for president? No, he is on my list but a am waiting for the debates to make up my mind. Paul tends to go wobbly on illegal immigration from time to time and on immigration, I, like Ann Coulter, am almost a single issue voter.

[TomasUSMC]

Sooo Senator Cruz....do you think NAFTA was good for America?

[TomasUSMC]

The incredible blitzkrieg of explanations on why Cruz’s vote is good and smart gives a new meaning to

CRUZ CONTROL.

[Soul of the South]

“The incredible blitzkrieg of explanations on why Cruz’s vote is good and smart gives a new meaning to CRUZ CONTROL.”

Whether or not in concept the legislation is good inquiring minds might consider:

1) Obama has not demonstrated he respects the Constitution, rule of law, or individual freedom. In addition he has repeatedly lied to, and withheld information from, Congress and the people. Under those circumstances why would any member of the House and Senate vote to cede Congressional power to Obama?

2) If TPP is good for the American people, why withhold the document from the people? Why would Congress agree to restrictions on viewing the document? Why would Congresspeople voice support for the agreement without having read it and without giving their constituents the opportunity to read the documents.

3) Why would Congress approve another “free trade” treaty when the trade treaties signed and enacted over the past 35 years have decimated the country’s industrial infrastructure, resulted in the net loss of millions of jobs, enabled enemies of the US (China) to industrialize and grow military strength while manipulating currency, subsidizing exports, and engaging in espionage and cyberwarfare? Why can’t the proponents of these agreements quantify the net benefits of past treaties?

4) From a political perspective Obama has vilified Republican legislators, failed to govern collaboratively in good faith, and demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise on any issue? Given his abhorrent behavior, why would any Republican legislator give him a huge political victory, especially considering he cannot secure the support of his own party for these trade agreements?

If Mr. Cruz can answer these questions, I might be persuaded. Platitudes telling us “free trade” is good no longer work in a country where the standard of living for the average citizen has been declining after three decades of supposedly beneficial free trade agreements.

[Timber Rattler]

What say y'all now?

EXCLUSIVE — TED CRUZ: OBAMATRADE ENMESHED IN CORRUPT, BACKROOM DEALINGS

[free_life]

Ted disagrees .... he use to agree but now he has seen the light...or has he? What do you and the other pro TPA’ers say now? Will it be more spin ignoring the corruption behind this or a straight on reversal?

[BCG]

You might be interested in this:
So, Mr. Speaker, I
am left to wonder. I mean, we have not seen this President push this
hard on very many bills over the last 6\1/2\ years, and I am left
wondering: Why would President Obama push so hard to pass this trade
agreement structure that allows him to negotiate so many deals with so
many different countries?
One possibility is he did it because he knew that Speaker Boehner was
pushing to pass it, and it is possible that he really wanted to make
Speaker Boehner and Mitch McConnell, the leader down in the Senate,
look good. That is a possibility. I don’t think it is terribly
probable. In weighing all of the evidence, it would seem to me that it
is far more probable that the TPA will give this President far more
power to fundamentally transform America in his remaining year and a
half or so as President. That is what it appears to be to me....

Mr. MASSIE. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on the TPA here, and I just wanted to take
some time to explain, and I think my colleague from Texas probably
feels the same way. I am for trade. I think trade is good. I am not
against trade, but, today, I voted against the trade promotion
authority, which would fast track the TPP. I just wanted to take a
second to explain why I was compelled to vote against this legislation
today....

The other reason I voted ``no’’ today was the implication of ceding
our authority to the World Trade Organization, which struck me this
week when we voted to overturn our country of origin labeling on beef
and pork. Now, whether you think we should require companies to label
beef and pork when they bring them into this country from another
country—whether that is a good thing or whether that is a bad thing—
that doesn’t matter. What disturbs me is that the reason for writing
this law this week was the World Trade Organization told us we had to.
They said we have got to do that. We swore an oath to the Constitution,
not to the World Trade Organization. My concern is that this trade
agreement could bind us to things that we don’t even understand yet
because, surely, some trade agreement years ago has caused us this week
to change our food labeling laws.
The third and final reason I voted against the TPA today—and this
may be the best reason, in fact—is that my constituents don’t like it.
I have received 30 phone calls a day for the past week against this. I
might have received 1 or 2 all week saying to vote for it. We didn’t
get a chip implanted in our brains when we came to Congress that makes
us smarter than all of our constituents. I think it is important to be
humble, to know that we don’t always have the right answer. We don’t
really have a whole lot more information than our constituents have in
this case. I think that their concern that they expressed to me, like
of the President getting too much authority and that this President
does not need more authority, is a valid concern; that there is not
enough transparency is another valid concern.
I know my friend from Texas has expressed both of those concerns
himself, and I am sure he is hearing those from his constituents as
well....

Constituents were against TARP. There were people here that supported
this free trade agreement, just as you and I support free trade, but
they supported this TPA that truly will give the President more
authority.
I remember some of these same people saying: Look, we don’t have to
worry because by passing the bill we are about to pass, the President
can’t remove anybody from Guantanamo without giving us notice, and when
he gives us notice, we can stop him. I mean, I have been told that. And,
in fact, the law is, he can’t remove anybody from Guantanamo without
first giving us notice. The American people remember that.
They also happen to have noticed that the President cut a deal for a
guy that looks like he is going to be charged with desertion, and
released five terrorists from Guantanamo and didn’t give us notice
until after he had released them. So I love the optimism that says,
yes, there have been misrepresentations from this administration over
and over and over and over, and now we have had 6\1/2\ years of
continued misrepresentations from the administration, and the good news
is this time we really think he means it. Now, I love that kind of
optimism; I really do....

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/6/12/house-section/article/h4338-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Trade+Promotion+Authority%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=5

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/4/13/senate-section/article/s2096-1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Trade+Promotion+Authority%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=22