Thread: Yes, Unfortunately Ted Cruz Did Support Trans-Pacific Trade Deal (TPA) – With Video…

Yes, Unfortunately Ted Cruz Did Support Trans-Pacific Trade Deal (TPA) – With Video…

Posted on December 11, 2015 by sundance

Senator Ted Cruz relies on two essential political elements to keep his “conservative” ruse afloat. The first is that people don’t follow “unanimous consent” passages in the Senate; the second is that people don’t follow “cloture votes” – Both of which are never recorded “roll call votes”, and allow candidates to obscure their intent and later claim a counter position.

It’s a good trick, and indeed fools almost everyone. Unless, that is, you’re tracking them while they occur…

Red Circled Candidates All Support Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TPP)

GOP candidates TPP

CASE IN POINT – HR2146 (TPA “Trade Promotion Authority” or “Fast Track”): This House Bill #2146 originating April 30th ’15, became the vehicle for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

HR2146 was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as a bill to address issues with retirement funds of federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.

BACKSTORY – In the beginning of the congressional session, with Republicans now in control of both the House and Senate, in Feb-March-April of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz and House Ways and Means Chairman, Representative Paul Ryan, supported Trade Promotion Authority being added to HR2146.

Their support was most notable when they posted the following Op-Ed which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 22nd:

http://paulryan.house.gov/news/docum...umentID=398270

ted cruz 1

paul ryan 1

On May 12th HR2146 passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 407 – 5 (Roll no. 220). (text: CR H284

The bill passed the house 407-5 because it was not controversial. It was simply a bill for benefits toward LEO and Firefighters retirement funds.

However, as planned, on June 4th 2015, the senate passed the house bill “with changes”. The Trade-Deal was added and notably included an amendment “adding TPA” (thanks to Ted Cruz) and TAA (needed for Elizabeth Warren coalition) By unanimous consent thereby avoiding a roll vote on record.

https://www.congress.gov/congression...age/H4507-4518

On June 18, 2015 the House accepted the TPA change (Paul Ryan spearhead) and removed TAA (the financial assistance package for training of union workers – this angered the Pelosi Dems). The Senate Democrats, who generally oppose TPP were hoodwinked – TAA was never originally going to be allowed.

The Democrats in the Senate were furious. They turned to Nancy Pelosi for help in getting the entire fiasco eliminated. However, the White House (Obama Inc) supported the entire construct of the TPP. Pelosi had to be arm twisted by the White House to go along with HR2146 with TAA spending removed – she acquiesced to President Obama.

Without TAA HR2146 passed again in the House, only this time with a much closer vote of 218-208, and went back to the Senate to resolve differences. (Remember because of the way it was constructed, the only difference was the removal of TAA – the training spending)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...ouse-bill/2146

On June 24th HR2146 (TPA without TAA) Then passed the Senate (Ted Cruz did not attempt to block or filibuster because this was the original plan all along). The bill passed in the Senate 60-38 (3/5ths passage rule).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00219

President Obama now had “fast track trade authorization” to complete the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal and thanks to Ted Cruz Obama only needed 51 votes to pass it.

On June 29th Obama signed TPP agreement with Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and HR2146 became law.

TPP trade 2

Senator Ted Cruz voted for Cloture on TPA Fast track trade authority removing the hurdle and concern of further amendments and clearing the way for passage. Again, like “unanimous consent” cloture votes are not recorded roll call votes. Thereby Ted Cruz could obfuscate his support. He figured to hide, see how that works?

However, Cruz advocacy could not be hidden entirely. On another bill HR 1314 Cruz voted against an amendment to the Trade Deal that would require congress to be consulted if China (or other nations) were to join after the fact:

Senate Amendment 1251 “To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00189

Cruz voted NAY. Directly saying he did not want congress to be consulted before other countries, namely CHINA, could join TPP.

♦ Notice during November’s debate Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were saying China is not part of TPP; contrast their voices against Donald Trump who was honestly saying TPP carries a backdoor for China (and Russia) to join.

NOVEMBER 4th – In an interview with Russian interstate channel Mir TV, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry invited China and Russia to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“We invite people to come join other initiatives, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP. We welcome China, we welcome Russia, we welcome other countries who would like to join, as long as they want to raise the standards and live up to the highest standards of protecting people and doing business openly and transparently and accountably,” said Secretary Kerry. (read more) State Dept Link HERE

Donald Trump was entirely correct. Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were factually incorrect. They were not incorrect by accident, but rather by complicit ideology.

BOTTOM LINE – It might hurt Cruz supporters to admit what took place, and worse – to accept the transparency of motive behind what drove his decision making; but it makes no sense at all to ignore the truth of what took place.

Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is part of the Wall Street purchased construct that is currently infecting our entire body politic. The connections to the U.S. CoC legislative agenda, and Goldman Sachs are evident within action not words, along with KtP and obviously his wife Heidi Cruz [ employed by Goldman Sachs, and adviser to Council on Foreign Relations].

In the video below Ted Cruz Explains why he supports (TPA) Trade Promotion Authority:

@01:56 “I support TPA” ~ Ted Cruz

Don’t pay attention to what Cruz says, pay closer attention to what Cruz does !!

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...pa-with-video/

Click on link above for video and images.

I guess people don't know or don't care?

cruz is a snake in the grass

He really is. Terrible.

This is another reason I am independent. I gotta make a living----by working, actually. Don't have an established family business, trust fund, hedge fund, big portfolio.

Every candidate has positions that individual voters will dislike. Anyone that says otherwise is fooling themselves. With that said, I find Cruz to be an acceptable alternative to Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Carson, etc. If it comes down to a choice between Cruz and Clinton or Sanders ........well that's a no-brainer for me.

Originally Posted by Captainron

This is another reason I am independent. I gotta make a living----by working, actually. Don't have an established family business, trust fund, hedge fund, big portfolio.

Yeah, I'm beginning to understand that position more every day.

...the second is that people don’t follow “cloture votes” – Both of which are never recorded “roll call votes”, and allow candidates to obscure their intent and later claim a counter position.

Cloture votes are definitely recorded, at least in the Senate.

If you'll look here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_114_1.htm
you'll see a cloture vote recorded on Nov 18, and if you click on the vote number 308 (91-6), it will then show who voted for the cloture and who didn't.

There were two cloture votes on the TPA bill, the first on June 23 and the second on June 24. Ted Cruz voted NAY on both against stopping debate. This is the proper vote if one is opposed to the bill being voted on. The first cloture vote is listed here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00218 and the second is listed here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00219.

The problems/errors with this post make it suspect in my mind. I don't have time to investigate the whole post, but just this one error concerns me greatly as the author uses a vote from the same page I get cloture votes from in order to "prove" his point.

I don't argue the fact that Cruz has said he supports this awful trade bill, however, just that as the author says, "Truth has no agenda."

Rand Paul opposed this bill from the beginning.

imblest, I think if you'll double-check, the vote on the 23rd is the cloture vote and the vote on the 24th is the concur vote. The one on the 23rd would end debate, and the vote on the 24th was to pass the bill. And yes, Cruz voted against cloture and passage, after having already voted in favor of it a month earlier. and had strongly promoted it.

He only voted against it the second time around because he was mad at McConnell over the Ex-Im bank deal. I explain about this on another thread.

Anyway, here's another article about Cruz and the TPA that might be easier to understand than the one I posted on this thread:

WSJ
9:57 am ET
Jun 23, 2015
Congress
Ted Cruz Flips on Trade Bill on Eve of Key Senate Vote

By Janet Hook

Sen. Ted Cruz, a free-trade advocate who had supported legislation to expedite trade agreements, on Tuesday flipped his position and announced on the eve of a crucial Senate vote that he was prepared to vote against a new version of the bill, demanding that GOP leaders assure him that they had made no “secret deal” to keep the controversial Export-Import Bank alive.

“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,” Mr. Cruz said, announcing his switch in an op-ed for Breitbart News, a conservative website that has been a vigorous critic of the Trade Protection Authority (TPA) bill known as “fast track.”

“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.”

Senate GOP leaders have scheduled a vote for today on advancing a new version of the fast track bill, a procedural vote that will require 60 votes to pass. An earlier version of the bill passed the Senate in May by a vote of 62-37. Mr. Cruz’s defection may not spell defeat for the bill, but it adds to uncertainty about the outcome.

Mr. Cruz, who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, had been criticized for his earlier fast track vote by tea party activists and conservatives who said it gave too much power to President Barack Obama. That was for Mr. Cruz an unusual and potentially risky split from a wing of the party that is among the strongest supporters of his bid for the White House.

With his shift, he joins the camp of conservative critics of the trade deal who are in the minority of the GOP in Congress but vocal outside the Capitol. That wing has also been central to the drive to abolish the Export-Import Bank.

In May, Mr. Cruz voted for an earlier version of the bill that combined fast track authority with an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. In the struggle to pass it through the Senate, GOP leaders secured the final votes they needed from a group of wavering senators who sought assurances that Congress would vote on legislation to keep the Export-Import Bank from expiring June 30.

In the end, the combined fast track-trade assistance bill passed by the Senate was blocked in the House. The Senate votes Tuesday on whether to advance an alternative version of the bill that includes only the fast track authority.

Since his earlier vote, Mr. Cruz has been trying to explain his position to conservatives in radio talk show interviews, on his website, and in other forums. He argued that supporting fast-trade authority did not amount to supporting the deal Mr. Obama is trying to close with Asian nations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In his Breitbart op-ed, however, Mr. Cruz changed his tune, saying that since the vote he found “new troubling information” in details of the emerging trade deal that suggests that the fast track bill could make it easier for Mr. Obama to change federal immigration law — an assertion that proponents of the trade bill deny will be the case. He also complained about action taken by House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to punish Republicans who opposed the bill in the House.

He said he would not vote for the fast track bill unless Messrs. McConnell and Boehner both “commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire — and stay expired” and allow amendments to ensure trade agreements to now make “back door changes to our immigration laws.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...y-senate-vote/

See, in his own words, he only voted against the TPA when he learned that McConnell had screwed him on the Ex-Im Bank deal. It had nothing to do with sucking jobs out of the US, only some bizarre interest in abolishing the Ex-Im Bank that provides loan guarantees to exporters that cost us nothing and earn us $2 billion a year in fee revenue, plus creates some good jobs like Boeing and General Electric jobs, good manufacturing jobs here at home.

See, Ted Cruz pushed the TPA, he promoted it, he worked with Ryan publicly to gain support for it. So he supports it. But he had cooked some side deal over this Ex-Im Bank deal that's not important to the average American on any level, while this massive TPP is virtually a global deal. Cruz not only voted for the TPA in May which allows other countries to be added at the discretion of the President without approval from Congress, he specifically voted against an Amendment that changed that and made the adding of countries like China and/or Russia subject to the approval of Congress. That was the Amendment 1251 shown in the my article.

Cruz is not in our best interest on any level. I understand why people might think on the surface he's a fighter standing up to McConnell and calling him a liar for 20 minutes. Well, the fact is McConnell made the deal with the Ex-Im Bank senators who wanted to keep it going for awhile longer to protect exports and such in order to pass the trade bill Cruz supported. So which group was McConnell suppose to let down? The Ex-Im bank people who would then vote against the trade bill or Cruz who would vote against the trade bill because the Ex-Im people got what they wanted? Cruz wasn't standing up for any of us, he was trying to punish McConnell for keeping his word with the Ex-Im bank Senators who helped pass the trade bill Cruz claims he wanted, so why be mad at McConnell when you got the big deal you claimed you wanted over some little Ex-Im Bank dispute that doesn't matter one whit to any average Americans?

I'm sorry, but Cruz is not for US, he's in this for himself. He should have been against the trade bill, not for it. He should have been against legalization of illegal aliens, not for it. He's the opposite of what we want and need. He's a Harvard lawyer, a government lawyer, only 1 year in private practice and that spend working impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton, the NRA and a few other deals, and the rest of his career has been spent in some government legal capacity and the best I can tell of his time in Congress, it's all been a failure. Nothing he claims he wants he gets and then when he claims he doesn't want it after claiming he wants it, he gets it anyway then whines and grandstands about it.

Cruz done the right thing!!!

He was absolutely right in his demands that we be offered assurances that the Export-Import Bank remain expired (he didn't trust leadership). He was obviously concerned about rumors that leadership had plans to keep the bank alive. He was also right in demanding an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. In the end he voted with his conscience (against the TPA) because he was afraid of a "secret deal" to keep the Export-Import Bank alive and the failure to approve an extension of aid for U.S. workers hurt by trade. I don't see the controversy here, he did exactly as expected and did what he thought was good for America in voting nay.

His own words:

“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.”

Cruz should be celebrated for his actions, not admonished. Interestingly, another issue he was concerned about was the changes to our laws that would impact immigration.

Top Ten Ex-Im Facts

1. Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar received 87% of Ex-Im loan guarantees in FY13.
2. The Ex-Im Bank provided export financing for just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses.
3. The vast majority of exporters—98 percent—never received assistance from the Ex-Im Bank.
4. Export financing didn’t create new jobs, but merely redistributed jobs across America’s economy.
5. Among the top 10 buyers of Ex-Im exports, 5 were state-controlled and raked in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies.
6. There are 31 open corruption and fraud investigations into the bank.
7. The top beneficiaries of Ex-Im also had massive backlogs of orders, meaning jobs were not immediately lost when the bank expires.
8. Ex-Im subsidies benefited China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. State-owned foreign airlines have received $16 billion in subsidized financing since 2009.
9. Taxpayers were on the hook for nearly $140 billion in the Ex-Im loan portfolio.
10. The companies advocating for the reauthorization of Ex-Im have admitted they do NOT actually need it.

http://heritageaction.com/2015/11/export-import-bank-fact-sheet/

One last thing, let's not forget that Trump is a free-trader too. He has admitted supporting free trade. It's easy to attack Cruz on this, but who is to say what Trump would have done in the exact same position? Cruz attempted to do what he thought was the right thing for us. Could Trump have done any more if he had been in the same position. Guess we'll never know that because Trump, in his current position, only has to talk the talk ..... not walk the walk.