All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
June 12, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
And yes, from San Diego, from our forward operating base, San Diego, the FOB of the EIB, talking a little bit, and we're waiting for the vote right now, the vote in the House of Representatives as to whether to grant so-called TPA or trade promotion authority to President Obama,
which would then allow him to present three actually treaties that he's trade treaties that he has been negotiating apparently for six years to the Senate for an up or down vote.
Now, what's weird about this whole thing is not only that he sought the authority, the so-called fast-track authority for an up or down vote after he negotiated the treaties.
Every other president has done the authority first and then the treaty, but also because he's got another little wrinkle called the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
This is a program, hundreds of millions of dollars, to retrain American workers who are adversely affected by free trade.
Now, the proponents of this Trans-Pacific Partnership, the European Agreement, the other one, which we'll get to in a moment, called the Trade in Services Agreement, these three trade agreements, the proponents are saying, hey, this thing is going to generate jobs all over the place, better prosperity for all countries involved.
Free trade is always good.
Why then do we need a trade adjustment assistance program if American workers are not harmed?
Let that sink in for a minute.
800-282-2882 to the phones.
And this is Nick, I believe, in Weymouth.
Okay.
We're not in Los Angeles.
We're south of Los Angeles.
Okay.
But anyway, to the phones, here's Nick in Weymouth, Massachusetts.
Nick, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hey, how are you doing?
Thank you for your time.
Great show.
I'll try to be as quick as possible and as brief as possible.
IT profession, 30-plus years.
I'm out of it now.
I was with Digital Equipment Corporation back in the early 90s, and I saw them decide to get out of the business.
Why?
Because they were talking about hourly wages.
We'll look at Malaysia.
Hard drives are going to build a hard drive there.
Spent a few million to build a plan.
They argued about $1.75 an hour that Malaysia wanted versus $1.35 an hour that digital wanted.
Couldn't come to agreement.
End result, China.
This is 1991, 57 cents an hour to build hard drives.
Well, guess what?
You're never going to see them built over here, are you?
You know, going back to then.
Flash forward to me at Staples, marketing, retail, wholesale, et cetera.
Well, 10, 12 years ago, I was training people to take our jobs.
I was a computer programmer basically.
Started at five figures, was tickling six figures when I left.
And I trained seven more people when I left.
They're making 10, 15, 20K.
They basically do it over there.
A company like that will have 2,000 to 3,000 people over there at any given time in India.
A lot of taxes are not being paid.
That's not the way it works anymore.
Social Security is not being replenished.
That big lottery system is obviously going to fail.
So the bottom line is, who's going to buy American goods at what price?
It ain't going to happen.
The only way you can fix it is to highly regulate and start hearing the corporations.
Look at Nike.
They want to sell a sneaker.
$160, $250,000, somewhere around there.
Who's going to buy them?
Some people have money to buy them.
Not everybody.
Why should they be allowed to sell those sneakers at that kind of money to keep the stockholders happy?
That's all they're really doing.
The big executives, that's why they get $40,000, $50 million a year, right?
Those sneakers are being made for $7, $8 tops overseas.
Put a tariff on him for about $300, and you'll start seeing some factories over here.
That's the only way out.
Thank you for your time.
All right.
Nick, I appreciate it.
And let me just respond to that.
I think there's a better way.
That way has been tried as well.
And the Smoot-Hawley legislation in the early 1930s in response to the Depression saying we've got to protect our American industries.
We're going to put on a lot of tariffs so that anybody trying to import a car to compete with Mr. Ford's cars, they're going to pay a certain percentage of tariffs, so it makes it less likely that somebody will buy that more expensive foreign car.
The problem is then the foreigners put on tariffs against Mr. Ford selling his cars in other countries.
So then became a tariff war that slowed trade down and hurt everybody.
So is there another way to go at this?
Because I agree with you, Nick, completely about the problem.
I think there is.
And the example is Germany.
Germany has ⁇ now count them.
I mean, look around your community.
Germany has how many international car brands?
Porsche, Audi, VW, Mercedes, BMW.
Five sold all over the world in a very high-tax socialist welfare state country called Germany.
How do they do that?
How do they have thousands and thousands of jobs in Stuttgart building Mercedes that are sold all over the world when they've got a unionized workforce, high labor overhead, no particular tariffs protecting them?
How do they do that?
Well, there's a couple of reasons, and here's one.
Here's one.
Now, think about this.
They have the value-added tax in Germany.
So something like 17 or 20 percent of the final cost of a Mercedes, let's take that as an example, built in Germany, is the value-added tax.
When Mercedes exports that car to another country, they get a rebate of the value-added tax.
If they sell it in Germany, the German consumer has to pay the value-added tax.
So suddenly, there's a huge subsidy in effect for Mercedes to go and sell cars like crazy and make their profits overseas because then they don't have to share it with the German government.
The German government did this on purpose because they know that that means they're going to have so many jobs in Germany for building these cars, and occasionally they build them, the BMW and so forth, built in the United States as well.
But the basic driving force here is it allows Germany, a country, what, one-third our size or less, to become an international success story.
I mean, why don't we have Caterpillar products, Ford products, Microsoft products, et cetera, et cetera, all over the world?
We do have, of course, a lot.
But are we a country that's exporting more and more?
No, we're in a country exporting less and less and importing more and more, and therefore dollars are going out of our economy to these other economies, making us poorer and poorer every year as a nation.
Wouldn't freedom be a better answer than government forcing or taxing an answer?
What do you think?
It's the Rush program, 800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, Infor Rush Today, Rush back on Monday.
Joel, next from Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Joel, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hey, good afternoon.
I guess I consider myself fairly conservative.
One of the issues I'm seeing with all this is that we have let the pendulum sway too far to one way towards more or less true friendly towards businesses, and we are really upending the whole American labor market.
And it pains me to say that maybe we need to start relaxing some of our anti-collective bargaining agreements, laws that we've made.
Ideally, I'd like to see less immigration come into this country.
I think personally, we should go door to door and take, you know, get rid of illegals.
I mean, I don't think that's ever going to happen.
The other issue is that this whole agreement is being discussed in secrecy.
Not one of us has been able to see the actual workings of this bill.
And that's why.
The public has every right to know what is going to be debated on in Congress.
There should be absolutely no security, no national security issues related in a trade bill.
There should be absolutely none.
And if there are, then that's a blatant misuse of this bill.
This whole entire system, this whole entire debate is really Congress not doing its job.
That's exactly right.
And they're lying to the American people.
It's a slap in the face.
They're lying to the American people.
It's a disaster for the idea of a representative government.
And I think that had the document itself gotten a good play in Congress, then the good parts of it would be known.
I mean, because, again, trade is good.
More trade is even better.
But the bad parts, the parts we should be debating, the parts about immigration, the parts about labor laws, the parts about environmental laws, the parts about this supernatural.
One of the earlier calls, callers pointed out there's going to be a new commission that's going to be established by this Pacific Partnership that would have the right to change American law by an unelected commission of some kind.
I mean, how crazy is all that?
Obviously, things that deserve debate, Joel, and are not getting debate.
Appreciate the call.
So let's go to the political part of this.
I've gotten you into the arcane weeds here on the bureaucracy parts and the alphabet soup, but let's go to the political part.
Because even ABC, in an analysis done by Rick Klein, points out that the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, progressive leftist wing of the Democratic Party is now just completely apoplectic about the idea of Democrats voting for this and voting with the president and apoplectic about the president.
So there's a cleavage.
I mean, you talk about a schism in the Republican Party.
On the Democratic side, it's amazing what a schism is.
In fact, Howard Dean's brother, Jim Dean, speaking on behalf of a group called Democracy for America, warned Democrats in the House of Representatives who vote for fast-track negotiating authority that, quote, we will encourage our progressive allies to join us in leaving you to rot.
The word rot.
Apparently, the Dean family is crazy beyond Howard.
We will leave you to rot.
Wow.
And as I said before, our local congressman Scott Peters here in San Diego, and there are people like him in the Democratic caucus all over the country who are being pressured by labor, saying, look, we're simply going to take you out if you vote for this.
So now it's the Republicans, and let's go to the Republican side.
Now it's the Republicans bailing out Barack Obama.
Bailing out Barack Obama.
Why would they do that?
Why would they go to the trouble of trusting because that's what you have to do?
The last caller pointed this out.
You have to trust now because you haven't seen the document.
And you've had Paul Ryan saying, well, we're going to have to vote for it before you find out what's in it.
What was that?
He's just, is he doing his Nancy Pelosi imitation?
So we come down to a document we haven't seen that affects the lives of every American, and we're supposed to trust Barack Obama after Benghazi?
After Obamacare?
I mean, after I could keep my doctor, my premiums are going down by $2,500?
After that?
Really?
I'm Roger Hitchcock, InforRush, 800-282-2882.
Stay with us after this.
Okay, one more alphabet soup.
Roger Hitchcock in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm compelled to do this.
You know, I was an elected official, mayor of San Diego, all that stuff.
So this wonky stuff gets to me.
One of the three trade agreements that the president has been working on, apparently this is his legacy, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 22, I guess it is, nations.
He's got the new European deal.
And then he's got this something called the Trade in Services Agreement, 24 nations.
Trade in Services.
Turns out that our trade with Europe, for example, is 80%, I heard from one source, services.
In other words, financial services, legal services, computer services, what have you.
80%.
So what is this agreement?
Well, this is another agreement that's held in secret, but it turns out through leaks that the visa requirements for the 24 member nations in this trade in services agreement would be changed.
38 separate industries.
This is the H-1B thing.
This is the expansion of foreign workers.
Visas could take no longer than 30 days or they're automatically issued.
You know the government.
Good grief.
Really?
They're going to require, in effect, that the Congress control over immigration be eliminated and the new authority made up of these 24 member nations would decide whether or not our laws conformed with this treaty.
Let's take an example.
Pakistan.
This trade thing relaxes visas for Pakistani nationals seeking to enter the United States.
You know, at some point in time, I think we've got to tell the Washington elites that we the people, and I mean Republican and Democrat, and I appreciate the conservatives who are bucking this thing and Jeff Sessions and all the rest of those courageous people, but the establishment Republicans, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and the others, at some point in time, we the people have got to let them know, no, no, this doesn't work.
This is not right.
This is not right for America.
What do you think?
Here's Joe in Tacoma, Washington.
Joe, welcome.
Hey, good afternoon.
So this economic policy is going to be good for America.
And the reason why I know that is because Paul Ryan's for it, and Elizabeth Warren is against it.
And here's what I don't get.
Whenever Paul Ryan's going after leftists in America and leftist policies, we're all for him.
We consider him a brilliant policy wonk, economic wonk.
But the second that Barack Obama gets something right and Paul Ryan, who's not playing politics, he goes ahead and says, you know what, this is right, then everybody bails on Paul Ryan.
So why do you think it's right?
So I think for the long run, since other countries who we compete with economically in this global economy, other countries like China, for instance, have a, you know, they are very hands-on when it comes to subsidies and when it comes to making their companies, their domestic companies, competitive on a global market.
So, if Paul Ryan says this is going to make our companies competitive on a global market, then yeah, I'm going to stick with him because he's never been wrong so far.
And I think this argument, this is an argument, I'm glad you brought it up.
This is an argument that makes some sense to me.
What this Trans-Pacific Partnership is trying to do by excluding China, it's interesting, China is not one of the listed members here.
By excluding China, it's clearly an attempt by Barack Obama to build a European Union-style free trade zone that excludes China and limits China's influence, economically, militarily, and otherwise, in the Pacific basin at a time when China militarily and politically and economically is seeking to expand its influence over the Philippines and Japan and so forth and so on.
So, a good point.
Now, the question is: how do you know, in fact, how does Paul Ryan know, that this agreement accomplishes that?
So, all I can do is just take his word for it because he does not play politics.
And what I feel like conservatives are doing now, just because this is a Barack Obama policy, is that we're reverting to this defensive mode of, oh, Barack Obama likes it, we shouldn't.
We're playing politics.
But, Paul Ryan.
Let me ask you a question, Joe, just to narrow this down.
Do you believe more foreign workers ought to be able to come into this country and displace American workers' jobs?
I mean, when you phrase it like that, then no, but.
But that's what it provides for, apparently.
We're all complaining that we don't know what's in it.
So, how can we make that assumption?
Because Jeff Sessions says, look, I read it, and I was told not to talk about it, but this is what's in it, and particularly the example it's been in the press and political and other places about Pakistan.
Really?
I mean, we think we ought to expand the number of people from Pakistan coming into the United States.
Joe, really?
Apparently not.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
And Paul Ryan, believe me, has a great deal of credibility with me as well.
I understand.
But can he be wrong about this?
Sure.
800-282-2882.
Stay with us.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Again, Rush back on Monday.
And, you know, this month, the June Limbaugh Letter, Rush takes on the political correctness, celebrates the American mail, the last bastion of American toughness.
And it plays right into the fact, of course, that we're coming up on Father's Day.
What a great Father's Day gift, the Limbaugh Letter.
Monthly newsletter in both print and digital editions.
Interviews with, well, top conservatives, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Coulter, et cetera.
And if you subscribe, if you're a new subscriber, you get an extra issue free.
And two bonus commentaries, including the truth about American exceptionalism.
So subscribe now or order the gift for your dad.
Father's Day's coming up at rushlimbaugh.com.
The vote now is on in the House of Representatives.
We've been talking about this all day on the first part of this, which is the TAA, the trade adjustment.
Again, why do we need a trade adjustment money to retrain American workers displaced by this free trade if it's such a good idea?
So they're voting on that first.
And believe me, there is with, wow, 48, I've got local here.
Republicans voting no.
There's 106 no to 85 yes, but 241 still to vote.
But the trend is running against concurring with the Senate on this part of it.
And the thinking is if this goes down, if there's no trade adjustment authority to give money to displaced American workers, then the whole thing is going to go down.
So they took this first to see if it would survive.
Because again, the Democrats, generally speaking, Democrats have been supportive of TAA.
Republicans have not.
Republicans have pointed out, look, if these things were such good deals, why do we need TAA?
I mean, if American workers are not being displaced, you don't need retraining for displaced workers, I would think.
800-282-2882.
So we'll follow this vote.
Stay with us because this vote is coming down now.
And behind it is the vote for the Trade Promotion Authority, the so-called fast track.
And then there are three, I mentioned this too superficially before, there are three trade deals.
There's the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
This is the European Union of the Pacific Rim Nations, excluding China.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, which is the new one governing the European Union and the United States.
And then one that covers countries in both of these called the Trade in Services Agreement that has to do with the fact that services is a growing part of what America is selling to the world.
The physical things we make is a shrinking part of it.
And the idea is that maybe we could have more services sold abroad.
And of course, that's, again, kind of problematic.
I mean, I have a son that's in IT, right?
And he routinely activates people in, well, Israel, Romania, Thailand, wherever, to get code written because they live on this plane where everybody is out there and they're looking for competent people.
And they don't care because on the internet, you could be anywhere and write this code.
So there is an issue of how much of this can even be controlled when a globalization is occurring just because of the technology.
All right, 800-282-2882.
I know I'm so far into the weeds on this.
Let's get Tara in Fresno.
I hope I pronounced her name correctly, in Fresno, California.
Tara, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi, welcome.
Well, thank you, it's Tara.
But you know, to me, this is the United Global States of the World, the beginning of the New World Order.
I downloaded the 146-page framework overview, and I started looking through it.
And to me, the joining factor with the Republicans and the President is just immigration, and it's a way of them pushing through immigration without having to get their hands dirty to deal with the legislation properly.
But they keep saying this is going to be a breathing document.
That means that thing is going to grow and grow and morph.
You know, and I just see that as a tyrant's dream, you know, as somebody come along and it's just going to become out of control.
And then you're chipping away at our sovereignty when you start putting these governmental bodies together and that we have to be subjected to the rules, the international rules.
It's like, wait a minute, we're sovereign.
We have our Constitution.
And when you put us into this united European style, in your mind, you've been wanting us to be more European anyway.
You're taking away our sovereignty and having this global body tell us what we can or what we cannot do.
And there was one aspect I was reading too on another article.
The Brits are upset because through one of these trade agreements, they're talking about American companies being allowed to come over and take over aspects of their health care.
And they're up in arms.
None of this is good.
It's the devil in the details.
If it was clean, just a straight trade agreement between one country or another or a couple of countries, fine.
But this is so convoluted.
And the devil is always in the details.
They're not going to tell us the details after the fact.
That's dangerous.
Yeah, I think it is dangerous.
And whether or not your conclusions are correct, I don't know.
And we don't know.
And I think that's the major issue.
We don't know, and we should know.
And I tell you what, my suspicion is aroused in a couple of other reasons, Tara.
One is the amount of money being used to lobby in favor of this with foreign governments who stand to benefit from looting the United States, basically, through these agreements which allow them to export more stuff to the United States than they ever agree to import from the United States, so they get an advantage.
They're spending, and foreign governments are paying former Senate leaders to sell this TPP.
And we're talking about Tom Dashel, who has been hired to do this.
We're talking about the former Republican leader.
Oh, gosh, what's his name?
I've completely forgotten.
Well, I'll get it in a minute.
And these, in other words, former Congress leaders are getting paid by foreign governments to push this in our Congress.
I'm sorry, I don't feel good about that.
I don't feel comfortable, frankly, about that.
It plays into the fears of people, frankly, Tara, like yours, about the downside of a new world government.
Do we lose our liberty while we gain maybe some of the trade advantages?
Do we come under the thumb of unelected bureaucrats in a European-style situation?
I don't know.
It raises a lot of issues which deserve to be debated.
Are they going to be debated?
No, because the whole thing's in secret.
It's crazy.
Right, right.
It's the redistribution of the wealth.
And it sounds like that Agenda 21, where each of these bigger governments have to put in money to help the world.
I mean, all of this is all tied in.
And, you know, whether I sound like a conspiratorial person or what, I'm watching this play out, and I watched how this president operates, and he does nothing without an agenda.
This is exactly.
That's exactly right.
Because, again, that's a point I made earlier.
You know, this whole thing rests on the bedrock of: hey, trust us, we're doing what's best.
Trust this guy.
I'm sorry.
Six and a half, whatever it is, years into this thing, I'm saying to myself, well, after Benghazi, after Obamacare, after all this craziness that we've gone through with Obama basically lying about all kinds of things.
I mean, my doctor, my $2,500 going down to my premiums.
This is crazy.
So here's what's going on in the House of Representatives.
I'm sorry, Democrats and Republicans are not voting for this.
We've got Republicans.
And yeah, and mine's a little slower.
Snirdly is telling me it's a little higher than what I've got.
Oh, this is off C-SPAN too.
I've got 226 against, 127.
It takes 216, I think it's 216.
Well, 218 is the formal thing, but I think they've got two vacancies.
So the other day they made 217 made it.
But at 232, no, there's no way they can do this.
This is done.
Trade adjustment assistance, the so-called TAA, again, why do we need TAA if this thing doesn't displace American workers?
Because it's an assistance program for displaced American workers.
Anyway, that's one of the things that's come up.
But again, this trust thing is really starting to, you know, I think break against Obama because you can't lie all these years and not have it break against you.
Let me just bring up today's headline on that score.
Here is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, Housing and Urban Development.
A new rule out this month aimed at ending segregation.
We're going to build affordable housing in affluent areas because affluent areas need diversity.
Now, if there's anything that characterizes local communities, I don't know about yours, but it characterizes my local community.
It's the idea of local control, zoning, having the ability to zone so that you get residential areas.
And then, and believe me, I started out in a very poor neighborhood, not to get into that, but ended up in a nicer neighborhood because I worked for it.
I worked for it.
And I live around people who worked for it.
I don't know anybody in my neighborhood who was given the house they're in.
I don't.
So, in terms of this program, here we go again.
Redistribute the wealth.
I'll tell you what's good for you.
We know better how to spend your money than you do.
We know better how to run your life than you do.
And this is going to be now translated into an international organization that I can't even vote for?
Really?
And that's a good idea?
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Final vote.
Stay with us after this.
Well, it's done.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush, it's done.
Trade adjustment assistance going down to a wide margin of defeat.
Apparently, the president was over on Capitol Hill early this morning and met with Nancy Pelosi.
And one of the leaders in the Democratic side, Peter DeFazio in Oregon, said of the meeting: quote: Basically, the president tried to both guilt people and then impugn their integrity.
Now, there's a way to sell stuff.
The basic lack of skills in this president, I mean, the people skills.
Okay, he comes in to get them to vote yes on his trade stuff.
He guilts them and then impugns their integrity.
Good job.
So here's the question I have.
Now, let's get ahead of the curve for a minute on the media.
Here's the question I have.
So he goes down to a huge defeat.
I mean, this looks like they may not even get 130 votes in favor, and they needed 216, 217, I guess.
And they only got about 130.
So far, they've got 299, 300 votes against in the House of Representatives.
And I'm talking about on a bipartisan basis, it's two to one Republicans against it.
It's three to one or more, I guess, four to one, Democrats against it, his own party, his own party.
Now, the president thought so much of this as part of his legacy that he personally went to the Hill to talk to Democrat members of the House.
I don't know if he's done that before, but I can't remember that he's done that before.
He should have been doing it from day one.
But here's my question for the media.
How are you going to cover this tomorrow?
You have been covering for this guy since January of 2009.
You bought the summer of recovery in June of 2009.
It's now six years later, no recovery, with unemployment ticking up.
Are you going to go back to the headlines that you laid on George Bush when he couldn't get something through Congress and he was a lame duck and he was done and he was cooked and he was irrelevant?
Or are you going to cover for him again?
What do you do now?
And it's obvious that the Republicans and the Democrats in the House, for different reasons, I think for very different reasons, have concluded that no, if I have to vote for assistance for displaced American workers because of a tree trade agreement, how good can that agreement be?
How logical?
How much sense does that make?
And then this whole thing about doesn't it open the doors to immigration and Pakistani visas and all the rest of it.
Here's the Census Bureau now.
This is the Census Bureau of the Obama administration.
There's one international migrant net into the United States every 33 seconds.
Every 33 seconds.
That's the Census Bureau.
Ann Coulter, in her book, which, by the way, went to number one in the conservative books in a lightning.
Ann Coulter in her new book says, well, one-fourth of Mexico's entire population now lives in the United States.
One quarter of the entire population.
And then my friend Lou Barletta.
Remember Lou, a congressman from Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania, in a little town from, he was the mayor of Hazleton.
And it turns out that in Hazleton, where they passed some laws, local laws, and it got national attention on the subject of immigration.
And when they did, Hispanics in Hazleton, Pennsylvania made up 5%.
That was back in 2000.
In the year 2000, 5% of Hazleton, Pennsylvania's population was Hispanic.
By 2010, 10 years later, the percentage of Hazelton's population that was Hispanic climbed from 5% to 37%.
And that's happening all over the country.
Again, part of this idea, along with the HUD housing and urban development rule that I was just talking about, to increase the diversity of every part of America.
In other words, to increase Democratic votes, among other things.
And, you know, in Dallas, they're coming up with this.
I mean, there's a neighborhood called Vickory Meadow in Dallas, Texas.
It's northeast of Dallas.
And they had the first Ebola case.
And everybody goes, what?
The first Ebola case in the United States is in Dallas?
Jennifer Staubach Gates, who's a city council member in Vicker Meadow, says, yeah, well, it's not a surprise because Vickory Meadow is now kind of a melting pot of America.
Wow.
All over the United States.
All over the United States.
Is it happening in your community?
I'm Roger Hedchcock, Infor Rush.
The number is 800-282-2882.
Don't go away.
The most amazing thing has just happened.
And I guess I've seen it before, but not too often.
The House of Representatives, in which this TAA, this assistance program for displaced American workers because of these free trade agreements, was going down to defeat on a, there were about 130 yes votes.
Suddenly, a whole bunch of votes changed, mostly Republican.
And the final vote, it looks like about 218, I think it is 28.
Okay, so, oh, they moved on to the TPA.
Okay.
I got you.
Okay, Sternley is correcting me and good.
Good information.
So here's what they did.
TAA did not pass then.
Is that what you're saying?
Okay, so the assistance program did not pass.
They went on then to the TPA, which is the authority to do this fast tracking of the three agreements, and that just passed.
219 to 211.
How close is that?
So now the president can bring these up, and Congress has a role.
What is their role?
Vote yes or vote no?
No amendments?
Boy, there's going to be a discussion, though.
This just opened the floodgates of discussion.
Stay with us.
▲
Export Selection