end, 48 hours of american history on c-span three. so you have alternatives to the political discussions that you often hear on this network. thanks for being with us. enjoy your weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on this friday morning, some campaign 26 noon's -- campaign 2016 news from capitol hill. mitt romney it will speak to supporters. an e-mail went out to supporters last night informing them of a conference call led by the 2012 republican nominee that would

take place this morning at 11:00 eastern. reports say that while romney would not formally announce a run, he will tell supporters on whether he intends to move forward. again, that from an online story from "the hill" website this morning. coming up, the democratic caucus meeting in philadelphia. at about 10:30 eastern, joe biden will speak with members who have been meeting to examine policies and strategies after the losses in congress. at noon, house democratic leaders are hosting a news conference, as they wrap up that retreat. we expect to hear from nancy pelosi. live coverage also here on c-span. that starting at noon eastern. president obama was in philadelphia last night, talking to the democratic caucus. he outlined some of the budget priorities reiterating some of the proposals for what he calls middle class economics. involving free tuition at

committee colleges, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and rewarding companies who keep jobs here in the u.s.. minority whips will introduce the event. it is just under half an hour. [applause] >> for those of you who had artie have -- who have already had dinner, i greet you. tonight the members of caucus i am well -- i am on it to welcome our president and our partner for the conference here in philadelphia. last week, in his state of the union address, the president told congress -- and i quote -- we have risen from recession free to write our own future than any other nation on earth. it is now up to us to choose what we want to be over the next

15 years for decades to come. working with the democratic lead led congress, president obama oversaw a. of extraordinary economic recovery. from the depths of the worst recession, that americans have seen. under president obama, the unemployment rate has dropped from over 10% to less than 6%. the budget deficit has been halved. our country is now the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas. making us less dependent on foreign energy imports.

i am sure the president is listening. [laughter] and high school education -- graduation rates, now millions have health care. [applause] by almost every indicator, our nation is doing better than it has since the president's inauguration. except for one. a critically important one. which president obama talked at length about in his state of the union. and that is the focus of this conference. and that, of course, is the state of our middle class. each of us has heard stories from our constituents about how middle-class status is slipping further and further from too many people's grasp. it is, therefore, our responsibility and our mission

as the president said, to create the future that america deserves by working together to ensure that the gains we have made will make the middle class and all who aspire to the middle class more prosperous, more confident and yes, more secure. last tuesday night, president obama laid out a blueprint to do just that. the middle class economic agenda he put forward, which includes among others, expanding access to higher education, a new child tax credit, paid family leave is a common sense and compelling agenda. it will give working families more and more security. this is not a partisan goal. and we hope republicans will work with us to bring the president's proposals to the floor for a vote. but if republicans choose

partisanship over progress, the american people must see us fighting for what we believe is this country's future. a future doesn't mean a lost decade for you and drive family. a future where when you work hard, you earn a living wage. [applause] a future where getting sick doesn't mean a lifetime of debt and worry. a future where retirement does not need to be postponed. again, again, and again. we and the president believe that the future is one we can and must achieve. for the american people. so, it is up to us and the president as one democratic

team, to work together to accomplish these objectives and this vision for our country and all those who strive to realize america's promise and dream. on the night that he was elected, president obama said this let us summon a new spirit of patriotism. of service. and responsibility. where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other. in this country, we rise or fall as one nation. one people. and he went on to say what we have artie achieved -already achieved on that night- gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. ladies and gentlemen, our

partner for a better america the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] [cheering] >> thank you. hey! hello, hello hello! hello, democrats! hey! thank you so much! thank you! everybody, sit down. sit down. good to be -- good to be with you, democrats. [applause] good to be in philadelphia. [applause] my understanding is we still have our host, the mayor here. where is the?

there he is, right there. [applause] i want to just remind the new england and pacific northwest that this is the city of brotherly love, so -- so regardless of what you think about sunday, i want you all to keep it clean. [laughter] i am not taking sides on that one. i want to begin by -- oh, bring your own football. [laughter] ooooh. wow. [laughter] and you are, what, a giants fan? that is why he is so resentful. [laughter] i -- i --

let me begin by just technology -- acknowledging your outstanding leadership, starting with someone, who somehow, can travel for 17 hours, come off the plane perfectly dressed not a wrinkle on her. happy as a clam. come back in other 17 hours later, after two and a half, three days of programs, and go straight to a retreat of her caucus, and never miss a beat. i don't know what she jenks -- drinks but i want some of it. your outstanding leader, nancy pelosi. [applause]

[cheering] [applause] joe also went on that trip, and didn't look perfectly quiet. [laughter] but give joe a big round of applause also. [applause] i want to thank the city for this gracious introduction. hobby or, who helped, obviously, make this happen and providing outstanding leadership all the time. jim, one of my favorite people. just an extraordinary gentlemen and later. we love him and debbie watson schultz, the chairman, thank you so much. [laughter]

and then, the guy who i had a chance to see before i came out. just to let him know that he should not feel overly disappointed when his hair gets gray because in this job, it will. then. ben. i used to be useful -- youthful and attractive like him. [laughter] we will see how long that lasts brother. you're going to have hair like steve israel. [laughter] he -- you know, i'm not going to give a lot of speech because i just gave one. and i want to spend most of the time on questions. let me summarize then, what i

said last week. we have been through an extraordinarily challenging journey. the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes. we have seen the incredible courage and sacrifice, but also the costs of two difficult wars . there has been, you know, ups and downs in every region of the country, and people feeling as if the economy is turning in ways that defies their control. and yet, despite all the challenges, despite all the fears, despite all the difficulties, over the last six years, what we have seen is the american people fighting their way back. and because of them, because of

their resilience and their grip and their hard work, and because you and i together made some really tough choices -- sometimes politically unpopular choices -- america has come back. we have seen 11 million jobs created. the best job growth since the 1990's. the best job growth in manufacturing since the 1990's. the unemployment rate has dropped. the deficit is cut by two thirds. over 10 million people with health insurance that didn't have a before. [applause] we have seen it reading scores go up. [applause] high school graduation rates go up. more young people attending college than ever before. we are number one in oil production, number one and -- in

natural gas production. solar power, up 10 fold. wind power, up threefold. carbon pollution down. there is no economic metric by which we are not better off than when i took office, and that is what -- is because of the extraordinary will and dedication of the american people. but also because all of you have done a terrific job. and i'm proud of you for that. [applause] what we also know that we now have some traces to make. going forward, are we going to be an economy in which a few do spectacularly well? are -- or are we going to be an economy where everybody who is willing to work hard gets a fair shot at succeeding?

are we going to be an economy that continues to invest in innovation and infrastructure? all the ingredients that are necessary to power this economy through the 21st century. or, are we going to be neglectful of those very things that have made us an economic superpower? are we going to do what is necessary to make sure that everybody gets the tools they need to succeed echo -- succeed? the education, the childcare support, the health, paid sick leave. that gives people a basic baseline of stability, but also allows them to constantly adapt to an ever-changing world. that is the set of choices we

now have to make. and because the economy has gotten better, wages are beginning to pick up, people are starting to feel better about the economy. but i think what everybody here understands is that the ground that middle-class families lost over the last 30 years still has to be made up. and the trends that have squeezed middle-class families and those striving to get into the middle class -- those trends have not been reversed. so as much as we should appreciate the progress has been made, it should not be a cause for complacency. because we have more work to do. we have a lot more work to do. in my state of the union, i laid out a series of specific proposals that would allow us to

control -- continue to control our deficit, but also ensure that we are investing in the kind of quality education -including the free committee college- -- that is so necessary for people to move forward. [laughter] [applause] specific or pulls make sure that we provide relief to middle-class families, in the form of childcare credit. so that somebody who is working hard and doing their best can get a little bit of relief, a little bit of help. we talked about how important it is for a to rebuild our infrastructure in this company and put people back to work all across the country. something that everybody knows we need to do. and we have very specific ways

of paying for it, by closing loopholes that send jobs overseas, and rewarding companies who are investing right here in the united states of america. [applause] so, you know, i summarized all of this as middle class economics. and what we know is that middle-class economics works. that has been the history of the last six years when we have implemented the middle class economics, and the other side was telling us this would be a disaster and it would kill jobs and raise the deficit. health care costs would explode. none of that happened. that is pretty rare when you have two visions a vigorous debate, and then you test who is right. and the records show that we were right, and middle class

economics does work. [applause] so -- the bottom line is this. we have to make sure it continues to work. we should protect the progress we're making. i hear republicans are holding their 50th or 60th vote in next year to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. i have lost count at this point. but here's something that is easy to remember. if that bill ever reaches my desk, i would happily veto it. [applause] if they try to unravel new rules that we put in place to make sure wall street recklessness doesn't hurt american families again, i will be happy to veto it. [applause] if, rather than try to solve the problem of broken immigration

they compound the problem. i will veto it. [applause] but my hope is that they join us. one good piece of news is that i noticed that even though their policies have not quite caught up yet, their rhetoric this tarting to sound -- is starting to sound pretty democratic. chris was telling me about one democratic senator, who shall go unnamed, but generally doesn't agree with me much. but he was shocked, shocked that the top 1% is doing really well. i consider imitation the highest form of flattery. come on board. let's help all that middle-class family. let's get something done. [applause] we have to -- we have a former presidential candidate on the other side who is suddenly

equally concerned about poverty. that is great. let's go! let's do something about it. i'm glad that at least the rhetoric has shifted. let's now make sure that the policies matchup with the rhetoric. let's make sure americans are able to up their skills. let's build a competitive economy. let's make sure that we and this across the -- that doesn't differentiate between government spending and dump government spending. let's take a scalpel, and not a meat cleaver and make sure we are funding the things that we know help american families succeed. [applause] that is the smart thing to do. i disagree with any republican who says that letting funding for the department of homeland security lapse is not the end of the world.

that is a quote from one of them. i tell you, if these other guys who are saying they're concerned about the borders, these are the folks who say they are concerned about terrorism, who do you think helps monitor our borders? that is all you have been talking about. and now, suddenly, because you want to make a political point? you think we can afford to make the to permit of homeland security not function? we can pay for all the proposals that i have put forth in the state of the union by fixing a taxable that is riddled with loopholes for special interests. if republicans don't agree with my approach are paying for it, then they should put forward their own proposals and i'm happy to engage them on that. i'm eager to engage them on that. i think it is entirely fair for them to say that is not the right way to fund higher

education. that is not the right way to help families with child care. and we can have a good, healthy debate. what we can't suggest is that childcare is not important to american families, or that higher education costs are not relevant to folks who are currently in the middle class, or trying to work their way into the middle class, or hoping their children will be able to get in the middle class. those things are important. but put forth alternatives. the good news is is that i think there are some who want to work with us. and maybe the fact that i have now run my last election means that instead of just blocking, what we are -- they may be interested in trying to get some stuff done. because, ultimately, what this is about --the reason we are here, the reason so many of you

make so many extraordinary sacrifices, and your families make sacrifices to be here -- is because the story of the people that i mentioned in the state of the union -- people like rebecca, who i talked about for minnesota -- those people are -- those people are us. they are moms -- our moms come our debts, our aunt come our nephews, our cousins, our coworkers, our friends. and we remember some point in time where somebody give us a little bit of a hand. and we remember that scholarship that allowed us to go to school when it wasn't clear that our family might be able to afford it. and we remember what it was like

to try to find childcare where you have towo folks working and trying to pay the mortgage at the same time. just like michelle and i had to do. we remember those things. and the reason that we do this is so that those folks have the same extraordinary opportunities and the same extraordinary -- and the same extraordinary country that we did. and more portly, so that our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, have the same opportunities. it is our obligation to make sure that we are crystal clear about who we stand for and what we are fighting for. i will just say, a visa, we were all disappointed with the outcome of the last election. there are a lot of reasons for it, and i'm happy to take on some of the blame. but one thing i'm positive about

is when -- when we are shy about what we care about, when we are defenses -- our defensive about what we have accomplished, when we don't stand up straight and proud and say, yes, we believe that everybody in this country should have health insurance, and we are glad that we are making that happen. yes, we believe that family should it be torn apart. [applause] and we are glad that we are fighting for immigration reform. yes, we believe in middle class economics. [applause] and we do not apologize for wanting to make sure that someone if a young man or young woman other can actually afford to go to college, even if the parents to go. we need to stand up and go on offense, and not be defensive about what we believe in. [applause] that is why we are democrats! and i promise you, i'm not going out the last two years sitting on the sidelines.

i'm going to be out there making the case every single day. and i hope you join me. thank you. [applause] [cheering] >> president obama yesterday. and president -- vice president joe biden or give a speech. scheduled to start shortly. we plan to have live coverage for you here on c-span when it starts. also house democratic leaders will be hosting a news conference as they wrap up that retreat. expect to hear from nancy losey. live coverage, also here on c-span. that begins at noon eastern. again, here on c-span. while we wait for vice president biden, a portion of today's "washington journal" on heroin use in the u.s.. >> i now want to introduce you to rot more send the executive

director of the national association of state alcohol and jug abuse. what is it that your organization does? guest: we speak as the voice. each state has a director of an agency, whose mission it is to oversee, implement, and report data on the states of you system. that is prevention, treatment, and recovery. we serve as their voice here in washington dc. how much is being spent by the 50 states on drug abuse prevention, substance abuse, etc.. wguest: about $24 billion was spent on treatment. that is correct. it was the single largest source that goes to all states. 20% of that grant goes to prevention, with about 350 million, depending on what the

state spent. the 20% is not a ceiling, it is the four. host: so, is it enough, in your view? guest: i do not think it is enough. what we do know is that treatment prevention takes dollars, and it is large. it estimates -- it is estimated that for every dollar invested in treatment you bring back at least four dollars, if not seven dollars. it is cheaper to provide treatment and have someone go into the criminal justice it is far cheaper to have someone go to treatment they go into the criminal justice system. host: how do you get into this line of work? guest: i was first on capitol hill for a senator.

he was a tremendous leader and wartime number of issues including tobacco. he worked in the ui standards. i was hired from his office to work in 1988 with this organization of public policy issues, working with congress as a liaison. i left for three years and came back in 2001 and has status and send. host: is heroin use on the rise in the u. s.? and if so, why? guest: it is. we know that approximately 23,000,000 people are heroin users. we have seen more people choose heroin as the drug of choice in 37 states. that is a number that we need to pay attention to. we also do not talk about

heroin in isolation from other drug addiction. over 20 million people have a palm with alcohol or other drugs and need treatment. we also talked to heroin, not in isolation, but about an opiate problem, but they also at prescription drugs is a critical matter. host: what about legalization of drugs? with that lower the cost of drug prevention and treatment, by legalizing drugs? guest: i do not know if i have seen a cost_benefit. i have an economist on staff that talks up costs_benefit. we know that drug costs combined cost our country $5

billion in terms of work productivity, medical costs, criminal justice costs, and others. it combines up to take quite a bit of an economic cost. the bottom line is that we know for alcohol, for example, there have been calls to reduce the age from 21. our organization maintains the steps to keep 21 has age for alcohol. often, people point to europe or other countries for having a better system because they just lower. what we do know from research, there are tremendous amount of problems due to alcohol. the age is not necessarily causing an easier way in terms of death, harm, and the like. there are big issues there to be looked at.

host: colorado recently __ well, you know the situation in colorado __ are you opposed to that, supportive of that? guest: data is coming out slowly. we know washington state is also a part of it, the initiative to legalize small amounts of marijuana for personal use. part of that, part of the dollars, will go to use rates, and addiction rates. what bar association has done is let the people know about the public health impact of using marijuana. you can become dependent on marijuana. in fact, marijuana is the most used illicit drug in the country. the number one most used drug in the country of alcohol, of course. to the tune of 50 million people.

they use it to the point where it is __ host: it is abused and they are an alcoholic. rob morrison is our guest. we invited him on to talk about the rise in heroin use. we'll get to that, but i think you can tell by her general discussion that he can talk about drug and alcohol policy as well. we will put the numbers up if you'd like to dial in and participate in the discussion. the reason we invited un, want to make sure we get to this, why is heroin use on the rise in the u. s.? guest: we think, but need to confirm, that there is a connection between increase in prescription drug abuse across the country and use of heroin because of the common bond of opiate. we do know the cdc looked at the recent users and about three fourths of them used

opiate pain relievers, or cited use of them, prior to use of heroin. we've also heard anecdotal stories of cost, it is cheaper. there is a lot to be looked at there as far as causes. we know that each state, each locality, has its own particular audis. it is very much a local issue. for example, with methamphetamines, we saw that very much in the west. it started out in california and made its way, west to mississippi. it did not take hold in certain areas.

we do have regional trends and trends in states. regardless, our message is to make sure people understand the benefits of prevention, treatment and recovery. host: let's take calls. elizabeth from new york. caller: good morning. i know the heroin has been used in the united states going back a long time. back then it was not taken my pills. it was injected through a needle right away. could you tell me is because our borders are so lax with security, is that __ does that play a part as far as drugs coming into the united states? guest: border security, thanks for the question. i know the office on national drug conttrol policy __ its

director cites importance of a balanced approach. i personally am not an expert on the border security aspect. we do know, we have seen more articles talking about the influx of heroin from mexico, in addition to other sources that have always been a source of heroin, including afghanistan, and other places. the bottom line is what we try to do is make sure people know that there are resources available. if we do a better job and increase our work with kids to make better decisions, i think that is a key aspect as well. host: y has heroin gotten cheaper? guest: i think it is a good question into the qualitative inquiry there is more of it. people have turned to different drugs that seek to the economics.

we have to look at those issues more deeply and why. keep at what it is that we know we can do on the treatment and prevention site. host: kay from california. caller: good morning. i wonder why our government is paying the government of mexico to supposedly keep the drugs from coming into california. our attorney general and the governor are doing absolutely nothing. our stay is saturated with drugs and crime. it is a disgrace that our country cannot do something about this. this has been going on for 25 years. i am a nurse and i worked in the jail. when you talk about heroin increased, i can remember the terrible situation that we had

with the heroin situation in the country. nobody seems to do anything about it. i would advise you, since you are in this business, that you need to know what is going on in california, and all these border states about the flow of drugs. i am a very old person now but it breaks my heart to see what is happening to our young people. host: thank you, ma'am. guest: thank you for the call. as an association, we have asked our members back in 2012 about what they have been doing about prescription drugs. we added questions about hair when just in 2014. we release the inquiry and found that 45 states identify drugs as one of its top priorities. 37 states identify the heroine is a top priority among them.

what we're seeing is that states are working in an inner agency way to ensure that agencies are working together. that includes law enforcement. we need to support our law enforcement officials. i go across the country and speak to promoting treatment and recovery. host: other areas of the country where the use of heroin is becoming an epidemic? guest: i think over the past five years, we saw more than in the new england area. i went up to vermont to go to the state house of event after the governor and announced the his state of the union would be focused uniquely on the open problem. host: nearly his whole speech.

guest: it was historic and eye_opening. i think that led to a number of conversations in other statehouses as well, in addition to high profile actor philip seymour hoffman. we also know that it is cropping up everywhere per our inquiry. 37 states identified in missions to hair when. that is significant and indicates there is not just in one pocket, but elsewhere as well. host: leroy from colorado. caller: i'm from the reservation. host: you have to turn down the volume on your tv. talk to your phone, we're listening. caller: to questions, real quick.

being a conservative and moving to the reservation, we have seen the increase of drugs and alcohol on the reservation. is the federal government going to do anything about it? i was against the marijuana issue here in colorado. i know it brings in revenue, but isn't it also bad on the young children who now think it is okay to carry an ounce of weed? host: levi, what would you like to see the federal government do when it comes to drug prevention? caller: i think the penalties should be a little more severe. it does affect the children on the reservations. working here in the reservation, in the four corners area, it is normal to see a 12_year_old or 13_year_old kate walked down the street with a can of budweiser. guest: thank you for your points.

on marijuana, we are very concerned about kids and their perception of harm. what we see now is a downward trend in the number of kids who think marijuana is harmful. in the past, what we're seeing that through something called the monitoring trends and future survey, we have seen a correlation of increase in use. the kids do not think that there are negative health impacts, we see more use. we have seen that previously and we're seeing that now. we are very concerned about that. what we do is in organizations make sure people have the information about public health impacts of marijuana. host: the clinton foundation recently negotiated a lower rate, i believe it was, for anti_overdose drugs. what is your position on that?

guest: in september, the board of directors approved a statement that supports the use of narcan. and what is known as good samaritan laws in order to encourage the use of narcan. in the end, while we're promoting treatment, we cannot treat people if they're dead. that is a saying that you hear often in addiction community. we need first and foremost safety. i think that product that you're talking about is literally a recording that walks the present through the steps that they need to take in order to save someone's life. it is pretty incredible. narcan itself has been used in ers and emts for years. getting the word out about the importance of saving lives is critical.

we're going to see the presidents budget on monday. it is our job to go through that budget. we saw congress allocate $12 million last year and the cromnibus for opiate treatment services and medication assisted treatment, that is separate from narcan. what we're talking about there is medication that helps people with opiate addiction, in addition to cognitive behavioral therapy. those are very positive developments. host: what is an effective treatment for someone who is abusing drugs or alcohol? guest: we just need one. __ we just named one. what we promote and what the national institute on drug abuse has promoted is a range of services. each individual will bring to the table but of different variables.

there are tools out there that help to make sure that the appropriate screening is done, appropriate assessment, and referral, depending on a person's severity. background, health effects, and other problems. in many cases, what we have learned is for those who are finally admitting that they have a problem, that is a difficult thing, they may not have had a lot of healthcare prior to comming to the treatment center. the bottom line is having the right practitioner as well,, having that therapeutic relationship and trust is a critical factor to success. the right duration, again depending on the intensity of the problem. host: to you recommend or use the well_known alcoholic anonymous or narcotics anonymous services? guest: not being a clinician,

as an organization we make sure that our state directors refer back to all the resources available in the state. the health services administration is a federal agency that provides a helpline. and we make sure to do whatever we can to connect them to where services are. host: barbara, california. caller: i have a question. i lost two nephews to heroin. can you tell me what we can do? to raise a child, you need a parent and the city. isn't there some way that we could all get together __ counties, or whatever, and get on a path to save our own area?

or is that too far_fetched? i just wondered is that would not be of help? guest: absolutely. we're seeing parent groups pop up more and more. that is an important aspect to make sure that legislators know what is happening back in the district. number two, across the country groups have what are called community anti_drug coalitions. they are just that, coalitions concerned about drug use. they are cross sector of different folks including parents, teachers, educators, law enforcement. there will be a national meeting of community antidrug coalitions next week to learn about different strategies that they are employing in order to address alcohol and drugs and

prescription drug abuse. my friend is the director the organization they do fantastic work. host: next is medea in new york. caller: my question is about new york state. basically, providers are required to check before prescribing controlled substances. my question was if there is any reduction __ well, if there is an increase in heroin use because of that because people cannot go to provide a shop to get these controlled substances? guest: the governor there in new york has done an incredible job.

they put out a range of initiatives to make sure that there is a cross sector approach and what you are referring to is prescription drug marketing program. there are 49 in existence and they are at varying levels of operation. what we are working on is to help the prescription drug marketing programs talk to each other, to make sure that the activities in one state can share information with an activity in another state. we are looking at the impact of prescription drugs in heroin, that linkage and why does that we're seeing more heroin. i would also say that addiction by its nature is a progressive disease. we see folks in trouble with alcohol, drugs, or the like either increase the use or continued to search for other

avenues. again, a progressive appetite. the bottom line is action taken by new york, and other states, has been really helpful to educate people about the problem. host: rob morrison, is there another program out there may be done by a small town or city that you would like to note as successful? guest: in terms of the prescription drug marketing program, which is designed to help physicians and practitioners when they are prescribing, if they know that someone is doctor shopping __ going to different doctors to feed their addiction.

kentucky has done a lot of work in terms of their prescription drug marketing program. the leader there, dan ingram, talks about reduction in the number of people both equine protection drugs and having problems with addiction. that is but one of a number of states working on this issue. again, we can report highlighting some of those initiatives this past june. host: ethel from texas. ethel? caller: in 1983 __ >> we will leave the last few minutes of the "washington journal" segment and go live to washington. vice president joe biden will speak. >> by the way, this is a suburb of wilmington, delaware.

it is almost heaven. my whole family is attached here. my son_in_law is one of the leading surgeons at one of the hospital.. my daughter lives here. my son is a u. s. attorney here. by the way, if you __ he can't stay because he is headed to baltimore. my son beau was out here this morning on business and he stuck his head in to make sure i wouldn't mess up. say hello to beau biden. [applause] i love him. you know, my dad used to have an expression __ yyou know your

success is apparent when you turn and look at your child and realize they turn out better than you. i am a genuine success. javier, thank you. jim, you have always been there every time __ you have always been there for me. i just want to thank you. it is nice to have a guy like you having my back. the president spoke last night. this is a little bit maybe redundant. what i want to get to is the question and answer period to find out what is on your mind. there are a couple things that i would like to point out, there may be different but hopefully complementary to the president last night. i realize that i am the last thing between you and the train or plane home.

as the old joke goes, i will not keep you long, but i will stay as long as you want with the questions. to state the obvious __ the last six years have been really tough for this country and our party. really tough for a party. together, we have made some really tough decisions. decisions that were not at all popular, and hard to explain. hard to communicate why it was so important that they had to be made. the decisions had real political costs. a lot of my friends and your friends in his caucus and are here today because they have the nerve to stand up and do what they thought was right, knowing that in the face of unrelenting political

criticisms, and with republicans and the tea party trying to stop at every step of the way, they knew they would be in trouble making the right calls. now, after years of doubt and uncertainty, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the decisions you made, decisions that the administration fought, with the right decisions. they were the right ones. they worked for america and for setting the groundwork for literally a new american venture. i don't know how many times jenny and i have talked about made in america and what not. we are better positioned than any country in the world by a longshot to lead the world to the 21st century. to make this a new american century. that is not hyperbole, that is a fact. we have to keep it going. you know, we have moved from

disaster to recovery, two resurgence. now, the republican party is __ it is amazing. they are trying to rewrite history. really, it is amazing. they say, joe, this is the anniversary of medicare, do you know anyone today who is not celebrating the? that they had no idea of that back then and were not part of? we call that an epiphany. [applause] by the way, i welcome it. i welcome unity on those issues. they are having another epiphany. mcconnell. mcconnell is a friend of mine, i get along with him. mitch says __ we are finally

starting to see something, some economic data that provides a glimmer of hope. mitch, it is not hope, it is recovery. it is recovery that mcconnell likes to claim. i can hardly believe that he said this is happening. __ this happened because of the expectation of a new republican congress. watch guys, what's my words. republican party is going to try and claim this resurgence, and they will misrepresent that it was because of quote policies that they supported. as paul ryan relearned the word, it is malarkey. absolute malarkey, as the irish

say. it cannot be any further from the truth. if we do not stand up and make the case that we may, it may become history. the koch brothers, they will hear the drumbeat. average americans will hear it. but, no middle_class family like mine and yours, we do not have time for the deep politics. it is hard enough to get your kid in school. we should not be critical of __

[no audio] >> unfortunately, we are having technical issues with our signalfrom philadelphia. we will bring the speech from joe biden to you later. we want to let you know that house democratic leaders will have a conference. nancy pelosi and javier becerra are expected to address the group later today at 12 noon eastern.

we'll have live coverage of that on c_span. attorney general nominee loretta lynch was on capitol hill on wednesday. you can see her testimony to the senate judiciary committee on sunday at 10:30 am eastern. now, another portion of today's "washington journal." this one focuses on the administration to request to congress for more authority on a trade deal. host: there is new legislation coming before congress, what is it? guest: manufactures are very excited to hear that we will be moving forward on trade negotiation. franklin roosevelt had similar authority. this legislation, tpa is critical for the administration to negotiate a high standard

agreement. right now, u. s. exporters face higher parents than any other country in the world because we are not part of negotiating these trade agreements. the only way that we will not down. overseas is to negotiate these new trade agreements. tpa is a critical part of securing the ability for our negotiators to bring back the best possible deal. we are hoping to see this legislation in february and move through as quickly as possible. it really helps to ensure that the president and congress are working together. they both have constitutional authority in this area. we cannot have 535 congressmen going to negotiate in japan or china, but congress absolutely has a strong role in trade.

this helps both the president and congress to work together and bring back an agreement that will help to level the playing field. host: does tpa allow congress to have an up_and_down vote on anything that the message that? guest: this is what is important to grow our economy and our jobs. the administration is required to brief and consult with congress as these negotiations go on __ show text to members of congress. when the agreement comes back, assuming the demonstrations and everything that congress told them to do, congress will take it up in a time_limited manner without amendments on particular pieces of the trade agreement. that is really important. these trade agreements,

particularly these multi country trade agreements that we have, are very complex. if congress were to say that we do not want to give a tariff on this, although u. s. tariffs are very low, and i want to change that piece of the trade agreement, you will unravel the whole agreement and not be able to move forward. again, this is the type of authority on tariffs and agreements that has been around for a long time. host: robert scott is with the economic policy institute. mr. scott, you have heard from the national association of manufacturers, you have an issue with tpa? guest: yes, several issues with tpa or trade promotion authority. i think a more accurate name for this, which is the called, is fast track. it is a way to do this through

congress with very few opportunities for congress to have actually put. for example, the president has requested this authority in order to complete his negotiations on the transpacific partnership __ and massive deal with 11 other countries. this deal has been under negotiation for five years and the trade negotiator has described as being in the endgame. this deal has already been worked out, by and large. the problem with these deals is that they had been illuminating millions of jobs in the united states, driving down wages for working americans. this is just more of the same. we have negotiated 20 agreement under this trade promotion authority and it has been nothing but lose lose for most americans. these agreements have worked largely to shift money into the __ out of the pockets of many people.

up to $18 billion per year issues and out of working people pockets into the corporate coffers, and to those at the top. it has been a big contributor to this growing problem of inequality. more of the same with this fast_track authority. it will not let congress do its job to guide relations with other countries. host: linda dempsey, how does the tpa benefit american workers? guest: it absolutely does. the last time we had tpa within __ was in 2002. our exports doubled at the time. a really important fact the robert did not mention is that we have trade agreement with 20 other countries in the united states. they represent 6% of the global

population. we export nearly half of u. s. manufactured goods to justice 20 countries. that is because those free trade agreements that were spurred by cpa, cut tariffs, level the playing field, make sure the standards that these countries are using are fair, that they will protect intellectual property and are copyrights that are in all of our manufacturing goods. this is critical. a imposes rules on greater transparency and rulemaking. it requires other countries do not discriminate against us or put in policy, like we have seen in india or china, or other places, that say, if you want to sell it here, you have to make here. we want to be able to make a here and sell around the world. that is what we are trying to do.

new trade agreements are critical for growth. we have to get a bigger part of the global market and trade goods are how we do it. host: imports and exports in 2014 guest: the's number is probably very similar to what was in 2013. in 2013, we exported about $1.4 trillion. we imported more than that. we have a trade deficit that we can talk about. i'm sure robert and i can have a big discussion about trade deficit numbers. i do not think they tell the whole story. when you look at the apple iphone __ that glass on top, that really costly glass, that comes from the united states. our trade numbers do not say as much is __ as what is really going on.

our trade numbers did not grow as much on the export side as we would have liked. a lot of that is slower growth in overseas markets,, but also these various. as i said in the offset, american exports are facing higher berries in overseas markets than almost any other country. we have to change that. we cannot just sit on her hands and the other countries negotiate. host: i will let you respond to what linda dempsey had to say, but iis the tpa that you are opposed to or trade agreements themselves. guest: it is tpa that has led to bad agreements. fdr said that we have millions of dollars worth of exports. he claims about __ that that supports millions of jobs.

trade is a two_way street. we also import a lot of goods which devices american production. to talk about trade and only, export is like a baseball game and only counting the score by the home team. it makes you feel good but does not tell you if the team has won or lost. that is the problem. with the country than the tdp, yes, we had about $500 billion worth of exports to those countries in 2012 __ by my estimate, that supported about 3.1 million jobs. but, we had about $650 billion worth of import. that cost us 4.5 million jobs. on balance, we lost about 1.5 million jobs to tpb countries. host: let's go back to 1994. as nafta been beneficial?

guest: no, i think nafta has cost jobs in the united states and driven down wages in this country. since nafta took affect, specifically with mexico. prior to nafta, we had a trade surplus with mexico. we were generating jobs as a result of art trade. in tthousand 11 alone, it causes almost __ trade is just the iceberg. wages have been driven down for americans. essentially, all people without a college degree, a huge part of the american workforce. guest: lots of things to stay here but let's start with the job. this is absolutely critical for manufacturers and for the country. exports absolutely create higher paying jobs.

if we are not part of the global economy in a more successful way, we will not be able to sustain and grow new jobs. a lot of economists have looked at this and almost all of them say that the job offers that we have the united states are very little it treated to trade. it is technology, structural changes. when you look at manufacturing jobs, those are high paying jobs face recession,like we did in 2009, we lose jobs. what we like to see what trade agreements is create more jobs. nafta was positively impactful for the manufacturing sector in the united states. what happened to __ in terms of jobs, they increased. they do not fall again until we had a recession.

mexico went into a peso crisis after nafta. what countries did we do in that sort of instance is they normally close their borders, mexico kept them open because of nafta. goods coming in from mexico to the united states actually have huge amounts of u. s. content __ about 60% or 70%. the same thing from canada. our competitiveness in north america has been greatly advantaged by nafta. guest: these trade agreements have unambiguously increased u. s. trade deficit. the reason is because they have created a new sense of rules to make it safe for countries to outsource production. in the last 15 years, we have

lost nearly 5000 power plants. host: both of our guests received degrees from the university of berkeley. lee, independent, you are first on our conversation on trade. caller: thank you for taking my call. i actually work in washington. we strongly believe that passing trade legislation like tpa and getting our pending trade agreements that will unleash innovation in our markets. if you look at the balance of trade and chemicals, with korea, and 713, after the u. s. signed a trade agreement into a loving, our industry saw a sizable increase in exports.

this is good news for manufacturing and good news for the hundreds of thousands of highly paid and highly skilled workers who work on our factory floo i would like to ask mr. scott, if not cpa, what is your plan to expand trade with countries like china and india? guest: great questions. korea is a good example. it may have helped a few industries, but the president said that it would increase exports between $10 billion in $11 billion. the reality is that within the first few years after the agreement took effect, our total exports to korea declined. imports surged. we had the trade deficit increased by 50%. as a result, we lost about 60,000 jobs.

i think the caller raises a second an important point about intellectual property rights. the reality today is that terrorists around the country are very low. trade agreements like the transpacific partnership are a __ about a lot more than trade. this is one of the reasons why a number of prominent economists are against agreements like the tbp. they will increase intellectual property rights and that will, again, increased profits for companies at the expense of consumers. host: a recent poll shows that the overwhelming amount of americans think that trade is good. the overwhelming minority thinks that trade creates jobs.

guest: there certainly has been a lot of anxiety since been after years using numbers like the trade deficit to brinkley scare people. i think there needs to be separation between globalization and trade in general. most import comments the united states __ about 85%, in duty free. we have an open market and what trade agreements try to do is level the playing field. it is critical for the manufacturing that we are seeing. we have small manufacturers around the country who are talking to, not only their lawmakers, but their local mayors because the benefits of trade are harder to see. we have had about the companies come to us and say that during

the 2008_2009 recession, ourselves the united states were going down, i did not know how i would keep my payroll, i have 50 employees, how will i keep doing this? the answer again and again has been training. we been able to export to singapore, australia, other countries. this has made it possible for manufacturers to sustain jobs and grow jobs in a lot of areas. one great example is toyota. it builds up plans for its sienna minivan in indiana to export to australia. they are not exporting from japan to australia, they are exporting from united states to australia __ creating jobs here because we have a free_trade agreement with australia. host: ronnie is calling in from indiana,

caller: persistency, i understand that you are a lawyer. first of all, i do not have must trust in lawyers. i was a product of nafta because i put 15 years into a factory, general electric. we had 4300 people working and is it a snap to cave in, we had 400 people working. i was forced into retirement at age 59. if tpp is so great, why don't you bring us out __ given no fast track and give it a chance to work it through congress. i think you are a cover up for the right wing. thank you. guest: thank you for your question. i'm sorry to hear about the job loss. there are a lot of reasons that that happened. increase productivity and

technology is a big part of the transition. we have over 600,000 jobs unfilled right now because we are looking for the right skills. manufacturing has completely change over time. you know, why don't we have a vote in congress with lots of amendments going through every chapter of the free trade agreement __ it's because this is an agreement with other countries. if you start changing one thing, it will unravel it all. this is a hard_fought negotiation. we are working right now they hard with our u. s. trade negotiators, talking to foreign countries. we want to see top_notch rules out of this agreement that will level the playing field and provide transparency that we believe american products and workers deserve in the global economy. that is really what these trade agreements can do best. we need to upgrade the systems.

you know, we have not done trade negotiation authorities since 2002. trade has changed a lot. we need to update, upgrade, and make sure these trade agreements come home and are strong for america. we have a trade surplus __ $60 billion with those 23 trade countries overall. if you think that this is our problem, you need to look at trade agreements like the ones we have already done supported by tpa as part of the solution. host:linda density is an advisor to bill bradley. robert scott, what did you hear the answer that you want to respond to? guest: i to come from indiana. for the last 30 years i have been going back and forth and i have been very dismayed by the loss of industrial states.

not just indiana, but all of the states between here and indiana. these trade agreements had been a disaster for them. one of the reasons why, which we have not talked about yet, is a problem called currency manipulation. many of the countries that we are talking about entering into the tpp with our well_known currency manipulators. japan is the second best known currency manipulator. they buy into u. s. assets and make u. s. exports artificially expensive and act like a subsidy on everything that japan sends here. we talked about that toyota plant, the toyota plant uses lots and lots of products from japan. we need to stop for currency manipulation.

u. s. trade negotiator has refused to open those discussion with tpp partners. this is a major problem. host: john, republican, tennessee. caller: good morning. i just wanted to agree with mr. scott. this trade agreement reminds me of nafta. nafta cost hundreds of thousands of american jobs. i have millions of miles of on my truck from driving across the united states over a 22.. more jobs were lost under nafta than anything else. we need to raise tears on importers, and drop our business tax, and bring 5%

taxes back to business to bring businesses back and put people to work. it's just like numbers, everybody goes with numbers. they say unemployment is a little under 5%, it is really around 15%. host: thank you, sir. robert scott, do you agree that terrorists should be increased on imports coming into the united states? guest: in certain cases. when countries are competing unfairly, we have anti_dumping laws. i think in some cases, yes. the bigger problem is this problem of currency manipulation. that makes it look like products, which come from countries like japan and china,

cost much less than actually due to produce because of this implicit subsidy by keeping those currencies artificially low. i did a study last year that said if we got rid of currency manipulation, we could create between two points three and 5.8 million jobs. i think getting rid of currency manipulation is much stronger for the economy than just creating terrorists. it works on both sides of trade. it would stimulate u. s. exports and create jobs here in the united states. guest: currency is absolutely a critical issue in the global economy. what we're hearing from manufacturers right now with a high dollar is much more difficulty in the sales and numbers coming back united states.

the question is what our problems here and what are the solutions. currency is fundamentally a global issue. when we have these protracted and major imbalances and currency by particular countries, that is a problem. the question is how are we in the united states going to solve that problem. what we tried before is working with international monetary fund and working with the global economy to solve these problems. we need to do more that. we need to have stronger negotiations. i think that some people think the art trade agreement can solve all of our problems. they can't. we experimented with high tariffs in the united states. 1930 __ that extended and made much worse the recession. it was fdr that came out in

1934 to work with congress for the first time. we embarked on a path of opening our market up more. that got the rest of the world to open up their market more. countries that have high tears, think about brazil, where is the innovation? where is the great manufacturing coming out of brazil? i put are manufactured against anyone else in the world because we have a great economy. by the way, we are at the highest level of manufacturing output in the united states __ nearly $2.1 trillion __ more than we have ever had before. we need to find a way to do more than. guest: richard, west virginia, independent. caller: i worked in west

virginia, it used to be the head of steel. that is that now. take a look at the national employment recovery act and facebook. it would give the said an independent tool. that should take care of currency manipulation. the way it works is if a foreign company by toyota __ and they come here and use our labor, they would not be subject. if a domestic country goes overseas, like ge, they would be subject to that. it is a way to even out the basic cost of bringing products here.

the second thing, bring jobs home at. that was a big thing a few years back. that eliminated tax deductions from going overseas, gave them a 20% discount if they chose to bring jobs back here. third thing __ host: richard, those are two big issues. we will let our guest respond to those. i grew up in pennsylvania near the steel belt. in the enforcement of our trade remedy laws, we at the nam are strong supporters that we don't just need to open markets and have new agreements, but we need to enforce the roles we have in the u.s. to make sure everyone is playing fairly. they can't just be words on a piece of paper.

in korea we would not have gotten as far as we have gotten without that trade agreements but we need to make sure those rules are enforced. steel is an interesting issue. we don't have tariffs on steel in the u.s.. those trade agreements don't have that type of effect. some of the policies i hear about from companies that are going to save jobs in manufacturing, there are a whole bunch of products you don't actually produce in the u.s. i have a fan company in west chester, pennsylvania, that uses a motor housing. all the fans coming out of china and elsewhere are coming in duty-free. this is a pro-jobs he's of legislation that actually eliminates tariffs on and that manufacturers need for products not reduced here. -- produced here.

we can't shut our borders and expect [indiscernible] in the global economy. the india's and brazil's are doing that. they are not doing as well as we are in the global economy. guest: focusing on things like the miscellaneous tariff bill shows what has happened to our manufacturing economy over the last 15 years. we have lost over 50,000 manufacturing lance. they used do employ thousands of people and now they only in few -- employ a few hundred. many things are no longer produced here. we are dependent on imports. we have domestic manufacturers asking for special tariff productions. what we need to do is reverse this massive job destroying trade deficit we have allowed to

build up in the united states. one of the big contributors has been these ill considered free-trade agreements. president obama when he was a candidate in 2008 said he would go back and reevaluate nafta there were problems with the deal that he thought we needed to do it differently. doing it different early -- differently largely means doing it the same. in asia, it's going to provide more protections for u.s. corporations and allow them to deregulate the economy, rolling back regulations on the financial services industry, food safety. we are going to weaken our domestic laws because of rules embedded in this particular agreement. that is a mistake. host: what is the nature of a trade deficit? guest: it represents a loss of demand for domestic work. if we are importing more than we

are exporting, we are essentially exporting our jobs to the rest of the world. this makes the economy grow more slowly, and it hurts working people by creating -- host: do you agree with that? guest: absolutely not. there is a piece put out i the "progressive economy," and this question, does trade cause economic inequality -- no. workforce changes, technological changes, those are the issues really there. when you look at exports and that side of the trade, 18% higher wages were employees who work in export industries. we need imports. our manufacturers do not produce everything. we need a world economy that we want to sell to as well.

china is a big, complicated issue for manufacturers. we see a lot of intellectual property problems. but china is also the united states' fastest-growing export market right now. china has lifted hundreds of billions of people out of poverty. it has created consumers. in korea i talked to manufacturers who say korea has gone from a developing country to add advanced industrialized country. what do they want to do when their middle-class? they want to buy recreational boats. the korea fta has made that easier and more possible. we are in the global economy. we can't forget that. we grow when other countries grow, and we can do better if we have stronger agreements. host: we grow when other countries grow. guest: it depends how they grow.

korea trade sounds great, but exports to korea -- where are the jobs? where are the benefits? host: u.s. exports is a share of our domestic products, 13.5%. bert is on the republican line. caller: anytime i hear the word progressive i get red flags thrown up in front of my face. progressive was woodrow wilson's deal. i have another question for you. why did you change the name of nafta and the free trade agreement if it was doing so well? where i live that in georgia we used to have a textile industry. every bit of it is gone overseas. we used to have a lot of small

aircraft industry. it has gone to mexico. a lot of jobs that used to be here in our little town are gone. [indiscernible] they build the parts in china and ship them back here and assemble them here so they get sold in the united states here, but not made in the united states here. i don't think you're free-trade agreement is working as well as you think you are. the facts don't sustain it. guest: i will say that there have been particular changes in particular industries, and textiles and apparel is one of them. we have less jobs in that sector. is it globalization? it is more globalization. trade agreements and free-trade agreements are really trying to help us level that playing field. companies here in the u.s. and

around the world have a lot of places to choose where to invest. for the nam, one of our top priorities is to make the u.s. the best place for manufacturers to invest around the world. there are lots of factors they look at in deciding. in the u.s. we have been growing. we have seen a resurgence in manufacturing, domestic and foreign. actually, our failure to do more trade agreements is hurting that equation. we are losing really good manufacturing investment to mexico, not because of nafta but because mexico has a trade agreement with brazil. if you are shipping certain products to brazil which has pretty tariffs on most of our products from the u.s., you can sell it cheaper out of mexico to brazil, and so it makes sense for some many fractures to -- some manufacturers. we need tpa. that is part of the solution

here. host:guest: i don't think industries require protection, but they require a level playing field. for example china, we talk about how much exports have grown to china. we import four times as much from china as we export to them. that's not going to create jobs here in the u.s. one of the problems we have is we talk about these agreements, and we call them free-trade agreements. increasingly they provide special rules for investors that encourage them to move plants abroad. they given special protection. companies have dispute

resolution systems where they can go outside of the courts, to a private set of attorneys, and ask for a warrant if they think they're right to a prophet has been infringed. phillip morris actually sue the government of uruguay when that company put in place and high smoking regulations. phillip morris claimed they were denying them the right to earn profits from selling cigarettes to consumers. this is an example of the kind of thing we will get out of these dispute resolution mechanisms, and it's going to cause a chilling effect on regulations and in all of the countries that are members to this agreement. guest: investment is a goodbye complicated issue. u.s. companies invest overseas largely for the same reason we

have european, japanese, and foreign manufacturers coming to the u.s.. they want to reach the foreign consumer. they want to participate. there's a lot of talk and mixing up about outsourcing let's look at the reality. u.s. companies that invest overseas are the biggest purchasers of u.s. exports. this does not count research and development, technology jobs are created. the sales that those foreign subsidiaries make overseas, less than 10% of them come back over here. there really directed at reaching for consumers. we do not have an investment deal with china. let's get down on the table. that is being negotiated. these investment agreements, the

provisions in them, are the sort of things that all americans understand. we do not want that foreign country to discriminate against us. we don't want that foreign country to see their property without due compensation. we don't want that foreign company to -- these are basic rules in our constitution and laws. dispute settlement mechanisms, we've had thousands of agreements, the u.s. has been part of less than 30 cases, and we have want everyone. it is really about when you are a solar manufacturer and you go into the czech republic and you have not signed agreement with that country, that you will be able to charge x, y, and z -- then the czech republic says thank you for your investment,

we will not pay you everything you wanted. does that producer want to go to czech court? it's like the seattle seahawks player going to arizona on sunday and realizing that all the referees are new england patriots fans. dispute settlement is neutral and run by un agencies and world bank. there are rules, no conflict of interest. the u.s. has led the rule in transparency, we hope to see more out of that. it is something we hope to see out of the tpp talk in our talks with europe. host: we have charles on the republican line.

we're going to have to move on. we will go to the next call, ron in connecticut, independent. caller: how do you do? first of all, we just saw apple return the largest profits in history since the beginning of time. apple will do very well in its current situation. all of those products are manufactured in china. we could bring those jobs back pay americans a fair living wage, and apple could still benefit greatly. i have two other brief points. host: we will stick with at one point.

walk us through apple and how it would benefit from tpa or tpp, and what my heard -- what my -- might hurt it. guest: apple assembles the iphone and other products in china. the congressional research service did a great analysis of the value chain of the apple product. it found that three quarters or more of the value was produced by u.s. workers, both in technology, software, design but also the glass is produced in kentucky by one of our great american manufacturers. they ship back off from the united states and china where it

is processed and assembled into the iphone. the value of that is really coming back to u.s. workers and higher paid u.s. workers in manufacturing and technology, and beyond. they are able to do it -- i don't work day-to-day with apple, you have to talk to them about their choices, but they have made a competitive and innovative product. so much of what we seen has been this ability to take the best of what is around the world and put it together. that is one of the great advantages that america has and continues to have, and we need these for -- free trade agreements to do so. how do they help apple? they make sure the tariff on their product is eliminated and that these foreign countries will not allow their own companies rip off that intellectual property that is part of the apple ecosystem and the product it produces.

they will ensure that when other countries regulate, they do what we've done in the united states since the beginning. we allow for public comment and transparency. we allow stakeholders from all sides to participate in the rulemaking. that is the basic american values we want to export. guest: apple will benefit from the supposed transpacific partnership. they will be able to go to new countries and produce the goods using even cheaper labor. all of their products are produced in china currently. china has been growing so fast that wages are rising in china. now, we will enter into an agreement with vietnam -- where the official minimum wage is $.60 per hour. they will be the lowballed competitor and they will be able to play vietnam off of china. there is no talk of bringing production back to united states.

we need to look at investment. i have found a big multinational companies, foreign and domestic, are generating a huge share of u.s. trade deficit. that is the bottom line. host: linda dempsey says a lot of the value of the iphone is derived here in the u.s. would you agree with that? guest: no. i have done these tear down studies. it can be traced back to a japanese scientist. he looks where the parts were coming from, he did that by taking the phone part and he saw what brand the parts were. i think it was the ipod. it turns out, he did not ask where those companies were

making those parts. most of them were big multinational companies that were producing in china. he was forced to go back in a later study and show that most of the jobs were actually in china. we have a simple way of answering this question. if most of the value is coming for the united states, we would see that going out as exports. experts would be very large, we would have smaller levels of net exports from china, but that's not the case. we import four times as much from china as the export to them. guest: i have to say, i disagree in terms of how you characterize what our export and import numbers are. actually, import numbers overstate the value, and export understates the value. there is work being done the wto right now to see if we can get a

better understanding as to where the value is with our trading system. what i see, and i talk to companies at the national association of manufacturing 90% of the companies we represent our small. i talked to the company's employees and what they tell me is that it is critical that we eliminate the tariff and discrimination that we see in overseas markets. you talk about it yourself -- the playing field is not level. how will we solve that? trade promotion authority sets up the rules that we want to see around the world. then, the trade agreements actually bring those solutions home. you talk about apple moving to vietnam because of tpp, they could do that today. that is globalization and the global economy. we want to see solutions.

we have seen growth based on the trade agreements that we assigned. for you, who want to talk about deficits, we have a trade surplus with those countries. why is doing more of these trade agreements a bad thing? i think it is good and so door -- do our manufacturers. host: terry, michigan, democrat. caller: this is for robert. robert, who are writing these trade rules in the trade agreements? is it the companies that would benefit? linda, do you have any investments that the companies would benefit from any trade

agreement? if they do, that is a conflict of interest, i believe. bernie sanders, you're my hero. guest: thank you, terry. that is a great question, who is negotiating these deals. these changes are being negotiated in secret, especially the current one, the transpacific partnership. it is a crime to polish what is in these agreements because the u.s. has made them protective. they do not want to disclose what they are doing. some have come out in wikileaks, but the principle is that only people with a security clearance can see them. there is an advisory committee that consists of about 500 representatives of large corporations that do have access to the texts, and they are giving advice on a daily basis to trade representative. they are the ones who are detained the terms of the agreement -- to undermine safety regulations, etc.

they are getting them straight from the horses mouth. fewer than 10 of the cleared advisors are representatives of labor and consumer groups. guest: that people negotiating this our government officials, working night and day. they are flying coach around the world, sharing hotel rooms because of limited government budget. they are among some of the most hard-working american people that i've met. they're talking to all of us, to the business committee to ngos to labor groups. as far as this cleared advisory committee, there are many ngos on that, more than 10. there are business representatives, including small business representatives, though i will say, it is much harder for small businesses to come to washington where all the meetings have to be in order to advocate.

usr would tell you that they have done over 50 meetings on tpp. -- 1600 meetings on tpp. people say, why is it hard to negotiate in public? it is hard to negotiate in public. they are trying to get really good deals and they are listening and talking to everyone about this. one of the ways to see -- what is it that we are talking about -- all of our prior free trade agreement have been released. the priority that the administration is seeking has been released. this is where congress can play an important role. they get to set the negotiating objectives. it needs to step up and work together so they can form a partnership. in terms of financial investments, you have to talk to my husband.

host: from "usa today" this morning -- obama trade push strains democratic alliances. the president pushing for tpa and tpp. guest: i think it is interesting that the president seems to be relying primarily on supporters from the republican side of the aisle to advance his trade agenda. i do not think by any means that it is a slamdunk. i think there are concerns from both sides of the aisle as to what these negotiations mean. certainly, democrats are closer to that end they care more about lost jobs, downward wages. mr. reid said unambiguously that he would not move the presidents trade negotiation or fast-track, tpa. now, with republicans in charge, the present them has asked for their authority.

i think there are number of republicans that do not want to give the present them a blank check to negotiate whatever sort of trade deal that he wants. many republican members are also hearing complaints from workers who have lost their jobs and see downward pressure on the wages. i think it is an open question. host: two more calls. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a retired educator and through the years i have noticed that there is a certain group in this country -- this is not conspiracy. there are people who prefer to work with their minds, call them the college educated, who have forced the same perspective on

people who like to work with her hands, the skilled labor. those college people are still in control and i do not think they look out for the best interest of the workers. i know i have oversimplified this, but if you think about it, you don't ever have on people who are actual workers. you have people who are college educated and speak for those people who work with their hands. host: you said you are a retired what? caller: retired educator. i'm listening to these people today and i do not think that they really care about the skilled workers in this country. they talk about it but if they really cared about them, that would be their primary concern. i have seen kids in high school who preferred the vocational track, and were taken out of

that because they cannot pass the college entrance test. they never wanted to go to college to begin with, they want to work with their hands. host: i think we got your points. we have a lawyer and a phd onset. have either of you ever worked in a factory? guest: i worked in agriculture growing up and overseas, less so on the shop floor. let me tell you that the nam the manufacturing institute that we work with, really believes in what your collar is saying about the need to create incentives and opportunity for people who want to work with their hands and on the shop floor. manufacturing today is very different than it was 20 years ago or beyond. these are exciting jobs, jobs that pay higher than the average wage in the united states.

they're exciting jobs where you get to produce things. we have a manufacturing day in october where manufacturers open the doors and bring in students. we want to see more that. people need to make the choices as to where they will have great job. we need more manufacturing workers in the united states. like i said, we have over 16,000 jobs unfilled because we do not -- 600,000 jobs unfilled because we don't have skilled workers. guest: i want to thank you for everything you had done to educate america's youth. i think we have let you down and the students down because we have not done a good job of helping high school's transition. for example, the germans spend about 20 times as much as we do in this country on training workers and creating apprenticeships so that people can make that critical leap into a high skilled job.

we do not do that nearly as well. i do have experience and work my way through college. i worked in an aluminum mill. i was a member of the steelworkers union. i'm very concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs and have worked, as linda has. host: what about linda dempsey's point? guest: certainly manufacturing is more high tech, no question. manufacturing still the source of a disproportionately large number of jobs without a college degree.