angeles. you can keep up-to-date with all of the news on our website, find out more about the e3 going on in l.a. on our website, aljazerra.com. there it is on your screen. that's all at a aljazerra.com. fast-track his asian trade treaty has been closed down by his own party, and troubled waters. tension builds as china builds island bases in the middle of a trade route. stop me if you have heard this before. president obama has a plan, it's considered crucial to his legacy, but kapt get it passed by the house of representatives.

a last tich face to face with party leaders is not enough to break a deep partisan divide. sounds familiar, right. there's a twist. when it comes to the global trade deal with implications, it is democrats. not republicans standing in the president's way. the trans-pacific partnership or t.p.p. has the full backing of house republican leaders like john boehner and paul ryan. standing in the way traditional allies, union leaders, environmentalists, elected democrats, and i'll speak to one of those democrats standing in the president's way in a moment. first, let me give you a quick refresher on what we are talking about here, because you hear it a lot, you read about it, it's a boring partnersh partnership, the t.p.p. it is huge. it would remove trade barriers and tariffs around the pacific rim, potentially taking a third of the world's trade, 40% of

global economic activity. many of the exact details of the deal remain unknown, because it's netted in secret. critics don't like that one bit. some parts have been leaked. the we do know that t.p.p. would create the biggest free trade zone the world has seen, encompassing 12 countries, in orange. including the united states, mexico, canada, japan, australia, others that you see on the map. there's nothing here, you don't see china, a fast-growing economy on the pacific. it's left out of the deal for now. many influential economists argue that the president and his friends on the right are doing what the u.s. needs to be doing to be competitive in the face of china's growing global influence. organised labour in the united states, and environmental activists from president obama's free trade deals cost american jobs.

any hope, many hope for a resolution were scrutled when the house voted to set a july 30th deadline. for a second vote on the trade bill. despite president obama's in person plea to house democrats. senior white house correspondent joins me from washington. of all the things you and i watch about congress, this one is really interesting. we knew that the president was not - didn't have the full support of his party. we knew that environmentalists and trade unions weren't on site. we knew about the trade deals, we didn't know this would happen, that his own parties would pass votes in opposition. >> what is crazy about it is the way they killed it, they voted against something near and dear to the heart of the democratic party. that is aid to the workers who would be displaced by a free

trade agreement, the ttp, and the larger agreement. they figured with the democrats that was the only name bringing down the fast-track vote. it would follow procedure employed by john boehner and the republican leadership. apparently it was too cute by half. there are echos of 20 years ago, in an n.a.f.t.a. battle. i covered it when president clinton was in the white house. really the same dynamic. the labour unions were skeptical. at the end of the day the clinton white house carried this over the finish line, pushing this fast-track through n.a.f.t.a. the echos of that, they feel they were sold a pig in a poke, have never gotten over it. the n.a.f.t.a. agreement, you'll talk to a congresswoman from michigan at ground zero, as far as what they perceive as loss as a result of that.

that's the dynamic. coupled with the environmentalists, and those concerned with issues, constituencies, it was not enough. today, officially president obama, despite a flurry of phone calls, one to one with john boehner, unable to come up with democratic votes, republican votes as well in order to push the first portion of it, the trade adjustment decision over fast-track. >> the fact that the dead line has been moved. does it give hope to the president. what does it mean. >> it's the only move they could do. a last-minute hail mary, a procedural move on friday. they didn't have the vote, the writing on the wall, it's back to square one, they'll figure out how to put it together legislatively. how they'll appeal to democrats,

and it could have been to get the government to vote for the trade authority, you have ideological oppositions. many of the conservative republicans consider it a form of welfare, something they were not sent to washington to do. they'll have to come up with another formulation. one may be to push through fast-track without trade authority or assistance in the senate. that will be a mathematic problem. you will not get democrats to vote for that. a problem, threatening and undermining what many considering an opponent of the president obama, not just t.p.p., the trade pack, what you described with asia, but the other in the works, the trade t-tip. >> is there anything obvious that the president can give up, to congressional democrats and delayed unions. they have -- trade unions.

they have done nothing but lose wages and manufacturing jobs. the art is that that is not causal, that's the art. what can the president do to happy. >> he'll have to continue to jaw bone the issue, i have to tell you it doesn't look like they'll have bright prospects. i think the opposition, the labour most are emboldened by what happened on friday, by the punt that the administration intended what the republican leadership suggested. they were emboldened by nancy pelosi, who came out again what the president proposed on friday. as far as that dynamic is concerned. you have to look at the leadership in congress, they are not going to vote against the rank and file.

she figured out what was going on and jumped ship, pulling the rug out. one more element i have to mention. look at what hillary clinton is going on the campaign trail. she is dancing around the issue, clesly identifying. endorsing what nancy pelosi did. so now you have it mixed up with presidential politics, hillary clinton looking at the left flank, and bennie sanders drawing huge crowds. pounding on trade agreements, a populous movement building for years, and the writing appears to be on the wall. it doesn't look good for the trade pack. >> it's a complicated issue, complicated if everyone was voting. it's complicated politically. mike viqueira for us in washington. it's a bold move to buck the bull pit. i'll speak to a prominent democratic congresswoman who

>> shot dead and the government does nothing. ss s nothing. the victims. >> my life is in danger. >> any that talks about the islamic religion is key. >> i can't allow you not to go into that. that is your job. into that because that is your job. >> only on al jazeera america.

>> my name is imran garda the show is called third rail, when you watch this show, you're gonna find us being un-afraid. the topics will fascinate you, intrigue you... >> they take this seriously... >> let me quote you... >> there's a double standard... >>...could be a hypocrite >> you're also gonna get a show that's really fair bold... never predictable... >> the should be worried about heart disease, not terrorism... >> i wouldn't say that at all... >> you'll see a show that has an impact on the conventional wisdom,

that goes where nobody else goes... >> my name is imran garda i am the host of third rail, and you can find it on al jazeera america lawmakers against giving the" fast-tracked authority is congresswoman debbie dingle. congresswoman debbie dingle joins me from the capital of washington. thank you for being with us today. let me ask you this. 95% of the world consumers lived outside of the united states presenting limitless opportunity if you believe what the president says, selling manufacturers and exporters. how do you tap into the markets and have a pivot to a time when china is about to pass the biggest economy in the world if agreements. >> i believe we have to have trade agreements.

i'm a car girl, i know we have to compete in a marketplace. that's my problem with the trade agreement, it's a plan with japan and china. and previous trade agreements that we have gotten have not resulted in equal trade. we increase exports to korea by 20,000, and increased imports into the united states by 461,000. as long as - let me give you an example. japan manipulates currency. currency manipulation gives the japanese an 8-10,000 cost, per vehicle in the market. that's not fair trade. >> let me ask you about currency. you used the word currency mapp i'mulation. let's discuss what you are talking about. united states treasury, who we are supposed to trust to deal

with this, has not labelled any country in the world since 1994 with china. what japan is doing is to boost this, quantitative easing. interest rates go down, money flows to other place, the value of the money drops. treasury only labelled three countries as manipulators in the past. japan in 1988, taiwan in 1992 and china in 1992, until 1994. what are we missing here. the u.s. government is not calling anyone a currency manipulator, but you are. >> that's what we are missing. that's why i'm not supporting the trade bill. you say we are saying the same thing. the reality is in the united states they've done this. japan has done this 400 times manipulating the currency.

we don't have enforcement mechanisms built in, we have a problem. until we deal with it, until the government starts to call out that behaviour, we are not field. >> let me ask you this, i know you come at this dishonestly. as a financial journalist, when interest rates goes down and a country does something to keep the currency liquid, you say japan did it 400 times, you thick they are doing is to be a currency manipulator as opposed to lowering interest rates to boost economy. >> you want to know. toyota made more on currency manipulation than ford did in the worldwide operation. it's a tool for them to make profits. that's a reality. this free trade agreement is not just the union. all the auto companies have been saying we have to address currency manipulation.

it's causing an unfair disadvantage in a global marketplace. our government - we can compete with everyone, i know the product we built, you know, it's great. we can't compete with the bank government. >> the obama administration administration told us - i spoke with the labour secretary, about the effect on american workers. they believe it benefits american workers. if you increase imports, you increase wagers, and offer as proof, as odd as it is to ask this of a democratic congresswoman, is the president and the administration making a false argument about the benefit of t.p.p. and increased trade to american workers? >> this is what i'm going to tell you - i have nothing but the deepest respect for the president. you are talking to someone that

disagreemented with her -- disagreemented with her huss -- disagreed with her husband on n.a.f.t.a. and the free trade. we lost a million jobs. before n.a.f.t.a. we had a $3 billion surplus with mexico. we have a $100 billion trade deficit. those figures bother me. the statistics for what happened to the trade deficit with countries that we have negotiated trade deals with, is almost a 400 - i think it's 427% - don't hold me exactly to that number, increase in the trade deficit. those are the statistics that i pay donation to. >> if you bring them up, as do others in trade unions, in fact, is there anything at all that the president can do to convince you and other democrats who feel the way you do, to support fast-track or ttp.

>> i'm unlikely to support fast-track, i don't think congress can abrogate a responsibility to look at the deals. the same thing happened this year. it bothered me. let's deal with currency manipulation. i know we have to compete in a global marketplace. we have to have a level splaying field. instead of saying ke kapt deal with it, work -- we can't deal with it, work with us. what can we do to make sure there's a level playing field for everybody. i do want to compete in a global marketplace, and i know that's our future, our government has to protect our workers the way governments in other countries are doing it. debbie dingle, pleasure having you on the show. thanks for joining us. congresswoman deborah dink representing michigan's 12th district china thinks it owns most of the china sea.

it's building island to prove it. i talk to a chinese diplomat on how far china is prepared to go to defend the islands in. >> hunted to the brink of extinction... >> we need an urgent method that stops the killing. >> now fighting back with a revolutionary new science. >> this radio carbon dating method can tell us if trade of ivory is legal. >> it could save a species... >> i feel like we're making an impact >> techknow's team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> i'm standing in a tropcal wind storm... >> ...can effect and surprise us... >> wow, these are amazing... >> techknow, where technology meets humanity! only on al jazeera america real.

the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now place in the south china sea is raising tensions between u.s. and china, and raising questions about how far the two countries were willing to push the conflict. china is building artificial islands in in reefs on the arch pell ago. they are 600 miles from the coastline and closer to other countries laying claim to them. like vietnam, malaysia and brunei.

this is significant. according to international law, a country's jurisdiction over territorial parts extends over 12 nautical miles. china is clearly outside the boundaries. in the images, you can see how far the island grew. the image on the left, you have to zoom in a little bit near the top of it, is from march 31st, 2014. the one on the right is from august 7th. that's dramatic progress in five months. here is the latest image. a close up taken on january 30th this year. tuesday, china announced that the land building part of the project should be completed within days. the next step is to build facilities, including military defense. china says it primarily intends to use the island for peaceful purposes, like maritime rescues and weather observations.

no one is buying that because the islands in are in the middle of a productive finishing areas and a busy finishing lanes. >> critic accuse china of seeking economic controls. the british intelligence group says the fiery cross reef, another island in the spratly islands has a run way - you can see it there, that should support all chinese military aircraft. and the port facilities should support most chinese surface combat and. what does it mean? i asked that question to a former chinese diplomat in washington, and a senior fellow at the china institute of international studies, a think tang of the ministry of foreign affairs. he told me it's none the united states business. >> certain on the islands in there will be and are medical facilities for defense. and at the same time, most of

the cities are for civilian use. maritime search and for assistance to the fisher many. actually, for search and rescue, and these civilian prophecies. these two functions, civilian and military co-exist. one thing is clear for china, the islands in are china's. china believes that these islands in belong to china. it's construction of these islands in - it is in compliance with international law, and has the rights to do that. >> so you have - you answered my next question, the issue is china believes they are chinese, other countries disbeaut that. in may, an editorial in a state-run chinese tabloid said conflict between china and the

u.s. will be unavoidable if washington doesn't back off for criticizing beijing for building the islands and the military facilities, because it's in disputed parts of the south china sea. where do you think the conversation goes. other countries in asia says it's not chinese territory. china says it is. the u.s. says china needs to back off building military facilities, where do you think the conflict goes? >> well, you know, first of all, before the 1970s, no other countries claimed the islands in. no other country claimed them for their own or claimed jurisdiction over the islands for centuries.

china has evidence. united states is another party in the dispute over the islands in in the south china sea. the u.s.'s it takes no say. united states rebalanced to the asia pacific, and stepped up meddling in the affairs. this complicated the situation in the south china sea. before that, china had been working with the asian countries to find a peaceful way

to maintain stability she abused relations with those countries, but the preps of the united states adds a complicating factor. it's up to the united states whether there's a conflict or not. china certainly will maintain sovereignty. and at the same time will continue to work with others to try to find a peaceful solution. that is what china will continue to do last month the u.s. dispatched a pass eyedon plane. last year you'll remember the pentagon said a chinese fighter pilot encountered a dangerous

intercept. a few yards from behind the plane and demonstrated acrobatic manoeuvres that the pentagon said were aggressive. here is my concern. you said the u.s. was meddling, and will determine whether or not this is a conflict. are you confident that one side or the other is not going to get us into a war over the islands in. >> i still thing there'll be no law in china and the united states or in the future. the two countries realise that they'll know when they'll benefit. no one will win from this kind of situation. and the two sides are working to avoid that scenario. the presence of the united states - the president of the u.s. military presence continued surveillance of the u.s.

military aircrafts in china's intrusive zones - will add up in the lead to a situation where they express concerns. it may lead to confrontation. it's two major militaries. >> in his presence, on the one hand we see the united states sending in patrol plans. on the other hand the united states engages with china. for a dialogue. between the two militaries, the two countries. that is the two countries finding ways to manage their differences. in the region officially says it does not take sides in the south china sea dispute. it's only concern with freedom from navigation in the area. china said its work on the

islands in would not affect navigation or flight paths. china could be trying to lower tensions ahead of u.s. china strategic and economic dialogue. the preem meeting between the world economies. on target tomorrow - changing your mind. scientists that say they can wipe bias out of your mind while you sleep. fascinating. >> the most fundamental aspect of this is are we practicing mind control. the quickest answer is yes changing your mind, "on target" tomorrow. that is our show. i'm ali velshi. thank you for joining us. >> brittany menard's decision to take her own life last year. sparked a national debate.

>> brittany didn't wan't to die, the brain tumor was killing her, she simply took control over how that process would go. >> now see what her husband is doing to keep his promise to change "right to die" laws nationwide. america tonight only on al jazeera america. 27 people are killed after the syrn government uses improvised weapons in the rebel-held city of du douma. you are watching al jazerra live from our headquarters in doha. also coming up. protests in hong kong as politicians debate how the city's next leader should be elected. >> the only thing that really count is have we stopped the boats and the answer a resounding yes. >> australia's prime minister evades questions over a bribery scandal despite growing evidence. and we'll tell you why