Ted Cruz supports TPP

[Pressing-On]

BTW, this from RAND PAUL yesterday:

“I’ve told leadership I’m a ‘no’ vote” on trade promotion authority, Paul said. “I’m hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven’t seen. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be a time I could be for it, if I’d seen the trade agreement, and it’s fine,” Paul said.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ramesh-ponnuru

[n david]

TPA is separate from the TPP, correct? IIRC the Trade Promotion Authority is just a series of steps the administration must do in notifying/updating Congress, allowoing Congress final approval, etc...in exchange for their being no Amendments added to the bill.

I wonder what Paul's view of the TPP is.

I'm more in favor of the TPA than I am of the TPP.

[Pressing-On]

Here is some more information on the "living agreement":

“The ‘living agreement’ provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.

“There is a ‘living agreement’ provision in TPP that allows the agreement to be changed after adoption—in effect, vesting TPP countries with a sweeping new form of global governance authority. TPP calls this new global authority the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission.’ These measures are unprecedented,” Sessions wrote to Obama, a letter that has as of yet not received a response. “While I and other lawmakers have been able to view this provision in secret, I believe it must be made public before any vote is scheduled on TPA, due to the extraordinary implications. I call on you today to make that section of TPP public for the American people to see and review.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-unsupportive/

[Pressing-On]

TPA establishes expedited congressional procedures for handling trade agreements negotiated under its directives.

Some legislators who might otherwise be inclined to support such legislation may question whether President Barack Obama would use the authority responsibly. According to Andrew Kloster and Elizabeth Slattery in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, “Abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.”[1] Based on this track record, some Members of Congress may balk at giving the President new authority to do much of anything.

A Congressional Mandate vs. a Delegation of Authority

Instead of trade promotion authority, which implies broad discretionary authority and a delegation of power to the executive branch, Congress should issue a trade expansion mandate that establishes clearly defined congressional directives for U.S. trade negotiators. Possible elements of this mandate could include:

Reduce or eliminate barriers directly related to trade and investment
Foster economic growth
Raise living standards
Promote creation of new jobs
Protect property rights

Issuing a “trade expansion mandate” instead of “trade promotion authority” would remove any doubt that Congress remains in charge of setting U.S. trade priorities and deciding whether agreements negotiated by the U.S. Trade Representative meet those priorities.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...onomic-freedom

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

TPA is separate from the TPP, correct? IIRC the Trade Promotion Authority is just a series of steps the administration must do in notifying/updating Congress, allowoing Congress final approval, etc...in exchange for their being no Amendments added to the bill.

I wonder what Paul's view of the TPP is.

I'm more in favor of the TPA than I am of the TPP.

You have to pass the TPP to get to the TPA, from what I understand.

[Pressing-On]

Putting Congress in Charge on Trade
Wall Street Journal
By Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan

But Congress can’t just take the administration’s word that it will drive a hard bargain. We have to hold it accountable, and that is what trade-promotion authority will help do.

Under TPA, Congress lays out three basic requirements for the administration. First, it must pursue nearly 150 specific negotiating objectives, like beefing up protections for U.S. intellectual property or eliminating kickbacks for government-owned firms. Second, the administration must consult regularly with Congress and meet high transparency standards.

And third, before anything becomes law, Congress gets the final say. The Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. So TPA makes it clear that Congress—and only Congress—can change U.S. law. If the administration meets all the requirements, Congress will give the agreement an up-or-down vote. But if the administration fails, Congress can hit the brakes, cancel the vote and stop the agreement.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-...97727085745754

[Pressing-On]

Donald Trump is only against the trade agreements because he feels we don't have good negotiators in the government and that we need to focus on the cause of trade problems - currency manipulation.

I agree with his points:

They’re not addressing the number one cause of the unfairness which is the currency manipulation. China manipulates their currency so brilliantly and it’s very, very hard to compete.

Some are major abusers like China—they abuse us because their negotiators are so much smarter than ours, but you have some countries that are better to us than others.

We should do this deal—we should a deal tailored to each individual country as opposed to a large deal with individual countries in them.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...going-to-hell/

Gov. Bobby Jindal is like Sen. Cruz in that they agree with fast tracking, but not for giving the President more authority - "who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers, and will of the American people."

[Pressing-On]

here may be cause to believe that the TPP will benefit American workers more than it hurts them. The industries that are expected to do well over the next decade as a result of the TPP are "machinery, especially electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture industries."

But incomes are not expected to rise very much, which is one of the downsides to any international trade agreement. US goods have to be competitive with countries that largely don't pay their workers as much as we do.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3ZxuHJQWh
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Advantages, Disadvantages, Obstacles and Next Steps

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a proposed free trade agreement between the U.S and 11 other trading partners bordering the Pacific Ocean. Current trade between the countries is $1.5 trillion in goods (2012 estimate) and $242 billion in services (2011 estimate). Once approved, it would be bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), currently the world’s largest free trade area.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-...artnership.htm

[Pressing-On]

Two Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), voted in favor of moving to the trade bill.

Another, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), missed the vote, as did Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is considering a White House run. Rubio and Graham also missed Monday's votes.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/24...a-trade-agenda

[Praxeas]

But is he down wit OPP?