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.
I care!
And when I look at the details, I think that I’m coming to understand why Cruz did what he did. Thus far, he’s shown himself to be a principled man, and so his switching vote kind of made me wince.
Until I read the whole story. Now what makes me wince is the perception that this will probably foster.
I don’t think that it will win him any votes in the end, though. The people who claimed to be against him because of this will find some other reason to hate. Or troll. Or whatever.
Now that the procedural vote passed with 60 votes.
Don’t be surprised to see some fake conservatives come out and
vote against it since it only needs 51 votes to pass.
You heard Cruz on Levin’s show? I would like to have heard that!!
Unfortunately, the “leadership” in Congress attempted to gut TPA so that it wouldn’t do anything like that. Which, I suppose, is why Cruz is voting against it now.
All this drama is giving me a headache. On the one hand, I don’t want to trust politicians. On the other hand, Cruz has so far shown himself to be a man of principle, and I think that he’s so far earned the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not one bit surprised that the dems used this bill to put Cruz in a tough place.
Sen. Cruz was aware of the WikiLeaks material concerning the immigration provisions of TiSA shortly after the original Senate vote, but continued to boost TPA, including in the op-ed with Paul Ryan, until 7:00AM this morning. Cruz is a smart guy. I can’t see an excuse for his ignoring the obvious and then pivoting at the last moment. His Breitbart piece this morning certainly did not address this apparent amnesia. He had better do some more ‘splainin.
Maybe you can hear it online. I’ve not done that before but it might be posted at his website.
I can’t believe people on here are falling for this crap. He voted no because he knew it would pass; this is all a dog and pony show.
>>>>> TPA was there EXACTLY because Cruz does not trust Obama to negotiate a trade deal without throwing everything in it that should not be there.<<<<<
If TPA controls 0bama better than no TPA, why did Cruz vote against TPA?
If the amended version gets voted down, does the treaty die?
I know this might sound funny or odd to some people but every time I see Mitch my brain automatically switches into cartoon mode & I imagine the Mitchers wearing a wig & lipstick. If you put a wig & lipstick on Mitch he’d be The Drag of GOP............... treasonous b*tard
He has earned my trust...I wish I had heard him. I believe that when I can hear from him, I’ll be ok.
Or McConnell offered special corrupt deals to other members.
Uh.... (in spite of all the Cruz rationales for voting for it before voting against it) I donno, why?
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.