will discuss the free trade agreements. panama, and columbia. cbs news correspondents sharyl attkisson and the investigation of the atf which unintentionally let drug -- guns reach mexican drug cartels. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: thursday, october 13, 2011. looking at a pre-dawn picture of the united states capitol. yesterday congress passed long delayed trade deals with colombia, panama, and south korea. a win for the white house but in the process they lost a number of democratic votes. we will talk later in the program about what it all means for the economy and politically with the two guests from congress -- charles bass from new hampshire and marcy kaptur

from ohio and we will be taking your telephone calls, talking to high school students and looking at coverage of this and papers today. later on, the south korean president comes to congress for a speech before the joint session. and then to the white house for a state dinner. lots of festivities marking the free-trade agreement with south korea. we open up our phone lines for your comments this morning. here are the numbers -- as always, you can also be involved with email or send us a tweet. thursday morning. it is a foggy day in the nation's capital. we will try to break through all of that with the discussion of the passage of the free-trade agreement. with so much discussion about the economy, we would like to hear what you think about this

and whether this is a plus for the economy. whether it will be a job creator or something that will affect jobs in the united states in a negative way. all lines are open and you can send an e-mail or tweet or comments on facebook. a story from "the new york times" about this. someone who has been following these trade negotiations for quite awhile, writes for bloomberg and business week -- "bloombergbusinessweek" has a

story about the passage. what do you think about the "the new york times" analysis? guest: this is actually the biggest in terms of a trade partner, the biggest trade partner we have a free-trade agreement with. since a naphtha -- since nafta and 1994 -- talking about south korea. it is a larger deal compared to the ones that were signed in the past decade or so. and by the white house estimated it will support or create 70,000 u.s. jobs and add about $10.9 billion in terms of exports to south korea. so, smaller than some of the global deals we have seen but a pretty big trade partner nonetheless. host: from the reading in the papers this morning that suggested it would be a plus for agriculture in the united states especially, and more

immediately. but it could in fact affect negatively manufacturing jobs because jobs might migrate to some of the countries. guest: that is certainly one arguments, an argument often offered by labor unions and certainly the textile industry. in the case of south korea. but there is also a lot of market opening in terms of financial service opportunities. countries like citigroup that have lobbies for these deals. you are seeing not just the traditional manufacturing sector is looking to export but also increasingly trade is done in services, things we can do in the u.s. and terms of sectors that maybe not as developed in the other countries. host: on lines open for you to talk about the free-trade agreements and your thoughts on the pluses and minuses. we will show you some newspaper stories. mr. martin is here not to necessarily answer all of your

questions but specific -- to your specific comments. , a's hear from a viewer republican from florida. caller: i thank you for the opportunity as an american citizen. i am personally very happy about the passage of these three bills -- that congress could come together. i feel it would open us to be allies with south korea, which is needed. but the main thing is jobs. i have seen millions of americans be displaced. i was one of them. and i was so happy -- i feel we can finally open up to have our cars in korea and around the world and not just their cars coming to our country, to open up jobs for autoworkers, for the exports of our agriculture in

texas and iowa -- and i come from the jersey, which is the garden state. so i was happy it was passed. thank you so much for helping me speak and i really pray that millions of americans get back to work very soon. host: thanks for your comments from florida. specifically she talked about the automotive industry. we have seen an influx of korean cars in this country the past decade. what is the automotive trade situation like between the two? guest: we certainly have a deficit right now with south korea in terms of auto exports. a lot more kias and hyundai's on american roads than ford or chrysler on south korean roads. the president made the point rhetorically in his speech. but there also sectors that will

benefit more than the auto sector. things like machinery and parts to be sent to south korea. also, we mentioned agriculture -- chemicals and plastics, another big winner in terms of this deal. and pharmaceuticals. seeing companies like pfizer who have lined up behind these agreements. a lot of diversity in terms of companies who lobbied for these deals. while the auto sector had certainly been an icon of american manufacturing and something that has been forwarded by the obama administration as an example, lots of other sectors -- also with colombia, agriculture is a big one. host: a regular twitter participant in our program is not happy about this. here is what she tweets.

the next phone call is from little rock. this is friday. caller: i got a question and a comment. a first of all, the past is a good representation of the future. since we have been having these trade deals we have been having a deficit. host: are you there? finish your thought, please. caller: a pass -- the past is a good record. but the nafta and calf that, we have been having a deficit. but these deals i am really worried as much. i understand they are only going to let us get some a 5000 cars and their market when they have unlimited in our market. if you are going to be free trade -- i don't care about free trade. fair trade. for every car they get in our country we should allow us same thing in their country. it is not so much about free trade, it should be fair trade. free trade meaning one to one.

like asset, the pass is a good representation. we have been carrying a deficit ever since we started the diallo so it is in sainted think it will change -- what will make this change? what is going to make a difference? host: let me show two sets of numbers from the u.s. trade representative office. a look at the north american free trade agreement countries. 2010 latest numbers -- total two-way trade, $918 billion, u.s. goods exported four runs and 12 billion and imported, 506 billion, so a trade deficit -- u.s. goods exported 412 billion --

do these numbers make his case? guest: certainly the trade deficit is something policymakers have focused on and it has been the case with the nafta. part of what explains the trade deficit with mexico is the rising price of oil. we have had a huge ramp up in the price of oil in the past couple of decades. so, that partly accounts for it there. certainly the u.s. at a trade deficit with countries such as china, which had been a big focus for lawmakers in the last few weeks as well, taking of a bill in the senate and actually passing a bill in the senate two days ago that would punish china and try to apply pressure to have them let their currencies appreciate. of course, a stronger currency makes their exports more expensive for u.s. buyers but would also help u.s. exports lifted to china. so, that trade deficit is

certainly something lawmakers are aware of and have been working to address. host: george, republican from florida. caller: i got a comment. it appears to me that the american stores selling 85% to 90% foreign goods and american goods and more. this is what is killing american jobs in the unites the states. your foreign junk you buy, it is not worth crap. two or three weeks later it is tearing up, your shoes and clothes. you want to put americans back to work put american goods back to stores. check with your wal-mart and k- mart and all your clothes -- nothing but junk. host: independent from pennsylvania. are you in favor of these trade pacts? caller: no, not even close. to the tweet that came in about a slave labor, this is exactly what happened. a south korean contractors with

american owns companies, quotes around that, would get slave labor, no wages, given back to south korea and they will sell it back to us. it is absolutely disgusting. unbelievable host: next, a comment from miami. this is david, a democrat. are you there? you are on the air. go ahead, please. caller: my concern is that -- with a citicorp and the pharmaceuticals that push these things, they are not bringing profits back to the u.s. and that is the big problem. while citicorp bring the money back to the u.s.? they will hire folks that will be career and in the financial- services industry because you can go to korea and to farmers -- financial-services without

hiring koreans and for pharmaceuticals you do the same thing. the big corporations will benefit financially and they will not create jobs in the u.s. i don't think the way it is crafted is beneficial because we need bluecollar middle-class americans working, and that is where the manufacturing jobs, in and that is where we will lose jobs. host: thank you so much. listening to the callers, i do not think we have had one positive one this morning. i want to talk about the politics. the president lost the democratic votes in both houses of congress on this. when you think about the occupy wall street protests and the tea party movement, to this is one area where these two disparate groups might have common views, not in favor of free trade agreements. what does this all mean for this upcoming election? guest: trade, as i think a lot of analysts would say, voting for trade agreements is not a

terribly possible -- popular position. the u.s. trade representative said in the past that's a big part of his job is to convince americans that they actually benefit from these agreements. numerous public opinion polls showing that 7 or 8 or 10 americans -- out of 10 americans say these trade agreements are bad for american workers. it is a difficult task explaining that imports -- that consumer prices are affected by these deals in a way that benefits most people. and you have also seen a lot of lawmakers up for reelection in 2012. i am thinking of pennsylvania senator bob casey and ohio senator sherrod brown who in the past have been against a number of u.s. free-trade agreements and have been critical of that policy and also voting against all three deals last night. and two of the more outspoken

members of opposing that. a very controversial issue, especially in states that have a large manufacturing employment base. host: gary duncan on twitter has this point of view -- who might be interested to know, in the three countries this is front-page news. this is from the internet this morning. colombia, you can see their front page coverage which shows the number of years this was first initiated under george bush in 2008. the photograph of him on the front page. all the way to 2010. as you can see, front-page coverage. this also from colombia has its free-trade agreement on its front page this morning. let's take a look at panama where it has front-page coverage in that country as well. moving along to the korean

times, they and the time difference had the committee coverage. you can see them showing the protester. but right below that they have the coverage of the china currency bill debate that happen. a u.s. senate passes china's currency bill. let's take a call from indiana. boyce is a republican. you are on the air. caller: good morning to you. first real quick, first-time caller. i had a quick comment and a quick question for mr. martin. i served in the united states army in south korea about 10 years ago and i know for an absolute fact you can get a top- of-the-line luxury caribbean- made car for about $2,000 american. -- korean-made car. a 40,000 of a pickup truck would not compete. are we addressing the laws in

korea. we were serving jiggle on the weekends we would get taylor made our money suits. -- will we were serving their, on the weekends we would get taylor-made armani suits. but we might not gain anything because there are no decent patent laws. host: patents laws. guest: it has been an issue the trade representative's office has been pushing more and more. in the korea deal which was negotiated mostly under president george w. bush, but also in this transpacific partnership which of the obama administration is currently negotiating with eight other nations in southeast asia and latin america. on the issue of the car

exports, certainly ford, gm, chrysler have all been in favor of these deals. after revisions that were made, renegotiation of the auto chapter by the obama administration in his first two years in office -- these changes scaled-back some of the tariffs so that korean cars would not enter the u.s. as quickly or as cheaply as they previously would have. and that brought forth, who initially opposed the agreement, -- brought ford, who was initially opposed the agreement, as well as the united autoworkers union. but skeptical about how much u.s. auto makers will sell in korea because south koreans by about 92% of their cars domestically. and it is not just an issue of tariffs and regulatory barriers. there are also things like consumer taste which, in south korea, has been very favorable

to piat and hyundai -- kia and hyundai. price is one issue. host: frank from new orleans. ibp. caller: good morning, and how are you? i am an owner operator, i own my own truck. the comments i have about the free-trade agreements -- the only thing i see helping would be agriculture and transportation. manufacturing will just shipped overseas. korea is next to china. when we go down and pick up containers, the only ones we see are from china. it is not going to -- nafta, the most ridiculous thing. trucks coming from canada and mexico, pick it up loads and going right back to the country -- of course, they don't do that. i feel manufacturing will move to korea instead of china so it

will not help our manufacturing at all. host: we talked in the beginning about the manufacturing impact as opposed to agriculture and transportation. does the caller have it right? guest: the point that a lot of the opponents to these free trade agreements are making in terms of manufacturing moving overseas -- but a lot of lawmakers have also been embracing the reality that a lot of these manufacturing -- but less complicated manufacturing, senator chuck schumer of new york pointed to toys as one issue, a lot of manufacturing of toys has moved particularly to china, and it goes out of the way to make the point that the yuan bill punishing china for an undervalued currency would not necessarily bring back some of the jobs and the simpler

manufacturing process. what he sees being threatened down by weaker currencies and other markets are some of the more high and jobs that require more education and more training and typically have higher average salary. things in the service industries ec's increasingly moving overseas and in microchips, computer chips, things that are high-volume manufacturing processes and trying to stop the jobs from moving overseas. host: connecticut liberal mom tweets this -- simultaneous debating in the house and senate. if you had c-span and c-span2 you could catch the flavor and a tenor. occasionally bits of humor. let's listen to one of those moments from the house floor yesterday. >> the korea trade agreement is

bad for workers to carry a lunch bucket like this one. at this time, i would like to yield one-and-a-half minutes to the diamond from north korea, mr. -- north carolina. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one and a half minutes. >> my colleague scared me there for a minute. host: korea on the mine yesterday. waukegan, illinois. mike, a democrat. caller: hello? good morning. great day do you. to the thing is -- the thing is -- host: did you lose your train of thought? we are talking about the trade deals with korea, colombia, and panama. caller: as far as korea, yes, ma'am. sorry.

host: i understand what it is like on national television. we hope you call back in the future. host: member of congress also take into twitter bearing to -- twitter. let's listen to bernie sanders has been some amounts of time on the senate floor yesterday opposing the free-trade agreements. he tweeted -- it was re-tweeted yesterday. speaker of the house john boehner also used twitter to get his message across. we will show you his tweet in just a second. there is. let me ask you about the common ground aspect. congress has not been able to come to agreement on that much

of anything. why this? guest: trade has been a traditionally more bipartisan. we have been -- seen close votes with cafta that was passed several years ago but particularly especially in the u.s. senate trade is more of a bipartisan issue. nafta, which we talked about earlier, was begun under a republican president george h. w. bush and concluded under a democratic president bill clinton. these deals were negotiated under george w. bush and then sent to congress after some revision of different parts by president barack obama, a democrat. we see a lot of crossover across the aisle. the u.n. does international trade commission typically comes forward with estimates of what it would add to jobs in the u.s.

economy. so there is a lot of coverage given to lawmakers in favor of these deals and evidence of what they would add to exports. what they would erode manufacturing jobs and overall employment in view of this, which many contend, it is a complicated issue. but there is a lot more evidence for these helping the u.s. gdp over all. host: the white house memo written in "the new york times" by mark lambler, and he has a piece this morning. here is how he starts in --

mr. lee has a biography coming up next month which talked about his personal rise from poverty to the leadership of south korea. redder than red carpet -- coverage of the state dinner, c- span 3 at 6:30 p.m. eastern time and also on the internet act c- span.org. at the next comment on the free- trade pact comes from norman, republican from memphis. caller: i can't see where it is going to do us any good. we have two plants that make shirts and also we had two shoe factories in our same town. when nafta came, it all left. i can't see how we can compete with our labor when we have $26

an hour they are paying and they are doing $1 to $3 an hour. without equal with the labor, i do not see how we can compete either way. if you are a normal person -- retired people -- the crunch of the money, you can't do what. that is what my comments is. and this was in 1975. but i see how we cannot compete with the unions the way -- i am really scared if war comes, what we are going to do with us being manufacturers -- with all of our manufacturing going overseas. host: appreciate your comments. bob is next. petersburg, virginia. ibp. caller: good morning.

if people listen to him, he is right. what this is going to do, it will make the 10% who own all the money richard. it will do nothing for the middle-class or the lower class to put them back to work. already wall street is dominating everything and causing prices to steadily go up. the only way this country is going to get back is when the middle-class and lower class had a chance, getting up with baseball bats and guns and take it back. it is sad to say but that is happening. host: lots of angry or concern the callers we are hearing from this morning. this last caller said it will only help the top class and not the middle or the lower. could you help make the case that those in favor of the trade for the lower classes and also middle-class? guest: the argument put forward

by a lot of supporters of these free trade agreement is that if you are adding to u.s. economic growth, the effect of that alternately is to boost u.s. employment. we have certainly seen cases in the last several decades where increases in u.s. productivity allowed companies to make something that they would have made with three workers 10 years ago with two workers, and perhaps one worker, because of a lot of computerization of these processes, a lot of automation. although we are seeing a rebound in sales for some of these companies, it has not always been a rebound in employment. so the there is a case that can be made. one important thing we have not talked about yet that president obama made a centerpiece of his trade agenda was written when the trade adjustment assistance program that actually helps

people who have lost their jobs due to import competition and foreign competition to get retraining and extended unemployment insurance as well as a health-care tax credits. president obama and the trade representative ron kirk repeatedly pointed at this as a prerequisite for passing the trade deals. ambassador kirk likes to speak about keeping faith with american workers by moving forward with that kind of retraining. there is an acknowledgement that even as these deals bring in imports at a cheaper price and help consumer prices for americans, it is also important to help to those people who are disproportionately negatively affected by such deals. host: our guest writes for bloomberg.com and "bloomberg

businessweek." this tweet -- minneapolis. aaron is a democrat. caller: i am a union member. but let's do a reality check. the first thing, that anything that washington suggests we should disregard. if you look at the state of our nation's economy right now, it is clear that washington is close. i am democrat but i am talking both parties. if i went to work today with a 10 or 15 people and we had a list to get done -- we would get it done or get fired. we don't get asked back. neither party has that basic fundamental work ethic, that we sent them to washington to govern their campaigning.

listen, everybody in washington. we sent you to work to govern. you are campaigning. two distinct things. to get into fair trade -- really the labels are wrong. you are talking about fair trade or free trade. what we have going on here is agreed -- greed trade. a tiny fraction of people and companies get rich while exploiting the workers of the planet. if you could look at mexico, which 60 or 70 years ago, three- quarters of their economy was nationalized and people had good wages in mexico. and what has happened under nafta and other economic migrations is private investment, a lot from the united states, has come in and consumed mexican industry and consumed the electrical industry. and what has happened is their wages have gone down and now

people are crossing the border in the united states illegally to get a job. a free trade has ruined the wages in mexico. it has created nothing good for the mexican people and nothing good for the american industry. a fraction of people in the u.s. are getting rich. host: we will run at that point. the point about people crossing the border -- may not connect with what he said that yesterday read a story about border crossings at the lowest point in 10 years. it is now set a cause of people coming across the border? guest: certainly the economic opportunities available in do you pub best have been a large cause for immigration -- opportunities available in the u.s. have been enlarged calls for immigration. host: keeping people in mexico -- did it works in that affect? guest: a lot of scholars who have studied the issue say you

have growth on both sides -- sides. you had some relative growth in the u.s., perhaps greater opportunities. if but growth -- but growth in mexico as well. whether nafta exacerbated it, it is a difficult question. there were a lot of companies pushing for nafta who said, yes, it will help growth in the mexican economy and help develop the economy, which you have certainly seen higher rates of growth in mexico van and a lot of the world in the last several years. but there is also this of interest for some of these companies. achieving the greatest growth possible in the u.s. if it means boosting u.s. opportunities and prosperity more so than in some other trading partners, i think that is part of the inherent capitalist ideal that underlines a lot of the ambitions of these companies. i think they are in business to

be making money and to maximizing profitability. host: 10 or 12 minutes left in this conversation. and then two members of congress would be with us. later on we will have students from the university of tulsa who will ask questions as the c-span bus visits. but i want to get in a couple of other news stories. birthrates reflecting recession --

back to telephone calls. another minneapolis caller. this is richard. caller: yes. if you go to these other countries like korea and colombia, the people are much more dedicated to their homegrown products. i think obama had it right earlier in his administration. i believe he put a tariff on steel and tires. and at one to say one thing to congress and the president. we have been in a trade war for 40 years and it has been on us. we used to run the whole country on tariffs before we ever had income tax. so, i think we should be maybe steadily increasing a terrible

one at a time, and especially go after china because they are just ripping us off something terrible. host: thank you. are you there? what is going to go what? caller: our food costs will go up the roof because we are sending agriculture over there. look at how much they have gone up lately. we are getting ripped off something terrible. host: food products have experienced -- will food products experience higher costs from exporting? guest: probably unlikely. a lot of these exporters looking to send their products abroad in terms of meat producers, beef, poultry, chicken we have seen at a lot, looking to export to south korea and colombia as well as for its and nuts -- fruits and nuts, these producers say

they are being locked out of opportunities and they would have the opportunity to sell more, and not to divert from the u.s. simply to sell more. food inflation has been an issue over the last several years. but to say it is attributed to free trade -- remember, the philosophy that underlies free- trade is a more efficient allocation of resources. and the idea erecting tariffs is going to lower costs within a country when it makes it harder to buy produce from other countries as well would make it more expensive for us to buy produce and agricultural goods from a country like colombia, i do not think has been backed up by a lot of evidence we have seen in the last couple of decades. host: two front-page political stories to point out. "the wall street journal" above the fold -- cain vaults to lead and hold -- in poll.

but contrast that with the front page of "the washington post." we are talking with you about congress passing a free-trade pact. live coverage of the joint session of congress at 4:00 this afternoon and a south korean state dinner at the white house tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. jim message from seattle --

next is a call from oregon. mike, democrat. caller: good morning, susan. you are one of my favorite people. thank god for c-span. hello? host: i am listening. caller: i immediately picked up from the caller two calls ago. he hit it on the head. it seriously -- susan in, please, don't cut me off -- corporate fascist theocracy. it runs deep and it is really --

it is based on the military industrial complex. i realize it sounds like catch phrases but it is so true bear and this is why we have a 1% problem in this country. e the 99ers throughout the country. we need to get the word out, get in the streets -- baseball bats -- no, and hope not, but it is really close to that. i just hope that there is a form -- not revolution, but evolution that takes place in this country because we really do need -- again, i feel like i am peeing against the wind. why is it this country is the only one on the planet that has no form of health care for its citizens? every other industrialized nation. why? greed runs rampant. host: thank you from oregon. two stories from taxes in the

papers today. "the washington times" -- harry reid's proposal for 5.6% surtax on anyone earning $1 million or more. he says it would work -- pile on top of the marginal tax rate, and throw in state and local income-tax as and the medicare surtax created under obamacare and it all adds up to an average marginal income-tax rate of 55%, which would leave the u.s. with the third highest tax rate among developing nations in the 30-member organization for economic cooperation and development -- sweden and denmark are at the top. contrast that with this, sure to make its way into the debate.

i want to get back to the white house and the future for trade. in "the wall street journal" this morning, free-trade pact long road to passage ends. what did the white house indicate that attitude was going forward on trade? guest: the white house has been working on this transpacific partnership, which is the u.s.

and its other nations whose combined trade would actually exceed nafta. and looking to cement that partnership by november. president obama is going to be hosting leaders from asia pacific economic cooperation group in honolulu, hawaii, on november 10-12. they are looking to reach a broad outlines for that agreement by a month from now. there are other issues certainly facing the administration, such as, does russia joined the world trade organization, something the russians indicated they are interested in the and the obama administration has said would be positive as well. but also senator robb portman, who is a republican from ohio and a former u.s. trade

representative who actually launched the negotiations for the korea trade deal and worked with colombia and panama, all three, that he would like to see the white house produced more -- pursue more bilateral agreements, and see that kind of relationship pursued more aggressively as well, but besides the multilateral they are worth of one. host: not surprisingly, u.s.- iran relations dominate the front pages. the off-lead in "the washington post" today. "the new york times" -- and from "washington times" this morning --

the armedl cover services meeting today and leon panetta and martin dempsey will be testifying before the house armed services committee. if you can see live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern time and no doubt there will be discussion about the events this meat -- week and the announcements from the justice department. our last caller from this first segment is from eureka -- good morning, myron. republican vin caller: it does not seem to matter whether we had a democrat or republican in the white house or congress, the leadership of the republican and democrat party, they all work together. what they are working for is globalization. if you take a look at the european union, it was set up three different trade agreements. this is what this is all about. we are going to lower the standard of living in the united states so we can be comfortably merged with the rest of the world. it is all about globalization

and of this world dictatorship is what these people are working for. it is not for anybody's well- being, not for the american people, and it is not going to help the the people in these other countries that we are going to have these trade agreements with. it is all part of the globalization. and we are being sold out by the republicans and democrats. it doesn't seem to matter. host: thank you for your call. eureka, south dakota. we will begin two segments with members of congress but i want to say thank you for our guest for giving his reporting on trade. you can find him on the internet at bloomberg and also "bloomberg business week." he will continue to cover these agreements. during our break, we will give you a flavor of what it was like on the house floor yesterday. let us listen to rosa dalora from new haven, connecticut -- connecticut, and then we will be

joined by congressman charles bass from the hampton. >> i rise to voice my strong opposition to this trade agreement. like that two other nafta-style of rivets, we know it will lead to the outsourcing of american jobs, potentially displacing 159,000 u.s. workers according to the economic policy institute. it will provide chinese businesses engaged in the transshipment of goods through third countries and ease the opportunity to take advantage of tariff rates intended for south korean goods. according to the korea customs service, the quantity of products illegally labeled "made in correa" doubled from 2008 until 2010 -- "made in korea." primarily from china and southeast asian nations. chinese companies have a history of trans shipping goods to the

u.s. through other countries so they can avoid duties against them for illegal practices. portss proximity and 16 and clothing of the world's fifth largest makes them a usual targets. investigations by u.s. customs in recent years have resulted in indictments and convictions for a variety of duty-evasion schemes that hurts america, including cases like steel wire garment hangars and honey from china. there are no provisions in this agreement to guard against a potential flood of chinese products shipped through korea. that means we can expect an increase of cheap chinese goods into our market, again, to the detriment of u.s. workers, if we pass this agreement. millions of jobs have been lost because of our trade deficit with china and chinese products from chicken to toys have posed

serious health concerns. what american families need right now is a real job creation. we should be focused on policies that would put americans back to work here at home in good, well paying jobs, that cannot be outsourced. and what we do not need are shortsighted to trade deals that open a back door for chinese companies to exploit. host: we continue our discussion about free trade agreement and their effect on the u.s. economy. here at our table once again from new hampshire is congressman charles bass, a republican representing the second district of the state, and concord and nashua are major cities. you support the idea of free trade in these agreements. guest: i certainly do. i have been one of the most ardent supporters of free trade. at some point, trade issues are somewhat parochial. in the state of new hampshire, one out of every four jobs is related -- you can directly or very closely in directly to

exports. one out of every four jobs. if we did not have the free trade agreements that we had in america, our unemployment situation would probably be worse than the average in the u.s. right now it is about 5%, our unemployment rate. for us to be able to export not only manufactured goods, but most importantly, services, around the world, is important. and that passage of the free- trade agreement, particularly south korean, it will result in a significant increase for business in the state of new hampshire and in my opinion, the country. host: with your 5% unemployment rate, almost really half the national average -- 10 or 12 years ago when we used to visit areas in the southern tier of the state deede i might be off a little bit -- you saw the and the building of the earlier manufacturing age. what has brought that region back?

>> new hampshire and northern massachusetts have got through many of allusions -- starting as an agrarian economy and then moving into the mill business when the mills or on rivers and they were essentially grinding grain and making cloth from flax. subsequent to that it became a more industrial -- textiles, shoes, tanneries, and so forth. then new hampshire moved into a period, and northern wing would really, where the economy really was not strong at all. then in the 1950's and 1960's, the great industrial complexes of america began to move in -- the route 128 corridor, raytheon and defense contractors. then we went through a period in the 1990's where new hampshire and massachusetts had high employment rates in the high- tech industry. we had the second-highest per

capita high-tech employment force in the country. only the silicon valley beat us. now that is off somewhat and the key to new hampshire and my region is regiona, exports and b, diversity. we are not a car state or agriculture state or a state that has any particular big piece of the economy. we are very diverse. the average size of the employee work force is five or six people. so, we tend to weather the bad times better but we don't have the good jobs and economic growth we have experienced elsewhere in the country when times are good. host: we took about 17 or 18 calls and quite a few tweets and the ratio is like this -- this would be people against and this would be supporters. here is an e-mail directed to you --

guest: i am businessman there i was in the manufacturing business. and i always used to want to sort of hide behind the wall of a territory, where we would be assured and nobody could compete with us and we would not have to commit what anybody -- compete with anybody else. but we quickly discovered when you read to the edge of the territory, the ability to grow and become something greater that we were before has ended and we begin to sell outside our territory and then a big argument and then our competitors would sell inside, and so on. the same is true with trade. you have to look at the big picture. the u.s. economy is gigantic compared to what it was even tan or 15 years ago. when i entered congress in the

mid-1990s and the budget was balanced, revenues to the federal government were less than $2 trillion and now it is $3.50 trillion -- the gross domestic product was down in, say, $3 or $4 trillion range and now it is $40 trillion. not because we are selling to one another -- now it is $14 trillion. that does not create growth. we need to as a nation progressed to where -- beyond the 1950's and the 1960's and 1970's and keep expanding our ability to thrive and prosper and we can't do it by selling back and forth to each other. to the caller, i say, it is always disruptive. nobody wants to lose a job because of foreign competition. i understand that and i can't agree more. but a lot of new jobs are created, especially in my state, that relates to our ability to have good trade agreements with foreign nations. host: fredericksburg, virginia.

charles, republican. caller: good morning. some stunning comments. we are a manufacturer and i can tell you everything i hear out of this fellow -- it may be benefiting new hampshire but when you step back and look at the big picture it is not benefiting the united states. we travel a lot to korea. if you think we will see even one out of the 100 cars, u.s. -- in korea, compared to korea to the u.s., you are absolutely not looking at this with an open eye, period. the previous caller just said that every single country we have an agreement with, we have a negative trade balance and nobody addresses that. when you have $95 billion to this country and a few billion to this country, that is where the jobs are going. manufacturing is the key to this country. i would like the gentleman to answer this question -- how you expect us to compete when i have minimum wage, osha, epa all the

other costs that make this country great and pay people livable wages -- how can i compete with the koreans and chinese and vietnamese and colombians? host: what do you manufacture? caller: we manufacture products for law enforcement and 85% of our products go overseas and reason why is we all u.s. patents, our products are very good and nobody in those countries make that product. we have been ripped off. our intellectual property has been stolen by the chinese. host: help me understand what would benefit your business. you are already selling overseas. you have patents. you talk about the fact that our own regulations and policies here help lift the american public. i am having a hard time putting together what would most benefit you. caller: i am sorry, it is not really benefiting me.

our company does well because we do unique products. we really do stop that nobody else in the world, not on wood, makes. and we sell -- our clients are some of the highest -- our reputation. host: if you are arguing on behalf of other manufacturers, i still ask the question, what policies would most benefit american manufacturers? caller:- t -- the negative t word, tariffs. a manufacturer in korea, his total costs are 28 cents but in the united states, because of the issues like osha and minimum-wage, my costs are 35 cents. that is just a reality. there is no way i can compete. even in the largest economy in the world, which is the united states and, yes, sir, we can sell to each other. host: just want to jump in for -- so the congressman has a chance.

guest: first of all, i think what i hear you saying is you are in favor of trade but you what the trade to be on a level playing field, to be fair. and you made reference two or three times to osha and minimum wage and burdensome regulation and i agree. although i did not recommend abolishing regulations. i think regulations or regulatory schemes put forth by federal and state authorities that are not necessary, that don't compete well in a cost- benefit ratio, they should be reviewed it and they go way overboard in some areas. but your company -- and again, i don't want to focus only on your company -- depends on exports for 85% of your business. in the caribbean free-trade agreement, their tariffs on our products are four times higher than our terrace on the bears. there is a potential that your product will sell a lot cheaper in south korea if you have any issue but is over there and

there are a lot of other people who would benefit in the same the underlying question, however, of competitiveness is not as simple as a regulation only. i learned at a pretty early point that we tend to try to look for the real deal. for example, i would see a press brake for sale in massachusetts, only $15,000. the only problem with it, if you compare it to what is made today, you have to make everything twice rather than spend $15,000 on it, you spend $150,000. the manufacturing concerns are second to none in terms of competing with those, despite the fact that we have to pay

higher salaries and benefits. guest: this caller is an independent. caller: the only numbers that matter is we go between 300 billion and half a trillion dollars per year in a trade deficit. that is what matters. the only way to get rid of these people is to kick out the incumbent representatives and senators and president every time we vote. that is all i have to say to the cinnamon. guest: i appreciate your position -- that is all i have to say to this gentleman. guest: if every single person were to be thrown out of the office, the voters that support these people need to have

representatives that will support their businesses. if their businesses are to survive, they have to be able to sell their products. i traveled from one manufacturer and always ask people, how much are your business is here? it is amazing. the last caller, 85% of his business is export. imagine what would happen to his business if we had a trade war with his customers in other countries. i do not think his employees would be voting for people to go to washington who will create a situation where the company would close its doors. host: he is in congress on the trade subcommittee.

i want to talk to you about this note in the "the new york times." the state's primary could be as early as december 6 or 13th. if you are a betting man, is there going to be a december primary? guest: absolutely. it is not easy to put the mechanics together. new hampshire has a law that sets its primary seven days before a like event and any other state. it gives the secretary of state the latitude to set that date at whatever point he thinks meets

letter of the law. currently, nevada has a primary that is set for mid-january. we will have to -- we will send it back at such a point that it complies with new hampshire law. this is not about condemning any other state for moving their primary back. they have their right to do it. what what it is about is allowing candidates the opportunity or the people of this nation the opportunity to see candidates and their real skin, and not in an environment where they are all dressed up. people in new hampshire get to meet every single candidate. when you watched c-span covering events, you can see them in an environment where they can make mistakes or you find out about their real personalities. as the secretary of state of new hampshire said yesterday, it is

the only chance for little people to have access to the future leaders of this nation. whether it is new hampshire or somewhere else, it needs to be a focus on that process. otherwise, we will never know who we are collecting. host: your home town newspaper has the front page story, at " the debate raises cain." handicap for us what is going on. >> the history of the primary system in the united states has favored the candidate who steps out and has the courage to establish the principles of his or her party and demonstrate that the individual is willing

to have different ideas. look at steve forbes and the flat tax and howard dean, dwight d. eisenhower. they were all candidates that broke the mold. what herman cain did in this debate the other night with this nine-nine-nine plan. he persuaded people that he was willing to -- nobody disputes his credentials. they believe that he is willing to step out and come up with the thoughts and ideas that are not the same ones being considered by everyone else. i would expect that herman cain will continue to be a factor in this election. in the end, before the election, people say, who do we

really want to have as the president? i think at that point, it will be a different outcome. i believe the washington post article is closer to where we will end up. >> you had an opportunity two- seat governor romney and his executive role. -- you had an opportunity to see governor romney in his executive role. guest: the presidency is the equivalent of the governorship of the federal level. people who are governors know how to run states and they know better how to run nations. if you look back in history, that has been borne out. i think governor romney's record as governor of massachusetts has been exco and burt -- exemplary. much of the work that he has done has been misrepresented by

his opponents. as president, he has the potential to really move america forward with plans and ideas that will be responsible. as a republican, he will lead america out in a direction that is quite different than the last 3.5 years. host: it sounds like an endorsement. guest: i've also said nice things about herman cain as well. here.i had a tweakeet guest: the biggest and most glaring issue here is the people's republic of china. that is not on the table now. the countries involved in these trade deals have their own

patent laws and i am assuming that they are in compliance and their patent laws are enforceable in the united states. i have not heard a significant debates or questions arise as to the relevance court seriousness of the protection of intellectual property in these other countries. if there is an issue in this area, i think he can be worked out over the next five or six months, when the details are worked out. host: our next caller is from trenton, new jersey, a republican. caller: you have obama -- you have all the new congressmen and senators making money, raising money, excuse me, to regain your

position in congress or in the house. what about raising money for the american people? you guys get voted back and, who makes out? you let wall street rob us and you bail them out. why don't you get the $800 billion to the american people? how do you sleep at night knowing that you can let south korea sell whatever they want, china, and they still lead based products. that is ridiculous. you people do not care. american political people truly hate americans. what have you really done for us?

i have five guys, i used to have 16. host: what do you do? caller: i run a small mason contract in business. host: was a procession? caller: -- host: was picked the recession? regulation? caller: koran regulations are killing us. the taxes -- the regulations are killing us. the taxes are terrible. guest: i could not agree with you more. i will make a comment about the political process. the money that is raised to support candidates for office is already from the american people. it does not come from any other source. american support their candidates. i noted that president barack obama's campaign raised

something like $70 million in the last quarter. these are huge numbers. i am a speck of dust compared to these huge numbers. but it gets back to why i am sitting here today in washington, d.c., instead of new hampshire, where i would rather be. sorry. i left politics for years ago. i never thought i would say my name on the ballot again. i was sitting there as a businessman and a citizen and i could not believe that anybody would vote for a budget that we would allow our nation's debt to exceed our of gdp. i have two children, 17 and 20 years old. i do not think if we do not change the retain that there will be any future for them. i am not sitting here to win an

election next november. i am here on a mandate. it is to pass difficult votes to cut the size of government, to get the budget under control. to get this economy turned around. i have signed a letter -- yesterday -- to the super committee, urging them to go big, not to settle for 1.2 trillion. to try to resolve this problem. this is the. of time where we can set this nation in the correct make -- and the correct direction. i think everything should be on the table. it does not mean i support one resolution or another, but we cannot rule anything out now. host: here are the totals. the obama reelection campaign says more than $70 million are raised.

the total was more than a $55 million gold said. how are the republicans doing on fundraising? guest: i do not know, i hope they are competitive. i guess we will find out very soon. the reporter debt -- the reporting deadlines are october 15. i suspect on monday or tuesday there will be a story about where the republicans stand. my guess that it would be competitive, but since the president is the president, it is likely that he has a better fundraiser that we have without the white house. host: next up is louisville, ky. caller: since the supreme court made that decision, everybody

can contribute anywhere in the world. i saw something the other day, the republicans are getting most of these money -- nobody knows where the money comes from. the democrats did the same thing. i was for nafta originally and the used to be a republican. the republicans had a problem -- the same wall street people from the party. they need the tea party people. they do not want to meet them at the country club, but they want their votes. the middle class as totally eroded. we have lost 50,000 -- i make money off of my stocks because of nafta. i am just telling the truth. 94% of the people who went, both parties do it, the american people are to blame too.

if they paid more attention, politicians would not have to run millions of dollars worth of commercials. the nafta thing has some advantages, but over all, it has been a disaster. it is like when you go to the racetrack. do not ever expect the horse to do something he has never done. i know we have lost 50,000 factories since nafta. host: thank you very much. best coat the debate on the jobs bill is a very relevant -- guest: the debate on the jobs bill is a very relevant. fundamentally, he has proposed a continuation of the payroll tax holiday, unemployment compensation, and infrastructure spending. he topped it off with some provisions having to do with

encouraging employment and business development. republicans believe that this has been done already and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. i think it is time for both parties, and this may happen now that the senate has killed the jobs bill, that both sides will sit down and listen to one another. i know, for example, that the treasury department is looking at repatriation the rule or foreign companies might be able to bring foreign in come back to the united states without having to pay u.s. and some taxes. we are one of the few countries in the world that does that. that is estimated to bring as much as a trillion dollars into our economy. that is not tax payers money. that is some money that will add to the deficit. that is money that will come

from other nations. it has been sitting there and it belongs in the u.s. companies. there are other issues. i like the present proposal for expanding the capital equipment for a limited period of time. i think that is good. maybe i am a little bit naive, but now that we haven't -- we've gone past the political rhetoric, people with c.e.o. mines are going to sit down and really start to work -- would calm the mines are going to sit down and really start to work. i believe china is the only country in the developed world. i think japan is the only country that exceeds our tax rate. what about regulations that are not doing any good? these are the things that we need to consider. ultimately, people need to be put to work, not working for

government, but working for employers that are producing real goods and services. providing tax revenue to federal government and creating sustainable economic growth. host: our next call is from sterling, virginia. caller: i. that president obama predicates every decision on the commencement of humidianity. he could put a lot of engine manufacturers to work, compressor manufacturers, generator manufacturers to work. taking all that methane and natural gas, is using it to area 8 the dead zones and restoring the golf and the compressors to liquefy the gas and ship it to where it can be used for generations.

generators for generating electric power and the cheapest place for the electric cable is in the ocean. that is my suggestion. host: we will go to another call. caller: i have listened to your last two guests and they seem to be singing the same song. big government is in the way. they collect a check from big government every day. host: our first guest was a reporter that works for bloomberg. caller: they ride with big government in mind. you're talking about trade deals. these trade deals started with nixon and was accelerated with

ronald reagan. george w. bush laid out the pattern for nafta. bill clinton signed enacted into law. this country has gone downhill ever since. i will choose my words carefully. most of the congressmen and senators, they go and vote on these trade bills at least a year out so that they will not have to worry about it too much near election time. come election time, you never hear of a trade deal popping up because all those people like me that hate them will vote against you. host: there is an election right in front of us. caller: that is a year away. people's attention span is like ""american idol."

there is going to come a time -- if you think iraq and iran and afghanistan is well armed, you have not been to baltimore, kansas city. host: robert is not the first caller to talk about taking arms into the streets. guest: thomas jefferson said a little rebellion is not bad. that is why today we have in our culture, the right of civil disobedience, the right demonstration. we do not suppress that. it has to be non-violent.

nations need to change and be reflective. they are government of the people, of the nation. calling for arms or calling for violence ultimately into the movement. the vast majority of the people in this country do not support that kind of attitude. ultimately, every voter has the power to change government at the ballot box. i do not believe that voters have the memory of ""american idol." i have been through some 25 or so elections and i know that people will be discussing these trade deals a year from today and i will be just as interested in engaging in that argument because i believed in a state such as mine, that one of every four jobs is directly related to the employer's ability to export. when we pass an agreement that lowers the terps -- tarriffs,

interesting point of views from the callers. freedom of speech and demonstration is very important, but violence should not be condoned. host: our next guest is running a couple of minutes late. can you stay a little longer? we have gotten a number of tweets. some of the people opposed to these amendments brought up the case of child labor. what kinds of protections do you think are part of this bill? guest: that is always a difficult issue. you cannot legislate and not,

that will -- an outcome that can be guaranteed. i do not support child labor, violence. item for equal rights for women. obviously, i oppose violence against trade unions. by having these trade agreements, we are in a better position to enforce our views on these other countries. without them, the caucuses will continue. if it turns out in the case of colombia that their policies are not changed, i suspect that there will be changed because they want to continue to maintain a good relationship with the united states. i would also point out that in the case of colombia and panama, there are other issues involved. colombia was a very troubled nation at 10 years ago. the revolutionary groups had disrupted the government.

colombia has changed significantly towards democracy and freedom. it is not all the way there, but by supporting their economy, we are moving them forward as a developed nation. one of their neighbors, and venezuela, it is certainly no ally of the united states. we want to have a good strategic relationship as well. caller: that morning. -- good morning. when do we assume responsibilities for ourselves? as americans, we do not buy our own products, so we are bringing our labor force is down. bye-bye in from other countries -- by buying from other countries that sell a lot. host: do you look at labels? caller: we have to honor

ourselves and respect ourselves as workers. host: are you willing to pay more money if it was manufactured in the united states? caller: we have to if we want to put our people to work. by buying from other countries, we are buying from them and they did not seem to be buying from us. we cannot live on a minimum of made -- we cannot live on the minimum wage. even at minimum-wage, it is like $300 a week. guest: i support to buy american. int is a really interesting and complex question.

take, for example, the people's republic of china. they are making unwise domestic economic policy decisions. i support free-flowing currencies. if that were to happen, however, if they allowed their currency to float, immediately, they would have selling -- problem selling their goods cheaply abroad. the price of goods in america but also go up and we would face some inflation. in the end, it would balance out a batter at the manufacturing -- it would balance out better the manufacturing the inequity that exists. be a lot of this manufacturing

would go to other countries, other areas. some of it clearly would be brought back to the united states. again, i do not like to repeat myself, susan, but ultimately, the economy in this country is significantly larger than it was 10 years ago. a lot of that growth is attributable to the fact that we make agreements with other countries that lower the tarriffs that they sell to each other. we need to do the same thing with our tax code so that we do not have tax reasons for countries to locate all shores -- who relocate all shore. >> you will next meet marcy kaptur.

we continue our discussion about trade and the benefits to the economy. bee

host: rep marcy kaptur of ohio is here. guest: some businesses will benefit, some stockholders will benefit, but over all, communities and workers around this country will lose. small business will find itself in a position of competition

with companies that exist in countries that have state managed capitalism. one of my arguments that i have used if we look at all of these trade agreements over the last 25 years, that is the chart showing our trade deficit. it has only gotten worse from the time that nafta was signed. we have lost over 55,000 companies, factories, manufacturing sites across this country. this is the trade deficit with mexico. everything will be great. already, with korea, we have major trade deficits. it is following the pattern of nafta. there has not been a single year of trade balance. you did jobs when you export more than you import. what happens with these trade situations, we export jobs and the imports come back.

people know this. in terms of korea, one of the agreement that was passed yesterday, those eras represent how many cars are coming into the united states already. over 500,000 a year. this agreement does not even cause a balance. it is very lopsided. host: why did president obama support them? best coat that is a good question. i said, mr. president, your advisers are not giving you both sides of the ledger. their only telling you exports. we have to export more. the problem with a market like korea, less than 5% of the cars are from any place else in the world. they're not giving you the imports. we are losing millions of jobs.

by 2020, and we will need 28 million jobs in this country. where will they come from when we keep exporting production platforms around the world? so much of the automotive trade, at a major part of the trade deficit, the parts can now be made in china. it is a backdoor way of moving the asian tigers forward. host: will the president support for free-trade her 10 in next election? guest: -- will the president's support for free-trade hurt him in the next election? guest: they think they they are totally out of touch with the american people. host: before we get to calls, you had been placed into a competitive race for next year. we also just heard news reports

that drove the plumber from two is gone to jump in on the republican side. guest: the race is all about jobs. energy independence, economic growth for our country, balancing our trade account, protecting social security and medicare, making sure that our young people do not end up debtors at 21. moving our world to a more peaceful posture. i think what has happened in ohio, the position that members like myself champion, are one with the american people. they know that things are seriously out of whack.

there is an effort through redistricting to quash those voices. host: will it be tough to compete against a long-term colleague? guest: we are friends, his wife and i are friends. it is very difficult to do it. regardless of what happens to change the districts, we are required to run in the districts that we are given by the state legislator. it is under the control of one party. in ohio, it will result -- you would think that 8 6 should go to the republicans, at an end to the democrats. it is likely that 75% of the seats will go to the republican party and only 25% to the democrats, if we are lucky.

host: she has been in the house of representatives for 30 years. we will include student questions, college students from the university of tulsa. you see a photograph of all of them there. let's start with a call from ohio and hear from our first student. let's talk to ronald, a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for your time. thank you for speaking out against free-trade. odd that it always comes back to jobs, but no one wants to say what is in front of our faces. free trade lost as jobs. we lost jobs and industry because of free trade. no one wants to say it because no one wants to change it.

no one will admit that even the mortgage meltdown had roots. it was not that people were unwilling to work, there were no jobs. manufacturing jobs left the country in droves. no one will save the jobs that supported our education system, a retirement system. guest: thank you for your comments. guest: there are at least two americans. the powerful banks and a very large corporations that yesterday were victorious in passing three more agreements. they finance and moved production elsewhere. the production that occurs and the other venues comes back to the united states as imports. prices do not go down, they

really do not shed much off the price. the rest of america does not exist in that big corporate and financial sector. you have small businesses and our country that cannot get loans. you have millions of workers without work. he did 7000 people applying for one job. the coupling of illegal immigration, the treatment of this continent who are brought in to work at the sub-wage level, along would be a ratcheting down of wages for the middle class creates a very hungry labor market. that is what the large corporations want. corporate profits are at an all- time high. there is that america that has

the rest of us under their thumb. and then there is the rest of america that is hurting. host: andrew, go ahead. caller: my question is whether a free trade agreement would hurt or help the average working former. guest: u.s. a very important question, thank you very much. i know it is expensive to go to school, but you are our future. do anything you have to do in order to graduate. in terms of colombia, the political conditions and social conditions are terrible. regardless of what the pr firms say.

at the beginning of the year, it 12 more catholic priests have been killed. a priest who was speaking out about open pit gold mining and what was happening to the workers in that country. he was killed along a roadside. the drug trade is a major source of revenue for a lot of unsavory characters there. that has been a longstanding problem. the drug trade -- the drug trade is taking over. we are the chief customer, how sad for us. the chief export from colombia

that is admitted is oil. i think part of what the trade deal was all about was additional oil exports to this country because of the instability of the middle east. along with the drug trade, which we see -- which we are unwilling to curb. you put your finger on a very important part of the problem. if farmers in colombia tried to transition, they are shot. the agriculture cannot function there in the normal way. host: next call is from montgomery county, pennsylvania. caller: i agree with this woman 100%. the other woman that called and said that buying america, you

cannot find any american goods. if you go to this department stores, everything is made overseas. as far as the other gentlemen talking about letting this trillion dollars of money that should be here at 8.5%, it is not fair to the american businessman who has to pay 35%. where is the incentive for the american businessmen? it is giving people " our position to create jobs, it is giving them the incentive to go overseas. by which to pay 35% when you can overt -- open up shop overseas and only have to pay 8.5%? guest: you are seeing something very important and that is the differential between production platforms in other places that do not operate under the rule of law that we do. or state managed capitalism are

very powerful few people in those countries make decisions about who was going to locate there, where they will be located, what cuts they will get, the bribery that goes on. we are saying to the american business people, compete with that. their companies from my district who have tried to compete with technology -- with china with .ew technology they are told, you want to move to china? let the chinese on 51% of its and we will give you a tax holiday for 15 years. they do not have our rule of law. one of the issues is, what are we going to stand up for our politics and liberty and a

transparent rule of law? or is the bottom line most important? i am a freedom fighter and i believe in liberty first. that has to be imbued in all the state agreements that we sign, and it is not. host: we have another question from a student. caller: good morning. environmental organizations for against the u.s.-south korea agreement for many reasons. this particular element is clearly a compromise for the u.s. ought to industry, whether any safeguards to grant the encouragement of similar downward shift in environmental regulation. host -- guest: thank you for

caring about the environment. you will be living in the world that will double the population by 2015. one of the problems with the trade agreement, whether it is korea or nasdaq, -- or nafta, and environmental provisions are not built into those agreements. i give seen production moved from new york, ohio, indiana, down to mexico, i go visit those production platforms. the sewage is coming out into the ditches, the toxic waste is coming out. the american people never see that, but the country there live in that kind of environmental cesspool. we have been trying for two decades to get environmental provisions built into it these trade agreements. i am glad that you understand it

and you are learning about it and there is a new generation that will have respect for the earth. that will not allow these global giants to go in and pollute to -- your studying is important. almost every nation exports something. there are some nations that want to be self-contained. and handle most everything themselves. unless you are self-sufficient, that is very difficult. i believe very much in national self-sufficiency. one of america's problems is that we are energy dependent. that makes us very vulnerable. it compromises our political

values and we have to import oil from very un-democratic places. i think nations should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. host: virginia is a republican and birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. host: speak up, please. caller: i lived in south alabama. when the nafta program came in, they closed all of us down. you could not get a job unless you drove an 18 wheeler, you had a chicken house, or your a dirt farmer.

my son looked at one of his toys and said, does anything come from america? does it all come from china? i said, yes. we have migrant workers here -- america has become lazy because no one wants to do that job. now the migrants are going back because they're finding it easier to go back there and run drugs into america than to actually work because of the immigration laws. you cannot get men to go out and pick tomatoes all day in the hot sun for minimum wage. these people are paid less money and work. our factories are shutting down.

all of our stuff is going to other countries. most of the time, we have to replace it. you are spending twice as much. host: we are running out of time. what would you say to her? guest: thank you for calling in. thank you for noticing what is happening to our country. that is why we are not growing economically. i can tell you those workers that are being imported from places like mexico, most of them have no rights. many of them paid bounty hunters to be bought across the border. when they tried to organize, to speak up for themselves, and i know one gentleman who was a mexican citizen who tried to tell people, you do not have to

pay these folks. their work permits the. he was killed in mexico in monterey. to this day, there has been no justice. i told president obama that. our justice department seems to show no interest in those who lose their lives because they tried to fight for a better wage and working conditions. i agree with you. i know what has happened to the textile industry. it has been devastating. those shirts did not go down in price. the people from these other countries that are making these goods, they will have to have the same fight in this generation that we had in this country to create the national labor relations act so that an

individual has a contract to write for their labor. they're not treated like a piece of chattel. -- it is an historic fight and it has taken us hundreds of years. i hope the next generation is imbued with a great noble cause of making sure that an individual is sanctified in the law. host: thursday, we get government numbers in. the number of people applying for unemployment benefits was mostly unchanged. the labor department says applications take down 1000. the four-week average, it declined for the third straight week. applications are higher than they would be in and help the economy. -- in a healthy economy.

they have not been below that level since february. trade deficit slips to $46.5 billion. that gap with china is at an all-time high. the trade deficit was down slightly in august. the trade gap with china hit an all-time high. the commerce department says the deficit slipped to 46% in august. 13% higher than last year. it acts as a drag on economic growth because it means fewer jobs for american workers. i left you find more details on the internet. we have only seven minutes left. i want to get some students. our next student is at the university of tulsa. caller: good morning. the progressive advocacy group

has reported back in the past three years, 115 activist had been killed in colombia. what sort of policies should the government be looking into? caller: thank you so very much. for caring about the people in other countries. and how what we do here in packs them. i can tell you that in colombia, there are more later activist still there that all the other countries in the world combined. this year, there have been dozens of killings. there have been thousands of killings of labor leaders in colombia. by the way, those killings went with no justice, no prosecution. the rule of law does not exist there. i am glad you are paying

attention as a public citizen. i have such respect for them, they do not make any money for what they do. they to speak on behalf of the people in this country. we need people to volunteer time to participate with them and to stand up for liberty and justice for all. host: here is an e-mail. guest: right. the statistics show that labor is not -- the cost of labor is not really an issue. with japan, we are at the equity. it is the way those economies are managed. the fact that the price of

credit in those places is cheaper because they are state managed economies. state managed capitalism. we have not fully accommodated that in our policies at the national level. in japan, they have a closed market. less than 3% of their cars -- over half of ours are. we are the largest dump markets in the world, we take everything. we have never negotiate with japan on that. in order to make friends with japan, we have given away our market share to them in order to endure them to us. that is happening in several other countries. our strategic goal as a nation often to snuff out the american well-being of the american people. we have to bring it back into balance.

we are far out of whack and it is now costing an economy that is dead in the water. at some point, people in washington have to begin to understand that. yesterday, we saw another example of these trade deals being passed without having reciprocal trade. the american people, regardless of their political perspective, are saying, there is something wrong here. it is affecting us. they will have an impact on the politics of this country in future years. host: next caller, an independent. caller: you are the fine wine of news journalist in cable news. i had to laugh a little bit earlier about some of the comments of your guests. i would like to point out a couple of things.

as far as immigration, that is the liberals back. you brought back in to the 1960's. we are bringing in too many educated people and that was not good for your big banks, your big businesses. and for the democrats. i would like your guest to comment on two things. the other day, i was channel surfing -- host: our time is running out quickly. caller: why he voted against obama's jobs bill because of how it was written and the warren buffett. i would like a comment on the people who are serving in afghanistan, the majority of

them are ron paul supporters. those are too great disparity of what we have in this country. host: thank you so much. i want to take one last student and then we will close. peter is a student at the university of oklahoma. you are going to get the last question. caller: excellent. one of the businesses that will be affected by the passing of the test -- the dfa is textile manufacturing. how do you think the agreement will affect domestic textile manufacturers? south korea companies will be able to charge much lower price. guest: we have had a struggle to

retain our textile industry in this country. i have been to north carolina, south carolina, i have seen the plants. a disagreement will make it more difficult for the workers in the textile industry in our country. icountry, sadly. and i think other elements of trade between korea and the united states need to have been part of the agreement and were not. i also want to say that other issues like value added tax and the social cost of doing business and korea -- very heavily on u.s. business and we don't have reciprocal trade. the rules of engagement are not the same. rather than us negotiating at that high level to have reciprocal trade, whether tax policy or social policy or environmental policy, rule of law, who pays the price? the textile workers, auto workers, a cement workers of

america, the people who work in these enterprises, their shareholders, those who manage the companies pay the price. i view these agreements as being extraordinarily in balanced and it to results and a trade imbalance we have been accruing for over a quarter-century. host: we are at an 9:00 mark but i would like to is see if you want to respond to the warren buffett tax. guest: i am glad he led the march of millionaires who say they have to pay their fair share. this is a time when we need patriotism. you know, when you are that wealthy -- let's say your marginal tax rate goes up 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, what does it mean when you have seven homes and yachts and you have enough to eat and you have a very good way of life and can afford to send your children to school and have many limousines. is it really going to hurt you that much? host: thank you very much for being with us.

we decreased -- appreciate it. you can continue the conversation on c-span's twitter page if you would like. we will switch topics for our final segment. sharyl attkisson is with us, and she has been covering the possibility of u.s. guns and hand of mexican drug runners. yesterday congressman issa's committee issued a subpoena to the attorney general on this whole question they are investigating. we will talk to her a little bit more about her reporting on this story and to begin a conversation let us look at one of the recent news reports. >> new documents obtained by cbs news show attorney-general eric holder was an briefing on the controversial fast and furious operation as far back as july 2010. at that directly contradicts a statement to congress. listen to what he told a judiciary committee hearing on may 3 of this year. >> i am not sure the exact date but i probably heard about fast and furious for the first time

over the last few weeks. democrat internal documents show at least 10 months before that hearing, eric holder began receiving frequent memos discussing fast and furious. they came from the head of the national drug intelligence center and at the assistant attorney general rule or. in fast and furious, atf agents allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to cross the border and fall into the hands of mexican drug cartels -- called letting guns walk, and remain secret to the public until a board of patrol agent was murdered last december. two gunston fast and furious were found at the scene and atf agent blew the whistle. ever since, the justice department has publicly tried to distance itself but the new documents leave no doubt that high-level justice department officials knew guns were being walked. two justice department officials mulled it over in an e-mail exchange october 18, 2010. it is a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked, but --

the deputy chief of the national gang unit replies -- host: on your screen -- screen is sharyl attkisson from cbs news, investigative correspondent left and follow the so-called fast and furious story for quite a while now and for reporting and she got attention of people that the white house. at its heart, what was the intention of the people who might have been involved with this program on the u.s. side? guest: let me be clear and say we don't know all the answers yet. it has changed over the months. it has really been the subject of a lot of speculation. the stated intention that as come out in hearings is the idea if you let the guns go, you don't stop them and don't even track them, that they will show up in mexico in hands of certain drug cartels and it will show us

something about the organization of cartels and eventually allow law enforcement to somehow take down a major cartel. that seems to be the stated purpose. host: the idea is not new because i have been reading and there has been testimony that in the bush administration similar programs were tried. guest: we found the report a very early on one case dating back to 2006 and now we found more of them that were smaller scale but appeared to be a similar idea where, instead of stopping guns or big interdicting them sort of at the ground level, law enforcement was encouraging gun dealers to go ahead and sell to the questionable customers and let the guns go out to the streets. host: so, the attorney general has testified that his knowledge of the program was fairly recent. i of wondering if you believe that -- i am wondering what you believe? guest: i just want to say what we reported on what the facts have shown.

initially this test monee appeared to contador documents that showed he was briefed or were sent briefings more than a year before he said he heard of fast and furious. initially when we spoke to the justice department this says something like a misunderstood the question -- what amount was he just heard of the controversy of the program recently and, yes, he probably knew a year ago but not the controversial part. but in his written statement he gave to congress last friday he wrote a letter explaining some of this and he said i did not even hear of the generic program a year ago. i did not read those briefing memos that were sent to him almost weekly starting at least in july of 2010 by the national drug intelligence center, and also he had been sent information by the head of the criminal division. he says i didn't read those. those of things are looked over by deputies and they decide what to tell me. he maintains he knew nothing of the program. critics say that seems unlikely. this was the biggest gun trafficking case in that area of the southwest border. it garnered a lot of attention

and discussion among law enforcement in general. so, they are saying that would be unlikely. host: what do justice department officials say about the program? is it something they are proud of, of regret going -- doing? guest: they came out fairly strongly after the story broke with a statement. eric holder even issued a written statement to all the u.s. attorney's who prosody jeep prosecute these types of cases and basically said if this thing is going on a better stop because this is nothing we would approve. i learned researching the story earlier this year is that is a big no no. not even thousands of guns but one gun, law enforcement agents will tell you, should not be on the streets and one of them said we are trained of one gun is misplaced and any sort of operation nobody goes home and tell this down because of the obvious implications. the gun can be used over and over in violent crimes and hands of criminals. it's of a congressional

committee as we mentioned in the outset issued -- host: the congressional committee as to mention issued at the outside -- what are they trying to get at the heart of that might be different? guest: we have different kinds of information. but they have been able to be -- as members of congress to speak to sources and documents they had not been able to get officially or volunteered -- voluntarily from the department of justice, and so on. they are looking to compare some of the material they have with what the department of justice turns over. the subpoena asks for specific communications on certain dates showing of the committee must have some information about things that occurred on these dates and they want to see if the department of justice can fill in the blanks or will a prole filament breaks. tesco whether acting as a reporter or congressional investigators, what are the questions you think need to be asked about this on behalf of the public? guest: we still don't know

something like 10 months after the story broke who thought of it. nobody has been held a responsible. nobody came forward to say this was my idea and this is how it was implemented. i think 10 months later somebody knows the answer and nobody has given it yet. number two, one of the most and four outstanding questions has to do with the murder of the border patrol agent brian terry, which is how this came to light. he was murdered along the border last year. we were not going to know about a publicly but and 80 at whistle blower is the one who told congress and the public that two of the weapons followed in the fast and furious case were found on the scene of the murder. atf does not want to report a public way. the only reason why we know about this whole story is whistleblower stepped forward. we still don't have the answers to exactly what happened. a lot of mystery about the possibly -- possibility of more weapons than we know of being found at the scene. a lot of discrepancies. and the family, who i

communicate with, received almost no answers 10 months later about the death of their son or loved one. host: the president was asked a question about this case at last thursday's news conference. let's listen. >> with respect to solyndra and fast and furious, i have been very clear that i have complete confidence in the attorney general holder and how he handles his office. he has been very aggressive in going after gunrunning and cash transactions going to these transnational drug cartels in mexico. there has been a lot of cooperation between the united states and mexico. he has indicated he was not aware of what was happening in fast and furious. certainly, i was not. i think both he and i would have been a very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were

allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the united states of america. he is assigned as inspector general to look into exactly how this was happened and i have complete confidence in him and the process to figure out who in fact was responsible for that decision and how it got made. host: any comments about the president's statement? guest: in journalism sometimes we parsed words may be too much but i notice whenever they talk about the inspector general looking into this, it is a she, not a he, by the way -- they never say investigation. he says look into it and find out about it. we find out there were no piece of paper that changed hands when attorney general eric holder ask for the inquiry of himself basically and his department. it was, we are told, a verbal comments he made. we really don't know what the scope of this probe or inquiry

is. i did notice that once again the president did not call it an investigation. i don't know if it is significant or not. but they are avoiding the word. host: i know the suspect listed -- why would there be any hesitation on the administration to display at all? guest: we just build know what we don't know. i think a lot of people always say it is best when something comes up that is controversial just to put all the facts out there. it is worse when the drip, drip happens. but i am not the ones answer why they would not just back and january of february lay it out on the table. host: what is the government of mexico saying about it? guest: initially very outraged. we communicated with some officials. there were converse people down there who said the agents responsible for this program should be prosecuted because, in essence, if the allegations are true, they let guns, and to a sovereign nation without the permission of a foreign country. imagine if canada were bring

mexico were sending all kinds of assault rifles -- rifles into the united states for their own secret operations. we would be out of reach. but some of the criticism had dined -- died down officially. not so sure why. the government of mexico is not overtly criticizing the united states as they were in the beginning. a host: the first caller is from michigan. diane, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: there is something fishy regarding this because, just sitting here thinking being a woman -- i have nothing against guns -- the way they wanted to track. if they wanted to do something they could introduce a low grade isotope -- these products are metro -- that is one way to track them -- these products are metal. and that would have led them to something. that is not far-fetched or science fiction. they could have tracked it, and

it is very easy. that is all i have to say about it. >> -- guest: with some exceptions there were examples of agents to track the guns for a short time or put back retractor on them, but in general, whether or not that could have been done, that was never the intention for some of these guns. they wanted them to go. no intention of tracking. they just wanted to see where they ended up. it's go with the name fast and fears come from? guest: one agent said it was a capricious that -- that there was a movie called "fast and furious." but there were investigations with a similar allegation that will call the things like "wide receiver," "the good, bad, ugly ," "mad dog." somebody told me when the bids to be big enough -- gets to be

big enough sometimes they give it a code name like that. host: steve, independent from florida. caller: good morning, ladies. how are you today? it is either gross negligence or just ignorance, when our top law-enforcement official doesn't know this is going on, we've got serious issues. as much as i supported barack obama in his last campaign, i never thought eric holder was qualified and no with of any investigations of anybody on wall street. i am just wondering if there is any link, do you think, between the timing of the release of this i ran deal -- i think it happen a month and a half ago or two months ago. to try to do a diversionary tactic on us citizens. anyway, thank you so much, --

have a great -- guest: i am not saying i suspect the timing of these other department of justice things, but i heard of that and part of it is fuelled by things like, a memo went out of very early on internal to atf after cbs news done our first report or two, and a memo directed agents across the country to find good opportunities to divert from the issues, any cases they could make publicly know so they could get attention and basically diverts. so, there is that discussion going on sometimes in government and law enforcement. we know it from the memo -- as to whether these recent incidents s&l like that, we have no idea. host: "washington journal" has links to the cbs news page were all of sharyl attkisson" reports are. guest: we started late december early january.

host: what first review off? guest: maag producer received an anonymous letter that tipped us off that senator chuck grassley was looking into it. what little we knew of it looked quite unbelievable. that is how a lot of stories start out. hard to believe it would be true. at the time the senator's office did not want to help us -- for all reasons they were doing their own investigation. so, i reached out on the blogs that were covering this, something called clean up 80 at and if you insider blogs with agents would communicate directly anonymously. i started making contacts. first with people i did not know what they were and could not report what they said but it led me to be but i could later identify and verify. host: the latest three is " attorney general holder subpoenaed for documents." vivian tweets --

guest: i have not heard him say anything like that. his position last i heard is either he knew something of a -- i believe issa thanks holder would have known about this, or the alternative in maintains that older's attorney-general should have known guns were being moved into a sovereign nation in a huge program like this. host: your estimate of the total number of guns that may have crossed the border? guest: in fast and furious alone we know from agents at least 2000 guns were involved and we a dandified other operations, including "wide receiver" dating back to 2006, 450 weapons involved. i think thousands of thousands. host: tony is a republican. caller: the program that was done under the bush administration, those guns were

under surveillance and they were followed going in. they always kept track of them. one of the things and -- we seem to have this over and over and over out of this administration no matter what it is. everything's got to be hidden. whether it is a loan deal, whether having to do with fast and furious. he is dead -- and somebody needs to come up here and answer right now -- of error colder needs to go to jail we need to throw him in jail. that simple. we know he was irresponsible for this stuff and he needs to take responsibility for it. guest: let me just modify one thing that you said. i read a lot of people saying that the program that started under the bush administration, the guns of track. it is not the case according to agents that worked directly on some of these cases. in some instances they were trapped or partially track but

in many instances we were told they were not. host: this question came across twitter -- this tweet refers to an interview or conversation you had with laura ingram on her radio program. here is a clip. his >> they were literally strange -- screaming at you? >> yes, the doj woman was yelling at me. but i and the white house literally screams at me. >> who was the person at just the screaming? >> the person screening was tracy -- she was yelling, not screaming. and the person who screamed at me was eric schulz from the white house. host: what the what people to know about this exchange? guest: the exchange was reported accurately. all i want to say about that is when you ask questions on a controversial stories, as i often do, people don't like it and they don't like me when i

asked them many times. i always think it is interesting to see their reactions. many people, public affairs people, and maintain a certain composer. sometimes they don't. but when things reach a certain fever pitch response, i feel like it tells you a little bit something about the questions he asked and where the story may be going. host: were you surprised that of the story about the white house yelling at you made it all over the conservative blogosphere? guest: i have no idea people would find is so interesting. host: questions about your politics, how would you respond? guest: both sides say things about me depending on the start i did. when i did a story on the republican representative with many credit have been weighing on the decision to resign, a charity that had mystery surrounding it, i was accused of

banging on the republicans. and when i do stories that lead to perhaps democrat accountability, i am accused the other way. i am used to it. it goes with the territory. it does not bother me. i read about myself on both sides occasionally. host: when you are involved in a story such as this with a mexican drug cartels, even when you think about the story last week about their possible involvement with the iran assassinations that is alleged, you worry about your own safety? guest: i do. when i work on stories that kind of go that deep and go into mysterious things and you speak to a confidential informant and that lead to duties to this sort of stuff, you decreased out sometimes. but i get over that of the story and that i look back and say it was silly to be worried about it. host: baltimore, crystal. good morning. caller: i just had a question about the notification is that eric holder send to issa --

wasn't he sent the same information as same time eric holder got it? investigateding himself on an ethics committee with regards to some involvement we had -- he had with one of the big banks that was involved to the big -- in the big meltdown we had? guest: i am not reporting on those issues. do you know if he is being investigated? host: i can check. guest: there is an allegations, the democrats have said or suggested that if they should have known about this or that fast and furious was a gun walking operation, they say that congressman darrell issa should have known as well because he would receive some sort of briefing many months -- months ago on fast and furious generally. issa said flatly that it is false. one side against another. host: 1 sets of materials you posted on the site is a series

of memos that came from the justice department with large black areas. what are these and more people to take away? do, the justice department and white house have -- guest: the justice department and white house turned over materials with lots of redaction is -- and you see briefing memos going to attorney general eric holder -- what is left they still need to black out. is it something that involves yet more that we don't know? as a said before, you don't know what you don't know but there sure are a lot of redactions and a lot of documents yet to be turned over. host: tucson, you are on the air. caller: i think both eric holder and maybe even the president knew about this -- don't think they knew about this because they don't like people

with guns. i think when it comes down to, they both probably knew about it and kind of smiled and said maybe it is a good idea. we can go ahead and confirm what we have been saying about every gun in mexico comes from the united states. guest: there is that thought that it was part of a political decision. there has been of evidence and documents i have seen but it is certainly part of the discussion, the idea that if a lot of guns in mexico were traced back to the united states it would advance the goals of the agenda of people who would like more gun-control laws. host: you mentioned the federal agent. can you tell us more about his story? guest: brian was, i believe a decorated marine big board -- before he became part of the special tactical team with a border control. pretty amazing guy. having learned about him the last few months from his family.

who was down there, ironically on the border not to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in but instead to protect the illegal immigrants who were coming in from the illegal bandits who prey upon them. he was not even their manning the border to stop people. he was manning the border to protect illegal immigrants from those who exploit illegal immigrants and lost his life as a member of that team on a night when a group came upon him and some shots were fired and he was the only one killed on the scene. there was a lot of chaos. questions surrounding a number of suspects, ma'am -- what weapons were found of a scene and seven months later to not know the basic answer to that evidence is i think unusual. host: we have about four minutes left. informational the viewer who were referred to a darrell issa investigation. some details. a group filed an ethics complaint with the office of

congressional ethics against congressman darrell issa, citing repeated use of public office for private gain -- saying he uses his position to intervene with goldman sachs and merrill lynch. his office rejected the allegations and the office of congressional ethics has not responded publicly to this complaint. additional information. tennessee colony, texas. interesting name. sean, independent. you're on the air. caller: i would like to ask your guest -- maybe if she thought we should register all of our guns. guest: do i think? i do not have an opinion on that and before i covered this story, quite frankly, i had not covered gun stories or gun controls dories and and not familiar but the issues and controversies. host: how would the guns used in this operation track? you go by and large, they were

not. the serial numbers were written down so win the law enforcement would encourage the gun dealers to sell to a question the person they would write down the serial numbers and enter them into a database. they were not in real time but they could be tracked backwards upon recovery in mexico if the mexicans ran a tracing through our system, which they often do, and we can say that came up and the fast and furious case. in fast and furious very quickly early on those guns were showing up in mexican mylan crime scenes and there was confirmation and a lot of documentation and the very first weeks. host: who would you most like to talk to? guest: i would love to sit down and do an interview with the attorney general, which i asked for. i think it would be a good, wide ranging interview and maybe put some things to rest and get his side of the story. i think he would be the key goal to person. host: phoenix. ken, it democrat.

a turn down your tv volume. and what is your question? caller: my question is actually, what would be the possibility if there could be some type of swap for weapons -- for these weapons that were turned in that war walked across the border? in other words, information leading to where the weapons actually did end up and if they were walked back by offering rewards to the walkers. guest: it is my understanding that once they were walked across the border they fanned out and went all over the place to cartels. cartel members would not necessarily know they got a gun from fast and furious nor would they have a serial number list. they are all over the place. until the gun is checked after it has been used or been recovered and it matches and the tracing system, i believe that is the only way to know where those have gone.

i do not think you could look backward and tell people i will check their serial numbers and walk them back. i don't think it would be practical. host: we are just about out of time. i will put this tweet on the air -- now that the subpoenas have been issued, what is the timetable and what is the intent? guest: i think the timetable is as soon as possible. i did not see a date on the subpoena. i was rushed yesterday and did not see a due date. i do no more hearings are planned so i would like to have some answers and documents before late october hearings. their goal once again is to try to compare what they get to what they already know and see if they can fill in blanks and holes to, again, who made the decisions and new about that high era. host: it is called fast and furious and we will look for

more reporting from our guest from cbs news and more discussion from congressional committees. thanks for being here. now to live coverage of the house of representatives. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:20 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'm back on the floor again today to talk about bringing our troops home from afghanistan. i had the privilege, the honor to be at walter reed on tuesday at bethesda and talked to so many of our young men and women who lost legs and other parts of their body and just continue to wonder why in the world the leadership of the house does not join together in call on

mr. obama to bring our troops home before 2014/2015. mr. speaker, i'm holding up right now from "the wall street journal" an article. it's rather lengthy that says afghan opium output surges. that is, you know, real encouraging. our young men and women walking the roads of afghanistan getting their legs blown off and yet the drugs in afghanistan are surging. that's great news for the -- i guess -- the dealers. mr. speaker, in addition to that, on october 5 in a poll it says one in three vets see iraq-afghanistan wars as a waste. and i read, a new opinion survey says one in three u.s. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in iraq and afghanistan are not worth fighting. most of the vets polled by the

pew research search center also think that after 10 years of combat america should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems. and i'm pleased to see ms. woolsey here on the floor from california because she's joined many of us in the republican party and her democratic party and continuing to grow the opposition to stand in afghanistan until 2014-2015. well, you might say, you keep saying 2014-2015. so i want to make reference to a testimony of former defense secretary gates. this was in february 16 of this year, 2011, and i want to read. by the end of this calendar year we expect less than 100,000 troops to be deployed in boast of the major post-9/11 combat theaters. virtually all of these forces will be in afghanistan. that is why we believe that beginning in fiscal year 2015 -- mr. speaker, i want to read that one more time. that is why we believe that

beginning in fiscal year 2015 the united states can with minimal risk begin reducing army active duty instrength by 20,000 and the marine corps somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. these projections assume that these numbers would be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the present strategy. if our assumptions prove incorrect, there's plenty of time to redo the size. the end of 2014 becomes 2015. 2015 becomes 2016. mr. speaker, i have a poster here that ran in the greensboro paper on the sunday edition and they had put in their paper the letter from jim mcgovern and myself calling on the president to bring the troops home before 2014 and the title says, mr. speaker, "get out," and the soldiers are bringing a

flag-draped coffin off a plane. i don't know how much longer we have to continue to spend $10 billion a month to prop up a crook named car supply. i made reference to a "wall street journal" that opium surges. they are just continually -- it's a corrupt country. it's never going to change, and we might as well face the fact that we won. bin laden is dead. al qaeda has been dispersed all over the world. it's time to bring them home. mr. speaker, with that i'm going to be handing out -- anyone that comes to my office, it's a picture of marines carrying a flag-draped coffin. bring to the house, the white house, the senate and ask to bring our people home. i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. god, please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i will close by asking god to

please bless the house and senate. i will ask god to give wisdom, strength and colonel to the president. and three times i will ask, god, please, god, please, god, please bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: one interrogator kept banging my head against the wall. after two days he tied my hands behind my back and started beating me with an electric wire. the interrogation and beating lasted for three to four hours into the night. for the next two days i was tied up from both wrists to the bars of an iron door. from morning until lunchtime they put a hood on my head and hung me by my wrists. mr. speaker, these are the direct quotes from detainees apprehended in afghanistan and subjected to torture at the

hands of afghan intelligence officials and police forces. it's all documented in a report issued by the united nations this week. what they found was systematic abuse that followed a pattern, not random or isolated incidents, a pattern at several different facilities involving at least 300 prisoners. there's more. kicks to the head, beatings with electric cables, rubber hoeses and wooden sticks, electric shocks to the thumbs, threats of sexual abuse. some of them against children. and there are some even more graphic, gruesome details that i know we've read about that i'll spare my colleagues for now. no americans have been directly implicated in this, but as long as we're continuing a military occupation in afghanistan and

as long as we've taken only the task of training afghan security forces, i don't see how we avoid the responsibility for these shameful acts of abuse and ritual humiliation. at the very, very least, mr. speaker, we're guilty of shoddy oversight and failure to instruct afghan officials inhumane interrogation techniques. of course, this kind of brutality is a gross violation of international human rights stands but it's also well documented that torture doesn't work, that torture at the very most for a normal human being will force that human being to confess to anything under such dueress. that it's a complete failure as an intelligence gathering strategy. the war in afghanistan has been going on for 10 years now. it's costing american taxpayers

$10 billion a month. how can we justify spending all this money, money that we need to invest in job creation right here at home on a policy and a mission that is leading to such barbaric acts? how can we continue to sacrifice blood and treasure on this war, a war that is being waged in such gross violation of our very american values? i've never been more convinced. it's time to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. in the last two days we have been learning some disturbing information about the nation of iran and its dictator, ahmadinejad. it seems as though that with

the consulting of the united -- with iran and the drug cartels in mexico, it was the idea that the iranian government, through one of its operatives, could commit a crime against the united states. we're learning more and more about this, but it's in my opinion that the iranian government was in the middle of this attempted assault on american soil. the idea that the embassy down the street that belongs to the saudi arabians would be attacked, that the saudi arabian ambassador would be murdered somewhere in a restaurant in washington, d.c., with a possible attack on the israeli ambassador, with the possible attack on the israeli ambassador and the saudi arabian ambassador in argentina was being plotted by the arabian government against us is something we should be aware of and conscious of and be very concerned about. thanks to good law enforcement,

this terror plot was thwarted, but what if it had occurred? what if the will of this terrorist would be to go to mexico and meet with what he thought was a zeta cartel member to smuggle explosives into the united states from mexico that would be used in an attack in washington, d.c., what if that had actually occurred? certainly if the iranian government was involved in it we would consider that an act of aggression against the united states. and it's interesting to me that the iranian government was so bold that they thought they could do something like this and get away with it, that they believed that the united states would not do anything about it, did they perceive us to be so weak that we would not have shown them consequences for their action against this nation? we don't know. but the truth is we should show

the iranian government that there are consequences for an attempted attack such as this by the iranian government. there are a couple things that i think are important for us to realize. one, we should hold the iranian government accountable for this attempted attack on american soil. to show them that you must leave us alone no matter what your political philosophy is. but just as equally disturbing is the fact that this operative that i believe was dispatched by the iranian government had the wherewithal to go to mexico, our neighbors, and try to work with the drug cartels down there and working in unison to come into the united states and commit a crime. now, granted, the person he was working with was not a zeta cartel member, it was one of our own law enforcement officers. but the person thought he was working with the drug cartels

and the reason he was working with the drug cartel is because they, too, are at war with the united states, and they have easy access into the united states. on a daily basis the zeta drug cartel, which i think is the worst of the worst in mexico, comes into the united states and brings drugs and people, traffics humans, anything for money. and on a daily basis they go back to mexico and they take that money and they take weapons because they have access to our porous borders. if you want to get into the united states, hook up with one of the drug cartels and they'll get you into the u.s. and that's what this iranian operative was trying to do, hook up with them. the drug cartels for little money will do anything, including commit murder in the united states. so as you tell us that the border is still porous, mr. speaker, we hear that it's not,

it's safe. there are portions that are safe but the portions that are not safe is where the drug cartels go back and forth. so too lessons we should be learning is that the iranian government has it in for the united states. at least some do in their government. two, the border is porous and we need to protect the national security of the united states' southern border. we heard we will impose some more sanctions, try to isolate iran. historically sanctions have never worked anytime countries try to use them. it's true we could have some sanctions that would do some good, such as keeping iran from having refined gasoline going back into the country and maybe keeping crude oil from going out of iran. but that doesn't solve the problem long term. the long-term solution in iran is a regime change, and let me make it clear, that regime change should be by the people of iran, who live in iran and people who support the freedom fighters in iran. it's time that the regime of iran be removed by the good

folks who live in iran and the united states publicly should be, we support those people to get rid of the rogue regime of ahmadinejad. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, for five minutes. . ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to state my strident opposition to h.r. 358 proposed by my colleague, representative pitts, which we'll be considering later on today. h.r. 358 includes several truly unprecedented restrictions on abortion coverages, coverages which by the way our supreme court has determined that our -- are rights of women and it would limit access to abortion services for all women, regardless of their health

status, economic circumstance and age, or any other consideration. this bill would also impose sweeping refusal provisions that not only undermine women's health care and women's rights, but actually endanger women's lives. it's not hyperbole to say the provisions of the pitts bill represents an extreme and callous attack on women's health. first, h.r. 358 would effectively end abortion coverage for women in state insurance exchanges. both for those who receive subsidies to buy coverage or for those who use their own private money to buy coverage. this would mean that millions of women contrary to what we have promised them through the affordable care act that they would be able to keep coverage

they currently have would actually loose the coverage that they currently -- lose the coverage that they currentlyly. this pitts bill represents an unparalleled restriction on the use of private funds and an insurmountable impediment for women who simply want to be able to choose a health plan that will cover all of their potential health needs. second, h.r. 358 would codify and expand the vast refusal clause currently in law. the welden amendment, granting people with only a transagainst connection to abortion services such as those folks' receptionist who make appointments or claims adjusters at insurance companies, granting these people the right to refuse services to women who seek abortions. not only that, but the pitts bill will make it possible for states to pass a whole new slate of refusal laws that could allow

insurers to opt out of covering not just abortion care but birth control, screening and counseling for sexually transmitted diseases. mammograms, and much more. but the most shocking expansion of our refusal laws is the provision in h.r. 358 that would exempt hospitals from treating or referring women in case of emergency abortion care, even if women will die without it. hospitals would no longer be forbidden for abandoning patients on the doorstep of the emergency rooms and providing treatment to at least stabilize the medical condition of such patients. this provision heartlessly puts the preferences of hospitals above the lives of women. and finally, mr. speaker, h.r. 358 even establishes restrictions on people's ability

to get information about their coverage options. the pitts bill would prevent the federal government, state, or any other entity implementing the affordable care act from requiring access to abortion services. this means, for example, that people may not get impartial or even accurate information from the patient navigators who are designated to help them choose coverage. the advocates of planned parenthood in wisconsin sent me a story that truly encap sue late the emotion, the real life consequences of what we are talking about today. this is judy's story, not a woman who wanted an abortion so that her bikini line would not be ruined, but a woman who -- whose mother had died when she was 4 years old. and her husband, she and her husband agonized about their decision. but her health was in jeopardy and they knew that preserving

her health and her life was the best choice for her family. and she painfully, painfully, agonizingly decided to terminate her pregnancy to save her life and to preserve the one child that she had quality of life so she could rear him. to protect the right to a safe, legal abortion care takes a serious commitment to wisconsin's health and it takes courage, mr. speaker, politicians who want to end private health insurance coverage of abortion have neither of these qualities. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. berkley, for five minutes. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of nevada's unemployed workers who got a glimpse this week of exactly what is wrong with washington. too many politicians in washington have their priorities

upside-down. my state is struggling with record unemployment rates. we should be focused every day here in washington like a laser on job creation. and yet this week washington voted repeatedly to send more jobs overseas. just yesterday the house voted to kill legislation that would have stopped china from cheating nevada workers out of thousands of jobs. these unfair currency manipulation tactics by china have already cost the silver state nearly 15,000 jobs, and ironically at the same time that washington republicans rejected efforts to stand up to china, three job killing trade agreements sailed through the house and senate. these trade agreements could cost our nation another 200,000 jobs. mr. speaker, we need jobs here in america not in foreign countries. unemployed workers in nevada and

across our nation are counting on us to get our priorities straight. nevada must stop protecting china and start fighting to create jobs for american workers right here on american soil. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. dunn began, for five minutes. mr. duncan: i request permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, in the current issue of the american spectator magazine, robert merry, the former c.e.o. of the congressional quarterly, has a great article i wish everyone would read. it is an article about the presidency of andrew jackson but it applies lessons of history to modern day issues and problems better than almost anything i have read. mr. merry said the republican party should not follow the big government conservatism of david brooks, william crystal, or

presidents like thee door roosevelt or george w. bush who he says, quote, expanded the size and scope of the federal government and pursued the global goal of remaking other cultures in far-flung regions. he asks who among past republicans should republicans turn to for lessons and guidance? the answer he says is andrew jackson who would have slapped down the notion of american greatness conservatism, i.e. big government conservatism, with utter contempt because he believed, that is jackson believed, the country's greatness emanated from its people not from its government. jackson was the great conservative populist of american history and his story bears study at a time when the country seems receptive to a well crafted brand of conservative populism. indeed, mr. merry continues, conservative pop pew live is the essence of the tea -- populism is the essence of the tea party

movement. suspicious of governmental faste i ever, weary of excessive global ambition, and others, these concerns and fears were jackson's concerns and fears 18 o years ago when he became president and his greatest legacy is his constant warning that governmental encroachments would lead to precisely the kinds of problems that are today besieging the country. that legacy deserves attention. mr. merry also admires thomas jefferson. he wrote, jackson was of course a democrat but the democratic party of thatter-ea was almost the polar opposite of today's version. the 19th century party emerged from the politics of thomas jefferson who despised the government federalist of the early republic for their elitist tendencies and pushed for concentrated federal power. jefferson brought forth new political catch phrases, small government, strict construction of the constitution, states' rights, reduced taxes, less intrusion into the lives of citizens.

his administration, historian joyce appleton wrote, would speak for the rational self-improving independent man who could be counted on to take care of himself and his family if only intrusive institutions were removed. then mr. merry goes on and says about jackson. jackson new big government could always be manipulated to benefit the few at the top, especially those who worked or formerly worked for the government and big government contractors. he wrote, jackson's most penetrating political insight was the concentrated governmental power always leads to corruption abuse. the way to prevent this, he believed, was to maintain a diffusion of power and keep it as close to the people as possible. it wasn't ordinary folks were less likely to abuse power, but if power were spread out through the polity, it couldn't be directed toward special favors and privileges for those who always manage to get their hands on power when it was available in sufficient increments. the playing field would be

level. of course the thing jackson is most remembered for as president is his veto of a federally run national bank. the president wasted no time in vetoing legislation daring his political opponents to make the most of it. few documents in the american political literature capture conservative populism with the power of jackson's veto message. an entity for trade the bank as a government sponsor monopoly that employed the money of taxpayers to enhance the power, privileges, and wealth of very few americans and foreigners, chiefly the richest class who own stock in the bank and work for it. if government is to grant such gratuities, he said, let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor a favored class of men in our own country. rather, he added, such favor should be granted in such way to let each american in turn enemploy the opportunity to profit by our county. finally, he replies to the -- applies the jackson policy to the dodd-frank bill and similar

legislation, which he says jackson would have opposed and expelled wall street henchmen from the government particularly if they came from goldman sachs. he also wrote, jackson would be aghast that fannie mae and freddie mac still exists. kill them he would demand. the government guarantees that amount to government subsidies then used to lobby the government for ever more economic leverage. he has very accurately described the big government, big government, big business due op poe will i that runs this country today. i urge all my colleagues and others to read the article about andrew jackson in the october issue of "the american spectator" magazine. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise as the founder and co-chair of the congressional out-of-poverty caucus to

continue to sound the alarm every week that there are millions of americans in need all across america. they need our help and they need our support. imagine for a moment if the entire population of 24 states in america were living in poverty. how would our nation respond? we would respond as we do in any emergency, mobilize to provide these people and families with adequate food, clothing, and shelter. we would come together as a nation and work to solve the crisis of poverty. we know that nearly 47 million people lived in poverty in america now. today. that's essentially the entire population of 24 states of this country. the emergency is real and the crisis is happening each and every day and every city and every town across america. but we are not mobilizing to solve this crisis of poverty. we are not directing federal, state, and local resources to help these men, women, and

children. mr. speaker, we are really failing those living and facing poverty. if you are facing or living in poverty, something as basic as eating is not a guarantee and millions go to bed hungry every night. mr. speaker, this sunday, october 16, is recognized as world food day. on sunday, of course we all should take a moment and be grateful that many are food secure, but we need to think about the nearly 15% of households and over 16 million children in america who are food insecure. in fact, beyond sunday i hope that every member of congress joins me and other members of the congressional out-of-poverty caucus later this month in the 2011 food stamp challenge. once again as several of us did a couple years ago, i challenge a couple years ago, i challenge my colleague