BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
For more let me bring in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who`s a Democratic
candidate for president. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
SANDERS: Good to be with you.
SCHULTZ: What is the key question and I`ll let you frame it. What is the
key question at this hour seeing that the House may go back in redo the
rules to massage this, to try to get a hundred more representatives to get
the President Fast-Track authority? How do you see it?
SANDERS: If Fast-Track passes, TPP will pass. There`s no question about
that. Ed, there is a reason why virtually every corporation in American,
the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street want this to be passed and
there is reason as you`ve just mentioned why every union, many
environmental groups or religious groups are against it. Because anyone
who looks at history understands that our trade policies from NAFTA, CAFTA
to China have been a disaster for the American workers.
Since 2001 we have lost almost 60,000 factories, not all attributable to
trade, but a lot of it is. Million of decent bank jobs, our demand now
must be the corporate America and say to them. "You want us to buy your
products. The time is long for you to stop...
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
SANDERS: ... outsourcing. Let`s create and manufacture those products here
in the United States". That`s what this is about.
SCHULTZ: Senator does the size and the magnitude of this deal and the
impact place a difference importance on Fast-Track. The question, should
Congress be able to read trade deals before they vote on him?
SANDERS: Well, that`s a hard question Ed. But I guess so. It might be a
good idea to know what`s in the legislation that you`re voting on it. And
maybe there is a reason why members of Congress cannot take staff into the
room why they cannot copy sections of what is a very complicated legal
document. Maybe there were some folks who really don`t want the American
people to know what is in this legislation.
Having said that we know enough from leaks and other sources that what
isn`t ain`t good for the American worker. We should not be competing
against Vietnamese workers who make $0.56 an hour. We should not have an
investor state dispute process in there which benefits corporate American
and we`ll make it difficult for states or governments of pass legislation
protecting the healthcare or the environment for their people.
SCHULTZ: Senator, has Hillary Clinton taken a strong enough position on
Fast-Track in your opinion?
SANDERS: Ed look, this ain`t a complicated issue. You`re for Fast-Track.
You`re against Fast-Track. This is an issue you just can`t side step. I
think Secretary Clinton obviously has not made her position clear.
SCHULTZ: Do you think she is side stepped this and as waiting for this to
just go away?
SANDERS: Well, it`s not what I think. I mean it`s obvious you`re for it
or you`re against it. I very strongly and propose the Fast-Track and the
TPP. What is Secretary Clinton`s position? I don`t know.
SCHULTZ: Senator, the Trade Adjustment Assistance kind of came out of
nowhere. It got very little attention. Is this the Democrats way of
saying to the President "We want to support you, but you`re not going to
get Fast-Track authority because of this Republican problem?
SANDERS: No.
SCHULTZ: They don`t want to help out workers...
SANDERS: No.
SCHULTZ: ... who`ve been affected? What about that?
SANDERS: I don`t think that`s it Ed. I think what the Democrats and the
House cleverly did, is use the TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance as a tool to
torpedo this agreement. And they use that as a tactic. Trade Adjustment
Assistance unto itself is a good thing. It helps displace workers. Buy
given the contacts that they`re operating and right now knowing there a
whole lot of Republicans are opposed to it. They use it as a tactic to
torpedo and slow down Fast-Track and that was a very successful and I think
smart move.
SCHULTZ: Do you think the rules committee will set up a scenario that will
have it pass in the House?
SANDERS: I truly hope not. I mean they`re trying. I mean corporate
America is not going to stand still. They love the idea of outsourcing
jobs to low wage countries. Pharmaceutical industry loves the idea of
being able to charge poor people around the world, higher prices for their
medicine. These guys are not going to give up. I hope very much that the
Democrats and some of the Republicans of the House continue to have the
courage that they`ve shown last Friday and say "No" to another disastrous
trade agreement.
SCHULTZ: Senator, do you hear about this in Iowa when you`re on the
ground?
SANDERS: All of the time. I talk about it all of the time and people are
very, very concern about this issue. Look Ed, in Iowa, in Vermont all over
this country. We have seen factories disappear and go to China and other
low wage countries. We have seen wages go down because American workers
are now being force to compete against disparate people all over the world.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
SANDERS: Across the people in Iowa or around the country are aware of
this.
SCHULTZ: And Senator, I want your personal reaction to the amount of
people that are coming out to see you speak, and meet you, and hear from
you in Iowa. We`re eight months away from the caucuses, and these are
crowds that we haven`t seen in contemporary time. What`s your reaction to
700, 800, 1000 people, 1,100 people showing up to see Bernie Sanders.
SANDERS: In Minneapolis we have a 4,000 people. It`s kind of mind
blowing. But I think Ed, what it tells us is there an enormous frustration
today with the establishment, economics and the grid of the big money
interest with the establishment politics and the degree to which the
wealthy are dominating the political system. People in this country are
angry, they want real change. They want a government that works to them
and not just the billionaire campaign contributors. So I`ve been just, you
know, kind of blown away and very gratify by the kinds of crowds we`re
getting.
SCHULTZ: Democratic hopeful and Senator Bernie Sanders with us tonight
here on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time Senator.
SANDERS: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT