Share This Article with a Friend!

Marco Rubio Provides The Final Vote To Give Away More American Jobs

Florida Billboard Calling Out Rubio On Jobs


Yesterday’s procedural vote in the Republican-controlled Senate to give Obama Trade Promotion Authority, or “fast track” as it used to be called, passed by just one vote – that of Florida’s Republican Senator and presidential aspirant Marco Rubio.

Why would Rubio vote to give Obama more power? No one knows for certain, but Senator Jeff Sessions, in a statement released after the vote gave us some insight into the dynamics of what went on on Capitol Hill prior to the vote.

“Americans increasingly believe that their country isn’t serving its own citizens. They need look no further than a bipartisan vote of Congress that will transfer congressional power to the Executive Branch and, in turn, to a transnational Pacific Union and the global interests who will help write its rules.

"The same routine plays out over and again. We are told a massive bill must be passed, all the business lobbyists and leaders tell how grand it will be, but that it must be rushed through before the voters spoil the plan. As with Obamacare and the Gang of Eight, the politicians meet with the consultants to craft the talking points—not based on what the bill actually does, but what they hope people will believe it does. And when ordinary Americans who never asked for the plan, who don’t want the plan, who want no part of the plan, resist, they are scorned, mocked, and heaped with condescension.

"Washington broke arms and heads to get that 60th vote—not one to spare—to impose on the American people a plan which imperils their jobs, wages, and control over their own affairs. It is remarkable that so much energy has been expended on advancing the things Americans oppose, and preventing the things Americans want.

"For instance: thousands of loyal Americans have been laid off and forced to train the foreign workers brought in to fill their jobs—at Disney, at Southern California Edison, across the country. Does Washington rush to their defense? No, the politicians and the lobbyists rush to move legislation that would double or triple the very program responsible for replacing them,” noted Senator Sessions.

Where were those Disney workers located you might ask? Why in Marco Rubio’s home state of Florida, where some 250 Orlando-based workers were not only let go and replaced by cheaper (and younger) foreign workers – they were also required to train their foreign worker replacements.

"I just couldn't believe they could fly people in to sit at our desks and take over our jobs exactly," one former worker, who wasn't named and is now unemployed, told The New York Times. "It was so humiliating to train somebody else to take over your job. I still can't grasp it."

Neither, apparently, can Marco Rubio.

A New York Times report detailed the situation at Disney and other companies where positions are outsourced to companies that hire foreign workers who come to the United States on H-1B visas.

That particular visa is often described as a way to employ foreign workers when companies can't find enough skilled Americans to do the work.

But that's a lie. In reality, says Beth Kassab of The Orlando Sentinel, companies have come to view workers on these visas like generic drugs —just as effective, but a lot cheaper.

It's all about profit, says Ron Hira of the Economic Policy Institute and who testified before Congress in March about the ramifications of the visa program.

Hira said he made a Freedom of Information Act request for the wages of the employees of the outsourcing firm used by Disney. The median was about $62,000.

But he says he spoke to a laid-off Disney employee who was making about $100,000.

"H-1B guest workers are cheaper than American workers and don't have much bargaining power, and any company would be foolish not to take advantage of this highly lucrative business model that has been inadvertently created by Congress and multiple presidential administrations," writes Hira, who recently published a book on outsourcing and also teaches at Howard University.

Professor Hira is being much too polite or is just plain naïve about how Congress works – Congress didn’t “inadvertently” create this highly lucrative business model – it was lobbied into it and Marco Rubio just voted to expand it, no doubt at the bidding of Disney and other beneficiaries.

As Senator Jeff Sessions noted in his post vote statement, "This ‘econometarian’ ideology holds that if a company can increase its bottom line —whether by insourcing foreign workers or outsourcing production—then it’s always a win, never a downside.

"President Obama, and allies in Congress, have won this fast-track vote. But, in exchange, they may find that they are losing something far greater: the trust of the American people. Americans have a fundamental, decent, and just demand: that the people they elect defend their interests. And every issue to come before us in the coming months will have to pass this test: does this strengthen, or weaken, the position of the everyday, loyal American citizen?”

By providing the final vote to pass TPA Marco Rubio put himself squarely on the economentarian side and against the everyday, loyal American citizen whom, we suspect, will have no trouble remembering how he voted when their turn to vote in a Republican primary election rolls around.

Share this

Not quite.

Yes, as matters turned out, Marco Rubio was the 60th vote.

However, there were 61 votes for the motion to end debate on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House bill, which added the title dealing with Trade Promotion Authority to an unrelated House bill dealing with Pensions.

Senator Bob Corker was unavoidably delayed for the two votes, but as was pointed out by Majority Leader McConnell, if he had been present, he would have voted aye.

As such if Senator Marco Rubio had voted no, unlikely as that possibility was, based on the amendments filed by Majority Leader McConnell, the bill with the House amendment to the Senate amendment, would have been immediately referred to the Senate Finance committee. That committee would have voted to send the bill, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment back to the Senate for another vote, at which time the motion to end the debate and the motion to concur would have passed with the vote of Senator Bob Corker.

Not excusing Senator Rubio's vote, nor that of all the members of the Republican Senate caucus who voted for the cloture and concurrence motions, so enabling passage of Trade Promotion Authority. Just pointing out that people may be making too much out of his vote.

On this whole topic, people may also want to read:

An Open Letter To The Honorable Members Of The Republican Senate Caucus Who Voted For The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Trade Promotion Authority).

(The FB post is open to the public.)

For the reader's convenience, follows is the complete text of that post:

"An Open Letter To The Honorable Members Of The Republican Senate Caucus Who Voted For The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Trade Promotion Authority).

Dear Honorable Senators,

In addition to the upsetting procedural maneuvers approved of by the Republican controlled House Rules Committee as well as those carried out by Majority Leader McConnell, mirroring tactics utilized by the Democratic leadership when they controlled Congress to push through the Affordable Health Care Act in the face of public opposition, your vote to end debate on the concurrence motion in the House amendment which added Trade Promotion Authority to a Senate amendment to an unrelated bill titled Defending Public Safety Employees’ Retirement Act and your subsequent vote for that motion is deeply disappointing.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commercial relations with Foreign nations. The President has the power, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the Senators present.

Trade Promotion Authority is a legislative agreement by which Congress gives up its legislative and constitutional prerogatives when it comes to trade matters, while agreeing to pre-approve existing trade deals, at least one of which has all the characteristics of a treaty, along with trade deals that may be negotiated by President Obama or the nest President.

According to public reports, the document containing the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is at least 600 pages long, and has all the characteristics of a treaty. Yet despite pleas from your constituents, you voted for the legislative agreement without first insisting that the scrubbed deal terms be released.

Many of us have read the Trade Promotion Authority bill and followed the Senate debates quite closely.

On Thursday June 18, your colleague Senator Jeff Sessions, gave a very important speech, in which he laid out his reasons as to why you and your colleagues should reject the President's request as contained in that bill:

Senate floor speech of Jeff Sessions on Thursday July 18 - Page 28 - 33

Video of his floor speech. His remarks begin at 7:01:31 and end at 8:08:53

Nothing that supporters of that legislation have said has been able to overcome the legitimate concerns that he raised in those and in earlier remarks during the Senate debate on trade.

While some have pointed to the remarks made by Senator Ted Cruz in response, his remarks simply re-iterated what he said during a radio interview on the Friday evening after the House vote on June 12, the reality is that his criticisms underscored why you and your colleagues should have insisted upon the scrubbed terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership being released prior to the Senate taking up Trade Promotion Authority:

Cruz Attacks Sessions After Friday House Vote On Trade Act. Says Sessions Making "Inaccurate, Misleading and False Claims."
Strong disagreement between Cruz and Sessions supports call not to fast track Trans Pacific Partnership or any trade deal as called for under Trade Act. House to reconsider Trade Act vote this week. Action steps you need to take.

What is most troubling is that given how section 107 of that bill is drafted, you gave great latitude and discretion to the President when it comes to setting the trade policy objectives for the existing trade negotiations, which include the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership and the Trade In Services Agreement, despite their scope, while minimizing the consultation requirements, as compared to future trade negotiations. In so doing you and your colleagues who voted for that bill pre-approved and placed those monumental trade deals on the legislative fast track, while limiting Congresses ability to withdraw that approval.

You could easily have avoided the uproar and the loss of trust that you and your colleagues who voted for that bill have suffered.

1. Require that the deal terms of the existing trade deal terms being negotiated by the President, all as referenced in section 107 of that bill, be released 90 days prior to any vote by Congress (with any proposed enabling legislation being released 60 days in advance) on whether to: (i) reject that trade deal; (ii) treat any enabling bill presented by the President in the ordinary course; (iii) treat the trade deal as a treaty, so requiring that the President obtain the advise and consent of the Senate by way of a two thirds vote of those Senators present before entering into the treaty; or (iv) elect to apply the trade promotion procedures as set out in section 103 of that bill and follow that path.

2. Despite the threats being made by the Obama administration and others, adopt the Portman amendment concerning manipulation, thereby honoring the principles of "free and fair trade" as set out by Ronald Reagan.

President Reagan on Free and Fair Trade

3. Strengthen the provisions in section 106 to reflect the concerns raised by Senator Jeff Sessions in his proposed amendments involving immigration.

In doing so, you would also have ensured that you were following the intent of the Constitution, which is to act as a negative restraint on both Congress and the President.

Instead, in voting for that bill, you opted to ignore the widely held concerns of the public and the intent of the Constitution.

In response to those votes, Senator Jeff Sessions released a statement, writing at the end:

"President Obama, and allies in Congress, have won this fast-track vote. But, in exchange, they may find that they are losing something far greater: the trust of the American people. Americans have a fundamental, decent, and just demand: that the people they elect defend their interests. And every issue to come before us in the coming months will have to pass this test: does it strengthen, or weaken, the position of the everyday, loyal American citizen?”

Furthermore, as Senator Jeff Sessions wrote yesterday in response to the Obamacare decision by the Supreme Court:

"Whether on socialized medicine, executive amnesty, or any other action which erodes our Constitution and the authority of Congress, conservatives will have to rally the everyday voting citizen. There is no greater power than winning the trust and loyalty of the American people. We will need to put down the donor agenda, pick up the banner of the American worker, and carry it to victory."

In voting for that bill you failed to heed his wise counsel as given throughout the trade debate and reflected in those statements.

For all of those reasons, I am obliged to write:

Shame on you ladies and gentlemen, shame.

P.S. To those of you seeking re-election in 2016, you will need our support. We are watching your words and deeds very closely. We do not want the Democratic Party to regain control of the Senate. With your votes on Trade Promotion Authority as drafted, you are not helping that effort. Some of you are or will face contested primaries. May the person who has a proven track record of following and applying common sense constitutional conservative principles in fighting for and honoring the just demands of everyday, loyal American citizen win. To those of you facing your electors in 2018 and beyond, just remember that elephants do not forget."

Shame on Senator Rubio

Please remove yourself from the presidential race...we do NOT need this anti-American worker presidential term extended another four years. It appears that is exactly what will happen with a President Rubio. Save yourself some $$$ and grief and pull up stakes now. Your vote DISGUSTS me!