Thread: Did Ted Cruz Support Fast Track Authority for TPP?

Originally Posted by Judy

Other than supporting it, going on a media blitz to promote it and voting for it the first time to pass it in the US Senate and advance it to the House where it passed handily but with an Amendment to fund retraining of American Workers laid-off by the TPP. The fact that he didn't want to help American Workers laid-off by the trade deal he wanted to fast track is hardly a salvation moment, especially when the Senate he had already lobbied had more than enough votes to pass the final bill without his final vote.

Cruz lobbied the TPA but as soon as the House put some assistance on it for all the American Workers who would be laid-off by it, disgruntling his Tea Partiers who supported TPA but without any assistance spending for workers laid off by the TPP, he voted against it selling American Workers down the river to make himself look like a "fiscal hawk". The best thing I can compare this evil to is an arsonist setting a house on fire and then calling the homeowners insurance company behind their backs and canceling their policy. That's how evil Ted Cruz really is in my opinion.

Nothing you say changes the actual facts. Cruz voted against the TPA and has vowed to not support the TPP.

Yes, AFTER he supported it, promoted it, voted for it and it passed the US Senate. I think most people with the full facts can determine what it all means which is why Cruz is not doing too well these days.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, AFTER he supported it, promoted it, voted for it and it passed the US Senate. I think most people with the full facts can determine what it all means which is why Cruz is not doing too well these days.

Yes, he voted against it when it really mattered and has vowed not to support the TPP.

Originally Posted by MW

Yes, he voted against it when it really mattered and has vowed not to support the TPP.

Uuuh no, the bill passed and was signed into law, so he voted against it when it didn't matter. He has not "vowed not to support the TPP", he has stated recently while trying to win the White House, a race he's not doing too well in, that he "does not intend to vote for the TPP".

The Administration hasn't submitted the final deal to Congress yet and probably won't do so until after the nominations this summer, so these Congresscritters can say whatever they want until then, because they won't be voting on it until late in 2016, if not waiting for a vote until next year since no one wants to vote for it during an election year.

https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/20...atify-in-2016/

What’s Next for TPP: Will Congress Ratify in 2016?

By Muftiah M. McCartin and Kaitlyn McClure on January 21, 2016 Posted in Congressional Action, International Strategy, Trade Agreements

After more than 5 years of negotiations between partner countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement was finalized in October 2015 and will be confirmed through a formal signing ceremony on February 4th in New Zealand.

Although the terms of TPP are finalized and formally agreed to, there is still a great deal of work ahead. TPP will not come into effect until a requisite number of original signatories ratify the agreement, probably within a two-year period. For the United States, the formal signing of TPP on February 4 will trigger the process for drafting and consideration of a bill in Congress to implement the agreement, which will also serve as U.S. ratification of the international trade deal. While the Obama Administration has expressed its intent to see a TPP bill passed this year, serious issues with specific terms of TPP must first be resolved, and even then passage is not guaranteed given the highly partisan environment in Washington, D.C., heightened even further in this Presidential election year. Conventional wisdom inside the Beltway is that the soonest Congress would likely vote on the bill is during a lame duck session, following the November elections, but even that timetable cannot be guaranteed.

One key hurdle has already been cleared. Approval of bipartisan trade legislation through both Houses of Congress last July included a reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast-track” authority, which affords expedited consideration of international trade legislation through Congress and precludes any amendments. The enactment of TPA enabled the Obama Administration to successfully conclude negotiations on TPP.

While TPA was a major victory for the President, achieving a vote on the international trade deal before he leaves office will be another uphill battle. Similar to the TPA vote, trade agreements typically rely heavily on Republican support for passage. TPP has been unpopular among many Congressional Democrats, who staunchly believe the trade deal will have a negative impact on American jobs and wages. Securing TPP approval from the Republican majority will require the Administration to resolve several outstanding issues over controversial portions of the trade agreement from key GOP members, including Congressional Leadership. For example, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposes the agreement’s exclusion of tobacco products from the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism; Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wants stronger language on market exclusivity for biologics; and House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert (R-WA) opposes the rules that prohibit countries from preventing the free flow of data or forcing local storage of data because they fail to cover financial data.

The Administration will have a difficult time maneuvering these and other specific issues without completely unravelling the years of negotiations with other TPP partners. Outstanding issues could be addressed through side agreements, which are difficult to achieve because they involve additional obligations that must be accepted by all TPP countries after the original agreement has already been signed. These issues could also be addressed by side letters, which are common to trade agreements and are used to clarify specific issues. More commonly, the Administration has addressed issues in its implementation and enforcement plan, and some Members of Congress have even relied on informal commitments from the Administration to address issues, a difficult task under strained relations between the President and Congress.

The path forward on these specific issues is unclear, but in the event of their resolution the Administration will need to work with Congress to reach an agreement on the text of the implementing bill. Pre-agreement on the legislation is essential if the implementing bill is to receive TPA’s “fast-track” consideration through the House and Senate. This process will likely include hearings and “mock markups” by the relevant congressional committees. According to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) hearings may begin as early as February.

Although the Obama Administration has not identified a specific time-frame for submission of the implementing bill, it has indicated it would like to submit the bill in July of this year, before Congress adjourns mid-July for the two national party conventions scheduled this summer. Timing of the implementing bill’s submission is key, as formal submission will trigger a series of deadlines for Congressional action, ultimately requiring Congress to act within 90 legislative days.

Relevant Congressional Committee staff seem to disagree with the July timing. They have reported that while they are making a deliberate attempt – neither rushing nor obstructing – to work through outstanding TPP issues, they do not believe that these issues can be resolved by the summer.

Even if the outstanding issues could be resolved and an implementing bill drafted by July, the timing of the formal submission will remain sensitive as some Members will be reticent to vote for a trade agreement so close to the November election, where the vote can play into Presidential and Congressional primary and general election politics. Opposition to TPP from high-profile Presidential candidates in both parties has further politicized the debate over the trade agreement. All three Democratic Presidential candidates, Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, have come out against TPP and the leading Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has blasted the trade deal. A lack of support for TPP from potential presidential nominees (who may be at the top of the ticket in November) makes it all the more difficult for incumbent congressional Republicans and pro-trade Democrats to publicly support and vote for a trade agreement during election season.

Consistent with these considerations, several members of House Leadership staff have indicated that the soonest the Congress would act on the implementing bill this year is during the lame duck session following the November elections. But even then, consideration of an implementing bill will not be free of opposition. Some conservative members of Congress may object to a vote in the lame duck session on the principle expressed by Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz: “No conservative would want a bunch of members who have just been defeated or [are] retiring passing big government liberal policies with Obama in office. TPP needs to be voted on when members are accountable.”

John Veroneau, a partner with Covington & Burling and a former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, stated recently that it is “very questionable” whether the TPP could get through the congressional process in 2016 without leadership in both the Senate and the House supporting it. “In the end, any vote on TPP would be extremely close, whether it is this year or the following year, and ultimately local issues will be determinative in how Members vote,” he said.

Originally Posted by Judy

Uuuh no, the bill passed and was signed into law, so he voted against it when it didn't matter. He has not "vowed not to support the TPP", he has stated recently while trying to win the White House, a race he's not doing too well in, that he "does not intend to vote for the TPP".

The Administration hasn't submitted the final deal to Congress yet and probably won't do so until after the nominations this summer, so these Congresscritters can say whatever they want until then, because they won't be voting on it until late in 2016, if not waiting for a vote until next year since no one wants to vote for it during an election year.

https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/20...atify-in-2016/

Time to give it a break. I think William got the facts he was looking for early on in this thread. Cruz voted for TPA the first time and against the second time and has vowed not to support the TPP.

You should take your own advice. Cruz has not "vowed". But it doesn't matter, I think Cruz supports these treasonous trade deals and will continue to do so. And Trump will have to veto the TPP if it passes in 2017. If Congress tries an end of the year deal before they adjourn for the year, then well, add another one to the list and hope Trump can figure out how to end or curtail it.

Originally Posted by Judy

You should take your own advice. Cruz has not "vowed". But it doesn't matter, I think Cruz supports these treasonous trade deals and will continue to do so. And Trump will have to veto the TPP if it passes in 2017. If Congress tries an end of the year deal before they adjourn for the year, then well, add another one to the list and hope Trump can figure out how to end or curtail it.

“There are a number of Republicans on that (debate) stage who support TPP, who support (the Trade Promotion Authority),” Cruz stated. “I voted against TPA and I intend to vote against TPP.”

Certainly sound like a "vow" to me.

TPA passed, legislation he supported, promoted and voted for.

Why did he support it from the giddy-up? Why did he support increasing 500% H1-b visa workers also?

Yes, I'm sure it would to you. You're a Cruz Supporter. the election will be over before any member of Congress has to show their hand, divvy up or explain why they decided it was "good for America" after all, like it was the first time they voted for TPA for TPP, and voted for the TPP when it no longer mattered in a Presidential election.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, I'm sure it would to you. You're a Cruz Supporter. he election will be over before any member of Congress has to show their hand, divvy up or explain why they decided it was "good for America" after all, like it was the first time they voted for TPA for TPP, and voted for the TPP when it no longer mattered in a Presidential election.

Yes, I'm a Trump and Cruz supporter. Unlike some on here, it doesn't really matter which one wins to me, but I'm always interested the truth without the added speculation, opinion, or the addition of personal editorializing of articles to twist the facts. Individuals that support a single candidate do have a tendency to be biased because they have a personal agenda that includes seeing all others fail. If that description doesn't fit you, fine, but know that it does exist.

William asked:

A caller to ALIPAC wants to know the verdict on Ted Cruz and the Trans Pacific Partnership fast track?

I provided that information, without personal opinion, in my first two post on this thread.