Thread: Cruz does 180 on fast-track

Cruz does 180 on fast-track

Getty Images

By Vicki Needham - 06/23/15 10:11 AM EDT

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) did an about-face on trade Tuesday, saying he will oppose the fast-track legislation he supported and defended less than a month ago.

The Republican presidential hopeful, who took plenty of heat from conservatives for backing President Obama’s trade agenda in May, argued that new details have emerged that endanger his support for trade promotion authority (TPA or fast-track) amid a legislative process rife with political maneuvering."TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington back room deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include,” Cruz wrote in a note to conservatives on his 2016 campaign website.

The Senate is set to take a procedural vote on Tuesday that — with 60 votes — could set up fast-track to reach the president's desk this week.

Cruz’s latest “note to conservatives on trade” replaces a June 12 post on his campaign website that detailed his pro-trade position.

His opinions began to change over the past month as Republican and Democratic leaders hashed out an agreement to save the president's trade agenda after the legislation stumbled in the House.

“There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel," Cruz wrote on Tuesday.

Cruz criticized Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for acquiescing to Democrats and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for punishing members of his own party for voting against the legislation.

He expressed concerns that deals were being made to save the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank, as well as the discovery of other information that reflected possible ways that U.S. immigration laws could be changed without congressional input.

"Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA [Trade in Services Agreement] draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law," Cruz wrote.

"TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to be fast-track," he said.

On Tuesday, Cruz said he wouldn't support fast-track 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, he wrote.

"Otherwise, I will have no choice but vote no.”

Cruz’s flip on trade represents a 180-degree swing for the GOP presidential hopeful, who has spent the past few months publicly supporting the trade agenda.

In April, he teamed up with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a co-author of the fast-track measure, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which the lawmakers agreed that Congress needed trade promotion authority to strengthen its hand to shape global agreements.

“In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker,” Cruz and Ryan wrote.

“But Congress can’t just take the administration’s word that it will drive a hard bargain," they wrote.

"We have to hold it accountable, and that is what trade promotion authority will help do."

After he voted for TPA the first time around, Cruz hit the airwaves to defend his position and his conservative credentials.

“There is nobody in the United States Congress who has stood up and fought President Obama more than I have,” Cruz said in one interview. “This has been a lawless president who has abused his power, and every turn … I had been leading the fight.”

“I don’t trust this president any more than you do,” he added. “But at the same time, my top priority in the Senate has been jobs and economic growth.”

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/24...-on-fast-track

But you should have also said that you oppose this bill on its face and primary purpose which is to increase imports, pave the way for more companies to leave the US and back-haul into the US market from their foreign locations, and lay off more Americans in the process. These trade bills are a total disaster for the United States with enormous trade deficits when we need trade balance and surpluses, and a travesty for US workers who lose their jobs, something Congress knows full well but doesn't care about, because they want to fund unemployment and retraining funds for workers who lose their jobs because of the trade bill, this is known as TAA, Trade Adjustment Assistance to provide for laid-off American workers as a result of the trade bill.

Why would any member of Congress vote for such a trade deal they know will cost Americans their jobs? That is not promoting jobs and economic growth, that is doing the opposite of that.

It's mind-boggling.

by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
23 Jun 2015
4348 comments

The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.

Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.

As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.

But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.

Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.

First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.

Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.

When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.

At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.

Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.

When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.

The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.

After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.

At lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.

Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.

But then the vote went to the House. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to the surprise of many, led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.)

At that point a group of House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire.

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, the Speaker punished conservatives, wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.

Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?

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.

There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...room-dealings/

Originally Posted by Jean

by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
23 Jun 2015
4348 comments

The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.

Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.

As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.

But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.

Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.

First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.

Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.

When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.

At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.

Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.

When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.

The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.

After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.

At lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.

Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.

But then the vote went to the House. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to the surprise of many, led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.)

At that point a group of House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire.

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, the Speaker punished conservatives, wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.

Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?

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.

There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...room-dealings/

I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU I DON'T TRUST ANY ONE IN THE WH